Peter Bergen, five months ago wrote: "What we have done in Iraq is
what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams: We
invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the
very type of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was
the United States' long-term goal in the region. We deposed the secular
socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised, ignited Sunni and
Shia fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a "defensive"
jihad that has galvanized jihad-minded Muslims around the world.****
It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the
war on terrorism." ****
This conclusion was reiterated last Thursday by the National
Intelligence Council, the CIA Director's think tank, which released a
report saying that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground
for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists. NIC Chairman
Robert L. Hutchings said that Iraq is "a magnet for international
terrorist activity."

I had asked Gumby questions on our invasion of Iraq. He could not
answer not a one. Just runs his mouth and calls us names. Not too grown
up is he?

From:	akalaniz at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:20:03 -0600

I couldn't agree with your post more. I can't wait to here the one
line zinger of several people who post here that will, with the swipe
of a disdainful hand, just dismiss the National Intelligence Council as
so many liberals.

For months I took a break from this forum, only occassionally taking a
peek. One of the reasons I decided to quit was the frustration of
trying to carry out dialogue with such aforementioned crap.

PS -- To NB (the society that is), I took a course of Lie Algebra from
a Bourbaki text during my MS math program. Too bad the society is no
longer publishing texts. What is your (plural or singular) opinion on
SUSY theories? Reply at akalaniz@hotmail.com

From:	deadissue.com
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:15:33 -0600

This discussion is intriguing, but if I were to take a stab a whether
it's correct or not would be a stab in the dark, as it is for anyone
else claiming to know anything at this point. The condition of the
country and it's people is a point of arbitrary babble, legitimate only
depending on what you say and who you're saying it to.

As with anything in American politics, it's rarely about the nuts and
bolts, yet instead what 'catches on'. The argument that war in Iraq is
Bin Laden's magic lamp can make sense if you assume quite a bit. Is
the lack of planning beneficial to him? Perhaps...I'm quite sure it
brings a smile to his face, but I've had the opinion for a while now
that the insurgency is an 'Iraqi-thing', moreso than the powers that be
would like us to believe.

Joe Scarborough last night made a claim that I hear everyday in the
talk radio news cycle, about the Iranian terrorists who flood into the
country every day. This is repeated whether substantiated or not to
distract us from the hard truth that our actions have created and
continue to create the heart of the insurgency with every day we
remain. This is probably unavoidable in some ways, as none of us would
'get used to' Arab or Oriental troops telling us what to do for years.
That's not on us as I see it...the unavoidable realiy of what we're
doing.

The flip side of that is the insurgents who became enemies when their
factory job were disregarded upon the decison to kill the state
corporations to make room for foreign investment - or the detainee who
happened to live near a suspect and was wrongly ripped from their home
without cause - or the insurgent who saw what happened in Abu Gharib or
Fallujah the first go around - or the one who was enraged over the
allowed destruction of their heritage in museum lootings -a 'free'
people shutting down a newspaper - ect.

There are two types of insurgents in Iraq as I see it. Osama may be
given too much credit when the hisory is inked. To assume that Iraq
makes him smile is like saying that Peyton Manning is disappointed in
himself today. That's not a breakthrough of any kind. Osama has
become a lever for liberal editorialists and politicians to sack the
president with lately...ever since Dean introducd the argument in the
primaries.

My perception is that Osama got lucky on 9/11. He's not a general of a
great army - he's a rich kid gone bad. If he's anything more than
that, why no encore inside the US? People 'in the know' have been
predicing this rapture for years now, and the guy hasn't done a thing.

I'm not in favor of Bush's policies, but I do know that the arguments
against reside on the ground in Iraq, not with Osama. By taking this
route, the author is doing what FoxNews and conservative talk radio
does...using a hook that's seperate from the issue at hand to confuse
someone into believing in something for the wrong reasons.

We shouldn't be against the war because it makes Osama smile, but
because of the damage it's caused to this generation of Iraqis.

From:	gumby
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:08:09 -0600

Bush is helping Bin Laden? Better question, Is OBL helping terrorist?
If you look at it, he has put a face, to what used to be a faceless
enemy. Now all terrorist organizations are treated as if they are going
to cause another 9/11.

