[forkies]

from Bush talks potential of terror war


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush says staying the course in the war on terror will make the world safer for future generations, though he acknowledges an all-out victory against terrorism may not be possible.

When asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan sought to clarify Bush's statement, saying the president was speaking about winning the war "in the conventional sense."
"I don't think you can expect that there will ever be a formal surrender or a treaty signed like we have in wars past," he said.


hence, the sheer brilliance of the plan

[OldManMac]

Sounds like a flip-flop, if you ask me.

[chris v]

Howcome every utterenace out of that man's mouth requires one of his underlings to come behind him and "clarify?" Besisdes, didn't he just say a few weeks ago that we were "winning" the War On Terror?

What do you think would benefit the Military Industrial Complex? Perpetual, unwinnable, unstoppable war, without end. Is that not what he just declared?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by chris v:
Howcome every utterenace out of that man's mouth requires one of his underlings to come behind him and "clarify?"

Because he can only remember so many words at a time!

[PacHead]

We're doing pretty damn good so far. For every one of those backwards countries we take out, we're doing some good in the big scheme of things.

[osiris]

Originally posted by chris v:
Howcome every utterenace out of that man's mouth requires one of his underlings to come behind him and "clarify?" Besisdes, didn't he just say a few weeks ago that we were "winning" the War On Terror?

What do you think would benefit the Military Industrial Complex? Perpetual, unwinnable, unstoppable war, without end. Is that not what he just declared?

Yep. We are now living in an era of the Military Industrial Complex - the very kind that Eisenhowser warned us about, and the sort of era that Jim Garrison calls fascism 'under the guise of National Security'.

Pretty f'd up IMO.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by PacHead:
We're doing pretty damn good so far. For every one of those backwards countries we take out, we're doing some good in the big scheme of things.

As in Afghanistan, where we chased the Taliban out, only to have them start creeping back in later, where Hamid Karzai barely controls Kabul, and the rest of the country is once again being taken back by tribal warlords, where we promised them all kinds of aid, and now Karzi comes to Washington, wondering where his aid is?

You mean as in Iraq, where we still haven't figured out what the hell is going on, and where we're not smart enough to figure out that you can't fight a war against an ideology, where our soldiers are coming home from in body bags, where we keep spending good money are bad.

Yup, we're doing a lot of good.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by KarlG:
you can't fight a war against an ideology,

Why not ? We defeated the nazis.

[itai195]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Why not ? We defeated the nazis.

We declared war on Germany, not on Nazism. There are still people who agree with the Nazi ideology throughout the world.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Why not ? We defeated the nazis.

Because the Nazis were a clearly delineated and identifiable force! You knew, when you pointed your rifle at a man in a uniform, wearing the swastika, that he wa a Nazi. They were an easily identifiable ideology; thus, they were easy to take out. The Nazis, for the most part, were also all German. In Iraq and Afghanistan we have multiple groups, like the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds, the Taliban, etc., making it much harder to know who is who. The other issue is that we are slowly, but surely, pissing off the entire Muslim world, so that people from other countries, including our "friends and allies" from Saudi Arabia, are joining the battle. We get stabbed in the back regularly by the Saudis, and yet we keep sending them our money. Our own oil money finances their terrorism schools!

It's hard to fight an enemy when he looks like everybody else, and when he is scattered everywhere.

[chris v]

Here's my favorite part of the "clarification":

"It requires a generational commitment to win this war on terrorism."

So, figure they're looking at things being more or less the same, 20-25 years down the road. Can we pour 5-6 Billion dollars a month into one third-world country (or, rather into the bank accounts of private munitions, security and rebuilding contractors) after another for 25 more years?

The mind boggles at the audaacity.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by itai195:
We declared war on Germany, not on Nazism. There are still people who agree with the Nazi ideology throughout the world.

That is true, there's a few nazi slime still around, but thats only a handful, seeing that we killed plenty of those goons. This is what Bush meant with his statement, there will always be a handful of the enemy left, but we can kill plenty of them in the meantime.

Anyhow, Europe is the one who has attempted to ban nazism, not the USA. So apparently they disagree with the "you cannot defeat an ideologi" statement.

[OldManMac]

Yes, it does. What's even more mind boggling is that people actually buy into that stuff. Fortunately, more people are starting to slowly realize they were sold a bill of goods.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Because the Nazis were a clearly delineated and identifiable force! You knew, when you pointed your rifle at a man in a uniform, wearing the swastika, that he wa a Nazi. They were an easily identifiable ideology; thus, they were easy to take out. The Nazis, for the most part, were also all German. In Iraq and Afghanistan we have multiple groups, like the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds, the Taliban, etc., making it much harder to know who is who. The other issue is that we are slowly, but surely, pissing off the entire Muslim world, so that people from other countries, including our "friends and allies" from Saudi Arabia, are joining the battle. We get stabbed in the back regularly by the Saudis, and yet we keep sending them our money. Our own oil money finances their terrorism schools!

It's hard to fight an enemy when he looks like everybody else, and when he is scattered everywhere.

We know what the enemy looks like, we know which countries they breed from, we know what their plans are, and we will defeat them of course. Regarding Saudi Arabia, I agree with you. They are the enemy.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by KarlG:
It's hard to fight an enemy when he looks like everybody else, and when he is scattered everywhere.

Yes, and I think that's exactly why the President said what he said. We aren't fighting a defined army with specific leaders. There aren't negotiations. There won't be peace treaties.

But are you somehow suggesting that we not bother to fight terrorism because we can't clearly identify terrorists as an "army."

The Cold War was mainly fought by spies, most of whom were scattered everywhere and looked like everyone else, yet we fought it and won.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The Cold War was mainly fought by spies, most of whom were scattered everywhere and looked like everyone else, yet we fought it and won.

Economics won the Cold War, not military tactics. The US won the Cold War bring driving the "conflict" into the costly arena of advanced technology while simulanteously encouraging the development of OPEC which undercut Russia's oil prices, starving the Soviet economy and giving the US a cheap oil supply. Spies provided the necessary information to kill the Soviet economy.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by forkies:
hence, the sheer brilliance of the plan

The plan being to keep the Replublican's in power for as long as the 'war' is on.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by chris v:
Howcome every utterenace out of that man's mouth requires one of his underlings to come behind him and "clarify?" Besisdes, didn't he just say a few weeks ago that we were "winning" the War On Terror?

What do you think would benefit the Military Industrial Complex? Perpetual, unwinnable, unstoppable war, without end. Is that not what he just declared?

It sounds more like Vietnam every day.

[mo]

Does this mean I'm never going to be able to cash in my war-on-terror bonds?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Yes, and I think that's exactly why the President said what he said. We aren't fighting a defined army with specific leaders. There aren't negotiations. There won't be peace treaties.

But are you somehow suggesting that we not bother to fight terrorism because we can't clearly identify terrorists as an "army."

The Cold War was mainly fought by spies, most of whom were scattered everywhere and looked like everyone else, yet we fought it and won.

We need to fight terrorism on America's soil. Bring our troops home, and let those outher countries fight out their own differences. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke; it's already underfunded, while we send billions overseas, the main purpose of which is to enrich a select few who produce the armaments and weapons of war, who just happen to be connected to the Bush and Cheney families.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

But are you somehow suggesting that we not bother to fight terrorism because we can't clearly identify terrorists as an "army."

Okay dave, let's fight terrorism then.

But let's ask some serious questions. What causes terrorism? Is there a recognizable source? Is there a way to eliminate terrorism? Is waging a conventional war the appropriate response? Is it even effective? If so, how? If not, let's come up with something better.

[Zimphire]

Different things causes terrorism. The Palestinians blow themselves up because there are Jews on their so called land.

The twin towers were attacked because the U.S. is the "Great Satan"

Lots of deluded self importance going on here.

[John R. Smith]

We are now living in an era of the Military Industrial Complex - the very kind that Eisenhowser warned us about

it's a scary thought that lockheed, raytheon, and boeing have more influence on the government's policy than the populace does.

[Atomic Rooster]

Speaking of Nazis.

Thank god it's still against the law to exterminate gays...at least for now.

And groping women too. A typical Republican?




ps: sig pic posted to show the foolishness of it all.


Now back to thread....

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Speaking of Nazis.

Thank god it's still against the law to exterminate gays...at least for now.

And groping women too. A typical Republican?




ps: sig pic posted to show the foolishness of it all.


Now back to thread....

The sig pic is a joke.

You need to get the telephone poll out of your lower orifice and lighten up a bit.

[TubaMuffins]

Originally posted by itai195:
We declared war on Germany, not on Nazism. There are still people who agree with the Nazi ideology throughout the world.

And Germany has some of the strictest anti-Nazi laws in the world.

Fighting these countries in the manner we do solves nothing, it only fuels their hatred for us more. Forcing democracy on the people is not the right way to do it. We need to show them that they want it. The young terrorist men need to be given a choice. They are like many of the young men here, lost and confused. They dont have a choice for their future, the only way theu have of living is through militias and terrorism. They can't get a job delivering pizzas or flipping burgers. If we can give them a choice instead of killing them, then they will understand that that choice is valuable and democracy works and they will embrace it. Fighting them is like replacing a squeaky wheel when all it needs is a little oil (pun intended). Aid is what they need, not rivalry.

[Troll]

Originally posted by KarlG:
... you can't fight a war against an ideology ...

If only it were a war against an ideology. Terrorism isn't an ideology and the war is "on Terror" not "Against Terrorism." Effectively, Bush is waging war against an emotion!

[davesimondotcom]

Ok, let's turn it around for those of you who say you can't fight a war on an ideology. Isn't that EXACTLY what terrorists are doing? They are fighting against people who do not share their extreme religious views.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by TubaMuffins:
They are like many of the young men here, lost and confused. They dont have a choice for their future, the only way theu have of living is through militias and terrorism. They can't get a job delivering pizzas or flipping burgers. If we can give them a choice instead of killing them, then they will understand that that choice is valuable and democracy works and they will embrace it. Fighting them is like replacing a squeaky wheel when all it needs is a little oil (pun intended). Aid is what they need, not rivalry.

And what of the people who are terrorists who do have jobs? The terrorist Dr. Abed Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi was a pediatrician, who called young men and young women to kill themselves and as many others as possible. The young women of late have been doing it in an effort to clear their family's name after committing adultery or other wrongdoings.

The hard truth is that the people committing terrorism absolutely have a choice, and they have chosen killing.

When they value their lives and the lives of their children more than they value killing ours, there will be peace. All the aid in the world cannot change that fact.

[ebuddy]

No, you've missed the boat. The war on terror is being fought against those who have hijacked the religion of Islam for use on oppressed and uneducated people in the hopes of accruing enough force and resource to take their war abroad. The last thing they need is time. We're attempting to close the clock on them. You can say failure, but this is what I'm seeing as the answer from the left;

Fighting these countries in the manner we do solves nothing, it only fuels their hatred for us more.

Name for me something which was seen as "good" by all? I'm sorry they "hate" us. You know, at some point leadership has to understand that no matter what it does, it will be hated. We're hated primarily because of our wealth and our consumption/culture. Instead of seeing those bags of grain with USA printed all over them, they choose to believe they are being oppressed not by the dictator in their backyard, but by some SATAN overseas. If one's fuel of hatred is ignorance, we're going to have to educate them. No chance of that under a dictatorial regime. Phase 1 is complete.

Forcing democracy on the people is not the right way to do it. We need to show them that they want it. The young terrorist men need to be given a choice. They are like many of the young men here, lost and confused. They dont have a choice for their future, the only way theu have of living is through militias and terrorism. They can't get a job delivering pizzas or flipping burgers. If we can give them a choice instead of killing them, then they will understand that that choice is valuable and democracy works and they will embrace it.

With all due respect brother...or sister, How much history and time do you need to realize how foolish the above is? This is all very scripted and beautiful, but how do we do this? "Show" them they want it? What better way than to remove the oppressive dictator for them? We're not killing "them", we're killing those that wish to facilitate the propogation of oppression through terror. Granted, "they're" slow in catching on, but it will snap for them soon. They need to fight for themselves. We continue to show them how inept and evil-natured their enemy is, it's only a matter of time.

Fighting them is like replacing a squeaky wheel when all it needs is a little oil (pun intended). Aid is what they need, not rivalry

