A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
resources in the
region since 1990.
2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
harping on point of bin Laden's.
3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
the Arab Street is
possible.
5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
talking paper tiger.
6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
something to aspire to.
7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
go after all those who support international terrorism.
8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
international terrorism.
9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
to this limited window of opportunity.
10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
international supporters of terrorism.
11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
starved to the tune of several millions.
12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>
>1)
>Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
>resources in the region since 1990.
What resources are tied up in the region NOW ?
What was the $ cost of the war ?
What does it $ cost per month to continue the current situation ?
My guess is that it's more expensive now than it was before.
Both in money and in body bags.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott Erb
we aren't accomplishing what we wanted.
Anyone can claim results will happen. But right now, it's not clear these
"reasons" will prove to be accurate. In fact, the opposite result than the
one offered could be likely.
"Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>2)
>A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia,
>a key harping on point of bin Laden's.
>
The US could have left Saudi Arabia anytime.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>3)
>Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
>trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
>more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
>
Iraqi oil is somebody else's property.
One thing is for sure --- It's not George W's property.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, close their bank accounts.
If regime change is OK for Iraq, regime change is OK for Saudi Arabia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
>average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
>the Arab Street is possible.
If they want US help, they will ask for it.
If you want a better view of America from the Arab Street, sort out Israel first.
Keep pseudo-Christians well away from Iraq.
That includes any soldier who is a pseudo-Christian.
Send those particular soldiers to some other part of the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>5)
>After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big talking paper tiger.
>
America never was seen as talking paper tiger.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>6)
>An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
>give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
>something to aspire to.
>
".........a broad based and democratic form of government........."
If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, why didn't you start with them ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>7)
>Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
>go after all those who support international terrorism.
>
No he did not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, why didn't you start with them ?
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>8)
>By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
>terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
>long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
>international terrorism.
That isn't the way people have reacted to the invasion of Iraq.
America is now seen as the land where the invaders come from.
It has not made the world frightened --- It's made the world angry.
".........will need to think long and hard........."
The world is thinking long and hard.
They are thinking about defense changes, in preparation for the day when
the American invaders come to their country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Willimans
"Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
>
> 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> resources in the
> region since 1990.
>
Yes, the 400-600 billion this will take is *much* cheaper than what we were
doing.
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.
>
In 2-10 years. Why are we in Saudi Arabia anyway? Why did we have to
invade Iraq to leave S.A.?
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
>
Yeah, sure. And who controls that Iraqi oil? I thought it wasn't about
oil?
BTW, this is the *only* reason so far that is remotely correct.
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is
> possible.
>
That would require actually making their lives better.
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
>
Nope, just a bully who is so militarily imenetrable, that terrorism is the
only hope of those wanting us out of their countries.
> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.
>
Yes, it certainly could. When is this going to happen again?
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
>
He did? I knew he support the Palestinian terrorists, but what evidence is
there that he supported international terrorists?
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.
>
Or whether they need to re-double their efforts to obtain nukes, as that is
the only thing that prevents this Admin from invading other countries.
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
>
Yes, bold action with *North Korea*, the arms exporter with nuclear arms.
BTW - There is truly only one type of WMD, and it is nuclear.
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
>
You are getting to be a joke here. It is *OBVIOUS* that you don't
understand the first thing about human nature and what causes terrorism.
This much is *OBVIOUS*.
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
>
Notice this is down at number 11.
> 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
And that one used them right back.
Let's put it this way, if you need to come up with 12 reasons to justify a
war, you have no justification for the war.
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>9)
>We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
>needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
>weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
>range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
>Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
>to this limited window of opportunity.
There are no WMD in Iraq.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is desperately needed in the Middle East, is for Israel to be sorted out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deal with the problem where it is happening.
Iraq was nothing to do with any of this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
>next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
>international supporters of terrorism.
You cannot invade "A" to be alongside "B".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>11)
>Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
>starved to the tune of several millions.
This argument is a non-runner.
The US never invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia where 1.7 million were murdered.
If you are going to support "Human Rights Wars", follow this policy it all the way down the line.
You can start with all the right-wing dictators.
There's plenty of those around.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>12)
>Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
>senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
Saddam was not a threat.
He has not invaded anyone for over 10 years.
Martin McPhillips
news:decakv8tjucv0h8v1...@4ax.com...
> >
> >11)
> >Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> >starved to the tune of several millions.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This argument is a non-runner.
> The US never invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia where 1.7 million were
murdered.
>
> If you are going to support "Human Rights Wars", follow this policy
it all the way down the line.
What you're saying, essentially, is that if all cannot be rescued,
rescue none.
That's what we call stupid.
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
Re: A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My answers show that none of these reasons are good enough to justify an invasion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin McPhillips
news:G7a1b.108628$0v4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Gee, this looks like something an opponent of the war would post to
show how
> we aren't accomplishing what we wanted.
>
> Anyone can claim results will happen. But right now, it's not clear
these
> "reasons" will prove to be accurate. In fact, the opposite result
than the
> one offered could be likely.
That's pretty tough talk from the proponent of "anti-statist
socialism," Boris.
I realize how upset you still are that your policy recommendations
were not followed, but rooting for a catastrophe for your own
country rather smells of treachery, don't you think?
Clave
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
>
...trivializing the fact that Americans continue to die in a war sold on lies
for the sake of Big Oil...
<...snip horseshit...>
Jim
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
".........if all cannot be rescued, rescue none........."
But ALL can be rescued.
||||||||||||||||||||||
You can start your campaign of "Human Rights Wars" with the right-wing dictators.
Martin McPhillips
news:b4dakvgas8b6s6tjt...@4ax.com...
> >
> ><gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:decakv8tjucv0h8v1...@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >11)
> >> >Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> >> >starved to the tune of several millions.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> This argument is a non-runner.
> >> The US never invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia where 1.7 million were
murdered.
> >>
> >> If you are going to support "Human Rights Wars", follow this
policy it all the way down the line.
> >
> >What you're saying, essentially, is that if all cannot be rescued,
rescue none.
> >
> >That's what we call stupid.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ".........if all cannot be rescued, rescue none........."
>
>
> But ALL can be rescued.
So, now you're saying that if all have not been or are not
being rescued, you can't start rescuing some.
That's still what we call stupid.
Robert
"Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
>
> 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> resources in the
> region since 1990.
>
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.
>
Yeah we can take out our few thousands of troops in SA and replace them with
a hundred and fifty thousand troops getting attacked every day
Brilliant
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
>
And giving the Iraqis a trump card should their government turn to be a
Muslim fundamentalist regime
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is
> possible.
>
By cutting off their water and electricity and health care and shooting them
fucking dead
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
>
No just a cowardly lying lion willing to invade and attack countries five
percent our size while cringing at taking on a real country like North
Korea
> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.
>
Yet after we liberated Kuwait, they still don't have a democracy
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
>
No proof, no proof, no proof
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.
>
They thought long and hard and have decided that because of our arrogance,
they will increase their support for anyone willing to attack the great
Satan
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
>
I am glad you mention North Korea, the country we won't go to war with
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
>
Troops bogged down in a quagmire pose not much threat
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
>
Millions. If I told you once, I told you a thousand times, don't exaggerate
> 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
And we are the greatest offender of using WMDs
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:G7a1b.108628$0v4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Gee, this looks like something an opponent of the war would post to
>> show how we aren't accomplishing what we wanted.
>>
>> Anyone can claim results will happen. But right now, it's not clear
>> these "reasons" will prove to be accurate. In fact, the opposite result
>> than the one offered could be likely.
