defrancoization

  • Thread starter Callistus Valer
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Hussein isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. He is on the Al Qaeda hit
list,
> just like every single other regime in the region.

No he's not. In UBL's last audio tape he held fast to the middle east doctrine of "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend" by labeling Saddam an infidel but calling for his charges to work with Saddam
and against the US.

>
> The only government which met Al Qaeda's standard was The Taliban.

And UAE and Yemen, albeit to a lesser extent.

> Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to rid the region of all the current regimes
and
> make the Middle East into one big pan-Islamist state.

Finally, an accurate assessment, although UBL has the ability to recognize that sometimes one is
best served by using tactics that appear to firmly held principles in order to accomplish long term
goals. Thus the call to work with Hussein.

> He isn't a threat to the United States.

Pure sophistry. Yes, his missiles can only hit his neighbors but nations no longer need ICBMs to
deliver payload across an ocean. Were it still so, then you would be correct. It's not. If Iraq can
smuggle oil out by the tankerfull, which the world knows he has been doing for years, then he can
smuggle a crate of something virulent.

>
> All of you dumbasses who make Saddam a threat to the United States make me laugh. He (even with
> our help) lost a war to Iran for God's Sake.

The US did not ally with Saddam to defeat Iraq. The US aided Saddam to achieve a stalemate. There
was no side to back for victory. The US recognized that if either side won it would be bad. A
stalemate was the strategic aim. And it was achieved.
 
Danny,

> I think it's hilarious when people use childish emotional expressions like "******" to describe
> their own little frustrations.
Actually Danny, I just thought it was a funny website. I'm not trying to take out my frustrations so
stop trying to belittle me.

> Show us the data that describes where the majority of Americans are "****** off with him".

Why? Please re-read my post. I never said anything about "the majority of American people" being
****** off with Bush. I just said that "people" were. Not necessarilly Americans. My post was meant
to be tongue in cheek, no need to take it so seriously. As for this whole thread - if you don't like
it then don't read it. Personally I think it's achieved more than many threads in this newsgroup
which go on for dozens of messages about the size of Kunich's asshole or some such topic.

Rob
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> He isn't a threat to the United States.
>
> Pure sophistry. Yes, his missiles can only hit his neighbors but nations
no
> longer need ICBMs to deliver payload across an ocean. Were it still so, then you would be correct.
> It's not. If Iraq can smuggle oil out by the tankerfull, which the world knows he has been doing
> for years, then he can smuggle a crate of something virulent.

Of course he can do that. As can Pakistan or N. Korea or Russia or China.

He wouldn't though. As I've said before, Saddam wants more personal power. Attacking the US will get
him killed, which is incompatible with acquiring more personal power.
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Hussein isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. He is on the Al Qaeda hit
> list,
> > just like every single other regime in the region.
>
> No he's not. In UBL's last audio tape he held fast to the middle east doctrine of "the enemy of my
> enemy is my friend" by labeling Saddam an infidel but calling for his charges to work with Saddam
> and against the
US.

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" got us to back Osama bin Laden vs. The Soviet Union in
Afghanistan.

Saddam isn't any more Al Qaeda than we are. His regime is anathema to those who desire the
Islamist State.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> He wouldn't though. As I've said before, Saddam wants more personal power. Attacking the US will
> get him killed, which is incompatible with acquiring more personal power.

1. It is unproved that Saddam would not engage in behavior that most rational people believe
would force a response ending in his death. Most rational people would believe that hatching a
plot to assonate a former President would do just that, yet Saddam did it.

2. Even assuming arguendo the veracity of your claim, for that to be an effective deterrent
requires that Saddam believe that whatever he smuggles out can be traced back to him. In
other words, if he believes that he can smuggle stuff out and it can't be traced back to him,
then he can harm the US without a response. Are you willing to risk that Saddam doesn't hold
such beliefs? There's a reasonable probability that such an eventuality could truly occur and
more than a reasonable probability that even if such an eventuality could not occur, he
believes it could.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:M%[email protected]...

> Saddam isn't any more Al Qaeda than we are. His regime is anathema to
those
> who desire the Islamist State.

Nobody said he was, nor is it required he be in order to be a threat. But the degree to which he
is a threat is substantially increased by a willingness and ability for Saddam and Al Qa'eda to
work together.
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:M%[email protected]...
>
> > Saddam isn't any more Al Qaeda than we are. His regime is anathema to
> those
> > who desire the Islamist State.
>
> Nobody said he was, nor is it required he be in order to be a threat. But the degree to which he
> is a threat is substantially increased by a willingness and ability for Saddam and Al Qa'eda to
> work together.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5976697%255E60 1,00.html

THE world is on high terror alert after Osama bin Laden issued a call for suicide attacks and
urban warfare by Iraqis, on a tape the US claims proves a common cause between al-Qa'ida and
Saddam Hussein.

On the 16-minute audiotape broadcast by the Al-Jazeera satellite network, Bin Laden described the
Iraqi leader's regime as socialist infidels, but said it was permissible under Islam to shed the
blood of "anyone who helps America . . . to kill Muslims in Iraq".

<snip><end>

Note the "socialist infidels" depiction.

If we weren't about to be the aggrressor here, Saddam would be a long-term target for al Qaeda, just
as almost every other government in the region (The Holy Land) is.

Clearly, bin Laden would like to use the Iraq conflict to gain more recruits from the Arab World
which is about to feel very stepped upon. Good thing he is currently on the run.
 
Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> wrote:

> ocean-<< here we have Americans wanting to bomb a country for no other reason than boosting a
> presidents popularity .
>
> Throwing stones from a country that isn't on the world stage is pretty easy.

Except we have already sent our military to the Gulf - for no apparent reason I might add.

>
> << Notice that war mongering in other countries *reduces* the governments popularity. It is as if
> America is on another planet.
>
> Warmongering by Australia during WWll did nothing to protect Australia..it took the US to
> protect her.
>
> Only the US has been attacked, only the US can protect herself, and it's going to do that,
> regardless of some whining by countries like CA, AU, GR, RU or france.

?? When did Iraq attack America anyways?
 
BR <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Only the US has been attacked, only the US can protect herself, and it's
> going
> > to do that, regardless of some whining by countries like CA, AU, GR, RU or france.
> >
>
> The only thing that need be required for a country to act is to feel threatened. No nation need
> subject its beliefs about a threat to the judgment of the "world community." Would it be a better
> world if "nations were so required? Maybe, but only if the "world community" had a history of
> being right more than it was wrong about the judgment of such things. That is simply not so.

So, when has America been right in the past 50 years of Government overthrowing & misc military
adventures? When has America been wronged by the UN? (PLS do better than wierd Idaho UN conspiracy
theories, thanks.)
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Hussein isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. He is on the Al Qaeda hit
> list,
> > just like every single other regime in the region.
>
> No he's not. In UBL's last audio tape he held fast to the middle east doctrine of "the enemy of my
> enemy is my friend" by labeling Saddam an infidel but calling for his charges to work with Saddam
> and against the
US.
>
No he didn't. He called on the Iraqi people to work with their Islamic brothers and sisters, not
with Saddam. Bin Laden and Hussein are _not_ friends. If they were, Iraq would have supplied Bin
Laden with chemical and biological weapons long ago. If they had any.
 