Bush is helping Bin Laden? The objectives of OBL were: the removal of
US soldiers from Saudi soil; the overthrow of the Saudi government; the
removal of Jews from Israel; and worldwide confrontation between the
west and the Muslim world. So would inactivity have the same effect
Extra? Should we base our foreign policy on what is precieved OBL would
not want?

I had asked Gumby questions on our invasion of Iraq. He could not
answer not a one.
Wow, I am popular,. Sry I Looked at all your post and I don't know
what the fuck your talking about. If you really need an answer from me
feel free to email me. I can tell you anything you need to know champ.

BTW, this is opinion piece, so why list Peter Bergen, ect. Why not just
go this is how I feel? Is this why you need my answers? Can't think for
yourself.

Just runs his mouth and calls us names.
If only it not a free country. Correct? Then you could stop me. You
and Alex. LOL

Not too grown up is he?
Guess that makes 2 of us. If you want a different forum, maybe you
should start your own group. Restrict Access. I have two Google groups.
They rock.

From:	akalaniz at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:42:32 -0600

gumby wrote:
> Bush is helping Bin Laden? Better question, Is OBL helping terrorist?
> If you look at it, he has put a face, to what used to be a faceless
> enemy. Now all terrorist organizations are treated as if they are
going
> to cause another 9/11.
>
> Bush is helping Bin Laden? The objectives of OBL were: the removal of
> US soldiers from Saudi soil; the overthrow of the Saudi government;
the
> removal of Jews from Israel; and worldwide confrontation between the
> west and the Muslim world. So would inactivity have the same effect
> Extra? Should we base our foreign policy on what is precieved OBL
would
> not want?

Recall the Alamo! When the Mexican Army overwhelmened the Alamo, the
Texicans were galvanized. "Remember the Alamo!" Has the US invasion
and subsequent occupation not galvanized terrorist recruitment Ala(h)
"remember Iraq" no pun intended? It seems having kept Iraq contained
would have given much less of a rallying cry to Islamic terrorists.
The invasion and occupation of Afganistan had, effectively, universal
world support. You could say, "but then Afganistan would have become
the new rallying cry for OBL." Certainly you would have a point. But
its seems logical that it would be much tougher to incite insurgency in
the much less urbane Afganistan. Certainly Afganistan is much further
away from lines of support, say from Syria, etc, than Iraq is.
Moreover, instead of overstretching military resources, the US could
have concentrated on capturing and/or killing OBL and his animal
compatriots.

> BTW, this is opinion piece, so why list Peter Bergen, ect. Why not
just
> go this is how I feel? Is this why you need my answers? Can't think
for
> yourself.

Only time will tell whether the US will succeed in Iraq. I hope it
does, but I expect it will take a long time. Mind you, I am not
proclaiming myself as some expert, but I am aware of the decades long
failed history of the Brits in Iraq, and of the opinions of experts who
have no political ambitions. Before the invasion, there were many
retired US generals (Powell included) who wanted more US troops NOT in
order to win the war, BUT to win the peace. These people who dedicated
themselves to duty for country and military science still feel the same
way; and I don't believe they are running for office or otherwise
motivated but for the good of the nation.

Thinking for yourself is commendable Gumby, but is of limited value in
direct proportion to your lack of expertise. I am a physicst, and if I
had, say, cancer, I would think for myself in consulting with
physicians UP TO A POINT. They are the experts. Stubborn thinking for
yourself can be dangerous and is arrogant if you are no expert on the
topic in question. Even Isaac Newton humbly proclaimed, "If I have
seen far, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants." I would
really like to see you think for yourself, but with a justified
background.

Alex Alaniz PhD

From:	deadissue.com
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:30:16 -0600

To expand on your last statement, the war in Iraq most likely has
created more enemies in the war on terror. The idea of taking the war
to them was flawed from it's conception as we've realized now that
Osama did not have the power we once feared. His success on 9/11 was a
combination of several failures on our part, and were the CIA and FBI
capable of doing their job, he never would have succeeded.