Again, on paper this is all very beautifully drafted and please do not take this the wrong way, but in say...10-15 years, you'll see things a little more as they really are. I'll try to help save you some time though. Billions in aid has been spent by the US in resources to the Middle East. Historically, this aid was gobbled up by the dictatorial regimes and little of it reached it's intended recipient, the needy. Enough was enough. Remove the oppressor. Slowly and methodically remove the remnants of the extremist as carefully and politically acceptable as possible, but do it none the less. This does not happen in 3 years. There will be collateral damage. Innocent will die if not by our might even as surgical as only we can be, by the cowardess of the enemy. They will stop at nothing. Two frenchmen could probably tell you that the threat against their life for an anti head-piece policy in France is proof that these folks do not play by any rule we can live with. So? We will live without them in existence. At least in mass. Thousands of lives will be lost. Millions will be enriched. It's painful. It's trying. It's achievable and it's necessary. You can do one of two things in this new world; You can round them up and take them out of society as a collective or you can let them fester and grow like the tumor they are until they consume enough mass to become globally lethal. History suggests we round them up early. As bad and as numerous as they are now, they would be ten-fold in numbers next generation. I'm not letting my kids live in that world so I'm willing to make the tough decisions in my generation. I'm sorry you disagree, but procrastination and faith in your criminal enemy through continued appeasement and broken contracts among the twisted, will not earn you a "thank-you" from your children.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Ok, let's turn it around for those of you who say you can't fight a war on an ideology. Isn't that EXACTLY what terrorists are doing? They are fighting against people who do not share their extreme religious views.

Personally, i think this is a pretty naive sentiment. It's not nearly as simple as "the terrorists hate our freedom."

I think ebuddy hit it on the head when he identified dictatorships as a serious problem. In my view, dictatorships are THE main problem, and the tyranny of dictatorships is a crime against humanity. That being said, a conventional land war is not necessarily the best way to oust a dictator. Look, for example, at the havoc wreaked in Iraq. Ambassador Mark Palmer has the right idea. There are nonviolent means. They may be more difficult or less expedient, but the cost in resources (how many billion have we spent in Iraq already?) and in human life (11,000+ dead, hundreds of thousands injured in Iraq so far) are much less dear.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by forkies:
Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of the world."

Bush says war on terror can be won

One day after saying the war on terror could not be won, President George W. Bush has sought to calm a political storm by asserting he had been less than articulate and that America would prevail. [...] "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start, but one that we will win," Bush told the group.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Sounds like a flip-flop, if you ask me.

actually, its a flip-flop-flip.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html

(CNN) -- President Bush told veterans during a campaign stump speech Tuesday that the United States will win the war against terror, in contrast to a statement he made a day earlier .

for the record, though...I think he was being honest the sec...er, the thir...well, whichever flip it was when he said it was unwinnable.

[itai195]

Originally posted by dgs212:
I think ebuddy hit it on the head when he identified dictatorships as a serious problem. In my view, dictatorships are THE main problem, and the tyranny of dictatorships is a crime against humanity.

That being said, what message are we sending when we ally ourselves with brutal dictators in order to oust other brutal dictators?

As far as the Bush flip-flop goes... Well, maybe we can win the war on terror, as long as we don't have any more catastrophic victories

[dgs212]

Originally posted by itai195:
That being said, what message are we sending when we ally ourselves with brutal dictators in order to oust other brutal dictators?

My point exactly. Dictatorship-i-ness (whatever the word is...can you think of the appropriate word?) should be a prosecutable offense, to be tried in the world court.

Are you listening Mugabe? Are you listening House of Saud?

[Taliesin]

Dictatorships in many arabic and islamic countries were installed and financed by the USA. It was a perfect replacement for the not-working-anymore direct colonialization of Britain and France before worldwar2. Local guy governed, but the west, the USA as the leader of the west, kept control of the local guy. It was easy, should the local guy not act according to the wishes of the USA, the USA simply threatens him to stop his financiation and threatens him to instead finance an opposition, be it in the army or elsewhere, until a coup can be arranged which kills the former dictator, only to be replaced by a new dictator, who is very thankful to the USA for its help and money/weapons/intelligence/diplomatic backing...

Should that not work, there are always the possibilities of CIA-assassinations, or if even those don't pan out, there is always the possibility of direct warfare to get rid of the rebellious dictator, who has forgotten who his master is.

Taliesin

[forkies]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, its a flip-flop-flip.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html

for the record, though...I think he was being honest the sec...er, the thir...well, whichever flip it was when he said it was unwinnable.

lolz, i happened to miss that article the other day. at least he's consistent if you have a bout of amnesia at just the right time (and trust me, the USA populace suffers from amnesia like no other)

[Mithras]

Isn't it time to point out that the whole "War On Terror" construct is absurd? That phrase belongs, with the War On Drugs, War On Poverty, and War On Cancer, in the Orwellian realm of unending wars that simply restructure our society along someone else's lines.

