'The United States and Afghanistan have finalized the wording of a bilateral security agreement that would allow for a lasting American troop presence through 2024 and set the stage for billions of dollars of international assistance to keep flowing to the government in Kabul.
...
After a war that stands as the longest in American history, the security agreement defines a training and counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan lasting at least 10 more years and involving 8,000 to 12,000 troops.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/afghan-pact-kerry-apology-.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/afghan-pact-kerry-apology-.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2013%2F11%2F21%2Fworld%2F21afghanistan%2F21afghanistan-articleInline.jpg&hash=c7f59292a1363692d4db388aea9c1640f4cd5deb)
Well isn't that charming?
Good.
None of you actually thought we'd leave, did you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2013, 11:12:30 PM
None of you actually thought we'd leave, did you?
Heck, I didn't think we'd be stupid enough to leave Iraq, but I guess I undersestimated the stupidity of our political leaders.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:18:52 PM
Heck, I didn't think we'd be stupid enough to leave Iraq, but I guess I undersestimated the stupidity of our political leaders.
I don't think Bush had any choice. I mean what would you give to convince Maliki to let you stay?
What's the prognosis on Afghanistan these days anyway?
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:18:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2013, 11:12:30 PM
None of you actually thought we'd leave, did you?
Heck, I didn't think we'd be stupid enough to leave Iraq, but I guess I undersestimated the stupidity of our political leaders.
Afghanistan is giving concessions (legal immunity for American soldiers) that Iraq did not give in 2011.
The problem in Iraq (well, not the only problem) was that we turned power back over to them too quickly.
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:41:23 PM
The problem in Iraq (well, not the only problem) was that we turned power back over to them too quickly.
In fairness it's not like Paul Bremer was proving a roaring success.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 20, 2013, 11:42:19 PM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:41:23 PM
The problem in Iraq (well, not the only problem) was that we turned power back over to them too quickly.
In fairness it's not like Paul Bremer was proving a roaring success.
Bremer. :rolleyes:
I had the perfect Sunni Republican Guard general surrogate all picked out and everything, but noooo...we had to go with
democracy. Dubya, you fucking dumbass.
"Tell Tehran what it's won, Johnny!"
"A new proxy!"
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:18:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2013, 11:12:30 PM
None of you actually thought we'd leave, did you?
Heck, I didn't think we'd be stupid enough to leave Iraq, but I guess I undersestimated the stupidity of our political leaders.
Well unless we were planning on annexing it I don't see how we could have credibly held out much longer.
What exactly do we expect to happen in ten years?
Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2013, 11:57:54 PM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:18:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2013, 11:12:30 PM
None of you actually thought we'd leave, did you?
Heck, I didn't think we'd be stupid enough to leave Iraq, but I guess I undersestimated the stupidity of our political leaders.
Well unless we were planning on annexing it I don't see how we could have credibly held out much longer.
Dude, we still have troops in Germany, and it's been 68 years now.
Quote from: Camerus on November 20, 2013, 11:28:02 PM
What's the prognosis on Afghanistan these days anyway?
Karzai remains slightly less of an enemy of the US than the surviving Taliban leadership. Prognosis: scattered atrocities and mostly corrupt to the core.
In other words a Chinese proxy.
Maybe we can clone Dostrum.
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2013, 07:15:54 AM
Dude, we still have troops in Germany, and it's been 68 years now.
When did the German Government ask us to leave?
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:41:23 PM
The problem in Iraq (well, not the only problem) was that we turned power back over to them too quickly.
I remember the EUOT debates back in the pre-war days, and the pro-war consensus was the US would be there for a few months, couple years at the most.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2013, 10:49:29 AM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:41:23 PM
The problem in Iraq (well, not the only problem) was that we turned power back over to them too quickly.
I remember the EUOT debates back in the pre-war days, and the pro-war consensus was the US would be there for a few months, couple years at the most.
That's amazing that people even considered such a short time frame. Interventions are usually longer term, the messier the situation the longer term it would be. Heck, even in the Balkans there are still NATO troops in Bosnia. Given how badly Afghanistan was messed up, all the fractional fighting plus the Taliban, AQ and their allies, it should have been a given that intervention was a long term event.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2013, 10:49:29 AM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:41:23 PM
The problem in Iraq (well, not the only problem) was that we turned power back over to them too quickly.
