"Dan White" wrote in news:0FJOd.280$xk5.257
@fe11.lga:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...
Might be right. I am basing my opinion mostly on BBC World News. I've
also seen some very good BBC segments done on the PBS show "Frontline."
Perhaps I just think the British news is better because I'm seeing an
above-average portion of it.


It's probably also because they sound so much more intelligent with those
British accents.

Right smart, that ;-P

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


However, you seem to have assumed that the term neo-con is a negative
slur. I did not mean for it to be.

If you prefer, I could refer to the neo-cons as "progressively
challenged" - or whatever term you would find more politically correct.


I think the first thing that comes to mind for some people, at least
subliminally, is neo-nazi. That neo term just isn't used much.

dwhite

So okay, let's see some proof from you for a change.

I repeat: DAGS. You do know how, don't you?

The thing is, when you're trying to prove what is an outright lie, Googling
isn't going to help. The only people still suggesting Saddam/Al Quaida links
are you and Dick Cheney. The rest of the world knows it's bull****. Get with
it.

"Dan White" wrote in message
...
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


However, you seem to have assumed that the term neo-con is a negative
slur. I did not mean for it to be.

If you prefer, I could refer to the neo-cons as "progressively
challenged" - or whatever term you would find more politically correct.


I think the first thing that comes to mind for some people, at least
subliminally, is neo-nazi. That neo term just isn't used much.




It's a neologism....

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
ink.net...

And a clarification: Being a base for terrorism involves considerably
more than just sponsoring terrorists. Among other things it includes
harboring terrorists, allowing them to move about and operate freely,
receive medical care, etc.


That pretty much describes the US.

mp wrote:
So okay, let's see some proof from you for a change.

I repeat: DAGS. You do know how, don't you?


The thing is, when you're trying to prove what is an outright lie, Googling
isn't going to help. The only people still suggesting Saddam/Al Quaida links
are you and Dick Cheney. The rest of the world knows it's bull****. Get with
it.


Do you think Al Queda is the only terrorist group that existed or ever
existed?

--RC

"George" george@least wrote in message
...

"Dan White" wrote in message
...
"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


However, you seem to have assumed that the term neo-con is a negative
slur. I did not mean for it to be.

If you prefer, I could refer to the neo-cons as "progressively
challenged" - or whatever term you would find more politically
correct.


I think the first thing that comes to mind for some people, at least
subliminally, is neo-nazi. That neo term just isn't used much.




It's a neologism....


ROFL!! That's awesome! I looked up neologism in the dictionary and one of
several definitions says:

neologism: A meaningless word used by a psychotic.

too funny! thanks,

dwhite

"Dan White" wrote in news:gN1Pd.561$131.155
@fe11.lga:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


However, you seem to have assumed that the term neo-con is a negative
slur. I did not mean for it to be.

If you prefer, I could refer to the neo-cons as "progressively
challenged" - or whatever term you would find more politically correct.


I think the first thing that comes to mind for some people, at least
subliminally, is neo-nazi. That neo term just isn't used much.


See, even the neocons call themselves neocons. This is an article by
Irving Kristol in the Weekly Standard. Many credit Kristol as being one of
the originators of the modern neoconservative movement. By the way, he's
also the author of the book "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an
Idea."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...0/003/000tzmlw.
asp?pg=2

However, since you don't seem to like the term we can translate it to
Newspeak and just call them "doubleplusgood conservatives."

"Dan White" wrote in
:

....
ROFL!! That's awesome! I looked up neologism in the dictionary and
one of several definitions says:

neologism: A meaningless word used by a psychotic.

too funny! thanks,


Dan, Dan.

First you want to complain that the term "neocon" is, in your opinion, a
derogatory.

But then in practically the same breath you "ROFL" and use the word
"psychotic" to describe the other side.

Now isn't that just a little hypocritical?

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
thousand years ago.


Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
of the world 10,000 years ago.

When are you moving out?


When said Amer-Indians move out to make room for their (likey) Asiatic
Asiatic predecessors.

Just how far back in the mists of time do we need to go to satisfy
everyone? European treatment of Amer-Indians and Africans was a horrid
moral abyss ... for which we *all* still pay the price. But Amer-Indian
treatment of each other was no picnic either. The point is that we can
only act morally in our *own* behavior. We cannot forever remediate the
actions of people we do not know upon people we have never met. Your
tone suggests a kind of secular version of Original Sin being imputed
upon the descendants of Bad Actors - I reject this out of hand. I am
accountable for *my* actions, not ever prededing generation's...


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article ,
says...

Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has
escaped your notice that there were Jews living in that part of the
world more than two thousand years ago.


Perhaps it has escaped yours that the Indians were living in this part
of the world 10,000 years ago.

When are you moving out?


When said Amer-Indians move out to make room for their (likey) Asiatic
^^^^

Errrrr make that "likely" ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:15:02 GMT, Kevin wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Kevin wrote:


Abe wrote:



...the Muslim extremist Jihad against
America began when Israel was formed, and the US became an official
ally.

And by "formed" you mean "stole the land from existing tenants".


Perhaps you mean "reclaimed it from squatters". It evidently has escaped your
notice that there were Jews living in that part of the world more than two
thousand years ago.

I do so love people who make my point while "thinking" they are
rebutting it. The operative part of your reply which you somehow
overlooked is "...two thousand years ago." Enough of them left so that
it was no longer a Jewish, or more correctly, a Hebrew state.



umm, left? Try, "were exterminated or deported." Ever hear of Rome's
siege of Jerusalem somewhere around 100 AD? After the seige was over, Rome
basically deported all of the Jews throughout the Roman world.



To put a fine point on it:

There really is no such ethnic group as "Palestinians". The term was
more-or-less invented in the 20th century for purposes of political
propaganda. These people are ethnically Arabic - In the main, of the
Hashemite tribe which today largely occupy modern Jordan.

Various flavors of Arabs and Jews have occupied various parts of the
land intermittently for the better part of 5000 years or so (depending on
whose dating you accept). There were also other groups in the very early
going like the so-called Sea Peoples who came from somewhere near modern
Crete, IIRC. The point is that *no* one can lay claim to original ownership
of that land because *everyone* was there at one point or another.

Both peoples have a claim to some of that land, and neither can claim it
all exclusively. However, in my view, Israel has the superior claim
to the land for one simple reason: You *never* see Israeli Moms sending
their children off to suicide just to kill some Arabs. The Palestinian
culture has become so venomous in this debate that they are willing
to execute their own children. This makes them barbarians in my book,
and not worthy of further negotiation until they cease all such actions.

I think it was Golda Meir who said something like, "There will never be
peace in the Middle East until the Arabs learn to love their own children
more than they hate the Jews."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

...
ROFL!! That's awesome! I looked up neologism in the dictionary and
one of several definitions says:

neologism: A meaningless word used by a psychotic.

too funny! thanks,


Dan, Dan.

First you want to complain that the term "neocon" is, in your opinion, a
derogatory.

But then in practically the same breath you "ROFL" and use the word
"psychotic" to describe the other side.

Now isn't that just a little hypocritical?


Yeah, but you have to admit it is funny.

dwhite

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
Just how far back in the mists of time do we need to go to satisfy
everyone? European treatment of Amer-Indians and Africans was a horrid
moral abyss ... for which we *all* still pay the price. But Amer-Indian
treatment of each other was no picnic either. The point is that we can
only act morally in our *own* behavior.

Horrid it may have been, but it was not in any way unusual, save that they
were not always systematically exterminated or enslaved/absorbed, as was the
normal case. In that normal, we may include the Amerinds themselves, as
noted. Where are the Anasazi, the Mississippians or the Pueblo builders?

"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"?

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.

dwhite

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
However, Iraq is certainly not the only country in the Middle East that
has sponsored anti-Israeli terrorism. Most of the Arab world has done
that as well. And we are not attacking them.

Yet.

Do you think Al Queda is the only terrorist group that existed or ever
existed?

No, the Zionists preceded them.

It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and the
justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.

Bush had plans to go into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11.

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"?


Oil politics seems to be the biggest factor. Whoever controls the taps of
the Middle East and Caspian oil resources can pretty much control the world
economy.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:46:55 -0800, mp wrote:
It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and the
justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.

Bush had plans to go into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11.


Irrelavant. We also have plans to counter the Canadian invasion of
Montana. The nature of military planning is such that "What if
Lichtenstein invades Belgium" is a seriously considered question, no
matter now unlikely such a situation seems in real life.

Beware the Terror Legions of Andorra:

http://www.galactanet.com/comic/409.htm

You know those Canadians want Montana they want to create a world
monopoly of trout streams, so it's only a matter of time . . .

"mp" wrote in message
...
It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and the
justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.

Bush had plans to go into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11.

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"?


Oil politics seems to be the biggest factor. Whoever controls the taps of
the Middle East and Caspian oil resources can pretty much control the
world
economy.


So then it logically follows that since Bush was planning on invading
Afghanistan and Iraq, all he needed was an excuse. Therefore Bush was
behind 9/11, right?

dwhite

"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.

Oil politics seems to be the biggest factor. Whoever controls the taps of
the Middle East and Caspian oil resources can pretty much control the
world
economy.


So then it logically follows that since Bush was planning on invading
Afghanistan and Iraq, all he needed was an excuse. Therefore Bush was
behind 9/11, right?

I'll leave the 9/11 conspiracy theories to someone else. We do know,
however, that the tragedy of 9/11 was a gift to the Bush cabal.


From the Neocon bible:

Rebuilding America's Defenses,
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000

page 63
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary
change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

9/11 is just what they needed to fast-track their agenda. And as long as
they're in charge I doubt it'll stop with Iraq.

"Dan White" wrote in
:

"mp" wrote in message
...
It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and
the justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.

Bush had plans to go into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11.

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"?


Oil politics seems to be the biggest factor. Whoever controls the
taps of the Middle East and Caspian oil resources can pretty much
control the
world
economy.


So then it logically follows that since Bush was planning on invading
Afghanistan and Iraq, all he needed was an excuse. Therefore Bush was
behind 9/11, right?

I think you are having an off day, Dan ;-P

What would I consider acceptable evidence? Hmm. An official government
report. An official CIA report. A military intelligence report. A
report by an outside country; e.g. Interpol, the UN, etc. An article
describing specifics from a major news outlet. An online article
describing the evidence, from a site that is not a blog. Probably many
others.


How about the National Intelligence Council, which is described as the
CIA director's think tank. I've download and read part of the
referenced document and while it is heavy going, it makes good reading.

This article was in part the reason for my original question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan13.html

(As these links sometimes disappear after a time, I've copied the first
bit of the article)


Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next
generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report
released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA
director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground,
the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the
national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even,
under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the
jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever
home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new
report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and
includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the
119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground
for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part
of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests
the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in
the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a
magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only
circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden
rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as
an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected
radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the
Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle
East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening
its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of
progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and
resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world,
hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded
borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military
officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign
terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide
bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are
forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters
and other insurgents.

Charles Krug wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:46:55 -0800, mp wrote:

It seems clear that the policy to invade Iraq was set first, and the
justification was adapted later to suit the circumstances.

Bush had plans to go into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11.



Irrelavant. We also have plans to counter the Canadian invasion of
Montana. The nature of military planning is such that "What if
Lichtenstein invades Belgium" is a seriously considered question, no
matter now unlikely such a situation seems in real life.

Beware the Terror Legions of Andorra:

http://www.galactanet.com/comic/409.htm

You know those Canadians want Montana they want to create a world
monopoly of trout streams, so it's only a matter of time . . .

Damn, you mean you guys know about that? I guess we'll have to put our
tank back in the garage.

Participatory governments are the least stable, least efficient, but least
intrusive kind of government. So what's your point?


That destabilizing Iraq by invading it might not be in your own best
interests or in the interests of the rest of the world. As far as
threats go, N. Korea is arguably a bigger threat because we know they
have plutonium and the capability to reprocess it, and we know they have
ICBM capability, and we know they have sold the missiles (not with
warheads) to several countries, and we know that they will soon have a
deployable bomb if they don't already.

And yet the world is paying attention to Iraq, and the world's last
remaining big army is bogged down in Iraq.

