Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

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

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.

"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

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"

(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

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) 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

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"

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"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