Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 23:09:03 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...

Your opinion is formed on little or no education about the current
government
otherwise you wouldn't call them "Neo-Con".

The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
to "con-men".

This IMHO contributes greatly to its appropriateness.

That may be the most foolish thing I've heard today, if not for the
entire week. A bit of research would educate you that the "neo-con"
movement greatly predates the Bush administration and relates mostly
to US/Israel relations.

But, then using your rationale of "sound and appearance" you won't
mind if I refer to as Belch-eek. Or, maybe Bulgian. Or, pseudo-French.

My heartfelt and respectfully submitted suggestion is that you simply
let us conduct our politics and refrain from embarrassing yourself.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

From "Emmanuel Gustin"

The term "neo-con" has the advantage that it is close, if
not in etymology then at least in sound and appearance,
to "con-men".

The so-called neo-cons are more appropriately Jackson Democrats, not Andrew but
Henry (although they _could_ be Andrew's, too, at least on foreign policy).
Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA) was one of the great ones. He and his
protoges were dismayed by Carter's foreign policy (and Nixon-Kissinger before
him). Jackson was unable to divert the party from its lurch toward
accomodation and appeasement in the 1970s, and while he valiantly tried to
retain some vestige of the hard-hitting foreign policy party of FDR, Truman and
Kennedy, many of his staff bolted to the Republicans when former Democrat
Reagan ran for the White House. I suppose Reagan could be called the first
neo-con, except that he had strong conservative view on domestic issues,
whereas most contemporary "neo-cons" really don't. They are not particularly
conservative on domestic political issues. I suppose in that area they might
be sort of "South Park" Republicans, who are Rockefeller Republicans with
"attitude." I doubt most voters know what their views are on domestic policy
issues. Most are Defense Dept. types focused solely on foreign policy issues.
Their take on foreign policy is certainly not "conservative" in the traditional
sense of the Tafts or Hoover or even Eisenhower. It has been described as
"matured Kennedyism," which sounds about right. (Eg, don't go anywhere and pay
any price for freedom, go only where you need to and pay the minumum necessary
price to get the job done.)
Among Scoop Jackson protoges close to Bush 43, the core "neo-cons," if you
will, a
Tom Foley, former house speaker; Donald Rumsfeld, Sec. Defense; Doug Feith,
undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of
defense and one of Bush's Iraq policy experts; Elliott Abrams, special
assistant to the president on Middle East affairs; and Jeanne Kirkpatrick,
Reagan's UN ambassador, now out of the limelight, but not without influence.



Chris Mark

In message , BUFDRVR
writes
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.

Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism.

There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...

Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have happened
to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.

(One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)

Nidal had
a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end?
Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack against the
U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who knows?

By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and California.

Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually
fighting terrorism;

Oh, the only terrorists Hussein wanted to fight were those criminally
insane mental defectives who failed to recognise that Saddam Hussein was
the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Basically, anyone who was willing to fight his enemies was Good: anyone
whose actions might threaten him or draw too much heat down on him was
Bad. The moment Nidal became more of a liability than an asset, he got a
nine-millimetre lobotomy.

what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was
harboring, supporting and working with terrorists.

Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

Life isn't simple or obvious.


None of this, by the way, is to imply that Hussein was a blushing
innocent, nor that deposing him and putting him on trial is less than
desirable.

But much worse has been tolerated in the past (cf. Libya for sponsoring
terror, or Argentina for torture and murder and attacking outside its
borders, for examples) and it remains a question worth asking: given the
cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Mike Dargan wrote:

Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.

You're going to have to do better than that. That book has been trashed by even
liberal critics.

If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.

At least I think at all, you appear to just pick up the latest liberal rag and
absorb everything.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Thelasian wrote:

Too bad they too say that they haven't found the famous "foreign
infiltators"
So are you saying that Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of
the 82nd Airborne Division is lying when he says "Most of the attacks
on our forces are by former regime loyalists and other Iraqis, not
foreign forces," (see below)

Here's the problem with people who don't understand what's going on in Iraq or
military operations in general (or who are trying to distort the truth
intentionally). Did the 82nd have responsibility for all of Iraq? No, they had
responsibility for Baghdad. When Gen. Swannack made his statements was he
making them about all of Iraq or just Baghdad? He was making them about
Baghdad. Well publisized strikes (both air and ground) in western Iraq have
killed numerous foreign fighters transiting *into* Iraq. The presence of
foreign fighters in Fallujah is well known. Hell, the most infameous guy we're
battling (al Zarkawi) in Iraq is a Jordanian.

MOST of
Iraq's dissidents have at some time or another been to Iran.

I'm sure you can provide proof that *MOST* of Iraq's dissendents have been
protected by the Iranian government "at some time or another". We're not
talking about a weekend visit here, al Sadr was living under protected status
in Iran for 4 years and was returned to Iraq *by the Iranian government*!

