"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in
:


"Nate Perkins"


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.


How much oil do we need to buy before you consider it cultivating
economic development? And wasn't Iraq sanctioned by the UN for
10 years or more? That seems like a big incentive to me.

Sure, the developed world buys lots of oil from the Middle East. But
the wealth created by the oil goes to relatively few, and lots of it
goes to buy arms. Unemployment is high, the workforce is largely
uneducated, and the sustainable industry is nearly nonexistent through
much of the Middle East. The entire Middle East has not joined the
globalized economy, and that increases the volatility of the entire
region and creates a division between the globalized economies and the
Middle East.

Here's a study and plan on the topic by Sen Richard Lugar, a prominent
Republican senator from Indiana:

http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=219740

I agree with most of what he has to say on this topic. I think if the
neoconservatives started thinking about a more comprehensive approach,
such as the one advocated by Lugar, then our chances of success would be
much greater.

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.

Is that what the Saudis want? Aren't we protecting them from
a hostile take over?

Our bases in Saudi Arabia are to give us a strategic base in the Persian
Gulf.

I don't see by what reasoning do you believe our airbases in Arabia are
protecting the Saudi government, particularly against Wahhabi
revolutionary forces.

And how are our strategic needs diminished if the bases are in Bahrain
or Qatar instead of in Arabia?


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.


Nonsense. Arafat had 95 percent of what he asked for. He wanted
the elimination of Israel, not co-operation. Even with Israel gone we
would still have terrorists because the extremists hate western
culture, what our freedoms have introduced into the world.

Sure, you'd still have some terrorists. You'd just have fewer of them.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been screwing up political
stability in the Middle East for decades. That has consequences for our
security, especially when we are seen through most of the Middle East as
being primarily sympathetic to Israeli causes.


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.

Hindsight is 20/20 but I think they got the hint.

Do you think homeland security has really improved all that much? I
would like to think they have, but the FBI and CIA are still under
separate leadership, and Homeland Security seems to have done little of
real practical significance. Our borders are still as porous as ever,
our freight containers are still not inspected, obvious targets like
chemical plants are still poorly protected, etc etc. Seems to me like
we ought to be doing better.


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.

Not true. They had quite a bit of training and support from entities
that are out of business or on the run.

The point is that the Pentagon now numbers the insurgency in Iraq in the
tens of thousands and growing. And 9/11 was conducted by relatively few
attackers. So it is not a question of fighting them there or here ...
if we are unfortunate it could be both.


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?

I didn't see any solutions from you except spend money in the mideast
and turn support away from Israel. I don't think you understand what
they want. The extremist don't want to live peacefully with the west
and they'll keep the moderates from it if they can.

It's a long range war and (particularly given our current committment
and previous actions) you can't just wave a wand and make it all better.

But you have to start to do things that increase your odds of success by
using economic and political tools as well as military tools. It's a
lot easier to steer a country to democracy over time by investing in
industry that promotes mutually profitable trade, employment, and
stability than it is to try to rapidly democratize a country at the
point of a gun.

What world to you live in, honestly??? People with your position are the
same ones who usually ask why we didn't/don't go into N. Korea or Iran
since
we went into Iraq. The answer is that there is a need for extensive
diplomacy until that step is taken. Iraq's number was up, diplomancy had
been exhausted, and the UN was becoming more and more corrupt to the point
of complete uselessness.

I think you're thoroughly confused, or doing your best to confuse the issue.
You're making an assumption about my thoughts on North Korea or Iran which
is really irrelevant to this discussion. What I wrote in the previous
message is still true. Most of the world was trying to tell Bush to slow
down and give diplomacy a chance but Bush was hell bent for war and would
have none of it. You're trying to suggest there's a need for extensive
diplomacy, while at the same time trying to suggest that diplomacy has been
exhausted.

What criteria do you use to determine Iraq's number is up. Tarot cards? Roll
of the dice? Given that the weapons inspectors were almost finished and only
needed another six to eight weeks to complete their work don't you think it
would have been prudent to let them finish their job? Since no one had yet
to find any evidence of WMD's, which meant no threat, why the mad rush?

"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. 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.


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 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?

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.


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."

dwhite

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...

And how are our strategic needs diminished if the bases are in Bahrain
or Qatar instead of in Arabia?


Ain't Arabia where the oil is at? Seems like a good place to keep some
weapons for protection.

dwhite

Come on Nate. You came up with the phrase "blowback" all on your own?
That ranks right up there with "gravitas" and "hubris" just to name a
couple other meaningless terms churned out by the DNC and picked up by
every major news correspondent.

I'm not Nate and have never suggested I invented the term. To quote Chalmers
Johnson "The term 'blowback,' which the officials of the Central
Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, ..... refers
to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the
American people".

These days the term has been popularized but it's basic meaning is still the
same, and it's a fair descriptor of the political direction that Iraq is
heading towards.

Dave Hinz wrote in
:

On 15 Feb 2005 13:19:24 -0800,
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "mp"
wrote:
That's because Bush doesn't see everything in black and white as
you are
doing here. He is working diplomatically as much as possible.

You have a short memory. As you don't seem to recall, Bush was hell
bent on
charging into Iraq, while the rest of the world was saying let's
give
diplomacy a chance.

What, *twelve*years* isn't enough of a chance?

To be accurate, diplomacy was successful. Iraq had been
disarmed befor the US invaded.

Riiiiiight. Tell you what, Fred. Give me 20 bucks, and 12 minutes
to hide it. Then, come into my office, and I'll give you a minute
to find it. If you can't, then it's not there, right?

You've said this twice now, Dave. One might read your comments as
implying that the WMDs were there, but were hidden. But remember,
despite years of searching by hundreds (thousands?) of men, they have
still not been found. And the two men who were appointed by the
President to conduct the investigations have both concluded that they
just were not there. So I suppose you could postulate more complicated
explanations for why they have never been found, but you would be on
pretty hypothetical ground.

What the US did with Iraq was to demand that they disclose the location
of WMDs that they did not have. And when they claimed they did not have
them, we of course accused them of lying and demanded proof that they
were not hiding them. Iraq found it hard to prove the negative.


If you want to prove me wrong, just show me the WMDs that
Iraq did not declare to UNMOVIC.

I suppose you don't acknowledge the sarin shell that injured
our guys who were disarming it, right? I mean, it only had
enough sarin in it to kill a few thousand, so it doesn't count
and all?

Enough to kill a few thousand? I don't think so. It's just a dud shell
from the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war:

http://tinyurl.com/29op7
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0521/p09s01-coop.html

Hardly the "mushroom cloud" that was often mentioned.

"mp" wrote in message
...
What world to you live in, honestly??? People with your position are
the
same ones who usually ask why we didn't/don't go into N. Korea or Iran
since
we went into Iraq. The answer is that there is a need for extensive
diplomacy until that step is taken. Iraq's number was up, diplomancy
had
been exhausted, and the UN was becoming more and more corrupt to the
point
of complete uselessness.

I think you're thoroughly confused, or doing your best to confuse the
issue.
You're making an assumption about my thoughts on North Korea or Iran which
is really irrelevant to this discussion. What I wrote in the previous
message is still true.

Actually you're not reading what I wrote. I said "people with your
position," and "usually." I didn't try to state your position on anything.

Most of the world was trying to tell Bush to slow
down and give diplomacy a chance but Bush was hell bent for war and would
have none of it. You're trying to suggest there's a need for extensive
diplomacy, while at the same time trying to suggest that diplomacy has
been
exhausted.

What criteria do you use to determine Iraq's number is up. Tarot cards?
Roll
of the dice? Given that the weapons inspectors were almost finished and
only
needed another six to eight weeks to complete their work don't you think
it
would have been prudent to let them finish their job? Since no one had yet
to find any evidence of WMD's, which meant no threat, why the mad rush?


Forget it. 12 years of diplomacy. 17 UN resolutions, ALL ignored.
Missiles fired at our patrol aircraft, there to enforce a cease fire. Iraqi
nuclear physicists keeping plans for nuclear weapons hidden in their homes.

"Most of the world" isn't correct. There were dozens of countries with us.
The only major ones against us are being proven now to be corrupt.

Look, just characterize things however you want. Frankly my guess, and it
is only that based on experience, is that we wouldn't be having this
discussion if Al Gore had won and taken the exact same measures Bush did.
Intellectual honesty is a rare thing in an emotion based political
philosophy.

dwhite

Mark & Juanita wrote in
news
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:36:09 -0800, "mp" wrote:

Iraq is on track all right, to becoming a theocracy. With a 60%
Shiite majority it's a very real and very likely possibility.
Probably not at all what GW and his warlords had in mind. Can you
say blowback?


You know mp, you become even less credible when you pick up and
start
echoing talking points. Especially talking points with very little
semantic meaning.

Please spare me the bit about talking points as I don't follow any
party lines nor do I care what they have to say on the matter.

It's well known that the Shiite majority wants an Islamic state and
they'll likely get it unless a third party runs political
interference.


Come on Nate. You came up with the phrase "blowback" all on your
own?
That ranks right up there with "gravitas" and "hubris" just to name a
couple other meaningless terms churned out by the DNC and picked up by
every major news correspondent.


I think you are misattributing the quote. I did not write anything
about blowback.

p.s. If you are going to be condescending, you might want to at least
pick the right target.

"Dan White" wrote in
:

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

"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."

"Plain we had to act" ... "violation of every resolution" ... "had to
force
the UN's hand". Yeah, sure. You conveniently forget that all of
those claims for urgency of action, violation of resolutions, and
need to force the UN hand were all because Iraq didn't disclose its
WMD programs to our satisfaction.

Of course the tragic joke is that we now know that it had no WMD
programs to disclose.

