Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country? [Archive]

Ed Rasimus

August 31st 04, 05:15 PM

In a detailed response with some non-sequiturs and remarkable
generalizations on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:13 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
>> As for the question of war, the single greatest factor that most
>> commentators are overlooking is that the paradigm of war has changed
>> dramatically.
>
>Has it? It is easy to claim a "paradigm shift" and use it as
>an excuse to throw the rules overboard, but irregular warfare
>and terrorism are nothing fundamentally new, and even the
>idea of a network across national boundaries can be traced
>back at least to the religious wars of the 16th century.

Correct, but the magnitude of the change creates the shift. Since the
Treaty of Westphalia, the emphasis of late nineteenth and all of
twentieth century political interaction has been nation-state actors.
With the late '80s, the seminal work of Samuel P. Huntington, "Clash
of Civilizations" pinpointed the shift to regional and ideological
bases for future conflicts. The current situation seems to support
Huntington's conclusions.
>
>Besides, there was little about the conflict with Iraq that
>can be put in such a cadre. This was essentially a traditional
>conflict between two governments. The Iraqi regime aimed to
>remain in power; the US government aimed to overthrow the
>Iraqi regime and convert the country in an US-held stronghold
>in the oil-rich Middle East. There is nothing about the political
>aspects of such a conflict that is particularly novel.

The novelty of the conflict is the inter-meshing of the Muslim
fundamentalist across national boundaries (reflecting in the process a
rejection of the artificially impossed "states" created in the
post-colonial period. Certainly Iraq as a nation despite the three
principal tribal entities demonstrates this as well as the warlords of
Afghanistan.
>
>And the invasion of Iraq itself amounted to a fairly traditional
>form of warfare, on both sides. The USA used conventional
>tactics of mobile warfare with some modern refinements of
>intelligence gathering and targeting thrown in. And, strangely
>enough, Iraq also tried to fight a conventional war, avoiding
>the urban guerilla warfare that had been feared by commentators,
>and of course failing to use WMD. Despite the buzzword-speak
>of Pentagon press briefings, this was a conventional war between
>traditional armies; the biggest question about it is whether it will
>be the last of its kind.

It most assuredly will not be the last of its kind unless the
industrialized and developed world capitulates to the jihadist thugs.
(Just to take this opportunity for a cheap shot--let's liken it to
France/Belgium and the rise of Hitler's Germany.)
>
>The post-invasion occupation phase was again traditional enough,
>and predictable. It may look strange in the eyes of the US public
>because the nation has little experience in conquering and occupying
>foreign countries, but there are enough precedents, for example the
>US occupation of the Philippines. Politicians have been fooling
>themselves by invoking the misguided and misleading precedent
>of the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII, but these
>were the exceptions, not the rule.

Thank you for acknowledging our lack of experience in conquering and
occupying. We most certainly did not "conquer" the Phillipines which
were simply ceded to the US by Spain after the 1898 unpleasantness.
But, we have provided a presence to rebuild, stabilize, industrialize
and defend the result in a number of countries around the world,
effectively debunking any assertions of colonial intent. (Nuther cheap
shot--did so in your country as well. And, didn't leave such disasters
as the Congo behind us either.)
>
>> The enemy is not a traditional national actor any more,
>> but rather a far-reaching network of terrorist agencies that don't
>> wear uniforms, muster under a national flag or operate within the
>> constraints of international law or conventional diplomacy. Once that
>> fact is appreciated, then it becomes a bit more difficult to apply the
>> conventional rules of justification for war and definition of combat
>> areas.
>
>As for "far-reaching networks", let us be realistic. In a situation
>like this people usually imagine one big conspiracy to be their
>enemy, but the reality is always far more diffuse. This enemy is
>less a network than a scattering of radical groups, each with their
>own purposes, methods and presumably theology, who maintain
>informal contact; they may cooperate but they may also be hostile
>to one another. Specialists in conventional warfare always tend
>to think that if they can destroy the enemy's command-and-control
>structure, the war is half won; but this enemy shows few indications
>of having such a structure, and even less of actually needing one.
>The fight against it will require numerous small-scale operations,
>more on the pattern of a fight against organized crime (which often
>is organized in parallel to gather funds -- remember that the mafia
>started out as a resistance organisation, and drugs money from
>Afghanistan supported this generation of radicals) than of
>large-scale warfare.

It seems that you've bought into the Kerry/Clinton "lib-speak"
solution that the terrorist war is a law enforcement issue rather than
a military one. That works for small subversive groups like
Bader-Meinhoff or Red Army Faction, but not apparently as well for
larger, better financed, ideologically/theologically motivated
movements like the jihadists.
>
>Anyway, giving support to terrorist groups, or using them
>for your own purposes, is traditionally accepted as a good
>/casus belli/. (Remember Sarajevo, 1914.) There is no need
>to invent any new rules. In the case of Afghanistan this was
>an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
>than a transparently flawed excuse. Before the USA invaded
>the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
>did not control -- and under US air cover. To use such presence
>as excuse for an invasion of Iraq is cynical.

That's the argument from that side. However, the deep infiltration of
the Shi'a by the likes of Al-zawahiri and his thugs, the tight
alliance with the Iranian theocracy, the relationship with Syria, and
the unifying aspects of anti-Americanism which supercede the more
basic Shi'a/Sunni conflicts would give some credence to the other side
of the argument.

And, you certainly aren't extending your anti-war fervor to a defense
of the Sadaam regime for the benefit of the Iraqi people, are you?
>
>The reality, even in the Middle East, is that primary goal
>of the radical islamist groups is to grab power in their own
>country, and for this reason they are usually being (brutally)
>suppressed by their own governments. Iraq was no exception.
>This US government has managed to play in the hands of both
>Arab dictatorships and islamist radicals by uniting them both
>against itself --- no mean achievement, but its heavy-handed
>approach is also succeeding in alienating even those
>governments that did maintain good relations with the USA.
>If the purpose was to create an ideal breeding ground for new
>terrorist organizations, George W. Bush could hardly do any
>better.

"Heavy-handed"????? You know full well, that the heaviness of our hand
could be considerably greater. We could easily have leveled Basra,
Fallujah, Najaf, Tikrit and any strong-hold of resistance which we
chose to. We have suffered unnecessary casualties and worked extremely
diligently to rebuild the deteriorated and damaged infrastructure
while attempting as rapidly as possible to turn over control to the
people themselves. The progress has been several factors faster than
it was following WW II in Germany/Japan.
>
>The fundamental dishonesty of this US government is in its
>refusal to discuss means. It identifies itself with the end goal
>of defeating terrorism; and it implies that this end will justify
>whatever means it chooses to use, while denying that there are
>any alternatives. But in fact, so far the methods it has adopted
>have been counterproductive; even the state department had to
>admit that terrorist activities are on the increase. Meanwhile
>the USA is losing its allies and its credibility and running out
>of the resources it needs to fight this war with.

There are only two "allies" making noise and each squeals quite loudly
when their economic ox gets gored.

We most assuredly have not used ends to justify means. The means have
been very tempered and the ends have been clearly
established--principally stability in the Middle East. Since most of
Europe is dependent (far more so than the US) on ME oil, you should
begin to recognize your national self-interest.

Terrorist activities are most assuredly not on the increase. There is
potential certainly. And, increased awareness. But, the world at large
has been quite calm. Exceptions have been extremely unfortunate (as
well as unfortunately effective in the case of Spain, the Phillipines,
and no Russia), but we haven't had an increase in high casualty
attacks. Talking about hating us isn't much more than propaganda.
>
>> Add to the changed paradigm the incredible potential for destruction
>> of WMD and the removal of the foundation of one of the basic
>> principles of deterrence, that of rational leadership on both sides of
>> the deterrent equation, and you've provided a strong justification for
>> a policy of pre-emption.
>
>The potential for destruction of WMD is routinely overrated,
>especially for biological and chemical weapons, by people
>who ignore the problem of distributing such agents over the
>intended victims. Wolfowitz probably did so intentionally, others
>may have done so out of simple ignorance. The same applies
>for 'dirty bombs'. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a very serious
>threat.

I spent a lot of years of my life in the business of planned delivery
of WMD and prepped for the defense against them. The "overrating" is
quite realistic. You don't want to experience them.
>
>However, I do not see how a policy of 'pre-emption' by attacking
>countries that do not actually have WMD, while carefully avoiding
>a conflict with those that do, will help. To the terrorist groups
>themselves it makes very little difference: If they want chemical
>or biological weapons they can make them themselves, and any
>sensible terrorist group will produce them in the targeted country
>itself anyway, to avoid the problem of bringing them across the
>border. Aung San has already demonstrated that this is perfectly
>feasible. To the governments of "rogue states" the message is that
>they need to develop WMD urgently if they want to avoid an US
>invasion, and the two other nominees for the "axis of evil" have
>already geared up their efforts. The result of the Bushiite policy
>will be a further proliferation of WMD, in areas with unstable
>governments.

It's a basic principle of international relations. You choose policy
based on the efficacy. If diplomacy works, fine. If deterrence works,
fine. If trade works, fine. If military force is the answer, then
don't be reluctant to choose it. But, don't depend upon unlikely
solutions to make your problems go away. Maginot anyone?
>
>> So, please Messr. Gustin, avoid making broad generalizations regarding
>> the quality of the USA's elected government.
>
>I don't remember who it was that, at the time of the US
>independence, expressed his amazement that the British
>government of the time had never done anything right --
>not even by mistake.
>
>That is about how I feel about the elected (well, more or
>less) US government. How do these people manage to
>squeeze an inept foreign policy, a foolish economic policy,
>a dangerous environmental policy, and an immoral judicial
>policy, to mention the most obvious elements, all in one
>term and one team? You would expect an elected government
>to have at least some areas of competence.

Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist
redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive.
Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of
life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical. (Note the costs
of Kyoto and the number of non-signatories that have followed US
leadership!) "Immoral" judicial policy?

As for the "more or less" comment about elected government, you quite
clearly are unfamiliar with our Constitution process for choosing a
chief executive. The process took place exactly as described and the
disagreements were resolved exactly in accordance with the law. We
don't have national popular elections. The participants all know that
going into the process. It has worked for 215 years now.

Our government has considerable competence. Simply because the leftist
Euro press doesn't like it doesn't make it incompetent.
>
>Believe me, if it turns out in November that somehow we will
>have to survive another four years of Bush, I will be deeply
>depressed and despairing indeed.

And, I'll be paying lower taxes, living more securely, not having my
property confiscated, and enjoying life.
>
>> And, I won't have to resort to discussing the pros and cons
>> of Belgium's contributions to the modern world.
>
>Last time I checked, Guy Verhofstadt had somewhat less impact
>on world affairs to George Bush. In fact Guy Verhofstadt
>probably has less impact on events in Belgium than George
>Bush, but that's not entirely Bush's fault. Anyway, there is no
>need to suspect me of excessive sympathy for our PM; he is
>so full of hot air that you would expect him to fly.

So, you begin to express some form of desire for anarchy.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Kevin Brooks

August 31st 04, 09:24 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > As for the question of war, the single greatest factor that most
> > commentators are overlooking is that the paradigm of war has changed
> > dramatically.
>
> Has it? It is easy to claim a "paradigm shift" and use it as
> an excuse to throw the rules overboard, but irregular warfare
> and terrorism are nothing fundamentally new, and even the
> idea of a network across national boundaries can be traced
> back at least to the religious wars of the 16th century.

Scale and scope have changed dramatically. Further, there is no real
argument to the fact that for the past few centuries warfare has been
dominated by the clash of nations, not sub-national actors. This has changed
dramatically over the past few years.

>
> Besides, there was little about the conflict with Iraq that
> can be put in such a cadre. This was essentially a traditional
> conflict between two governments. The Iraqi regime aimed to
> remain in power; the US government aimed to overthrow the
> Iraqi regime and convert the country in an US-held stronghold
> in the oil-rich Middle East. There is nothing about the political
> aspects of such a conflict that is particularly novel.

"The US government aimed to...convert the country in (sic) an US-held
stronghold..."? Please point to any statement by US officials that indicates
we have the aim of "holding" onto Iraq. On the contrary, we have repeatedly
indicated we'd much rather get our forces out of Iraq as soon as we possibly
can--but we also have recognized that we are obligated to remain there long
enough to ensure a stable, democratic government is firmly in place. Not a
day longer than that, however. Feel free to point to authoritative official
sources that indicate otherwise.

>
> And the invasion of Iraq itself amounted to a fairly traditional
> form of warfare, on both sides. The USA used conventional
> tactics of mobile warfare with some modern refinements of
> intelligence gathering and targeting thrown in.

Did we? In fact, this campaign substituted speed and agility for mass on a
scale never before seen in modern warfare, coupled with innovative targeting
and a special operations contribution that outweighs that from any previous
major conflict. It was "blitzkreig on methamphetamines", so to speak.

And, strangely
> enough, Iraq also tried to fight a conventional war, avoiding
> the urban guerilla warfare that had been feared by commentators,
> and of course failing to use WMD.

Not so sure about that Iraq trying to avoid urban warfare bit. Franks
indicated one of their major fears was that Saddam would redeploy his
northern forces into the Baghdad/Sunni Triangle environs in force to acheive
that urban nightmare, but our deception plans were successful in keeping
those forces fixed until it was too late. So maybe it was more of a case of
them not being *able* to implement an urban warfare strategy, as much as it
was not their desire to do so.

Despite the buzzword-speak
> of Pentagon press briefings, this was a conventional war between
> traditional armies; the biggest question about it is whether it will
> be the last of its kind.

We took the old "relative force ratio" guidelines and tossed them out the
window for this campaign, and you think it was just "business as usual"?

>
> The post-invasion occupation phase was again traditional enough,
> and predictable. It may look strange in the eyes of the US public
> because the nation has little experience in conquering and occupying
> foreign countries, but there are enough precedents, for example the
> US occupation of the Philippines. Politicians have been fooling
> themselves by invoking the misguided and misleading precedent
> of the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII, but these
> were the exceptions, not the rule.

Has it been so traditional? The use of companies like Blackwater to provide
security in the post-major conflict stage is "traditional"? Getting their
power grids back up and surpassing the prewar generating capacity within a
few months of invasion, and nearly doubling their telecommunications links
within a year or so of the invasion is "traditional"? Exactly what
"traditions" are you citing?

>
> > The enemy is not a traditional national actor any more,
> > but rather a far-reaching network of terrorist agencies that don't
> > wear uniforms, muster under a national flag or operate within the
> > constraints of international law or conventional diplomacy. Once that
> > fact is appreciated, then it becomes a bit more difficult to apply the
> > conventional rules of justification for war and definition of combat
> > areas.
>
> As for "far-reaching networks", let us be realistic. In a situation
> like this people usually imagine one big conspiracy to be their
> enemy, but the reality is always far more diffuse.

None of what you present below disproves Ed's assertion of "far-reaching
networks" (note the plural).

This enemy is
> less a network than a scattering of radical groups, each with their
> own purposes, methods and presumably theology, who maintain
> informal contact; they may cooperate but they may also be hostile
> to one another. Specialists in conventional warfare always tend
> to think that if they can destroy the enemy's command-and-control
> structure, the war is half won; but this enemy shows few indications
> of having such a structure, and even less of actually needing one.

Not so sure about that. The disruption and in some cases dismantling of AQ's
command and control capabilities is no doubt largely responsible for the
fact that they have not been able to conduct further major attacks against
US interests to date.

> The fight against it will require numerous small-scale operations,
> more on the pattern of a fight against organized crime (which often
> is organized in parallel to gather funds -- remember that the mafia
> started out as a resistance organisation, and drugs money from
> Afghanistan supported this generation of radicals) than of
> large-scale warfare.

"Large scale warfare" can indeed be made up of "small-scale operations".

>
> Anyway, giving support to terrorist groups, or using them
> for your own purposes, is traditionally accepted as a good
> /casus belli/. (Remember Sarajevo, 1914.) There is no need
> to invent any new rules. In the case of Afghanistan this was
> an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
> than a transparently flawed excuse. Before the USA invaded
> the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
> did not control -- and under US air cover. To use such presence
> as excuse for an invasion of Iraq is cynical.

How do you think Al Zarqawi got from Baghdad, where he received medical
treatment, up to his buddies operating with Anser Al Islam? For that matter,
how do you think he came to be in Baghdad receiving that treatment in the
first place?

>
> The reality, even in the Middle East, is that primary goal
> of the radical islamist groups is to grab power in their own
> country, and for this reason they are usually being (brutally)
> suppressed by their own governments.

AQ, while it has conducted attacks inside saudi Arabia and is no friend of
the Saudi government, has made its primary focus operations against US
targets, so your theory appears to be a bit lacking in terms of
completeness.

Iraq was no exception.
> This US government has managed to play in the hands of both
> Arab dictatorships and islamist radicals by uniting them both
> against itself --- no mean achievement, but its heavy-handed
> approach is also succeeding in alienating even those
> governments that did maintain good relations with the USA.

Really? Jordan seems to be sticking with us, as does Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar,
etc. Which ones of those that we previously had good relations with have we
alienated?

> If the purpose was to create an ideal breeding ground for new
> terrorist organizations, George W. Bush could hardly do any
> better.

Please present evidence that our actions in Iraq have yielded any new
terrorist organizations?

>
> The fundamental dishonesty of this US government is in its
> refusal to discuss means. It identifies itself with the end goal
> of defeating terrorism; and it implies that this end will justify
> whatever means it chooses to use, while denying that there are
> any alternatives.

First you say we won't discuss means, then you say wedeny the existance of
alternatives to those means--which way do you want it? You can't really have
it both ways, you know. was there ever any real doubt as to the means we
would use in Iraq? We plainly stated what we were going to do, and in
general how we were going to do it--and then, unlike the UN, we actually
*did* it. We did the same in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we are also doing the
same thing, often in concert with other nations (i.e., the Horn of Africa
with the French), in other locales, albeit with a lot less fanfare and
attention from the media. All in all, your claim that we refuse to discuss
"means" just does not hold water.

But in fact, so far the methods it has adopted
> have been counterproductive; even the state department had to
> admit that terrorist activities are on the increase. Meanwhile
> the USA is losing its allies and its credibility and running out
> of the resources it needs to fight this war with.

The only allies we have lost, like Spain, are of little value--what value is
an ally who cuts and runs when the temperature goes up a few degees in the
kitchen? It is the ones that stick with you when times are tough that are
true allies. The Italians come to mind in that regard.

