I went through grades 1-10 in French speaking Canadian schools then went to Europe, did some time in school there and hung around London and Amsterdam with a French boyfriend before I came to the states so my French is pretty deeply ingrained. Haven't used it much except for a couple of months in Montreal though, and the odd foray into Quebec while visiting my mother in Ottawa, so using it is a bit of an effort. My accent is good but turned Parisian while I was there -- this is usually considered a better accent, but in day to day transactions in Montreal is sort of like hangin out in Dallas while speaking with the a snooty Oxford accent. I did two semesters of German in high school in France and four in college here. Wierdly, they tell me my German has a French accent. Still. Since I get email from foreign medical professionals every so often, I am getting so I can spot Babelfish at 100 paces :)
Dana William Bowen writes: > 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
