Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Wow. We disrupt a country by invading it, and no one wants to give us positive press while we restore the water and electricity. That's so unfair! They don't appreciate us for giving back what we knocked out!

I was talking about the press and how they have biased the reporting towards a very left-leaning slant (surprise, surprise and check the Washington Post for some of the most half-assed, putrid and biased reporting examples I've seen since tearing through some of the state-run crap that Franco used to publish in Spain...); I'll learn to be more transparent and throw up road signs for you a MILE high next time so you don't bail off on a tanget of epic proportions...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Speaking of naivete, it seems you would link "disasters stateside" with the need to invade Iraq. You know, there are probably sleeper cells in Britain right now. Let's invade.



I'm not going to even try to address this particular flavor of insanity. To even come up with a conclusion (even in jest) as absurd as this is akin to claiming black is white just because zebra's wear both colors.

The invasion of Iraq was a DECADE in the making with the UN participating and blessing EVERY move we made until the VERY last (and even then we had a number of UN-members supporting it). Iraq flagrantly violated section after section of UN resolution 1441; patience doesn't even begin to describe what the UN and the US had towards the regime there. These are FACTS; look them up as they aren't in dispute. The only thing in dispute is the TIMING of the invasion; it appears that some feel that the US has to be 110% positive that they are going to be nuked, gassed and suffer TONS of losses before we can make a pre-emptive move against a KNOWN supporter of terrorism (count the bucks that went to Hamas bombers and the number of Syrian and Eqyptian terrorists that took refuge in Iraq) and a known user and developer of WMD.

I'll not deny that we have next to no physical proof of the stashes of WMD that EVERY first-rate intelligence agency claimed they had; given that stashes of Zyklon-B and other Nazi armaments are still being dug up and found to this day and knowing that TONS of munitions and agents are still missing from the tally the UN ran in '91-'92, I refuse to call the ball-game, though others in their omnipotence(please note the extreme use of sarcasm here) seem to feel comfortable to lay rest to it...

...despite Hussein's sons mentioning to a Jordanian diplomat that no-one would ever find the stashes and his high-ranking relatives who fled to the US clamining their existance in the late '90s as well, among piles of circumstantial and factual evidence of the existance of such WMD programs.

I swear some of the [censored] that populate this planet scare the living HELL out of me. Metaphorically, it seems one has to have a bullet lodged in their spine before they notice the guy in dark clothes carrying a rifle, ominously pointing it in their direction 10ft. in front of them before they say "S**t, better do something before it's too late!".

Anyway...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Certainly, moderate arabs/muslims would not fear that they were being duped by GWB. He's saving the duping for his allies, the UN, the AARP, and the impressionable American swing voter. (Which neither you nor I are.) Or maybe it's Cheney and Rove duping GWB.



There are times (and they are VERY few) that I'm rendered speechless; I simply have to stand back and bask in the shining, distorted light of staggeringly, incoherent myopia that I'm presented with.

Good luck getting Nader into the Oval office...


Originally posted by PDXSVT:
So your declaration of "One similarity out of 1,000" allows you to ignore a valid point, huh?

Valid point?! This must be some new definition of the word "valid" in the dictionary that I've yet to come across...

Hitler, Stalin, Marx and Pol-Pot had a few valid points, too. Validity has little to do with being functionaly and overwhelmingly right, considering the WHOLE picture.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
From my examples and others, that the local population wanted to call its own shots and resented those that were (even "well-intentioned") outsiders is THE similarity that matters.

Not going to happen and it's sheer ignorance to even expect such an occurance. We roll in and roll out the day after Hussein's statue fell (hell, one YEAR after) and we would be dealing with something akin to Lebanon mixed with Afghanistan combined with post-Ayatollah Khomeini Iran...

Yeah, REAL smart; turn over a smoldering wreck of a country to no less than three distinct and VERY distrustful ethnic/religious groups, which have NO freaking clue as how to organize themselves other than to go through the fits of a destabilizing civil-war that would turn into a game of "last-man standing", while Iran waits until the dust clears to waltz on in and get their pound of flesh from the '80-'90 war between them and Iraq and also claim the entire territory, EVEN futher destabilizing the region.

Quick question: did the state of Oregon outlaw the concept of foresight? I haven't been to Beaverton since mid-January, but I thought I'd ask before I make another visit...

Ultimately, that one ranks up there with the oppressed and disenfranchised Palm Beach voters manning life-rafts to Cuba to escape ever having to deal with "dimpled chads" again.

Again, the US has a vested interest in the Middle-East and Iraq. Fair or not, it's the way it works, especially since we are the one's the kicked Hussein into the bog. I'll say it again: freedom isn't always fair.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Meanwhile, you assume a pro-western Iraqi government will magically appear,

Nope. I KNEW it was going to take years and was understanding of this since before we rolled across the Kuwaiti border.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
while you can't figure how it's relevant that Sadat was shot for being too Western by resentful muslims. OK, you wanted this. I guess I need to draw a connect the dots picture here (deep breath) but there are a couple resentful muslims in Iraq right now, and they don't want our government running theirs. Now, is that too complicated, or is that too dissimilar for you?



Should have done your homework on Sadat before taking this path. I'm going to enjoy eating you up on this one, as he's one of my fortes in 20th Century Arab history.