>
> > Add to the changed paradigm the incredible potential for destruction
> > of WMD and the removal of the foundation of one of the basic
> > principles of deterrence, that of rational leadership on both sides of
> > the deterrent equation, and you've provided a strong justification for
> > a policy of pre-emption.
>
> The potential for destruction of WMD is routinely overrated,
> especially for biological and chemical weapons, by people
> who ignore the problem of distributing such agents over the
> intended victims. Wolfowitz probably did so intentionally, others
> may have done so out of simple ignorance. The same applies
> for 'dirty bombs'. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a very serious
> threat.

While I deplore the rabid "sky is falling" approach many take when WMD is
mentioned, it is a fact that used against an unprepared population they pose
a tremendous threat. That threat is two-fold; first, the actual physical
casualty count, which could indeed be horrendous (imagine the deathtoll from
a single crop duster releasing a load of sarin over a football or soccer
stadium filled to capacity with maybe 100K people), and even more dangerous,
its ability to inspire the terrorists main objective, which is to
*terrorize* innocents.

>
> However, I do not see how a policy of 'pre-emption' by attacking
> countries that do not actually have WMD, while carefully avoiding
> a conflict with those that do, will help.

You are making a logic error here. Preemption has been used against one
nation that we indeed *did* think had a significant WMD capability, so your
hypothesis is already destroyed. But your logic error is in assuming that we
have to treat all naions in the exact same manner, using the same by-rote
formula to handle the problem. That is not the case; each situation is
different and requires differing measures to control it.

To the terrorist groups
> themselves it makes very little difference: If they want chemical
> or biological weapons they can make them themselves,

Luckily for us, you apparently think it is a more trivial task than it
actually is. The Japanese subway sarin attack is a case in point. Merely
whipping up a batch of something nasty is indeed within the capabilities of
many nefarious groups--whipping up a batch that actually works effectively
is another matter, and requires some form of weaponization if it is to
acheive its goals.

and any
> sensible terrorist group will produce them in the targeted country
> itself anyway, to avoid the problem of bringing them across the
> border. Aung San has already demonstrated that this is perfectly
> feasible.

And despite it being as simple as you state, they ultimately failed,
creating the chemical equivalent of a "fizzle yield".

To the governments of "rogue states" the message is that
> they need to develop WMD urgently if they want to avoid an US
> invasion,

LOL! We went into Iraq *despite* our fears that we would indeed be
subjecting ourselves to battlefield chemical and maybe biological attacks,
and you *still* cling to this ridiculous idea?

and the two other nominees for the "axis of evil" have
> already geared up their efforts. The result of the Bushiite policy
> will be a further proliferation of WMD, in areas with unstable
> governments.

You conveniently left Libya out of your machinations here--wonder why?

>
> > So, please Messr. Gustin, avoid making broad generalizations regarding
> > the quality of the USA's elected government.
>
> I don't remember who it was that, at the time of the US
> independence, expressed his amazement that the British
> government of the time had never done anything right --
> not even by mistake.
>
> That is about how I feel about the elected (well, more or
> less) US government. How do these people manage to
> squeeze an inept foreign policy, a foolish economic policy,
> a dangerous environmental policy, and an immoral judicial
> policy, to mention the most obvious elements, all in one
> term and one team? You would expect an elected government
> to have at least some areas of competence.

My, what animus you do bear us! And you wonder why your ilk is not taken
seriously by most of us over here?

>
> Believe me, if it turns out in November that somehow we will
> have to survive another four years of Bush, I will be deeply
> depressed and despairing indeed.

Better start stocking up on that Prozac, then.

>
> > And, I won't have to resort to discussing the pros and cons
> > of Belgium's contributions to the modern world.
>
> Last time I checked, Guy Verhofstadt had somewhat less impact
> on world affairs to George Bush. In fact Guy Verhofstadt
> probably has less impact on events in Belgium than George
> Bush, but that's not entirely Bush's fault. Anyway, there is no
> need to suspect me of excessive sympathy for our PM; he is
> so full of hot air that you would expect him to fly.

I don't believe Ed referred to your PM's contributions--he was referring to
your entire *nation's* contributions, or lack thereof.

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
>
>
>
>

BUFDRVR

August 31st 04, 11:04 PM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

>In the case of Afghanistan this was
>an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
>than a transparently flawed excuse

I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?

Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the U.S. You
don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a threat to U.S.
national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S.
forces in Afghanistan, was injured and received treatment where? That's right,
Bagdad, Iraq.

>Before the USA invaded
>the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
>did not control

Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you saying the
Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Thelasian

September 1st 04, 01:47 AM

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> In a detailed response with some non-sequiturs and remarkable
> generalizations on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:13 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> As for the question of war, the single greatest factor that most
> >> commentators are overlooking is that the paradigm of war has changed
> >> dramatically.
> >
> >Has it? It is easy to claim a "paradigm shift" and use it as
> >an excuse to throw the rules overboard, but irregular warfare
> >and terrorism are nothing fundamentally new, and even the
> >idea of a network across national boundaries can be traced
> >back at least to the religious wars of the 16th century.
>
> Correct, but the magnitude of the change creates the shift. Since the
> Treaty of Westphalia, the emphasis of late nineteenth and all of
> twentieth century political interaction has been nation-state actors.
> With the late '80s, the seminal work of Samuel P. Huntington, "Clash
> of Civilizations" pinpointed the shift to regional and ideological
> bases for future conflicts. The current situation seems to support
> Huntington's conclusions.
> >
> >Besides, there was little about the conflict with Iraq that
> >can be put in such a cadre. This was essentially a traditional
> >conflict between two governments. The Iraqi regime aimed to
> >remain in power; the US government aimed to overthrow the
> >Iraqi regime and convert the country in an US-held stronghold
> >in the oil-rich Middle East. There is nothing about the political
> >aspects of such a conflict that is particularly novel.
>
> The novelty of the conflict is the inter-meshing of the Muslim
> fundamentalist across national boundaries (reflecting in the process a
> rejection of the artificially impossed "states" created in the
> post-colonial period. Certainly Iraq as a nation despite the three
> principal tribal entities demonstrates this as well as the warlords of
> Afghanistan.
> >
> >And the invasion of Iraq itself amounted to a fairly traditional
> >form of warfare, on both sides. The USA used conventional
> >tactics of mobile warfare with some modern refinements of
> >intelligence gathering and targeting thrown in. And, strangely
> >enough, Iraq also tried to fight a conventional war, avoiding
> >the urban guerilla warfare that had been feared by commentators,
> >and of course failing to use WMD. Despite the buzzword-speak
> >of Pentagon press briefings, this was a conventional war between
> >traditional armies; the biggest question about it is whether it will
> >be the last of its kind.
>
> It most assuredly will not be the last of its kind unless the
> industrialized and developed world capitulates to the jihadist thugs.
> (Just to take this opportunity for a cheap shot--let's liken it to
> France/Belgium and the rise of Hitler's Germany.)
> >
> >The post-invasion occupation phase was again traditional enough,
> >and predictable. It may look strange in the eyes of the US public
> >because the nation has little experience in conquering and occupying
> >foreign countries, but there are enough precedents, for example the
> >US occupation of the Philippines. Politicians have been fooling
> >themselves by invoking the misguided and misleading precedent
> >of the occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII, but these
> >were the exceptions, not the rule.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging our lack of experience in conquering and
> occupying. We most certainly did not "conquer" the Phillipines which
> were simply ceded to the US by Spain after the 1898 unpleasantness.
> But, we have provided a presence to rebuild, stabilize, industrialize
> and defend the result in a number of countries around the world,
> effectively debunking any assertions of colonial intent. (Nuther cheap
> shot--did so in your country as well. And, didn't leave such disasters
> as the Congo behind us either.)
> >
> >> The enemy is not a traditional national actor any more,
> >> but rather a far-reaching network of terrorist agencies that don't
> >> wear uniforms, muster under a national flag or operate within the
> >> constraints of international law or conventional diplomacy. Once that
> >> fact is appreciated, then it becomes a bit more difficult to apply the
> >> conventional rules of justification for war and definition of combat
> >> areas.
> >
> >As for "far-reaching networks", let us be realistic. In a situation
> >like this people usually imagine one big conspiracy to be their
> >enemy, but the reality is always far more diffuse. This enemy is
> >less a network than a scattering of radical groups, each with their
> >own purposes, methods and presumably theology, who maintain
> >informal contact; they may cooperate but they may also be hostile
> >to one another. Specialists in conventional warfare always tend
> >to think that if they can destroy the enemy's command-and-control
> >structure, the war is half won; but this enemy shows few indications
> >of having such a structure, and even less of actually needing one.
> >The fight against it will require numerous small-scale operations,
> >more on the pattern of a fight against organized crime (which often
> >is organized in parallel to gather funds -- remember that the mafia
> >started out as a resistance organisation, and drugs money from
> >Afghanistan supported this generation of radicals) than of
> >large-scale warfare.
>
> It seems that you've bought into the Kerry/Clinton "lib-speak"
> solution that the terrorist war is a law enforcement issue rather than
> a military one. That works for small subversive groups like
> Bader-Meinhoff or Red Army Faction, but not apparently as well for
> larger, better financed, ideologically/theologically motivated
> movements like the jihadists.
> >
> >Anyway, giving support to terrorist groups, or using them
> >for your own purposes, is traditionally accepted as a good
> >/casus belli/. (Remember Sarajevo, 1914.) There is no need
> >to invent any new rules. In the case of Afghanistan this was
> >an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
> >than a transparently flawed excuse. Before the USA invaded
> >the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
> >did not control -- and under US air cover. To use such presence
> >as excuse for an invasion of Iraq is cynical.
>
> That's the argument from that side. However, the deep infiltration of
> the Shi'a by the likes of Al-zawahiri and his thugs, the tight
> alliance with the Iranian theocracy, the relationship with Syria, and
> the unifying aspects of anti-Americanism which supercede the more
> basic Shi'a/Sunni conflicts would give some credence to the other side
> of the argument.

Only IF such events were real and not merely Neocon spin-doctoring.
Both the US State Department and the Iraqi Foreign Ministry have said
they don't have any evidence of Iranian support for al-Sadr, and
despite all the White House - Pentagon talk about "foreign fighters"
precious few have actually turned up

"Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700
captives being held as security threats in Iraq, a strong indication
that Iraqis are largely responsible for the stubborn insurgency."
(Foreign detainees are few in Iraq - By Peter Eisler and Tom
Squitieri, USA TODAY 7/5/2004)

>
> And, you certainly aren't extending your anti-war fervor to a defense
> of the Sadaam regime for the benefit of the Iraqi people, are you?
> >
> >The reality, even in the Middle East, is that primary goal
> >of the radical islamist groups is to grab power in their own
> >country, and for this reason they are usually being (brutally)
> >suppressed by their own governments. Iraq was no exception.
> >This US government has managed to play in the hands of both
> >Arab dictatorships and islamist radicals by uniting them both
> >against itself --- no mean achievement, but its heavy-handed
> >approach is also succeeding in alienating even those
> >governments that did maintain good relations with the USA.
> >If the purpose was to create an ideal breeding ground for new
> >terrorist organizations, George W. Bush could hardly do any
> >better.
>
> "Heavy-handed"????? You know full well, that the heaviness of our hand
> could be considerably greater. We could easily have leveled Basra,
> Fallujah, Najaf, Tikrit and any strong-hold of resistance which we
> chose to. We have suffered unnecessary casualties and worked extremely
> diligently to rebuild the deteriorated and damaged infrastructure
> while attempting as rapidly as possible to turn over control to the
> people themselves. The progress has been several factors faster than
> it was following WW II in Germany/Japan.
> >
> >The fundamental dishonesty of this US government is in its
> >refusal to discuss means. It identifies itself with the end goal
> >of defeating terrorism; and it implies that this end will justify
> >whatever means it chooses to use, while denying that there are
> >any alternatives. But in fact, so far the methods it has adopted
> >have been counterproductive; even the state department had to
> >admit that terrorist activities are on the increase. Meanwhile
> >the USA is losing its allies and its credibility and running out
> >of the resources it needs to fight this war with.
>
> There are only two "allies" making noise and each squeals quite loudly
> when their economic ox gets gored.
>
> We most assuredly have not used ends to justify means. The means have
> been very tempered and the ends have been clearly
> established--principally stability in the Middle East. Since most of
> Europe is dependent (far more so than the US) on ME oil, you should
> begin to recognize your national self-interest.
>
> Terrorist activities are most assuredly not on the increase. There is
> potential certainly. And, increased awareness. But, the world at large
> has been quite calm. Exceptions have been extremely unfortunate (as
> well as unfortunately effective in the case of Spain, the Phillipines,
> and no Russia), but we haven't had an increase in high casualty
> attacks. Talking about hating us isn't much more than propaganda.
> >
> >> Add to the changed paradigm the incredible potential for destruction
> >> of WMD and the removal of the foundation of one of the basic
> >> principles of deterrence, that of rational leadership on both sides of
> >> the deterrent equation, and you've provided a strong justification for
> >> a policy of pre-emption.
> >
> >The potential for destruction of WMD is routinely overrated,
> >especially for biological and chemical weapons, by people
> >who ignore the problem of distributing such agents over the
> >intended victims. Wolfowitz probably did so intentionally, others
> >may have done so out of simple ignorance. The same applies
> >for 'dirty bombs'. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a very serious
> >threat.
>
> I spent a lot of years of my life in the business of planned delivery
> of WMD and prepped for the defense against them. The "overrating" is
> quite realistic. You don't want to experience them.
> >
> >However, I do not see how a policy of 'pre-emption' by attacking
> >countries that do not actually have WMD, while carefully avoiding
> >a conflict with those that do, will help. To the terrorist groups
> >themselves it makes very little difference: If they want chemical
> >or biological weapons they can make them themselves, and any
> >sensible terrorist group will produce them in the targeted country
> >itself anyway, to avoid the problem of bringing them across the
> >border. Aung San has already demonstrated that this is perfectly
> >feasible. To the governments of "rogue states" the message is that
> >they need to develop WMD urgently if they want to avoid an US
> >invasion, and the two other nominees for the "axis of evil" have
> >already geared up their efforts. The result of the Bushiite policy
> >will be a further proliferation of WMD, in areas with unstable
> >governments.
>
> It's a basic principle of international relations. You choose policy
> based on the efficacy. If diplomacy works, fine. If deterrence works,
> fine. If trade works, fine. If military force is the answer, then
> don't be reluctant to choose it. But, don't depend upon unlikely
> solutions to make your problems go away. Maginot anyone?
> >
> >> So, please Messr. Gustin, avoid making broad generalizations regarding
> >> the quality of the USA's elected government.
> >
> >I don't remember who it was that, at the time of the US
> >independence, expressed his amazement that the British
> >government of the time had never done anything right --
> >not even by mistake.
> >
> >That is about how I feel about the elected (well, more or
> >less) US government. How do these people manage to
> >squeeze an inept foreign policy, a foolish economic policy,
> >a dangerous environmental policy, and an immoral judicial
> >policy, to mention the most obvious elements, all in one
> >term and one team? You would expect an elected government
> >to have at least some areas of competence.
>
> Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist
> redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive.
> Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of
> life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical. (Note the costs
> of Kyoto and the number of non-signatories that have followed US
> leadership!) "Immoral" judicial policy?
>
> As for the "more or less" comment about elected government, you quite
> clearly are unfamiliar with our Constitution process for choosing a
> chief executive. The process took place exactly as described and the
> disagreements were resolved exactly in accordance with the law. We
> don't have national popular elections. The participants all know that
> going into the process. It has worked for 215 years now.
>
> Our government has considerable competence. Simply because the leftist
> Euro press doesn't like it doesn't make it incompetent.
> >
> >Believe me, if it turns out in November that somehow we will
> >have to survive another four years of Bush, I will be deeply
> >depressed and despairing indeed.
>
> And, I'll be paying lower taxes, living more securely, not having my
> property confiscated, and enjoying life.
> >
> >> And, I won't have to resort to discussing the pros and cons
> >> of Belgium's contributions to the modern world.
> >
> >Last time I checked, Guy Verhofstadt had somewhat less impact
> >on world affairs to George Bush. In fact Guy Verhofstadt
> >probably has less impact on events in Belgium than George
> >Bush, but that's not entirely Bush's fault. Anyway, there is no
> >need to suspect me of excessive sympathy for our PM; he is
> >so full of hot air that you would expect him to fly.
>
> So, you begin to express some form of desire for anarchy.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

Chris Mark

September 1st 04, 02:07 AM

Anyone interested in pre-emptive and preventative war, and its likely role in
American foreign policy, could do no better than read Michael Walzer’s "Just
and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations." First
published in 1977, updated versions taking into account more recent events,
have appeared. It is studied in Ivy League and armed forces academy poly sci
classes, the students of which generally intend to pursue careers in
statescraft or the military. It has influenced, among other significant
personages, Kenneth Pollack, Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National
Security Council, in the Carter Administration, and author of "The Threatening
Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," as well as Philip Bobbitt, Senior Director
for Strategic Planning, National Security Council, in the Clinton
Administration, and author of "The Shield of Achilles: War and Peace in the
Course of History."
It should be pointed out that all the above men are more or less left-of-center
politically, and Democrats, but both Pollack and Bobbitt have been influential
in shaping the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, using, at least in part
Walzer's (an ardent Vietnam War critic) ideas.

If nothing else, reading Walzer will provide insight into why Sir Arthur Harris
was treated the way he was after WW2 was over.

Chris Mark

Jim Yanik

September 1st 04, 02:11 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
>>In the case of Afghanistan this was
>>an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
>>than a transparently flawed excuse
>
> I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?
>
> Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
> U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
> threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
> Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
> received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.
>
>>Before the USA invaded
>>the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
>>did not control
>
> Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
> saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
> harelips everyone on Bear Creek"
>

The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.
Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Chris Mark

September 1st 04, 02:14 AM

>From: xmarx467@

>Kenneth Pollack, Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, National
>Security Council, in the Carter Administration,

Meant Clinton Administration.

Chris Mark

Jack

September 1st 04, 02:40 AM

Thelasian wrote:

[huge snippage de crap]

> Only IF such events were real....

[yet another huge snippage de crap]

Thelasian,

Your USENET archived posts indicate you are an anti-Israeli pro-Iranian
demagogue, or would be if you had a more significant forum than USENET.
As it is you are simply another bigot whose contributions to the group
are solely for the purpose of propagandizing, and basically lying in a
loud voice, in order to obscure the reality of your personal, political,
and military circumstances.

Those who attempt to counter your arguments here on r.a.m. do so only in
the faint hope that they may provide a clear view of reality to the
uncertain lurkers here, rather than with the hope that you and your kind
might be redeemed.

Yours and ours will eventually meet on the battlefield, unfortunately
the only place where such differences can ultimately be decided, and you
will be utterly destroyed.

