Interesting article, hardly heard it on the news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325785,00.html

Ego+power+oil money+paranoia= Danger

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:
Interesting article, hardly heard it on the news:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325785,00.html

Ego+power+oil money+paranoia= Danger

Sounds a lot like another certain leader to Iraq's east.

Good article Gus, Thanks.

Ronkas, is the world any safer with a nuclear armed Pakistan in the midst of political turmoil from the forces of Islamic fundamentalists within it's borders??? Hell, it was the Pakistani scientist that disseminated nuclear technology to N. Korea, Iraq, and now Iran.

Long range missile technology is evident by the test firings of missiles by Iran, technology given to them by N. Korea. It all adds up. They are getting ready for the big one.

Saddam duped the world and paid for it with his own life and the destruction of his realm and in the short term we hope, his country. Despite the be-headings of outside contractors, work goes on in Iraq to repair the damage done in Desert Storm1 and 2.

What would happen if Musharaff is overthrown and a "Taliban" like government is installed? It would be frightening for the region and the world as a whole if India and Pakistan start going at it. Multiple times these past 5 years they have been close but cooler heads prevailed in both governments.

Lets hope todays military/political actions are worth more than 100 kilotons of cure in the future.

First Libya, then North Korea, and lets hope Iran sees the light and decides to join the civilized world. Words threatening anhilation of a neighboring country cannot be ignored.

Nobody likes the loss in human life. My nephew just joined the Marines and is in OCS. Intelligent and obviously patriotic, he wants to give something back to his country. This is the mindset for the majority of our men and women serving our country.

Again, if Saddam would have listened to the UN and done what he was supposed to do, he, his sons, and his henchmen wouldn't be pushing daisies up right now and would be sitting comfortably in his palace while running the country into the ground, long term.

Love ya.

But then again, that's my opinion.

Funny, just came across this article on the CNN website.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/26/musharraf.nuclear.ap/index.html

Now don't you feel more comfortable with this statement from a Pakistani official????

Ron,

Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated seventeen UN Security Council Resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq did not pose a threat to international peace and security. As I pointed out earlier, both parties thought he had WMDs and both considered him a threat. Bush gave him a chance to come clean and he didn't do it. Pre 9/11 I might see your point, but post 9/11 not a chance. We are never going to agree on this, so I'm done. You can have the last word.

Ron, they had to let some of the baathists in to stabilize the country. Right or wrong, they were the ones running it. It would be tanatamount to kicking the democratic party out of Cook County and the city of chicago. For good or for bad, the city and the county would fall apart due to the entrechment of these beuracrats. Think about it.

The US and the allies took the high road, initially, by working with the UN. When that failed (like Darfur), we decided to do it ourselves with our allies.

An no, it's not a domino effect though the hope of establishing a democratic state was/is the hope. With luck and good fortune, it just may spill over to Iran. It's called nation building, like what happened on the Korean peninsula. Or are you telling me that this was a waste of time too?

Again, we'll see if the Iraqis can grasp this concept. If not, then Bush's policies and hopes will be for naught but the blame will squarely fall on Iraqs leaders.

Are you telling me that the world would have been better off with Saddam still in power?

I would love to tell that Idiot (Zapatero) running Spain "I told you so". After capitulating to the terrorists and bowing to their threats, they reward him by planning more attacks that were thwarted just the other day. A good example of what the world is dealing with.

Your writings are nothing more than hypocritical. You keep insisting that Gus and/or I should wake up and look elsewhere for news. You decry "Fox News" and "FOXaganda" as part your argument, implying that our views are far right, while you’re out here throwing far left bombs about how Bush lied and manipulated data. Quite honestly that’s weak and hypocritical.

Then you state “Your wife must love the way you argue”, yet when I asked on two occasions to support your claim that Bush lied and manipulated data you ignore my request. Is that how you handle your relationship? Do you simply ignore justification for your view with your better half?

Lastly, what I find most troublesome is your treating of Clinton’s lying about sex (under oath), as though it’s a whole lot less serious than your alleged claims about Bush. Excuse me if I am misinterpreting your writings, but lying while under oath, regardless of the underlying issue is serious as any other. You of all should know better and I am rather disappointed.

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:
Lastly, what I find most troublesome is your treating of Clinton’s lying about sex (under oath), as though it’s a whole lot less serious than your alleged claims about Bush. Excuse me if I am misinterpreting your writings, but lying while under oath, regardless of the underlying issue is serious as any other. You of all should know better and I am rather disappointed.

I'm sorry... coming in here late, but are you seriously comparing lying under oath about getting a BJ from another willing adult, to lying under oath and fabricating data to facilitate the invasion and wholesale slaughter of a second-world country?

Please tell me you aren't saying that...

Dear glellyn: I see your point.

But, it has never, nor will be proved, that Bush/Rumsfeld lied about the situation re WMD's in Iraq. Were they duped, maybe. Then the rest of the world is guilty as well.