I remember the EUOT debates back in the pre-war days, and the pro-war consensus was the US would be there for a few months, couple years at the most.
As a member of said pro-war consensus, you are full of shit. To be polite about it.
Nobody said the US would be out in a few months.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2013, 09:31:15 AM
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2013, 07:15:54 AM
Dude, we still have troops in Germany, and it's been 68 years now.
When did the German Government ask us to leave?
Stockholm syndrome. :perv:
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2013, 10:49:29 AM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:41:23 PM
The problem in Iraq (well, not the only problem) was that we turned power back over to them too quickly.
I remember the EUOT debates back in the pre-war days, and the pro-war consensus was the US would be there for a few months, couple years at the most.
As a member of said pro-war consensus, you are full of shit. To be polite about it.
Nobody said the US would be out in a few months.
Aham. I distinctly remember the argument that invasion would be cheaper than keeping forces necessary to contain Saddam stationed in the Gulf. :lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2013, 09:17:24 AM
Maybe we can clone Dostrum.
Bad idea, there isn't enough whiskey and cigars in the world to supply two of them.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
As a member of said pro-war consensus, you are full of shit. To be polite about it.
Nobody said the US would be out in a few months.
"Nobody" is a strong word. There are morons who will say all kinds of things.
The fallacy lies in the Raztastic idea that because someone made that argument, everyone on the same "team" is responsible for it.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
As a member of said pro-war consensus, you are full of shit. To be polite about it.
Nobody said the US would be out in a few months.
Ditto. Bush (OMG teh Hitlar) himself said from the beginning it would require a long commitment.
Quote from: derspiess on November 21, 2013, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
As a member of said pro-war consensus, you are full of shit. To be polite about it.
Nobody said the US would be out in a few months.
Ditto. Bush (OMG teh Hitlar) himself said from the beginning it would require a long commitment.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
My recollection is that the pro intervention side also expressed the hope that the commitment would be made to stay after the initial military action to provide stability.
There may have been an idiot or two who thought it would be a quick operation but that would certainly have been an outlier view.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 21, 2013, 02:30:05 AM
What exactly do we expect to happen in ten years?
Phone the Kremlin, ask for one of the soviet era janitors, they should have a pretty good idea.
Just remember the to halve the remaining time they give the regime after the superpower withdrawals.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2013, 11:54:11 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 11:25:22 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 21, 2013, 10:49:29 AM
Quote from: dps on November 20, 2013, 11:41:23 PM
The problem in Iraq (well, not the only problem) was that we turned power back over to them too quickly.
I remember the EUOT debates back in the pre-war days, and the pro-war consensus was the US would be there for a few months, couple years at the most.
As a member of said pro-war consensus, you are full of shit. To be polite about it.
Nobody said the US would be out in a few months.
Aham. I distinctly remember the argument that invasion would be cheaper than keeping forces necessary to contain Saddam stationed in the Gulf. :lol:
lol
Way to move those goalposts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2013, 01:58:27 PM
My recollection is that the pro intervention side also expressed the hope that the commitment would be made to stay after the initial military action to provide stability.
There may have been an idiot or two who thought it would be a quick operation but that would certainly have been an outlier view.
Plenty of people thought the conventional military part would be quick, and it was.
Few people realized that the non-conventional military part would be as problematic as it turned out - that is the real place to attack people like me in hindsight.
I think everyone thinking about it clearly realized perfectly well that once we went in, we would be in for a time measured in years at best.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:36:30 PMFew people realized that the non-conventional military part would be as problematic as it turned out - that is the real place to attack people like me in hindsight.
I think everyone thinking about it clearly realized perfectly well that once we went in, we would be in for a time measured in years at best.
Yeah. I think very few people realised how little thought and planning had gone into the post-invasion side of things.
I think Iorm's line doesn't characterise many of the pro-war posters, but it kind of does describe a lot of 'thinking' that apparently went on in the Administration.
Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2013, 09:31:15 AM
Quote from: dps on November 21, 2013, 07:15:54 AM
Dude, we still have troops in Germany, and it's been 68 years now.
When did the German Government ask us to leave?
They were rather adamant about the issue in February 1945.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:36:30 PMFew people realized that the non-conventional military part would be as problematic as it turned out - that is the real place to attack people like me in hindsight.
I think everyone thinking about it clearly realized perfectly well that once we went in, we would be in for a time measured in years at best.
Yeah. I think very few people realised how little thought and planning had gone into the post-invasion side of things.
I think Iorm's line doesn't characterise many of the pro-war posters, but it kind of does describe a lot of 'thinking' that apparently went on in the Administration.
I remember being shot down in flames for suggesting an insurgency was starting and that it was a bad idea to summarily disband the army.
Fairly early on, if one took off the victory blinkers, it was evident that not a lot of thought had gone into the day after and what would work.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 21, 2013, 09:17:24 AM
Maybe we can clone Dostrum.
He's the kind of guy that, if you told him you had a man-crush on him, he'd kill you--and you'd be honored to have died at the hands of such a magnificent man.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:36:30 PMFew people realized that the non-conventional military part would be as problematic as it turned out - that is the real place to attack people like me in hindsight.
I think everyone thinking about it clearly realized perfectly well that once we went in, we would be in for a time measured in years at best.
Yeah. I think very few people realised how little thought and planning had gone into the post-invasion side of things.
I was reserving that observation for when someone did attack me for not realizing how bloody, long, expensive, and generally horrible the counter-insurgency portion would be.
But yeah, the administration seemed to be completely clueless about what would happen AFTER they toppled the government.
Quote
I think Iorm's line doesn't characterise many of the pro-war posters, but it kind of does describe a lot of 'thinking' that apparently went on in the Administration.
What is weird about it is that it's not like nobody was talking about what would happen after before - lots of people were, from those saying it would be ungovernable to those saying it would be difficult but very possible, etc., etc.
I mean, I recall plenty of talk about (for example) how Iraq could in theory largely pay for it's own rebuilding with their oil once sanctions were lifted. And lots of debate about that. It's not like there were not lots of people (some of them the very same neo-cons who pushed the war to begin with) talking very seriously about the risks and dangers of the pacification/rebuilding portion of the endeavor.
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 02:43:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:36:30 PMFew people realized that the non-conventional military part would be as problematic as it turned out - that is the real place to attack people like me in hindsight.
I think everyone thinking about it clearly realized perfectly well that once we went in, we would be in for a time measured in years at best.
Yeah. I think very few people realised how little thought and planning had gone into the post-invasion side of things.
I think Iorm's line doesn't characterise many of the pro-war posters, but it kind of does describe a lot of 'thinking' that apparently went on in the Administration.
I remember being shot down in flames for suggesting an insurgency was starting and that it was a bad idea to summarily disband the army.
I don't think it is really fair to put those two ideas together, and then complain about being shot down for them in sum.
"an insurgency is starting" is a pretty bad thing to get shot down over in hindsight.
"disbanding the army is a bad idea" is much more debatable, even in hindsight, and clearly more so at the time.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:45:01 PMWhat is weird about it is that it's not like nobody was talking about what would happen after before - lots of people were, from those saying it would be ungovernable to those saying it would be difficult but very possible, etc., etc.
I mean, I recall plenty of talk about (for example) how Iraq could in theory largely pay for it's own rebuilding with their oil once sanctions were lifted. And lots of debate about that. It's not like there were not lots of people (some of them the very same neo-cons who pushed the war to begin with) talking very seriously about the risks and dangers of the pacification/rebuilding portion of the endeavor.
I think it was because it was so divisive and such a fiercely partisan and ideological issue. I remember reading articles by experts on the region who highlighted the problems of Sunni, Shia and Kurds but then seeing them dismissed as sort-of craven Arabists. It was weirdly Saidian, they were corrupt Orientalists who, with their knowledge, were actually belittling the Iraqis.
I remember some people who highly respected being attacked. It was a very odd moment and almost as if if you raised doubts about anything you were insufficiently convinced, or committed. Because of that you could be safely ignored. Which made the pool of 'acceptable' writers and politicians sadly shallow.
I think Rumsfeld has to carry a lot of responsibility. He was bluff and bullshit masked by an engagingly direct speaking style. And many people were won over.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:47:16 PM
"disbanding the army is a bad idea" is much more debatable, even in hindsight, and clearly more so at the time.
Especially when the guy already on the ground, General Garner, had shit under control.
I wish we would go back to destroy and conquer. If it is not worth nuking or conquering an enemy, then let us not get involved at all.
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:47:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 02:43:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 21, 2013, 02:38:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 21, 2013, 02:36:30 PMFew people realized that the non-conventional military part would be as problematic as it turned out - that is the real place to attack people like me in hindsight.
I think everyone thinking about it clearly realized perfectly well that once we went in, we would be in for a time measured in years at best.
Yeah. I think very few people realised how little thought and planning had gone into the post-invasion side of things.
I think Iorm's line doesn't characterise many of the pro-war posters, but it kind of does describe a lot of 'thinking' that apparently went on in the Administration.
I remember being shot down in flames for suggesting an insurgency was starting and that it was a bad idea to summarily disband the army.
I don't think it is really fair to put those two ideas together, and then complain about being shot down for them in sum.
"an insurgency is starting" is a pretty bad thing to get shot down over in hindsight.
"disbanding the army is a bad idea" is much more debatable, even in hindsight, and clearly more so at the time.
Well I wasn't running the two together, There were other stuff I commented on/announced like the start of the Sadr insurrection, I recall CdM didn't buy it.
I think I was fairly clear that offically dismanding the army was a bad idea, especially as officers and some soldiers were demonstrating, some even shot, to rejoin the army and get paid.
As it is, once disbanded, many of the insurgent ranks were filled by dismissed soldiers.
And we had to wait 6-7 years for the ace general, to re-employ those insurgents as Sunni awakening council militiamen, a move that greatly affected the efficiency of The Surge.
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 21, 2013, 02:56:50 PM
I wish we would go back to destroy and conquer. If it is not worth nuking or conquering an enemy, then let us not get involved at all.
Lusty, you've started to advise Obama, haven't you ?
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 03:02:07 PM
Well I wasn't running the two together, There were other stuff I commented on/announced like the start of the Sadr insurrection, I recall CdM didn't buy it.
What wasn't I buying? That the initial insurrection wasn't that big of a deal? If so, yeah: because a continuation of low-intensity resistance was to be expected.
Now, when it came to light that Garner had made agreements in good faith with several Iraqi commanders to stay in their barracks and provide security after the fall of Baghdad, only to be fucked over and fired by Bremer when that assclown and the Young Republicans showed up...well, I wasn't present at those briefings, now was I? :P
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 21, 2013, 02:56:50 PM
I wish we would go back to destroy and conquer. If it is not worth nuking or conquering an enemy, then let us not get involved at all.
Lusty, you've started to advise Obama, haven't you ?
After I told Bush he should nuke them he left a note to Obama to ignore me. :(
"the Young Republicans"
Christ, I remember that. That entire passel of kids whose greatest qualification for going in and running a hostile foreign culture seemed to be Republican ideological purity and naivete. What a fucking mess.
I just looked up and today at 7 is the monthly meeting of the New York Young Republicans.
I GOTTA GO!
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2013, 03:20:08 PM
I just looked up and today at 7 is the monthly meeting of the New York Young Republicans.
Small room?
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 02:43:40 PM
I remember being shot down in flames for suggesting an insurgency was starting and that it was a bad idea to summarily disband the army.
Fairly early on, if one took off the victory blinkers, it was evident that not a lot of thought had gone into the day after and what would work.
I remember that pretty much everyone here agreed that disbanding the army was a stupid decision. If you got shot down in flames during that time period, you probably were shot down for one of your spectacularly silly ideas, not for expressing the consensus of the board. Though, I suppose, you could have done the latter so poorly that people shot you down in flames for what you said, not what you meant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 21, 2013, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2013, 03:20:08 PM
I just looked up and today at 7 is the monthly meeting of the New York Young Republicans.
Small room?