"Rob Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Danny,
>
> > I think it's hilarious when people use childish emotional expressions
like
> > "******" to describe their own little frustrations.
> Actually Danny, I just thought it was a funny website. I'm not trying to take out my frustrations
> so stop trying to belittle me.
>
> > Show us the data that describes where the majority of Americans are "****** off with him".
>
> Why? Please re-read my post. I never said anything about "the majority of American people" being
> ****** off with Bush. I just said that "people"
were.
> Not necessarilly Americans. My post was meant to be tongue in cheek, no
need
> to take it so seriously. As for this whole thread - if you don't like it then don't read it.
> Personally I think it's achieved more than many
threads
> in this newsgroup which go on for dozens of messages about the size of Kunich's asshole or some
> such topic.
>
> Rob
>
>

Apologies if I misread your intentions. There is VERY little I take seriously in this group. I do
get a little furstrated with all the political "experts"; however. The great thing about the US
is that you can say what you want without fear of persecution. I just don't think this is the
forum for it and trust me I laugh at all the idiotic opinions on both sides; some I agree with
and some I don't..

Danny Callen
 
"Frank Tantillo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> The polls clearly contradict your statement.
>
> Answer this question though - was Clinton justified in his UNILATERAL bombing of Iraq? The Sudan?
> Military action in Bosnia? Somalia?
>
> Why is it that you are against this military action and not the others mentioned above? If you are
> like most democrats in this country - you'd oppose any policy pursued by this administration (even
> though a majority of democratic congressmen and senators voted for using force against
> Iraq)......How would you solve this Hussein issue? The terrorism threat?
>
> Do you have answers to put forth or just insults?
>

1. How do you know I was not just as critical of Clinton's foreign policy?

2. How do you know I'm a Democrat (Actually, you are right ina sense, you wrote "democrat", which I
am, not Democrat, which I'm not)?

3. I think continued presence of weapons inspectors and UN pressure on Iraq will solve the "Hussein
issue," as you call it.

4. The terrorism threat should be solved legally-- by the long, quiet, slow process of finding
perpetrators, and using courts to convict them. Not by bombing innocents and thereby increasing
the likelihood of further terorist attacks on our country. Even the head of homeland security,
the FBI and the CIA beleive that bombing civilians in Iraq will increase the risk of terrorism
against the US. By advocating for this senseless war, you are in effect pursueing a policy that
will decrease our national security. Is that your intent?

--Keven.
 
"Keven Ruf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 3. I think continued presence of weapons inspectors and UN pressure on Iraq will solve the
> "Hussein issue," as you call it.

I agree. After all, that's precisely the course pursued during the 90's with Iraq and it worked
perfectly. Oh wait...

> 4. The terrorism threat should be solved legally-- by the long, quiet, slow process of finding
> perpetrators, and using courts to convict them.

I agree. This also worked during the 90's with Al-Qaeda. We convicted those guys involved in the
1993 WTC bombing and that assured that the WTC would thereafter be safe from Al-Qaeda. Oh wait...

There's that old adage that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Ignorance
of history that occurred centuries ago is perhaps excusable. Not everyone is a student of history
and therefore not capable of learning from the history that's unknown, but here we're talking about
things that occurred in the last decade. You needn't be a student of history to know and have
learned from these events. You need only have had a pulse, a vague recognition of current events,
and a modicum ability to reason.
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I am speaking of doing a cost/benefit analysis from Saddam's point of
> view.
> >
> > I posted some of the disadvantages (costs) of him becoming a terrorist.
> >
> > What benefit would he gain? (from his point of view) that would outweigh
> the cost?
>
>
> To do such a thing requires insight as to what probabilities Saddam assigns to potential outcomes
> and would he would value those outcomes. Good luck cracking that code. The CIA tried this before
> he invaded Kuwait and concluded he would not invade because, from Iraq's perspective, the costs
> far outweighed the benefits.

<snip>

Iraq and Kuwait had a dispute about an oilfield which their mutual border straddles. Kuwait was
slant-drilling into the Iraqi side of that field. Diplomacy did not resolve the situation. Saddam
had a meeting with April Glaspie (US Ambassador to Iraq) prior to the

Saddam figured he had the green light and invaded.

Glaspie was sacked immediately after the Gulf War.

You work for RAND, check it out.