Frankly, and I've said this in the past, I never cared whether they
had WMD's locked and loaded or not -- as far as justifying action is
concerned. WMD's were never stated to be an imminent threat -- that
was something the dems like to ascribe to Bush. He said they were a
"gathering threat" and they certainly were. I'm sure even you
wouldn't disagree with the scientists who attest to the fact that
Saddam had the intent to restart his nuclear program as soon as he
could. There was plenty of justification of taking out this loose
cannon, but I'm not going to 'splain it again!

Right, you and about 25% of the country would have gone along with the
plan had it been known there were no WMDs.

"Imminent threat." "Gathering threat." "Mushroom cloud." In my
opinion, that's hairsplitting. In the wake of 9/11, when the President
was talking mushroom clouds, the implication to a scared population was
pretty obvious. Without that implication, the country would not have
committed troops to Iraq. Certainly, we would not have committed them
if the purpose was only to embark on a vague mission to "spread
democracy and freedom."

As for Saddam's hypothesized intent, nobody can say for sure. Certainly
he was a bad apple. Equally certainly, he destroyed and dismantled his
WMD efforts after the first Gulf War and did not restart them. (Duelfer
report). He was economically and militarily contained by most any
measure.

I also don't believe we can say there were no WMD's so confidently.
The evidence showed they were hiding something, and God knows we
telegraphed our punch for months and months.

This is surprising to me. Given the preponderance of evidence on the
WMD question, why would you continue to doubt the conclusion of every
group that has reported on it? Why would the President's own handpicked
lead inspectors (both of them) report the conclusion that there were no
significant WMD programs?

Of course nothing can ever be 100.00% certain, but there reaches a point
at which alternatives become exceedingly unlikely.

Forget it. 12 years of diplomacy. 17 UN resolutions, ALL ignored.

Not true. Iraq did cooperate to a fair degree. There were some
disagreements, such as Saddam objecting to CIA spies as part of the US
portion of the inspection teams.

Missiles fired at our patrol aircraft, there to enforce a cease fire.
Iraqi
nuclear physicists keeping plans for nuclear weapons hidden in their
homes.

The "no fly zone" was imposed by the US and Britain, and not sanctioned by
the UN. The Iraqi's had every right to defend their sovereignty and fire at
the aircraft.

Iraqi nuclear physicists keeping plans for nuclear weapons hidden in their
homes.

The plans were for centrifuges, not nuclear weapons.

"Most of the world" isn't correct. There were dozens of countries with
us.
The only major ones against us are being proven now to be corrupt.

Bull. Most of the countries were smaller nations who depended heavily on US
aid. Some countries, like Eritrea, didn't even know they were part of the
"coaltion" until they were contacted by the media.

Look, just characterize things however you want. Frankly my guess, and it
is only that based on experience, is that we wouldn't be having this
discussion if Al Gore had won and taken the exact same measures Bush did.
Intellectual honesty is a rare thing in an emotion based political
philosophy.

This discussion has nothing to do with party lines but is all about US
foreign policy.

"mp" wrote in message
...
Forget it. 12 years of diplomacy. 17 UN resolutions, ALL ignored.

Not true. Iraq did cooperate to a fair degree. There were some
disagreements, such as Saddam objecting to CIA spies as part of the US
portion of the inspection teams.

Fair degree is good enough for you? It has been said that is it obvious
when a country wants to cooperate with inspections. Well, obvious to people
who want to see the truth.


Missiles fired at our patrol aircraft, there to enforce a cease fire.
Iraqi
nuclear physicists keeping plans for nuclear weapons hidden in their
homes.

The "no fly zone" was imposed by the US and Britain, and not sanctioned by
the UN. The Iraqi's had every right to defend their sovereignty and fire
at
the aircraft.

Do the Iraqi's have every right to murder their own population? Do you know
why the no fly zone was there? I'm astounded that you actually think Iraq
was doing the right things and bad ole USA messes everything up. Forgive
me, but I'm beginning to think you are trolling now.


Iraqi nuclear physicists keeping plans for nuclear weapons hidden in
their
homes.

The plans were for centrifuges, not nuclear weapons.

Uh, go read "The Bomb in My Garden." Apparently you haven't heard of it.
You can google it.


"Most of the world" isn't correct. There were dozens of countries with
us.
The only major ones against us are being proven now to be corrupt.

Bull. Most of the countries were smaller nations who depended heavily on
US
aid. Some countries, like Eritrea, didn't even know they were part of the
"coaltion" until they were contacted by the media.

So if France, Germany and Russia were with us would that have been
sufficient for you? Why weren't they with us I wonder? (Hint: follow the
money).

dwhite

"Dan White" wrote in
:

Look, just characterize things however you want. Frankly my guess,
and it is only that based on experience, is that we wouldn't be having
this discussion if Al Gore had won and taken the exact same measures
Bush did. Intellectual honesty is a rare thing in an emotion based
political philosophy.

Honestly, if Al Gore had pursued the fiscal and foreign policies of George
Bush, I would be a dedicated Republican right now.

"Dan White" wrote in
:

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

If you know anything about Pat Buchanan you would know this has
nothing to do with conservatives in general. Buchanan ran as a
third party candidate, remember? He is extremely protectionist,
and just about nothing would satisfy him.