Bring it on.

--
Jack
----
"He whose vision cannot cover
History's three thousand years,
Must in outer darkness hover,
Live within the day's frontiers.
-- Goethe

Kevin Brooks

September 1st 04, 03:47 AM

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
> :
>
> > Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> >
> >>In the case of Afghanistan this was
> >>an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
> >>than a transparently flawed excuse
> >
> > I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?
> >
> > Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
> > U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
> > threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
> > Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
> > received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.
> >
> >>Before the USA invaded
> >>the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
> >>did not control
> >
> > Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
> > saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
> >
> >
> > BUFDRVR
> >
> > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
> > harelips everyone on Bear Creek"
> >
>
> The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
> Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.
> Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
> Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

Come now--you KNOW that merely having regular contact with various terrorist
groups, providing medical care to one wanted senior AQ member, and then
giving him a new area to operate from, providing money in support of suicide
bombers, etc., does not constitute "support for terrorism", don't you? Just
ask all of those folks with their heads buried in the sand and from whom
continuously emanate muffled, repetitive chants like, "Saddam never even
*met* a terrorist, much less supported any of them", and "Continued work on
biological warfare programs, hiding of WMD equipment, documents, and
WMD-knowledgable personnel, the finding of a type of binary weapon that was
obviously not developed until after the Iran-Iraq War, etc., does not mean
that Saddam was continuing to pursue WMD's..."; they'll assure you that
Saddam *never* supported terrorists...

Ooops...keep forgetting to turn that danged sarcasm switch off...

Brooks

>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik-at-kua.net

BUFDRVR

September 1st 04, 04:22 AM

Thelasian wrote:

>Only IF such events were real and not merely Neocon spin-doctoring.

Come on! Get it right, it's a "vast right wing conspiracy"

>Both the US State Department and the Iraqi Foreign Ministry have said
>they don't have any evidence of Iranian support for al-Sadr

Interesting? But perhaps the military (you know, the numerous guys actually
there, on the ground in Iraq) *does* have evidence. His own words and actions
are good enough for me. His exile to Iran following his fathers assasination in
1999 is pretty damning as far as an Iranian link and he has openly called for
the formation of a Shia Islamic theocracy.

>and
>despite all the White House - Pentagon talk about "foreign fighters"
>precious few have actually turned up

Wrong.

>"Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700
>captives being held as security threats in Iraq

How many of the dead are foreign? How many suicide bombers are foriegn? These
guys are not surrendering which will upset your data. Sorry, but talking with
guys who have been there, they say the foriegn influance in the insurgency is
huge.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Fred the Red Shirt

September 1st 04, 05:20 PM

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> In a detailed response with some non-sequiturs and remarkable
> generalizations on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:13 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> > wrote:
....
> >
> >The potential for destruction of WMD is routinely overrated,
> >especially for biological and chemical weapons, by people
> >who ignore the problem of distributing such agents over the
> >intended victims. Wolfowitz probably did so intentionally, others
> >may have done so out of simple ignorance. The same applies
> >for 'dirty bombs'. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a very serious
> >threat.
>
> I spent a lot of years of my life in the business of planned delivery
> of WMD and prepped for the defense against them. The "overrating" is
> quite realistic. You don't want to experience them.
> >

I'm curious as to the extent of your planning for the delivery of
chemical and biological weapons.

I'll agree that nuclear weapons are not overrated, but disagree
as to chemical and biological. Simply including those with
nuclear weapons in the blanket term 'WMD' overrates them a
consequence I fear of general ignorance of the specific natures
of all three and an inability by many to graps the enormity
of the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

--

FF

BUFDRVR

September 1st 04, 07:18 PM

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>I'm curious as to the extent of your planning for the delivery of
>chemical and biological weapons.
>

I don't know for sure, but I'm sure the F-105 was capable of delivering the
MC-1.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Fred the Red Shirt

September 1st 04, 07:46 PM

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
> :
>
> > Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> >
> >>In the case of Afghanistan this was
> >>an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
> >>than a transparently flawed excuse
> >
> > I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?
> >
> > Both of these men had proven track records of operations against the
> > U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead to be a
> > threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq now, al
> > Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was injured and
> > received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.
> >
> >>Before the USA invaded
> >>the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
> >>did not control
> >
> > Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
> > saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?

When and when, respectively?

....

> >
> > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
> > harelips everyone on Bear Creek"
> >
>
> The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with Al-Queda.
> Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts with them.

They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.

> Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
> Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.

--

FF

Jarg

September 1st 04, 09:59 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>
> > Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist
> > redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive.
>
> A standard right-wing parody of taxation, but it doesn't make much
> sense. (AFAIK the US social security system is running at a surplus
> and filling the federal coffers, not the other way around). It ignores
> that a functioning economy needs investment in commonly held systems
> and resources --- infrastructure, education, research, maintenance of
> the law, defense, health care, etc. A combination of underfunding and
> deficit spending endangers the long-term prospects on economic
> growth. Indulging in massive deficit spending can, according to the
> Keynesian logic, help to get a country out of a depression, but it is
> a strange policy for a supposedly conservative government.
>

I noticed you didn't address the redistribution of resources. Obviously the
main function of government is to provide defense, and to a lesser extent
infrastructure, areas I would note that the US handles quite competently.
But efforts at economic "justice" are misguided and wasteful. Per capita
GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist economies of
the world are! For example:

United States $35991.96 per person
Belgium $29127.94 per person

Current deficit spending in the Unitied States is the result of a
combination of the additional expenses of war and the recent recession.
Intelligent government budgets make allowances for the circumstances of the
time.

> > Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of
> > life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical.
>
> There is nothing practical about the environmental policy of this
> government. It just chooses to deflect politically inconvenient
> science with thin arguments. An attitude that has been a regular
> feature of government policy since Galileo; one can only hope that
> the US government will admit its errors slightly faster than the
> Vatican. Having a sound environmental policy is hugely practical.
> I wonder what the citizens of Texas would have to say about the
> memory of George W. Bush if the state turned into an inhabitable
> wasteland.

Which errors are you thinking of? I think most Americans believe the United
States should participate in global environmental protection, but only in a
fair and rational manner. Kyoto demanded a disproportionate impact on the
United States, and Clinton signed it knowing full well it would never pass
Senate confirmation. President Bush should be commended acknowleging this
and putting the treaty out of it's misery!

Otherwise, the environment within the United States is doing quite well
thank you., with plenty of statistics available to prove it.

Jarg

Jim Yanik

September 1st 04, 11:06 PM

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

> Jim Yanik > wrote in message
> >...
>> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>> >
>> >>In the case of Afghanistan this was
>> >>an entirely valid reason. In the case of Iraq it was never more
>> >>than a transparently flawed excuse
>> >
>> > I guess Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were just vactioning in Iraq?
>> >
>> > Both of these men had proven track records of operations against
>> > the U.S. You don't need to have an Al Queda stamp on your forehead
>> > to be a threat to U.S. national security. Our big nemesis in Iraq
>> > now, al Zarqawi, fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, was
>> > injured and received treatment where? That's right, Bagdad, Iraq.
>> >
>> >>Before the USA invaded
>> >>the radicals had to remain in parts of the country that Bagdad
>> >>did not control
>> >
>> > Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
>> > saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
>
> When and when, respectively?
>
> ...
>
>> >
>> > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if
>> > it harelips everyone on Bear Creek"
>> >
>>
>> The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
>> Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts
>> with them.
>
> They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
> were clear that there was no such connection.

That they could FIND no connection.
Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
collapsed entirely.

Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
invasion.

> They also made it clear
> that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.

Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.
I wonder about that airframe Iraq had for "hijack training"...

>
>> Saddam also funded the families of the Israeli homicide bombers.
>> Al-Zarqarwi was there for hospital treatment;that's support,too.
>

Too many people seem too willing to believe the worst about the US and the
current administration,and not believe about Saddam's dangers.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Kevin Brooks

September 2nd 04, 03:43 AM

"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >
> > > Here, you don't have a clue. Foolish economic policy is socialist
> > > redistribution of wealth from the producers to the non-productive.
> >
> > A standard right-wing parody of taxation, but it doesn't make much
> > sense. (AFAIK the US social security system is running at a surplus
> > and filling the federal coffers, not the other way around). It ignores
> > that a functioning economy needs investment in commonly held systems
> > and resources --- infrastructure, education, research, maintenance of
> > the law, defense, health care, etc. A combination of underfunding and
> > deficit spending endangers the long-term prospects on economic
> > growth. Indulging in massive deficit spending can, according to the
> > Keynesian logic, help to get a country out of a depression, but it is
> > a strange policy for a supposedly conservative government.
> >
>
>
> I noticed you didn't address the redistribution of resources. Obviously
the
> main function of government is to provide defense, and to a lesser extent
> infrastructure, areas I would note that the US handles quite competently.
> But efforts at economic "justice" are misguided and wasteful. Per capita
> GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist economies of
> the world are! For example:
>
> United States $35991.96 per person
> Belgium $29127.94 per person
>
> Current deficit spending in the Unitied States is the result of a
> combination of the additional expenses of war and the recent recession.
> Intelligent government budgets make allowances for the circumstances of
the
> time.
>
>
> > > Environmental policy that protects at the expense of jobs, quality of
> > > life, long-term impact is emotional and not practical.
> >
> > There is nothing practical about the environmental policy of this
> > government. It just chooses to deflect politically inconvenient
> > science with thin arguments. An attitude that has been a regular
> > feature of government policy since Galileo; one can only hope that
> > the US government will admit its errors slightly faster than the
> > Vatican. Having a sound environmental policy is hugely practical.
> > I wonder what the citizens of Texas would have to say about the
> > memory of George W. Bush if the state turned into an inhabitable
> > wasteland.
>
>
> Which errors are you thinking of? I think most Americans believe the
United
> States should participate in global environmental protection, but only in
a
> fair and rational manner. Kyoto demanded a disproportionate impact on the
> United States, and Clinton signed it knowing full well it would never pass
> Senate confirmation. President Bush should be commended acknowleging this
> and putting the treaty out of it's misery!
>
> Otherwise, the environment within the United States is doing quite well
> thank you., with plenty of statistics available to prove it.

True enough. For example, in terms of forestation, Belgium lands number 88
in the world rankings, with an indicated loss of net forested area between
1990 and 2000, while the US ranks 85, with a net increase demonstrated in
the last decade (source:
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=US&indicatorid=79).
One group puts out an "Environmental Sustainability Index", which last
showed the US coming in at number 45 worldwide...and Belgium at 125 (after
those "green" powerhouses, Libya and Uzbekistan...)
(http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/rank.html). Sounds like
Emmanuel needs to worry a bit more about cleaning his own house (almost
literally) before he starts fiddling around with the business of others...

Brooks

>
> Jarg
>
>

BUFDRVR

September 2nd 04, 04:05 AM

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>> Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
>> saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
>
>When and when, respectively?

Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an illness,
then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he died of
multiple gun shot wounds. CNN had this to say about Nidal after his death;
"Nidal and his group have been blamed for more than 90 terrorist attacks that
killed more than 300 people and wounded 600 others. The attacks struck at
Middle Eastern, European and *U.S. targets.*" (my emphasis). The question
remains; why did Hussain kill Nidal? Lots of speculation, but nothing certain
except that Hussain was haboring a known terrorist.

Abu Abbas was picked up in Bahgdad shortly after the U.S. took control of
Baghdad in April 2003. It was no surprise however and President Bush had even
mentioned Baghdad's harboring of Abbas as proof that Hussain was supporting
terrorism in a speech before the Iraq invasion began.

>They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
>were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
>that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.
>

Great, Iraq and Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11. The point most liberals
fail to understand is the "War on Terrorism" goes beyond al Queada, beyond
Afghanistan and beyond Asia.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Stephen Harding

September 2nd 04, 06:11 AM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current
>
> government
>
>>otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con".
>
> The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
> not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
> to "con-men".
>
> This IMHO contributes greatly to its appropriateness.

Is this an example of the superior European educational
system I've been hearing about?

I guess I'll expect you to start spelling "Bush" as "Bu$h"
and "US" as "U$" (or would that be "United Snakes"?).

Close enough.

SMH

Presidente Alcazar

September 2nd 04, 09:50 AM

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 22:13:59 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>> Thank you for acknowledging our lack of experience in conquering and
>> occupying. We most certainly did not "conquer" the Phillipines which
>> were simply ceded to the US by Spain after the 1898 unpleasantness.
>
>A curious euphemism for a colonial war that immersed US
>troops in a bitter fight with a resistance movement. It is true
>that the USA did not conquer the Phillipines on the Phillipinos,
>but it was a colonial occupier nevertheless. I admit that the USA
>missed out on the great external colonialist expansion of the 18th
>and 19th century, but this was hardly out of virtue; it came about
>because there was plenty of opportunity for internal conquest and
>extermination.

And the success of this form of colonial conquest is visible in the
qualification you use: that it is perceived as "internal" indicates
how the expansion of the United States beyond the original territories
of the thirteen colonies, at the expense of the native inhabitants,
has become an invisible colonial expansion due to its relative
success.

>> It seems that you've bought into the Kerry/Clinton "lib-speak"
>> solution that the terrorist war is a law enforcement issue rather than
>> a military one. That works for small subversive groups like
>> Bader-Meinhoff or Red Army Faction, but not apparently as well for
>> larger, better financed, ideologically/theologically motivated
>> movements like the jihadists.
>
>In strength of ideological/theological motivation, there isn't much
>of a difference. As for finance, the jihadists may indeed have the
>advantage, because they can count on the Western greed for drugs
>and oil. As for "larger", I think the better term is "more widespread",
>as there is little evidence for large coherent networks. And even that
>is in doubt, as the R.A.F, and B-M were ideologically akin to many
>third-world guerilla groups, and such groups could probably count
>on state support to a larger extent than the jihadists, and probably
>were better organized, too. Didn't B-M receive support from the
>East-German intelligence services?

Actually, I personally think a comparison between al Queda and with
the R.A.F. and B-M has some value, as it highlights the core personnel
involved and their immediate acolytes as nihilistic bourgeois
radicals. This comparison becomes less valuable when the larger and
more popular Palestinian and Iraqi insurgency is considered, where
there are genuinely populist roots involved.

>As for this a law enforcement or military issue, I don't care zilch
>about what Clinton or Kerry said about it. Common sense says that
>the best approach consists of a combination of a law enforcement
>strategy (infiltration with the goal of prevention and targeting apart
>finance and leadership) and limited scale military operations (to
>deal with larger groups and installations such as training camps).
>Large-scale military offensives are an only opportunity for the
>enemy to exploit the advantages of assymetric warfare, i.e. quite
>limited forces are sufficient to keep a large military force in
>constant chase, inflicting damage to it with unpredictable attacks.
>Iraq is a nice case study.

The problem in Iraq is not so simple: the conflict is also contingent
upon the creation of conflicting institutions - the American client
government against the local tribalist and religious radical
structures that are contending for local authority. That does come
down to a basic question of who has the most prevalent and consistent
level of force available to secure their rule on a local basis. Large
scale military operations, with specific and extensive political and
intelligence dimensions, are a neccessity to constrain and then
marginalise insurgent institutions and insurgent power bases. Without
the deployment of a sufficient level of military force, the insurgents
are free to deploy violence against any and all threats to their
authority, meaning that there is no hope of a transition to a more
selective campaign against them.

>> And, you certainly aren't extending your anti-war fervor to a defense
>> of the Sadaam regime for the benefit of the Iraqi people, are you?
>
>Ah, but I am not anti-war. I would have been wholly in favour
>of a military operation to remove Saddam from power, if it had
>been properly prepared and thought over. The current mess
>involves the spillage of a lot of blood for probably zero net
>result, unless you think that the replacement of one dictatorship
>by another is a worthwhile achievement.

I can agree with that, but the basic context of Iraqi consciousness
needs to be taken into account. Too many Iraqis are prepared to
engage in, and support or tolerate, terrorist actions according to a
blindly xenophobic and anti-American, anti-western agenda. The
clearest examples of this are the denial of Iraqi agency when
insurgents kill fellow Iraqis, and the obsessive desire to blame the
Americans for everything. With the prevalence of that kind of
political conditioning, and the examples of the bombing of the UN
establishment and the routine kidnapping and murder of foreign
workers, it's clear that any occupation was going to face intractable
problems which stemmed as much from Iraqi prejudices as the actual
operation of occupation policy.

>> "Heavy-handed"????? You know full well, that the heaviness of our hand
>> could be considerably greater. We could easily have leveled Basra,
>> Fallujah, Najaf, Tikrit and any strong-hold of resistance which we
>> chose to.
>
>Yes, but even George W. Bush is not that stupid. Nevertheless,
>the US attitude has been more forceful and heavy-handed than
>was justified. Recent events in Najaf illustrate the point -- why
>mount a substantial offensive when you know perfectly well
>that you can't touch the ultimate target, and in the end you will
>appear to be the loser? It would have been far wiser to back off
>from the start.

I'm not convinced of that. Part of the reason for the recent outburst
of violence was that Sadr's milita felt their local hegemony was udner
threat from Iraqi institutions such as the re-emergence of the local
police. This was a fight sought by Sadr, and I was very suprised to
realise how unpopular he was with locals and with some of Sistani's
constituency in Najaf (who were very frank with some western
journalists over their support for US actions, and the political
impossibility of admitting that publically). I will at least give the
Americans for deploying force with sufficient discrimination.

>You have too many illusions. Even the USA's close allies are
>now having their doubts. Spain has already deserted. Poland
>has let it be known that it feels cheated and deceived. In Britain
>Bush is so unpopular that even the leader of the Conservative
>opposition (usually regarded as a crypto-Republican, and slightly
>to the right of Dzenghis Khan) has determined that picking a fight
>with the Neo-Conservatives in the White House can only boost
>his electoral chances.

No, that has more to do with manufacturing a spurious difference in
policy to capitalise on public disenchantment with Blair's decision to
go to war in the first place. There is little practical domestic
support with any form of military disengagement, as distinct from
distrust over the decision to go to war in the first place. Nobody
believes Conservative governmental policy would have been any
different from Blair's.

Gavin Bailey
--

But, first, want speed. Bart not greedy as all know. 250MHz enough.
I attempt use SGI chip in MB. But chip not fit, then I bend pins. Shove in MB hard.
Now apply hammer. Yeah, sit down, ****er! Power on, go BEEEEEP! - Bart Kwan En

Presidente Alcazar

September 2nd 04, 09:51 AM

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:59:20 GMT, "Jarg" >
wrote:

>Which errors are you thinking of? I think most Americans believe the United
>States should participate in global environmental protection, but only in a
>fair and rational manner. Kyoto demanded a disproportionate impact on the
>United States, and Clinton signed it knowing full well it would never pass
>Senate confirmation. President Bush should be commended acknowleging this
>and putting the treaty out of it's misery!

