basskisser wrote:

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.


Western-style democracy? In a Middle Eastern Moslem state?

Puh-lease.

Most Moslems believe democracy is the rule of humans in opposition to
Islam, which they believe is the rule of God.

Iran? Democratic? Iraq? Democratic? Afghanistan? Democratic?

Naive.

And the Kuwaitis? Totally non-democratic. We didn't aid Kuwait to
restore or establish democracy there. It was strictly to prop up our oil
interest in that Gulf State. At that, it was more honest than the
current war, which is being conducted to prop up a failed president.








--
Email sent to is never read.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


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?


Neither you nor I have a clue why he flipped. However, either guess is
convenient.

On 29 Dec 2003 12:51:43 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

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:


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.

Basskisser, did I ever say I was a conservative?

John H

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

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:08:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Does that mean that it's OK to 'shape circumstances' up to a point
which you define?

John H

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

"John H" wrote in message
...


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.

Does that mean that it's OK to 'shape circumstances' up to a point
which you define?

John H

You may be responding to the wrong message, John. In the absence of a
blatant attack on this country, I have no problem with shaping circumstances
using diplomacy, trade or other bait. I *do* have a problem with certain
people in this government whose FIRST choice of methods is the use of force.
The movie "Dr Strangelove" was supposed to be a comedy, not a lesson for
future government employees.

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!


Very weird response, John. I compared defending an ally that has been attacked
vs. conducting preemptive strikes on govts. we just don't like for one reason
or another......

and you respond with a comment about how we have a right to pick our allies.

Of course we have a right to pick our allies.

How about the right to conduct preemptive military strikes against governments
we believe might eventually become a potential threat?

John H wrote:


Basskisser, did I ever say I was a conservative?

John H

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


What a giggle.





--
Email sent to is never read.

On 29 Dec 2003 23:01:46 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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!


Very weird response, John. I compared defending an ally that has been attacked
vs. conducting preemptive strikes on govts. we just don't like for one reason
or another......

and you respond with a comment about how we have a right to pick our allies.

Of course we have a right to pick our allies.

How about the right to conduct preemptive military strikes against governments
we believe might eventually become a potential threat?

Chuck, reread my response. I asked you the questions. I stated nothing
regarding the picking of our allies.

John H

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

You get dumber by the day, Mr. Kevin Noble.

"John H" wrote in message
...


Very weird response, John. I compared defending an ally that has been
attacked
vs. conducting preemptive strikes on govts. we just don't like for one
reason
or another......

and you respond with a comment about how we have a right to pick our
allies.

Of course we have a right to pick our allies.

How about the right to conduct preemptive military strikes against
governments
we believe might eventually become a potential threat?

Chuck, reread my response. I asked you the questions. I stated nothing
regarding the picking of our allies.

Well, then someone's using your name here, John. Here's what you wrote:

"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!"