Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

"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

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

(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

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

(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.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Ed...l_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/af...tan-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.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Ed...l_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.

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

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"

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"

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"

(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