What we're really engaged in is a War On Anti-American Islamic Radicalism. And that war is winnable. Western Europe fought against 70's-era communist terrorists, and won. Britain fought against Irish Terrorism, and won (or at least, came to a peaceful resolution). We can hope to make obsolete a certain faction of antimodernist violent actors, in the sense that nobody will show up at their meetings anymore.

But framing this as a War On Terror is silly, because of course someone, somewhere in the world, will always use terrorist tactics, as they have for centuries. It's a quaint an idea as WWI's "War To End All Wars."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Isn't it time to point out that the whole "War On Terror" construct is absurd? That phrase belongs, with the War On Drugs, War On Poverty, and War On Cancer, in the Orwellian realm of unending wars that simply restructure our society along someone else's lines.

What we're really engaged in is a War On Anti-American Islamic Radicalism. And that war is winnable. Western Europe fought against 70's-era communist terrorists, and won. Britain fought against Irish Terrorism, and won (or at least, came to a peaceful resolution). We can hope to make obsolete a certain faction of antimodernist violent actors, in the sense that nobody will show up at their meetings anymore.

But framing this as a War On Terror is silly, because of course someone, somewhere in the world, will always use terrorist tactics, as they have for centuries. It's a quaint an idea as WWI's "War To End All Wars."

I've been pointing that out since the beginning, but republicans operate on a different reality that only they seem to understand the logic of.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Isn't it time to point out that the whole "War On Terror" construct is absurd? That phrase belongs, with the War On Drugs, War On Poverty, and War On Cancer, in the Orwellian realm of unending wars that simply restructure our society along someone else's lines.

What we're really engaged in is a War On Anti-American Islamic Radicalism. And that war is winnable. Western Europe fought against 70's-era communist terrorists, and won. Britain fought against Irish Terrorism, and won (or at least, came to a peaceful resolution). We can hope to make obsolete a certain faction of antimodernist violent actors, in the sense that nobody will show up at their meetings anymore.

But framing this as a War On Terror is silly, because of course someone, somewhere in the world, will always use terrorist tactics, as they have for centuries. It's a quaint an idea as WWI's "War To End All Wars."

Bush has made this point several times. It is misnamed, but like other monikers, once a term sticks, you are stuck with it. However inaccurate or undescriptive they may be, the words used to describe a thing don't actually change what the thing itself is.

The "war on poverty" was an inaccurate term. It wasn't a war at all. The word "war" was simply chosen to evoke resolution and to create the idea that poverty was a thing to be defeated. The same with drugs, crime, and any other war analogies where there was no actual war involved.

The war on terror is also inaccurate for the reason that you and Bush have both articulated. It is a real (if unconventional) war, but not one where the enemy is as indefinable as "terrorism." Just because the words used aren't the best description doesn't mean we have to be sucked into a literal but absurd interpretation. We know what the "war on terror" actually means and actually refers to, even if the term is clumsy.

You mention that WW-I was called the "war to end all wars." Actually, the most widely used contemporary term in the English speaking world was the Great War. Much later (after World War II broke out), people started renaming it the First World War. This shows that words can change over time when the sense seems dissonant.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Dictatorships in many arabic and islamic countries were installed and financed by the USA. It was a perfect replacement for the not-working-anymore direct colonialization of Britain and France before worldwar2. Local guy governed, but the west, the USA as the leader of the west, kept control of the local guy. It was easy, should the local guy not act according to the wishes of the USA, the USA simply threatens him to stop his financiation and threatens him to instead finance an opposition, be it in the army or elsewhere, until a coup can be arranged which kills the former dictator, only to be replaced by a new dictator, who is very thankful to the USA for its help and money/weapons/intelligence/diplomatic backing...

Should that not work, there are always the possibilities of CIA-assassinations, or if even those don't pan out, there is always the possibility of direct warfare to get rid of the rebellious dictator, who has forgotten who his master is.

Taliesin

Be careful-- pointing out historical context makes you an America-Hater.

[RonnieoftheRose]

A barrel of oil now costs $50. To fly to Europe and back is almost $1000 in many cases now. If Bush is fighting a war it is against tourism. This is the War On Tourism.

Billions of dollars still missing
Cheney crawled out of his bunker
To give Kerry a dissing
Now Cheney's gone back underground
And the WMD's have still to be found

W.O.T did you say?
W.O.T did you say?
Going on vacation is too expensive
W.O.T did you say?
W.O.T did you say?
The President's record isn't very impressive

[ebuddy]

[quote]Be careful-- pointing out historical context makes you an America-Hater.[/b]

It struck you that way as well? Whew, I wanted to make sure I wasn't knee-jerking.

