Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

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

"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"

"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.

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

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

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.

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"

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
news
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

"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

"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