Much of the world oil supply comes from that region. There have been a
rising number of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia already. With a
strong (but admittedly brutal) government gone in Iraq, it gives the
enemy a potential new base of operations across the gulf from the major
oil fields and ports. (Remember the enemy's goals)

I don't believe that you can 'jumpstart' a democracy in the kind of
environment you have in Iraq, at least not one that is favourable to the
US. I think you will be tied down in Iraq for many years, and in the
end another dictator, as bad as Saddam will be brought in, and all the
while, N. Korea will be making 8 A-bombs/year, or so I've heard.
(according to Professor Graham Allison of Harvard -the number may not be
accurate, who really knows.)

Some background on the N.Korea announcement is here.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/42084.htm

(I don't mean to get this fine thread off onto N. Korea but that is my
point, as you asked)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 22:03:26 GMT, Charles Krug
wrote:


Bush had plans to go into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11.


Irrelavant. We also have plans to counter the Canadian invasion of
Montana. The nature of military planning is such that "What if
Lichtenstein invades Belgium" is a seriously considered question, no
matter now unlikely such a situation seems in real life.

You're obfuscating: our military maintains a catalog of invasion
scenarios. That is *not* the same thing as "Bush had plans to go
into Afghanistan and Iraq well before 9/11," which was a political
decision rather than a military planning exercise. And there
was a lack of the latter for the Iraq invasion.

mp wrote:
Do you think Al Queda is the only terrorist group that existed or ever
existed?


No, the Zionists preceded them.


Translation: I never thought about the question, I don't know anything
about the question, so I'll just respond with a smart-a** drive by so it
doesn't look like I've been one-upped.

If you really care (which I doubt increasingly) take a look at the long
message I posted elsewhere in this thread.

Meanwhile, you're also eminently dispensable.

PLONK
--RC

Dan White wrote:
"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"?

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.

dwhite


You're wasting your time, Dan.
Nate is so deeply committed to his position that he warps the entire
world to 'support' it. Naturally in his view the administration and
those who agree with them are capable of any kind of perfidity,
stupidity, lie or underhanded act to further a policy whose motivations
cannot be in any sense pure.

What you're seeing is the perversion of politics in our age into a game
in which one's opponents cannot merely be wrong, but must be utterly
evil. (And yes, you can find exactly the same twisted thinking on the
other side of the political divide as well.)

It's tragic and it's going to cost this country dearly.

You'll note in this case he ignored all the evidence of groups which
attacked Americans directly because it contradicts his illusion.

There's simply no point arguing with him. He can't teach, he won't learn
and he just wastes your time.

(And for the record -- and the ideologues who might be listening -- I am
a long way from uncritically supporting the Bush II or any other
administration. But we can expect that statement to be ignored.)

--RC

Rob Mitchell wrote:

What would I consider acceptable evidence? Hmm. An official
government report. An official CIA report. A military intelligence
report. A report by an outside country; e.g. Interpol, the UN, etc.
An article describing specifics from a major news outlet. An online
article describing the evidence, from a site that is not a blog.
Probably many others.



How about the National Intelligence Council, which is described as the
CIA director's think tank. I've download and read part of the
referenced document and while it is heavy going, it makes good reading.

I hope you read more than the three references to Iraq buried deep in
the report.

The Washington Post article is a classic example of taking material out
of context and twisting it to try to prove a point.

Among other things, the reporter left out the part of the report about
how the veterans of Iraq would replace only some of the Afghani terrorists.

I'm glad you went to the original source, which is he

http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltre....html#contents

I'd strongly suggest reading it instead of the news story.

The title is "Mapping the Global Future" and it's significant that isn't
prominent in the news report.

I'll also note that the reporter rewrites history in some places in the
part of the story that isn't based on the report. For example while
Saddam Hussein had established himself as a secularist, he made a strong
turn to the Islamists in the last couple of years of his regime,
inviting many of them in. Nor was he ever completely adversee to working
with Islamists. See the recent Newsweek story for a good capsule history
of how we got into this mess.


This article was in part the reason for my original question.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan13.html

(As these links sometimes disappear after a time, I've copied the first
bit of the article)


Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next
generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report
released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA
director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground,
the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the
national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even,
under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the
jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever
home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new
report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and
includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the
119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground
for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part
of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests
the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in
the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a
magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only
circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden
rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as
an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected
radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the
Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle
East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening
its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of
progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and
resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world,
hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded
borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military
officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign
terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide
bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are
forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters
and other insurgents.