>
>That's pretty tough talk from the proponent of "anti-statist socialism," Boris.
>
>I realize how upset you still are that your policy recommendations
>were not followed, but rooting for a catastrophe for your own
>country rather smells of treachery, don't you think?
".........catastrophe........."
If there is a catastrophe, it will be a catastrophe of George's own making.
He has had a free hand in the invasion of Iraq, so he cannot blame anyone else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Martin McPhillips
news:0ldakvo8mtvoo8l13...@4ax.com...
> >
> >"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:G7a1b.108628$0v4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >> Gee, this looks like something an opponent of the war would post
to
> >> show how we aren't accomplishing what we wanted.
> >>
> >> Anyone can claim results will happen. But right now, it's not
clear
> >> these "reasons" will prove to be accurate. In fact, the opposite
result
> >> than the one offered could be likely.
> >
> >That's pretty tough talk from the proponent of "anti-statist
socialism," Boris.
> >
> >I realize how upset you still are that your policy recommendations
> >were not followed, but rooting for a catastrophe for your own
> >country rather smells of treachery, don't you think?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ".........catastrophe........."
>
>
> If there is a catastrophe, it will be a catastrophe of George's own
making.
>
> He has had a free hand in the invasion of Iraq, so he cannot blame
anyone else.
So, O.K., you were out at the stables, and then the
next thing you remember was that you woke up
in one of the stalls and when you found your way
to a mirror there was the imprint of a horseshoe
on the side of your head and you didn't remember
who you were and started calling yourself "grub."
I think that's as good an explanation as any, don't
you? Use it if you want. I think it will elicit a
lot of sympathy.
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
George will rescue them all during his global campaign of "Human Rights Wars".
He invaded Iraq because he cared about the suffering of the Iraqi people.
All I am asking, is George starts his global military campaign, with the right-wing dictators first.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
Let me repeat what I said :
".........catastrophe........."
If there is a catastrophe, it will be a catastrophe of George's own making.
He has had a free hand in the invasion of Iraq, so he cannot blame anyone else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
>
>"Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
><std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
>news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
>> A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>>
[snip]
>
>> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
>> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
>> something to aspire to.
>>
>
>Yet after we liberated Kuwait, they still don't have a democracy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........Yet after we liberated Kuwait, they still don't have a democracy........."
Very good answer.
I'll borrow that, thank you very much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[snip]
whit
"Clave" <ClaviusFair...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:bi3ae...@enews2.newsguy.com...
i didn't know the 24 million iraqis freed from a despotic, murderous,
torturing, dictator were petroleum based lifeforms?
whit
>
>
Robert
<gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fgfakv0h7svh1ficj...@4ax.com...
> >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ".........Yet after we liberated Kuwait, they still don't have a
democracy........."
>
>
> Very good answer.
> I'll borrow that, thank you very much.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
You are welcome. Repeat it often
Robert
"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qFa1b.33215$Sq.52...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
But when we support dictators (Somasa, Pinochet), when we overthrow
democracies to intall dicatatorships (Chile, Iran), then we don't have any
right to do anything like this
Martin McPhillips
news:nQb1b.4950$Cg4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
There's a long answer to that and a short answer.
I'm too tired to give you the long answer, so here's
the short one:
1. What you wrote is basically old KGB propaganda.
2. The Soviet Union went out of business 12 years
ago.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Geez, Clave, I took some time to outline my reasons for supporting the
invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. It is illustrative of your
deficiencies that you couldn't refute any of it.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
> >
> >1)
> >Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> >resources in the region since 1990.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> What resources are tied up in the region NOW ?
>
> What was the $ cost of the war ?
> What does it $ cost per month to continue the current situation ?
>
> My guess is that it's more expensive now than it was before.
> Both in money and in body bags.
>
More Americans have been killed there then they were in the passive
no-fly zone defence that could've gone on and on until the whole Middle
East blew up.
limbaugh_fart_detector
Balanced Conservatives," <std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>
>1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
>resources in the
>region since 1990.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
>harping on point of bin Laden's.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
>trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
>more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
>average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
>the Arab Street is
>possible.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
>talking paper tiger.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
>give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
>something to aspire to.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
>go after all those who support international terrorism.
hmmmm......is Saddam "linked" to al Queda or not?
>
>8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
>terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
>long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
>international terrorism.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
>needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
>weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
>range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
>Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
>to this limited window of opportunity.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
>next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
>international supporters of terrorism.
why was this missing from AWOL Bush's State of the Union and other
pronouncements?
>
>11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
>starved to the tune of several millions.
did he adopt terrorism against his own people before or after Donald
Rumsfeld was photographed shaking his hand?
>
>12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
>senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
was he a threat before or after Donald Rumsfeld was photographed
shaking his hand?
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Scott Erb wrote:
>
Stop top posting.
> Gee, this looks like something an opponent of the war would post to show how
> we aren't accomplishing what we wanted.
>
> Anyone can claim results will happen. But right now, it's not clear these
> "reasons" will prove to be accurate. In fact, the opposite result than the
> one offered could be likely.
>
I gave 12 reasons why it was a good move to invade Iraq and remove
Saddam. I'm sorry that the long term policy objectives haven't all come
to pass in a few months. Aren't you one of those people who rants about
how government doesn't think or act in the long term?
> "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
> > A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
> >
> > 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> > resources in the
> > region since 1990.
> >
> > 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> > harping on point of bin Laden's.
> >
> > 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> > trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> > more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
> >
> > 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> > average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> > the Arab Street is
> > possible.
> >
> > 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> > talking paper tiger.
> >
> > 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> > give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> > something to aspire to.
> >
> > 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> > go after all those who support international terrorism.
> >
> > 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> > terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> > long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> > international terrorism.
> >
> > 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> > needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> > weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> > range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> > Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> > to this limited window of opportunity.
> >
> > 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> > next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> > international supporters of terrorism.
> >
> > 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> > starved to the tune of several millions.
> >
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >2)
> >A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia,
> >a key harping on point of bin Laden's.
> >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The US could have left Saudi Arabia anytime.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
The US was in Saudi Arabia to counter the threat of Saddam.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >3)
> >Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> >trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> >more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
> >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Iraqi oil is somebody else's property.
>
> One thing is for sure --- It's not George W's property.
>
Can you reply to the actual point and not some made up side nonsense? I
didn't say the oil was Bush's property. I even explicitly said that the
oil from Iraq would be flowing into the world markets.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, close their bank accounts.
>
> If regime change is OK for Iraq, regime change is OK for Saudi Arabia.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
You are so simple minded, it's difficult to respond here. Don't you know
that Saudi Arabia has had an oil trump card that prevents the United
States from putting too much pressure on it?
Robert
> >
> > But when we support dictators (Somasa, Pinochet), when we overthrow
> > democracies to intall dicatatorships (Chile, Iran), then we don't
> have any
> > right to do anything like this
>
> There's a long answer to that and a short answer.
>
> I'm too tired to give you the long answer, so here's
> the short one:
>
> 1. What you wrote is basically old KGB propaganda.
>
> 2. The Soviet Union went out of business 12 years
> ago.
>
>
The only thing tired mm, is your tired old argument.
We overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. Read "All The Shah's Men"
if you don't believe it.
We ovethrew the duly elected government of Chile in 1973 and installed a
dictator as evil as Saddam.
You are a fucking liar
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> >5)
> >After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big talking paper tiger.