Terrorists are created by their environment, and Arabs live on the
other side of an ocean from us. It took decades of attempts on Osama's
part to finally score, and he had millions to work with. The
microscope being put on such things on an international level impedes
the ability for terrorists to fund such operations. That's where the
actual 'war' was and continues to be fought.

Iraq is a myraid of sticky blood and 'shuckin and jivin' that has now,
out of political necessity, become something quite different from what
any of us believe at this time. The outcome was supposed to be a
society ripe for international business expansion, but the insurgents
made it so insurance for a single worker climbed above 10K per month
(according to the WSJ) probably a year ago if not more...an artice in
Harpers a few months back described the neo-con theory of 'sreading the
honey' and how money would take care of itself and the people of Iraq
for years to come...their foolish assumption that grown men would be
understanding about losing their jobs and becoming unable to provide
for their families for long enough to get a WalMart in downtown
Baghdad.

This lack of understanding towards the basics of human natue is behind
each and every miscalculation up till now, and it's the basis for most
of the misguided or fabricated information being spread by the media
concerning 'who' the insurgents are.

While the borders are with countries we don't trust, talking heads use
the word 'streaming' as if these people have no lives, like they're
animals instinctively being led by their noses towards the waft of
blood and Christianity being carried by the wind from Iraq. How ideal!
Yes, and like the Arab version of the American 'Deadhead', they just
drop everything and stick out their thumb hoping to make it to the show
on time.

Aside from sporting events, mass amounts of Americans don't just pick
up and cross state lines for too many reasons. Yet it's seemingly so
simple a rationale that Iranain and Jordanian people are deciding to
leave their homes, their lives, to pursue death in a foreign land.

What this says about the perception they want us to have about that
entire reigon indicates a horrible truth about us as a culture of
people, in that we so easily assume that foreigners of the Arab
persuasion are naturally driven towards whimsical killing srees for no
other reason than that they're 'jealous of us'.

It's a ridiculous notion...and all being repeated ad nauseum to
distract attention from the insurgents who are Iraqis and why they
joined the dark side in the first place. These questions are ripe for
analysis, but the media, nor the government want's to go there as the
obvious would then have to dawn on the American people that we are all
God's children, and in our actions in Iraq, we treated those people as
if they were spiritual orphans in comparison, or animals
perhaps...certainly a race or nationality that wouldn't be too broken
up about losing their jobs...why would they be?

I'm rambling and appologize for doing so, but I'm really getting the
impresion that this whole concept of 'terrorists' is merely this
generation's 'communist', and for the next decade or so, the people of
this world will suffer, while the proifts of corporations dependant on
enemies and death experience their next economic boom.

It's brilliant when you think about it...we arm the region, with
chemical weapons to Saddam to punnish our baby democracy in Iran for
their hostage taking. He uses them - we train Osama to fight
'communism' - Saddam turns out to be a nut, anxious to use his toys
before their shelf life expires (on the Kurds and Shia)...America
'negotiates with terrorists' in trading arms with Iran for hostages,
Saddam decides to cash in on the remining chemicals he has and invades
Kuwait...the world knowing full well that he got his power from
American beakers, nods in approval as we lead the way in disciplining
him, meanwhile the weak chemicals he has left fill the air and cause
chronic nosebleeds and bronchial coughing termed 'gulf war syndrome',
to which the government cannot admit to being a reality for fear of the
public asking the question of how Saddam got the weapons in the first
place...Bush Sr, Rumsfeld, Cheney...same set of characters from the
80s, here in the 90s chomping at the bit to go in and smoke Saddam, but
Bush fears further sickness with his troops, further inquiry to how
Saddam acquired the weapons in the first place...so they wait...

'Terrorism' is the perfect ghost enemy, and trashing the UN and France
of course is always good enough for a war as far as the USA is
concerned...and here we are, fighting insurgents in Iraq...so of course
there has to be an internationally organized coalition of terrorists
causing the trouble over there.

The entire thing is a wretched example of humanity gone evil, only
we've been able to convince our people that the evil lies in the brown
faces of third world people who we sold firearms to like crack and
herion dealers do on the streets of America every day.