Precisely, the policies of the Bush camp and of the neoconservatives
(is that the PC term?) are not representative of conservatives in
general. It isn't hard to find quite a few conservatives expressing
reservations toward or opposition to the war.

Are we to believe that all of these conservatives are just "putting
forth an extremely negative spin" that "must be sour grapes?"

"All these conservatives"? Politics 101 says that Repubs are strong
on defense, and Dems are weak on it. There's nothing "neo" about
taking action to defend ourselves even if it isn't PC with countries
that are either corrupt or have a different agenda from ours.

Stereotype. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam all under Democratic presidents.
Cuban Missile Crisis successfully managed by Democratic president.
Wanting to spend lots of money on big defense budgets (as Republicans
are wont to do) does not make a president strong on defense.

Yes, there is nothing neo about defending our country. Everyone, on
both sides, wants to defend our country. Conservatives don't get to
claim exclusivity on that score. There are just different approaches
for doing it most effectively. And it isn't necessary to be PC, but if
we are going to buck world opinion then our credibility and
respectability are enhanced if we are right.

Neoconservatives are quite different from traditional conservatives.
Traditional conservatives believed in fiscal moderation, small
government, and a strong defense but nonaggressive posture. Neocons
believe in the subordination of fiscal discipline to the ideology of tax
cuts and supply side economics. Neocons believe in growing/expanding
government as necessary and in diminishing the power of the states where
state law conflicts with social conservatism. And neocons believe in
the preemptive use of military force to spread American ideals.

Check out the Project for the New American Century.

Pick another example. Buchanan is off the far end of the spectrum
when it comes to protectionism.

Chuck Hagel. John McCain. Richard Lugar. Howard Coble (R-NC). Jim
Leach (R-IA). Brent Scowcroft. Darned near anything out of the Cato
Institute.

William F. Buckley Jr. (in the NY Times): "With the benefit of minute
hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace
that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what
I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have
opposed the war."

George Will: "Who lost his or her job because the president's 2003
State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud - the story of
Iraq's attempting to buy uranium in Niger?" Will asks. "Or because the
primary and only sufficient reason for waging preemptive war - weapons
of mass destruction - was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning,
from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient
force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of
choices for which no one seems accountable."

Tucker Carlson (in the New York Observer): "I think it’s a total
nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own
instincts in supporting it. It’s something I’ll never do again. Never.
I got convinced by a friend of mine who’s smarter than I am, and I
shouldn’t have done that. No. I want things to work out, but I’m enraged
by it, actually."

Other conservatives expressing opposition to the war from the start
included (in addition to Buchanan) Ron Paul, Bob Novak, and Don Devine.

"Dan White" wrote in news:GOAQd.4304$1J1.3682
@fe11.lga:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...
Rob Mitchell wrote in
:

I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, too naive etc, but diplomacy does
work sometimes. The alternative is more violence, killing and hatred.

I think it works frequently. The US has a lot of tools to influence
oppressive regimes -- economic, diplomatic, political, military. Too
often lately, we rely on the military option alone.

Name one modern instance where war was used before diplomacy was tried.

Real diplomacy or window-dressing diplomacy?

"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
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.

Maybe so, but on the other hand, it may discourage some countries or
individuals from actively pursuing that anti-American sentiment for
fear
of
being attacked by the USA.


Exactly. That part of the world is ruled by whoever has the biggest
stick. They do not respect weakness (aka diplomacy when there is
nothing to back up the diplomacy).


No, what they do is race to get a big stick themselves. Just look at how
fast North Korea and Iran are moving to get nukes.

"Dan White" wrote in news:97BQd.4307$xR1.2471
@fe11.lga:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...

And how are our strategic needs diminished if the bases are in Bahrain
or Qatar instead of in Arabia?


Ain't Arabia where the oil is at? Seems like a good place to keep some
weapons for protection.

Protection from whom? What difference does it make if they are in Arabia
or a couple hundred miles away in Bahrain or Qatar?

"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.

Nate Perkins wrote:
....
As for Saddam's hypothesized intent, nobody can say for sure. Certainly
he was a bad apple. Equally certainly, he destroyed and dismantled his
WMD efforts after the first Gulf War and did not restart them. (Duelfer
report). He was economically and militarily contained by most any
measure.
....

I've resisted getting into this but...

One thing in this whole thread I've not seen mentioned wrt to WMD is
that there appears to be a likelihood that Saddam may not actually known
that he didn't have the WMDs he may have thought he had...that the
extent of compliance was more than his advisors would admit to him.

That he had previously had and used them extensively is
indisputable--that he was still harboring them and plans and making
blustering noises was certainly also true. Whether he could do anything
w/ them to us on a mass scale was debatable although a few Sarin
capsules slipped to a group of 19 in the NYC subways could be a
considerable upset in ones' day if one happened to be one of those
there...

Blix certainly wasn't satisfied w/ cooperation as I read his last report
to the UN although he would have preferred stringing it out (perhaps
indefinitely, perhaps not). Whether at any point the other Big Three
would have acquiesced in actual action is difficult to assume unless the
oil money kickbacks were to have been uncovered publicly to embarrass
them--whether that would have become evident w/ Hussein still in power
is also imponderable.

