"Or perhaps the fog of war created very different perceptions of what happened among different parties, as occurs in war."

It's a little hard to blame the "fog of war" when the Israelis had positively & correctly identified the Liberty as a US ship earlier in the morning, and had been regularly overflying it throughout the day.

"the Israelis had positively & correctly identified the Liberty as a US ship earlier in the morning"

Citation or your full of shit.

"Iraq was not about oil. Iraq was designated for destruction in 1989. It just took 14 years to complete the task. "

Iraq wasn't destroyed, moron.

Right, the US military was just retrofitting the buildings and reinforcing Iraq's electricity grid and sanitation system with its bombs.

http://www.gtr5.com/summary_of_events.htm Footnote 11, which links to http://ussliberty.org/report/exhibit%25202-678.pdf (an excerpt from an Israeli report on the "tragic mistake"), which states in part:

"Meanwhile, the "Nord" [Israeli patrol aircraft] plane which had been patrolling the sea had landed and the observer was debriefed by Lt. Commander Pinchasi, a navy representative at Air Command. The observer reported spotting the marking GTR-5, on the ship's side. Lt. Commaner Pinchasi checked the marking in a "Janes" manual and learned that the reference was to the intelligence-ship named "Liberty". He reported the information to Naval Operations Section/3 and since the reference was to an intelligence ship he likewise reported to Naval Operations Section/4 (intelligence)11."

An apology for suggesting that I am "full of shit" would be appreciated.

"Iraq was not about oil. Iraq was designated for destruction in 1989. It just took 14 years to complete the task. "

Why 1989 instead of the more obvious 1991? And what was the motivation at that earlier date?

iraq was destroyed by the invasion
how could you say it was not
that place is a disaster

it is kind of weird how distorted the perceptions are
of people who rely primarily on the media for their information

did you hear how hussein was a dictator and they were all oppressed
and now you hear that they were liberated and they are becoming free
or something like that

orwell style
occupation is liberation
a shithole is a paradise
destroyed is improved

Are you now trying to write in Haiku?

According to Putin, the war in Chechnya never happened.

Let's see, in the First Iraq war, Iraq had, without provocation, taken over a neighboring country. With UN- authorization, the United States led a coalition army to drive Hussein back and free Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein spent the next 10 years violating the UN no-fly zone, telling UN weapons inspectors to fuck off, running rape rooms, hiding chemical weapons and eventually shipping them off in the dark of night to Syria (where they were recently used to kill thousands...)

So yes, ouster of Hussein began in **1991** when Saddam Hussein tried to play little-Hitler.

Post Gulf War, after freeing the people from Hussein, the US rebuilt (and continues to rebuild) Iraq, which has since been turned over to the rightfully elected government of Iraq.

Yes...what horrible people we are.

So Putin, tell us about the War in Chechnya, for example....tell us what a glorious and wonderful thing that was.

And as was pointed out by other, Putin, it was 1991, not 1989. Once again our self-proclaimed educator (Putin, the one who say she hates children and disdains students, blaming them for ALL that goes wrong in schools, even though he gives children passing grades they don't deserve - because he hasn't taught them well - just to shuffle them through the system...)...this self-proclaimed educator is too stupid to even google a simple date for vomiting his anti-American nonsense.

Putin, you are the ultimate pathetic ass clown.

"If the Taliban had wanted the pipeline on terms that were acceptable to Unocal, the deal would have been signed before 5 years of off-and-on negotiations that remained incomplete on 9/10/01."

This was/is a huge project involving multiple countries and negotiations weren't going to be complete overnight. Also the Taliban was being heavily lobbied by a competitor to the Unocal consortium based in Argentina. Last, the main sticking point between Unocal and the Taliban was Bin Laden. Had Unocal been willing to overlook Bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan after the Kenya bombings there would have been no problem.

"but I'm sure lots of people at Unocal (and elsewhere) did not think that a quick little war against primitive Afghan tribesmen by the world's only superpower was going to be a big deal."

Even so, they had to realize that going to war was going to delay any kind of pipeline deal for the foreseeable future, no matter how easy. Much cheaper and easier to simply work with the Taliban.

"and the explanation here is that after 7 years, the Taliban had failed to complete the job (and they did not appear likely to anytime soon)"

7 years? The Taliban came to power in '96, the war occurred in 2001. The Taliban had the Northern Alliance beaten within a couple of years (taking Mazar-i-Sharif by 1998), and one remaining threat to Taliban rule - Ahmad Shah Massoud, was killed right before 9-11.

