America, Ensign of Freedom

Possibly it is a bit of stretch to compare Sauds with Saddam. Possibly not. All I know is that Saddam was not a "friend" and Saudis "are", so I am not pretty sure that everything about Saddam is true and that we know all truth about Saudis (it might be true, and we might know all truth).

Because USA first looks its own interests, and is doing it in pretty ruthless way. If it's not like that, and if Iraq was only about liberation of people, then I suppose USA would first take care of North Korea, that has possibly even worse dictator then Saddam was (actually, surely worse) and actually IS possible threat to USA. At least, nobody even questioned fact that they have WMD. But, again, they don't have oil.

BTW, USA is just doing what it can do because of its strength. I doubt any country would be different in such position.

Saddam did gas his own people. He initiated war against Iran, and no one has any clear idea of why he did that. He did employ poison gas against Iran, and use children to clear mine fields. To wage war against Iran, he borrowed money from Kuwait. He did invade Kuwait to steal their oil and avoid paying his debts. He did try to acquire terror weapons including nuclear weapons. In the aftermath of the Gulf war Saddam did murder whole villages that attempted to break away from his brutal regime. Saddam made payments to the families of suicide bombers, and publicly supported terrorist acts outside the borders of Iraq, including a "contract" to murder the elder "Bush". He did break the conditions under which the Gulf war was halted. These aren't opinions, but verifiable facts.

The Saudi government has never, to my knowledge been accused of anything approaching the misbehavior of Saddam and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party.

Of course, the United States is primarily interested in protecting itself and its own interests. What? Should the world expect us to be saints? What do you mean we are ruthless? If the United States was ruthless, would we spend so much time, effort and resources in trying to avoid the destruction of property and innocent lives? Why spend over a million dollars on a smart munition that can be directed to a very particular target, if all we wanted to do is kill a lot of people? Mistakes are made, weapons do go off target, but our intent is always to kill only the bad guys. If we were really ruthless, our troops would be firing one everyone in sight.

American interests in striking at the sources of terrorism were best served by "cleaning-up" the destabilizing regime in Iraq, not in reopening hostilities on the Korean peninsula. Korea is controllable, Iraq was a loose cannon. I've addressed the problem of the DPRK for you in detail elsewhere. If you are implying that the only reason that the US went into Iraq is for oil and because we wanted to show off our military might, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

To me, the simple difference between 'friend' and 'enemy' re Saudi Arabia and Iraq is the simple fact that Saudi Arabia had expressed no wish to harm us; Saddam had.

What are you referencing Foxfyre? Saddam's rhetoric after we declare war on him?

No, I think he was pretty vocal and explicit before we delcared war on him.

Can you cite an example? Are you talking about 9/11 stuff?

Re: America, Ensign of Freedom


Hmmm - how do people such as yourself deal with all the other people in other countries who also foolishly claim god is on their side?

Like the very folk you wish to fight?

Or is there a god for every country - or even region, or tribe, where there is internal warfare?

Does anyone here believe that Bush's Neocoms are any less idealistic than the democratic party?

Who is a "neocon"? Am I? Is Timber, or Sophia? We have to get past all these labels. They are counterproductive.

Finn's a neocon. He told me so.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

Neo-conservative has a very specific meaning in the contemporary political context. I consider it intellectual dishonesty in conservatives not to recognize this; not to recognize that there is a published blueprint for PNAC's global military plan, of which one central element is military bases in southern Europe, the middle east and southeast Asia. I personally think that the ordinary American conservative who denies that there is any such thing as a neo-conservative is attempting to sidestep the issue of contradiction of asserting that we're only involved for the good of the Iraqi people, and that the war was instigated to remove a dangerous figure--but that in Iraq, we are building military bases, one of the goals of PNAC published agenda. When one asks about all of the other people who suffer as much or more from their governments (can anyone say, the Sudean?), or about governments which give aid and comfort to terrorists in general and Al Qaeda in particular (can anyone say, the Sudan?), you get all sorts of evasive nonsense; what you don't get is an acknowledgement that, leaving justifications for this war aside for the moment, that our presence in Iraq fulfills a key portion of the neo-conservative agenda, while nothing in the Sudan is remotely related to that agenda.

The current complaint about labelling from conservatives is a bit hard to swallow, given the nasty invective poured on liberals about lack of patriotism and sympathy with mass murderers and terrorists. People wouldn't get upset about the neo-con issue, if it didn't make them so uncomfortable.

john/nye,

It appears that your two citations confirm the points I made in the quoted section. I'm not so sure that the citations have any great authority, and much is "alleged" or "according to sources", etc., the very sort of qualifiers the media uses to cover its butt when it has little clue. Over my years of public service, I was in a position to witness many interesting events later reported in the news media. I can't remember a single instance when they got it "right". I'm especially skeptical of reports when the biases are unknown, or reflect prejudice.

Western intelligence was/is aware of many things going on in the world. Some of that intelligence concerns allies of one sort or another, and some concerns those we believe to be our enemy. Often we can do nothing directly about things we know of, and often we wish we didn't even know them. In the shadow world things are often not what they seem, and the ethics/morality of action/inaction is not clear. This is a danger to those who live their lives in the shadows protecting us as we dream. People who betray their friends, sabotage the efforts of their government/group, who lie, steal and kill aren't likely to be the sort of people that you would want to invite home to meet the family. When those people, "Joes", work for us they are heros. When they work for our enemies, they are murders and traitors. Sometimes those in the shadows become confused, and you get folks who sell out classified U.S. materials to others ... some of whom might even be "allies".