So, all in all, it seemed to me based on everything that was available
at the time there was a reasonable likelihood he did have the capability
(or at least thought he did). In the end I suspect his own belief that
there was no way the US would actually take preemptive action did him
in--he bluffed on hand too long and lost.

Personally, while I would have preferred to have avoided the precipitate
action, in the long run it well may end up being a good thing(TM).
Being fairly pragmatic in that all the "Monday morning quarterbacking"
can't change the outcome of the game, I think we simply have to do what
we can to get a reasonable outcome from where we are.

Nate Perkins wrote:
....
As for Saddam's hypothesized intent, nobody can say for sure. Certainly
he was a bad apple. Equally certainly, he destroyed and dismantled his
WMD efforts after the first Gulf War and did not restart them. (Duelfer
report). He was economically and militarily contained by most any
measure.
....

I've resisted getting into this but...

One thing in this whole thread I've not seen mentioned wrt to WMD is
that there appears to be a likelihood that Saddam may not actually known
that he didn't have the WMDs he may have thought he had...that the
extent of compliance was more than his advisors would admit to him.

That he had previously had and used them extensively is
indisputable--that he was still harboring them and plans and making
blustering noises was certainly also true. Whether he could do anything
w/ them to us on a mass scale was debatable although a few Sarin
capsules slipped to a group of 19 in the NYC subways could be a
considerable upset in ones' day if one happened to be one of those
there...

Blix certainly wasn't completely satisfied w/ cooperation as I read his
last report to the UN although he would have preferred stringing it out
(perhaps indefinitely, perhaps not). Whether at any point the other Big
Three would have acquiesced in actual action is difficult to assume
unless the oil money kickbacks were to have been uncovered publicly to
embarrass them--whether that would have become evident w/ Hussein still
in power is also imponderable.

So, all in all, it seemed to me based on everything that was available
at the time there was a reasonable likelihood he did have the capability
(or at least thought he did). In the end I suspect his own belief that
there was no way the US would actually take preemptive action did him
in--he bluffed one hand too long and lost.

Personally, while I would have preferred to have avoided the precipitate
action, in the long run it well may end up being a good thing(TM).
Being fairly pragmatic in that all the "Monday morning quarterbacking"
can't change the outcome of the game, I think we simply have to do what
we can to get a reasonable outcome from where we are.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

Being fairly pragmatic in that all the "Monday morning quarterbacking"
can't change the outcome of the game, I think we simply have to do what
we can to get a reasonable outcome from where we are.

Thing is, you're just way too damn sensible and logical with remarks like
that ... neither of which comes into play on the issues.

The question is, just how many times does this have to be said before the
hand-wringing stops? My guess, based on what you see here, is as long as
folks can't think past the ends of their own political noses, this same
point can, and will be made, ad infinitum, with no impact whatsoever.

Regardless of who gets the historical shaft/blame/credit/whatever, we damn
well better "... do what we can to get a reasonable outcome from where we
are."

If we can manage to quit the political hand-wringing and agendizing, and
focus on that, we may just make it.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Fair degree is good enough for you? It has been said that is it obvious
when a country wants to cooperate with inspections. Well, obvious to
people
who want to see the truth.

No one said the Iraqis were willing participants. But when push came to
shove, they complied. There was no need to go in and blow up the country.

The "no fly zone" was imposed by the US and Britain, and not sanctioned
by
the UN. The Iraqi's had every right to defend their sovereignty and fire
at
the aircraft.

Do the Iraqi's have every right to murder their own population?

Red herring.

Do you know
why the no fly zone was there?

Yes.

I'm astounded that you actually think Iraq
was doing the right things and bad ole USA messes everything up. Forgive
me, but I'm beginning to think you are trolling now.

In this case, the no fly zone, as I said, was imposed on Iraq by the US and
Britain. It was not legally sanctioned by the UN. Neither was the invasion.
Both were in violation of international law.

So if France, Germany and Russia were with us would that have been
sufficient for you? Why weren't they with us I wonder? (Hint: follow the
money).

Most of the world was against the invasion because they thought the case
against Iraq's supposed WMD's was bull****. It turns out they were right.

If there was compelling evidence that Saddam was in possession of WMD's and
was planning to use them against the US, there would have been widespread
support for the for invasion, both internationally as well as in the UN
Security Council.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:38:59 -0600, Duane Bozarth

wrote:
...

I've resisted getting into this but...

One thing in this whole thread I've not seen mentioned wrt to WMD is
that there appears to be a likelihood that Saddam may not actually known
that he didn't have the WMDs he may have thought he had...that the
extent of compliance was more than his advisors would admit to him.


"Everyone knew" he had them. US Presidents from Bush to Bush, Most of
Europe, certainly the Russians.

I'd wager that Israel might know better than anyone else, but I don't
think they've told anyone what they know yet.