School's back in session, so let the fun begin...

Either pick and choose, or stick with the WHOLE story (which I'll try to provide in brief here). I won't let you have it both ways. Sadat did piss a GREAT many Islamic EXTREMISTS off for catering to Western tastes and dealing with the infidels of Israel (one of the few Arabs who actually tried to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, I might add); many moderate Arabs had little issue with his Western appearance and mannerisms in the beginning, though it did perplex them.

His name in Western culture is akin to Saladin's in terms of impact and importance in terms of Arab and Western relations and respect. He was one of the few Arab leaders of his time that tried to bridge the differences between the religious Islamic masses and the Western decadence; painting or even inferring Sadat as a puppet of the West is plain ignorant as Egypt took on a very distinct identity under his reign apart from the rest of the Arab countries of the 1970's. He was a visionary but a very flawed one.

The problem was his economic reforms in his later years; a Muslim ruler is supposed to be just and fair across all classes of society. Sadat's reforms created a scism that alienated the poor, who ultimately took to the comforts of religious extremism en masse; the fact is that Eqyptians could make more money working outside of Egypt than inside it, which caused immeasurable grief and resentment, given his previous restoration of Arab pride and stability early on in his tenure. This lead to people turning to the religious leaders in Egypt at the time; unfortunately many of the most influential and charismatic ones were absolute SCREAMING fanatics...

Long story short, Sadat didn't pay ENOUGH attention and didn't crack down on Islamic extremism EARLY enough to "nip it in the bud". Admittedly, his economic bungling only added more fundamentalists to the ranks of the extremists and did turn Arab moderates into very resentful nationals, but it wasn't his Western flavor that did him in. What ultimately ended his life was his total innattention to the EXTREMISTS in his own country for far too long and only acting when it was WAY TOO LATE.

Sound familiar to Iraq? I didn't think so.

Don't take my word for it, dig up a history book and read about it. The fact is that Egypt had a sense of identity, focus and self when Sadat took the helm from Nasser; Islamic extremists did it in. Not so with Iraq...

Iraq after Hussein is fractured and simply too shell-shocked from the former regime's rule to put together any cohesive form of functional government that wouldn't end up in a civil-war. Those resentful Muslims aren't happy with our presence; that's totally understandable, but under the circumstances most KNOW it's a necessary situation:

except for those EXTREMISTS (be the Shi'ite radicals or Sunni partisans) that are happy to splatter more bodies to the wind. You are right in that the EXTREMISTS are the threat here; unlike Sadat, the US is dealing with them EARLY on.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
And while you're assuming what I'm advocating, how about I clarify: GWB was not qualified for the job he held, even after two years in office, when he invaded Iraq.

I'll not disagree with you there. I don't think anyone short of the likes of FDR or Lincoln would be qualified for office in such times, though they learned rather fast to adjust to the times at hand and BECAME qualified...

...and don't infer that I'm comparing Bush, Jr. to either of these men. In my mind he's been a solid president during a time of crisis in the US, which say a LOT in of itself, but I seriously doubt history will look upon him in the same fashion or with the same respect as either of those two giants. Bush's leadership and direction seems to come from those around him; he's got one of the best staffs in recent memory. Lincoln and FDR had solid people around them but their innate leadership abilities, oratory skills and mettle is on a very different level.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
I'm NOT saying Kerry is.

Thank God! We've finally managed to agree on something!

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
But GWB's judgment was so awful, that as he now seeks to "run on his record" for re-election, he indicates to me that his judgment STILL leaves him not qualified for that office. He could be in the White House for 8 years, and he would leave that office less qualified than his dad was on the day his dad was sworn in.

I firmly disagree, in that I've often found his father to be a much weaker and indecisive President than his son. That's personal opininon, though and another 10-page post within itself...

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
He's an embarrassment to this country. So was Clinton, so tied up in the Lewinsky mess that the GOP screamed "Wag the Dog" any time he wanted to do something about the carnage in SE Europe. Recently, Sen. McLain (R-AZ) came out and said stop the BS, he knows Kerry is NOT soft on defense, but adds lets talk about the real issues, taxes, education, social security.

Politics is politics and it always will be. Wade through the BS claims that both sides make, don't fall for the transparent fodder that's meant for the idiots that only read the headlines and can barely see past their own paycheck in terms of their political stripes.

Kerry is a Mass. Democrat and a scion of good 'ol Ted Kennedy (D-Lushville) . The tax and spend label is a fair one in his case (his voting record certainly speaks for itself) and anyone that has looked up to Ted Kennedy for guidance (except on how to womanize, get drunk and commit manslaughter) scares the living HELL out of me. It's not that I'm really concerned about Kerry as much as I'm concerned with the people that he will end up surrounding himself with, which is all the same to me.

Originally posted by PDXSVT:
But some people on this site either did NOT know about that announcement by McLain OR feel they know MORE and better than Senator McLain does.

I like McClain as BS doesn't sit well with him in any fashion from either direction (left or right). At the same time, don't DARE subscribe his disdain for BS into admiration for Kerry, as every time he opens his mouth it's like listening to an Infomercial on the latest fat-burning elixr...


Originally posted by PDXSVT:
Give me a break.



Give me something of substance.

Last edited by JaTo; 04/03/04 07:08 AM.
JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe