The US, UN & Iraq III

snood

This has been in the news here since more than 8 hours (the US confirmation since three or four)

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=9BDFFFA2-A06C-4388-BB9BB31E6C7B22EC

Interesting - notice how much conflicting info...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53306-2003Apr29.html

It's been on the radio this morning and (if sleepy memory serves) late last night as well.

Ok Walter, but IMO, with a story bound to raise hackles on all sides, I just thought a link would help...

Walter, I like the summation much better:

<Ultimately, the neocon-conspiracy theory misinterprets as a policy coup a reasoned shift in grand strategy that the Bush administration has adopted in responding to an ominous form of external threat. Whether that strategy and its component parts prove to be as robust and effective as containment of hostile Middle Eastern states linked to terrorism remains to be seen. But to characterize it in conspiratorial terms is not only a failure to weigh policy choices on their merits, but represents a detour into the fever swamps of political demagoguery.>

Especially the last sentence: <But to characterize it in conspiratorial terms is not a failure to weigh policy choices on their merits, but represents a detour into the FEVER SWAMPS OF POLITICAL DEMAGOGUERY>

Walter you are to be congratulated on your choice of articles but I wonder if you read it correctly to correspond with your anti-administration views??

Perception: Many of us not only read, and not only read "both sides," but read all sides. Not look for stuff to confirm our previously held beliefs...

The vultures are circling----I would suggest you not jump to conclusions.

You see, perception, I really like to see and read as many as possible to make up my mind.

Posting something I don't agree with doesn't change my opinion.
(An old habit since school times.)

Tartarin wrote:

<Perception: Many of us not only read, and not only read "both sides," but read all sides. Not look for stuff to confirm our previously held beliefs.>

I've been searching this forum for months now in hope of finding evidence that what you say is true. If what you say is true you could not possibly be so firmly entrenched on the wrong side.

How can some people look at black and see white, look at a valley and see a mountain, look at something good and see evil, eat an icecream cone and swallow garbage. Introspection can be a good thing----more folks should try it.

Funny, Perception. You were at me a few pages back for posting a CFR article that you liked. See? Things aren't black and white, are they? Why not ease up on who believes what and just discuss the issues?

Tartarin - my hero

Tartarin faints.

perception, With great difficulty - we continue to try. As you say, nothing is black and white as we are led to believe by the media. c.i.

Beyond the scrim -- behind the rah-rah aftermath of the Iraq invasion, behind the massive failures of our intelligence agencies, behind the reluctance to "give up the First Amendment rights" and curb campaign financing, behind who we think we are, behind our very prosperity -- lie unpleasant truths about the dirty money which flows through our banks and corporations, money from drug proceeds, Al Qaeda funds, siphoned international aid monies. The irony is that we create a vast new government department to insure our security but refuse to stop our banks and corporations from facilitating the funds which pay for (among other things) terrorism in its many forms. These facts are unfamiliar to the average American. But they are known to elected officials -- some of whom have tried to open this mess up only to be backstopped by others whose interests are at stake. I've found a link to a sober analysis and pass it along for your interest:

Tartarin wrote:

Why not ease up on who believes what and just discuss the issues?

That is my point----how can we discuss the issues when our perception of the conclusion is exactly opposite?

Because we're discussing the issues, Perception, not the "conclusion." This isn't about someone winning and losing. This is about people exchanging ideas. Aren't you interested in that? Do you feel you have to "win"?

Walter, I find that article you posted to be quite odd, and singularly unconvincing. The writer is setting up straw men and then attempting to destroy them. I have heard nothing about a neo-con "conspiracy," and I read widely. If the writer is speaking about the Principles for a New American Century, those are published and available to anyone. Hardly a conspiracy, they are more of a direction toward US domination of the world adhered to by the promoters of those ideas.

I love the comment above (who said it?) that Pat Buchanan is a paleo-conservative.

There is an article in last Sunday's NYTimes magazine comparing the US attempts at colonialism with those of the Brits. Worth reading. Name of the piece: The Empire Slinks Back, by Niall Ferguson. He writes as one who supported the war on Iraq.

Tartarin wrote:

<Because we're discussing the issues, Perception, not the "conclusion." This isn't about someone winning and losing. This is about people exchanging ideas. Aren't you interested in that? Do you feel you have to "win"?>

Then why do I get the feeling (everytime I read one of your posts) that you have formed your conclusions and want to jam those conclusions down my throat. Perhaps you don't realize how you are perceived by others who don't agree with you. (You have plenty of support from those who do agree with you)