Rob Mitchell wrote:



Participatory governments are the least stable, least efficient, but
least
intrusive kind of government. So what's your point?


That destabilizing Iraq by invading it might not be in your own best
interests or in the interests of the rest of the world.

It's certainly something to think about seriously.

As far as threats go, N. Korea is arguably a bigger threat because we
know they
have plutonium and the capability to reprocess it, and we know they have
ICBM capability, and we know they have sold the missiles (not with
warheads) to several countries, and we know that they will soon have a
deployable bomb if they don't already.

N. Korea is a completely different sort of problem. For one thing there
was, until recently, hope that we could negotiate some sort of deal with
the Koreans. For another, nukes or not, North Korea holds a good
portion of South Korea hostage. For a third, well, the game isn't over yet.

And yet the world is paying attention to Iraq, and the world's last
remaining big army is bogged down in Iraq.

For the immediate future a big army isn't going to do much against the
North Koreans.

Much of the world oil supply comes from that region. There have been a
rising number of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia already.

Going back to the late 70s -- remember the attack on the Grand Mosque in
Mecca? The Saudis have been under pressure from extremists for decades
and it has gotten progressively worse as the problems in the Kingdom
have worsened -- notably as their ability to buy off the various
factions with oil money has decreased.

Saudi Arabia was obviously going to turn into a trouble spot long before
Iraq invaded Kuwait. (See if you can find a copy of the first edition
of "The Kingdom" to see how obvious that was.) It's worth noting that
Bin Laden's first target was not the United States, it was the Saudi
government.

With a strong (but admittedly brutal) government gone in Iraq, it gives the
enemy a potential new base of operations across the gulf from the major
oil fields and ports. (Remember the enemy's goals)

The 'enemy' already had a base of operations in Iraq. Hussein hated the
Saudis and was working actively to topple them (except in the mid-80s
when he was depending on support from them after he got in over his head
by attacking Iran). The material I posted earlier dealt only with
Iraqi-supported terrorists who attacked the US and American citizens.
The list of actions by Iraq against the Saudis is much longer.


I don't believe that you can 'jumpstart' a democracy in the kind of
environment you have in Iraq,

That's an understatement! If you mean Iraq as it is today. It's going to
be a long, slow, painful process and the outcome undoubtedly isn't going
to satisfy a lot of Americans. But most of the work is going to be done
by the Iraqis themselves. The elections and what has been happening
politically in Iraq since is the beginning.

at least not one that is favourable to the
US. I think you will be tied down in Iraq for many years, and in the
end another dictator, as bad as Saddam will be brought in,

We may well end up with another dictator. However that dictator is
extremely unlikely to be as bad an actor on the international stage as
Saddam was.

and all the
while, N. Korea will be making 8 A-bombs/year, or so I've heard.
(according to Professor Graham Allison of Harvard -the number may not be
accurate, who really knows.)

North Korea is going to have to be dealt with. We may have to do it
militarily. But even then we're not going to do it with an Iraq-style
invasion with US troops. For one thing it wouldn't be effective as
things stand now. For another thing, South Korea has an excellent
military and they are not at all adverse to forcefully unifying the
pennsuila under the right conditions.

We can hope it doesn't come to that, but the point is, North Korea is a
different situation from Iraq.

--RC

Some background on the N.Korea announcement is here.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/42084.htm

(I don't mean to get this fine thread off onto N. Korea but that is my
point, as you asked)

In article , Rob Mitchell wrote:

And yet the world is paying attention to Iraq, and the world's last
remaining big army is bogged down in Iraq.

What, the Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese are bogged down in Iraq? News to
me....

FYI, the United States does *not* have the largest army in the world. Not even
close, actually.

Active duty only:
China 2.3 million
U.S. 1.4 million

Active duty plus reserves:
North Korea 5.8 million
South Korea 5.2 million
Vietnam 3.5 million
China 2.9 million
U.S. 2.6 million

[Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2003, page 207]

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Rob Mitchell" wrote in message
...

I don't believe that you can 'jumpstart' a democracy in the kind of
environment you have in Iraq, at least not one that is favourable to the
US. I think you will be tied down in Iraq for many years, and in the
end another dictator, as bad as Saddam will be brought in, and all the
while, N. Korea will be making 8 A-bombs/year, or so I've heard.
(according to Professor Graham Allison of Harvard -the number may not be
accurate, who really knows.)