> >
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> America never was seen as talking paper tiger.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
A big talking paper tiger. Your wording doesn't make any sense. The US
was seen as a country that would leave an area if it sustained losses,
see Somalia, Beirut and many other examples.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk wrote:
>
> >
> ><gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:decakv8tjucv0h8v1...@4ax.com...
> >> >
> >> >11)
> >> >Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> >> >starved to the tune of several millions.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> This argument is a non-runner.
> >> The US never invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia where 1.7 million were murdered.
> >>
> >> If you are going to support "Human Rights Wars", follow this policy it all the way down the line.
> >
> >What you're saying, essentially, is that if all cannot be rescued, rescue none.
> >
> >That's what we call stupid.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ".........if all cannot be rescued, rescue none........."
>
> But ALL can be rescued.
> ||||||||||||||||||||||
>
So you are saying now that you support the invasion of Iraq and removal
of Saddam, you just want us to repeat that action over and over in a lot
of other countries?
> You can start your campaign of "Human Rights Wars" with the right-wing dictators.
> There's plenty of those around.
>
So you are going to finally admit that Saddam was a buddy to the Soviet
Union and a socialist?
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Are Somosa and Pinochet dictators somewhere? Did the US install the
regimes that are running Chile and Iran? This is all news to me.
Clave
You can manufacture all the horseshit hindsight retro-rationale you want, and
all it does is trivialize the fact that Americans continue to die in a war sold
on lies for the sake of Big Oil.
Jim
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Clave wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3F45505E...@backpacker.com...
> >
> > Clave wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
> > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
> > > >
> > > > A Dozen Good Reasons For...
> > >
> > > ...trivializing the fact that Americans continue to die in a war sold on
> lies
> > > for the sake of Big Oil...
> > >
> > > <...snip horseshit...>
> > >
> > Geez, Clave, I took some time to outline my reasons for supporting the
> > invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. It is illustrative of your
> > deficiencies that you couldn't refute any of it.
>
> You can manufacture all the horseshit hindsight retro-rationale you want, and
> all it does is trivialize the fact that Americans continue to die in a war sold
> on lies for the sake of Big Oil.
>
I gave you 12 real reasons, good reasons for our invasion of Iraq. Read
them again:
1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
resources in the
region since 1990.
2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
harping on point of bin Laden's.
3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
the Arab Street is
possible.
5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
talking paper tiger.
6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
something to aspire to.
7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
go after all those who support international terrorism.
8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
international terrorism.
9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
to this limited window of opportunity.
10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
international supporters of terrorism.
11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
starved to the tune of several millions.
12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
Robert
A lot is new to you.
The reason the hostage crisis happened in Iran was retribution for
installing the Shah in the 1950s and keeping his brutal regime in power.
Reason why these people hate us.
In Chile, we overthrew Allende, duly elected, or Pinochet.
dee_p...@spdc.ti.com
: A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
: 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
: resources in the region since 1990.
Good point. Even though right now we're committing even more
resources, not to mention American lives, the lefties don't
comprehend the concept of long-term goals. It's good for our
economy (Halliburton, Bechtel, the Carlyle Group), and we're
rebuilding Iraq's by restoring and securing their pipelines.
The Iraqi people are so giddy about it!
: 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
: harping on point of bin Laden's.
True, true. The Iraqis greeted us with flowers, kisses and
open arms. Wolfowitz said so, and there was all that footage
in March that proved it. Why stay where we're not wanted?
Besides a few of the Saudis who must really like us have
crossed the border into Iraq to join in and help!
: 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
: trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
: more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
As a true conservative ideologically against terrorism,
I cannot admit that oil ever trumped our crusade against
terrorism. I swear on my red, white and blue H2 Hummer!
: 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
: average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
: the Arab Street is possible.
Yes, bin Laden and his followers didn't know how good they had
it. Can't call that nothin' but crazy. If tax-free money
didn't make them happy, nothing would. Spoiled sports!
: 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
: talking paper tiger.
As a true conservative, I turn to lessons in history to guide
me to the correct course of action. Of course, there is no
historical record of major military success in the Middle East.
But I say you can't call that nothin' but incompetence!!
These terrorists think they're tough because they're willing
to strap bombs to themselves and kill their own people just
to get a few of us. Just because generations of them were
born into a state of war doesn't give them an advantage.
We'll just use good ol' American Ingenuity and Know-How! (tm)
We will continue to set precident and tread new ground in
innovative warfare and accomplish what Isreal, the EU and
Russia still cannot.
Rumsfeld will continue his string of military success as
he shows our veteran military commanders the right way
of doing things!
: 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
: give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
: something to aspire to.
Of course! That is why we focus on Iran so much these days.
The people there yearn for democracy. They are waiting for
someone to scare and rile the Mullahs into doing finally
doing something progressive!
: 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
: go after all those who support international terrorism.
Exactly. This is why we had to keep secret the references
to Saudi Arabia in our investigative reports. Saudi Arabia
is a huge source of information we need to protect! You shoot
yourself in the head if you expose your sources. Just look
at what happened to David Kelly!
Uday and Quesay could have revealed to us where the WMD or
Daddy Hussein is. Thank goodness Chemical Ali was found
alive. You can't conduct a competent mission without a
decent source of information. Just ask Ahmad Chalabi.
Let's not forget to give credit to our friends and allies
in Pakistan. The check won't bounce!
: 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
: terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
: long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
: international terrorism.
Yes. They've been softened up by people going into Gaza
and Saudi Arabia. Hopefully this will be the straw that
breaks their back, so that they will finally realize what they
need to do to make us go away!
: 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
: needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
: weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
: range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
: Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
: to this limited window of opportunity.
Thank God the US-supplied helicopters and pesticides were used
up on the Kurds!
: 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
: next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
: international supporters of terrorism.
Agreed. We can take Syris from the West, Iran on the East
and Saudi Arabia from the South. If Jordan and Turkey want
some of us, Bring it on!
: 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
: starved to the tune of several millions.
Where does he think he is? Africa?
: 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
: senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
What was he thinking when he invaded Iran? Geez!
Kuwait? He should have consulted us!
He must really be an idiot to want to escape to Syria!
(Of course, we couldn't take any chances!)
Martin McPhillips
Ah, Mr. Imbecile sir, I'm not disputing the fact that the
United States staged a coup in Iran and supported
one in Chile, I'm telling you that your take on those
events is recycled KGB propaganda.
Scott Erb
> The only thing tired mm, is your tired old argument.
>
> We overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. Read "All The Shah's
Men"
> if you don't believe it.
>
> We ovethrew the duly elected government of Chile in 1973 and installed a
> dictator as evil as Saddam.
>
> You are a fucking liar
We also arranged the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatamala, another democracy
that was replaced by a brutal dictatorship, one of the bloodiest in the
region for along time. One of the main reasons was that Arbenz was seen as
a dangerous "socialist" because he nationalized the United Fruit Company's
land for only $600,000 when it was worth much more (international law allows
nationalization with fair compensation for foreign holdings). But the
reason was that the United Fruit Company had made deals to declare the value
of its land at that price to avoid taxes.
That coup was the model for the Bay of Pigs invasion, but Castro had
actually studied the Guatamala coup and didn't panic like Arbenz had.
Scott Erb
>
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> Stop top posting.
>
>
> > Gee, this looks like something an opponent of the war would post to show
how
> > we aren't accomplishing what we wanted.
> >
> > Anyone can claim results will happen. But right now, it's not clear
these
> > "reasons" will prove to be accurate. In fact, the opposite result than
the
> > one offered could be likely.
> >
> I gave 12 reasons why it was a good move to invade Iraq and remove
> Saddam. I'm sorry that the long term policy objectives haven't all come
> to pass in a few months. Aren't you one of those people who rants about
> how government doesn't think or act in the long term?
I just think that the evidence is that most of these are not going to
happen, and in fact in many cases the opposite are happening.
I do not believe the policy will achieve the ends you assert in the 12
reasons.
Clave
>
> Clave wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F45505E...@backpacker.com...
> > >
> > > Clave wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
> > > > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > A Dozen Good Reasons For...
> > > >
> > > > ...trivializing the fact that Americans continue to die in a war sold on
> > lies
> > > > for the sake of Big Oil...
> > > >
> > > > <...snip horseshit...>
> > > >
> > > Geez, Clave, I took some time to outline my reasons for supporting the
> > > invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. It is illustrative of your
> > > deficiencies that you couldn't refute any of it.
> >
> > You can manufacture all the horseshit hindsight retro-rationale you want,
and
> > all it does is trivialize the fact that Americans continue to die in a war
sold
> > on lies for the sake of Big Oil.
> >
> I gave you 12 real reasons, good reasons for our invasion of Iraq. Read
> them again:
1) I read them before.
2) I didn't care then.
3) KMA.
You can manufacture all the horseshit hindsight retro-rationale you want, and
all it does is trivialize the fact that Americans continue to die in a war sold
on lies for the sake of Big Oil.
Jim
Ashland Henderson
> A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>
> 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> resources in the
> region since 1990.
Nothing like the resources we're tying up now, however.
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.
Doesn't look to good so far. Of course you could be right but it sure
looks like the situation is steadily getting worse.
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
Ah, ignore the real terrorist while conquering a country nearby that seems
to have been no threat to us, all so we can use their oil to make threats
against the real terrorist.
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is
> possible.
With that reasoning you must believe in Santa Claus as well. What we have
shown is that we are willing to use our military to sieze large deposits
of oil. Here's a hint: New and better views of a conquerer do not generally
come out of conquered nations.
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
No, it is seen something more like as a mad dog now.
> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.
And it is going to snow there next July as well.
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
So where is ben Laiden now. Why is the Taliban still active in Afghanistan.
And Saddam doesn't appear to have supported international terrorism against
us. Of course there was all that oil.
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.
Other countries will indeed think long and hard about whether to oppose
us. My guess is that they will decide to do so in groups and in ways that
we cannot comfortably resist. Respect is a useful thing in international
relations. Fear is somewhat counter-productive.
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
Sea changes made by fear and conquest do not result in peaceful relations.
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
Feel free to pull the troops out to invade Iran. See how long our "democratic
government" lasts in Iraq.
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
Just about the only valid thing you mentioned. Wasn't really on the agenda,
of course, until all of the other items fell through. Internationally, however,
not a sufficent reason to conquer someone. Unless they have oil, of course.
Who Cares?
Jim, you always demand proof. Prove your claim.
But then again,
Who Cares?
Robert
Propaganda implies lying.
These weren't lies.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Attacking by demanding cites is his kookist defence mechanism of choice.
Don't expect him to consider turnabout fair play.
Docky Wocky
"We ovethrew the duly elected government of Chile in 1973 and installed a
dictator as evil as Saddam..."
__________________________________
No, we ovethrowed an evil "socialist" dictator and prevented comrade
Salvadore Allende from pulling off his Kremlin-ordered and sponsored
ensnarement of the eager democrat fools of Chile's huge underclass.
In fact, we had to ovethrow him down the palace steps 6 or 7 times before he
got accidently killed.
Clave
>
>
> Who Cares? wrote:
> >
> > "Clave" <ClaviusFair...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
> > news:bi3ju...@enews2.newsguy.com...
<...>
> > | You can manufacture all the horseshit hindsight retro-rationale you
> > want, and
> > | all it does is trivialize the fact that Americans continue to die in
> > a war sold
> > | on lies for the sake of Big Oil.
> > |
> > | Jim
> >
> > Jim, you always demand proof. Prove your claim.
> >
> Attacking by demanding cites is his kookist defence mechanism of choice.
> Don't expect him to consider turnabout fair play.
What cite? It's common knowledge that their claim of "irrefutable proof" of
WMDs was a lie. The "imminent threat" to the US was a lie. The Nigerian
uranium story was a lie. The claim that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda was
a lie.
Pretty much every reason the White House gave for the invasion was a lie.
Jim
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Propaganda does not imply lying.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Robert" <wayne_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:F8c1b.714$0y5...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > The only thing tired mm, is your tired old argument.
> >
> > We overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. Read "All The Shah's
> Men"
> > if you don't believe it.
> >
> > We ovethrew the duly elected government of Chile in 1973 and installed a
> > dictator as evil as Saddam.
> >
> > You are a fucking liar
>
> We also arranged the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatamala, another democracy
> that was replaced by a brutal dictatorship, one of the bloodiest in the
> region for along time.
>
For a long time. Anyway, that was a long time ago. Why can't you find
something recent?
> One of the main reasons was that Arbenz was seen as
> a dangerous "socialist" because he nationalized the United Fruit Company's
> land for only $600,000 when it was worth much more (international law allows
> nationalization with fair compensation for foreign holdings).
>
That's not fair compensation.
> But the
> reason was that the United Fruit Company had made deals to declare the value
> of its land at that price to avoid taxes.
>
> That coup was the model for the Bay of Pigs invasion, but Castro had
> actually studied the Guatamala coup and didn't panic like Arbenz had.
>
Kennedy took plans from the previous administration and just acted on
them without thinking things through unlike the Bush administration
which took the time to evaluate things.
The Fair and Balanced Weasel
wrote:
Docky definitely swallows.
>
Impeachments. Court appointments. Gerrymanderings. Recalls. Plane crashes.
Don't Republicans believe in honest elections any more?
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
Rev. 11D Meow!
GW WITH SOMEBODY THAT CAN MAKE A COMPLETE SENTENCE THAT ISN'T FILLED WITH
DECEIT WHILE MAINTAINING SOME SEMBLENCE OF SANITY!
Who Cares?
So to you a lie is anything that hasn't been proven to your
satisfaction yet. It must be pretty pathetic living your life that
way. Hey Jimmy, are you going to be out protesting President Bush
tomorrow? And did you enjoy Hemp-Fest? But then again,
Who Cares?
JanTGH
Serbia.
"Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
> A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
>
> 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> resources in the
> region since 1990.
>
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.
>
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
>
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is
> possible.
>
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
>
> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.
>
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
>
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.
>
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
>
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
>
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
>
Martin W. Smith
>
> Why is this necessary? It was not necessary when we invaded Bosnia and
> Serbia.
Because we were stopping a war there, not starting one.
martin
--
Martin Smith email: m...@computas.com
Vollsveien 9 tel. : +47 6783 1188
P.O. Box 482 mob. : +47 932 48 303
1327 Lysaker, Norway
Martin W. Smith
>
> A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
I agree with 1, 2, and 3.
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is
> possible.
That is not happening, and before the war it was predicted that invading
Iraq would make the opposite happen, which is the case.
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
It wasn't seen as a big talking paper tiger at all.
I agree with 6.
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
Saddam was only concerned with maintaining his own power. His support
for international terrorism consisted of financial support of the
families of suicide bombers. We could have ended that by dealing with
the Israel/Palestine problem, but we chose not to face that problem, a
situation which continues despite having removed Saddam from power.
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.
We didn't have to go to Baghdad to effect this. All we had to do was
deal with the Israel/Palestine problem and fight terrorism around the
world with police investigations and the courts, which is where
virtually all the victories against terrorism have come from.