Does that
automatically make Sadr a stooge of Iran?

What's that saying; if it smells, looks and acts like a duck, it must be a
duck.

In fact the current
US-installed Iraqi FM is in Iran - I guess hes' a stooge of Iran too?

Only if he stays there for 4 years as a guest of the goverment then re-enters
the country with the assistance of the Iranian government.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

onald Rumsfeld, Sec. Defense; Doug Feith,
undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of
defense and one of Bush's Iraq policy experts; Elliott Abrams, special
assistant to the president on Middle East affairs; and Jeanne Kirkpatrick,


You seem to forget the most important name of whole neo con story.
Neocons are also known as "The Straussians", .Leo Strauss was the spritual
leader and chief ideologist of neo con movement.

Many of the neo cons you mentioned above were actually the students of Strauss.

BUFDRVR wrote:
Mike Dargan wrote:


Read Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud.


You're going to have to do better than that. That book has been trashed by even
liberal critics.


If you don't think very well, try to not think too much.


At least I think at all, you appear to just pick up the latest liberal rag and
absorb everything.

Ouch! There'll be tears on my pillow tonight.

Cheers

--mike



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

I don't think anyone has made a case for either of them being
involved with the attacks of September 11, or part of the heirarchy
of Al Quaeda.

Here's where you and the Democratic party aren't paying attention. Al Queada
*is not* the only terrorist organization we're fighting. Numerous groups
throughout the world have expressed an interest in harming the U.S. and/or our
allies and we're fighting *all of them*! Just because you're not connected with
Al Queada and/or 9/11 doesn't mean we're going to wait for you to get your act
togather and hit us.

I'll agree their organizations are as bad and
should be dealt with in a similar manner, but not necessarily on
the same schedule.

The only "schedule" that's important is the one where we hit them before they
hit us. Unless you can find a way to tell when they're going to hit us, our
"schedule" will be to get you as soon as we can. We got rid of Hussain as soon
as we could, with a slight delay in trying to pacify the U.N.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , BUFDRVR
writes
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
It doesn't sound like Baghdad was much of a safe haven for Nidal.

Don't try to insinuate Hussain was taking action to thwart terrorism.

There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...

Not insinuations--more like proven fact at this point. Let's see...Al
Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in Afghanistan
and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was
given medical treatment in Baghdad...Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser
Al Islam, which group had Hussein's "stamp of approval". Yep, that adds up
to providing support to AQ. Franks covers this in his recent book, just as
he covered it last night in his speech.


Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have happened
to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.

Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
that? A period of some *years*...


(One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)

Trying to change the subject? The subject here is Hussein and his support of
terrorists--Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Al Zarqawi...


Nidal had
a safe haven in Baghdad for at least a decade. What happened in the end?
Hussain and he couldn't come to an agreement on a terrorist attack
against the
U.S.? Hussain was attempting to silence an incriminating partner? Who
knows?

By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and California.

Strawman...


Now that you're trying to cloud the isue by claiming Hussain was actually
fighting terrorism;

Oh, the only terrorists Hussein wanted to fight were those criminally
insane mental defectives who failed to recognise that Saddam Hussein was
the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Basically, anyone who was willing to fight his enemies was Good: anyone
whose actions might threaten him or draw too much heat down on him was
Bad. The moment Nidal became more of a liability than an asset, he got a
nine-millimetre lobotomy.

what about Abu Abbas? Better yet, just admit Hussain was
harboring, supporting and working with terrorists.

Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

If you wish to start a thread about how you think the UK should go to war
with the US, go right ahead; the issue here is Hussein and his support of
terrorists, though. You have acknowledged that he did indeed support
terrorists, so what are you arguing about now?


Life isn't simple or obvious.


None of this, by the way, is to imply that Hussein was a blushing
innocent, nor that deposing him and putting him on trial is less than
desirable.

But much worse has been tolerated in the past (cf. Libya for sponsoring
terror, or Argentina for torture and murder and attacking outside its
borders, for examples) and it remains a question worth asking: given the
cost in troops tied up, what made Iraq such a pressing threat?

Isn't it strange how those who are most huffy about US action against Iraq
often put Libya forward as a counterexample, and forget that the action
against Iraq is probably the single greatest factor in bringing QaDaffy Duck
"in from the cold", so to speak, in terms of his own WMD efforts (and
apparently terrorist support as well)?

Brooks

"ian maclure" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:55:49 -0600, Ed Rasimus wrote:

[snip]

But, then using your rationale of "sound and appearance" you won't
mind if I refer to as Belch-eek. Or, maybe Bulgian. Or, pseudo-French.

Its Wal-Loon-ian.
Need I say more?

I've noticed this before; for such a swaggering, gung-ho country, many
Americans seem very thin-skinned. The half-life from any criticism of any
aspect of your country to playground insults seems to be about three posts.
Sad.

John