It seems, to misunderstand the intent behind foreign policy in supporting a man ALREADY IN POWER (Saddam Hussein) against a much bigger threat of the time as "creating" dictators... Bastardizing the course of history to paint Americans as imperialistic and hell-bent on creating dictators does kind of sound less, "critical" and more "hateful". Feed into that what you will.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Isn't it time to point out that the whole "War On Terror" construct is absurd? That phrase belongs, with the War On Drugs, War On Poverty, and War On Cancer, in the Orwellian realm of unending wars that simply restructure our society along someone else's lines.

You assume that a War On Drugs, a War On Poverty, or a War On Terror needs to be winnable in order to be worthwhile. I wage an endless War On Dustbunnies by vacuuming. My war may be unwinnable, but it is necessary if I am not to live in squalor.

We do not need to "win" a War On Terror in order to wage one.

Originally posted by Mithras:
IWestern Europe fought against 70's-era communist terrorists, and won. Britain fought against Irish Terrorism, and won (or at least, came to a peaceful resolution). We can hope to make obsolete a certain faction of antimodernist violent actors, in the sense that nobody will show up at their meetings anymore.

So what�s your point? Both Western Europe and Great Britain used violence and/or the threat of violence to help end terrorism.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by f1000:
You assume that a War On Drugs, a War On Poverty, or a War On Terror needs to be winnable in order to be worthwhile. I wage an endless War On Dustbunnies by vacuuming. My war may be unwinnable, but it is necessary if I am not to live in squalor.

[Lerkfish]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ebuddy:

Be careful-- pointing out historical context makes you an America-Hater.

It struck you that way as well? Whew, I wanted to make sure I wasn't knee-jerking.

It seems, to misunderstand the intent behind foreign policy in supporting a man ALREADY IN POWER (Saddam Hussein) against a much bigger threat of the time as "creating" dictators... Bastardizing the course of history to paint Americans as imperialistic and hell-bent on creating dictators does kind of sound less, "critical" and more "hateful". Feed into that what you will. [/B]

historical revisionism, or at least, not going back far enough.

[ebuddy]

You're right Lerk, we encouraged him to join the Baath Party. We put him through Law School. We even gave him leadership qualities and personally voted him in as Deputy-Secretary General of the Baath Party Leadership. We elected him Vice-Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and was constitutionally elected for the post of Vice-Chairman. Through military might and "valor" he attained rank of Lieutenant General and awarded the Rafidain Order, First Class. Of course, you know if this were an American accolade, no doubt Kerry would also be awarded this Rafidain Order, First Class. Iraqi historians state he played a principle role in formulating and implementing the Autonomy Law for the Kurdish citizens on March 11, 1974. No mention of American Leadership yet...On October 8, 1977, he was elected Assistant Secretary General of the National Pan-Arab Leadership of the Baath Party, but we certainly didn't put him there.

We then gave him a strong work ethic and on September 4, 1980, President Saddam Hussein led the Iraqi people and the Army wisely and bravely against the aggression initiated and launched against Iraq by Ayatollah Khomeini's regime. The war ended in Iraq's victory. Here was a man at the time bent on educating himself, bettering his people and fought victoriously over a waxing and devious threat to the Middle East Peace. Iran. I don't expect you to remember that. We should've remained isolationist then too. We saw a published author interested in the modernization and the mechanization of agriculture, and the distribution of land to farmers. He effected a comprehensive revolution in energy industries as well as in public services such as transportation and education. He also initiated and led the national campaign for the eradication of Illiteracy and the implementation of compulsory and free education in Iraq. Now, all that said. He certainly turned into a jerk, gassed his own people and now sits behind bars, but we can't necessarily predict the future now can we? I suppose our leadership is held to this level of scrutiny, but this just proves how our leadership have raised the bar a bit and how we take their MO's for granted. We saw an opportunity to see good in a man, invest in him to better the conditions in Iraq and influence the Middle East. It failed. It did not fail because of us, we tried. It failed because a man with this immense power became corrupt. He is now removed and sits in jail. Now, if the Iraqi wants to fight for their freedom they have a much better shot at it. If not, we've made another mistake in judgement, but not because we didn't try to see the good in humanity and attempt to extract it to the fore.

I went back to about 1966. I hope that's far enough.