Whenever we debriefed an officer, they invariably said, "My unit didn't
have any, but We Knew that there were Republican Guard units that DID
have them."

I've not heard that SH has said whether HE thought he had them or
whether he was deceiving his own commanders as well.

There are plenty of substantive reasons against intervention in Any
foreign country, and Iraq in particular, without needing to resort to
the myth of perfect intelligence.

But of course we're there Now and have to deal with the reality on the
ground, not the mythical Perfection of some "Plan" that was never even
proposed.

Charles Krug wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:38:59 -0600, Duane Bozarth

wrote:
...

I've resisted getting into this but...

One thing in this whole thread I've not seen mentioned wrt to WMD
is
that there appears to be a likelihood that Saddam may not actually
known
that he didn't have the WMDs he may have thought he had...that
the
extent of compliance was more than his advisors would admit to him.


"Everyone knew" he had them. US Presidents from Bush to Bush, Most
of
Europe, certainly the Russians.

Not everybody. UNMOVIC was well on its way to concluding that he
did NOT have them, just like IAEA did IRT a nuclear weapons program.
The US first obstructed UNMOVIC by supplying false information like
the US did to IAEA, and then invaded befor UNMOVIC was able to
complete the taks the US had demanded it perform.

--

FF

Not everybody. UNMOVIC was well on its way to concluding that he
did NOT have them, just like IAEA did IRT a nuclear weapons program.
The US first obstructed UNMOVIC by supplying false information like
the US did to IAEA, and then invaded befor UNMOVIC was able to
complete the taks the US had demanded it perform.


That's a skewed perspective. A timeline was given after
10 years of Saddam's nonsense, including his removal
of power. Dragging it out until UN inspectors were satisfied
wouldn't make much sense since a decade had already
gone by and an Army can't be held at bay indefinitely and
there was a weather factor to deal with. I would agree that
the UN member nations could have solved the problem
but they had their own interests at heart.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
5.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
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.

Maybe so, but on the other hand, it may discourage some countries or
individuals from actively pursuing that anti-American sentiment for
fear
of
being attacked by the USA.


Exactly. That part of the world is ruled by whoever has the biggest
stick. They do not respect weakness (aka diplomacy when there is
nothing to back up the diplomacy).


No, what they do is race to get a big stick themselves. Just look at how
fast North Korea and Iran are moving to get nukes.

Were we right to invade Afghanistan?

dwhite

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:22:17 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

.... snip

Come on Nate. You came up with the phrase "blowback" all on your
own?
That ranks right up there with "gravitas" and "hubris" just to name a
couple other meaningless terms churned out by the DNC and picked up by
every major news correspondent.


I think you are misattributing the quote. I did not write anything
about blowback.

p.s. If you are going to be condescending, you might want to at least
pick the right target.


Yes Nate, you're right, I got the wrong name in the comment above, it
should have been mp. However, at this point in the thread you two are
pretty much interchangeable.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:22:17 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

... snip

Come on Nate. You came up with the phrase "blowback" all on your
own?
That ranks right up there with "gravitas" and "hubris" just to name
a couple other meaningless terms churned out by the DNC and picked
up by every major news correspondent.


I think you are misattributing the quote. I did not write anything
about blowback.

p.s. If you are going to be condescending, you might want to at least
pick the right target.


Yes Nate, you're right, I got the wrong name in the comment above,
it
should have been mp. However, at this point in the thread you two are
pretty much interchangeable.

I suppose you are right, Doug ... er, Fletis ... um, I mean Mark.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in news:1117j2927qgc938
@corp.supernews.com:





Not everybody. UNMOVIC was well on its way to concluding that he
did NOT have them, just like IAEA did IRT a nuclear weapons program.
The US first obstructed UNMOVIC by supplying false information like
the US did to IAEA, and then invaded befor UNMOVIC was able to
complete the taks the US had demanded it perform.


That's a skewed perspective. A timeline was given after
10 years of Saddam's nonsense, including his removal
of power. Dragging it out until UN inspectors were satisfied
wouldn't make much sense since a decade had already
gone by and an Army can't be held at bay indefinitely and
there was a weather factor to deal with. I would agree that
the UN member nations could have solved the problem
but they had their own interests at heart.

Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us accusing
Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that the
Iraqis prove a negative.

It finally came down to the fact that we went to war because we damned
well wanted to go to war. And we were intent to do the tough talk, and
ratchet up the confrontation until we got our war.

Not everybody agreed. Our own allies disagreed. The UN wouldn't pass a
second resolution. There were millions of protesters around the world
taking to the streets. It didn't matter, Bush had it in his head that
he was going to push his New American Century.

Now we've got our war, and the question is whether or not it is going as
we expected. It's all fine to spout the prose about spreading freedom
and democracy, but there also needs to be substance behind the rhetoric.
Is anyone learning from the mistakes, or adapting the plan?

"Dan White" wrote in
:


"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
5.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Upscale" wrote in message
...
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.

Maybe so, but on the other hand, it may discourage some countries
or individuals from actively pursuing that anti-American sentiment
for fear
of
being attacked by the USA.


