"Dan White" wrote in
:
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
news
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
What's astounding to me is the total lack of skepticism towards
the administration. It's almost like people desperately want to
believe the convenient party line. But when they positively claim
evidence of WMD and all they can turn up is yellow cake, aluminum
tubes, and bogus mobile weapons labs doesn't it cause you to
wonder? And when they claim Iraqi support of terrorism in the
wake of 9/11, but all that can be proven are links to anti-Israeli
terrorist groups, doesn't it begin to strain the credibility?
It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and
the justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.
There's your problem in a nutshell. You are accusing the admin of
some secret motivation in Iraq that you can't really explain
without sounding like a Michael Moore kook. So what was the real
story, Nate?
Can you answer without using the terms "Bush's father," or the
"Saudi
connection," or "Halliburton"?
"The real story?" OK, here's the real story. The American people
were told that Iraq represented a "grave and gathering threat" that
might next manifest itself in terms of "a mushroom cloud."
Now we know there are no WMDs. There was no collaborative
relationship with Al Qaeda. The "evidence" for mobile weapons labs,
aluminum tubes, drones, etc etc all turned out to be bulls**t.
So now the administration says that our real reason to go into Iraq
was to "spread freedom and democracy." Right. As if the country or
Congress would have supported going to war for that reason alone.
And of course you guys want to claim that anyone who recognizes or
questions this shifting rationale for war is "a Michael Moore kook."
For somebody who is so intent on investigating and picking apart
all details of the Iraq situation, I'd like to see you put the same
effort into telling us all the REAL reason we went there, AND
provide the same good, solid evidence you are demanding of the rest
of us.
Who knows? The effort would be pure speculation and a waste of time.
Perhaps you are looking for some kind of conspiracy theory? DAGS --
you can probably find one to suit your taste.
Or maybe you want me to say it's all about oil (well, ok, I do
believe that if Iraq had no oil we probably wouldn't care).
Personally I think that what we are seeing is the probable outcome
when the group in power sees everything in black and white rather
than in shades of gray. Add to that the apparent desire to make a
bold mark on history, and an apparent inability to distinguish good
counsel (Colin Powell and Richard Clarke) from bad counsel (Doug
Feith and Ahmed Chalabi), and you get a pretty reckless mix.
Do you think it is possible for us to eliminate terrorism in our
country and leave the Middle East status quo in tact at the same time?
Do you think we should even try to make sure another attack doesn't
happen again?
Dan, didn't you just make a big deal out of plonking me? And here you
are, replying again.
To answer your question, I don't think it is ever possible to completely
eliminate the threat of terrorism in the US. But I think our pursuit of
ill-advised policies increases the likelihood of terrorism in the US.
Iraq is a prime example of a policy that does just that -- it increases
anti-Americanism abroad, increasing the ability of the fundamentalists
to recruit. It provides a training ground for their jihadists to gain
experience. And it provides them an opportunity to destabilize the
secular Middle East.
Instead of flexing our military muscle in the Middle East, we would be
better off to exercise some of the other tools in our toolbox. Economic
incentives, for one. Cultivate economic development and mutual trade
with the moderate countries in the Middle East. Prosperity and economic
development are bigger promoters of democracy than military might is.
Close our bases in Saudi Arabia. Those just give the Al Qaeda types
fuel for their fire, and it does little for us in a practical military
sense. Move them all to Qatar or elsewhere.
Stop our one-sided support for the Israelis. Use the threat of
withdrawing our foreign aid from Israel to force them into ceasing
settlement expansion. Promote an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on
mutual recognition and the 1967 boundaries. The Arab-Israeli conflict
has been the centerpoint of terrorism in the Middle East for decades,
and our recent work to promote Mideast peace has been window-dressing at
best.
And of course we should try to make sure another attack doesn't happen
in America again. Fundamental to that is to look critically at why the
first attack was allowed to happen. Frankly a lot of the administration
and a lot of the government agencies were all asleep at the wheel.
Frankly a lot of them are still miscommunicating and acting
inefficiently in this regard.
I think your implication is that by fighting them over there, we can
avoid fighting them over here. I think this is a bad assumption.
Really, it only took 19 of them to do the 9/11 attacks. Don't you
suppose that they can fight us with a few tens of thousands over there
and still find a way to send another 19 here?