All that aside, the task at hand is unclear by design, as the
administration has learned from it's mistakes upon invasion in unwisely
setting expectations of any kind whatsoever...so this time they're
calling audibles, and if something works they'll take credit, and when
something doesn't...well, either we'll never find out, or it'll surely
be deemed the work of those nasty 'Jordanian' or 'Iranian' insurgency
efforts.

This could lead to the necessity for invasions of both of those
countries or Syria even...as long as the truth is repressed, the mess
will only grow. We've all been exposed to the story of the kid who
tells little white lies...perhaps that phrase was aptly named after
Europeans who did the same exact thing since the dawn of time.

Who knows? I'm just thankful that I served my four years in the Army
already...but if they decide to call me back, well, maybe I'll become
an insurgent myself, only local...I'm not a fan of violence, but short
of that I'd be as much of a pain in the ass of these people for as long
as I lived.

They have no respect for life, nor any amount of shame for selling arms
to people who had no business having them in the first place. Had
Russia made that buck instead of us, they'd be screwed right now
instead of our soldiers-slaves...but you won't hear history entered
into this I don't think...no, we'll hear only what we can be deemed
trustworthy enough to know...which is nothing.

From:	Sorackem
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:38:57 -0600

"deadissue.com" wrote in
news:1106119794.246225.200690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> This lack of understanding towards the basics of human natue is behind
> each and every miscalculation [...]

......Rant whenever you feel like it - and thank you.

There are no shortages of absurdities coming out of the Cheney/Rove
propaganda machine.

The 'elections' in Iraq being near, the Bush camp now says that they will
seal Iraq's borders until the election is over.

The Administration (Rumsfeld and others) have been crying for many months
now about insurgents flowing across the borders, but now we hear that the
borders can just be 'sealed'.

Meaning: Foreigners infiltrating wasn't really the problem they made it out
to be, but due to the sham elections, is now becoming a concern.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones
you want to focus on" - GWBush

"..my base of Have's and Have More's" GWBush

You'd think the inadvertant glimpses into the true mind and motives of
BushCo. would count for more towards people coming 'round to the truth.

-Brian

From:	Bourbaki
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:27:04 -0600

> As with anything in American politics, it's rarely about the nuts and
> bolts, yet instead what 'catches on'. The argument that war in Iraq
is
> Bin Laden's magic lamp can make sense if you assume quite a bit. Is
> the lack of planning beneficial to him? Perhaps...I'm quite sure it
> brings a smile to his face, but I've had the opinion for a while now
> that the insurgency is an 'Iraqi-thing', moreso than the powers that
be
> would like us to believe.

Certainly the failure of British Empire to quell rebellion in Iraq from
the end of WWII to the late 40's has many parallels with today's Iraq,
and OBL wasn't around in 1919 or 1947. Still, the sight of dead arabic
bodies must serve OBL's propaganda and ability to recruit sympathizers.

> Joe Scarborough last night made a claim that I hear everyday in the
> talk radio news cycle, about the Iranian terrorists who flood into
the
> country every day. This is repeated whether substantiated or not to
> distract us from the hard truth that our actions have created and
> continue to create the heart of the insurgency with every day we
> remain. This is probably unavoidable in some ways, as none of us
would
> 'get used to' Arab or Oriental troops telling us what to do for
years.
> That's not on us as I see it...the unavoidable realiy of what we're
> doing.

I don't know about hordes of Iranian terrorists in Iraq. There is that
Jordanian animal in Iraq to be sure. Are there few or many foreign
terrorists in Iraq? I don't know, but given the proximity of Iraq to
other arabic nations, and the hatred of the United States fomented by
its invasion, I'm sure there will always be young idiots who will go to
Iraq to kill American GIs.

