George Bush is Right

Tom Kunich

"Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:409c49a2$0$35063$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:BEOmc.11225$Hs1.7897@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> > news:2fvr8nF354vkU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > The point is that in Howard's opinion Saddam knew - even before the
war
> > > began - he would be defeated anyway.
> >
> > EVERYONE knew that Saddam would be defeated. What sort of intellectual
> reach
> > was that? Saddam had but one possible path to his own survival. He had
to
> > bluster and try to fake his way out of an invasion by frightening the
> > world's cowardly Liberals.
>
> Gee Tom, I would have worded that a little differently. I you really
trying
> to help people see what has happened or do you simply like to get in to
> fights with anyone that hates conservatives (or your personally)?

Words, shmurds. Worded differently is still means the same. Any number of
Liberals believe that there is only one way to treat vicious dictators -
give in. If this isn't the case explain why not a single peep came from the
left side of the aisle when Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos committed some of the
greatest attrocities against their own populations of the late 20th century?

> He needed nothing more than what you recently saw
> > in Spain, utter and complete surrender to the terrorists.
>
> He could have gotten by with less than that even. All he needed was a
> stalemate before the hostilities started and then a way forward. It worked
> for 10 years. Saddam just did not understand how the WTC attacks changed
the
> world. Not that he was responsible for the attacks, but he was competing
in
> the same arena and it just got too complicated for him to understand how
far
> how he could go. Elsewhere Howard states that Saddam could not have
avoided
> war once Bush went in to his post 9/11 posture. I disagree only in that I
> think he could have stepped down to avoid war for his country.

I believe that Saddam could have avoided war without stepping down merely by
restructuring his government exactly as Libya is presently doing. Saddam
COULD have won but his mind only worked in one manner - violence.

> > > But if that was the case, why didn't he
> > > blow up his oil wells or at least booby-trap them the very moment the
> > > invading armies were crossing the border to make it the Americans as
> > > much as possible?
> >
> > You just don't understand do you?
>
> Nor do you.

Quite to the contrary, Saddam DID issue orders to blow all the oil wells.
These orders were only carried out on a VERY small percentage of wells not
because they didn't have time, but because the orders generally didn't go
below the general staff. Saddam's generals knew which side their bread was
about to be buttered.

> >As soon as one American foot crossed the
> > border almost all of the generals admitted defeat. They put only enough
> > energy into the defence of Iraq to be able to be recruited into a new
> > Iraqi Army without being rejected as cowards.
>
> LOL.

What do you want to bet that within 1 year most of the general staff of the
Iraqi Army will be leftovers from Saddam?

Howard Kveck

In article <409cf968$0$35074$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
"Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If Saddam stepped aside to allow someone else in power you think Iraq would
> have been attacked? I don't.

The reason I do think that was the case was that Bush had personalized
the antagonism with Saddam ("He tried to kill my dad.") I think that the
Iraqis saw that and figured that even if they offered to replace Saddam,
there was no chance that they would have been able to come up with a leader
that was "acceptable" to the US.

> Besides, don't assume that everything offered to Iraq was also made public.

There may have been, but I can't really include things that I am not
aware of in my assessment of the situation. That would just be supposition.

> It would have been really easy to make Bush look a lot worse than he is now
> if they had just worked harder on the issues cited.

It's completely true that the Iraqis played cat-and-mouse for a long
time, but there was a point where they started to really cooperate. At one
point, for example, they even offered to let the US put CIA people on the
teams that were doing the weapons inspection.

Hey, I know you were hurt for a long time, Chris - have you been able to
get out on the bike yet? Just wondering...

--
tanx,
Howard

"Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"


remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung

TritonRider wrote:
>> From: "Robert Chung" me2@privacy.net
>
>> 1986? Huge change?
>
> I've been watching the demographics change since I first enlisted in
> '86. At that point I guess it was 85% Republican, now I'd guess that
> number may be below 50%. In my mind that's a huge shift from a group
> that Bush is counting on, and I think they are counting on the 85% not
> what it really is today. Add to that the extended and more frequent
> deployments, the much higher workload for those who don't deploy, and
> the incompetence displayed by this particular group in the Pentagon.
> Where military people were willing to hold their noses and vote
> Republican anyway before, I don't see it happening this time,
> especially against Kerry. Bill C

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7-2004May8.html

Robert Chung

Robert Chung wrote:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7-2004May8.html

BTW, there are early reports out this morning that the Defense Department
has decided to ban all "non-essential" e-mail between military personnel
in Iraq and the outside world.