Exactly. That part of the world is ruled by whoever has the
biggest stick. They do not respect weakness (aka diplomacy when
there is nothing to back up the diplomacy).


No, what they do is race to get a big stick themselves. Just look at
how fast North Korea and Iran are moving to get nukes.

Were we right to invade Afghanistan?

Of course. The Taliban directly sponsored Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda was
responsible for 9/11. Do you honestly believe that any president would
not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11?

The invasion of Afghanistan was a necessary step to retaliate against an
attack on American soil, and to stamp out a state-sponsored haven for
Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, against a country that was
effectively contained, had no WMDs, was nominally cooperating with
inspections. Saddam's secular dictatorship was antithetical to Islamic
fundamentalism, and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists were not operating
significantly in Iraq until we toppled Saddam's regime.

Those of us in the opposition are not saying the US shouldn't defend
itself. On the contrary, we believe in a strong America every bit as
much as you do. The difference is that we believe that our recent
actions are ill-conceived and that they weaken the US in the long run.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:42:19 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in news:1117j2927qgc938
:


That's a skewed perspective. A timeline was given after
10 years of Saddam's nonsense, including his removal
of power. Dragging it out until UN inspectors were satisfied
wouldn't make much sense since a decade had already
gone by and an Army can't be held at bay indefinitely and
there was a weather factor to deal with. I would agree that
the UN member nations could have solved the problem
but they had their own interests at heart.

Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us accusing
Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that the
Iraqis prove a negative.

Not true. We knew Saddam had WMD's. What we didn't know is "when did
he get rid of them". We will find his WMD's when we invade Syria.

You do know that numerous 18 wheelers were sent to Syria during our 14
months of negotiating wiht Saddam before the invasion, right?


It finally came down to the fact that we went to war because we damned
well wanted to go to war. And we were intent to do the tough talk, and
ratchet up the confrontation until we got our war.

Not even close. Saddam told the world he would not agree to the terms
of surrender he signed in 1991. For 14 months the US attempted to get
him to comply.


Not everybody agreed. Our own allies disagreed. The UN wouldn't pass a
second resolution.

France opposed the resolution, so Bush withdrew it. According to UN
1441, it wasn't needed anyway. I'll assume you wish to defend France's
actions.

Here's a good timeline:
http://www.news10.net/news-special/w...q-timeline.htm

There were millions of protesters around the world
taking to the streets. It didn't matter, Bush had it in his head that
he was going to push his New American Century.

Millions? Is that the same as the million mom march? {200,000 = 1
million, according to liberals}


Now we've got our war, and the question is whether or not it is going as
we expected.

No war has ever gone "as expected". That is NOT the question.

It's all fine to spout the prose about spreading freedom
and democracy, but there also needs to be substance behind the rhetoric.
Is anyone learning from the mistakes, or adapting the plan?


Well, there are a lot of democrats that seem unhappy about the spread
of freedom in Iraq.

And the "plan" is being modified on a daily basis, depending on the
situation. That is standard procedure in any war or mop-up operation.

Mike Smith

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:25:51 GMT, Mike Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:42:19 GMT, Nate Perkins
wrote:


Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us accusing
Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that the
Iraqis prove a negative.

Not true. We knew Saddam had WMD's. What we didn't know is "when did
he get rid of them". We will find his WMD's when we invade Syria.

_IF_ he got rid of them. A dozen years is a long time, and Iraq is
a very large place.

Nate Perkins wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in news:1117j2927qgc938
@corp.supernews.com:





Not everybody. UNMOVIC was well on its way to concluding that he
did NOT have them, just like IAEA did IRT a nuclear weapons
program.
The US first obstructed UNMOVIC by supplying false information
like
the US did to IAEA, and then invaded befor UNMOVIC was able to
complete the taks the US had demanded it perform.


That's a skewed perspective. A timeline was given after
10 years of Saddam's nonsense, including his removal
of power. Dragging it out until UN inspectors were satisfied
wouldn't make much sense since a decade had already
gone by and an Army can't be held at bay indefinitely and
there was a weather factor to deal with. I would agree that
the UN member nations could have solved the problem
but they had their own interests at heart.

Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us
accusing
Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that
the
Iraqis prove a negative.


Indeed. Prior to the invasion I charaterized that as Bush's Plan
Nine argument, based on the closing question from _Plan Nine from
Outer Space_ "Can you prove it didn't happen?"

Bush deliberately made a demand that could not be met. Not even
the Vatican could have proven it did not have WMDs.

--

FF

On 17 Feb 2005 10:57:01 -0800, wrote:

Indeed. Prior to the invasion I charaterized that as Bush's Plan
Nine argument, based on the closing question from _Plan Nine from
Outer Space_ "Can you prove it didn't happen?"

"If they're gone, where and when did you get rid of them?" Doesn't
seem like an unreasonable demand, since (a) we knew he had 'em, and
(b) he agreed to account for 'em.

Bush deliberately made a demand that could not be met. Not even
the Vatican could have proven it did not have WMDs.

I suppose if the Vatican starts killing it's own people and making
blustery noises about it's neighbors, then it'd better watch out then.

