I don't feel they were met. For me, all of them would have to be met
with the possible exception of 1 and 2 being swappable. But the vital
interests would have to be very significant to equal the US actually
being threatened.

-Kevin

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:46:31 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kevin,
> Do you mean by this that these needed to exist at a minimum?  Or that these
> did not exist?  Or something else?
>
> Andy
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:51 PM
>   To: CF-Community
>   Subject: Re: The politicization of the Iraq War
>
>   IMO, 1, 4, and 7 were no-starters.
>
>   -Kevin
>
>   On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:51:35 -0500, Andy Ousterhout
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   > Dana:
>   > So if you believe 1,2 & 7 you might do what Bush did with a few other
> Yes's
>   > mixed in.  I don't see anything directly about the UN, but it is probably
>   > covered under 7.  One could seriously argue that no further progress was
>   > possible and I believe that that was Bush's believe as well.
>   >
>   > I think that you could make a serious argument supporting 1 & 2.  #3 is
>   > primarily up to you and one might argue that we had the resources during
> the
>   > start of reconstruction and didn't dedicate them.  4 I think is met.  5 is
>   > more rhetorical than anything, 6 is probably a no over any multi-year
>   > timeframe.
>   >
>   > Now, how would you take into consideration an election in 2 years,
> ensuring
>   > that you couldn't act 1 year later.  Can you just image the screams about
> an
>   > starting a war to win an election?  And 1 year after (why didn't you tell
> us
>   > about this?).
>   >
>   > Bottom line, while we should discuss the quality of information upon which
> his
>   > information was based, I am not so sure that a reasonable person wouldn't
>   > reach the same conclusion if he/she had GW's call.
>   >
>   > Andy
>   >
>   > 1.  Is the US being seriously threatened?
>   > 2.  Is a vital US interest at stake?
>   > 3. Will we commit sufficient resources to win?
>   > 4. Are the objectives clearly defined?
>   > 5. Will we sustain the commitment?
>   > 6. Is there reasonable expectation that the public and Congress will
> support
>   > the operation?
>   > 7. Have we exhausted our other options?
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

Reply via email to