Chris

"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message

> I don't know what Osama expected and neither do you. But I wouldn't
> surprised if he is rather satisfied. The USA captured his enemy Saddam and
> because the reason why so many muslims feel resentment against the USA is
> not because "they hate freedom and democracy", but because they feel
> terribly humiliated, it must have become much easier to recruit new
> terrorists.

Unfortunately this is probably true. Osama may not live long enough to see
what a mistake it was for him to attack on 9-11.


> Benjo Maso

Chris

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ySdnc.12719$Hs1.8731@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:409c49a2$0$35063$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com...
> >
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:BEOmc.11225$Hs1.7897@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> > > news:2fvr8nF354vkU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > The point is that in Howard's opinion Saddam knew - even before the
> war
> > > > began - he would be defeated anyway.
> > >
> > > EVERYONE knew that Saddam would be defeated. What sort of intellectual
> > reach
> > > was that? Saddam had but one possible path to his own survival. He had
> to
> > > bluster and try to fake his way out of an invasion by frightening the
> > > world's cowardly Liberals.
> >
> > Gee Tom, I would have worded that a little differently. I you really
> trying
> > to help people see what has happened or do you simply like to get in to
> > fights with anyone that hates conservatives (or your personally)?
>
> Words, shmurds. Worded differently is still means the same. Any number of
> Liberals believe that there is only one way to treat vicious dictators -
> give in. If this isn't the case explain why not a single peep came from
the
> left side of the aisle when Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos committed some of
the
> greatest attrocities against their own populations of the late 20th
century?

When there is a Democrat in the White House, they organize peace marches
(maybe) and when there is a Republican, they wait until the US response to
protest THAT with the same sort of peace marches. They really do favor
inaction and they think of it as "peace" (for them only? I do not know but
those I speak to seem very simple and nacissistic).


>
> > He needed nothing more than what you recently saw
> > > in Spain, utter and complete surrender to the terrorists.
> >
> > He could have gotten by with less than that even. All he needed was a
> > stalemate before the hostilities started and then a way forward. It
worked
> > for 10 years. Saddam just did not understand how the WTC attacks changed
> the
> > world. Not that he was responsible for the attacks, but he was competing
> in
> > the same arena and it just got too complicated for him to understand how
> far
> > how he could go. Elsewhere Howard states that Saddam could not have
> avoided
> > war once Bush went in to his post 9/11 posture. I disagree only in that
I
> > think he could have stepped down to avoid war for his country.
>
> I believe that Saddam could have avoided war without stepping down merely
by
> restructuring his government exactly as Libya is presently doing. Saddam
> COULD have won but his mind only worked in one manner - violence.
>
> > > > But if that was the case, why didn't he
> > > > blow up his oil wells or at least booby-trap them the very moment
the
> > > > invading armies were crossing the border to make it the Americans as
> > > > much as possible?
> > >
> > > You just don't understand do you?
> >
> > Nor do you.
>
> Quite to the contrary, Saddam DID issue orders to blow all the oil wells.
> These orders were only carried out on a VERY small percentage of wells not
> because they didn't have time, but because the orders generally didn't go
> below the general staff. Saddam's generals knew which side their bread was
> about to be buttered.
>
> > >As soon as one American foot crossed the
> > > border almost all of the generals admitted defeat. They put only
enough
> > > energy into the defence of Iraq to be able to be recruited into a new
> > > Iraqi Army without being rejected as cowards.
> >
> > LOL.
>
> What do you want to bet that within 1 year most of the general staff of
the
> Iraqi Army will be leftovers from Saddam?
>
>

Chris

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-2B35F5.22063608052004@netnews.comcast.net...
> In article <409cf968$0$35074$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
> "Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If Saddam stepped aside to allow someone else in power you think Iraq
would
> > have been attacked? I don't.
>
> The reason I do think that was the case was that Bush had personalized
> the antagonism with Saddam ("He tried to kill my dad.") I think that the
> Iraqis saw that and figured that even if they offered to replace Saddam,
> there was no chance that they would have been able to come up with a
leader
> that was "acceptable" to the US.

