Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

I have, however, an intensily negative opinion on G.W. Bush and
the Neo-Con government.

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


BUFDRVR

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

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

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".

Ohh, so we're talking about how a word sounds, not what it means? How very
European of you. Now do a google on "Neocon" and tell me who it applies to on
Bush's cabnit. There are people working in positions in the administration that
could be catagorized as "neo conservatives" (what Neocon stands for), but they
don't occupy any cabnit positions and they are certainly the minority. The Bush
administration is simply conservative.


BUFDRVR

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

"BUFDRVR" wrote
Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

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".

Ohh, so we're talking about how a word sounds, not what it means? How very
European of you. Now do a google on "Neocon" and tell me who it applies to on
Bush's cabnit. There are people working in positions in the administration that
could be catagorized as "neo conservatives" (what Neocon stands for), but they
don't occupy any cabnit positions and they are certainly the minority. The Bush
administration is simply conservative.

I don't go to a lot of political sites. I'm basically a Republican because the
Democrats have yet to field a team I respect (Since 1970 when I started voting).
I asked Kramer two times what a neocon was, and he didn't reply. I don't think
he knows what it means. About the only thing I found, where the acronym was
used in every paragraph, was some loony juvenile web site (with some pretty old
people running it).

My politics pretty much side with a more liberal agenda than this administration is
putting forward. For example, I am willing to give up 98% of our nuclear weapons,
as we no longer have the stomach to use them, and they cost the same as an F-15E
to keep on alert (1300 of them I believe). I am willing to give up Forces in Korea,
Europe, and the Sinai. With those troops cannibalized into Iraq. I believe we should
move all the forces out of Korea and Europe, and move them to Iraq. The next big
war is either Syria, or Iran, and we will need the armor and airbases. My feelings
about Chechnya and North Korea, are that we (Russians in the first, Americans in
the second) should pull out, wait 9 months, and then use Neutron weapons to
wipe them out, as they cheer in the streets about their victory.

Drugs? Legalize them all, tax them and use the taxes for health care. Having fought
the war on drugs for 10 years (actively), I can say without reservation, it's a war that
cannot be won, and the battles are merely getting more costly every month. If people
want drugs, then I think they should get it at low cost, and safer products to reduce the
overload on city morgues. When we have a squadron of 250 million dollar airplanes
orbiting Central and South America, with almost 30,000 troops in the war, and the
quantity of cocaine is increasing on the streets, then that's the definition of a failed
policy.

Alas, so far neither Bush, nor Kerry have even mentioned nuclear weapons, and the
war on drugs. Every month that Los Alamos stays in operation, is another month of
exporting nuclear technology to China. The troops in the Sinai are invisible, and
people don't even know we are spending billions on them (as a trip-wire).

Describe your experiences in ground combat in Iraq.



"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Because his dimwit father did?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Sorry, that question was supposed to go to 'Mr Know It All Windbag' who
discounts any knowledge that isn't gained first hand.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Describe your experiences in ground combat in Iraq.



"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Because his dimwit father did?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Describe your combat experience in Iraq.


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Because his dimwit father did?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

I suggest
naming the attached political philosophy "neo-connery"
instead of "neo-conservatism"

The cognicenti call it NEOCON for short.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why did Bush deliberately attack the wrong country?
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

I suggest
naming the attached political philosophy "neo-connery"
instead of "neo-conservatism"

The cognicenti call it NEOCON for short.

A term you have yet to be able to define, despite repeated requests for you
to do so. So you must reside outside this "cognicenti"? (As if there was any
doubt of that...)

Brooks


Arthur Kramer

From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

It is true that "neo-conservatives" do not occupy all key
positions in this administration, but nevertheless they seem
to control most of its policies. Of course 9/11 created the
ideal opportunity for them to break through,

You need to go back farther than that, to Watergate. The Nixon humiliation
beheaded the Republican foreign policy establishment while the McGovernite
take-over of the Democrats drove hard-line foreign policy Democrats into
retreat. With the Carter presidency cementing a new, dovish Democratic foreign
policy paradigm, (although there were signs toward the end of the Carter
presidency that Carter was beginning to resurrect them), these people began
turning to the drifting Republican Party, allying behind former Democrat Ronald
Reagan, who was not highly regarded by the Republican establishment at all.
Reagan's administration sucked numbers of Democratic Party hard-line foreign
policy apparatchiks into its bureaucratic Republican bulk.
In retrospect, the destruction of the Nixon administration, and with it the
pragmatic foreign policy typical of "real" Republicans (who tend to be
businessmen, organization men, men in gray flannel suits--certainly not
firebrands), detente, which the Truman-Kennedy-Johnson foreign policy people
abhored, was a disaster for the dovish clique of Democrats. Between
appeasement and war is detente. The proponents of detente had been
discredited. That left appeasement, which Americans have limited tolerance for
and which Carter used up very quickly. So you get the firebrands--tear down
this wall, evil empire, axis of evil... If you don't like it, blame the crowd
who destroyed Richard "Ping-pong diplomacy" Nixon.

Their "new American century" is one in which the world's only
remaining superpower has a destiny to rule, much as the Romans
once did, and enforce a "Pax Americana".

Or the British. Or whomever. Great powers shape their world.

Now, if Kerry wins, we will get back the "neoliberals" of the Clinton
presidency, who have a world vision that is, in some ways, very much like that
of Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. These guys are just as patriotic as the
neocons--after all, President Clinton and his people were fond of referring to
America as "the indespensible nation"--but they have a wider vision of American
power, one based more on economic power than military power. Then Secretary of
Commerce Mickey Kantor bragged in 1996, "trade and international economics have
joined the foreign policy table." The "neoliberal" (or, perhaps,
paleoconservative) expectation that securing a world open to trade and
investment will enable America to do good even as it does well fits squarely in
with the theories of pre-FDR Republicanism.
In President Clinton’s succinct formulation, "trade, investment, and
commerce" will produce "a structure of opportunity and peace." For neoliberals,
international arms limitations, multi-lateral military agreements, cutting
trade deals, reducing tariffs, protecting property rights, and running
interference for American private enterprise—the entire package gilded with
the idiom of globalization and earnest professions of America’s abiding
concern for democracy and human rights—constitute the heart of foreign
policy. In other words, you don't have to go around blowing people up to
ensure and expand America's power.
But what about when people go around blowing you up? There, the neo-liberals
(and paleo-conservatives) don't have a good track record. Enter the
neo-conservative (paleo-liberal?) who speaks of missile gaps (Kennedy), windows
of vulnerability (Reagan), and, in the incarnation of G.W. Bush, says to
militant muslim fanatics: "Your god promised you 72 Virginians if you died?
Well, here we are, ready to rock and roll.


Chris Mark

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

These days, a
president with a majority in Congress can do almost whatever
he wants.

You need to pay much more attention to U.S. governmental activity if you want
to comment on it. That statement above is absurd unless the majority you're
talking about is 2/3, which the Republicans don't currently have.

Send Powell to the Middle East and he comes
back with a deal that isn't one and is shot to pieces the next day.

At least he tried. How come no Belgian officials head off to Isreal or
Palastine to solve the problem? Pretty easy to sit on the sidelines and
critique the players, try getting in the game.

and nobody can
object against the USA having a say commensurate with its
size and its efforts

Hogwash! The U.S. say is equal to that of Belgium, UK, Poland, The Czech
Republic, etc., etc. Our "say" is much, much smaller than our contribution.

The neocons are not above muttering dark threats and throwing
insults when someone in Europe dares to disagree with them.

I can't believe this "neo-con" thing has spread to Europe. I know it makes it
easier for you to *not* think about issues but you have to understand it makes
you look foolish. This "evil neo-con" thing is convenient for both
generalization and demonation, but since its an invention of people trying to
do this, you might want to stay away from the term in any discussion in which
you hope to come off as rational.

Washington should do well to remember that European heads
of government are accountable to their own electorate, and
despite whatever Tony Blair says, they would be seriously
negligent in their duty if they accepted foreign policy
dictates from the White House.

I'm glad you graps that, now remember it goes both ways.


BUFDRVR

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