Sic transit the League of Nations.....

Gavin Bailey

--

But, first, want speed. Bart not greedy as all know. 250MHz enough.
I attempt use SGI chip in MB. But chip not fit, then I bend pins. Shove in MB hard.
Now apply hammer. Yeah, sit down, ****er! Power on, go BEEEEEP! - Bart Kwan En

Leadfoot

September 2nd 04, 03:23 PM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >> Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
> >> saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
> >
> >When and when, respectively?
>
> Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
> mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an
illness,
> then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he
died of
> multiple gun shot wounds. CNN had this to say about Nidal after his death;
> "Nidal and his group have been blamed for more than 90 terrorist attacks
that
> killed more than 300 people and wounded 600 others. The attacks struck at
> Middle Eastern, European and *U.S. targets.*" (my emphasis). The question
> remains; why did Hussain kill Nidal? Lots of speculation, but nothing
certain
> except that Hussain was haboring a known terrorist.
>
> Abu Abbas was picked up in Bahgdad shortly after the U.S. took control of
> Baghdad in April 2003. It was no surprise however and President Bush had
even
> mentioned Baghdad's harboring of Abbas as proof that Hussain was
supporting
> terrorism in a speech before the Iraq invasion began.
>
> >They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
> >were clear that there was no such connection. They also made it clear
> >that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.
> >
>
> Great, Iraq and Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11. The point most
liberals
> fail to understand is the "War on Terrorism" goes beyond al Queada, beyond
> Afghanistan and beyond Asia.

Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We need
to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than hoping
that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work. This
doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they need
to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses. Throwing
Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the hardest.
We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins the
next election leaves office.

I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
November

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Leadfoot

September 2nd 04, 03:25 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bush junior had no such justification for his war. But then, Bush
> > Sr. was one of the better presidents the USA had in this century,
> >
>
> Bush Sr. did not serve as president in this century.
>
>
> >
> > while Bush Jr. may be the worst the USA has ever had.
> >
>
> Bill Clinton was the worst president the USA has ever had.

ROTFLMAO

Excluding the lewinsky/jones stuff explain why.
>
>

Ed Rasimus

September 2nd 04, 03:59 PM

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:23:32 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
>volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We need
>to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than hoping
>that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work.

While this sounds good and noble on its face, it doesn't really work
in the real world. Lyndon Johnson's plea to "reason together" isn't a
good prescription for the elimination of terrorists. When Islamic
terrorists attack the US, destroy the WTC, damage the Pentagon and
attempt to destroy the White House and Capital, you can't simply say,
"Oh, we didn't know you were so upset. What can we do to make it
right."

A strong case can be made that the jihadists don't want to rise to our
economic, technological and democratic level. They want to bring us
down to their fundamentalist, repressive, theocratic level. You don't
and arguably can't win their "hearts and minds." You kill them and
create a political situation that can allow the masses of Arab people
some hope for a democratic future. (Note the evolution of democracy in
Iran which has seemingly turned the corner from rule by the mullahs
and now seeks a return to progressivism.)

> This
>doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they need
>to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses. Throwing
>Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
>friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
>neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the hardest.
>We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins the
>next election leaves office.

But, if step one (ouster of Saddam) hadn't taken place, would there be
even the glimmer of hope for a government based on democratic
principles?
>
>I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
>November

The argument that "violence begets violence" is core to the pacifist
movement. It also sounds good on its face. But, the principle that
violence increases fails upon historic examination. The violence of
Hiroshima didn't beget more violence, it toppled the regime and
created a free and democratic industrialized economic powerhouse. The
violence of D-Day and the march to Berlin didn't create more violence,
it brought us 60 years of peace and stability in central Europe.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Fred the Red Shirt

September 2nd 04, 05:19 PM

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
> om:
>
> > Jim Yanik > wrote in message
> > >...
....
> >> >
> >> > Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
> >> > saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
> >

> > When and when, respectively?

IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.

When was Nidal killed?

> >> >
> >>
> >> The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
> >> Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but still,contacts
> >> with them.
> >
> > They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
> > were clear that there was no such connection.
>
>
> That they could FIND no connection.

Agreed. Thanks for the correction.

> Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
> collapsed entirely.
>
> Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
> invasion.
>

Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
Speculation is not evidence.

> > They also made it clear
> > that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.
>
>
> Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.

ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
of a friendly relationship.

19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.

None of them Iraqi.

--

FF

Denyav

September 2nd 04, 05:39 PM

>A strong case can be made that the jihadists don't want to rise to our
>economic, technological and democratic level. They want to bring us
>down to their fundamentalist, repressive, theocratic level. You don't

Not true,Al-Queda is a proxy of Anglos (and of course Anglo dominated US gov).
It has been reactivated after Brzezinki's "Eurasia Plan" finally collapsed in
1997.

What do you think why US gov't decided to silence Ms.Edmons?
What Ms.Edmons said behind closed doors that other CIA employees did not say in
their books so that she must be silenced whereas other CIA employees were
allowed to publish books ?
She simply said that the US gov't employees who supposed to monitor and track
the "terrorist organizations" have a very close relationship with those
"terrorist organisations and their terrorists"

What happened to the CIA employee who offered Ms.Edmonds big money for not
doing her job correctly and for looking the other way?
Well,she was taken out of US immediately after Ms.Edmonds testimony and she
disappeared in Belgium.

Behind every succesful terrorist organization,there is a goverment agency.

If all world governments stop supporting terrorists today,you can not see even
one succesful terrorist organization 3 months later.

>The argument that "violence begets violence" is core to the pacifist
>movement.

True

>The
>violence of D-Day and the march to Berlin didn't create more violence,
>it brought us 60 years of peace and stability in central Europe.

The Red Ideology was an equal opportunity threat for both Anglos and all others
that was the reason of 60 years peace and stability .
Sole purpose of D-Day and occupation of Germany was to prevent Germany becoming
worlds first and sole nuclear power in summer 1945,not bringing stability and
peace to Germany.

BUFDRVR

September 2nd 04, 08:18 PM

Leadfoot wrote:

>Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
>volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea.

Its impossible to prove that statement is factually correct, in fact, according
to the liberals there are no foreign fighters in Iraq indicating an increase in
radical Islamist fundamentalists. Unless you've taken some kind of Islamic
fundamentalists census, you're just guessing.

>We need
>to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab world

I see, you mean a more sensative war on terrorism. I disagree.

>This
>doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they need
>to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses.

You mean the long term consequences like an Iraq harbored terrorist getting his
hands on an Iraqi built chemical weapon? I agree.

>Throwing
>Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
>friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
>neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the hardest.

No one said the war on terror was going to be easy. Well...actually it could be
easy but more costly for U.S. citizens.

>I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
>November

Trust me, a "more sensative war on terror" will attract people to al Queada in
droves.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

John Mullen

September 2nd 04, 08:23 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

> Thank you for acknowledging our lack of experience in conquering and
> occupying. We most certainly did not "conquer" the Phillipines which
> were simply ceded to the US by Spain after the 1898 unpleasantness.
> But, we have provided a presence to rebuild, stabilize, industrialize
> and defend the result in a number of countries around the world,
> effectively debunking any assertions of colonial intent. (Nuther cheap
> shot--did so in your country as well. And, didn't leave such disasters
> as the Congo behind us either.)

Vietnam? Cambodia? Guatemala? etc etc etc

John

Kevin Brooks

September 2nd 04, 08:24 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > Per capita GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist
> > economies of the world are! For example:
> >
> > United States $35991.96 per person
> > Belgium $29127.94 per person
>
> Waving around your Bulging Wallets as proof of success
> is of course an American Tradition, but GDP per capita is hardly
> the one and only indicator worth mentioning. In quality-of-life
> rankings, Belgium is usually classified above the USA, although
> not by much. Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality,
> better education, etc.

Really? Then why that environmental quality ranking disparity, with the US
coming in at 45 and Belgium at 125?

Brooks

<snip>

Jarg

September 2nd 04, 08:27 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > Per capita GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist
> > economies of the world are! For example:
> >
> > United States $35991.96 per person
> > Belgium $29127.94 per person
>
> Waving around your Bulging Wallets as proof of success
> is of course an American Tradition,

and perhaps it would be a Belgian tradition also were it an option! ;)

>but GDP per capita is hardly
> the one and only indicator worth mentioning. In quality-of-life
> rankings, Belgium is usually classified above the USA, although
> not by much. Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality,
> better education, etc.
>

Nice try at changing the subject, but the discussion was about right vs.
left economics. I have cited evidence that the left policies of income
redistribution are less efficient.

jarg

Kevin Brooks

September 2nd 04, 08:30 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > True enough. For example, in terms of forestation, Belgium lands number
88
> > in the world rankings, with an indicated loss of net forested area
between
> > 1990 and 2000, while the US ranks 85, with a net increase demonstrated
in
> > the last decade
>
> Allow me to point out that Belgium's population density
> is about ten times higher than that of the USA: 10 million
> people on about 30,500 square kilometers, while the USA
> has 293 million people on 9.15 million square kilometers.
> Only Rhode Island and New Jersey have more people per
> unit of area than Belgium. It is not that remarkable that the
> USA has more forested land.

Wahh. Maybe you need to consider population density one of the problems
*you* need to worry about more than you do the US election process then,
huh?

>
> As for the loss of forested area, this trend is currently being
> reversed, with a programme to buy back land and convert it
> back into forest; something not wholly liked by farmers who
> regard it as a waste of good arable land. The big problem is
> to create an ecological system of some reasonable size out
> of patches of scattered woodland.

Gee, and you missed (more accurately, you just snipped it without
acknowledgment, which last I knew does not make the point go away...) that
"environmental sustainability index" difference--US at 45, and Belgium at
125? Yep, you *do* have more pressing problems at home...

Brooks

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel dot Gustin @t skynet dot be
>
>

Ed Rasimus

September 2nd 04, 08:48 PM

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:03:14 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> Per capita GDP numbers show pretty clearly how "efficient" the socialist
>> economies of the world are! For example:
>>
>> United States $35991.96 per person
>> Belgium $29127.94 per person
>
>Waving around your Bulging Wallets as proof of success
>is of course an American Tradition, but GDP per capita is hardly
>the one and only indicator worth mentioning. In quality-of-life
>rankings, Belgium is usually classified above the USA, although
>not by much. Longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality,
>better education, etc.
>

You should be aware that GDP is Gross Domestic Product. It's a measure
of productivity, not a more ephemeral "quality of life". (So much for
"better education" heh?)

Having lived in Europe for eight years, I will agree that there are
many European countries which have a great quality of life. They also
usually have a very high per-capita tax burden, a high level of
government subsidy of non-production and increasingly seem to be
following the American trend toward over-simplification of complex
issues while simultaneously displaying an apathy toward taking any
risks in their own defense.

Maybe you don't live longer, it only seems longer?

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Fred the Red Shirt

September 2nd 04, 09:12 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >> Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
> >> saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
> >
> >When and when, respectively?
>
> Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
> mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an illness,
> then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that he died of
> multiple gun shot wounds.

It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.

--

FF

Chris Mark

September 2nd 04, 09:40 PM

>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

>As for the loss of forested area, this trend is currently being
>reversed, with a programme to buy back land and convert it
>back into forest; something not wholly liked by farmers who
>regard it as a waste of good arable land. The big problem is
>to create an ecological system of some reasonable size out
>of patches of scattered woodland

Wonderful. So we cut Belgium some slack on that. But why won't you cut the US
any slack? We have made huge strides in correcting environmental damage and
are continuing to do so, the huge project to restore wetlands in the San
Francisco Bay area and the massive Buffalo Commons plan on the Great Plains
being only two examples of this. Protecting and preserving the environment is
a very old American concern, dating back at least to John Muir, John
Burroughs, Ernest Thompson Seton, and Teddy Roosevelt. Europeans have nothing
to lord over Americans when it comes to nature conservation.

It damages the credibility of your arguments when you relentlessly assume the
worst about America and attribute to us only the basest motives in everything
we do.

Chris Mark

uberConservative

September 2nd 04, 10:07 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> Because his dimwit father did?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

To expand on that, I wonder is why Bush supporters think
he is strong on defense.

Even the Project for a New American Century criticized
Bush's defense policy (even asking Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
to resign!) for all of 2001 up until sep 10, 2001.

Then 9/11 hit despite the warnings of Richard Clarke,
the FBI's John O'Neill (who left to work for the WTC
in Aug 2001), Hart/Rudman report, the April 2001 PDB,
and Janet Reno's prioritizing of terrorism.

So Bush has warning throughout 2001 and *conservative*
criticism on defense and *then* 9/11 hits?

What would you think the natural reaction should be?

Post-9/11 *any* President would be strong on Defense.
Running up the record deficits Bush has, *any* President
could spent their way into a somewhat recovering economy.

I think Team Bush fell asleep at the wheel.

- Bush was more concerned with tax cuts and China.
- Rumsfeld was more concerned with missile defense.
- Ashcroft was more concerned with Christian-based moralizing.
- Rice was more concerned with *not* "policing" the world.
- Cheney was meeting with Kenneth Lay.

9/11 hits and Team Bush has to cover their asses.

Fortunately Team Wolfowitz, Feith and Pearle have a
ready-made war plan to dust off.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/def_natl_sec_025.htm
Aug 14, 2000 Business week. "Bush's Foreign Policy: Like Father,
Like Son?" by Stan Crock - Summary: Daddy Bush might have
gone to war in Iraq in part for oil, but he was not ideological
like W might be. Daddy Bush acted in a way that was strategically
good for America and far more pragmatic than W who might back
policies for moralistic reasons. One key factor is W's
influential advisor (Chalabi's schoolmate) Paul Wolfowitz.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010116.htm
Jan 16, 2001 New American Century Memorandum by Thomas Donnelly
"Gulf War Anniversary." Summary: The need to go into Iraq to
unseat Saddam from power will require a much larger military
force than it did ten years ago, even if the Iraqi army will
likely collapse even more quickly than during the Gulf War.

www.newamericancentury.org/Editorial_Jan22_01.pdf
Jan 22, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "Spend More on Defense Now" by
Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly. Summary: W has not yet
increased Defense spending within the first few weeks of his
inauguration like Reagan did.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010207.htm
Feb 7, 2001 Washington Post. "Read My Lips, Part II - Shorting the
Military" by Robert Kagan. Summary: Ari Fleischer announces
that Bush will not seek Defense budget increases for FY 2001 or
2002, deferring to the budgets Clinton left behind - This despite
Bush's strong-on-defense campaign run.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/afghanistan-030801.htm
Mar 8, 2001 New York Times. "Taking Sides in Afghanistan" by Reuel
Marc Gerecht. Summary: Osama bin Laden, Afghanstan resident
since 1996, may have found a spiritual connection with the
Taliban. Citing long-standing problems beginning with the Clinton
administration, Bush is urged to focus on Afghanistan in light of
the Cole bombing.

www.newamericancentury.org/Editorial_Mar12_01.pdf
Mar 12, 2001 The Weekly Standard: Editorial "Clinton's Foreign
Policy" by Robert Kagan and William Kristol. Summary: Bush's
adoption of Clinton's meager Defense budget might have been
motivated by budgetary reasons related to Bush's desire for tax
cuts. Bush's contemplation of easing sanctions on Iraq might be
signal a further weakening of America's resolve.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm
May 14, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "Liberate Iraq" by Reuel Marc
Gerecht. Summary: Discusses the unfinished business the US has
with Saddam. Saddam's tenacity betrays an apparent American
weakness. They fear Bush may take the "French" approach of
diplomacy. There are chances that Bush may fight, but such an
endeavor must be done with the proper resources and cannot be done
on the cheap. There is also an even-handed assessment of Chalabi,
who may or may not be a credible advisor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010604.htm
Jun 4, 2001 The Weekly Standard: Memorandum. "Defense" by Gary
Schmitt. Summary: Citing the New York Times and The Weekly
Standard, there is concern that the military budget might be
neglected in favor of Bush's tax cuts.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/nato-20010618.htm
Jun 18, 2001: The Washington Post. "A Good Week's Work" by Robert
Kagan. Summary: Bush is quoted as saying "I am not a
unilateralist." when addressing Europe, as he rejected his
counsel to pull troops out of the Balkans. The "no more peace-
keeping" doctrine favored by Rice and Rumsfeld was scuttled.
(Nothing to do with Iraq. Just a reference to the above
discussion about Clinton's decision to go after Milosovic.)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-070601.htm
Jul 6, 2001 New American Century Memorandum "Iraq" by Tom Donnelly.
Summary: Bush's tough campaign talk regarding the Persian Gulf
may go unrealized. Furthermore, Rumsfeld's defense review may
wipe out 20% of Army combat units, which may require any
occupation of Iraq to pull too many forces from the US, Europe
and Korea.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010712.htm
Jul 12, 2001 New American Century Memorandum "Defense" by William
Kristol and Gary Schmitt. Summary: Bush's defense spending is
being sacrificed for tax cuts and a fear against cutting domestic
spending. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are asking for more Defense
spending, citing a lack of vision in 1950 when defense spending
was lax just prior to US engagement in Korea.

www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010723.pdf
Jul 23, 2001 The Weekly Standard Editorial. "No Defense" by Robert
Kagan and William Kristol. Summary: Advice to Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz: resign. Rumsfeld asked for a minimum of $35 billion
for FY 2002 and was given $18 billion by Bush's administration.
There is also concern about replacing the decades-old two-war
standard for a smaller, sleeker, more technologically-dependant
military, which would require a thinning of military resources
in Europe and East Asia. An incursion into Iraq might further
stretch our resources.

www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010730.pdf
Jul 30, 2001 The Weekly Standard. "A Cowering Superpower" by Reuel
Marc Gerecht. Summary: bin Laden's bombing of the Cole and the
tenacity of Saddam Hussein to resist the US might enable
terrorists who might see America as a paper tiger. It also
mentions the threats of al Quaeda "sleepers" and the efficacy of
worldwide CNN terrorist bulletins. It also deeply criticizes
the proposed "smart sanctions" against Iraq.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/nato-20010805.htm
Aug 5, 2001 The New York Times. Allies in America's National
Interest by Jeffrey Gedmin and Gary Schmitt. Summary:
Criticizes Bush's unilateral position on rejecting Kyoto. Says
a long-term consequence may be that other pacts dependant on
international cooperation might suffer, specifically those
regarding Iraq and Iran.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20010910.htm
Sep 10, 2001 The Weekly Standard. The Phony Defense Budget War by
Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly. Summary: Another critique
against Bush's priority of tax cuts over increasing the military
budget. It also criticizes the renouncing of the standard of
winning two "major theater wars" in favor of a smaller military
which would likely make an occupation of Iraq difficult or
impossible.

Ed Rasimus

September 2nd 04, 11:04 PM

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:15:05 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You should be aware that GDP is Gross Domestic Product. It's a measure
>> of productivity, not a more ephemeral "quality of life". (So much for
>> "better education" heh?)
>
>One of the fundamental principles of economy is that money has
>no value in itself. One should not confuse means with ends, and
>money firmly belongs in the former category. If a measure for
>the "efficiency" (and that is what this tangent of the debate was
>about) or "success" of an economy needs to be chosen, then the
>well-being of the people who participate in it (in so far as this
>can be quantified) seems a much more reasonable yardstick than
>abstract numbers written down on pieces of paper or stored in
>computer memories.

Philosophically you are correct, but technically you're addressing
apples/oranges. GDP measures productivity. Theoretically it could be a
slave economy that produced incredible amounts of goods/service.
Practically an examination of the attempts at a Marxist-Leninist
planned economy demonstrate that would be highly unlikely.

Despite what you might glean from your reading of the media, Americans
as a whole are well housed, well-nourished, well educated and healthy.
Whether or not a bigger house, bigger (and more) vehicles, more
televisions, more cell-phones, etc. etc. equal happiness is undecided.
>
>The USA has a high GDP per capita, but much of this money
>seems to be to the country what the Peruvian silver was to
>16th century Spain -- "like rain for a roof" as a Venetian (IIRC)
>ambassador put it. It streams away without being usefully spent
>or invested, and the country is piling up debts nevertheless.
>(Even the excuse is the same -- global warfare.)
>
>Belgians have learnt from experience what a high debt burden
>means for a country, and we really can't recommend it.

What Belgians have learned from experience is that as a small country
they can depend upon other, larger, more powerful nations to defend
them and hence they can ride along as the nastier burdens are carried
by others. Much like the Japanese, you've got the advantage of
providing a "butter" economy without the burden of a "guns" segment of
the budget. The Japanese have justification in that they are
constitutionally prohibited from developing much in the way of a
military.

The debt burden of the US is a result of responding to a signficant
attack on our nation and a severe blow to our economy by a ruthless
enemy. We choose to defend ourselve and incur those costs. In the
process, you get defended as well.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

BUFDRVR

September 3rd 04, 12:19 AM

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.

Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism. Nidal had
a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end?
Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack against the
U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who knows?

Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually
fighting terrorism; what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was
harboring, supporting and working with terrorists.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

September 3rd 04, 12:22 AM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

>I have, however, an intensily negative opinion on G.W. Bush and
>the Neo-Con government.

Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current government
otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con".

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

September 3rd 04, 12:26 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>What Belgians have learned from experience is that as a small country
>they can depend upon other, larger, more powerful nations to defend
>them

And can you imagine, after their experience in both World Wars, that they take
this stand?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Jim Yanik

September 3rd 04, 04:07 AM

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:

> Jim Yanik > wrote in message
> >...
>> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
>> om:
>>
>> > Jim Yanik > wrote in message
>> > >...
> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are
>> >> > you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
>> >
>
>> > When and when, respectively?
>
> IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.
>
> When was Nidal killed?

The above comments were not from JYanik,your attribs are screwed up.
>
>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
>> >> Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but
>> >> still,contacts with them.
>> >
>> > They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
>> > were clear that there was no such connection.
>>
>>
>> That they could FIND no connection.
>
> Agreed. Thanks for the correction.
>
>> Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
>> collapsed entirely.
>>
>> Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
>> invasion.
>>
>
> Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
> Speculation is not evidence.

Concerning WMD possibly moved to Syria,there was some unconfirmed
intelligence that this may have occurred.Israel seems to think
so.IIRC,there were 3 *specific* sites in Syria,but the US refused to check
them out.
>
>> > They also made it clear
>> > that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.
>>
>>
>> Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.
>
> ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
> of a friendly relationship.

Or plausible denial,"cover your tracks".
IIRC,Saddam told them they could go freely in and out of Iraq.
Giving medical treatment to terrorists IS *support*,it's aiding and
abetting.No different than any MD who gives medical treatment to criminals
wounded in a crime and does not report it

>
> 19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.

A failure of our open border policies and administration conflicts like the
State Dept's.
>
> None of them Iraqi.
>

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Mike Dargan

September 3rd 04, 04:13 AM

Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
> om:
>
>
>>Jim Yanik > wrote in message
>...
>>
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in
om:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jim Yanik > wrote in message
>...
>>
>>...
>>
>>>>>>Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are
>>>>>>you saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
>>>>
>>>>When and when, respectively?
>>
>>IIRC, Abbas was living there openly after an amnesty agreement.
>>
>>When was Nidal killed?
>
>
> The above comments were not from JYanik,your attribs are screwed up.
>
>>
>>>>>The 9-11 Commission report says that Saddam had contacts with
>>>>>Al-Queda. Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11,but
>>>>>still,contacts with them.
>>>>
>>>>They did not say 'Perhpas not directly connected with 9-11' They
>>>>were clear that there was no such connection.
>>>
>>>
>>>That they could FIND no connection.
>>
>>Agreed. Thanks for the correction.
>>
>>
>>>Of course,there also was a lot of Iraqi records BURNED before they
>>>collapsed entirely.
>>>
>>>Just like the WMD materiels may be sitting in Syria,moved before the
>>>invasion.
>>>
>>
>>Or maybe The Romulan Empire is hiding Iraqi corbomite bombs.
>>Speculation is not evidence.
>
>
> Concerning WMD possibly moved to Syria,there was some unconfirmed
> intelligence that this may have occurred.Israel seems to think
> so.IIRC,there were 3 *specific* sites in Syria,but the US refused to check
> them out.
>
>>>>They also made it clear
>>>>that the contacts never advanced to cooperation, let alone support.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just allowing them safe haven and passage is support.
>>
>>ISTR that the meeting took place outside of Iraq. Not indicative
>>of a friendly relationship.
>
>
> Or plausible denial,"cover your tracks".
> IIRC,Saddam told them they could go freely in and out of Iraq.
> Giving medical treatment to terrorists IS *support*,it's aiding and
> abetting.No different than any MD who gives medical treatment to criminals
> wounded in a crime and does not report it

Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?

Cheers

--mike

>
>
>>19 Al Quada persons found safe passage in the US in 2001.
>
>
> A failure of our open border policies and administration conflicts like the
> State Dept's.
>
>>None of them Iraqi.
>>
>
>
>
>

BUFDRVR

September 3rd 04, 04:29 AM

Mike Dargan wrote:

>Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?

I'm sure you can provide an example? No? I didn't think so. The only thing the
Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After
they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a
crack down has begun.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Mike Dargan

September 3rd 04, 04:36 AM

BUFDRVR wrote:

> Mike Dargan wrote:
>
>
>>Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?
>
>
> I'm sure you can provide an example?

Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

No? I didn't think so.

If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

Cheers

--mike

The only thing the
> Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
> madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist groups. After
> they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the point and a
> crack down has begun.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Thelasian

September 3rd 04, 05:21 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Thelasian wrote:
>
> >Only IF such events were real and not merely Neocon spin-doctoring.
>
> Come on! Get it right, it's a "vast right wing conspiracy"

Interesting how you're quite willing to see conspiracies where you
like, but not where you don't like.

> >Both the US State Department and the Iraqi Foreign Ministry have said
> >they don't have any evidence of Iranian support for al-Sadr
>
> Interesting? But perhaps the military (you know, the numerous guys actually
> there, on the ground in Iraq) *does* have evidence.

Too bad they too say that they haven't found the famous "foreign
infiltators"
So are you saying that Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of
the 82nd Airborne Division is lying when he says "Most of the attacks
on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not
foreign forces," (see below)

His own words and actions
> are good enough for me. His exile to Iran following his fathers assasination in
> 1999 is pretty damning as far as an Iranian link and he has openly called for

Ummmm...in that case you'd better be prepared for a shock: MOST of
Iraq's dissidents have at some time or another been to Iran. Iran is
after all the neighbor of Iraq, and an enemy of Saddam. Does that
automatically make Sadr a stooge of Iran? In fact the current
US-installed Iraqi FM is in Iran - I guess hes' a stooge of Iran too?

>
> >and
> >despite all the White House - Pentagon talk about "foreign fighters"
> >precious few have actually turned up
>
> Wrong.
>
> >"Suspected foreign fighters account for less than 2% of the 5,700
> >captives being held as security threats in Iraq
>
> How many of the dead are foreign? How many suicide bombers are foriegn? These
> guys are not surrendering which will upset your data.
> Sorry, but talking with
> guys who have been there, they say the foriegn influance in the insurgency is
> huge.
>

Yeah well that's not what your "guys" say to the reporters.

UPI Wednesday, 19-Nov-2003 4:50AM PST
Copyright 2003 by United Press International (via ClariNet)

BAGHDAD, Nov. 19 (UPI) -- U.S. military leaders say there is little
evidence of foreign fighters from Syria, Turkey and Iran in Iraq.

"Most of the attacks on our forces are by former regime loyalists and
other Iraqis, not foreign forces," said Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack
Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division....The generals' remarks
don't concur with Bush administration estimates of last month, when
the number of foreign fighters was pegged between 1,000 and 3,000, the
New York Times reported Wednesday...

Leadfoot

September 3rd 04, 05:32 AM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:23:32 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
> wrote:
>
> >Providing your enemy with a cause that will increase the number of
> >volunteers 10 fold for his army doesn't strike me as a smart idea. We
need
> >to work to win "hearts and minds" thoughout the arab wold rather than
hoping
> >that grabbing them by the balls as this administration has will work.
>
> While this sounds good and noble on its face, it doesn't really work
> in the real world. Lyndon Johnson's plea to "reason together" isn't a
> good prescription for the elimination of terrorists. When Islamic
> terrorists attack the US, destroy the WTC, damage the Pentagon and
> attempt to destroy the White House and Capital, you can't simply say,
> "Oh, we didn't know you were so upset. What can we do to make it
> right."

Give Israel a good spanking when it needs it. Settling the occupied
terrorities was really stupid.

>
> A strong case can be made that the jihadists don't want to rise to our
> economic, technological and democratic level. They want to bring us
> down to their fundamentalist, repressive, theocratic level. You don't
> and arguably can't win their "hearts and minds." You kill them and
> create a political situation that can allow the masses of Arab people
> some hope for a democratic future.

Just how many do you plan to kill? 10, 20, 30 million? There are religious
schools all over the Niddle east teaching children that america is the
enemy. There are over a billion Muslims, If only 10% hold extemist views
thats a 100 million.

And before someone out in the peanu gallery calls me an anti-semite. I
fully support the right of Israel to exist. I just wish Israel would be
smarter about doing it.

(Note the evolution of democracy in
> Iran which has seemingly turned the corner from rule by the mullahs
> and now seeks a return to progressivism.)

The last Iranian election seemed to be a step backwards as candidates had to
be "mullah approved"

>
>
> > This
> >doesn't mean that military operations aren't needed, they are, but they
need
> >to be well thought out with an eye to the long term consequenses.
Throwing
> >Saddaam out was the easy part, putting in a government in Iraq that is
> >friendly to US interests, has the support of its populace and that its
> >neighbors and the world won't see as US puppet is going to be the
hardest.
> >We won't know if this can be accomplished until long after whoever wins
the
> >next election leaves office.
>
> But, if step one (ouster of Saddam) hadn't taken place, would there be
> even the glimmer of hope for a government based on democratic
> principles?

Might have been a lot brighter picture if we could have worked better with
the UN and our allies. I have a sneaking suspicion that their decision may
not have been based on how they perceived the threat of Iraq under Sadaam
but whether or not they wanted to do it with George "my way or the highway"
Bush in charge. Roosevelt had people working on the occupation of Germany
in 1943. These guys, who have planned this war since 1998 didn't start
until Baghdad fell.

Ultimately we aren't going to know until US troops leave.

> >
> >I'm certainly not voting for the best recruiter Al-Queda ever had in
> >November
>
> The argument that "violence begets violence" is core to the pacifist
> movement. It also sounds good on its face. But, the principle that
> violence increases fails upon historic examination. The violence of
> Hiroshima didn't beget more violence,

There is a good argument that it wasn't the A-bombs but the Soviets entry
to the war that did the trick

it toppled the regime and
> created a free and democratic industrialized economic powerhouse. The
> violence of D-Day and the march to Berlin didn't create more violence,
> it brought us 60 years of peace and stability in central Europe.

Apples and oranges. This war is nothing like WWII. Don't mistake my
opposition to Bush for pacifism. I spent a few years on willy airplane
patch in the comm unit (76-80). I fully support the war against Bin-laden
and Al-queda. I think the war though in Iraq is a misguided side show that
wasted resources like RC-135's and arab speaking green berets which could
have been used better in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

When your boot is on the enemies throat you don't let up. Bush did and now
he needs to pay for it.

>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
> Both from Smithsonian Books
> ***www.thunderchief.org

Kevin Brooks

September 3rd 04, 06:34 AM

"Mike Dargan" > wrote in message
news:3FRZc.107321$Fg5.31523@attbi_s53...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> > Mike Dargan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Is it okay for the House of Saud to provide aid to terrorists?
> >
> >
> > I'm sure you can provide an example?
>
> Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

"This is where Unger's accusations are greeted with skepticism. For experts,
connection does not prove corruption. Jonathan D. Tepperman, senior editor
at the policy journal Foreign Affairs, argues that Unger's book "has done a
really good job" showing "a lot of smoke but what he hasn't done is shown me
there is any fire." Tepperman wrote a critical review of Unger's book in The
New York Times Book Review. In an interview, Tepperman agreed with Unger
that "these connections" (such as President Bush hosting Bandar at his
Crawford ranch, an honor usually reserved for heads of state) do "look bad."
But he adds "what I don't see is any evidence that the Bush family ever let
their personal financial concerns dictate U.S. policy."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/politics/main612852.shtml

A book full of inuendo, and short of hard evidence.

>
> No? I didn't think so.
>
> If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

So what you are saying with all of that obtuse wording is that you don't
think too much?

>
> Cheers
>
> --mike
>
> The only thing the
> > Saudi government has been guilty of is not cracking down on the Wahabbi
> > madrasses that are creating people who will be drawn to terrorist
groups. After
> > they blew up a square block of a Saudi city, the government got the
point and a
> > crack down has begun.

Odd how you missed out on this more important bit of Bufdrvr's response.

Brooks

> >
> >
> > BUFDRVR
> >
> > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> > everyone on Bear Creek"

Peter Stickney

September 3rd 04, 01:32 PM

In article >,
(BUFDRVR) writes:
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>>What Belgians have learned from experience is that as a small country
>>they can depend upon other, larger, more powerful nations to defend
>>them
>
> And can you imagine, after their experience in both World Wars, that they take
> this stand?

That, in fact was a Big Problem in World War 2. During most of the
1930s, the Belgians had rebuffed proposals by Great Britain and France
that they develop a joint strategy, and do joint planning, for teh
defence of Belgium (And thus Northern France) from a German Invasion.
(FOr whatever reasons, such a "The Germans are nice people, they've
only invaded us twice, maybe they won't this time." or "If we don't
provoke them, we won't be on the list of targets.")
This changed in late 1939, when the writing was firmly engraved on the
wall, and Belgium as a nation changed their mind and hollered lustily
for help. Of course, by that time, it was too late.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Harry Andreas

September 3rd 04, 05:09 PM

In article >,
(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

> (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
>...
> > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >
> > >> Abbas was caught in Baghdad and Abu Nidal was killed there. Are you
> > >> saying the Iraqi government didn't control Baghdad?
> > >
> > >When and when, respectively?
> >
> > Abu Nidal was killed in Baghdad in August of 2002. There is considerable
> > mystery surrounding his death. Baghdad initially claimed he died of an
illness,
> > then they claimed suicide. Information leaked out shortly after that
he died of
> > multiple gun shot wounds.
>
> It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.

Sounds like he died of lead poisoning.

By definition, terrorists are extremely dangerous people. Perhaps Saddam
decided that he had lived too long.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Fred the Red Shirt

September 3rd 04, 07:01 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> >It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.
>
> Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism. Nidal had
> a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end?
> Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack against the
> U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who knows?
>
> Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually
> fighting terrorism;

I made no such claim.

> what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was
> harboring, supporting and working with terrorists.

I already stated that Abbas was living openly in Baghdad
pursuant to some sort of amnesty agreement.

I wasn't clear on how long Nidal was had been there befor his
execution, I appreciate the information.

I don't think anyone has made a case for either of them being
involved with the attacks of September 11, or part of the heirarchy
of Al Quaeda. I'll agree their organizations are as bad and
should be dealt with in a similar manner, but not necessarily on
the same schedule.

--

FF

John Mullen

September 3rd 04, 10:26 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current
> government
>> otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con".
>
> The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
> not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
> to "con-men".
>
> This IMHO contributes greatly to its appropriateness.

As a Francophone you will appreciate the 'con' part of it in a different way
as well. More appropriate still IMO

John

Ed Rasimus

September 3rd 04, 10:55 PM

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:09:03 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current
>government
>> otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con".
>
>The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
>not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
>to "con-men".
>
>This IMHO contributes greatly to its appropriateness.

That may be the most foolish thing I've heard today, if not for the
entire week. A bit of research would educate you that the "neo-con"
movement greatly predates the Bush administration and relates mostly
to US/Israel relations.

But, then using your rationale of "sound and appearance" you won't
mind if I refer to as Belch-eek. Or, maybe Bulgian. Or, pseudo-French.

My heartfelt and respectfully submitted suggestion is that you simply
let us conduct our politics and refrain from embarrassing yourself.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Chris Mark

September 3rd 04, 11:05 PM

From "Emmanuel Gustin"

>> The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
>> not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
>> to "con-men".