History may not support your guess. Look at Italy, Germany and Japan after
WW2. People said the exact same thing about those places, and look at them
now. I think we were in Japan for 7 years, and people said they were
basically unable to support a democracy. I don't see a reason for your
extremely negative spin on the potential outcome in Iraq other than sour
grapes. If some form of democracy and real peace comes out of Iraq the
skeptics will have nothing left to complain about. I'd say that so far Iraq
is on track. I don't know the final outcome, either, but I see no reason to
conclude that the effort is sure to fail. But, you are entitled to your
opinion of course.

dwhite

"Rick Cook" wrote in message
...

There's simply no point arguing with him. He can't teach, he won't learn
and he just wastes your time.


I know, I said the same thing myself a week ago. Your post on terrorist
activity in Iraq was good, and provided everything a reasonable observer
would want to see. Couple this with the 12 year cease fire, violation of
every resolution, and it is plain we had to act. People also forget that it
also became necessary to force the UN's hand. Bush was right when he said
that the UN will become irrelevant if it cannot enforce its own resolutions.
Funny as it sounds, Bush probably helped save the UN by following through on
its "threats."

dwhite

I know, I said the same thing myself a week ago. Your post on terrorist
activity in Iraq was good, and provided everything a reasonable observer
would want to see. Couple this with the 12 year cease fire, violation of
every resolution, and it is plain we had to act.

Enforcement of UN resolutions is up to the Security Council, not the US. If
you want to play UN cop, then there are other countries in the neighbourhood
that are in violation of many more UN resolutions, like Israel and Turkey. I
don't see them on the attack list.

People also forget that it
also became necessary to force the UN's hand. Bush was right when he said
that the UN will become irrelevant if it cannot enforce its own
resolutions.

How hypocritical can you be? Israel is the worst violator of UN resolutions
in the world.

Funny as it sounds, Bush probably helped save the UN by following through
on
its "threats."

The weapons inspections were working, and Blix was almost finished. There
was no need to rush in. What Bush did is create a record level of
anti-American sentiment not just in the middle east but throughout the
world. There will be blowback for years to come.

Do you think Al Queda is the only terrorist group that existed or ever
existed?


No, the Zionists preceded them.
Translation: I never thought about the question, I don't know anything
about the question, so I'll just respond with a smart-a** drive by so it
doesn't look like I've been one-upped.

It was a fair answer to a rather silly question.

In article , "mp" wrote:

Israel is the worst violator of UN resolutions in the world.

How about supplying some examples?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article , "mp" wrote:
The weapons inspections were working, and Blix was almost finished. There
was no need to rush in. What Bush did is create a record level of
anti-American sentiment not just in the middle east but throughout the
world. There will be blowback for years to come.

You're either very young, or very naive, if you believe that there was not
already substantial anti-American sentiment in the middle east and throughout
the world before Bush ever took office.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:48:06 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "mp" wrote:
The weapons inspections were working, and Blix was almost finished. There
was no need to rush in. What Bush did is create a record level of
anti-American sentiment not just in the middle east but throughout the
world. There will be blowback for years to come.

You're either very young, or very naive, if you believe that there was not
already substantial anti-American sentiment in the middle east and throughout
the world before Bush ever took office.

Apparently MP feels that inspectors being kept out for a decade, and then
led around on a short leash, qualifies as "were working".

Give me ten minutes to hide a 20 dollar bill in my office. I'll give
you one minute to find it. If you can't find it, then it's not there.
Nobody would agree to that, yet that's exactly what they say is true in
Iraq. And Iraq is a hell of a lot bigger than my office.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:48:06 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "mp" wrote:
The weapons inspections were working, and Blix was almost finished. There
was no need to rush in. What Bush did is create a record level of
anti-American sentiment not just in the middle east but throughout the
world. There will be blowback for years to come.

You're either very young, or very naive, if you believe that there was not
already substantial anti-American sentiment in the middle east and
throughout the world before Bush ever took office.

I see it didn't take long for the Ward Churchill "blowback" rhetoric to be
picked up.

- Doug


--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)