Followed up in alt.politics.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 21:02:11 GMT, Ned wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:19:34 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate.

I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran and
Syria.

Our President is on a Crusade. His first agenda, to invade Afghan,

Do you think that, after 9/11, he should have not have invaded
Afghanistan?

We should ask, are we really better off before Bush took office in
2001?

I am.

The US dollar continues to falls and more than 80% of the rest
of the World looks at us with negative feeling.

Eh... (a) so what, (b) us as individuals, or our government, and
(c) see (a).

Our debts continue to
climb with imports mounting and exports falling.

Do you ever buy foreign goods, Ned?

Bush continues to
spins that our Social Security will go bankrupt and so forth.

Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is
delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for
a ****-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has
to be done.

Are we
really better off today than before Bush took office?

I'd say yes. And vastly better than if Gore had been in on 9/11/01.

Followed up in alt.politics.

--

FF

In article 01,
says...
The invasion of Afghanistan was a necessary step to retaliate against an
attack on American soil, and to stamp out a state-sponsored haven for
Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, against a country that was
effectively contained, had no WMDs, was nominally cooperating with
inspections. Saddam's secular dictatorship was antithetical to Islamic
fundamentalism, and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists were not operating
significantly in Iraq until we toppled Saddam's regime.

That pretty much describes my position as well. Thanks, Nate.

I'm afraid Bush is now working up to an excuse for invading Iran and
Syria.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Followed up in alt.politics.

I may quite posting these notices any time now.

You know where to look for my replies.

--

FF

Nate Perkins wrote:
SNIP

The invasion of Iraq was an optional war, against a country that was
effectively contained,

True.

had no WMDs

False. They had already used them on the Kurds. The presence and
actual use of WMDs in recent Iraqi history made this country far
more than some theoretical threat. The fact that they did not
have *additional* WMDs doesn't make our move to war less legitimate.
We had no way of knowning this - despite the expectation of the
Drooling Left that the CIA be perfect, and the posturing of the Moron
Right that the CIA *is* perfect. We had to operate on reasonable
assumptions drawn from Iraq's actual history since they would
not give the UN unrestricted inspection access.

was nominally cooperating with inspections.

"Nominally", yes. In actual fact, not really. A US invasion could have
been averted at any time up to the moment of the actual commencement
of hostilities had Sadaam made real inspections (unfettered, unmonitored,
without threat to the Iraqi participants) happen. He did not, he got
tossed out of power.

Saddam's secular dictatorship was antithetical to Islamic
fundamentalism,

Tsk, tsk. How very non-PC of you to lump all Islamic fundamentalists
into a single group. There are devout (aka fundamentalist) Islamists
who do not advocate terror, murder, oppression, and so forth.

and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists were not operating
significantly in Iraq until we toppled Saddam's regime.

False. There is some incidental evidence that Iraqi intelligence
was in league with some of the terror operators. At least one well
known hijacking terrorist lived and operated freely in Baghdad. Sadaam
funded Islamic Palestinian terrorists. No one (with any clue) ever
thought Iraq was a direct threat to the West. The concern was
that he would make common cause with people who *were* direct threats
to the West by funding and/or arming them. This was a legitimate
fear given Sadaam's brutal history.


Those of us in the opposition are not saying the US shouldn't defend
itself.

Sure you are. You're only willing to have the US defend itself
*sometimes* and then only *after* its been attacked. By analogy,
if we were in a bar fight, and the guy at the end of the bar paid me
to poke you in the nose, your argument, roughly would be: 1) You
can't hit the guy at the end of the bar because he did nothing directly
to you and 2) You can't hit me until I actually poke you in the nose.
i.e., You cannot interdict while my arm is in motion swinging at you.

much as you do. The difference is that we believe that our recent
actions are ill-conceived and that they weaken the US in the long run.

You are free to "believe" what you want - many people believe all manner
of nonsense. But - and I am *not* a Bush fan by any means - let's
inspect Reality for a moment and see how your beliefs stack up against
what we observe:

There have been free elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine for the
first time ever (or at least in many years). It is rather doubtful this
would have happened without the US projecting force in these regions, directly
or otherwise.

The world's 5th largest standing army (iirc), lead by a murderous dictator,
was neutralized, and further (potential) deployment of WMDs was halted.

Said brutal dictator is now in irons.

Other villians in the neighborhood are getting nervous. This was the *real*
reason to go to Iraq. Bush wants to bring the Middle East peace and Jesus.
But what is mostly needed there, is a deep-seated fear of ****ing off the US.
It worked in Libya - go research the conversation between Kaddaffi and
Burlusconi in the early days of this war - it is instructive reading. Syria,
Iran, North Korea, and all the rest of the tin pot dictator states need to
develop a healthy fear of what happens when you threaten Uncle Sam. This
is the one and only thing Bush has managed to get right, despite himself...

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

Followed up in alt.politics.

I may quite posting these notices any time now.

You know where to look for my replies.


Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you
can understand that the UN had mandated that
Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN
supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point.