traitorous SOB

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat
wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure.

Hmm so remind me how California, Arizona and New Mexico
came to be US States again.

California suceded from Mexico and asked to be a State, thus "Republic of
California" is on our flag.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Charles Gray wrote:

Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
would be a slamndunk).
The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.

I think you're comments are generally true.

I personally don't require that Iraq (or Afghanistan) becomes a
liberal democracy. It would be preferable, but the only requirement
I would demand, is a government that is not especially driven to
undermine American interests or security.

The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
US really requires.

Really? I wonder why it's taken us so long to break the government that
replaced the Shah in Iran. They're still there, doing their fundamentalist
thing regardless of our displeasure, some 30+ years after they took over. What
you're suggesting is merely blowing hard.....much more easily said than done.

............I can't say that an Iraq with three (or more)
warring factions is really worse than one with a strong ruthless
central leader openly hostile to the US.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Juvat wrote:

How do you suppose we convince the iraqi authority to pay american
taxpayers for their efforts? Stop and think about that, there is no
central iraqi government...not yet anyway. We are currently
controlling (I'm happy to use the expression "administering" iraqi oil
as a euphemism). I suspect this will not always be the case, nor do I
have a crystal ball predicting when american control/administration
will end.

I don't believe there was ever any thinking there would be some
direct payment from Iraqi oil sales to the US treasury.

John Kerry made his own children *******s; imagine what he will do for your
children.

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence from
us
post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we turned
them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).

That's a relief. For a brief moment, I was afraid you were going to say they
were a colony. A protectorate is much better than a colony, isn't it?

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Charles Gray wrote:

Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
would be a slamndunk).
The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.

I think you're comments are generally true.

I personally don't require that Iraq (or Afghanistan) becomes a
liberal democracy. It would be preferable, but the only requirement
I would demand, is a government that is not especially driven to
undermine American interests or security.

The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
US really requires.

Really? I wonder why it's taken us so long to break the government that
replaced the Shah in Iran. They're still there, doing their
fundamentalist
thing regardless of our displeasure, some 30+ years after they took over.
What
you're suggesting is merely blowing hard.....much more easily said than
done.

The civil government in Iran is broken, havn't you been paying attention?

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence
from
us
post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we
turned
them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).

That's a relief. For a brief moment, I was afraid you were going to say
they
were a colony. A protectorate is much better than a colony, isn't it?

Since that protectorate status only continues for as long as its citizens
wish, yes, it is much better than being a colony. The Puerto Ricans have
repeatedly discussed the option of either seeking statehood or independence,
and they seem to prefer the status quo.

Brooks

In article ,
George Shirley writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. BSEG



Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."
That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo

That's not quite true - We turned Cuba loose in 1912, IIRC.

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

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence
from us
post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we
turned
them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.


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

George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
US really requires.

Really? I wonder why it's taken us so long to break the government that
replaced the Shah in Iran. They're still there, doing their fundamentalist
thing regardless of our displeasure, some 30+ years after they took over. What
you're suggesting is merely blowing hard.....much more easily said than done.

More like 25 years.

I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
Republic of Iran.


SMH

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...

In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898


Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence

from us

post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we

turned

them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.


Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
a "commonwealth".

Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
Not a state. Not independent.


SMH