OK, I disagree but I see what your point it. They may have felt there was no
way to trust Bush Jr., I suppose...

> > Besides, don't assume that everything offered to Iraq was also made
public.
>
> There may have been, but I can't really include things that I am not
> aware of in my assessment of the situation. That would just be
supposition.

We do know there were plenty of discussions. Sending Powel should have told
them how serious the US was at a diplomatic solution even though in the end
Powel was left hanging a but. That was not good but I do think there was a
clear window of opportunity for Saddam to act to preserve his life and some
of his lyfestyle. I think *that* is the key point, that to Saddam he could
not imagine any option that was worth it to him. He would rather risk death
than walk humbly to a smaller role outside of the limelight and power he
spent his life (and the lives of so many others) seeking. If this is all
within the scope of what you were talking about (perhaps the Bush team made
offers that would seem to be genuine but that they knew he would not accept
so that they could justify war) then you are probably correct. Saddam had
his chance, but he did not have a chance to keep anything he valued
apparently.


>
> > It would have been really easy to make Bush look a lot worse than he is
now
> > if they had just worked harder on the issues cited.
>
> It's completely true that the Iraqis played cat-and-mouse for a long
> time, but there was a point where they started to really cooperate. At one
> point, for example, they even offered to let the US put CIA people on the
> teams that were doing the weapons inspection.
>
> Hey, I know you were hurt for a long time, Chris - have you been able
to
> get out on the bike yet? Just wondering...

Yeah, things are going really fantastic. I am still have to be cautious this
year, but I was so strict with my winter training that my power and form are
the best ever. It was kind of shocking but cool to find out. I tried to get
back last year but training hard seemed to make my spine a lot more fragile
and I would hurt myself by stepping on a staircase not quite right or
reaching over to pick something up. That would have me in bed for a week or
more. Once I noticed that it seemed to happen towards the latter end of a
macro cycle I realized that intense training was not good for it. I was told
to keep my weight down as much as possible and that is how I justified
continuing the cycling as much as I always had, and I now see that I was a
bit too optimistic. This year I am not doing any training at all behond my
program and all I have are the normal (for the injury) residual spasms that
are easily controlled with meds (post ride though, you can't take this stuff
and do much else). I think I also benefitted from really scrutinizing my
blood from an optimal health standpoint rather than "race legal". I am
working with a MD that uses every specialty available than can posssibly
help and this guy is brilliant. Thanks for asking Howard.

>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> "Moby Dick was a work of art, What the hell happened?"
>
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Chris

"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:c7bghu$228j3$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4099361a$0$35090$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com...
> >
> > "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> > news:c7asuk$1nuhb$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:SFWlc.7309$Hs1.1864@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > (snip)
> > > > 3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During
> this
> > > time
> > > > it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that
> should
> > > they
> > > > be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death
> > > penalty
> > > > under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
> > > > services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the
> areas
> > > in
> > > > which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the
> > > Syrian
> > > > border.
> > >
> > >
> > > Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion
will
> > > bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another
> country?
> > > Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have
been
> > > that stupid.
> >
> > He always tried to avoid direct confrontation with US forces while
> bluffing
> > to gain as much as possible. This is true not only with WMDs but with
> almost
> > all of his best weapons, jet fighters, etc. Considering his history, it
> > would be expected that he would retreat at the last moment in the face
of
> a
> > US invasion and preserving his weapons may have been more important to
him
> > then hiding them to avoid "prosecution" but whatever the case, he had
> plenty
> > of motive to do this. It does make sense even if the explanations from
> some
> > do not.
>
>
> You're forgetting that there is no proof whatsoever that he preserved his
> WMD's.

No, I am not. Bush used it as a reason and it was a mistake to imply he
could *prove* it.

The UN inspectors said he didn't. The Americans spent almost a year
> and a few hundred million dollars to prove that they were wrong, but in
> vain.

Yep. Dumb dumb dumb.

And as long as it hasn't been proven that Saddam still had his WMD's
> any hyposthesis why he could have had hidden them is IMO rather useless.
>
> Benjo Maso

Wait a minute. I expect reasonable people to concede that there is more than
one standard for proof. Why is it that people seem to act as if the
"reasonable doubt" standard is the only appropriate standard of proof for
anything and everything? There was sufficient evidence for the attack, but
not to prove anyone guilty in a criminal court. There is a difference. Hell,
use the civil standard for proof (preponderance of evidence) and I think
that is all anyone needs to put the whole conversation away. The Bush team
has been politically a bit stupid and over confidant. Show me where proof
"beyond a reasonable doubt" is required? Yes, there is a reasonable doubt
that he had them when the US attacked. No, there is no proof "beyond a
reasonable doubt".

Can we move on?

Chris

"TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040506071453.10762.00000602@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >From: Stewart Fleming stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz
>
> >On related topic, someone please tell me that Matt Drudge is being
> >satirical here:
> ><http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm>
>
> I would guess so but I don't read Drudge. He's in the same category for
me as
> Michael Moore and Jayson Blair. When I want to be amused by fake news
theres
> only the incomparable "Weekly World News" available at supermarket
checkout
> stands everywhere.

Hah, I'll take "The Daily Show" for my fake news. Nothing but the finest for
me.

> http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
> Try it when they come back.
> Bill C

Tom Kunich

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-2B35F5.22063608052004@netnews.comcast.net...
>
> The reason I do think that was the case was that Bush had personalized
> the antagonism with Saddam ("He tried to kill my dad.")

It must give you great pleasure to be omniscient. Personally I think that
Bush considered the problem terrorism and not Saddam. Removing Saddam would
have put immediate and immense pressure on terrorism in EVERY Arab country.
And, gee, that's exactly what happened. Even with the examples of Libya's
and North Korea's reactions you still don't get it.

Tell me Howard, what exactly is it that you do for a living? I have this
idea that you're a mechanic or a janitor or something else that requires
infinitely great knowledge of political hacksmanship.

Richard Adams

Chris wrote:

> "TritonRider" <tritonrider@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040506071453.10762.00000602@mb-m01.aol.com...
>
>>>From: Stewart Fleming stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz
>>
>>>On related topic, someone please tell me that Matt Drudge is being
>>>satirical here:
>>><http://www.drudgereport.com/rcmu.htm>
>>
>> I would guess so but I don't read Drudge. He's in the same category for
>
> me as
>
>>Michael Moore and Jayson Blair. When I want to be amused by fake news
>
> theres
>
>>only the incomparable "Weekly World News" available at supermarket
>
> checkout
>
>>stands everywhere.
>
>
> Hah, I'll take "The Daily Show" for my fake news. Nothing but the finest for
> me.

http://members.cruzio.com/~djj/WWC/WWC.html

Richard Adams

Chris wrote:

> "benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
> news:c7bghu$228j3$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>"Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4099361a$0$35090$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com...
>>
>>>"benjo maso" <benjo.maso@chello.nl> wrote in message
>>>news:c7asuk$1nuhb$1@ID-75468.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>>>"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:SFWlc.7309$Hs1.1864@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>>3d) There was a threat of invasion that lasted many months. During
>>
>>this
>>
>>>>time
>>>>
>>>>>it was made plain to the staff of Saddam Hussein's military that
>>
>>should
>>
>>>>they
>>>>
>>>>>be found in possession of WMD they were all be liable for the death
>>>>
>>>>penalty
>>>>
>>>>>under UN regulations. More months passed. CIA and other intelligence
>>>>>services noted a very large number of heavy trucks moving from the
>>
>>areas
>>
>>>>in
>>>>
>>>>>which it was believed that WMD were being produced or stored and the
>>>>
>>>>Syrian
>>>>
>>>>>border.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Do you really think that a nation threatened by a immenent invasion
>
> will
>
>>>>bury it most deadly weapons in the sand or export them to another
>>
>>country?
>>
>>>>Sadam was undoubtedly a lousy strategist, but even he couldn't have
>
> been
>
>>>>that stupid.
>>>
>>>He always tried to avoid direct confrontation with US forces while
>>
>>bluffing
>>
>>>to gain as much as possible. This is true not only with WMDs but with
>>
>>almost
>>
>>>all of his best weapons, jet fighters, etc. Considering his history, it
>>>would be expected that he would retreat at the last moment in the face
>
> of
>
>>a
>>
>>>US invasion and preserving his weapons may have been more important to
>
> him
>
>>>then hiding them to avoid "prosecution" but whatever the case, he had
>>
>>plenty
>>
>>>of motive to do this. It does make sense even if the explanations from
>>
>>some
>>
>>>do not.
>>
>>
>>You're forgetting that there is no proof whatsoever that he preserved his
>>WMD's.
>
>
> No, I am not. Bush used it as a reason and it was a mistake to imply he
> could *prove* it.
>
> The UN inspectors said he didn't. The Americans spent almost a year
>
>>and a few hundred million dollars to prove that they were wrong, but in
>>vain.
>
>
> Yep. Dumb dumb dumb.
>
> And as long as it hasn't been proven that Saddam still had his WMD's
>
>>any hyposthesis why he could have had hidden them is IMO rather useless.
>>
>>Benjo Maso
>
>
> Wait a minute. I expect reasonable people to concede that there is more than
> one standard for proof. Why is it that people seem to act as if the
> "reasonable doubt" standard is the only appropriate standard of proof for
> anything and everything? There was sufficient evidence for the attack, but
> not to prove anyone guilty in a criminal court. There is a difference. Hell,
> use the civil standard for proof (preponderance of evidence) and I think
> that is all anyone needs to put the whole conversation away. The Bush team
> has been politically a bit stupid and over confidant. Show me where proof
> "beyond a reasonable doubt" is required? Yes, there is a reasonable doubt
> that he had them when the US attacked. No, there is no proof "beyond a
> reasonable doubt".
>
> Can we move on?

Yeah, fer chrissake, wading into the tarpits of politics on rbr between
races is one thing, but the damn Giro has started. Let's drop this
shit, ok?

Steven Bornfeld

Tom Kunich wrote:

I want to thank all the RBR participants in the current political
threads. Though I haven't had time to wade through the high volume of
posts, I've been mightily impressed with the knowledge, thought and
nuance that had gone into the arguments. (Excepted are the occasional
ad hominems, such as Tom's asking about Howard's field of expertise--as
if that matters). I found myself wondering how some of you have time to
ride and work, after seeing the volume of writing.
There is one thing that does bother me. It had always bothered me to
think of how the Nazis had come to power in 1933 in a country of great
learning, high educational standards and cultural heritage. Allowing
for the inevitable lunatics and racists, I always rationalized that
post-WWI economic collapse, lingering bitterness and bungling by the
League of Nations had created a brief window of opportunity for Hitler
to demogogue his way into a damaged national psyche.
But since so much information is available to anyone with a will to
find it, I find it deeply depressing that even well-informed people can
look at the same information and still come to diametrically opposed
views. I don't doubt the sincerity of those who think the evidence
supports our government's actions in Iraq. Frankly, it scares me to death.

Steve

Steven Bornfeld

Steven Bornfeld wrote:

Sorry for the incorrect snippage. I think it's clear that I said the
below, not Tom.
I don't really think I needed to tell anyone who's read this far, but
I'm sorry for the mistake nevertheless. ;-)

Steve
>
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:

(snip)

>
> I want to thank all the RBR participants in the current political
> threads. Though I haven't had time to wade through the high volume of
> posts, I've been mightily impressed with the knowledge, thought and
> nuance that had gone into the arguments. (Excepted are the occasional
> ad hominems, such as Tom's asking about Howard's field of expertise--as
> if that matters). I found myself wondering how some of you have time to
> ride and work, after seeing the volume of writing.
> There is one thing that does bother me. It had always bothered me
> to think of how the Nazis had come to power in 1933 in a country of
> great learning, high educational standards and cultural heritage.
> Allowing for the inevitable lunatics and racists, I always rationalized
> that post-WWI economic collapse, lingering bitterness and bungling by
> the League of Nations had created a brief window of opportunity for
> Hitler to demogogue his way into a damaged national psyche.
> But since so much information is available to anyone with a will to
> find it, I find it deeply depressing that even well-informed people can
> look at the same information and still come to diametrically opposed
> views. I don't doubt the sincerity of those who think the evidence
> supports our government's actions in Iraq. Frankly, it scares me to death.
>
> Steve
>