> The flip side of that is the insurgents who became enemies when their
> factory job were disregarded upon the decison to kill the state
> corporations to make room for foreign investment - or the detainee
who
> happened to live near a suspect and was wrongly ripped from their
home
> without cause - or the insurgent who saw what happened in Abu Gharib
or
> Fallujah the first go around - or the one who was enraged over the
> allowed destruction of their heritage in museum lootings -a 'free'
> people shutting down a newspaper - ect.
>
> There are two types of insurgents in Iraq as I see it. Osama may be
> given too much credit when the hisory is inked. To assume that Iraq
> makes him smile is like saying that Peyton Manning is disappointed in
> himself today. That's not a breakthrough of any kind. Osama has
> become a lever for liberal editorialists and politicians to sack the
> president with lately...ever since Dean introducd the argument in the
> primaries.
>
> My perception is that Osama got lucky on 9/11. He's not a general of
a
> great army - he's a rich kid gone bad. If he's anything more than
> that, why no encore inside the US? People 'in the know' have been
> predicing this rapture for years now, and the guy hasn't done a
thing.
>
>
> I'm not in favor of Bush's policies, but I do know that the arguments
> against reside on the ground in Iraq, not with Osama. By taking this
> route, the author is doing what FoxNews and conservative talk radio
> does...using a hook that's seperate from the issue at hand to confuse
> someone into believing in something for the wrong reasons.
>
> We shouldn't be against the war because it makes Osama smile, but
> because of the damage it's caused to this generation of Iraqis.

Your thoughts are inciteful. I would like to add that in addition to
damage being done in Iraq, there is also damage being done in many
other ways. The US is certainly not making friends among arabs, and it
has bogged its military in a costly war of occupation, which detracts
from the war on terror.

NB

From:	gumby
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:51:42 -0600

Recall the Alamo! When the Mexican Army overwhelmened the Alamo, the
Texicans were galvanized. "Remember the Alamo!" Has the US invasion
and subsequent occupation not galvanized terrorist recruitment Ala(h)
"remember Iraq" no pun intended? It seems having kept Iraq contained
would have given much less of a rallying cry to Islamic terrorists.
The invasion and occupation of Afganistan had, effectively, universal
world support. You could say, "but then Afganistan would have become
the new rallying cry for OBL." Certainly you would have a point. But
its seems logical that it would be much tougher to incite insurgency in
the much less urbane Afganistan. Certainly Afganistan is much further
away from lines of support, say from Syria, etc, than Iraq is.
Wonder if the Russians knew this?
Moreover, instead of overstretching military resources, the US could
have concentrated on capturing and/or killing OBL and his animal
compatriots.
Agree, we need to speed up transfer of power to the Iraqi people.

Only time will tell whether the US will succeed in Iraq.
It is not our job to succeed. We cannon win it for the Iraqi people.

I hope it does, but I expect it will take a long time.
Not to long. Reality. We cannot keep troop levels as high as they are
forever(without draft). Again, Iraqis are going to have to step up.

125,000 trained Iraqi forces by election. Aiming for total force
strength of 250,000. Every 3-4 months we add 25,000.

Mind you, I am not proclaiming myself as some expert, but I am aware
of the decades long failed history of the Brits in Iraq, and of the
opinions of experts who have no political ambitions. Before the
invasion, there were many retired US generals (Powell included) who
wanted more US troops NOT in order to win the war, BUT to win the
peace. These people who dedicated themselves to duty for country and
military science still feel the same way; and I don't believe they are
running for office or otherwise motivated but for the good of the
nation.

>From what I have seen it appears we will begin to pull out our
troops(less then 100,000) after election. Which is good(Your Brits
Example). America can't win Iraqi freedom. Only the Iraqis can do that.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/powell.troops.iraq/

Thinking for yourself is commendable.
But instead pic doesn't think at all. Cut/Paste/plagiarise. Would you
like it if I did a hundred post like this Alex? :)

From:	akalaniz at hotmail.com
Subject:	Re: Bush is helping Bin Laden
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:20 -0600

deadissue.com wrote:
> To expand on your last statement, the war in Iraq most likely has
> created more enemies in the war on terror. The idea of taking the
war
> to them was flawed from it's conception as we've realized now that
> Osama did not have the power we once feared. His success on 9/11 was
a
> combination of several failures on our part, and were the CIA and FBI
> capable of doing their job, he never would have succeeded.
>
> Terrorists are created by their environment, and Arabs live on the
> other side of an ocean from us. It took decades of attempts on
Osama's
> part to finally score, and he had millions to work with. The
> microscope being put on such things on an international level impedes
> the ability for terrorists to fund such operations. That's where the
> actual 'war' was and continues to be fought.
>
> Iraq is a myraid of sticky blood and 'shuckin and jivin' that has
now,
> out of political necessity, become something quite different from
what
> any of us believe at this time. The outcome was supposed to be a
> society ripe for international business expansion, but the insurgents
> made it so insurance for a single worker climbed above 10K per month
> (according to the WSJ) probably a year ago if not more...an artice in
> Harpers a few months back described the neo-con theory of 'sreading
the
> honey' and how money would take care of itself and the people of Iraq
> for years to come...their foolish assumption that grown men would be
> understanding about losing their jobs and becoming unable to provide
> for their families for long enough to get a WalMart in downtown
> Baghdad.
>
> This lack of understanding towards the basics of human natue is
behind
> each and every miscalculation up till now, and it's the basis for
most
> of the misguided or fabricated information being spread by the media
> concerning 'who' the insurgents are.
>
> While the borders are with countries we don't trust, talking heads
use
> the word 'streaming' as if these people have no lives, like they're
> animals instinctively being led by their noses towards the waft of
> blood and Christianity being carried by the wind from Iraq. How
ideal!
> Yes, and like the Arab version of the American 'Deadhead', they just
> drop everything and stick out their thumb hoping to make it to the
show
> on time.
>
> Aside from sporting events, mass amounts of Americans don't just pick
> up and cross state lines for too many reasons. Yet it's seemingly so
> simple a rationale that Iranain and Jordanian people are deciding to
> leave their homes, their lives, to pursue death in a foreign land.
>
> What this says about the perception they want us to have about that
> entire reigon indicates a horrible truth about us as a culture of
> people, in that we so easily assume that foreigners of the Arab
> persuasion are naturally driven towards whimsical killing srees for
no
> other reason than that they're 'jealous of us'.

On the matter of two types of two types of insurgents, the history of
the Brits in Iraq shows that Iraqis (Shias, Kurds, and the rest of 'em)
are fully capable of mounting a long term insurgency. As for foreing
invadors, the truth clearly lies somewhere between streams and a
trickle. I tend to believe more in the trickle theory, as with the
Jordanian who enjoys beheadings. What I fear is that the trickle of
insurgents will not dry up for some time to come, and if they are well
funded and supported by OBL, e.g., the Jordanian animal, even a few
foreign insurgents can contribute significantly to instability in Iraq
and make big TV splashes in todays epoch of instant media--which will
beget more support from at least a trickle more insurgents, and so on.
I think this, the ineluctable presence of instant media, is a new
dimension, certainly a new tool for foreign insurgents to get their
message across not only to Westerns, but to Arabic peoples.

> It's a ridiculous notion...and all being repeated ad nauseum to
> distract attention from the insurgents who are Iraqis and why they
> joined the dark side in the first place. These questions are ripe
for
> analysis, but the media, nor the government want's to go there as the
> obvious would then have to dawn on the American people that we are
all
> God's children, and in our actions in Iraq, we treated those people
as
> if they were spiritual orphans in comparison, or animals
> perhaps...certainly a race or nationality that wouldn't be too broken
> up about losing their jobs...why would they be?

I agree that the average American is far more concerned with trite
concerns than with the war in Iraq. Sports. The lives of movie stars.
Raising kids. Family squabbles. All these weigh far more on
Americans, in my opinion, than the war on Iraq. The rate of generation
of body bags is, apparently and regretably, not high enough to rise
above the common noise.

> I'm rambling and appologize for doing so, but I'm really getting the
> impresion that this whole concept of 'terrorists' is merely this
> generation's 'communist', and for the next decade or so, the people
of
> this world will suffer, while the proifts of corporations dependant
on
> enemies and death experience their next economic boom.