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate.
Yes, and invading Iraq has made that problem worse, not better. We are
further from peace in the Middle East than we were before the Intifada.
> North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
But we have just shown North Korea and the world that the best strategy
is to develop nuclear weapons, because nuclear weapons and a strong
military are the only things the US understands.
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
US troops in Iraq is exactly (do you see this now, Bill?) EXACTLY what
Osama bin Laden wanted! We are now more than waist deep in the big muddy
AGAIN!
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
We could have ended most of those deaths by ending the sanctions. And,
lest we forget, we could have prevented most of those deaths by not
supporting him in the first place.
> 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
Even the CIA still says that he was no threat to anybody.
You listed four good reasons, and six lies. It is too bad that President
Bush didn't use your four good reasons but chose to lie, too.
Gregory Gadow
and "removing" you.
But how many of those dozen reasons would be morally acceptable? How many of
them would be legal?
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Martin McPhillips
Like I said, I'm telling you that your take on those
two events is recycled KGB propaganda.
Have you ever heard of the Cold War?
Martin McPhillips
news:CLh1b.3546$n6....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Sit tight, the nurse will be by in moment or so.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
The word 'lie' is tossed around very easily around here.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
JanTGH wrote:
>
> Why is this necessary? It was not necessary when we invaded Bosnia and
> Serbia.
>
Since you are top posting, I have no idea what you are referring to.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
"Martin W. Smith" wrote:
>
> JanTGH wrote:
> >
> > Why is this necessary? It was not necessary when we invaded Bosnia and
> > Serbia.
>
> Because we were stopping a war there, not starting one.
>
There has been a war going on with Saddam and the people of Iraq pretty
much since Saddam took power. Certainly it has been very active within
the country since 1991. Millions of people have died of hunger since
then. Hundreds of thousands were disappeared and murdered. The Marsh
Arabs were almost completely genocided. In every way this was far worse
than the Balkans which was simply a disagreement about power within a
single country.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
The Fair and Balanced Weasel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:47:51 GMT, "Docky Wocky" <mrc...@verizin.net>
> wrote:
>
> >robert sez:
> >
> >"We ovethrew the duly elected government of Chile in 1973 and installed a
> >dictator as evil as Saddam..."
> >__________________________________
> >
> >No, we ovethrowed an evil "socialist" dictator and prevented comrade
> >Salvadore Allende from pulling off his Kremlin-ordered and sponsored
> >ensnarement of the eager democrat fools of Chile's huge underclass.
> >
> >In fact, we had to ovethrow him down the palace steps 6 or 7 times before he
> >got accidently killed.
>
> Docky definitely swallows.
>
No way, it's impossible to swallow the shit you post without vomiting.
Cap'n TrVth
<gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3lbakvgmi95edle2q...@4ax.com...
> >
> >3)
> >Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> >trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> >more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
> >
> Iraqi oil is somebody else's property.
>
> One thing is for sure --- It's not George W's property.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> If Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism, close their bank accounts.
>
> If regime change is OK for Iraq, regime change is OK for Saudi Arabia.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
First of all, -let me start by saying that you are a complete idiot.
Secondly, this war will be paid for in full with Iraqi Oil.
Then, if we want to, we may decide to buy some.
Since you people claimed it was blood for oil all along,
then it may as well be so.
Thirdly:
Iraq -did- support, harbor, foment, finance and supply terrorists.
Now, as for The House of Saud:
-which you apparently know absolutely nothing about:
Saudi Arabia has been relatively politically stable and amenable to the
U.S. and the U.K. Business has been lucrative. Our dollars and pounds
for their oil. We built them a very glitzy empire.
Within The House of Saud, the Princes are highly motivated to NOT be
associated with terrorism, but they are the top dogs in a country that's
wealth came directly from the sale of oil. And there is hatred and jealousy
directed at the House of Saud by those that may not be in the blood-line,
or may not be direct benefactors of the Oil money, or maybe they -are-
but are more fundamental in their views of Islam and see a violent
Jihad against the infidels as a "pillar" of Islam. (i.e. Bin Laden)
There is also "corruption" within the Royal House...
They are seen as having turned their backs on fellow Moslems,
for not participating in the entifada, for not helping, "Palestinians".
And there is intense pressure on the ulema to pander and cater to
their detractors by the expenditure of wealth, by the creation of
vast social programs, essentially creating a huge welfare state.
As modernization and urbanization come to the forefront they
demand the royals disperse the wealth even as the wealth dwindles.
This leads to further splits within the emirate monarchies.
Most Princes or "Royalty" won't work at all, or they assume symbolic,
token roles in Government or the Military, but it is largely a front, they
are entirely dependant on either Westerners, Philippino's or other
TWN's to do everything up to and probably including, wiping their tails.
Are all Saudi men Princes, no, but the deck is being shuffled.
As more and more oil money goes towards social programs,
-the Social programs in turn want more and more money.
I realize all of this is wasted time because none of it will
penetrate your thick skull but what the hell, I'll go on.
As a result of our reduced dependency on Saudi Oil, their per capita
income has plummeted, -the rich not as rich and the poor getting poorer.
Their police force and whole sectors of Government are corrupt.
And Oil money is the only real means the House of Saud has
of staying in power. As long as they keep giving the money away,
everyone seems to be relatively happy. See the dichotomy?
Islamic Fundamentalism wants Infidels OUT, of their region, but the House
of Saud and Emirate States became addicted to Western management,
technology, Arms, Defense, to get their oil out of the ground so they
can make more money, so while all this is going on, the people are torn
between independence from the west and a dependence on the
west's technology. "A deal with the devil"
While we have been paying through our noses to OPEC we were giving
them these opulent lifestyles, (the royalty) But we were also sewing seeds
and setting the stage for all this hatred and enmity that exists against us
(and the Royals) today.
Hence the Holy War.......
Hopefully this makes it a little easier for people to understand how there
can be visits to Crawford with photos, smiling, handshaking and
reassurances from the house of Saud that they are on top of matters,
after all of this hi-jacking 911 shit was going on right under their noses.
It's not the most powerful people in the K.S.A.that are behind the jihad,
but it certainly was perpetrated by some Saudi Nat'ls. And a lot of the
money -does- come from the top. i.e. Bin Laden's pay-off. But,
The House of Saud is motivated to stop Terrorism.
Bush 41, Clinton and Dubya have done a pretty good job of getting us
out of opec, but we really need to be all the way out, A.S.A.P.
If you think 911 and the subsequent economic collapse was bad, just
consider that a few crucial attacks on certain segements of the Saudi Oil
and gas infrastructure would be far more devastating than the Opec
embargo of the mid 80's. Far far more devastating.
We're talking frozen French Fries, Ice cold Fish'n Chips and a global
economic BLACK-out. -not- a brown out like we just saw.
They have well over 1,000 miles of pipeline and two of the world's
largest onshore fields. They have a single facility in Abqaiq producing
about 7 million barrels a day....
Doing the math?
The House of Saud is motivated to stop Terrorism. REPEAT.
The House of Saud is motivated to stop Terrorism.
The question is, what can they do?
Bin Laden was kicked -out- of the Country nearly 10 years ago
for fomenting Jihad and hatred against the west.
Yet, S.A. transferred $500,000,000 to Al queda over the last 10 years,
-protection money or support for Jihad? -The Dichotomy again.
Bush is castigated for maintaing his cozy relationship the truth of the
matter is that these problems with "The House of Saud" and the K.S.A.
have been passed down from administration to administration, since the
Carter years, -it's too convenient to suddenly use this age old sore,
as a gaff to barb G.W.
It's not a bad thing that G.W. has good Diplomatic relations with
Princ Saud. It's a really GOOD thing. And it's pretty apparent that
G.W. yanked his chain really hard over al Bayoumi, And Saud took
the heat. The House of Saud is motivated to stop Terrorism.
There are 5 (extended) families that own well over half the Earth's oil.
They used to be considered as a cohesive unit, -that is no longer the
case... All the time and money we spent bolstering them with arms
training, and production infrastructure, was given with the understanding
that they would be able to protect their reserves when the time came.
-this is no longer the case. The five-fingers of the hand are no longer
connected as they once were.
S.A. has lost a great deal of power and has major serious domestic
issues of their own, all revolving around terrorism and fundamentalism
and the new nursery welfare state of Islamic Socialist Recipients.
"Give me my 40 acres and a Camel, -Death to the Infidels!"
The House of Saud teeters on the brink of collapse.
We don't want that to happen, even though we like to use the word
"teeters" as often as we can.
We pulled all of our troops out of S.A. with just a very few trainers
and diplomatic personnel left. In an effort to appease the Fundamentalists
that opposed "the presence of the infidels"...
One last thing, When Lefties question why we aren't attacking S.A.,
They did more to help us after 911 than most people realize.
They oil they sent immediately prior to 9/11 prevented a disaster
and help maintain stability in the oil market. S.A. is our friend.
There are Saudi's that are -not-.
Unfortunately, Radical Islamic fundamentalists, and the residents of the
City of Seattle do not give a shit about -anyone's- well-being anywhere.
And apparently Mr. Grub over in the U.K. is happy to deliver mindless
platitudes as if Mr.Grub knows exactly where it was, that the bear shit
in the buckwheat.
Good on ya Grub, you should try to change the world by posting even
more of your vapid, moronic one-liners.
Are you a Soccer Hoolie by chance?
-Cap
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Scott Erb
"Cap'n TrVth" <The_Telling_Light_of_TrVth@Deal_With_it.com> wrote in message
news:3f46a...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> Secondly, this war will be paid for in full with Iraqi Oil.
> Then, if we want to, we may decide to buy some.
So I guess you're saying that Bush and his administration are liars?
Cap'n TrVth
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Fly1b.110196$0v4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
No.
HTH
Suck it up.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
The oil that comes from Iraq in the short term can't pay for this
effort. I wonder about who you choose to respond to.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Robert wrote:
>
> "Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:qUb1b.33877$Sq.52...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > >
> > > But when we support dictators (Somasa, Pinochet), when we overthrow
> > > democracies to intall dicatatorships (Chile, Iran), then we don't
> > have any
> > > right to do anything like this
> >
> > There's a long answer to that and a short answer.
> >
> > I'm too tired to give you the long answer, so here's
> > the short one:
> >
> > 1. What you wrote is basically old KGB propaganda.
> >
> > 2. The Soviet Union went out of business 12 years
> > ago.
> >
> >
>
> The only thing tired mm, is your tired old argument.
>
> We overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. Read "All The Shah's Men"
> if you don't believe it.
>
That was really an MI-6 operation for British Petroleum.
> We ovethrew the duly elected government of Chile in 1973 and installed a
> dictator as evil as Saddam.
>
> You are a fucking liar
>
You need to stop insulting people you don't know. At some point you
could be tapped on the back. You know, there's a certain level of honour
in this.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Gregory Gadow wrote:
>
> I'm sure I could come up with a dozen good reasons for invading your home
> and "removing" you.
>
> But how many of those dozen reasons would be morally acceptable? How many of
> them would be legal?
>
I don't know. Can you explain why a local attack on my rights has
anything to do with a dispute between sovereigns?
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Robert wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
> > A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
> >
> > 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> > resources in the
> > region since 1990.
> >
> > 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> > harping on point of bin Laden's.
> >
>
> Yeah we can take out our few thousands of troops in SA and replace them with
> a hundred and fifty thousand troops getting attacked every day
>
> Brilliant
>
You mean actually dealing with the problem vs just sitting there is
wrong?
> > 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> > trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> > more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
> >
>
> And giving the Iraqis a trump card should their government turn to be a
> Muslim fundamentalist regime
>
You are an idiot. I don't know why I bother. If the Iraqis turn
fundamentalist and don't sell oil, they will sell oil at about the level
they are selling it now. Big fucking deal. You are an illiterate,
ignorant idiot just like the other Libs. I suggest you shutup and find
somewhere to read or listen to actual news and come back later.
Rev. 11D Meow!
oh goody!
"Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:5Jq1b.39327$Sq.58...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Gaza
"Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives," <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:3F46DE59...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Robert wrote:
> >
> > "Martin McPhillips" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:qUb1b.33877$Sq.52...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > But when we support dictators (Somasa, Pinochet), when we overthrow
> > > > democracies to intall dicatatorships (Chile, Iran), then we don't
> > > have any
> > > > right to do anything like this
> > >
> > > There's a long answer to that and a short answer.
> > >
> > > I'm too tired to give you the long answer, so here's
> > > the short one:
> > >
> > > 1. What you wrote is basically old KGB propaganda.
> > >
> > > 2. The Soviet Union went out of business 12 years
> > > ago.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The only thing tired mm, is your tired old argument.
> >
> > We overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. Read "All The Shah's Men"
> > if you don't believe it.
> >
> That was really an MI-6 operation for British Petroleum.
>
>
Otherwise you will always be seen as an idiot.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/053.html
Gaza
"Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives," <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:3F46E380...@backpacker.com...
The only fucking idiot here is you for being so naive that you actually believe that Bush can create a democracy in Iraq.
Over 60% of the Iraqi population are Shiite Muslims who have been kept out of power by a minority of Sunni Muslims by force.
The probability of a fundementalist government is infinitely higher than Bush's democracy.
Want an example.
Look to what happened in Iran. To believe that the outcome will be any different after America removes it's troops is simply being naive to the point of utter stupidity.
Scott Erb
>
>
> Robert wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
> > <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F452DB7...@backpacker.com...
> > > A Dozen Good Reasons For Invading Iraq and Replacing Saddam
> > >
> > > 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> > > resources in the
> > > region since 1990.
> > >
> > > 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> > > harping on point of bin Laden's.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah we can take out our few thousands of troops in SA and replace them
with
> > a hundred and fifty thousand troops getting attacked every day
> >
> > Brilliant
> >
> You mean actually dealing with the problem vs just sitting there is
> wrong?
False dichotomy. There are many ways to deal with problems, nobody
suggested "just sitting there."
The choice was *not* between do nothing and invade.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives,"
> <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> news:3F455100...@backpacker.com...
> >
> >
> > Scott Erb wrote:
> > >
> > Stop top posting.
> >
> >
> > > Gee, this looks like something an opponent of the war would post to show
> how
> > > we aren't accomplishing what we wanted.
> > >
> > > Anyone can claim results will happen. But right now, it's not clear
> these
> > > "reasons" will prove to be accurate. In fact, the opposite result than
> the
> > > one offered could be likely.
> > >
> > I gave 12 reasons why it was a good move to invade Iraq and remove
> > Saddam. I'm sorry that the long term policy objectives haven't all come
> > to pass in a few months. Aren't you one of those people who rants about
> > how government doesn't think or act in the long term?
>
> I just think that the evidence is that most of these are not going to
> happen, and in fact in many cases the opposite are happening.
>
> I do not believe the policy will achieve the ends you assert in the 12
> reasons.
>
Which are you talking about? Some are true right now such as number 2:
1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
resources in the region since 1990.
2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
harping on point of bin Laden's.
3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
Quirt Evans
I am 100% certain that you believe that. However, I doubt Suddam
Hussein would agree with you.
As far as Saddam was concerned, despite economic sanctions, we were
"doing nothing" to stop him for eight years. Hussein was still in
absolute power, a ruthless dictator, before we went in. As long as he
possessed the kind of power to do harm with it, he would definitely
attempt to do that harm.
Why wouldn't he? What part of his history dictated anything else?
"America is a nation with the soul of a church…the only nation in the
world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic
and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence".
—G. K. Chesterton, British essayist and critic
"Explaining the ideals and merits of America to a Socialist weasel would
be like attempting to convey an appreciation for the intricate works
within an ant colony to an anteater.
You're about as American as Herr Schroeder... or
Karl Marx."-- me
Scott Erb
> Which are you talking about? Some are true right now such as number 2:
>
> 1) Finally dealing with Saddam who has been endlessly tying up US
> resources in the region since 1990.
We've been dealing with him in different ways. There was no need to invade
the country, get locked up in a quagmire, and kill and destroy so many
people and their property, increasing world wide anti-Americanism and making
it easier for terrorists to recruit.
> 2) A reformed Iraq means that the US can leave Saudi Arabia, a key
> harping on point of bin Laden's.
Since this happened before the war, your causal claim is obviously been
falsified. This reason must be thrown out.
> 3) Iraqi oil flowing into the world markets makes Saudi Arabia's oil
> trump card much less valuable thus allowing the US more freedom to put
> more pressure on them and their funding of terrorism.
It'll be years before Iraqi oil is flowing, and probably won't make much of
a difference. It could even be used against us, depending on what happens
in Iraq.
> 4) By showing that the US is willing to expend its resources to help
> average Arabs better their lives, a new and better view of America from
> the Arab Street is
> possible.
LOL! So far, the opposite is true.
> 5) After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is not seen so much as a big
> talking paper tiger.
LOL! So far, the opposite is true. We're being snickered at for being tied
down in Iraq, having the Taliban regroup and on the move in Afghanistan. In
the European press there is a smug "I told you so" attitude, and America is
seen as learning the lesson of the limits of its power.
> 6) An Iraq with a broad based and democratic form of government could
> give other Arab countries, which today uniformly are dictatorships,
> something to aspire to.
Very vague, and very unlikely that Iraq will get that.
> 7) Saddam supported international terrorism, and post 9/11 we decided to
> go after all those who support international terrorism.
No evidence for Saddam's support of 9-11, and certainly that doesn't warrant
the devastating violence we've unleashed on so many people, with very
uncertain results -- we probably INCREASED the terrorist threat, made it
easier for terrorists to recruit, and made it more likely Saddam transfered
WMD to terrorists -- the CIA thought it was unlikely he would do so UNLESS
he felt war was inevitable.
> 8) By showing that we were willing to even go to Baghdad, other
> terrorist supporting countries such as Iran and Syria will need to think
> long and hard about whether they want to continue to support
> international terrorism.
Again, so far the opposite -- they see America tied down, they are
supporting attacks against Americans in the region, and now have an
incentive to undercut the US. Iran is increasing its pace at getting nukes.
> 9) We are running out of time to make the sort of sea change that is
> needed desperately in the Middle East and elsewhere before nuclear
> weapons and other WMDs proliferate. North Korea has already sold long
> range missiles to pretty much every country in the Middle East and North
> Africa with access to the cash to buy them. Bold action is required due
> to this limited window of opportunity.
We can't make a sea change by force, that historically fails. The way to do
so would have been to work through multilateral institutions and build
cooperation. We rejected that, and are learning the hard way that we aren't
as powerful as we thought.
> 10) US access to Iraq puts our troops on both sides of Iran and right
> next to Syria thus further increasing the pressure on these two major
> international supporters of terrorism.
As targets right now, and the Pentagon wants a way out. We're not scaring
anyone.
> 11) Ending Saddam's terrorism of his people whom he has murdered or
> starved to the tune of several millions.
Saddam was evil and repressive, but that doesn't justify our invasion and
attempt to occupy Iraq after Saddam is gone.
> 12) Ending Saddam's threat to his neighbours, three of which he has
> senselessly invaded, and on one he has used WMDs.
Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors after 1991. They weren't afraid of
him anymore, he was weakened and irrelevant.
Scott Erb
"Quirt Evans" <gore...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10163-3F...@storefull-2216.public.lawson.webtv.net...
">>The choice was *not* between do nothing and invade."
> I am 100% certain that you believe that. However, I doubt Suddam
>Hussein would agree with you.
There is very little Saddam and I would agree on. But we'd rendered him
impotent and irrelevant in the region already by 2002. There is little he
could have done against a unitied international community, if we'd only
given it time.
Now we're stuck in a mess, and I don't think you realize yet just what this
might mean.
Martin W. Smith
No, Bill.
Tuomas V.
> We overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. Read "All The Shah's Men"
> if you don't believe it.
>
> We ovethrew the duly elected government of Chile in 1973 and installed a
> dictator as evil as Saddam.
You shouldn't forget Greece, 1967. The Greek haven't. It was maybe not
too well timed, to let the Iraq crisis erupt during the term when
Greece served as chairman of the European Union.
Quirt Evans
impotent and irrelevant in the region already by 2002. There is little
he could have done against a unitied international community, if we'd
only given it time.
Now we're stuck in a mess, and I don't think you realize yet just what
this might mean."
I think you're wrong. I do realize what this might mean. This thing
could easily escalate into something of biblical proportions that even a
world superpower couldn't prevent. I realize that and it scares the
hell out of me. (Remember, I believe in the prophecies of the bible)
However, I don't think that Hussein considered himself impotent,
regardless of what you think. September 11'th proved to him that we
could be hurt with little effort and finance. I sincerely believe that
given time Hussein would have tried to outdo Bin Laden. Our intelligence
in his neighborhood was all but nil in the nineties and he knew it.
Clinton made certain of that.
Now, if we had enforced the peace treaty from the word go then
perhaps we wouldn't be where we are today. The first time Hussein
showed signs of not complying with the cease fire agreement, Bill
Clinton should have just gone in and removed him from power. By doing
pretty much nothing, Clinton encouraged Hussein to play cat and mouse
with us for eight years.
I was in a Hungarian chat room last night and had a friendly chat
with a young Muslim named Rizwan Umer Talal from Pakistan. He said
things like "Bush hates Muslims", he "wants us all dead", we will "end
the world". This guy was only 21 years old and he was speaking his
countries litany verse by verse. I explained to him that Bush didn't
hate Muslims, he hated terrorists. I asked him if he knew there was a
difference. He replied, "Yes, a little bit". A LITTLE BIT. Now, THAT
scared me. Even I believe there's more than a little bit of difference
between a Muslim and a terrorist.
You are right. We are in for it and it scares me to death. That
doesn't mean Bush was wrong to not wait for Hussein to act on us,
though.
Scott Erb
For some reason my server doesn't show quotes for your posts, so I'll have
to do it differently
Scott said:
"There is very little Saddam and I would agree on. But we'd rendered him
impotent and irrelevant in the region already by 2002. There is little
he could have done against a unitied international community, if we'd
only given it time.
Now we're stuck in a mess, and I don't think you realize yet just what
this might mean."
Quirt replied:
I think you're wrong. I do realize what this might mean. This thing
could easily escalate into something of biblical proportions that even a
world superpower couldn't prevent. I realize that and it scares the
hell out of me. (Remember, I believe in the prophecies of the bible)
My reply:
That needs to be taken seriously before making a policy decision. After
all, we don't want a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quirt again:
However, I don't think that Hussein considered himself impotent,
regardless of what you think. September 11'th proved to him that we
could be hurt with little effort and finance. I sincerely believe that
given time Hussein would have tried to outdo Bin Laden. Our intelligence
in his neighborhood was all but nil in the nineties and he knew it.
Clinton made certain of that.
My reply:
What Saddam considered himself is irrelevant -- he obviously was deranged.
And blaming Clinton is silly (some of you guys seem obsessed with him). The
fact is Iraq was so clearly under surveillance, and then by 2002 under so
much pressure, we could have easily assured his continued impotence, and
probably managed to crack his regime without an invasion and occupation.
Remember, the argument by Chirac and Putin was not against military action.
Chirac is often misquoted as saying he'd never support military action -- he
only said he wouldn't support a UN resolution authorizing it at a particular
time, he always said it may become necessary. The view of the rest of the
Security Council was that Iraq was a problem, but one we have been dealing
with by rendering Saddam impotent, and one we could continue to deal with
through enhanced effort.
Chirac credited the US with getting the issue on the table, and if after
1483 was passed the US worked with the international community to continue
inspections, keep pressure on Saddam, and assure he couldn't do anything,
either his regime would have collapsed, or he would have ceased cooperation
with the UN, which by that point would have assured an international
coalition of states that could actually provide real material help, under UN
approval, against Saddam. We wouldn't have so much anti-Americanism, we'd
probably have the assistance of more Mideast states, and it would be much
more pressure on Iran and Syria, who would see it wasn't just the US they
could box in, but the world community they needed, standing for
anti-terrorism.
Quirt again:
Now, if we had enforced the peace treaty from the word go then
perhaps we wouldn't be where we are today. The first time Hussein
showed signs of not complying with the cease fire agreement, Bill
Clinton should have just gone in and removed him from power. By doing
pretty much nothing, Clinton encouraged Hussein to play cat and mouse
with us for eight years.
My reply:
Absurd. No state has been so punished and humiliated as Iraq after the
Gulf War. The UN inspectors disarmed Iraq almost completely, doing much
more damage than the first war did. The no fly zones kept Iraq boxed in
(and were a punishment for breaking some treaty obligations). Just because
a treaty isn't followed to the letter doesn't mean an invasion is legal or
justified
Quirt again:
I was in a Hungarian chat room last night and had a friendly chat
with a young Muslim named Rizwan Umer Talal from Pakistan. He said
things like "Bush hates Muslims", he "wants us all dead", we will "end
the world". This guy was only 21 years old and he was speaking his
countries litany verse by verse. I explained to him that Bush didn't
hate Muslims, he hated terrorists. I asked him if he knew there was a
difference. He replied, "Yes, a little bit". A LITTLE BIT. Now, THAT
scared me. Even I believe there's more than a little bit of difference
between a Muslim and a terrorist.
My reply:
The attack on Iraq has increased anti-Americanism tremendously. We are
creating enemies, our invasion and occupation of Iraq proves to Muslims that
the most virulent anti-Americans were right about our intentions. The way
"terrorism" is used to rationalize anything we do makes us look disingenuous
and dishonest. Invading Iraq was not anti-terrorism, it was raw aggression.
You think it was justified. One can make that argument, though I consider
it weak. Worse is the negative consequences stemming from that attack.
Don't you think maybe it would have been better to keep going the route that
Bush and Powell had before the conflict started successfully charted in
making this a real issue in the UN.?
Quirt again:
You are right. We are in for it and it scares me to death. That
doesn't mean Bush was wrong to not wait for Hussein to act on us,
though.
My reply:
Bismarck was very successful goading other states into attacking Prussia,
when he wanted war. It made Denmark, Austria and France all look like bully
aggressors, and Prussia the victim. In recent centuries aggressors rarely
gain anything for starting a war, aggression usually creates more problems
than it solves. Ethically killing people and bombing a country, then
occupying is not self-defense, especially against a country that could only
be imagined a threat somewhere down the line because the guy in charge
doesn't like us and is brutal. War may have someday been necessary, but by
chosing to start it when we did, I think we commited a real error that is
going to hurt this country immensely. I hope that I am wrong.
Gregory Gadow
Invasion, overthrowing a legitimate head of state and killing the patriots
defending their homes is a tad bigger than "a dispute between sovereigns." Aside
from which, the President is NOT a sovereign. Since you continue to express
ignorance on the fine points of democracy, though, I shouldn't be surprised at
your gaffe.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Quirt Evans
have to do it differently"
It's not your server. It's my webtv unit.
I apologize about the inadequacies of my webtv unit. Webtv users
don't go directly to the website to utilize the newsgroup and unless we
cut and paste quotes, even our own, they don't appear in any replies.
I'm forced to cut and paste your exact quote and deal with it
individually. It tends to dissect the thread and ends up confusing
people who decide to begin reading a thread halfway through.
Scott Erb
Scott said:
"For some reason my server doesn't show quotes for your posts, so I'll
have to do it differently"
Quirt replied:
It's not your server. It's my webtv unit.
I apologize about the inadequacies of my webtv unit. Webtv users
don't go directly to the website to utilize the newsgroup and unless we
cut and paste quotes, even our own, they don't appear in any replies.
I'm forced to cut and paste your exact quote and deal with it
individually. It tends to dissect the thread and ends up confusing
people who decide to begin reading a thread halfway through.
Scott now:
No problem. I've been cutting bits from your posts sometimes and putting
little ">" marks in front for my response, but that takes a long time.
Besides that inconvenience, how is web tv?
Quirt Evans
putting little ">" marks in front for my response, but that takes a long
time.
Besides that inconvenience, how is web tv?"
If all you want to do is surf the net it does fine. You can't download
anything and most things like videos and audio are impossible, and what
little you can watch and hear is blurry and muffled at best. However,
you can pick one up at a local pawn shop for twenty bucks.
Of course, a computer is better.
Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives, AKA Spike, currently brunching on extra juicy ortolans, where do you put the beaks again?
Gregory Gadow wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde, one of many Fair and Balanced Conservatives," wrote:
>
> > Gregory Gadow wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sure I could come up with a dozen good reasons for invading your home
> > > and "removing" you.
> > >
> > > But how many of those dozen reasons would be morally acceptable? How many of
> > > them would be legal?
> > >
> > I don't know. Can you explain why a local attack on my rights has
> > anything to do with a dispute between sovereigns?
>
> Invasion, overthrowing a legitimate head of state and killing the patriots
> defending their homes is a tad bigger than "a dispute between sovereigns."
>
I'm not following you. The invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam was a
dispute between sovereigns. Attacks on Elian in his relatives house were
legal or illegal acts within a sovereign.
> Aside
> from which, the President is NOT a sovereign.
>
What on Earth are you talking about? I never claimed he was a sovereign.
> Since you continue to express
> ignorance on the fine points of democracy, though, I shouldn't be surprised at
> your gaffe.
>
I didn't make any gaffes.
FUH2
dee_p...@spdc.ti.com wrote in message news:<bi3n94$b8l$1...@home.itg.ti.com>...
>
> As a true conservative ideologically against terrorism,
> I cannot admit that oil ever trumped our crusade against
> terrorism. I swear on my red, white and blue H2 Hummer!
speaking of H2's, you might enjoy http://www.fuh2.com.
ok, sorry for the shameless plug.
sks