As someone once said to me, "give me perception vs reality, and I'll take perception".

The CIA operative is going on 60 minutes tonight to talk about his interviews with Saddam. Same guy I was referring to above.

Bottom line, Saddam just was not as smart as Wacky Ghadaffi and Mr. Kim from N. Korea. If N. Korea did not give up it's nukes, then quite conceivably, S. Korea was next and then maybe Japan, a situation both China and Russia was not comfortable with. I have no doubt that Chinese and Russia leaned on Mr. Kim to open up. Quite possibly maybe they werent' comfortable with the situation like we and our allies did.

Open and accessible nuclear programs are a must.

TRUST but VERIFY. This is the cornerstone of detente theory.

As to lying under oath, how the hell can you prosecute Barry Bondsm Marion Jones and others and incarcerate them for the same offense Slick Willy had done???

As to Fox News Ronkas, I listen to them all. At some point in time I tire of all of them. However, it is a bit refreshing after having to listen to Dan Rather and the New York Times all these years.

All I am trying to say is that our justice system relies on folks telling the truth. Without telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it's entirely meaningless. To somehow justify one lie isn't as serious as another is absurd. As far as I know, Bush hasn't been tried of any crime, hasn't been found guilty of lying. Doesn't mean he won't in the future and if he is, I'll eat RK's hat. Innocent til proven guilty. RK's allegations are merely that and I think there is a big difference.

My dear friends, perception IS reality. Why do you think we are all able to argue our viewpoints so successfully? No simple answers to complex situations.

Though it's a novel, I highly recommend Kite Runner. It is a long, interpersonal type of story with lots of insight about what happened to Afghanastan upon the overthrow of the government and the Russians moving in. We should have known what the result in Iraq would be after watching the result of what happened in Afghanistan after the Russians.

Thanks for the recomendation Amy, will p/u a copy. As well, read "From Beirut to Jerusalem". Will clarify a lot of questions you may have about the mid-east and the roots of my ancestry, Lebanon.

The Russians failed for a number of reasons. The US succeeded due to it's inclusion of the "Northern Alliance" which were arch enemies of the Taliban. Like Iraq, a civil war was already in existence prior to the US invasion. We were able to exploit this division hopefully for the betterment of the world. Remeber, we forced to invade due to the fact that the Taliban was harboring the Taliban and Bin Laden. Like Saddam, they had a choice to either comply or fight. They chose the latter.

Even though a FORMAL declaration of war was never issued by the Taliban, it existed in the truest sense of the word. It was time to take the gloves off.

Ronkas, don't be such a boy scout. Do you honestly believe that Haiti has the strategic importance as compared to the Iraq and the middle east?? Cmon, get with it. Why and the hell did the world unite in Desert Storm 1 to stop the rape of Kuwait and Saddams Iraq's invasion of Saudi Arabia??? It seems the world agreed at that point, even to the Syrians and the Egyptians, that this guy had to go. This guy and his henchman was a menace. Blowing up the oil wells upon his retreat was a pretty good illustration. If he was going down, he was taking the region with him.

I know your profession and you're a smart guy. Maybe you've taken some courses on deterrence theory and Int'l relations.

Trust but Verify. we could do neither with Saddam nor Iran it seems, which the west is preparing more sanctions for.

I wonder how your comments would be received by a Shiite or a Kurd or a Kuwaiti that lost family members during the invasion.

Like the New York Times, I take anything from the Washington Post with a grain of salt. That's my opinion.

The removal of Sadddam and the supposed WMD's was no doubt the first priority. Nation building came secondary which is the hardest job of all.

Speaking about the Balkans, it was the US, British, and French that led the charge but that's another story. You can sit down with my buddy who served there in the front lines and will tell you all about it.

Of course the Iraqis should and must accept the task of nation building. They can't at this point and in fact, WANT the US to be there. But, considering the modern history of the country, they never had the opportunity to do so. For lack of a better word, they are rookies at "nation building". With some mentoring, lets see what happens. Hopefully, tribalism will be rejected for nationalism. However, the scars created by Saddam will be hard to overcome by the kurds and the shiites.

As I've said before, the ONLY thing I blame Rumsfeld for is the vacuum created with Saddams downfall. It invited Iranian meddling through it's Shiite allies in Iraq, something the Sunni's dread. It's payback time they (Sunnis) feel from the Shiite majority. Lets hope they can bury the hatchet (literally)

Ronkas, you need to meet my 2 star general friend. I can guarantee you he is one of the most intelligent people you will have ever met. They don't get that high up by being rock apes and murderers. To label all in the military like you do is a dishonor sir.

Lets stick to educational issues where we seem to agree!

By they way, check out this article. Who is funding these people?? Should we let them have their way???

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/27/spain.europe.terror.plot/index.html