K. Gringioni
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Iraq and Kuwait had a dispute about an oilfield which their mutual border
straddles. Kuwait was slant-drilling into the Iraqi side
> of that field. Diplomacy did not resolve the situation.

Which is why the CIA concluded that Saddam may sieze the oil fields but not the entire country, for
the costs of such an action would far outweigh the benefits.

Saddam had a meeting with April Glaspie (US Ambassador to Iraq) prior to the
> invasion and queried what the US position was on the conflict. Glaspie

> Saddam figured he had the green light and invaded.

You state as fact things that are in dispute. There is no consensus on the veracity of the released
transcript of that meeting or the impressions the Ambassador conveyed. Years later, some Iraqi
officials claimed that Ambassador Glaspie merely listened and made general comments, and did not
convey that that the US would not react. This same official claimed that they knew the US would have
a strong reaction.

My point is that it is difficult to assess how another would value potential outcomes or
probabilities of those outcomes occurring. Again, this is illustrated by Saddam's attempted
assassination of Bush 41. Any outside observer would say that the costs of such an action would
outweigh the benefits, which is precisely the rationale on which you base your belief that Saddam
would never aid in an attack of the US.

Oh, and one more point: underlying your claim is that Saddam believes the US would discover Iraqi
fingerprints on such an attack. This is certainly not certain. If Iraq can smuggle oil tankers out
of her country, she can certainly smuggle a crate of a virulent agent, and there is no guarantee
that the US would trace it back to Iraq. Of course, objective realities are irrelevant. What is
relevant is what Saddam believes. Even if it is guaranteed that we could trace any virulent agent
back to its origin, if Saddam believes we couldn't then he may not consider the costs of such an act
to be very high, because he wouldn't believe he'd be caught. Do you know what he believes? Put
another way, we don't know how he thinks. He's done stuff before that we'd say, "no way he does
that, the costs are too high." And he would only be deterred by high costs if _he believes_ we'd
trace back bad stuff to him. Given his history, it is unwise to base the safety of the American
people on such beliefs.
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> My point is that it is difficult to assess how another would value potential outcomes or
> probabilities of those outcomes occurring. Again, this is illustrated by Saddam's attempted
> assassination of Bush 41.

How could Saddam have forseen that Bush's son would be elected President?

>Any outside observer would say that the costs of such an action would outweigh the benefits, which
>is precisely the rationale on which you base your belief that Saddam would never aid in an attack
>of the US.

The evidence is already there.

He used gas against the Kurds and the Iranians.

He did not use gas vs. the Allied Forces in Gulf War 1. Why? because he knew it would get him
killed. Same w/ terrorism vs. Americans.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > My point is that it is difficult to assess how another would value
potential
> > outcomes or probabilities of those outcomes occurring. Again, this is illustrated by Saddam's
> > attempted assassination of Bush 41.
>
>
> How could Saddam have forseen that Bush's son would be elected President?
>

Now, you're being purposefully obtuse. The current situation is not about that. I am tallking about
what happened in the 90's. Any President would retaliate when a state attempts to assassinate a
former President. Clinton
did.

> He did not use gas vs. the Allied Forces in Gulf War 1. Why? because he
knew it would get him killed. Same w/ terrorism vs.
> Americans.
>

We've covered this.

From prior message:

underlying your claim is that Saddam believes the US would discover Iraqi fingerprints on such an
attack. This is certainly not certain. If Iraq can smuggle oil tankers out of her country, she can
certainly smuggle a crate of a virulent agent, and there is no guarantee that the US would trace it
back to Iraq. Of course, objective realities are irrelevant. What is relevant is what Saddam
believes. Even if it is guaranteed that we could trace any virulent agent back to its origin, if
Saddam believes we couldn't then he may not consider the costs of such an act to be very high,
because he wouldn't believe he'd be caught. Do you know what he believes? Put another way, we don't
know how he thinks. He's done stuff before that we'd say, "no way he does that, the costs are too
high." And he would only be deterred by high costs if _he believes_ we'd trace back bad stuff to
him. Given his history, it is unwise to base the safety of the American people on such beliefs.
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > He did not use gas vs. the Allied Forces in Gulf War 1. Why? because he
> knew it would get him killed. Same w/ terrorism vs.
> > Americans.
> >
>
> We've covered this.
>
> From prior message:
>
> underlying your claim is that Saddam believes the US would discover Iraqi fingerprints on such an
> attack. This is certainly not certain. If Iraq can smuggle oil tankers out of her country, she can
> certainly smuggle a crate of a virulent agent, and there is no guarantee that the US would trace
> it back to Iraq. Of course, objective realities are irrelevant. What is relevant is what Saddam
> believes. Even if it is guaranteed that we could trace any virulent agent back to its origin, if
> Saddam believes we couldn't then he may not consider the costs of such an act to be very high,
> because he wouldn't believe he'd be caught. Do you know what he believes? Put another way, we
> don't know how he thinks.

We can only judge him by past actions.

In 30 years in a position of power, he has not engaged in a terrorist action.

He has attacked his neighbors.

The things you speculate of him could be speculated about any world leader. We can only judge people
by what they've done.

expansionism does not equal terrorism. Otherwise, one could accuse Israel of terrorism due to their
expansionism (West Bank settlements in the "occupied territories"). I do not think the Israelis are
terrorists either.
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> We can only judge him by past actions.
>
> The things you speculate of him could be speculated about any world
leader. We can only judge people by what they've done.
>

This is why you don't do policy analysis. We judge by a combination of things. One is past actions,
from which we hope to glean insights, insights about intentions, how one accounts for risks, how one
values potential outcomes, all of which may aid in predicting whether one will do certain things. In
doing so, we don't say "one did X in the past so one will only do X in the future." Nor do we say
"one never did Y in the past so one will never do Y in the future." We say "one did X in the past. X
shares these characteristics with Y and Z. X may do Y and Z in the future." The "may" is key. We
look at associative behavior (such as a history of obfuscation or contacts with certain individuals
or sub-state groups). Then we look at capabilities. These do two things. They help us to evaluate
likelihood (should "may" be "likely," "probably," "unlikely," etc.). They also help us reveal
intentions.

To rely on "he never did X in the past so he won't do X in the future" is more shortsighted than Mr.
McGoo. According to such logic, Japan would not have bombed Pearl, ****** would not have invaded
Czechoslovakia, etc, etc, etc.
 
"BR" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> > We can only judge him by past actions.
> >
> > The things you speculate of him could be speculated about any world
> leader. We can only judge people by what they've done.
> >
>
> This is why you don't do policy analysis. We judge by a combination of things. One is past
> actions, from which we hope to glean insights, insights about intentions, how one accounts for
> risks, how one values potential outcomes, all of which may aid in predicting whether one will do
> certain things. In doing so, we don't say "one did X in the past so one will only do X in the
> future." Nor do we say "one never did Y in the past so one will never do Y in the future." We say
> "one did X in the past. X shares these characteristics with Y and Z. X may do Y and Z in the
> future." The "may" is key. We look at associative behavior (such as a history of obfuscation or
> contacts with certain individuals or sub-state groups). Then we look at capabilities. These do two
> things. They help us to evaluate likelihood (should "may" be "likely," "probably," "unlikely,"
> etc.). They also help us reveal intentions.
>
> To rely on "he never did X in the past so he won't do X in the future" is more shortsighted than
> Mr. McGoo. According to such logic, Japan would not have bombed Pearl, ****** would not have
> invaded Czechoslovakia, etc, etc, etc.

wrong. Japan had been absolutely expansionist for 10 years. ****** outlined his objective in Mein
Kampf. Finally, The Sudentenland was handed to ****** by Chamberlin and Co. - ****** did not have
to invade.

You really work for RAND? I'd think they could do better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back