FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

georgeob1 wrote:

The point here is that if one asserts that American support of the effort in Afghanistan is too low, then one must also acknowledge that the same is true of these other allies, to an even greater degree.

Consider it acknowledged by me; it's a fair point.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

... We probably disagree about the wisdom of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan (which had attacked the USA) to invade Iraq (which hadn't). But even if we do and if I'm right, America is entitled to make her own mistakes if she decides to.

Also a fair point. History will eventually reveal who is right. The best we can do now is opinion.

It is also worth noting that the series of al Qaeda attacks on the USA, which began at least in 1993 with the first attack on the WTC, also involved a pronounced international dimension - including Saudis, Yemenis, Moroccans and others. We knew the network had links throughout the Islamic world. Even then it wasn't just Afghanistan.

The prospect of Saddam, with sanctions lifted and lots of oil revenues at his disposal, associating himself with Islamist groups to enact his revenge involved a good deal of risk. An important principle in strategy is to consider seriously all an enemy is capable of doing, not just what, on the surface, one thinks he will do, or sees him doing. (Sun Tsu had something to say about that as well)

0 Replies

O'George wrote:

The prospect of Saddam, with sanctions lifted and lots of oil revenues at his disposal, associating himself with Islamist groups to enact his revenge involved a good deal of risk.

There is a major problem with the premise here. The origins of Islamic terrorism and support for such terrorism lies in religious fanaticism. Hussein ran a secular state, which is commensurate with the principles of the Ba'aht Arab Socialist Party, as constituted both in Iraq and Syria. Iraq was not simply a secular state, however--it was a state in which religious fanaticism was punished, and practicioners hunted down. This was particularly true of the Wahabbis (i.e., the Bin Laden clan of Yemenis, and his Saudi supporters). Additionally, the support for AQ from Egypt (very important in the first attempt on the WTC) derives from fanatical Shi'ites, who had no love lost between themselves and Hussein.

This entire scenario of Hussein as a sponsor for Islamic fundamentalist terror is dear to the hearts of those who wish to justify the Iraq invasion after the fact. It flies in the face, however, of the reality of the Ba'ahtists in general and Hussein in particular with regard to Islamic religious fanaticism.

Bin Laden sheltered in Afghanistan because of his long ties to the Taliban, dating from before the collapse of the Soviet sponsored regime there. He and the Taliban see eye-to-eye. With the secular Ba-ahtists, that was never true. In fact, any support for the insurgency from outside sources is predicated upon the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle. The Arabs have an old saying: "Me against my brother; my brother and I against our cousin; all of us against you."

0 Replies

Setanta,
Common enemies have frequently united otherwise antithietical allies in the march of history.

I doubt seriously that Louis XVI was an ardent advocate of revolution against monarchs when he chose to ally himself with the American colonies in their revolution against the British. His support for us was merely a means to a greater end - to injure the British.

The evidence suggests Stalin would have been more than happy to continue his alliance with Hitler for several more years.

In the long European struggles with the Ottoman Empire both France and Venice often found it to their advantage to ally themselves with their ostensible Moslem enemies - to spite the Hapsburgs or just to exploit some local advantage.

Such combinations are the rule in history, not the exception. I am surprised at your oversimplification of this point.

0 Replies

No, you are the one indulging in oversimplification. Louis XVI did not ally with the Americans depsite having executed hundreds of them. This is what would have been required for Hussein to have allied with Bin Laden, as he had executed hundreds of Wahabbis. Stalin did not ally himself with England and the United States after a conscientious persecution of their citizens over decades, which would have been the case for Hussein to have supported Persian or Egyptian Shi'ites. You grossly oversimplify here, and it is part and parcel (whether or not it is your intent) of neo-conservative propaganda which was vaguely trotted out before the war, and has been polished up since then in the attempt of a justification, absent the dreaded WoMD.

The only support for terrorism which can reasonably be attributed to Hussein and the Ba'ahtists would be checks he promised to send to the survivors of Palestinian suicide bombers. This was likely chin-music, as i have yet to see any reliable evidence that he actually did so. The dimmer bulbs among the conservatives (among whom i do not include you) take this and run, saying, in effect, this is support for terrorism, they're all alike, therefore he was allied to AQ. Even were one to demonstrate that he actually sent checks to Palestinians, this wouldn't even constitute guilt by association with AQ, an organization definitely based in Wahabbi fundamentalist fanaticism. AQ's active support has always come from the religiously devout and fanatical, none of whom were welcome in Iraq, and who are not now welcome in Syria (the other state with a Ba'aht Arab Socialist based government).

Your attempt at historical analogy here is oversimplification.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

BERLIN President Horst Köhler of Germany on Sunday tapped seething resentment among East Germans and fueled tensions inside the country over the financial costs of reunification after he said it was no longer realistic to expect the Eastern states to have the same living standards as those in the West... ...

Quote:

14.09.2004

A Land of Differences

While the core of German president Horst Köhler's remarks on differences in living and employment standards focused on eastern and western states, figures published on Tuesday show discrepencies across the whole country.

While debate rages over the perceived divide between living standards and employment possibilities in eastern and western Germany, provoked further by recent comments made on the subject by German President Horst Köhler, figures published on Tuesday showed that while differences do exist between the former East and West regions, the same can be said for northern and southern states.

Research undertaken by The German Institute for Economic Research during 2003 has revealed that while eastern states do generate less in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per person than some western states, other areas in the north and south west of the country are also lagging behind the big earners.

While states such as Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg in eastern Germany have a GDP per person of around 17,500 ($21,448), Lower Saxony in the north and Rhineland-Palatinate in the south-west are not so far removed with an average of around 22,900. The majority of eastern, northern and south-western states all fall behind the German average of 25,800 in GDP per person.

Rich southern states better off than north

The city states of Hamburg, with a GDP per person of 44,500, and Bremen, with 35,300, are the exceptions in the northern region and are more in line with the large and affluent southern states of Bavaria (29,900) and Baden-Württemberg (29,400). The rest of the north is as far behind the southern giants as the eastern states are behind the poorest western regions.

The core of Horst Köhler's comments over the weekend regarding differences in eastern and western states was seized upon by opposition parties, seemingly intent on exploiting a real or imagined divide for their own purposes ahead of state elections.

But a closer look at the German president's interview with news magazine Focus published on Sunday shows that Köhler in fact pointed out that the living standards and employment possibilities varied all over Germany, a view supported by the institute's statistics.

Benefit claimants favor Bremen

While the figures confirm that average unemployment in the eastern states is almost ten percent higher than the worst affected western region -- Bremen with 16.3 percent, 14.3 percent registered -- northern and western states have a higher number of people claiming social benefits, with Berlin the exception in the east.

The statistics again show that unemployment in the south of Germany is a lot less than in northern states and that Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg are well below the German average of 12.9 percent. The two large southern states have the least amount of benefit claimants, with Bavaria recording the lowest figure of 17 per 1,000 citizens compared to Bremen's 92 per 1,000, the largest in the country.

Economists line up behind Köhler

Reactions to Köhler's remarks continue to surface with many economic experts and commentators agreeing with their president.

"Köhler is perfectly right in what he says," said Klaus von Dohnanyi, head of a special government-appointed commission on East Germany. "Of course there will be regional differences. You have them in other countries," the former senior Social Democratic politician told the Associated Press. "But that does not mean Köhler is accepting the high levels of unemployment in Eastern Germany."

Michael Rogowski, president of the Federation of German Industry, told the Berliner Zeitung newspaper that he "fully and completely" agreed with Köhler's comments. Rogowski added that it is not possible to guarantee identical standards of living for all people and that it is only possible to create identical conditions from which standards of living can develop.

Politicians warn of negative effects

However, senior politicians continue to view the president's remarks with concern. Renate Künast, the agriculture and consumer affairs Minister, said: "It's not a president's job to say: 'take care of your problems on your own.'"

"The message that comes across to East Germans is: be satisfied, there won't be any more equality," Reinhard Bütikofer, the head of the Greens party, told the Berliner Zeitung.

Greens lawmaker Fritz Kuhn accused Köhler of unwittingly helping the ex-communist PDS party, which has been prominent in championing the perceived east-west divide ahead of state elections, saying they draw strength "from a fundamental sense of many east Germans that they are second-class."

Source: dw-world

0 Replies

However, your analogy attempts to demonstrate that such an alliance was not only probable, but likely, which it would need to do to support your original, rather vaguely menacing statement about Hussein: "The prospect of Saddam, with sanctions lifted and lots of oil revenues at his disposal, associating himself with Islamist groups to enact his revenge involved a good deal of risk."

