You got me. Babelfish the French is. ^_^
My German comes to me in fits and starts, we lived "on the economy" when I was there with my family in '72-'75. I attended a german preschool and kindergarten and learned to speak fluently. I could converse with our neighbors, and the grocery store folks, and sometimes I was asked to translate for my mom. Upon our return to the States my initial efforts to demonstrate my knowledge of the germanic language were met with ridicule and scorn (1st graders can be awfully mean), I promptly forgot most if not all the vocab/sentence structure that I learned. In college I took a couple of semesters of German and was getting fairly good at speaking it again but until just recently my usage was minimal. Now I can generally follow conversations, though actual participation is a way off. As far as the limited French and German I do know, I have been told that my pronunciation is pretty good (I've always had a flair for accents)...just need to work on that vocab and confidence! will ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: Re: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > Essen Sie doch zwei oder drei fur mich :) You're right, your German is > better than your French. In fact the French is babelfish isnt it? They > stuck you with drink as a noun.... > > Dana > > William Bowen writes: > > > Ich esse Schnitzel mit Pommes-Frites in Frankfurt am Montag das Juni 16 ... > > > > :-) > > > > et vin de boissons du Languedoc � Montpellier le 13 juin. > > (please pardon my French) > > > > long trip... > > > > will > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:08 PM > > Subject: Re: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > > > > > > > <g> and your sauerkraut in Munich? > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > William Bowen writes: > > > > > > > bah, I will have my french fries next week in Paris! > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:30 AM > > > > Subject: Re: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > you want french fries with that? > > > > > > > > > > William Bowen writes: > > > > > > > > > > > *have* an argument that is... > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "William Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:48 AM > > > > > > Subject: Re: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to an argument, please. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > From: "Kevin Graeme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:38 AM > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'll need to file it with the Official Beaureaaoauao of > > Complaints > > > > and > > > > > > > > since you're not a paying subscriber to the Horticulture and > > Polyps > > > > > > > > Weekly, you're complaint only counts for 1/23 of a subscriber's > > > > > > > > complaint (which counts for 23/27). Your complaint will be > > > > considered > > > > > > > > when there is a full complaint regarding the topic. Of course, > > each > > > > > > > > subscriber's complaint is subtracted from the number of > > > > non-subscriber > > > > > > > > complaints. As editor of the Horticulture and Polyps Weekly I > > get a > > > > full > > > > > > > > 1 17/27 of a complaint, and I'm constantly complaining about all > > > > these > > > > > > > > complaints we get. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Kevin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:24 AM > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to complain about that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > larry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 11:28 AM 6/6/2003 -0400, William Wheatley wrote: > > > > > > > > > >its ok i figured i'd top it all by complaining about your > > > > complaing > > > > > > > > > >about his complaining about everyones complaining about wmd > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"When I came back from Korea, I had no money, no skills. > > Sure, I > > > > was > > > > > > > > > >good with a bayonet, but you can't put that on a resume - it > > puts > > > > > > > > > >people off!" Frank Barone, "Everybody Loves Raymond" > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > >From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > >Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:18 AM > > > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just complainng about his complaining :) We settled :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > William Wheatley writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He never said not to post about them. And we're all > > > > > > > > > about to rant > > > > > > > > > > > > lol. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Soon there will be a call to setup cf-WMD :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When I came back from Korea, I had no money, no > > > > > > > > > skills. Sure, I > > > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > >good > > > > > > > > > > > > with a bayonet, but you can't put that on a resume - it > > puts > > > > > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > >off!" > > > > > > > > > > > > Frank Barone, "Everybody Loves Raymond" > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:40 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, why are you complaining about the WMD posts? I > > > > > > > > > read them, > > > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > >there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Several other people seem interested in the topic. Do > > > > > > > > > I tell you > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > >to > > > > > > > > > > > > > post about the Dixie Chicks having a wet T-shirt > > contest? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John Stanley writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet another exciting post on WMD's.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:32 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Stratfor: WMD in Iraq. The issues involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the most logical and well defined view on > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > situation that > > > > > > > > > >I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have read so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It explains why the war was never about WMD (which > > > > > > > > > we all now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know), > > > > > > > > > >the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > result of the war is the United States is now the > > > > > > > > > major power > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the Middle East, and focussing on WMD instead of > > > > > > > > > the true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strategy of > > > > > > > > > >the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bush Administration in this war was a grave > > > > miscalculation: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > THE STRATFOR WEEKLY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5 June 2003 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by Dr. George Friedman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WMD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The inability to discover weapons of mass > > > > > > > > > destruction in Iraq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has created a political crisis in the United States > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Britain. Within the two governments, there are > > > > > > > > > recriminations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and brutal political infighting over > > > > > > > > > responsibility. Stratfor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warned in February that the unwillingness of the > > U.S. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > government to articulate its real, strategic > > > > > > > > > reasons for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > war -- choosing instead to lean on WMD as the > > > > > > > > > justification -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would lead to a deep crisis at some point. That > > > > > > > > > moment seems > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Analysis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Weapons of mass destruction" is promising to live > > up to > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name: The issue may well result in the mass > > destruction > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > senior British and American officials who used > > > > > > > > > concerns about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WMD in Iraq as the primary, public justification > > > > > > > > > for going to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > war. The simple fact is that no one has found any > > > > > > > > > weapons of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mass destruction in Iraq and -- except for some > > > > > > > > > vans which may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have been used for biological weapons -- no > > > > > > > > > evidence that Iraq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was working to develop such weapons. Since finding > > WMD > > > > is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > priority for U.S. military forces, which have > > occupied > > > > Iraq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for more than a month, the failure to find weapons > > of > > > > mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > destruction not only has become an embarrassment, > > > > > > > > > it also has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the potential to mushroom into a major political > > > > > > > > > crisis in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > United States and Britain. Not only is the political > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opposition exploiting the paucity of Iraqi WMD, but > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > various bureaucracies are using the issue to try to > > > > > > > > > discredit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > each other. It's a mess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan. 21, 2003, Stratfor published an analysis > > > > > > > > > titled Smoke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mirrors: The United States, Iraq and Deception, > > > > > > > > > which made the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > following points: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The primary reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strategic and not about weapons of mass destruction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The United States was using the WMD argument > > > > > > > > > primarily to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify the attack to its coalition partners. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The use of WMD rather than strategy as the > > > > justification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the war would ultimately create massive > > confusion as > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the nature of the war the United States was > > fighting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we put it: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "To have allowed the WMD issue to supplant U.S. > > > > strategic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interests as the justification for war has created > > > > > > > > > a crisis in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U.S. strategy. Deception campaigns are designed to > > > > protect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strategies, not to trap them. Ultimately, the > > foundation > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U.S. grand strategy, coalitions and the need for > > clarity > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > military strategy have collided. The discovery of > > > > > > > > > weapons of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mass destruction in Iraq will not solve the > > > > > > > > > problem, nor will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a coup in Baghdad. In a war [against Islamic > > > > > > > > > extremists] that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will last for years, maintaining one's conceptual > > > > > > > > > footing is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > critical. If that footing cannot be maintained -- if > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirements of the war and the requirements of > > > > strategic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity are incompatible -- there are more serious > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > involved than the future of Iraq." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The failure to enunciate the strategic reasons for > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invasion of Iraq--of cloaking it in an extraneous > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justification--has now come home to roost. Having > > > > > > > > > used WMD as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the justification, the inability to locate WMD in > > Iraq > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > undermined the credibility of the United States and > > > > > > > > > is tearing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the government apart in an orgy of finger-pointing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To make sense of this impending chaos, it is > > important > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start at the beginning -- with al Qaeda. After the > > Sept. > > > > 11 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > attacks, al Qaeda was regarded as an > > > > > > > > > extraordinarily competent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > global organization. Sheer logic argued that the > > > > > > > > > network would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want to top the Sept. 11 strikes with something even > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impressive. This led to a very reasonable fear that > > > > > > > > > al Qaeda > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possessed or was in the process of obtaining WMD. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U.S. intelligence, shifting from its sub-sensitive > > to > > > > hyper- > > > > > > > > > >sensitive > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode, began putting together bits of intelligence > > > > > > > > > that tended > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to show that what appeared to be logical actually > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happening. The U.S. intelligence apparatus now was > > > > > > > > > operating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a worst-case scenario mode, as is reasonable > > > > > > > > > when dealing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with WMD. Lower-grade intelligence was regarded as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > significant. Two things > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resulted: The map of who was developing weapons of > > mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > destruction expanded, as did the probabilities > > > > > > > > > assigned to al > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Qaeda's ability to obtain WMD. The very public > > > > > > > > > outcome -- along > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a range of less public events -- was the "axis > > of > > > > evil" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > State of the Union speech, which identified three > > > > > > > > > countries as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > having WMD and likely to give it to al Qaeda. Iraq > > > > > > > > > was one of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these countries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we regard chemical weapons as WMD, as has been > > > > > > > > > U.S. policy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then it is well known that Iraq had WMD, since it > > > > > > > > > used them in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the past. It was a core assumption, therefore, that > > Iraq > > > > > > > > > > > > > > continued to possess WMD. Moreover, U.S. > > intelligence > > > > > > > > > > > > > > officials believed there was a parallel program in > > > > > > > > > biological > > > > > > > > > > > > > > weapons, and also that Iraqi leaders had the > > > > > > > > > ability and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intent to restart their nuclear program, if they had > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already done so. Running on the worst-case basis > > > > > > > > > that was now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hard-wired by al Qaeda into U.S. intelligence, Iraq > > was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified as a country with WMD and likely to pass > > > > > > > > > them on to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > al Qaeda. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iraq, of course, was not the only country in this > > > > > > > > > class. There > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are other sources of WMD in the world, even beyond > > > > > > > > > the "axis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of evil" countries. Simply invading Iraq would not > > > > > > > > > solve the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fundamental problem of the threat from al Qaeda. As > > > > > > > > > Stratfor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has always argued, the invasion of Iraq served a > > > > > > > > > psychological > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and strategic purpose: Psychologically, it was > > designed > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate to the Islamic world the enormous power > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ferocity of the United States; strategically, it > > > > > > > > > was designed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to position the United States to coerce countries > > such > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran into changing their > > > > policies > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toward suppressing al Qaeda operations in their > > > > countries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both of these missions were achieved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WMD was always a side issue in terms of strategic > > > > > > > > > planning. It > > > > > > > > > > > > > > became, however, the publicly stated moral, legal > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > political justification for the war. It was > > understood > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > countries like France and Russia had no interest in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > collaborating with Washington in a policy that > > > > > > > > > would make the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > United States the arbiter of the Middle East. > > > > > > > > > Washington had > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to find a justification for the war that these > > allies > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > find irresistible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That justification was that Iraq had weapons of mass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > destruction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From the standpoint of U.S. intelligence, this > > > > > > > > > belief became > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given. Everyone knew that Iraq once had chemical > > > > > > > > > weapons, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no reasonable person believed that Saddam Hussein > > had > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unilaterally destroyed them. So it appeared to > > > > > > > > > planners within > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Bush administration that they were on safe > > ground. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, it was assumed that other major powers > > > > > > > > > would regard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WMD in Hussein's hands as unacceptable and that > > > > therefore, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone would accept the idea of a war in which the > > > > stated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > goal -- and the real outcome -- would be the > > destruction > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Iraq's weapons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point on which Washington > > miscalculated. > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public justification for the war did not compel > > France, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Germany or Russia to endorse military action. They > > > > > > > > > continued > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to resist because they fully understood the > > outcome -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended or not -- would be U.S. domination of the > > > > Middle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > East, and they did not want to see that come about. > > > > Paris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Berlin and Moscow turned the WMD issue on its head, > > > > arguing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that if that was the real issue, then inspections by > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > United Nations would be the way to solve the > > problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interestingly, they never denied that Iraq had WMD; > > > > > > > > > what they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > did deny was that proof of WMD had been found. They > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > argued that over time, as proof accumulated, the > > > > inspection > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process would either force the Iraqis to destroy > > > > > > > > > their WMD or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify an invasion at that point. What is > > > > > > > > > important here is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that French and Russian leaders shared with the > > > > > > > > > United States > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the conviction that Iraq had WMD. Like the > > Americans, > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thought weapons of mass destruction -- particularly > > if > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were primarily chemical -- was a side issue; the > > core > > > > issue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was U.S. power in the Middle East. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In short, all sides were working from the same set > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumptions. There was not much dispute that the > > > > Baathist > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regime probably had WMD. The issue between the > > > > > > > > > United States > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and its allies was strategic. After the war, the > > > > > > > > > United States > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would become the dominant power in the region, and > > it > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use this power to force regional governments to > > > > > > > > > strike at al > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Qaeda. Germany, France and Russia, fearing the > > > > > > > > > growth of U.S. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > power, opposed the war. Rather than clarifying the > > chasm > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the alliance, the Bush administration permitted the > > > > > > > > > arguments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > over WMD to supplant a discussion of strategy and > > left > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > American public believing the administration's > > public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statements -- smoke and mirrors -- rather than its > > > > private > > > > > > > > > > > > > > view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Bush administration -- and France, for that > > > > > > > > > matter -- all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumed that this problem would disappear when the > > U.S. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > military got into Iraq. WMD would be discovered, the > > > > public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justification would be vindicated, the secret goal > > would > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > achieved and no one would be the wiser. What they > > did > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > count on -- what is difficult to believe even now > > > > > > > > > -- is that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hussein actually might not have WMD or, weirder > > > > > > > > > still, that he > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hid them or destroyed them so efficiently that no > > one > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > > > > > find them. That was the kicker the Bush > > > > > > > > > administration never > > > > > > > > > > > > > > counted on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The matter of whether Hussein had WMD is still > > > > > > > > > open. Answers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could range to the extremes: He had no WMD or he > > still > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WMD, being held in reserve for his guerrilla war. > > But > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point here is that the WMD question was not the > > reason > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > United States went to war. The war was waged in > > order to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obtain a strategic base from which to coerce > > > > > > > > > countries such as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia into using their > > resources > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > destroy al Qaeda within their borders. From that > > > > > > > > > standpoint, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the strategy seems to be working. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, by using WMD as the justification for war, > > > > > > > > > the United > > > > > > > > > > > > > > States walked into a trap. The question of the > > > > > > > > > location of WMD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is important. The question of whether it was the CIA > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Defense Department that skewed its reports about > > > > > > > > > the location > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Iraq's WMD is also important. But these questions > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ultimately trivial compared to the use of smoke and > > > > > > > > > mirrors to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > justify a war in which Iraq was simply a single > > > > campaign. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ultimately, the problem is that it created a > > situation > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which the American public had one perception of the > > > > > > > > > reason for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the war while the war's planners had another. In a > > > > > > > > > democratic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > society engaged in a war that will last for many > > > > > > > > > years, this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a dangerous situation to have created. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .............................................................. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Gel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
