Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

John H


You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally that
has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages
"preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to us,
(solely determined by the Executive Branch).

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:44:07 -0500, John H wrote:

Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

If democracy results, *this* war could make a difference, but the Gulf War
is a big question. Kuwait is no closer to democracy now, than it was.
Both Iraq and Kuwait are OPEC countries, so oil production may not have
changed. Instead of controlling 113 billion barrels of proven oil
reserves, Saddam would control 210 billion barrels. Remember that until
Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had our tacit support. Also remembering that
infidel soldiers in the land of Mecca is what set bin Laden off, 9/11 may
not have happened.

At the time, I supported the Gulf War, but perhaps, in hindsight, it
wasn't our best course of action.

This idea you, Chuck, seem to have, that we should just sit at home
taking care of our poor and sickly, paying no heed whatsoever to the
rest of the globe (because it's arrogant) just isn't workable.

You have the wrong impression.

We do have strategic interests and treaty obligations around the world.

We should not appoint ourselves the "leaders" of the entire world and use our
superior military ability to impose that leadership where it is not wanted.

The purpose of the military is to protect the homeland and our strategic
allies, not to expand the commercial or moral "empire".

Read the site. I suspect you've never delved deeper than the "Statement of
Priniciples". When you have made a study of the entire PNAC program, we'll be
on the same playing field in this discussion.

On 29 Dec 2003 15:26:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

John H


You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally that
has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages
"preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to us,
(solely determined by the Executive Branch).

Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances
which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our
fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck,
these are all things you find arrogant!


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2003 15:26:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

John H


You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally
that
has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages
"preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to
us,
(solely determined by the Executive Branch).

Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances
which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our
fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck,
these are all things you find arrogant!

A preemptive strike doesn't constitute "picking an ally", John.

What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an
economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow. Nothing
wrong with that, if it's a win-win situation. If it's not, it'll unravel, as
it should.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. com...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
America has a vital role in
maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
If
we
shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental
interests.
The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is
important
to
shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before
they
become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to
embrace
the
cause of American leadership."

We need to "shape circumstances" in the rest of the world so they are
most
favorable to our "fundamental interests"? We assume that it is our
right,
or
mandate, to do so. How arrogant.


We need to "shape circumstances" in order to "maintain peace and
security
in
Europe, Asia, and the Middle East."
And, yes, peace and security in those regions *is* in our "fundamental
interest".

Every country does this. But, the method is the issue. Broadly speaking,
you
can use weapons or commerce. You seem to favor weapons.


Now that depends upon the threat you're dealing with. You own guns. I
assume that you'd use them in self-defense if a person broke into your
house. You might even be tempted to hunt someone down if they murdered your
wife and were continuing to threaten your kids. Of course, you could offer
them a ransom to stay away from your family. Unfortunately, if that gamble
failed, you'd be kicking yourself for not following a more violent path to
deal with the threat.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2003 15:26:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

John H


You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally
that
has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages
"preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to
us,
(solely determined by the Executive Branch).

Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances
which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our
fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck,
these are all things you find arrogant!

A preemptive strike doesn't constitute "picking an ally", John.

What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an
economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow.

How come Gadaffi couldn't be bought prior to our removing the governments of
Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't you think that it's possible he caved out of
fear rather than greed?

thunder wrote in message ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:44:07 -0500, John H wrote:

Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

If democracy results, *this* war could make a difference, but the Gulf War
is a big question. Kuwait is no closer to democracy now, than it was.
Both Iraq and Kuwait are OPEC countries, so oil production may not have
changed. Instead of controlling 113 billion barrels of proven oil
reserves, Saddam would control 210 billion barrels. Remember that until
Saddam invaded Kuwait, he had our tacit support. Also remembering that
infidel soldiers in the land of Mecca is what set bin Laden off, 9/11 may
not have happened.

At the time, I supported the Gulf War, but perhaps, in hindsight, it
wasn't our best course of action.

I agree with most of your observations, except the one that if
democracy results from this war, that there will be a difference. We
must remember, the Iraqis are not white, baptist, god-fearing
republicans. They have their own set of beliefs, and what they think
makes a successful society.

John H wrote in message . ..
On 27 Dec 2003 07:38:11 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 24 Dec 2003 08:25:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Although this has a happy ending, as you can see, war is not just the
capturing of someone who may or may not have been a threat to us. We
have, because of our war mongering, put this little boy through
nothing short of pure hell. If this story doesn't sadden you, then you
are no better than Saddam himself:

Snipped

Bass, where did any Conservative say that war is grand? Did someone
honestly say that, or was that comment simply to attract attention?
You could attract attention with a current story just as easily. My
son-in-law lost one of his best friends on Christmas eve in Baghdad.
Do you think that makes me feel 'war is grand'?

Hope you had a good Christmas. I hope your search for the worst you
could find didn't affect your day.


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

That's quite easy to to answer. You conservatives don't mind starting
a war, with no real premise, right? Well, I guess except for the
cardboard drones!! You think Bush is correct for the pre-emptive
strike of a poor nation that we had no reason to be in, right? You
righties are talking about which country we need to go blow the hell
out of next, right? It would seem to me that if you thought war was
bad, then you'd not want is in one....or more, especially when there
has been no real evidence that we needed to go there.

Again, could you please show me where a conservative said that war was
grand?

No, none of your statements above is 'right'.

John H


None of my statements are right?? Let's see, then, so you DON'T
support Bush's war with Iraq? You conservatives AREN'T talking about
which country to to go blow up next? I could cut and paste this one
all day from just this newsgroup!
Now again, if you bunch of conservatives admit that we shouldn't be in
this war, then I will take back the statement that I think
conservatives think war is grand.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:44:49 +0000, NOYB wrote:

How come Gadaffi couldn't be bought prior to our removing the governments
of Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't you think that it's possible he caved out
of fear rather than greed?

The process started long before Afghanistan, Iraq, or GWB. Reagan's
bombing might have woke him up. A little history:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3338713.stm