The so-called neo-cons are more appropriately Jackson Democrats, not Andrew but
Henry (although they _could_ be Andrew's, too, at least on foreign policy).
Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) was one of the great ones. He and his
protoges were dismayed by Carter's foreign policy (and Nixon-Kissinger before
him). Jackson was unable to divert the party from its lurch toward
accomodation and appeasement in the 1970s, and while he valiantly tried to
retain some vestige of the hard-hitting foreign policy party of FDR, Truman and
Kennedy, many of his staff bolted to the Republicans when former Democrat
Reagan ran for the White House. I suppose Reagan could be called the first
neo-con, except that he had strong conservative view on domestic issues,
whereas most contemporary "neo-cons" really don't. They are not particularly
conservative on domestic political issues. I suppose in that area they might
be sort of "South Park" Republicans, who are Rockefeller Republicans with
"attitude." I doubt most voters know what their views are on domestic policy
issues. Most are Defense Dept. types focused solely on foreign policy issues.
Their take on foreign policy is certainly not "conservative" in the traditional
sense of the Tafts or Hoover or even Eisenhower. It has been described as
"matured Kennedyism," which sounds about right. (Eg, don't go anywhere and pay
any price for freedom, go only where you need to and pay the minumum necessary
price to get the job done.)
Among Scoop Jackson protoges close to Bush 43, the core "neo-cons," if you
will, are:
Tom Foley, former house speaker; Donald Rumsfeld, Sec. Defense; Doug Feith,
undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of
defense and one of Bush's Iraq policy experts; Elliott Abrams, special
assistant to the president on Middle East affairs; and Jeanne Kirkpatrick,
Reagan's UN ambassador, now out of the limelight, but not without influence.

Chris Mark

Paul J. Adam

September 4th 04, 12:12 AM

In message >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.
>
>Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism.

There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...

Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have happened
to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.

(One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)

>Nidal had
>a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end?
>Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack against the
>U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who knows?

By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and California.

>Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually
>fighting terrorism;

Oh, the only terrorists Hussein wanted to fight were those criminally
insane mental defectives who failed to recognise that Saddam Hussein was
the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Basically, anyone who was willing to fight his enemies was Good: anyone
whose actions might threaten him or draw too much heat down on him was
Bad. The moment Nidal became more of a liability than an asset, he got a
nine-millimetre lobotomy.

>what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was
>harboring, supporting and working with terrorists.

Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

Life isn't simple or obvious.

None of this, by the way, is to imply that Hussein was a blushing
innocent, nor that deposing him and putting him on trial is less than
desirable.

But much worse has been tolerated in the past (cf. Libya for sponsoring
terror, or Argentina for torture and murder and attacking outside its
borders, for examples) and it remains a question worth asking: given the
cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 01:00 AM

Mike Dargan wrote:

>Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

You're going to have to do better than that. That book has been trashed by even
liberal critics.

>If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

At least I think at all, you appear to just pick up the latest liberal rag and
absorb everything.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 01:14 AM

Thelasian wrote:

>Too bad they too say that they haven't found the famous "foreign
>infiltators"
>So are you saying that Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of
>the 82nd Airborne Division is lying when he says "Most of the attacks
>on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not
>foreign forces," (see below)

Here's the problem with people who don't understand what's going on in Iraq or
military operations in general (or who are trying to distort the truth
intentionally). Did the 82nd have responsibility for all of Iraq? No, they had
responsibility for Baghdad. When Gen. Swannack made his statements was he
making them about all of Iraq or just Baghdad? He was making them about
Baghdad. Well publisized strikes (both air and ground) in western Iraq have
killed numerous foreign fighters transiting *into* Iraq. The presence of
foreign fighters in Fallujah is well known. Hell, the most infameous guy we're
battling (al Zarkawi) in Iraq is a Jordanian.

> MOST of
>Iraq's dissidents have at some time or another been to Iran.

I'm sure you can provide proof that *MOST* of Iraq's dissendents have been
protected by the Iranian government "at some time or another". We're not
talking about a weekend visit here, al Sadr was living under protected status
in Iran for 4 years and was returned to Iraq *by the Iranian government*!

>Does that
>automatically make Sadr a stooge of Iran?

What's that saying; if it smells, looks and acts like a duck, it must be a
duck.

> In fact the current
>US-installed Iraqi FM is in Iran - I guess hes' a stooge of Iran too?

Only if he stays there for 4 years as a guest of the goverment then re-enters
the country with the assistance of the Iranian government.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Denyav

September 4th 04, 01:20 AM

>onald Rumsfeld, Sec. Defense; Doug Feith,
>undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of
>defense and one of Bush's Iraq policy experts; Elliott Abrams, special
>assistant to the president on Middle East affairs; and Jeanne Kirkpatrick,

You seem to forget the most important name of whole neo con story.
Neocons are also known as "The Straussians", .Leo Strauss was the spritual
leader and chief ideologist of neo con movement.

Many of the neo cons you mentioned above were actually the students of Strauss.

Mike Dargan

September 4th 04, 01:22 AM

BUFDRVR wrote:
> Mike Dargan wrote:
>
>
>>Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.
>
>
> You're going to have to do better than that. That book has been trashed by even
> liberal critics.
>
>
>>If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.
>
>
> At least I think at all, you appear to just pick up the latest liberal rag and
> absorb everything.

Ouch! There'll be tears on my pillow tonight.

Cheers

--mike

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 01:22 AM

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

>I don't think anyone has made a case for either of them being
>involved with the attacks of September 11, or part of the heirarchy
>of Al Quaeda.

Here's where you and the Democratic party aren't paying attention. Al Queada
*is not* the only terrorist organization we're fighting. Numerous groups
throughout the world have expressed an interest in harming the U.S. and/or our
allies and we're fighting *all of them*! Just because you're not connected with
Al Queada and/or 9/11 doesn't mean we're going to wait for you to get your act
togather and hit us.

>I'll agree their organizations are as bad and
>should be dealt with in a similar manner, but not necessarily on
>the same schedule.

The only "schedule" that's important is the one where we hit them before they
hit us. Unless you can find a way to tell when they're going to hit us, our
"schedule" will be to get you as soon as we can. We got rid of Hussain as soon
as we could, with a slight delay in trying to pacify the U.N.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Kevin Brooks

September 4th 04, 01:35 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, BUFDRVR
> > writes
> >Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >>It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.
> >
> >Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism.
>
> There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...

Not insinuations--more like proven fact at this point. Let's see...Al
Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in Afghanistan
and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was
given medical treatment in Baghdad...Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser
Al Islam, which group had Hussein's "stamp of approval". Yep, that adds up
to providing support to AQ. Franks covers this in his recent book, just as
he covered it last night in his speech.

>
> Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have happened
> to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
> to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.

Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
that? A period of some *years*...

>
> (One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
> persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)

Trying to change the subject? The subject here is Hussein and his support of
terrorists--Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Al Zarqawi...

>
> >Nidal had
> >a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end?
> >Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack
against the
> >U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who
knows?
>
> By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and California.

Strawman...

>
> >Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually
> >fighting terrorism;
>
> Oh, the only terrorists Hussein wanted to fight were those criminally
> insane mental defectives who failed to recognise that Saddam Hussein was
> the Way, the Truth and the Life.
>
> Basically, anyone who was willing to fight his enemies was Good: anyone
> whose actions might threaten him or draw too much heat down on him was
> Bad. The moment Nidal became more of a liability than an asset, he got a
> nine-millimetre lobotomy.
>
> >what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was
> >harboring, supporting and working with terrorists.
>
> Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

If you wish to start a thread about how you think the UK should go to war
with the US, go right ahead; the issue here is Hussein and his support of
terrorists, though. You have acknowledged that he did indeed support
terrorists, so what are you arguing about now?

>
> Life isn't simple or obvious.
>
>
> None of this, by the way, is to imply that Hussein was a blushing
> innocent, nor that deposing him and putting him on trial is less than
> desirable.
>
> But much worse has been tolerated in the past (cf. Libya for sponsoring
> terror, or Argentina for torture and murder and attacking outside its
> borders, for examples) and it remains a question worth asking: given the
> cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?

Isn't it strange how those who are most huffy about US action against Iraq
often put Libya forward as a counterexample, and forget that the action
against Iraq is probably the single greatest factor in bringing QaDaffy Duck
"in from the cold", so to speak, in terms of his own WMD efforts (and
apparently terrorist support as well)?

Brooks

John Mullen

September 4th 04, 01:37 AM

"ian maclure" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:55:49 -0600, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> But, then using your rationale of "sound and appearance" you won't
>> mind if I refer to as Belch-eek. Or, maybe Bulgian. Or, pseudo-French.
>
> Its Wal-Loon-ian.
> Need I say more?

I've noticed this before; for such a swaggering, gung-ho country, many
Americans seem very thin-skinned. The half-life from any criticism of any
aspect of your country to playground insults seems to be about three posts.
Sad.

John

Denyav

September 4th 04, 01:44 AM

>OST* of Iraq's dissendents have been
>protected by the Iranian government "at some time or another". We're not
>talking about a weekend visit here, al Sadr was living under protected status
>in Iran for 4 years and was returned to Iraq *by the Iranian government*!

Interesting I wonder why Ayatollah Sistani went to UK for the negotations,oops
I meant for the treatment,and not to US or Iran ?
US lost the Irak when Ayatollah Sistani in fall of 2003 declared a terrorist
bomb attack that claimed the lives of hundreds of worshippers as a "provocation
of US".
The wise Ayatollah was right it was a provocation but not a "provocation of
US".

>Only if he stays there for 4 years as a guest of the goverment then re-enters
>the country with the assistance of the Iranian government.

Where and when did Sistani go for the "treatment" and how he returned to Iraq?.
Similarities with Ayatollah Humeyni's return to Iran from France are of course
only coincidental.

Both Britain and France are of course very experienced the Great Game players.

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 01:51 AM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

>The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
>not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
>to "con-men".

Ohh, so we're talking about how a word sounds, not what it means? How very
European of you. Now do a google on "Neocon" and tell me who it applies to on
Bush's cabnit. There are people working in positions in the administration that
could be catagorized as "neo conservatives" (what Neocon stands for), but they
don't occupy any cabnit positions and they are certainly the minority. The Bush
administration is simply conservative.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 01:58 AM

Paul J. Adam wrote:

>Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

Which member of the IRA was harbored by the U.S. ever, but particularly after
9/11?

>Life isn't simple or obvious.

I guess because it happened here and not in Europe September 11th has left
(after nearly 3 years) two starkly different impressions on Europe and the U.S.
As far as terrorism is concerned, life is simple and very obvious.

>But much worse has been tolerated in the past

"The past" being the key term. 9/11 changed everything.

>and it remains a question worth asking: given the
>cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?

The potential of Hussain.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Denyav

September 4th 04, 02:18 AM

>Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in Afghanistan
>and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was
>given medical treatment in Baghdad...Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser
>Al Islam, which group had

Interesting Al Zarqawi ,who speaks Arabic with Jordanian accent but never uses
his Jordanian accent during his televised execution orgies,and and whole AQ now
seems to target every country that oppose the occupation of Iraq by Anglos.
(France,Russia etc)

The dreaded AQ is only a proxy of US,after it has been used for the realization
of US policy goals on 9/11 (as suggested by Brzezinski in his book) now its
used to bring the countries that oppose US policies in the line with US policy.

Bob Coe

September 4th 04, 03:11 AM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
> >The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
> >not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
> >to "con-men".
>
> Ohh, so we're talking about how a word sounds, not what it means? How very
> European of you. Now do a google on "Neocon" and tell me who it applies to on
> Bush's cabnit. There are people working in positions in the administration that
> could be catagorized as "neo conservatives" (what Neocon stands for), but they
> don't occupy any cabnit positions and they are certainly the minority. The Bush
> administration is simply conservative.

I don't go to a lot of political sites. I'm basically a Republican because the
Democrats have yet to field a team I respect (Since 1970 when I started voting).
I asked Kramer two times what a neocon was, and he didn't reply. I don't think
he knows what it means. About the only thing I found, where the acronym was
used in every paragraph, was some loony juvenile web site (with some pretty old
people running it).

My politics pretty much side with a more liberal agenda than this administration is
putting forward. For example, I am willing to give up 98% of our nuclear weapons,
as we no longer have the stomach to use them, and they cost the same as an F-15E
to keep on alert (1300 of them I believe). I am willing to give up Forces in Korea,
Europe, and the Sinai. With those troops cannibalized into Iraq. I believe we should
move all the forces out of Korea and Europe, and move them to Iraq. The next big
war is either Syria, or Iran, and we will need the armor and airbases. My feelings
about Chechnya and North Korea, are that we (Russians in the first, Americans in
the second) should pull out, wait 9 months, and then use Neutron weapons to
wipe them out, as they cheer in the streets about their victory.

Drugs? Legalize them all, tax them and use the taxes for health care. Having fought
the war on drugs for 10 years (actively), I can say without reservation, it's a war that
cannot be won, and the battles are merely getting more costly every month. If people
want drugs, then I think they should get it at low cost, and safer products to reduce the
overload on city morgues. When we have a squadron of 250 million dollar airplanes
orbiting Central and South America, with almost 30,000 troops in the war, and the
quantity of cocaine is increasing on the streets, then that's the definition of a failed
policy.

Alas, so far neither Bush, nor Kerry have even mentioned nuclear weapons, and the
war on drugs. Every month that Los Alamos stays in operation, is another month of
exporting nuclear technology to China. The troops in the Sinai are invisible, and
people don't even know we are spending billions on them (as a trip-wire).

Chris Mark

September 4th 04, 03:37 AM

>rom:

>You seem to forget the most important name of whole neo con story.
>Neocons are also known as "The Straussians", .Leo Strauss was the spritual
>leader and chief ideologist of neo con movement.
>
>Many of the neo cons you mentioned above were actually the students of
>Strauss.

Leo Strauss, yes, another one of Columbia University's Germans. Certainly an
important ivory tower conservative philosopher.
What I was mentioning was the relationship of the so-called neo-cons to Sen.
Jackson. All those I mentioned were protoges of his, many working for him in
their youth.
They were more directly influence by Jackson's views, which were evolved from
personal experience, both his and his confreres such as Paul Nitze, Walt
Rostow, George Meany and others.
The bipartisan Committe on the Present Danger, officially debuted in Nov.,
1976, is a better place than Strauss to look for "neo-con" origins. Among
founding members were Charles E. Walker, Richard V. Allen, Lane Kirland, Jay
Lovestone, Henry H. Fowler, Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt, James Schlesinger, Max
Kampelman, David Pakard, Charles Burton Marshall, Edmund A. Gullion and Charles
Tyroler II.
Students of American political science will spot in this list men from the
Truman, Johnson and Nixon administrations, not to mention the Fletcher School
of Diplomacy and the AFL-CIO. Such a group of brilliant minds led to some very
lively discussions at the Metropolitan Club in D.C.
Labor leader George Meany's straightforward brand of political philosophy was
more their style than Leo Strauss. Here's what Meany said about what the CPD
was all about: "In my book, you have to be anti-communist. You have to be
anti-dictatorship. You have to be anti-Allende, you have to be anti-Franco,
anti-Hitler, anti-Stalin, anti-South Africa. The people who consider
themselves liberal become very selective. They can be very anti-South
Africa--strongly against this apartheid policy--and shrug their shoulders about
Czechoslovakia and Poland and the Soviet Union. We hold them all even."
You've also got the Georgetown University anti-communist branch, where Jean
Kirkpatrick was, along with Ernest Lefever, Valerie Earle, William V. O'Brian,
Estelle R. Ramey and Peter Krogh. Their Center for Strategic and International
Studies, affiliated with the AEI, was chaired by CPD member Ray Cline, who, as
you know, was former deputy director of the CIA. It published a journal,
Washington Quarterly, that dueled with the pro-detente Foreign Affairs.
Other important names in these formative days were the amazing Bertram Wolfe,
who went from being a card-carrying communist to a member of the Hoover
Institution, Richard Pipes, also a very interesting fellow, Richard J. Whalen
and James T. Farrell (author of the Studs Lonigen trilogy, for fans of the
American novel), not to mention Clare Boothe Luce, Dean Rusk, Peter Grace
(Grace Corp.), William F. Casey, and Gen. Maxwell Taylor and Gen. Matthew
Ridgway. Again note the bipartisanship.
The Jewish element was well represented in the CPD, prominent among them Saul
Bellow (the Nobel-prize winning novelist), Nathan Glazer, Oscar Handlin,
Seymour Martin Lipset, Norman Podhoretz and Midge Dector (Podhoretz' wife).
Back in the seventies, this nascent "neo-con" movement was described by Sidney
Bloomenthal (who defined neo-conservatism as "the counter-establishment" which
I think is a very accurate way to describe what it was--against detente and
accomodation, the premier policies of Nixon and Carter) as "the final stage [so
he thought then] of the Old Left.... The conservatives believe that the
Liberal Establishment has been ruining the country. The neo-conservatives (who
aren't conservative in the traditional sense at all) add to this general notion
the belief that liberals are either a species of Stalinist fellow traveler or
operate 'objectively'--whether they know it or not--in the broad interest of
the Soviet Union. Conservatives would like to believe this, too, but deep down
don't. But the neo-conservatives, many with the benefit of Trotskyist
background, offer an unmatchable authenticity and intensity on the subject."
The CPD people bitterly opposed the New Left, which they clearly saw had a
dangerous fascination with populist totalitarianism. As Podhoretz recalled,
"To be pro-American in the 1970s was like being anti-Soviet in the 1930s. But
just as radicalism then had been tied to suport of the Soviet Union as the
center of socialist hope, so radicalism in the '70s increasingly defined itself
in opposition to the United States as the major obstacle to the birth of a
better world." This view the CPD and like-minded thinkers vowed to fight and
defeat.
You could see all of this played out during the GOP convention this week, with
the populist totalitarian loons raving in the streets while Democrats Ed Koch
and Zell Miller joined forces with like-minded Republicans to face real, deadly
threats to freedom and democracy whatever the current incarnation, nazis,
commies, islamic terrorists...whoever, while the Liberal Establishment, now
almost all in the current incarnation of the Democratic Party, looked on with
raised eyebrows at all this unnecessary alarmism.

Chris Mark

Denyav

September 4th 04, 05:05 AM

>Leo Strauss, yes, another one of Columbia University's Germans. Certainly an
>important ivory tower conservative philosopher.

Looks are always deceiving,for example did you know that both Karl Marx and
Engels were members of "The League of Just" which was the islamic wing of "The
Illuminati"?

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 06:13 AM

John Mullen wrote:

>I've noticed this before; for such a swaggering, gung-ho country, many
>Americans seem very thin-skinned.

You're kidding right? With the exception of the Brits, I've found most
Europeans so sensative about *everything* that you can't even joke around with
them.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Abhijit Bhattacharya

September 4th 04, 10:13 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >and it remains a question worth asking: given the
> >cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?
>
> The potential of Hussain.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

The Bush administration has been spending enormous sums of money on
"potential" threats that Iraq supposedly posed while ignoring real
threats like those posed by North Korea. Plus, with ten times as many
troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan, the true "war on terror" is being
starved of resources.