"That's why Karzai (a Pashtun who had no enemies because he'd been out of the country for so long)"

Karzai had plenty of enemies, which is why his father was assassinated shortly before the war by the Taliban. The intention was not to create a warzone sure, but once again since Afghanistan had struggled with establishing centralized authority throughout the 90s, and the groups the Americans just put in power (the Panj Shiri Tajiks and Hezaras) resented centralized authority, the notion that dislodging the Taliban would have helped with the enterprise of establishing a more stable government to carry out these economic projects is ridiculous.

I say 1989 because that is the year US policy toward Iraq began to change. It is also the year relations between Iraq and his former friends in the Gulf took a major turn for the worse. US policy changed due to the formal end of the Cold War in 1989. No longer was Iraq policy seen in the context of East-West relations, which was used during the Reagan administration to justify normalized ties. Instead, voices within the Defense Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff became concerned about Iraq's rise as a regional hegemon in the aftermath of the sudden end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988. This occurred simultaneously as relations between Iraq and the conservative Gulf kingdoms worsened over the issue of oil production and war debt. Continued support for Iraq was predicated on the notion that the Gulf States could "moderate" Iraq and turn it into a mainstream conservative state like Egypt. It became clear that Iraq wouldn't play ball. Instead, the US was faced with the prospect of a genuine Arab nationalist regime that could dominate the region. This prospect was unacceptable.

"So yes, ouster of Hussein began in **1991** when Saddam Hussein tried to play little-Hitler. "

Hussein invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990, genius. If you're going to make a big show about my supposed timeline errors, at least get yours right.

And to say that Kuwait did nothing to provoke the invasion is horsepuckey. Iraq was being economically destroyed by oil overproduction, at Kuwait's instigation. This war wasn't some random act of aggression. Iraq and Kuwait were *allies* during the war with Iran.

"the main sticking point between Unocal and the Taliban was Bin Laden. Had Unocal been willing to overlook Bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan after the Kenya bombings there would have been no problem. "

This would have been a reason to oust the Taliban, not to continue negotiating with them.

"they had to realize that going to war was going to delay any kind of pipeline deal for the foreseeable future, no matter how easy. Much cheaper and easier to simply work with the Taliban. "

This is a judgement call that would have required far more knowledge about the state of the negotiations than anyone outside the process would have.

"7 years? The Taliban came to power in '96, the war occurred in 2001. The Taliban had the Northern Alliance beaten within a couple of years (taking Mazar-i-Sharif by 1998), and one remaining threat to Taliban rule - Ahmad Shah Massoud, was killed right before 9-11."

The Taliban became a noteworthy military force in 1994 when they took Kandahar. They took Kabul in '96. As for remaining threats in Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban couldn't depend on many of the warlords who were only nominally loyal (like Rashid Dostum, who turned coat almost before the first American bomb landed), Ismail Khan (a very popular figure who had been the warlord of Herat and the Western provinces) was still on the loose somewhere, and there were no shortage of exiled leaders like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Abdul Haq who were all itching for an opportunity to lead anti-Taliban uprisings. 90% of Afghanistan may've been painted black on CNN's infographic map at the time, but the Taliban's hold on most of the territory under their "control" was very tenuous at best (as their swift military collapse indicates).

"since Afghanistan had struggled with establishing centralized authority throughout the 90s, and the groups the Americans just put in power (the Panj Shiri Tajiks and Hezaras) resented centralized authority, the notion that dislodging the Taliban would have helped with the enterprise of establishing a more stable government to carry out these economic projects is ridiculous. "

Most people resent centralized authority... until they get their hands on it. And anyhoo, Karzai is a Pashtun, not a Tajik or Hazara.

"the US rebuilt (and continues to rebuild) Iraq"

How's that going? Water shortages, 4 hours of electricity per day - dependent on street generators, raw sewage in the streets. Great job there.

And why did Christians and other minorities flee "liberated" Iraq? What a strange liberation that makes people want to flee in terror due to the threat of anti-Baathist death squads.

To say nothing of the resurgence in sectarian violence that is killing hundreds every month.

Karzai is a Pashtun but his admin's important posts were dominated by the aforementioned Northern Alliance. The interim defense minister - Tajik. Interior Minister - Tajik (although he was replaced, which pissed off the Tajiks something fierce); Foreign Minister - Tajik. Karzai's presence was used to make that kind of power shift acceptable to the Pashtuns. The Pashtuns initially thought Karzai would appoint former members of the King Zahid Shah's regime into his administration after the King endorsed him (this didn't end up happening).

"This would have been a reason to oust the Taliban, not to continue negotiating with them."

Well, yes, ultimately the Taliban's relationship with Bin Laden was a price Unocal was not willing to pay for the pipeline, which is why they got out in 99.

"the Taliban couldn't depend on many of the warlords who were only nominally loyal (like Rashid Dostum, who turned coat almost before the first American bomb landed)"

Dostum got beaten handily in Mazar-i-Sharif and was not seen again until the invasion.

"Ismail Khan"

Defeated around the same time and hiding out in Iran.

"and there were no shortage of exiled leaders like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Abdul Haq who were all itching for an opportunity to lead anti-Taliban uprisings."

The key word there being exiled. The Taliban's hold in the late 1990s/early 2000s was as secure as Afghanistan had known in the past several decades. They controlled every major city and were recognized as the government by several countries. Considering the mujahadeen hadn't been able to even come close to doing that since the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 89, their rise to power was rather swift. From Kandahar to Mazar i Sharif in less than four years.

When the Soviet Union was building Iraq they built the Saddam Hussein regime. It's been all uphill ever since that.

Prohibition was the law of the land and repealed later. Just because a piece of legislation gets passed doesn't mean it can't be repealed.

Under Hussein Iraq won UN awards for its development projects. Now, it's a shithole with sewage in the strets. We have you "anti-communists" to thank for that, as usual.

From the keyboard of a fool flows foolishness. No one can discredit your more effectively than you do yourself Putin.

Discredited in the eyes of toddlers with tourette's. Not a demographic I'm aiming to impress.

There isn't a demographic you can impress.

@ Tolstoy

"No, it was entirely effective. The United States was drawn into Afghanistan. We're still there. Five more Americans will be coming home in body bags in the next day or two, in fact."

Yes, but WHY? The reasons you have described either haven't happened yet (or in the near future) or aren't a good enough reason for a conspiracy to justify an invasion of Afghanistan.

Also, why do we need to threaten Russia's southern flank? It isn't 1985. The Russkies aren't the bad guys anymore. Putin's intentions may not be the purest in the world, but he realizes that no one wins in a Russia-US confrontation/cold war/war.

The invasion of Afghanistan was completely justified, Al Queda used it as a base and Osama the murdering bastard was there. The policy pursued in Afghanistan after the invasion and the Karzai debacle is a completely different issue. The invasion was completely justified.

The funny thing is that all you guys actually think that all these political alliances, justifications, and such are actually REAL! It's stagecraft boys, and you guys buy and think that one side is right, the other is wrong, and you select your side and do battle -- frankly it would be comical if it weren't so sad.

"Under Hussein Iraq won UN awards for its development projects."

Bullshit. Show me a citation. The only thing I find is either Kuwait being awarded $1 bn to recover from Iraq's invasion or the UNDP being present in Iraq *after* we invaded. I say you are lying as usual.

@ Emac

I'm not arguing that Afghanistan isn't justified: 9/11 was NOT a conspiracy and both the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan are completely justified IMHO. It has been a poorly conducted mission (but much, much better executed than Vietnam) at high levels. As always, the military (the grunts doing the heavy lifting and hill humping in Kunar and Helmend et al) as a whole has done/is doing a great job considering the circumstances; it's the civilian leadership (both under Bush and Obama) that has been lacking.

@ MichiganMan

"The funny thing is that all you guys actually think that all these political alliances, justifications, and such are actually REAL! It's stagecraft boys, and you guys buy and think that one side is right, the other is wrong, and you select your side and do battle -- frankly it would be comical if it weren't so sad."

You're probably correct. Which is exactly why I'm trying to save enough money to build a house with a porch in the middle of nowhere, become self-sufficient, sit on that porch, and watch the world go down the toilet. To hell with "the system"

"Bullshit. Show me a citation"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1104/p11s01-legn.html

I await your apology.

Gunfighter, I concur with your clearly stated points.