"Dan White" wrote in
:
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...
"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.
Uh, no. I never plonked you or mentioned plonking you. That must be
somebody else. I gave up on educating you 
because of your party
affiliation, but that doesn't mean I can't still post if I want to.
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.
Sounds good but there's no real evidence for it. I'd guess there
are fewer training grounds of any significance now than there used to
be.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...391072,00.html
CIA-NIC says otherwise. Saddam's was an oppressive regime, but a
secular one. One of the stated goals of Al Qaeda is to overthrow all
secular regimes in the ME. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are now
operating, recruiting, and training in Iraq. Seems to me that there are
grounds for what I said.
I mentioned this before, but when you say anti-Americanism if you
mean Iraqis wanting to erect a statue of Bush in Baghdad, then we
agree.
You mean the Mayor of Baghdad? I hope his pro-Americanism doesn't
affect him the way it did his predecessor (assassinated on Jan 4 if I
recall).
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.
Well, yes, and we've been doing this ever since Nixon went to China.
That's why we are doing business all over the ME now. We've been
We aren't doing business all over the ME. The ME is relatively
insulated from globalization, unemployment is high, the workforces are
unskilled, the average standard of living is very low. Ripe ground for
religious fundamentalists to recruit.
There's a very conservative pro-war analyst from the Naval War College
who wrote on this topic. Thomas Barnett, "The Pentagon's New Map":
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/publi...gonsnewmap.htm
using all those tools already and we still get attacked. Let's say
they attack again and the Sears tower goes down with 25,000 people in
it. 19 ME'ers were in a plane that did it. What would be your
response? Get Phil Rizzuto to go open a few Money Stores in Syria?
Silly. I'll assume this is rhetorical.
But let me ask you, if 9/11 were repeated would it occur to you WHY the
administration had not prevented its reoccurrence? Would it occur to
you to demand anyone accountable?
There are bad, evil people in this world and they need to be jailed or
killed. No amount of trade will fix that. All we can hope is to
guide a change in policy in the ME through ALL those tools, including
the hammer.
Sure, all the tools including the hammer. That would be better than we
have been doing.
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?
By fighting them over there, we can hope to change their environment
(ie, corrupt government) and end the institutionalized hatred. The
data to date proves that we are on the right track. How many
terrorist attacks have there been in the US since 9/11? You better
believe there would have been more had we done nothing more than
"promote economic development."
What data to date proves we are on the right track?
You mean that the only thing that might sway your point of view would be
a repeat of 9/11? I sincerely hope that your viewpoint never changes,
then.