As the Cold War came to an end, it was clear that Congress and the Executive wanted to disavow the use of foreign agents, or covert intelligence on the ground. Humint was too dirty to fit into the idealistic demands of people unfamiliar with it. Congress and the Executive believed that intelligence gathered by satellite, electronics, and other technological means could/should/would make Humint un-necessary. American Intelligence services pulled back, shut down agent networks around the world. We stooped paying for information, betrayal, and theft of state secrets. Field agents became almost pariahs within most intelligence agencies. The new superstars never left their airconditioned offices, and knew the political climate at home better than the political climate in regions of great interest to our national security. We shot ourselves in the foot. The thing is, in the real world we live in you can't just walk away from the table and not expect to pay a terrible price. You might not like what must be done in the shadow world, but if it is not done then the risk of events like 9/11 soar.

Alright, some inside American intelligence services were aware that Saddam was a very evil guy, but he was also fighting against Iran ... the nation at that time believed most dangerous to American interests. The United States DID NOT condone, encourage, nor supply Saddam in invading Iran, or in the means with which he waged that war. Perhaps we should have been more vocal and forceful in opposing Saddam at that time, but that is Monday morning quarterbacking. We have to make judgements, most often without full information and only a hazy notion of what outcomes are likely.

I wasn't aware of the PNAC before you brought our attention to them, and I still don't know much about the organization. If the objectives and goals that you cited in another place are correct and actually reflect the fundamental ideas of the PNAC, I have no problem personally subscribing to them. I believe in a strong military and the importance of have effective bases within easy reach of those places most likely to require the use of our forces. I far prefer that the U.S. retain dominance in space, and would be uncomfortable if the PRC were a serious challenge there. Does that make me a "neocon"? I don't don't know, nor care very much.

The projection of American military power is not infinite, and is not entered into lightly. I should hope that American forces do retain bases within Iraq capable of responding to any other regional crisis if necessary. Staging from diego Garcia is better than nothing, but not nearly so good as being on the ground inside S.W. Asia. We require bases capable of effective application in East Asia, and all around the Pacific rim. Neither New Zealand, nor australia are in any danger at the moment, but that might change. ROK and Taiwan are both dependant upon the U.S. shield. At the moment, little in Africa poses much threat to the United States, or Western civilization. If stability and a modicum of peace can be established in SW Asia, perhaps more can be done to alleviate suffering elsewhere.

It seems to me that most of the invective is directed, here at least, toward those of conservative viewpoint. Labels, often defined by the most radical and objectionable accusations, are terribly destructive whether flung by the left or the right. I don't doubt that many conservatives think that the liberal side is filled with dreamy-eyed idealists more at ease with socialism than with believing in and supporting their country. I don't doubt that many liberals seem to believe that all conservatives are radical Christians bent on subverting the Constitution to institute a Military dictatorship over the entire world so that a few rich plutocrats can get even richer. Both are hogwash, and the sooner we start treating one another with respect, tolerance and forbearance the better for us all.

(emphasis added)


Breathtaking . . . just breathtaking . . .


Allow me to dissent, and express the opinion that although founding members of PNAC such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle probably experienced a great deal of glee at getting their dirty little war, they probably no longer take it so lightly. With the pretexts blown to hell, and with glaring contradictions of hypocricy such as the Sudan (really does consort with terrorists while slaughtering or assisting the slaughter of its own population), and North Korea (really does have WoMD, and starves its people to pay for a bloated military and WoMD programs--but could put up a real fight)--i'm sure they no longer take it so lightly. You needn't take the tone of doubt expressed by such phrases as: "If the objectives and goals that you cited in another place are correct and actually reflect the fundamental ideas of the PNAC, I have no problem personally subscribing to them." The "Neoconservative" thread was initiated by someone asking what neo-conservative means. You could easily have checked out the link to the PNAC which i provided in my initial response, in which i tried to provide Rufio with information without expressing a value judgment. You could easily have verified to your own satisfaction that you subsribe to a plan to: "Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;"--oh yeah, i want those boys at the Pentagon to control cyberspace, gee, look how well they've conducted military operations in Iraq! The thing which disgusts so many of us so much is just exactly how lightly the idiot in the White House entered into "a projection of power;" just how lightly Rumsfeld took his responsibilities when conducting a major military effort; just how lightly the government has taken its responsibilities for the treatment of "detainees" and imprisoned Iraqis.

That's the whole problem, Asherman, these idiots have done all of this all too lightly, and we are left with the consequences, whether or not the Shrub gets re-elected. It's not just that they rushed into this without a plan, they rushed into it without a clue. And it is not and never has been about the issues used for a causus belli prior to the war, or the many appeals to moral superiority advanced by some on the Right, the "bleeding heart conservatives" who are so concerned that we've liberated the Iraqis from a cruel monster. Those of us who are offended by all of this are disgusted by what was done, how badly it was done, and the lies which proliferate about the who, what, why, where and how of the entire bollocks.

Before your thin-skin gets the better of you, keep in mind that as a public figure, everyone here whom i have excoriated is fair game in the political climate of contemporary America, for which the Right is just as responsible as the Left. And note well that i've not made a single personal remark about you. Just for the record.

I would like for you to negotiate my next recording contract Set.....

Yer sittin' down Bear . . . you ain't gonna get much done in the studio if yer sittin' on yer can . . . not much for me to negotiate . . .

I've put in several hours today thank you...working on two new songs I'll have you know....but I don't want to digress from the thread....

Nice piccy, though, Boss--good to see the real Bear again . . .

and look closely...that's two bears :wink: