[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1304370488' post='4805655']
That is true. Oil is messy.

Your information is outdated.

In 2007 China's top integrated copper producer, Jiangxi Copper Co and China Metallurgical Group Corp, became the first major investor in Afghanistan.[/quote]

The other beneficiary of our invasion may end up being India (a good thing for us, in the long run, because it will put Pakistan in a deadly vice), who is also doing business there. So much for your silly theory that the Afghanistan invasion was a resource grab.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304367403' post='4805632']
[quote name='frob' timestamp='1304367200' post='4805629']
Iraq = Started in 1990 with Iraq's Kuwait invasion, repulsion and ceasefire, decade of no-fly with a record of infractions. Followed up by UN inspection mandates requiring immediate and unconditional access to particular sites.

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304367068' post='4805628']
Bin Laden is dead. Great. Now, can we get all of our freedoms back and get the hell out of the middle east?

trzy. We are directly responsible for the theocracy in Iran. When those people burn our flags and celebrate when something horrible happens to the US, they have damn good reason to.
[/quote]

The US is partially responsible for creating the circumstances that ultimately led to that, but why don't you also blame the Iranians who actually installed the theocracy? Let's apply Occam's Razor and assign blame to the ones actually pulling the trigger. They could have re-installed a socialist or created a secular democracy, or even a military dictatorship, but instead they chose theocracy and that's not America's fault. The takeaway lessons from the overthrow of Mossadegh are: use regime change more sparingly, be careful of blowback, and, for nationalists around the world, don't steal the property of investors backed by more powerful governments than your own.
[/quote]
You're right. They did install a theocracy. And oddly enough it actually works. But because Iran was declared the Axis of Evil and we're doing everything in our power to isolate them (aside from bombing them and causing WW3), they're a bit hostile. But we can keep pretending that our policies toward Iran doesn't directly affect that country.

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the United Kingdom, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "...all necessary means…" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."


[edit] Security Council vote
On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[sup][2][/sup][/quote]

They had no nukes, chemical and biological stockpiles were considered harmless. And Iraq said they would let inspectors. The US thought it was a trick and went in anyway. So yeah, that Resolution is not really a justification for the war. Sorry.

edit:

And this:

Aftermath
In June 2006, the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), a US Department of Defense entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."[10]

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administration’s own inspectors reported[11]:

“ "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." ” The review was conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis[12]: "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

Factual questions about the Iraqi declaration still remain. To date the contents have still not been made public for independent scrutiny.[13] When the UK government was asked to state where in the Iraqi government's declaration there were false or inaccurate statements, the reply was that it was a confidential matter and that "huge quantities of documents remain to be translated."[14]

[/quote]

Under Obama, we're winding down in Iraq, withdrawing troops, we've killed Bin Laden and actually are focusing on Afghanistan again.

Also, we'd be on the way to getting out of the energy crisis, if Republicans would not try to kill every bill that involves companies lessening pollution and waste. Oh, and trying to pass a bill that cuts money to clean energy, education, and R&D.
[/quote]

We elected a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic President in 2008 in order to lead and get things done. You can't blame the minority party when Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and White House. We were promised change if only they were given power. Instead, they ended up suffering a historical election defeat, losing control of the House. What are you going to say next, that they somehow need more power?

I think it's an obvious case of them lying and taking advantage of partisan fools, which is precisely what leftists have exposed themselves to be.

In any case, bashing on Obama was pretty tactless. I expect better from you.
[/quote]

Hey, I've got plenty of praise for Obama as well. But if you want to talk about freedoms and legislation, Obama and your legislators are the go-to people.

You're right. They did install a theocracy. And oddly enough it actually works.[/quote]

For an extremely limited definition of "works".

But because Iran was declared the Axis of Evil and we're doing everything in our power to isolate them (aside from bombing them and causing WW3), they're a bit hostile. But we can keep pretending that our policies toward Iran doesn't directly affect that country.
[/quote]

I didn't know they were such sensitive daisies. Did North Korea also become any more hostile or any less manageable? The only relevant thing we've learned from Iran in recent years is that conciliatory dialog doesn't work, either. Geopolitics is all about using power and influence to dominate regions. Iran's broader ambitions have always been there.


Here's my overall point: there's no need to beat yourself up for being an American and a Westerner. We're entering a very competitive century. There's no need to make excuses for anyone. Let's be realistic, move forward, and get things done. Returning to the original topic of this thread, we certainly don't have to feel bad about celebrating Bin Laden's death. All this talk about how we should be perpetually somber and mournful is little more than pretentious grandstanding by people who reflexively dislike anything that makes the US look successful or powerful.