We Are All Spaniards

Hi Tom,

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in
terms
of the war on terror,

And an effective alternative is...what?

better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start. Or
choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the moment
they are shooting them at people we don't like.

Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option, if
there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can be
prevented. Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!). Iraq
was never really about terrorism, was it? Maybe the bush administration
was really that much mistaken about Iraqs capabilities to build WMDs, i
can't judge that. But Saddam was never harbouring terrorists, because
he hated islamic fundamentalists and they hated him. They both hated
the US, but for completely different reasons.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

"Judah" wrote in message
...
So what do you suggest?

I think if we draw the line for countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
Morroco, it will be clear that they support the terrorists...


May not be that simple. For example, my understanding is that Al Queda is
looking to unseat the present government in Saudi Arabia so the government
is fighting Al Queda and their ilk, yet there are people and organizations
in Saudi Arabia that are funding and quite sympathetic of these same groups.

The Senate was even in January 2001, the Republicans had a nominal majority
due to Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

Not nominal! Actual. Constitutional. Real. Working and workable.

Are you suggesting that the committee chairmanships were divided
equally between Dem & Rep?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Alex" wrote in message
om...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Are you seriously arguing that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are fighting
for
the independence of some country? Or that they are trying to institute
democracy among their people? Are you suggesting that the United States,
Spain, and other countries deserve to be attacked by terrorists?

Inocents don't deserve to be killed. But when inocents are killed,
those who are left behind naturally seek vengeance. It's only human
(yes, terrorists are human too).

Also, why do you assume freedom = democracy? For most people, freedom
means to be left alone to live their lives any way they want. In your
case, that means a certain political system, a certain culture, a
certain moral system, etc. In the case of the arab world, it means
something different. Who is to say that this is wrong? You can't apply
your particular moral system to another culture.

How many Americans register to vote and how many actually do? Democracy
means fig all when you are struggling to survive when others get fat through
abusing the democratic processes.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Judah" wrote in message
...
So what do you suggest?

I think if we draw the line for countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
Morroco, it will be clear that they support the terrorists...


May not be that simple. For example, my understanding is that Al Queda is
looking to unseat the present government in Saudi Arabia so the government
is fighting Al Queda and their ilk, yet there are people and organizations
in Saudi Arabia that are funding and quite sympathetic of these same
groups.

A bit like the US government giving the Irish terrorists a "hard" time when
there were US groups sympathetic to the terrorists and happily funding them
through Noraid.

Nothing changes

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dan Luke"
writes:


This election will encourage the terrorists like
nothing else has.

Unfortunately, the spin in the Muslim world will be that Al Qaeda
frightened the Spanish people into replacing their government. Score
one for the bad guys.
--

And Italy, Britain and Australia will no doubt pay a heavy price for the
cowardice of the Spanish.

Churchill, speaking of appeasement, said it was 'feeding the crocodile in
hopes
it would eat you last.'

Although this is dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law: It's
particularly sickening to hear the American right (WD, I'm not addressing
you personally yet) pompously adopting the mantle of Churchill. It's your
political forbears who were the master appeasers, right up to Pearl Harbor
and (as far as Europe is concerned) beyond. It took well over two years
before you committed troops despite the begging from your cloest allies. And
the mid-century American right wing positively adored Mussolini. So, from a
European perspective, pious crap about appeasement doesn't sit well coming
from the US - let's admit it; the jaw/war choice is sensitive to specific
points in time, to each side's attempt at self-justification, and can only
be judged later from a historical perspective.

Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative. WD,
what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
Harbor? What about after PH?

-- David Brooks

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Not nominal! Actual. Constitutional. Real. Working and workable.


Constitutional? Better check again.



Are you suggesting that the committee chairmanships were divided
equally between Dem & Rep?


I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying a number equal to the opposition
does not constitute a true majority.

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.

Boy, I really hate to step into this thread, but there were
incidents of what would be called "terrorism" today by the jewish
factions in pre-Israeli palestine. The bombing of the King David
Hotel in 1946 comes to mind.

Better get some more info because that's (KD Hotel) one of the worst myths.
British were warned repeatedly and well in advance and arrogantly ignored
all the warnings.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:4cF5c.21773$Cb.469313@attbi_s51...



Is that not how the republicans got a majority in both houses after 911

The republicans had both houses long before 9-11.

They had the House and White House, but only a tie in the Senate.

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi Tom,

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in
terms
of the war on terror,

And an effective alternative is...what?

better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start.

And what could we have done with that intelligence?

I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and for
information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.

Or
choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the moment
they are shooting them at people we don't like.

We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in
Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the Soviets
with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd never
had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to kill each
other.

Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"?

Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option, if
there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can be
prevented.

Prevented how?

Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!).

What would "finish" that job in your view?

Iraq
was never really about terrorism, was it?

They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly funding.
Very likely they would have provided WMD's when developed. As for where WMD
were, remember what Saddamn did with his Air Force in the first Gulf War?
Sent it to Iran. Remember what he did with it during the current war? Sent
it to Syria. Remember the pictures in the papers (NY TImes IIRC) of the
convoy's heading to Syria just before the war? Remember the freighter saling
to North Korea (just before the invasion) that was traveling "dark" in
contravention of maritime law?


Maybe the bush administration
was really that much mistaken about Iraqs capabilities to build WMDs,

Well, the so was the rest of the world, and msot of the democrats. Get ahold
of the list of quotes by democras, including Bill and Hillarious Clinton,
making the point that Iraq had WMD and waere ready to use them.

i
can't judge that. But Saddam was never harbouring terrorists, because
he hated islamic fundamentalists and they hated him.

Funny, isn't it, that the Islamic terrorists were buddies with the
atheistic USSR? Odd how various ethnic crime gangs (Italian, Irish, Jewish
mafias) manage to cooperate when there's a benefit to be gained. Look how
much cooperation there was between the Soviets an the Nazis up until 1941.

They both hated
the US, but for completely different reasons.

For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for the
Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel"
society.

http://prophetofdoom.net/

Negotiation only works with rational people..adn stringiny such process out
over twelve years