To which i say, "Nonsense!" To begin with, referring to military hostilities when i have alluded to the systematic political suppression, torture and murder of members of selected fanatical religious groups is apples to oranges. In fact, in the 18th century, no one held against anyone else for "changing coats" in the middle of a conflict. At the time that the French and Indian War was raging, Frederick in fighting the Seven Years War in Europe was obliged to rely increasingly on infantry recruited from among the prisoners of war.

This is why i state that you have attempted to construct an historical analogy. You have failed. Values with regard to loyalties are not analogous. The attitudes of professional military combatants to erstwhile opponents are not analogous to the antipathies of political and religious fanatics.

But finally, your original statement fails on the most fundamental level, even were i inclined to accept the attempt at historical analogy--which i am not. And that is the common cause. Absent the invasion of Iraq by the Idiot in Chief and his Forty Theives, there was simply no available unifying factor to make bedfellows of Ba'atists and Wahabbis and Shi'ites. This entire scenario is simply an extension of the neo-conservative propaganda about Hussein trotted out to attempt to justify the invasion--nothing less, and never anything more.

0 Replies

Oh, I get it. Humanity has changed since the 18th century. While folks could once easily switch sides in pursuit of benefit to themselves, this is no longer the case. Must be a consequence of global warming.

0 Replies

Thomas, I would love to hear your take on this ... the issue seems to have gotten a little snowed over since the other discussion of interest (the US/EU one) took off again ...

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:
The difference is that at least within a country, people can move from backward regions to advanced regions. This drives up wages in the regions people leave, drives down wages in the regions people come to, and thus provides an automatic mechanism for adjustment. [..] In other words, there's a workable alternative to the 'progressive income tax' on the state level, but there is none on the individual level.

I think the development funds are intended exactly to prevent people from facing such hopelessness at home that the only solution that's left to them is to migrate away. In the US, they care less - so many people move all over the place all the time. But I don't know about you; I'm a bit of a conservative here. I like it when people can stay where they feel they belong. Where they can stay home, make their homes, each region its own specificity. Tradition - and at least some humane refuge from globalisation's empathiless pushing and pulling at people.

But since I suspect you'll scoff a little at that argument, my next point is that the regional development programmes are also driven by the same motivation that's behind at least part of the aid to developing countries: help them there so they don't need to flee here - don't need to flee from poverty anymore. Partly well-understood self-interest, partly also facing up to the fact that in the end, migration can only be a makeshift solution - they can't all move, whether from Halle to Hamburg or Delhi to Delaware - in the end things have got to be getting better there.

Now you claim that things will get better there because of people migrating away - that the out-migration "drives up wages in the regions people leave". But practice suggests the opposite.

It's not those with the lowest income who leave. Its the young people, especially the highly educated young - those who actually have a shot at making it in Hamburg or Delaware. Brain drain. Those who are left behind are foremost the old, who don't want to move anymore, and the people who lack the qualifications or confidence to (think they're gonna) make it in the West. The resulting economically disadvantageous slant of the remaining population (lacking infusion from new generations, lack of highly educated innovators and entrepeneurs) actually worsens the economic outlook of the place.

It can in fact become a vicious circle. Look at how Ireland and Scotland saw generation after generation leave ("When you go / will you send back / a letter from America" ;-) ) - leaving their home country forever backward. Ireland broke that spell only the last ten years, by creating more opportunities at home. Opportunities boosted, I might add, by the European regional development funds.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Oh, I get it. Humanity has changed since the 18th century. While folks could once easily switch sides in pursuit of benefit to themselves, this is no longer the case. Must be a consequence of global warming.

A pathetic attempt at sarcasm.

You have attempted to construct an historical analogy by comparing the attitudes and opinions of 18th century European military professionals to the attitudes and opinions of religiously and politically motivated Muslims in late 20th century/early 21st century southwest Asia--not analogous.

You have attempted to compare the espionage activities of the Brits in early Soviet Russia (while failing to mention the espionage activities of Zinoviev's "economic" mission to England) to the oppression, torture and murder of Wahabbis in Iraq by the Ba'atists--not analogous.

But the most ludicrous hilarity--you have attempted to construct an analogy using Louis XVI, Josef Dugashvilli, Saddam Hussein, and, by implication, Osama Bin Laden. Louis de Bourbon was an overweight, overfed, overpampered, oversheltered, glaring example of all that is wrong with the concept of governance by hereditary monarchy. On his best day, he had not an ounce of the political saavy that Hussein displays while sleeping, nor the devotion to a cause which Bin Laden embodies. As for Stalin, he was as far above, in personal abilities, Hussein and Bin Laden as they are in comparison to Louis XVI.

You have never addressed the core question of what it is that Ba'atists--secular adherents to tribally-dominated totalitarianism devoted to personal self-aggrandizement--could possibly have in common with fundamentalist fanatical terrorists. Hussein was a successful gutter politician, and a successful tribal bully of the highest order. Self preservation was his strong suit. Absent the threat of imminent destruction, it is simply absurd to contend that he ever considered allying himself to those whom he despised and hunted to their destruction whenever they were foolish enough to enter Iraq.

Your statement is beggared at the outset, as well, by the remark about sanctions being lifted. The sanctions never hit Hussein in the wallet, for however many Iraqis faced starvation. That whole statement, attempting to state as an ordinary given fact, that Hussein was a proximate threat to the world because of links to terrorism is a load of horsie poop--and typical conservative propagandizing which ought to have been beneath your dignity for someone so well informed about history and current events. I suspect, however, that i have misjudged you.

0 Replies

Ol Set! Son, take it easy on the poor guy. All that vitriol is bad for you. See? It's already stunted your growth. Unless you are really the official left-wing attack dog...or this poor guy is your poorer pupil, lighten up. Remember? Only fools argue facts. This is a forum Son. Not your dungeon.

0 Replies

Setanta,

A well-known and repeatedly tested strategic principle of warfare is that one must consider all that the enemy can do, and not just what you expect him to do. To this I added the following proposition;

Quote:

Common enemies have frequently united otherwise antithetical allies in the march of history.

I offered a few illustrative examples of this proposition (history offers very many more). You followed with a torrent of objections, and have, in my view, lost sight of the basic idea before us in an odd, vitriolic outpouring of often-irrelevant detail. An interesting demonstration of virtuosity on your part, but I'm unable to see where you are going with it.

I have already made the point that the basic foe is not terrorism itself - this is but a technique in warfare - but rather a reactionary, mostly Islamist, awakening in the Moslem world. I have noted that the causes of this discontent range from a reaction to injustices and defeats inflicted on them over the last several centuries; some lingering after effects of the destruction of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago; the failures of most contemporary governments in the Moslem world; and a pervasive sense that the modern world is passing them by among the people. I suggested that the possibility of collusion, either ongoing or to come, among disparate elements in that world, as we confront the reaction and attempt to redirect their political evolution was and is a valid consideration in the formulation of our strategy.

You countered with an irrelevant comparison of the characters of Louis XVI and Saddam Hussein and other arcane details, including Stalin's given name. So what? I am not attempting to prove there was significant collusion between Saddam and any of the several terrorist organizations that have sprung up in the Moslem world. Rather to suggest that this was a possibility of sufficient import to warrant serious consideration in our strategy. It is simply a fact that this became one of several factors motivating our intervention in Iraq.

Perhaps you believe that you have proven that there was not and never would have been any collusion between Saddam and any of the several Islamist movements (or nationalist or gangster movements masquerading as Islamist) that infect the Moslem world. I do not believe that you have even approached such a proof, and most certainly would not have bet my fate on such a proposition. Inference, based on supposition does not constitute knowledge.

0 Replies

GB1: Disabuse yourself of the notion that one may reason together with anarchists...the molotov cocktails spill, everything burns...get the picture?

0 Replies

Chuckster, if you ever feel like actually contributing something to this forum, please know that you will be most welcome to do so ...

0 Replies

Quote:

Absent the invasion of Iraq by the Idiot in Chief and his Forty Theives, there was simply no available unifying factor to make bedfellows of Ba'atists and Wahabbis and Shi'ites. This entire scenario is simply an extension of the neo-conservative propaganda about Hussein trotted out to attempt to justify the invasion--nothing less, and never anything more.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I think the development funds are intended exactly to prevent people from facing such hopelessness at home that the only solution that's left to them is to migrate away. In the US, they care less - so many people move all over the place all the time. But I don't know about you; I'm a bit of a conservative here.

I've moved to different cities seven times in 35 years, and this may be why I'm not conservative at all in this regard. I view such moves as an annoyance, but not as something one would only do if one is hopeless. If somebody can't be bothered to deal with this annoyance in pursuit of a better job, that means he's not in a bad situation at home because of where he lives. He may be poor for other reasons, and we can talk about welfare payments and retraining programs for poor people wherever they live. But it still doesn't make any sense to me to subsidize people for living in a poor area.

nimh wrote:

Now you claim that things will get better there because of people migrating away - that the out-migration "drives up wages in the regions people leave". But practice suggests the opposite.

How, in your opinion, does practice suggest the opposite? I don't have good statistics about the income distribution among modern emigrants from poor countries. In fact, I haven't really searched for them. But I do have a peer-reviewed source on the first wave of globalization that happened in the late 19th century. (O'Rouke and Williamson: Globalization and History, MIT Press 1999). As best I remember from reading it, wages did increase in response to emigration in all 'third world countries' of the time for which we have reasonably reliable data. I distinctly remember that Ireland was one of them. (I think the others were Poland and Southern Italy.) But if you have sources on how "practice suggests the opposite", I'm listening.

nimh wrote:

It's not those with the lowest income who leave. Its the young people, especially the highly educated young - those who actually have a shot at making it in Hamburg or Delaware. Brain drain.

This may be true as a matter of rich-country immigration policies, which tend to court rich, educated immigrants and try to repel the poor ones. But as a matter of poor-country preferences, your claim is inconsistent with what I see when I look around. It isn't the Polish elite that comes and picks strawberries in German fields every summer. It isn't the Maroccan elite that harvests the grapes for Spanish wine. It isn't the Mexican elite that sits Texan babies and wipes Californian toilets. It isn't the Lithuanian elite that prostitutes itself on the streets of Munich.

In other words, I think the premise of your theory is mistaken.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Setanta,

A well-known and repeatedly tested strategic principle of warfare is that one must consider all that the enemy can do, and not just what you expect him to do. To this I added the following proposition;

Quote:
Common enemies have frequently united otherwise antithetical allies in the march of history.

You wrote that: It is also worth noting that the series of al Qaeda attacks on the USA, which began at least in 1993 with the first attack on the WTC, also involved a pronounced international dimension - including Saudis, Yemenis, Moroccans and others. We knew the network had links throughout the Islamic world. Even then it wasn't just Afghanistan.--and then followed with your casual statement to suggest that Hussein could have been considered a potential supporter of such terrorism. You did so without any referential statement of the reason Hussein would have taken such a course.

Quote:

I offered a few illustrative examples of this proposition (history offers very many more). You followed with a torrent of objections, and have, in my view, lost sight of the basic idea before us in an odd, vitriolic outpouring of often-irrelevant detail. An interesting demonstration of virtuosity on your part, but I'm unable to see where you are going with it.

Your "illustrative examples" were not analogous. There was no torrent of objections, that is a example of a florid locution which attempts to blur the meaning of exactly what did occur--a demonstration that your attempt at analogy failed, because the comparisons were not analogous. There was nothing either odd, and certainly nothing vitriolic, in providing a description of exactly why it is that your attempt at analogy failed. Where i went with it (a proper form of the noun, given that i did in fact arrive) was to demonstrate the falsity of your attempted analogy.

Quote:

I have already made the point that the basic foe is not terrorism itself - this is but a technique in warfare - but rather a reactionary, mostly Islamist, awakening in the Moslem world. I have noted that the causes of this discontent range from a reaction to injustices and defeats inflicted on them over the last several centuries; some lingering after effects of the destruction of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago; the failures of most contemporary governments in the Moslem world; and a pervasive sense that the modern world is passing them by among the people. I suggested that the possibility of collusion, either ongoing or to come, among disparate elements in that world, as we confront the reaction and attempt to redirect their political evolution was and is a valid consideration in the formulation of our strategy.

This is right out of the PNAC play book for convincing the average boob on the street that we are in a holy war with Islam. I do not consider the American people to be boobs. Saddly, they are sufficiently given to a parochial view (understandable in view of the large size of their nation and economy) that such simple-minded rhetoric is often successful. Certainly people cherish grudges which reach back centuries--for example, the Serbian resentment against the Turk over a definitive defeat occuring more than six centuries ago. Such propogandizing is, however, the handiwork of those who wish to create and exploit fanaticism. Just as most Serbs in the 1990's cannot be considered guilty or even complicit in the murders and crimes of Milosevich, Karadzic and the others accused of war crimes, the majority of the population of the Muslim world does not deserve to be tarred with the brush of fanaticism. The antidote to the fanaticism of the Muslim world lies in the amelioration of their flawed systems of governance. No part of this administrations policy has addressed this. The PNAC imperative to establish military bases in southwest Asia has no reference to such a solution. Your suggestion about collusion is meaningless if it is predicated upon a notion that all Muslims are alike the potential perpetrators or tools of reactionary religious fanaticism. In particular, my response has been to point out that in the case of Hussein prior to the Iraq invasion, there was not only no reason to assume that he was in league with AQ and other religiously-motivated fanatics, but that there was good reason to believe that he was not involved with them. Therefore, my purpose was to demonstrate why it is that this is a flawed thesis.

Quote:

You countered with an irrelevant comparison of the characters of Louis XVI and Saddam Hussein and other arcane details, including Stalin's given name. So what? I am not attempting to prove there was significant collusion between Saddam and any of the several terrorist organizations that have sprung up in the Moslem world. Rather to suggest that this was a possibility of sufficient import to warrant serious consideration in our strategy. It is simply a fact that this became one of several factors motivating our intervention in Iraq.

You provided the irrelevant comparison of Louis XVI and Stalin to Hussein and by inference to Bin Laden--i just shot it down for the ludicrous nature of such a facile attempt to create an historical analogy. Your bald suggestion that such a possibility existed does not make it true that such a possiblity existed. Absolutely no one contended as much until the Shrub and Company began casting about for means to convince the American public to back their implementation of the agenda of the PNAC--and redirecting American frustration and anger to Iraq could be accomplished if such a link between Hussein and AQ were established in the collective public mind. Unfortunately for our soldiers and the Iraqi people, the effort was largely successful. But as Anatole France observed, that fifty thousand people believe a wrong thing does not alter that the thing is wrong. It is not a simple fact that this became one of our motivating factors in invading Iraq. It was a contentious point, loudly objected to by many before the war, myself included in these fora, and it was shouted down by the gung-ho, ready to go (since they didn't actually have to fight and die themselves) conservative cheerleaders of the administration. I have responded as i have because such a collusion was never a serious possibility. I restate that Hussein had a sufficiently well-developed instinct for self-preservation to never had misstepped in so obvious a fashion as to have given us that causus belli.

Quote:

Perhaps you believe that you have proven that there was not and never would have been any collusion between Saddam and any of the several Islamist movements (or nationalist or gangster movements masquerading as Islamist) that infect the Moslem world. I do not believe that you have even approached such a proof, and most certainly would not have bet my fate on such a proposition. Inference, based on supposition does not constitute knowledge.

It is not inference to state that Hussein tortored and murdered hundreds of Wahabbis. It is not inference to state that Hussein tortured and murdered thousands of Shi'ites. It is not inference to point out that AQ is an organization derived from among Saudi and Yemeni Wahabbis, and supported by those, and by Shi'ites among the Egyptian, Sudanese and Morrocan descendants of the Fatamid Shi'ites. It is not inference to state that prior to this invasion, Bin Laden publicly condemned the secular regime of Hussein. It is not inference to point out that there was never any support among the religiously motivated fanatics of the Muslim world for Hussein or Iraq, until after the United States had invaded that country. It is the most reasonable form of inference to point out that it was that decision which has made the United States so much more hated and distrusted in the Muslim world. It is gross inference to casually suggest that there was a potential threat from Hussein working in concert with those whom he hated, and those who hated him, as though this were a given fact, a known probability--which is nothing other than a false attempt to justify after the fact the implementation of a self-interested agenda of the PNAC. "Inference, based on supposition does not constitute knowledge." is something which you ought to print in large block letters, and paste to the top of your monitor, so that you may consider that contention before posting such tripe again. If you wish to be a shill for the PNAC agenda in southwest Asia, it would be refreshing, at least, so see you admit as much honestly.

0 Replies

Quote:

I restate that Hussein had a sufficiently well-developed instinct for self-preservation to never had misstepped in so obvious a fashion as to have given us that causus belli.

Hence also (when he realised invasion was coming) his willingness to allow inspectors back in, the actual destruction of some longer range missiles, his truthful insistance that there were no illegal wmd in Iraq, etc.

How amazing that we have allowed a man like Saddam to win and hold the moral high ground.

0 Replies

Disgustin' display, ain't it?

0 Replies

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know