Afghanistan.. clear objective and exit strategy?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

For someone who so obstinately insists that we shouldn't conjecture what motives lay behind the health care bill but only speak about what's actually in its exact language, you certainly take a conjectural leap by postulating that Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta. Other than his remark that Saddam tried to kill his father, there is NO EVIDENCE of a vendetta.

Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan.

And the WMDs were just one of the stated reasons for the invasion, and they certainly did exist prior to the invasion, and there is CONJECTURE that they were transferred to Syria and possibly Libia, and Iraq was the easier target on war on terror, and it is now a model for possible "populist power" (as Spence likes to say) in the Middle East, and Bush was not "the one who started this entire mess." I suppose you could could go back a long, long way before bush, but a convenient stop might be Jimmy Carter's intervention on behalf of the Mujahadin against the Soviets.

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest.

-spence

I believe his short term interest was to stop the WOMD and secondly, after we had been there, make it worthwhile to provide a base for long term interests in the region with the Iranian threats.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. The Syria link is equally without substance. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended to still have them with the possible intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted.


I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs. Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I "believe" that bits and pieces of evidence have been found that he had some such weapons and that he had plans, as you say, to restart WMD programs.

I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.

Of course, "belief" and "substance" are different animals. To say that something is "equally without substance" as comparison to something you "don't believe" is a bit shifty. Nonetheless, I did say, in caps, that there is CONJECTURE that the WMDs were moved to Syria. And those conjectures have not been absolutely disproved. Certainly, no one has an answer to General Sada's claim, in his book "Saddam's Secrets" that the WMDs were moved to Syria.

This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

A western model WOULD be an "Iraq of the people." Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't agree. I've read a ton on the subject and aside from a few random and useless artillery shells we really haven't found squat. The conclusion of the Duelfer Report was that Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991.


This is the same game Cheney played with the Atta meeting in Prague. That because it hasn't been disproved it could have happened. This logic runs quite contrary to our own legal system.

To be quite matter of fact, there's really no evidence that supports the assertion. There was evidence of movement of something to Syria, but that we don't know if WMD were not there isn't evidence that there could have been.

Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.

I love how you quote an ex-General - who's trying to sell books to Americans - about a claim for which there's no evidence...oh quite to the contrary...the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD to smuggle!

I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.

You don't "spread" democracy, it has to be grown from within.
-spence

"Spread democracy"--I was using your words. I wouldn't have put it that way. Certainly, democracy cannot be "grown from within" a dictatorship. The dictatorship must first be overthrown. Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them. Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

[COLOR="darkgreen"]Obviously, if the evidence has been removed, you will not be able to find it. That is the purpose of removing the evidence, which Saddam had 14 months to do. A report about not finding something (that has been removed) is inconclusively worthless, unless you want to use it as fodder for argument.

So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

I love how you can so cavalierly smear someone, who was ACTUALLY IN SADDAMS ADMINISTRATION and would have insights no UN inspector, searching with blinders for something that has been removed, could ever have, and who risks deadly reprisal for publishing his book. Where is your EVIDENCE that he is lying? If you say "the evidence gathered indicates there were no WMD", the VERY POINT OF HIS BOOK IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS MOVED!!! And . . . oh, the ton that you've read on the subject, were the purveyors of that ton PAID? Or did they publish for free? You seem to question the motives of those who make a living from what they say (Rush et. al.) when you don't like what they say, but if what they say is OK with you, then money does not seem to be an object.

Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!

Furthermore, Bush never argued that Saddam had produced new stockpiles of WMDs, he argued for stopping him before he acquired them.

Not true, the entire basis for urgency was that Saddam had existing WMD and a relationship with alQaeda.

Saddam never verified that he had destroyed what the UN presumed remained from his previous weapons program. Even the Duelfer report believed there was evidence that he wanted to restart his previous WMD programs after the war. Certainly, all the major NATO countries and many others in the UN believed Saddam had restarted the programs and thought he was farther along than he may have been. And Bush has enumerated several reasons for the invasion other than stopping Saddam from acquiring or producing, AGAIN, WMDs. The lie, told over and over, is that Bush lied about WMDs.

Going into the war there was certainly much that was unknown, and why the International community was behind Bush with a new inspection regime.

Where it all turned was with the Powell speech.

The inspections were not providing the evidence to justify the war his foreign policy team so dearly wanted. Rather than let Blix finish his report, they "shot the messenger" and pressed forward breaking up the International coalition in the process.

I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not one that believes Bush personally lied about WMD. Frankly I think he was just following the lead of those entrusted to guide him. Did his closest advisors misrepresent the case to the American people and "market" a war of choice? All evidence seems to indicate they certainly did...

-spence

And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

He's not. I'm pissed at that tract.

I was hoping by now we'd be phasing out of Iraq... Spence hit on a lot of the reasons, but basically, we took SH out, we should have been phasing out then, letting them figure their future out, not us trying to dictate it to them. I've spent the entire war saying 'support the troops, not the war' and that has not changed for me.

A few months-year ago, I was pro-focusing on Afghanistan, but now I fear it is slipping into 'Nam style unwinnable war short of Nuking it, which I am not advocating.. monitor it closely, keep an eye out for Bin laden and Al Queda and get our boys home.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

And the ground work was put in place by Clinton and the urgency caused by the 9/11 attacks.
And now your hero is following the Bush plan. Your words not mine. Why the free pass?

Clinton policy was driven by actions during his second term. Saddam was increasingly flaunting the UN. This led to many calls for increased action, even by Democrats...but nobody (aside from the the neocons) was looking for an invasion.

In 2001 Saddam wasn't even being seen as much of a threat.

Both Powell and Rice made strong statements in the months before 9/11 that sanctions were working and Saddam was contained.

Then, suddenly, Saddam was the trigger for a nuke attack in the USA.

So I don't see how Clinton laid the groundwork for anything.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So you really want me to believe that an incompetent and corrupted organization could eliminate all traces of an active WMD program and stockpiles of weapons while under US/UN scrutiny?

That simply defies reason.

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

Read the Duelfer report. I believe they were payed a government paycheck and nothing more.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

As for evidence Sada is lying, you're just playing the old game argumentum ad ignorantiam!-spence

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

As for an interesting argument for WMD, google "Kenneth Timmerman Saddam's WMD have been found."

Sorry Buckman, we seem to have highjacked your thread by rehashing old WMD stuff. There is no PROOF in any of this, just EVIDENCE or lack thereof. Again, I apologize, we should be discussing Obama's clear exit strategy. I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Saddam's organization was not incompetent, nor were his scientists. They certainly weren't under UN/US scrutiny much of the time. What are the differences between the traces of an "active" or a recently become "inactive" WMD program? If no traces were found, that STRONGLY, suggests elimination of traces.

No, it strongly suggests the threat was not as characterized and that sanctions appeared to be working. He didn't just shut things down, the WMD appear to have been destroyed a decade earlier.

Would you expect a tyrant like Saddam to stop everything cold turkey? Of course not, but this is a looooonnnngggg way from having a functional weapons programs, or more importantly, the vast stockpiles the Administration argued were there.

So we've established that Duelfer WAS paid. So, then, his whole report is tainted. Is his report the total of the "tons" that you've read? Were the other sources also paid? Were any of the sources BOOKS published for public PURCHASE? If so, then those, must also, by your disdain, be tarnished.

Weak...

As for what's in this tainted Duelfer Report--the key findings summary states that Saddam"wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his WMD when sanctions were lifted." Further, the summary states "Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime . . ." by balancing "the need to cooperate with the UN inspections . . . gain support for lifting the sanctions . . . to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD." Further, Saddam saw that the Oil for Food Program "could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." The report further states that Saddam focused on three permanent members of the security council, France, Russia, and China, bribing Government officials and business executives with billions skimmed from Oil for Food. "AT A MINIMUM" the report says, "Saddam wanted to divide the 5 permanent members [of the security council] and foment international public support . . . by 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to . . . undermine international support for the sanctions." Before Duelfer succeded Kay as head of the ISG, Kay's team found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual weapons. They also found WMD programs BANNED by the UN and CONCEALED during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections. David Kay said that "what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." His team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce WMDs if sanctions were lifted. Kay BELIEVED some of Saddams WMD program components had been moved to Syria before 2003. Duelfer later reported there was no EVIDENCE of this. A lot of evidence was interviews with various Iraqis--He evidently didn't interview General Saya.

Kay was referring to WMD parts rather than stockpiles of weapons.

But all this "Saddam was a sneaky bad guy" stuff is really moot. At what point does it justify war? Remember the war? Remember the Saddam -> stockpiles of WMD -> Bin Laden connection that was the justification for a massive and urgent action?

The intent or ability to restart programs if sanctions are lifted doesn't provide the justification for urgency, in fact it blows a rather large hole in the Administrations argument.

Remember, the Blix team before the war was essentially turning up the exact same information.

You don't have evidence that Saya is lying, you're only depending on so called LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the argument for no WMD, which turns your "argumentum ad ignorantiam" right--back--at--YOU!!

If you read the Duelfer report it's clear the "evidence" indicated Saddam destroyed his WMD in 1991, the last biological weapons facility in 1996 and that his production capacity had eroded dramatically since then.

I guess, since no one has opined what that strategy is, no one thinks he has one.

You don't actually read my posts do you?

-spence

[detbuch]

As this thread is winding down, I would like to more clearly reply to JohnnyD and Spence re: "modern day imperialsm" and "somewhat imperialistic" describing our invasion of Iraq.

Classical empires, though brutal (what wasn't in their time), hastened the uniting of people and created good as well as ill. The 400 years of Pax Romana was beneficial. The British Empire brought progress and union, and the U.S. is a direct result. In the 1960s the radical left saw opportunity to influence the counter-cultural revolution and anti-Vietnam war sentiments in its direction. Its only real power to influence a generation of youth was through words, especially by the politicization of words. One of the most influential words was IMPERIALIST. The nasty trick of slick, politicized language is to slide a word away from its original meaning and use it to describe a loosely similar entity--sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. The dictionary definition of imperialism (the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other natioins) didn't quite fit but was close enough, so America was described by the hard left as an imperialist, capitalist running dog pig. This also had the effect of erasing any positive connotation. Imperialism was now thoroughly bad. The radical view could not survive but politicized words did. And imperialism evolved into the many modern day imperialisms--economic imperialism, cultural imperialism, military imperialism, religious imperialism, political imperialism, ACTUAL imperialism, or, now any new imperialisms we wish to create. How about new ones like, say, family imperialism, relational imperialism, baseball imperialism, gender imperialism, sexual imperialism, racial imperialism, insurance imperialism, and on and on. Obviously, this destroys any connectioin to the original definitions of imperialism except for a shadowy similarity. The word, essentialy, loses any intrinsic meaning, This is similar to what George Orwell says in his essay "Politics and the English Language" about the word "fascism" no longer having any meaning other than signifying "something not desirable."

Certainly, it is good to criticize us when we do bad. But can we think of a better word than imperialism or imperialistic? We are not an empire. We don't have an emperor. We haven't territorially acquired Iraq nor established economic or political hegemony over it. Saying that our action in Iraq is modern day imperialism is using a politicized word that has lost all meaning and retained only some vague inflamatory connotation. It sounds authoritative to say that invading Iraq is modern day imperialism, but what does that mean? It is convenient to use the phrase because it excuses you from saying what that "something not desirable" actually is. And when one cannot find words to describe a supposed concept, that often implies that the concept does not actually exist--at least not in some well thought-out thesis. Unmuddle your thinking, then you can give us the hell we deserve. And saying that the invasion was "somewhat" imperialistic is not only hedging on whether it was or not, but it is qualifying a meaningless dead metaphor. What really does "somewhat imperialistic" mean? The hard left, on the other hand, is happy to throw a politicized metaphor that means "something not desirable" at America to influence the uninformed masses who are easily persuaded by the sound of words regardless of their lack of substance. For those with some historical insight, however, such phrases are an insult to our intellilgence.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Spreading democracy, in our own long-term interest, IS the right thing to do.

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This whole "Spreading Democracy" mantra through war is a bs statement. Our dealings with Taiwan, that's how you spread democracy. Bush used the full force of the US military to essentially assassinate a dictator.

You're comment about "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do" is nothing more than modern day Imperialism.

I was using Spence's phrase "spreading democracy" which is a bit disdainful--I wouldn't have thought of such a phrase. Even he admitted that you can't "spread democracy." Perhaps you didn't read that banter back and forth and thought I had made up the phrase. Even so, you kind of made my head spin by equating "spreading democracy" to Imperialism. Almost like saying charity is the work of the devil.