I would have preferred that Hussein had remained in power; he was a
secular dictator who kept those Islamic fundamentalists in his country
from achieving the influence that they clearly now have for the first
time. Few people outside of Iraq had heard of Ayatollah al-Sistani
before but now he's the most powerful person there.

The US is much worse off by the invasion of Iraq, which has allowed
Islamic fundamentalism to take hold in there, while diverting
resources away from combating Islamic fundamentalism elsewhere in the
world.

Regards,

Abhijit

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 02:35 PM

Abhijit Bhattacharya wrote:

>The Bush administration has been spending enormous sums of money on
>"potential" threats that Iraq supposedly posed while ignoring real
>threats like those posed by North Korea.

North Korea is not being ignored, but it does represent a much tougher nut to
crack. I think the problems we're encountering with North Korea (possible
nuclear weapons being the the biggest problem) were the main reason we decided
to go into Iraq as soon as we did.

>Plus, with ten times as many
>troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan, the true "war on terror" is being
>starved of resources.

The "true" war on terror exists outside of Afghanistan. You could increase U.S.
force numbers in Afghanistan by twenty and still be getting the same results,
albeit with more U.S. casulties.

>I would have preferred that Hussein had remained in power

You and most of the democratic party in the U.S.

>he was a
>secular dictator who kept those Islamic fundamentalists in his country
>from achieving the influence that they clearly now have for the first
>time.

However, while he clamped down on Islamic Fundamentalists inside Iraq, he
supported both Hamas and Hezbullah by giving money to the families of suicide
bombers in Isreal and was actively helping Al Queada personnel fighting the
U.S. in Afghanistan. We know al Zarquawi received medical treatment in Baghdad
for wounds from fighting in Afghanistan, but how many more were helped that we
*don't* know about?

>The US is much worse off by the invasion of Iraq, which has allowed
>Islamic fundamentalism to take hold in there

There hold is tenuous and much less capable of being exported beyond its
borders than it would have been had Hussain remained in charge.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Dave

September 4th 04, 04:02 PM

Describe your experiences in ground combat in Iraq.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Because his dimwit father did?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Denyav

September 4th 04, 04:07 PM

>North Korea is not being ignored, but it does represent a much tougher nut to
>crack. I think the problems we're encountering with North Korea (possible
>nuclear weapons being the the biggest problem) were the main reason we
>decided
>to go into Iraq as soon as we did.

Very true and your message for other third world countries:
"Develop your own nuclear weapons as soon as possible otherwise you too will
be occupied and colonized like Iraq by Anglos".

I think North Korean "Great Leader" feels vindicated now.

Dave

September 4th 04, 04:31 PM

Sorry, that question was supposed to go to 'Mr Know It All Windbag' who
discounts any knowledge that isn't gained first hand.

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> Describe your experiences in ground combat in Iraq.
>
>
>
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Because his dimwit father did?
> >
> >
> > Arthur Kramer
> > 344th BG 494th BS
> > England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> > Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> > http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
> >
>
>

Dave

September 4th 04, 05:05 PM

Describe your combat experience in Iraq.

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Because his dimwit father did?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Paul J. Adam

September 4th 04, 09:18 PM

In message >, BUFDRVR
> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.
>
>Which member of the IRA was harbored by the U.S. ever, but particularly after
>9/11?

Kevin Artt, Pol Brennan, Terence Kirby and Jimmy Smyth. Convicted (not
accused, convicted) terrorists, who after breaking out of prison
(killing a guard in the process), fled to the US. Couldn't be extradited
because they were victims of "political persecution".

>>Life isn't simple or obvious.
>
>I guess because it happened here and not in Europe September 11th has left
>(after nearly 3 years) two starkly different impressions on Europe and the U.S.
>As far as terrorism is concerned, life is simple and very obvious.

What's "obvious" about it?

Currently, the government of Sudan is dealing with a terrorist
insurgency in Darfur. What's the "obvious" simplicity about that
situation?

>>But much worse has been tolerated in the past
>
>"The past" being the key term. 9/11 changed everything.

For some people in the US. Not actually that many. (There's still the
fundamental problem of the 'Yes, Minister' irregular verb: "I am a brave
and noble freedom fighter. You are a guerilla. He is a murdering
terrorist."

To pick two controversial countries, Israel and South Africa are
literally run by terrorists: Israel less recently, but at what point did
the ANC go from being 'terrorists' to 'lawful government'?

>>and it remains a question worth asking: given the
>>cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?
>
>The potential of Hussain.

To do what? He was bottled up and contained.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Paul J. Adam

September 4th 04, 09:32 PM

In message >, Kevin Brooks
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...
>
>Not insinuations--more like proven fact at this point. Let's see...Al
>Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in Afghanistan
>and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was
>given medical treatment in Baghdad...

The first is pretty unarguable. Two, three and four are claimed rather
than proven.

>Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser
>Al Islam, which group had Hussein's "stamp of approval".

Ansar al-Islam opposed a secular Kurdistan, which might have earned
Hussein's approval... except that they preferred Sharia law and a
theocracy, which sets them directly against Hussein.

>Yep, that adds up
>to providing support to AQ.

Only if you simultaneously believe that Saudi Arabia is the main
bankroll and wellspring for al-Qaeda, which apparently has been
_completely_ discredited: it seems Saudi Arabia hasn't even *heard* of
Wahabbi Islam, let alone ever supported it.

>Franks covers this in his recent book, just as
>he covered it last night in his speech.

So now we're into "book X is truth and book Y is lies"?

>> Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have happened
>> to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
>> to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.
>
>Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
>that? A period of some *years*...

Same as Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US, in other words.

>> (One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
>> persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)
>
>Trying to change the subject?

We're talking about terrorists?

Okay, it is a change of subject: Brennan, Artt and Kirby weren't
*alleged* terrorists, they were *convicted* terrorists who ran to the US
after killing their way out of prison.

>> By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and California.
>
>Strawman...

Evasion.

Is harbouring convicted terrorists a hostile act, or casus belli? Or
not?

>> Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.
>
>If you wish to start a thread about how you think the UK should go to war
>with the US, go right ahead; the issue here is Hussein and his support of
>terrorists, though.

Why do you find the subject so frightening?

>You have acknowledged that he did indeed support
>terrorists, so what are you arguing about now?

He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true: so he was
no worse than the US.

>> But much worse has been tolerated in the past (cf. Libya for sponsoring
>> terror, or Argentina for torture and murder and attacking outside its
>> borders, for examples) and it remains a question worth asking: given the
>> cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?
>
>Isn't it strange how those who are most huffy about US action against Iraq
>often put Libya forward as a counterexample, and forget that the action
>against Iraq is probably the single greatest factor in bringing QaDaffy Duck
>"in from the cold", so to speak, in terms of his own WMD efforts (and
>apparently terrorist support as well)?

What is your evidence for that?

Bear in mind that "I'm next!" isn't credible simply because there are
not the troops available to invade Libya anytime soon.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 11:29 PM

Paul J. Adam wrote:

>Kevin Artt, Pol Brennan, Terence Kirby and Jimmy Smyth

You have a strange definition of harboring.

Kevin Artt

Currently locked up in a federal jail in Pleasanton, California. He did several
stints, since his arrest in '94, in prison and on electronically monitored
bail.

Pol Brennan

Not sure about his current where abouts, but was arrested in '93, did several
stints in jail (including plenty of time in solitary for failure to do prison
work), a few stints on electronically monitored bail and as late as October
1998 was back in jail.

Terence Kirby

Like Pol Brennan, not alot about Kirby after 2000. Latest word from 2000 was he
was in jail where he had been like the other 3.

Jimmy Smyth

Arrested in 1993, worked his way in, around and through the U.S. judicial
system until his return to Northern Ireland in 1998. Interestingly enough, he
was such a threat that he was released from prison in NI in 2000.

>fled to the US. Couldn't be extradited
>because they were victims of "political persecution".

That doesn't seem to have been the case. All four spent most of their time
(after being discovered and arrested) in jail working through the U.S. judicial
system. That is not being harbored.

>>As far as terrorism is concerned, life is simple and very obvious.

>What's "obvious" about it?

That if you are helping terrorists, harboring them or assisting them in any way
we will stop the activity for you. Simple and obvious.

>>The potential of Hussain.
>
>To do what? He was bottled up and contained.

And supporting AQ fighters from Afghanistan with medical aid and who knows what
else. Saddam's conventional forces were contained however his work with and for
terrorists was continuing.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

September 4th 04, 11:42 PM

Paul J. Adam wrote:

>>Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
>>that? A period of some *years*...
>
>Same as Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US, in other words.

With the major difference of course that unlike the H-Block 4, Nidal spent no
time in any Iraqi prisons and there was no system working to hand him over to
any country that had indicted him. So I guess its not really like the H-Block 4
at all is it?

>Okay, it is a change of subject: Brennan, Artt and Kirby weren't
>*alleged* terrorists, they were *convicted* terrorists who ran to the US
>after killing their way out of prison.

And what happened to them when their identity was discovered? They were
arrested and jailed and at least Artt is there to this day! Nidal didn't
illegally enter Iraq, he did so with the aid of the Iraqi government. Once in
Iraq he was given everything he needed to live and was sheltered from several
nations where he was sought on various charges. To compare the H-Block 4 to
Nidal is just plain ridiculous and insulting. What assistance were any of the 4
given to enter the U.S. from the U.S. government? Once discovered, how were
they treated as opposed to Nidal?

>Is harbouring convicted terrorists a hostile act, or casus belli? Or
>not?

Its a hostile act and what the H Block 4 went through cannot be considered
harboring...not even close. Amazing how a Brit demands the immediate
extradition of wanted UK terrorists, yet has an issue with the U.S. holding
onto a British subject wanted for terrorism by the U.S.

>He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true: so he was
>no worse than the US.

The U.S. allowed the H Block 4 residence *in prison* or at the least on
electronically monitored house arrest. Your comparison is ridiculous.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Steve Hix

September 5th 04, 12:13 AM

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, BUFDRVR
> > writes
> >Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >>Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.
> >
> >Which member of the IRA was harbored by the U.S. ever, but particularly
> >after 9/11?
>
> Kevin Artt, Pol Brennan, Terence Kirby and Jimmy Smyth. Convicted (not
> accused, convicted) terrorists, who after breaking out of prison
> (killing a guard in the process), fled to the US. Couldn't be extradited
> because they were victims of "political persecution".

How much would you like to bet that you can, in large part, thank Ted
Kennedy for that?

Kevin Brooks

September 5th 04, 01:26 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Kevin Brooks
> > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...
> >
> >Not insinuations--more like proven fact at this point. Let's see...Al
> >Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in
Afghanistan
> >and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was
> >given medical treatment in Baghdad...
>
> The first is pretty unarguable. Two, three and four are claimed rather
> than proven.

Then you apparently know more than General Franks...nah, I don't think so.
See his book.

There are other references to the links between Saddam and AAI; for example
the following describes some foreign national memebers who were captured
after they attacked PUK forces: "Interestingly, many captured Arab fighters
held passports with Iraqi visas, signaling that Iraq likely approved their
presence." www.meforum.org/article/579 This is in regards to foreign
fighters caught immediately after hostilities were initiated in March 03,
not any current batches.

I have yet to see any reputable source claim that Al Zarqawi did NOT receive
medical care in Baghdad. Given that Iran has reportedly *not* been a safe
haven for AAI fighters (those that tried to flee across the border early in
the conflict were either turned back or taken into custody), then how the
heck do you think Zarqawi got into Iraq without governmental approval?

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck--it's a duck.

>
> >Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser
> >Al Islam, which group had Hussein's "stamp of approval".
>
> Ansar al-Islam opposed a secular Kurdistan, which might have earned
> Hussein's approval... except that they preferred Sharia law and a
> theocracy, which sets them directly against Hussein.

As others have pointed out in the media, Saddam had no problem with allying
himself with those who did not really like him, and apparently Al Zarqawi
and friends were likewise amenable to working with those they did not really
care for when it served their purposes.

>
> >Yep, that adds up
> >to providing support to AQ.
>
> Only if you simultaneously believe that Saudi Arabia is the main
> bankroll and wellspring for al-Qaeda, which apparently has been
> _completely_ discredited: it seems Saudi Arabia hasn't even *heard* of
> Wahabbi Islam, let alone ever supported it.

Nobody has said that--that is you once again stretching things to the
extreme in a juvenile attempt to sway the argument from its focus. Al
Zarqawi was in Iraq; even if you want to discount him, you still have Abu
Abbas and Abu Nidal to contend with, not to mention the funneling of money
to those suicide bombers' families, and that curious training facility
overrun early in the war, etc. But hey, you want to turn this into a Saudi
Arabia thread to get the attention off of those things, right? Try again.

>
> >Franks covers this in his recent book, just as
> >he covered it last night in his speech.
>
> So now we're into "book X is truth and book Y is lies"?

You have yet to produce Book Y. Boox X was written by the former CENTCOM
commander, a man yet shown to have ever presented anything but the truth.
You should read it--but I doubt you will, being as it goes against some of
your more cherished preconceptions.

>
> >> Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have
happened
> >> to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
> >> to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.
> >
> >Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
> >that? A period of some *years*...
>
> Same as Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US, in other words.

Excuse me, but were any of those fellows in Iraq? No? Why do you persist in
trying to change the subject, which is Iraq? Try again.

>
> >> (One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
> >> persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)
> >
> >Trying to change the subject?
>
> We're talking about terrorists?

No, we are talking about Iraq, Hussein, and terrorists; if your ideas don't
entertwine with at least two of the above, you are posting to the wrong
thread.

>
> Okay, it is a change of subject: Brennan, Artt and Kirby weren't
> *alleged* terrorists, they were *convicted* terrorists who ran to the US
> after killing their way out of prison.

They have not been to Iraq, and have nothing to do with Hussein--take it to
another thread.

>
> >> By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and
California.
> >
> >Strawman...
>
> Evasion.

Abu Nidal. Abbu Abbas. Al Zarqawi. Those are the names that first popped up,
and which you are apparently evading. This is about Iraq, not NI.

>
> Is harbouring convicted terrorists a hostile act, or casus belli? Or
> not?

So you are saying that Hussein harboring terrorists was causus belli? Good.

>
> >> Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.
> >
> >If you wish to start a thread about how you think the UK should go to war
> >with the US, go right ahead; the issue here is Hussein and his support of
> >terrorists, though.
>
> Why do you find the subject so frightening?

I don't--I am not arguing it here, because it is not the subject here, no
matter how much you want to try to change it. Nor am I going to introduce
Bloody Sunday into the discussion, or UK officials turning a blind eye to
past Protestant terrorist acts--because they are not part and parcel to the
discussion at hand. Get it?

>
> >You have acknowledged that he did indeed support
> >terrorists, so what are you arguing about now?
>
> He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true

Well, you left out that training camp that one of them was apparently
running outside Baghdad, the money he was providing to support suicide
bombings, etc.; but it is nice to see you agree he was supporting
terrorists. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Brooks

<snip>

Chris Mark

September 5th 04, 05:29 AM

>From: denyav@aol

>Looks are always deceiving,for example did you know that both Karl Marx and
>Engels were members of "The League of Just" which was the islamic wing of
>"The
>Illuminati"?

Well, that is most interesting, indeed.

But to get back to the topic of the origin of the "neo-con," let's sum it up by
saying they evolved from the hard-line anti-communist Democrats of the
Truman-Kennedy-Johnson era who from 1972 found themselves abandoned by a party
not merely moving to the Left (not necessarily a bad thing in itself), but
which had become, in Jean Kirkpatrick's words, the "blame America first party."
Kirkpatrick is, of course, herself a perfect example of a Democrat who bolted
the party, first by becoming candidate Reagan's foreign policy advisor, and
ending by joining the Republican Party.
Today the Bush administration is filled with neo-cons (ie hard-line
Democrats/former Democrats) and/or their descendents--in the case of Richard
Pipes this is literally true, as his son Daniel, is a major player in forming
Bush administration policy toward the Islamic world.
Someone in this thread said there are no neo-cons in the Bush administration,
which caused me to laugh so hard I nearly fell out of my chair. This is _the_
neo-con administration. That's why "real" Republican conservatives are so
angry at Bush: he's not running a Republican administration; he's running a new
and improved Kennedy-Johnson administration, with the warm bodies to prove it.
George W. is their revenge against George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. That is
why the current crowd of Democrats loathe the neo-cons with irrational
fury--they see them as turncoats; worse, turncoats who have gained power and
driven them from it. They cannot stand that. Of course the neo-cons are
shouting like James Cagney in White Heat, "Top of the world, ma! Top of the
world!"

Chris Mark

Chris Mark

September 5th 04, 06:13 AM

Forgot to mention the obvious example of a most hated (by liberals and
conservatives) "neo-con," Paul Wolfowitz, who first went to Washington to work
for Paul Nitze, Dean Acheson and Albert Wohlstetter. Dean Acheson had been, of
course, Truman's secretary of state, Nitze wrote NSC-68 in the Truman
administration and served as secretary of the navy and deputy secretary of
defense in the Kennedy-Johnson years, and Wohlstetter was "Mr. Fail-Safe" and
the developer of the "second-strike" nuclear capability strategy. If the
Democratic party of pre-1972 still existed, Wolfowitz would be an active
member. Instead, he has joined the Dems who have hijacked the Republican Party
and is a "Republican." So this election, to a very real extent, is a face-off
not between Republicans and Democrats, but between hard-line foreign policy
T-K-J Democrats--the Bush people--and the accomodationist C-C Democrats--the
Kerry people.
So where are the Republicans? Do they still exist? They sure aren't
represented by Arnold Schwartzenegger.

Chris Mark

B2431

September 5th 04, 06:26 AM

Who said he did? Notice how Afghanistan is nicely bracketted?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Presidente Alcazar

September 5th 04, 03:59 PM

On 04 Sep 2004 22:42:57 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Its a hostile act and what the H Block 4 went through cannot be considered
>harboring...not even close.

They were not extradited on request. They were able - like several
republican terrorist fugatives in the USA in several previous cases -
to evade extraditon on the basis of US legislation and legal
interpretations of what were "political" offences. I wonder how the
US government would currently tolerate such niceities over the
extradition of terrorists convicted for the murder of US citizens.
You might disagree with such opinions, but you need to be aware that
the history of the issue does arouse suspicions.

>Amazing how a Brit demands the immediate
>extradition of wanted UK terrorists, yet has an issue with the U.S. holding
>onto a British subject wanted for terrorism by the U.S.

In this instance, British citizens have been denied the legal
protections and mechanisms exploited by refugee IRA terrorists in the
United States. So, yes, there certainly is an incongruity. You
should be aware, however, that certain critics of US legal behaviour
over terrorist extradition and the double-standards this seems to
expose fully support the right of the US to suspend normal legal
standards in certain circumstances when dealing with terrorists.

