At 10:45 PM 3/14/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>I wouldn't place all the blame (for the election results) on the
>terrorists - or is my recollection that there was little popular support
>for the Spanish government's backing of the Iraq [war] incorrect?
Yes.... nevertheless, the ruling Party was widely expected to be returned
to government until 3/11.... which was widely perceived as retribution by
Al Qaeda for Spain's support of the liberation of Iraq. The Spanish
clearly decided that making the world a better place is not worth the price
of being a target of Al Qaeda - best to let Al Qaeda concentrate on
attacking the United States, apparently..... that is certainly how this
vote as being perceived.
>> A very sad day in the War on Terror.
>
>Expect more sad days to follow. Instead of building a strong coalition to
>fight terrorism on all fronts we squandered the good will of the world to
>concentrate our power on deposing one washed up, nearly powerless
>dictator.
It is worth noting the a majority of the world's industrialized democracies
supported us in Iraq. Of the most notable industiralized democracies
that did not support us, one was clearly engaged in election pandering
against an opposition party that supported us. Another made no secret of
the fact that their foreign policy consisted of "taking the US down a
notch." Other than that, however, the world's democracies stood behind
us - a strong coalition if ever I saw one.
But, clearly you believe that the war in Iraq should not have been pursued
without a stronger coalition. Out of curiosity, why then, did you
support the War in Yugoslavia over the objections of the international
community?
Additionally, let's say there was similar worldwide support for the War in
Afghanistan? After all, Al Qaeda was an independent organization, and the
Taliban certainly hadn't attacked the United States... Would you still
have supported the War in Afghanistan over the objections of the
International Community?
Moreover in the future, to which other countries are you willing to assign
this "veto power" over US foreign policy? China? Russia? France?
Or are you merely using "strong international coalitions" as a red herring?
> Instead of spending our dollars on a world wide network to
>fight terrorism and on preventative measures we've spent $160 B on nation
>building.
This is classic liberal thinking in measuring success by the amount of
money spent on a problem, rather than the results. One of the most
notable news stories of the past few months has been the US's success, with
cooperation from the Pakistani government, in turning the Tribal Leaders of
Pakistan's Northwest Territories into allies in the War on Terrorism and
the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Given previous assesments of the strategic
assessment in Pakistan's Northwest Territories, this is a remarkable turn
of events indeed.
> Instead of low profile actions that strike at the heart of
>terrorism, we've provided Al Qaeda and other groups a spectacular
>recruiting tool.
Do you have any evidence that the presence of US troops in Iraq is proving
a stronger recruiting tool for Al Qaeda than the presence of US troops in
the Muslim Holy Land in Saudi Arabia? Presuming that US troops had to be
located in either Iraq or Saudi Arabia, isn't a temporary deployment in
Iraq - eventually leading to handover to the United Nations or a democratic
Iraq a better scenario for US in our conflict with Al Qaeda than an
interminable US deployment in the Muslim Holy Land?
>What's interesting, John, is how effective the inspections in Iran have
>been. There was stuff to find and they found it. Just like Iraq - there
>was stuff to find and... oh wait... the inspectors didn't find anything
>and amazingly enough it turned out that it was because there wasn't
>anything to find. Hmmmmm.
What is interesting is that these stories are *not* being broken by IAEA
inspectors, but by an Iranian defector and US spies. What is also amazing
is that Iran dodged IAEA inspections for *18* years without being caught -
coming within two years of being able to produce a nuclear weapon. In
1991, Saddam Hussein was within one year of being able to produce a nuclear
weapon - with the world being saved from a diastrous scenario only by
Hussein's gross miscalculation in invading Kuwait before his program had
reached fruition. Are you really suggesting that "inspections" work
because we can always count on a defector or a gross strategic
miscalculation at just the criticial moment before a bomb is built? And
if inspections really work, how did the DPRK manage to build a bomb right
underneath our noses, while Bill Clinton was paying them bribes to
specifically *not* build such a bomb?
I'm sorry Doug, but the evidence simply does not support your conclusion
that inspections work..... indeed, any US President who supported your
conclusions would clearly be guilty of criminal malpractice, based on the
track record of intelligence and inspections.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