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain. And, WOW, "assassinate"? This is a new method of assassination--warn someone for several months of your intentions, give him opportunities to avoid the "assassination", and after getting him, letting someone else finish the job, then, improving the lot of what and who he owned.

BTW, I wasn't chanting a "spreading democracy" THROUGH WAR mantra. Again, it was a response to Spence. There is, also BTW, a general misconception about the importance of war. So many of us like to quote Santayana's phrase that those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. But we shun, or even more likely, aren't aware of another phrase by him--"there is eternal war in nature." He also said that war is merely resistance to change. So long as the invaded has the will and power to resist the invader, there will be war. And his dictum can be applied, not only to the "human condition" but to all of life, to all of existence. When you are enjoying a "moment of peace", be aware that all around you, and within you, countless wars are taking place. All are wars of survival. And, as Santayana also said, to live well, you must be victorious. Everything you have is a result of some war. Your very life will end when you are to weak to defeat what attacks you every minute of your existence. We are products of war, war informs everything we do. We have learned, through lessons of history, by evolution, to cooperate when it is to our benefit, when it enhances our survival, not when it is for acquiesence to some platonic ideal

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As for our dealings with Taiwan as an example of "how you spread democracy", do you mean our military power being a deterrent to Mainland China's takeover of Taiwan? Do you mean providing Taiwan a market for its goods? I am intrigued, please explain.

I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them. The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I mean by supporting the people's choice to have a democratic government, instead of forcing it upon them.

Before we handed Saddam over to the IRAQI authorities to "assassinate," the Iraqis forged a democratic government of their choice.

The Taiwanese people want a democratic state. The US supports them in that measure - be it with a military backing (just as we support our other allies with our military), economic support (like we give to the Europeans) and diplomatic support.

The Iraqi people want a democratic state. The US suports them in that measure-be it with a military backing . . .economic support . . .and diplomatic support.

My correlation of the US "Spreading Democracy" (a term which is Bush chanted quite frequently) and Imperialism is through the methods in which democracy was 'given' to the Iraqi people - through the military ousting of the previous government. My relationship to imperialism lies within your statement "Spreading democracy ... IS the right thing to do."

My head still spins at Imperialism being the method of giving democracy. So, then, I would guess by your relation to imperialism, imperialistically spreading democracy to a people by militarily ousting the previous government, our founding fathers were imperialists.

Overthrowing a government with our military to install a democratic one is what I am calling modern day Imperialism.

Oh---I see now, your talking about MODERN DAY imperialism.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Oh---I see now, your talking about MODERN DAY imperialism.

Correct. I'm inserting a concept into the conversation that I didn't hear on the radio or read on some website. It's an observation/opinion that I have formed on my own. I understand that is a novel concept for many of the conservatives in here.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush doesn't appear to have been that close to his father really, have you asked them about their relationship?, so I doubt he would have provoked Saddam out of a sense of revenge.

I'd wager the line was a more calculated tactic to invoke emotion among the common folk. All part of the war marketing plan. is this similar to the stimulus marketing plan and the commie care marketing plan?


I don't believe we've found evidence that Saddam had any threatening WMD for years before the invasion. didn't stop a whole bunch of democrats from claiming that he did and also had evil nuclear intentions "prior to the invasion"...just gets forgotten like the Carter years and Woodrow Wilson...The Syria link is equally without substance prove it. The story, as has been pretty much confirmed by everyone?/most people? multiple investigations is that Saddam gave up his WMD after 1998, and yet pretended he was such a kidder to still have them with the possible probable? intent of starting up programs after sanctions were lifted. he seemed pretty much undaunted be sanctions or resolutions, managed to bribe his way around quite well...

While I appreciate your use of "populist power" (an obvious attempt to build a bridge) I'm not sure I'd use it in the same context. Bush wasn't really looking for an Iraq of the people (i.e. their interests), but rather a western model we could use to influence the region. Bush wasn't trying to spread democracy because it was the right thing to do, but believed it was in our own long-term interest OR BOTH!?. Unfortunately he forgot to read up on Iraq and let some really misguided assumptions direct his policy.

-spence

you should do seances, you have the ability to magically conjur up the intimate thoughts and dreams of so many people that you've never even met ....