>>He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true: so he was
>>no worse than the US.
>
>The U.S. allowed the H Block 4 residence *in prison* or at the least on
>electronically monitored house arrest. Your comparison is ridiculous.

Actually, as somebody who supported and supports American policy over
Iraq (at the strategic level at least, with strong reservations at the
operational and tactical level), you should be aware that the
criticisms Paul has made are not confined to traditional reflexive
anti-American constituencies. If you actually do have any interest in
maintaining any kind of multi-lateral alliances in the "War Against
Terrorism", I suggest it might be profitable to make some effort to
understand these kinds of concerns, even if you don't share them
yourself.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

BUFDRVR

September 5th 04, 04:58 PM

Gavin.Bailey wrote:

>>Its a hostile act and what the H Block 4 went through cannot be considered
>>harboring...not even close.
>
>They were not extradited on request.

Not being extradited "on request" does not mean you were protected and
sheltered by the U.S. government, particularly if you are jailed. Paul is
trying to compare Abu Nidal to the H Block 4; this is ridiculous. Was there a
delay in returning these people to the UK? Absolutely, but no more than there
would be if a an escaped death row inmate were arrested in the UK.

>They were able - like several
>republican terrorist fugatives in the USA in several previous cases -
>to evade extraditon on the basis of US legislation and legal
>interpretations of what were "political" offences.

While they avoided extradition where were they? Most of the time in jail, in
the case of Pol Brennan in solitary confinement. This does not meet the
definition of harboring.

>I wonder how the
>US government would currently tolerate such niceities over the
>extradition of terrorists convicted for the murder of US citizens.

Well, lets see, there was a convicted U.S. murder living in France. He worked
the French legal system and managed to avoid extradition for nearly 20 years.
Like the H Block 4, he spent most of that time in French judicial custody, but
the only outspoken critic was the American family of his victim and no one
accused France of harboring a murderer.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Denyav

September 5th 04, 04:59 PM

>T-K-J Democrats--the Bush people--and the accomodationist C-C Democrats--the
>Kerry people.
>So where are the Republicans? Do they still exist? They sure aren't
>represented by Arnold Schwartzenegger.

I said for a reason that looks are deceiving and gave Marx-Engels example for
that.

Apparently you are able to see beyond of the looks.
Only thing I want to add to your comments is the fact that so called neocons or
Straussians are not a homogenous group but includes almost all colors of
spectrum,from pure idealistic Strauss scholars like Wolfowitz to the members
of dreaded Illuminati who consider neocons only as expendable temporary tools.

Another historical note: The famous Illuminati was not founded somewhere in
Germany like many assume.
Iluminati has been "resurrected" in Germany 40 years after the demise of
"original Illuminati".
Where was birthplace and and original seat of Illuminati?
In Afghanistan !. and the original name was "The Illuminated Ones"

ArtKramr

September 5th 04, 08:28 PM

>Subject: Re: Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?
>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

>I suggest
>naming the attached political philosophy "neo-connery"
>instead of "neo-conservatism"

The cognicenti call it NEOCON for short.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Presidente Alcazar

September 5th 04, 08:34 PM

On 05 Sep 2004 15:58:27 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>Not being extradited "on request" does not mean you were protected and
>sheltered by the U.S. government,

I'd agree that none of this is directly equivalent, as the US
government does not control the American legal system. Nonetheless,
the history of US actions and attitudes towards terrorism changed
significantly after terrorism was perceived to be a threat to the US
and no longer "somebody else's problem". The same could be said,
historically, with equal validity for the British, who regarded the
issue refugee continental terrorists with a bizarre kind of
supercilious distain until political terrorism became a domestic
problem with the Fenian dynamite bombings.

Meanwhile, I think it's perfectly valid to bring up issues such as the
difference in treatment between convicted Irish republican terrorists
and suspected British islamic terrorists in US detention.

>Well, lets see, there was a convicted U.S. murder living in France. He worked
>the French legal system and managed to avoid extradition for nearly 20 years.
>Like the H Block 4, he spent most of that time in French judicial custody, but
>the only outspoken critic was the American family of his victim and no one
>accused France of harboring a murderer.

That depends on the actions the French government might take to
expedite, facilitate, obstruct or ignore US government efforts to
extradite the criminal in question. I'd certainly have no objection
to any American raising his case when examining the issue of French
efforts in "the War Against Terrorism". Even if I didn't think there
was a completely proportional or symmetrical equivalence, I wouldn't
be dismissing such concerns as "ridiculous".

Gavin Bailey
--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

Kevin Brooks

September 5th 04, 08:49 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > There are people working in positions in the administration that
> > could be catagorized as "neo conservatives" (what Neocon stands for),
but
> they
> > don't occupy any cabnit positions and they are certainly the minority.
The
> Bush
> > administration is simply conservative.
>
> It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key
> positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem
> to control most of its policies.

Name the "neoconservatives" that occupy *any* *key* positions. Please. Time
to put your money where your (overworked) mouth is.

Brooks

<snip>

Kevin Brooks

September 5th 04, 08:50 PM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?
> >From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
>
> >I suggest
> >naming the attached political philosophy "neo-connery"
> >instead of "neo-conservatism"
>
> The cognicenti call it NEOCON for short.

A term you have yet to be able to define, despite repeated requests for you
to do so. So you must reside outside this "cognicenti"? (As if there was any
doubt of that...)

Brooks
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

Ed Rasimus

September 5th 04, 09:16 PM

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 21:44:53 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key
>positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem
>to control most of its policies. Of course 9/11 created the
>ideal opportunity for them to break through, and the rest
>of the administration looks distinctly weak, so it wasn't
>overly difficult.

You should note that in a presidential system (as opposed to a
parliamentary), that the executive branch is quite distinct from the
legislative--which passes the laws that enable the executive to act.
While the president can certainly set policy direction, it takes
considerably more cooperation to generate huge shifts in emphasis than
in a parliamentary government.

9/11 created a sudden awareness that we could no longer depend upon
our isolation and broad oceans to defend us from world terrorism.

If you'd like to point out some members of the administration that
look "distinctly weak" I'll be happy to comment. (And maybe contrast
them to some of their predecessors in the previous administration.)
>
>There is no way most of its policies can be described as
>conservative.

Conservativism in America has certainly evolved. No disagreement at
all there. If there is a predominent concept in the current iteration,
it isn't so much unilateralism (which was thrust upon us by lack of
support from allies who had benefited from fifty years of American
defense), but a moralistic perspective which (unfortunately) tries to
impose a basic form of Christianity on the nation. That's our domestic
debate and doesn't have a thing to do with the "neo-con" movement.

> Exploding budget deficits?

It is very difficult to budget for wars that are thrust upon a nation
(unless of course, like Belgium, you establish a policy of
neutrality--I really liked your history lesson in a previous post in
which you described a 1940's Belgium ignoring the rise of Hitler and
depending upon France for your defense!)

>Increased tax burden
>on the middle class?

When the lowest 40% of wage-earners in America pay ZERO federal tax
and the top 5% of wage earners bear more than 40% of the total federal
tax burden, it is difficult to avoid having those who pay the most tax
reap the greatest benefit from a tax cut.

As for "increased tax burden on the middle class" I'd have to say you
are simply mouthing something you've heard, since the "middle class"
got a tax cut at the beginning of the Bush administration. A huge
segment of lower wage-earners got their taxes zeroed and mid-level
income workers saw their rates dropped by several percent.

If there is an increase for the middle class, it will come as the tax
cuts of the '01 legislation expire in the coming years. The Bush
administration has been lobbying to extend the cuts or make them
permanent.

> Entering foreign military adventures of
>their own volition?

After months of seeking assistance, after 18 UN resolutions, after a
unanimous vote of the Security Council.... Oh, and have you noted how
effective appeasement of the jihadists has been in Russia and France?

> Expanding the power of the government?

Examples? Don't quote the PATRIOT act, unless you can give me an
example of some liberty that has been lost.

>No real conservative administration would indulge in such
>policies. These are the kind of policies true conservatives
>accuse liberals of, often without good reason, but indeed many
>neo-cons are former liberals. The few policies that can be
>described as traditional conservative mostly relate to "family
>values" such as opposition to gay marriage and abortion.

Actually those policies are referred to as "social" conservative
rather than "traditional". Neither social nor traditional
conservatives equate with neo-cons.
>
>As a political movement the neo-cons cannot and should not
>be described as traditional liberal or traditional conservative.
>A conservative wants to decrease the power of the government;
>a liberal wants to increase it to use it to cure the ills of society.

Generally true. No disagreement here at all. Except to note that to
win elections both liberals and conservatives have to become moderate
to gain support of the non-ideological.

>Neo-conservatives want to increase the power of the government
>simply because they believe that a nation should be "strong"
>and therefore its government should be both powerful and
>unfettered in its use of that power. That is, both internally and
>externally, what this administration has done.

Ah yes. Now we get to it. Clearly you wouldn't like to see a strong
America. How terrible that would be. You'd much rather see a strong
Europe with a federal military capable of keeping you secure.
>
>Their "new American century" is one in which the world's only
>remaining superpower has a destiny to rule, much as the Romans
>once did, and enforce a "Pax Americana". These people are
>nationalist and, in the defence of their policies, populist. They
>also have distinctly manicheist and authoritarian streak, but like
>most far-right movements they can't be caught having much in
>the way of actual policies.

Our far-right is distinctly moderate when viewed from the total
spectrum of political thought displayed in most European parliaments.

And, what is wrong with us being nationalist? I'm quite proud to call
myself an American first and a globalist about fifth or sixth on my
list of affiliations. And, I hope my government remains populist (even
when I disagree) because that is the nature of imperfect democracy.
>
>While the name "neo-conservative" is a largely American
>invention, the phenomenon is not limited to the USA. Aimilar
>political movements are surfacing in many Western democracies.
>Except that there such movements are described as "extreme right"
>as (with a few unfortunate exceptions) kept from gaining power.

There you are stretching you interpretation of neo-conservatism.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

Chris Mark

September 5th 04, 10:53 PM

>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

>It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key
>positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem
>to control most of its policies. Of course 9/11 created the
>ideal opportunity for them to break through,

You need to go back farther than that, to Watergate. The Nixon humiliation
beheaded the Republican foreign policy establishment while the McGovernite
take-over of the Democrats drove hard-line foreign policy Democrats into
retreat. With the Carter presidency cementing a new, dovish Democratic foreign
policy paradigm, (although there were signs toward the end of the Carter
presidency that Carter was beginning to resurrect them), these people began
turning to the drifting Republican Party, allying behind former Democrat Ronald
Reagan, who was not highly regarded by the Republican establishment at all.
Reagan's administration sucked numbers of Democratic Party hard-line foreign
policy apparatchiks into its bureaucratic Republican bulk.
In retrospect, the destruction of the Nixon administration, and with it the
pragmatic foreign policy typical of "real" Republicans (who tend to be
businessmen, organization men, men in gray flannel suits--certainly not
firebrands), detente, which the Truman-Kennedy-Johnson foreign policy people
abhored, was a disaster for the dovish clique of Democrats. Between
appeasement and war is detente. The proponents of detente had been
discredited. That left appeasement, which Americans have limited tolerance for
and which Carter used up very quickly. So you get the firebrands--tear down
this wall, evil empire, axis of evil... If you don't like it, blame the crowd
who destroyed Richard "Ping-pong diplomacy" Nixon.

>Their "new American century" is one in which the world's only
>remaining superpower has a destiny to rule, much as the Romans
>once did, and enforce a "Pax Americana".

Or the British. Or whomever. Great powers shape their world.

Now, if Kerry wins, we will get back the "neoliberals" of the Clinton
presidency, who have a world vision that is, in some ways, very much like that
of Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. These guys are just as patriotic as the
neocons--after all, President Clinton and his people were fond of referring to
America as "the indespensible nation"--but they have a wider vision of American
power, one based more on economic power than military power. Then Secretary of
Commerce Mickey Kantor bragged in 1996, "trade and international economics have
joined the foreign policy table." The "neoliberal" (or, perhaps,
paleoconservative) expectation that securing a world open to trade and
investment will enable America to do good even as it does well fits squarely in
with the theories of pre-FDR Republicanism.
In President Clinton’s succinct formulation, "trade, investment, and
commerce" will produce "a structure of opportunity and peace." For neoliberals,
international arms limitations, multi-lateral military agreements, cutting
trade deals, reducing tariffs, protecting property rights, and running
interference for American private enterprise—the entire package gilded with
the idiom of globalization and earnest professions of America’s abiding
concern for democracy and human rights—constitute the heart of foreign
policy. In other words, you don't have to go around blowing people up to
ensure and expand America's power.
But what about when people go around blowing you up? There, the neo-liberals
(and paleo-conservatives) don't have a good track record. Enter the
neo-conservative (paleo-liberal?) who speaks of missile gaps (Kennedy), windows
of vulnerability (Reagan), and, in the incarnation of G.W. Bush, says to
militant muslim fanatics: "Your god promised you 72 Virginians if you died?
Well, here we are, ready to rock and roll.

Chris Mark

Kevin Brooks

September 6th 04, 08:42 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Name the "neoconservatives" that occupy *any* *key* positions. Please.
> Time
> > to put your money where your (overworked) mouth is.
>
> It is of course pretty hard to judge what people's real opinions
> are, and there is no such thing as a "neo-conservative party."
> Some people described as neo-conservatives even prefer to
> deny that there is such a thing at all, which does not make it
> any easier.
>
> However, fortunately there is Kristol's "Project for a New
> American Century", which is as close to a formal neo-con
> organisation as one is likely to get. The people who signed
> the "manifesto" of the PNAC are the closest we have to
> "card-carrying neo-conservatives", and they include
> Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz. Other signatures are,
> interestingly enough, those of Quayle, Fukuyama and Kagan,
> and that of Jeb Bush; but not that of George Bush.

It is unlikely that many woukld really classify Cheney, or for that matter
Rumsfeld, as "neoconservatives", especially as both have been plain ol'
conservatives for many, many years. Wolfowitz is not what I would call in a
"key position" in Bush's cabinet (he is not a cabinet level official in the
first place).

>
> It is true that "core" neocons such as Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton,
> and Armitage, are not really in the top posts;

Thanks--then you admit spoke incorrectly when you alluded to so many "key
positions" being in the hands of "neoconservatives".

Brooks

but considering
> the left-wing background (and relative youth) of many neocons
> that does not come as a surprise. Neocon "converts" who
> always have been loyal party men as well have the best cards
> in this administration.
>
> Other neocons are of course not really interested in active
> politics, retired (Kirkpatrick) or discredited (Perle).
>
> Probably Condoleezza Rice should also be considered
> a neocon, despite her occasional support for Powell.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
>
>

Kevin Brooks

September 6th 04, 09:58 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > While the president can certainly set policy direction, it takes
> > considerably more cooperation to generate huge shifts in emphasis
> > than in a parliamentary government.
>
> This seems a pretty curious argument to me. These days, a
> president with a majority in Congress can do almost whatever
> he wants. In a parliamentary government, a leader has to take
> much more account of backbenchers who may choose to send
> him or her home on any bad day (except if he really has a huge
> majority, such as Blair has) or even may be the leader of a
> coalition government, which requires a lot of compromise
> and negotiation.
>
> > If you'd like to point out some members of the administration that
> > look "distinctly weak" I'll be happy to comment.
>
> How about George W. Bush? Nice enough fellow, so we are
> told, and as far as is known, not an actual neo-con. Not very
> knowledgeable about the world outside the USA;

The danger of relying upon partial impressions and media pundits has
apparently befallen you. You have, IIRC, already said you were unwilling to
read Frank's new book, but a perusal of it would shed a different light on
Bush's leadership abilities and his knowledge (and willingness to listen to
others).

and not very
> capable of expressing political ideas without shooting himself
> in the foot.

He has indeed been known to flumox his wording; which to some is a bit
refreshing, and less remindful of the polished
know-it-all-tell-you-what-you-want-to-hear politician types.

Claimed to make his own decisions -- but at least
> some of his supposed underlings have a record of hiding
> very important facts from him, and he didn't fire them.

Not sure about that (you have proven quite adept at making such accusations
and then backing off from them when specifics are requested, such as your
erecent "key positions" occupied by "neocons" statement). Again, you can
read Franks' accounts of his briefings to the President, and his
conversations with him in regards to major decisions--but you don't want to
bother with getting a first hand account, do you?

>
> Or take Powell, for example. A good officer, I suppose; and
> a honest man, but a weak politician. He is known to oppose
> the neo-cons on many issues, but he still lets them walk all
> over him. Worse, his foreign policy ventures have been less
> than successful. Send Powell to the Middle East and he comes
> back with a deal that isn't one and is shot to pieces the next day.
>
> > it isn't so much unilateralism (which was thrust upon us by lack of
> > support from allies who had benefited from fifty years of American
> > defense),
>
> Sorry, but that is nonsense. After 9/11, the Allies of the USA
> were fully willing to consider this attack on the USA as an
> attack on themselves as well (which in many ways it was,
> anyway) and to activate NATO to deal with the problem.

yeah, just so long as it did not require them to really go out of their way
in handling the root problems (the UK, Italy, Canada, Netherlands, Poland,
and non-Euro Australia excepted). Otherwise, it has usually involved only
token deployments, and then with with lots of strings attached.

> However, at that point the USA decided unilaterally on a
> policy that many of its allies considered to be extremely
> foolhardy, and insisted that we had a suicide pact -- that
> somehow we have an obligation to jump in the deep as
> well.

A "suicide pact"? What you really meant was to say that you are fine with
being a staunch ally--that is, until you are actually required to put your
collective butts on the line, at which point it is no longer an alliance,
but a "suicide pact"?

>
> Sorry, but no way! In an alliance, the decisions are made
> together, in cooperation and consultation; and nobody can
> object against the USA having a say commensurate with its
> size and its efforts, but that is not the same as blind obedience.

Ever heard of "unity of command"?

> The neocons are not above muttering dark threats and throwing
> insults when someone in Europe dares to disagree with them.

Just as some Euros are likewise capable of those same mutterings when others
*dare* to defy their own edicts (witness Chirac telling the eastern Euros to
"shut up"?).

> Washington should do well to remember that European heads
> of government are accountable to their own electorate, and
> despite whatever Tony Blair says, they would be seriously
> negligent in their duty if they accepted foreign policy
> dictates from the White House.

Our dictate is that we are going to go wherever we have to go to stomp on
threats--you can either join us or sit on the sidelines. Your country made
its own call--any splinters yet from those bleacher seats?

Brooks

<snip>