Apparently taking place here. Who knew?
http://www.wnrc.org/
Quote from: grumbler on November 21, 2013, 03:27:22 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 02:43:40 PM
I remember being shot down in flames for suggesting an insurgency was starting and that it was a bad idea to summarily disband the army.
Fairly early on, if one took off the victory blinkers, it was evident that not a lot of thought had gone into the day after and what would work.
I remember that pretty much everyone here agreed that disbanding the army was a stupid decision. If you got shot down in flames during that time period, you probably were shot down for one of your spectacularly silly ideas, not for expressing the consensus of the board. Though, I suppose, you could have done the latter so poorly that people shot you down in flames for what you said, not what you meant.
You should now post your usual bullshit about not engaging in Ad hominem first.
http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-president-delays-signing-us-deal-182049692.html
QuoteAfghan president delays signing US deal
President Hamid Karzai cast fresh doubt on the future presence of thousands of American and allied forces on Sunday by rejecting a recommendation by an Afghan assembly of dignitaries to quickly sign a long-delayed security pact with the United States.
Although the mercurial leader did not fully spell out his reasons for deferring its signature until after the April 5 elections, the move was a slap in the face to U.S. officials who had repeatedly asked for a deal by the end of the year.
The U.S. administration has insisted the deal be finalized by the end of next month, warning that planning for a post-2014 military presence may be jeopardized if it is not approved. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel both asked last week that it be signed by the end of the year.
Failure to do so could be the final blow to the Bilateral Security Agreement, leaving the Americans without a legal basis to keep forces in the country for up to a decade to train and mentor Afghan troops who remain ill-prepared to face a persistent Taliban insurgency.
The U.S. has said it will pull all its forces out of Afghanistan without it, as it did when Iraq failed to sign a similar agreement. Most of America's allies have also said they will pull out their troops in without the deal, a withdrawal that could put at risk more than $8 billion a year pledged by the international community for Afghan security forces and the country's development.
After negotiators hammered out compromises on several issues, Karzai had called the 2,500 tribal elders and regional leaders to the capital to debate the draft deal in a consultative assembly known as a Loya Jirga.
The four-day assembly had the option of asking for changes or rejecting the agreement. Instead Karzai added a new wrinkle by announcing on the opening day Thursday that he wanted delegates to endorse the deal but he would not sign it.
He repeated that stance Sunday despite the panel's recommendation that he sign before the end of 2013, laying down a series of ill-defined conditions and promising to continue negotiations with the U.S. in a rambling speech that lasted nearly an hour.
"We want security, peace and we want a proper election. You have asked me that I should sign it within a month. Do you think that peace will come within a month?" he asked the assembly. "I want an implementation period for peace to come, if peace won't come, this agreement will cause disaster to Afghanistan."
He did not elaborate, but his spokesman Aimal Faizi said: "Not before elections. He was clear enough."
Normally, following the Loya Jirga, Karzai or his designee would have signed the document and then parliament would have ratified it. Then Karzai would have to again sign the agreement to make it law. It is now unclear if the deal will even go to parliament if the Afghan leader doesn't change his mind.
The U.S. thanked the Loya Jirga for its endorsement but did not comment on Karzai's remarks.
"We are studying President Karzai's speech. We continue to believe that concluding the BSA as quickly as possible is to the benefit of both nations," U.S. Embassy spokesman Robert Hilton said.
Karzai's relations with the United States have been testy for years, and he often has said one thing only to do another.
"How long he will stay in that mood I don't know, but at the moment our understanding is that he will not go to sign it," said former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, who was the runner-up to Karzai in the disputed 2009 presidential election and is the current favorite for next year's poll. "He is a bit unpredictable."
...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F12%2FHamid_Karzai_became_winner_at_the_2002_Loya_Jirga.jpg&hash=8bdbae361cf2b607463027ce9f9ec0ac2433dab1)
What do you call the kind of hat the guy at right is wearing? I like it. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 21, 2013, 03:27:22 PM
I remember that pretty much everyone here agreed that disbanding the army was a stupid decision. If you got shot down in flames during that time period, you probably were shot down for one of your spectacularly silly ideas, not for expressing the consensus of the board. Though, I suppose, you could have done the latter so poorly that people shot you down in flames for what you said, not what you meant.
You should now post your usual bullshit about not engaging in Ad hominem first.
Is this an attempt by you to start a non sequitur contest? If so, it's a fine start.
Dostrum uber alles
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 24, 2013, 04:59:06 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F12%2FHamid_Karzai_became_winner_at_the_2002_Loya_Jirga.jpg&hash=8bdbae361cf2b607463027ce9f9ec0ac2433dab1)
What do you call the kind of hat the guy at right is wearing? I like it. :bowler:
The Karakul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakul_(hat) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakul_(hat))
Apparently it's a variation of the hat the Brezhnev and Jinnah wore. Fashion for the discerning Asiatic despot. :bowler:
Oops, that's Karzai. :hide: :numbnuts: Of course. You don't give yourself the #1 sign, it's not dignified.
Thanks, Sav. :)
I see Artie Lange in that pic.
Quote from: grumbler on November 24, 2013, 05:03:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 04:06:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 21, 2013, 03:27:22 PM
I remember that pretty much everyone here agreed that disbanding the army was a stupid decision. If you got shot down in flames during that time period, you probably were shot down for one of your spectacularly silly ideas, not for expressing the consensus of the board. Though, I suppose, you could have done the latter so poorly that people shot you down in flames for what you said, not what you meant.
You should now post your usual bullshit about not engaging in Ad hominem first.
Is this an attempt by you to start a non sequitur contest? If so, it's a fine start.
You certainly do follow don't you, dredging up a three day old post of mine; it's like having my very own internet stalker. :wub:
Quote from: mongers on November 21, 2013, 02:43:40 PM
Fairly early on, if one took off the victory blinkers, it was evident that not a lot of thought had gone into the day after and what would work.
This, I was gung ho about the war on the assumption that, like WWII, somebody had thought about keeping the electricity on after the war was over. It turns out nobody was, the whole thing was not only ad-hoc, but partisan ad-hoc. When they first brought in Jay Garner it looked like he was brought in as an afterthought rather than as the entire point of the war. If you are going for regime change you need a regime to change to. Bremer obviously had more support, but still, he was brought in because the first guy was trying to do the whole thing on his good reputation from kurdistan in the last war.
My reasons for supporting the war in the first place - saddam is evil and deserves to be killed - remains valid. I was just shocked by the sheer incompetence of the post war planning.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 24, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
Oops, that's Karzai. :hide: :numbnuts:
:lol:
I had thought you were making a joke. :blush:
Garner was brought in because he had made his reputation providing humanitarian assistance to Khurds post GW I and it was assumed (incorrectly) that the most pressing need in the aftermath of GW II would be humanitarian assistance.
mongers, I took exception to your insurgency prediction at the time, because it was made at a time when insurgency was already occurring, and your prediction that it would spread from its Sunni base to encompass the broad swath of the Shi'ite population failed to materialize.
I was also one of the ones arguing against the disband = bonehead position, not because disbanding the army was so obviously the right choice to make, because it wasn't, but because it assumed away what I considered to be legitimate reasons for doing so. Namely that retaining the army would be no guarantee that its members would not join the insurgency (a point which I think the number of terrorist acts by members of the Afghan army against their ostensible comrades in arms has reinforced), that it would provide these potential insurgents with additional training, access to arms and munitions, and ready-built organizational structures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2013, 06:17:58 PM
.....
mongers, I took exception to your insurgency prediction at the time, because it was made at a time when insurgency was already occurring, and your prediction that it would spread from its Sunni base to encompass the broad swath of the Shi'ite population failed to materialize.
.....
You're conflating two separate things.
My comments about Sadr, were made in the first hours of his first uprising, which was questioned as being in anyway significant. Which it turned out to be, but at the time I wasn't predicting why you said in the emboldened passage.
But as we don't have access to the posts at that time, it's unprovable either way, my positions or yours.
Incidentally there was a long term Shi'ite originated insurgency in one not unimportant part of Iraq, it's what force the British out of Basra, almost tail between our knees as we skedaddled out of the former Saddam palace/guest house.