The Trifecta

[smellthecoffee]

Originally posted by cptpwichita
4.nasa-he wants manned missions to the moon and mars.$$$$$$

This is one thing I DO support. Bush realises the time has come for all conservatives to return to thier home planet.

 

[smellthecoffee]

KCMcDonald you have managed to sidestep important questions with assumptive propagana. Iraq is being divided up like Indonesia was in the 60's. I didn't ask you for a Hannitisation. I want some justification for arming a butcher. Standing idle whilst he kills his people and his neighbours. I asked for justification for selling illegal arms to terrorists. I have read some of the most arrogant rebukes of Spain for pulling out troops as "giving in to terrorists" and then you tell me it was FINE for Ronnie to give them weapons. Even a square headed con should be able to digest that one. try opening the other eye.

 

[kcmcdonald]

smells,
We backed Saddam because we were fighting the Russians. We new the guy was bad but the russians were worse. After the fall of the Berlin wall Saddam became a leader we needed to get rid of. we should have gotten rid of the guy in 91, but G. Bush Sr. didn't want to go against world opion so he left Saddam in power. Which was a bad thing becaue he told the Sheites in the south and the Kurds in the north we would back a uprissing. When we didn't, and because we allowed some of Saddams army to survive(again world opion), the army slaughtered the people. And the world including the US did nothing. This guy probally would have been isolated and left to wither in the wind like were doing to Castro if 9-11 had not happened. However 9-11 did happen, so the Saddam question changed. There had already been a US policy of regime change since 1998. The US probably would have never acted upon that. Look at Bush's campaign speaches in 2000. He was against nation building and against US millitary action. Now he was going to spend on deffence because the White House was gearing up for a showdown with NK, that's why were doing the missle deffence system adn why we with drew from the ABM treaty. After 9-11 the White House came to the conclusion that in the context of the WOT Saddam was a big bump in the road to victory. Yes now that the evidence has all come out, it is likely that Saddam had nothing to do with AQ and probally little to do with 9-11, and yes it also looks like we(not just the US, but the world) over estimated his weapons programs. That does not mean that he still activalley prussued those programs and given time would have sucseded in those programs. If Saddam had been able to get a nuke, like syria was trying to do, and Iran is still trying to do. The region would havae been in big trouble. You have to think of Iraq as a burn. If you leave it alone it could heal or it could get infected. If it gets infected you're in big trouble and now instead of just curing it when it happened now it's a lot more difficult. the same can be said of Saddam. We could have left him in power but we didn't know what kind of problam he would be in the future. We couldn't wait for Saddam to attack us or Isreal first. We had to attack him.

We supplied weapons because at the time(1980's) Saddam was not the worst dictator on the Block. We helped him because if we didn't the Russians would have and then what. We would have lost another middle eastern country to Russia. A country right next door to Turkey no doubt. In the scheme of International Affairs it is not always a decsion of supporting the right regime or form of Govt. It's about supporting the people who can best support your agenda at the time. Even if they are bad people. It's not chosing between good and bad people, it's chossing between the bad and the worst.

Regan did give arms to the contra's and it was because they had hostages. It was arms for hostages. It was illegal and was wrong but the evidence at the time didn't link regan to the actions and Oliver North took all responsibility. The US foriegn policy is not perfect by anymeans and we have proped up some pretty bad guys. But the strategy worked...the USSR collasped and was unable to spread communists doctrine beyound Asia, and eastern Europe. And now the Only Comunists countries left in the world are NK, Cuba, and China. The policy works, that's all that really matters in the sceme of things. Bad people always come to power and they always fall just as fast as they came in...sometimes.

 

[smellthecoffee]

Originally posted by kcmcdonald
"We could have left him in power but we didn't know what kind of problam he would be in the future."

"In the scheme of International Affairs it is not always a decsion of supporting the right regime or form of Govt. It's about supporting the people who can best support your agenda at the time. Even if they are bad people."

"Bad people always come to power and they always fall just as fast as they came in...sometimes."

Firstly I appreciate your post and the tone in particular.
My concerns are:

1. not knowing what sort of problem Saddam would be in the future was clearly assessed by Hans Blix and his team. Speaking on O'Reilly he said that his team were given unrestrained access to any site requested and that the site list was given to him based on US and British intel. An absence of knowledge surely does not form a basis for a military invasion.

2. The second of your points kind of says it all anyway. You went on to talk about fear of the spread of communism to a middle east state. Why on earth should the west have any input into the political structure of Middle eastern countries. A fear of communism has not seen Bush, or anyone else, landing troops into China. And we KNOW they have WMD. If you are going to run on an ideology you can't pick and choose who it applies to.

3. I can think of several "bad people" who only came to power in the first place and only stayed in power thereafter because of the type of meddling, clandestine or otherwise, of the USA.

I am not so sure that the fear we held about communism in the 60's had any relevance in the 80's and beyond. And it stuns me somewhat that the Cold War thinking still lingers.
Thanks for your post.

 

[smellthecoffee]

BTW. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Smellit, In the old days, maybe we could be isolationist and not get involved in other countries affairs, but in a nuclear era this is a recipe for extinction. Problems ignored only fester, uncle fester.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
not knowing what sort of problem Saddam would be in the future was clearly assessed by Hans Blix and his team.

"Why were the Iraqi WMD records systemically looted or destroyed? And why do scientists in custody today continue not to be forthcoming if there was nothing to hide or nothing substantial existed?

The work of the Iraq Survey Group has shown that Saddam Hussein had WMD intentions, had WMD programs that did survive, and did outwit for 12 years the United Nations Security Council and the resolutions -- indeed, the inspections, in large measure."

- Senator Warner, Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing
28 January 2004

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html

Why on earth should the west have any input into the political structure of Middle eastern countries. A fear of communism has not seen Bush, or anyone else, landing troops into China. And we KNOW they have WMD. If you are going to run on an ideology you can't pick and choose who it applies to.

Sure we can. Why can't we? We applied that amount of force we deemed just inadequate to provoke a full retaliatory strike (from the Soviets) in those places we felt we could succeed.

With respect to China, no amount of force on our part, short of a full nuclear strike, could be successfully applied to China. When the Chinese crossed the Yalu River and attacked United Nations forces we knew this. Our options were a nuclear assault, or an armistice, because it was a conventional war we could not win. We have decided it is better to let China have WMD than to exterminate 1.6 billion people. Some day we may change our minds.

I can think of several "bad people" who only came to power in the first place and only stayed in power thereafter because of the type of meddling, clandestine or otherwise, of the USA.

I'll wager I can think of more "bad people" in power because of direct or indirect Soviet installment. I'd further wager that the respective number of people involved between the two was heavily weighed in the Soviet's favor.

And it stuns me somewhat that the Cold War thinking still lingers.

It shouldn't. The Cold War lasted for 46 years. It's unrealistic to believe all the problems that accrued out of neccesity over those 46 years would suddenly disappear with the unexpected dissolution of the Soviet Union.

 

[smellthecoffee]

We need to get a lot more involved in the Isreali situation. Targetted killings like yesterdays inflame the region further, incite attacks against America and her allies and bring closer an accord between AQ and Hummas. I know Sharon says that Isreal runs America and America knows it, but it is increasingly apparant that such actions are stronly condemned by the Bush administration. The British, Europeans, Australians and Asian have all done so. Why is the US so measured?

 

[smellthecoffee]

above should have read

ibut it is increasingly apparant that such actions MUST BE strongly condemned by the Bush administration.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
We need to get a lot more involved in the Isreali situation. Targetted killings like yesterdays inflame the region further, incite attacks against America and her allies and bring closer an accord between AQ and Hummas. I know Sharon says that Isreal runs America and America knows it, but it is increasingly apparant that such actions are stronly condemned by the Bush administration. The British, Europeans, Australians and Asian have all done so. Why is the US so measured?

Because of our division from within the empire. AKA, because of people like you, who would make political hay out of our "monstrous support of such a heinous act", as you would say.

 

[smellthecoffee]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Because of our division from within the empire. AKA, because of people like you, who would make political hay out of our "monstrous support of such a heinous act", as you would say.

Your post is so incoherent I have no idea what the hell you are saying. I will need you to rephrase.

We will never make any inroads with regard to peace in the middle east if America remains almost alone in failing to condemn the illegal assasinations. Isreal is taking the legitimate WOT and utilizing it for it's own illegal actions. It undermines a genuine cause in the worldwide effort to eliminate terrorism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
Your post is so incoherent I have no idea what the hell you are saying. I will need you to rephrase.

We will never make any inroads with regard to peace in the middle east if America remains almost alone in failing to condemn the illegal assasinations. Isreal is taking the legitimate WOT and utilizing it for it's own illegal actions. It undermines a genuine cause in the worldwide effort to eliminate terrorism.

Bush shouldn't condemn israel, they did the right thing. He hesitates to actually support Israel in their actions for political reasons, to placate domestic and international antisemitic socialists, who would have gone ape shit.

 

[smellthecoffee]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Bush shouldn't condemn israel, they did the right thing. He hesitates to actually support Israel in their actions for political reasons, to placate domestic and international antisemitic socialists, who would have gone ape shit.

That is possibly the most demented statement I have read here. Almost without exception the leaders of civilised countries, including all our coalition partners, have quickly and strongly condened the Illegal assasination. It is ridiculous to call such outrage "antisemitic". You seem to suffer from the delusion that American and Isreali lives are the only valuable ones on the planet. Isreals actions will inflame the region and put ourselves and our friends in even greater peril. Maybe Sharon was right about America knowing that it is run by Isreal? You seem to be very comfortable with that. I find it offensive.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by smellthecoffee
That is possibly the most demented statement I have read here. Almost without exception the leaders of civilised countries, including all our coalition partners, have quickly and strongly condened the Illegal assasination. It is ridiculous to call such outrage "antisemitic". You seem to suffer from the delusion that American and Isreali lives are the only valuable ones on the planet. Isreals actions will inflame the region and put ourselves and our friends in even greater peril. Maybe Sharon was right about America knowing that it is run by Isreal? You seem to be very comfortable with that. I find it offensive.

Let's go see "the Passion" together and hold hands. Later on we can cuddle and jew bash.



(I'm the one doing the slapping, you're the submissive who takes it.)