I agree with you. Calling insurgents terrorists helps to sell war.
Look at Putin and Chechnya. He has had horrible things done in
Chechnya for what? A decade? Chechnyians, like so many other citizens
of former Soviet states, want to separate. They are fighting for their
independance and, unfortunately, using the same tactics that Putin is
using on them. Now, after 9/11, Putin and Bush embrace and call the
Chechnians "terrorists." How convenient.

> It's brilliant when you think about it...we arm the region, with
> chemical weapons to Saddam to punnish our baby democracy in Iran for
> their hostage taking. He uses them - we train Osama to fight
> 'communism' - Saddam turns out to be a nut, anxious to use his toys
> before their shelf life expires (on the Kurds and Shia)...America
> 'negotiates with terrorists' in trading arms with Iran for hostages,
> Saddam decides to cash in on the remining chemicals he has and
invades
> Kuwait...the world knowing full well that he got his power from
> American beakers, nods in approval as we lead the way in disciplining
> him, meanwhile the weak chemicals he has left fill the air and cause
> chronic nosebleeds and bronchial coughing termed 'gulf war syndrome',
> to which the government cannot admit to being a reality for fear of
the
> public asking the question of how Saddam got the weapons in the first
> place...Bush Sr, Rumsfeld, Cheney...same set of characters from the
> 80s, here in the 90s chomping at the bit to go in and smoke Saddam,
but
> Bush fears further sickness with his troops, further inquiry to how
> Saddam acquired the weapons in the first place...so they wait...
>
> 'Terrorism' is the perfect ghost enemy, and trashing the UN and
France
> of course is always good enough for a war as far as the USA is
> concerned...and here we are, fighting insurgents in Iraq...so of
course
> there has to be an internationally organized coalition of terrorists
> causing the trouble over there.
>
> The entire thing is a wretched example of humanity gone evil, only
> we've been able to convince our people that the evil lies in the
brown
> faces of third world people who we sold firearms to like crack and
> herion dealers do on the streets of America every day.
>
> All that aside, the task at hand is unclear by design, as the
> administration has learned from it's mistakes upon invasion in
unwisely
> setting expectations of any kind whatsoever...so this time they're
> calling audibles, and if something works they'll take credit, and
when
> something doesn't...well, either we'll never find out, or it'll
surely
> be deemed the work of those nasty 'Jordanian' or 'Iranian' insurgency
> efforts.
>
> This could lead to the necessity for invasions of both of those
> countries or Syria even...as long as the truth is repressed, the mess
> will only grow. We've all been exposed to the story of the kid who
> tells little white lies...perhaps that phrase was aptly named after
> Europeans who did the same exact thing since the dawn of time.

I agree. The logical path of Bush's invasion of Iraq is his invasion
of Iran. Bush went after Iran on account of WMD PERIOD. To be
consistent, he must now try to topple the 2nd axis of evil, Iran, with
real WMD. Thus instead of propagating a domino of democracy, he will
promulgate a domino of war EXCEPT for one thing. I don't believe
Americans will let him do it. Not only is the military stretched to
thinly, Americans won't give him the support to start a new war. They
may have let their religious bigotries elect Bush again, but (I hope)
they won't buy any more of his WMD bullshit. As a related aside, I'd
like to say that if the US wanted to (had the political will) there is
nothing to stop it from building up its military to the task of
fighting several wars on several fronts. Look at the aftermath of
Pearl Harbor. The sleeping giant awoke. This is possible, I just
don't see it as plausible.

> Who knows? I'm just thankful that I served my four years in the Army
> already...but if they decide to call me back, well, maybe I'll become
> an insurgent myself, only local...I'm not a fan of violence, but
short
> of that I'd be as much of a pain in the ass of these people for as
long
> as I lived.

I salute your service and wish you health and prosperity.

AA PhD

> They have no respect for life, nor any amount of shame for selling
arms
> to people who had no business having them in the first place. Had
> Russia made that buck instead of us, they'd be screwed right now
> instead of our soldiers-slaves...but you won't hear history entered
> into this I don't think...no, we'll hear only what we can be deemed
> trustworthy enough to know...which is nothing.