|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 8, 2010 19:07:30 GMT
he was also buying from russia..france and korea and china. of coursae, that is not the point anyway. the point is the fact that it was the u.s. who supplied him with his weaponry to fight iran, which he then used on the kurds, kuwaitis, and the u.s. republican administrations have NEVER been noted for intelligence
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 8, 2010 23:36:12 GMT
Jumbo - before you open mouth please try to get in touch with the facts. At least try to get into the same ballpark with the facts. Stop playing fast and loose with the facts.
While part of the fight against terrorism is the pursuit of individual terrorists and terrorist organizations, the main requirement for defeating terrorism is to induce all governments to exclude terrorist organizations from their territory. Therefore the test of whether removing Saddam was part of the war against terrorism is whether doing so helped or was necessary to induce Arab and other governments to stop harboring terrorist organizations.
Opponents may ask, if one of the real reasons for removing Saddam Hussein was to convince Arab and other governments that they would have to stop harboring terrorist organizations, why didn't President Bush say so? Why did he never give this reason? The answer should be clear. One of the first rules for successfully intimidating a government is to deny that you are trying to do so. One does not make open threats. One acts in a way that leads other governments to understand the practical choice they face - as the government of Libya did when, following the attack on Saddam, it gave up its programs of WMD and of support for international terrorism.
THE BIG hidden debate in Washington is about the choice of approaches to convincing Arab and other governments that they must refrain from harboring terrorists. The approach of the State Department, which has driven much of the administration's actual policy, is to appease these governments, assuring them that the US is sympathetic to their concerns and interests - such as "ending the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians," and trying to convince them of the advantages to them of acting against terrorism. The alternative approach, which is recommended by some of the scholars with the deepest understanding of Muslim history and culture, is to compel the Arab governments to act against terrorism and stay away from WMD by making them afraid of what will happen to them if they fail to do so. The experts argue that the Arab governments cannot be led to want to take the necessary actions, and will take them only if they fear the consequences of failing to do so.
Someone like Khadafi can understand the concept when you ask him, "Do you want to suffer the same fate as Saddam?" But he won't understand liberal concepts like, "Can't we all just be friends?"
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 9, 2010 7:25:23 GMT
The experts argue that the Arab governments cannot be led to want to take the necessary actions, and will take them only if they fear the consequences of failing to do so. Someone like Khadafi can understand the concept when you ask him, "Do you want to suffer the same fate as Saddam?" But he won't understand liberal concepts like, "Can't we all just be friends?" much much easier ways to get the arabs to take on board the realities than either war or friendship[the arab is no ones friend] egypt for eg is fed mainly by america....so the its needs neither friendship or threat to bring it into line..other arab countries are relient on oil or the selling of oil ...just as we are relient on buying of oil there fore no threat of friendship is needed to bring them on side what the west needs to do and should have been doing..but didnt do because of the oil cartels is to plough ahead with other technologies rather than the relience on oil and its by products...those other technologies would have leveled off the playing field and reduced the leverage and the need for war/violence or friendship there are more ways of skinning a cat than one do you really think the arab world would have warrented a war or friendship without oil...it would have been about as important as nepal...oil gave the arab..the mideast islam and muslims a prominence a voice that would other wise have been totally ignored
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 9, 2010 22:17:17 GMT
That's a pretty shaky theory Mouse. Those so-called 'other technologies' like synthetic crude, shale oil, nuclear power plants, etc. could make a dent but could not level the playing field as you say. Worldwide dependence on petroleum is just too great. We could make a dent in it, at great cost, but we could not displace oil's role as the world's main fuel.
The best illustration of how Arabs and Muslims think is Saudi Arabia's policy of a free college education for Saudi citizens. The Kingdom came to the realization that oil won't last forever. They decided that they should invest in educating their people so that the country could have the capacity to support itself with new industries and businesses led by the new highly educated Saudi. So far, so good. Once they put it into effect the population really took to it and sent their young men off to college. What do you suppose 80% of them chose to major in? You got it! Religious Studies. The government is paying them to memorize the Quran.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 9, 2010 22:25:10 GMT
That's a pretty shaky theory Mouse. Those so-called 'other technologies' like synthetic crude, shale oil, nuclear power plants, etc. could make a dent but could not level the playing field as you say. Worldwide dependence on petroleum is just too great. We could make a dent in it, at great cost, but we could not displace oil's role as the world's main fuel. The best illustration of how Arabs and Muslims think is Saudi Arabia's policy of a free college education for Saudi citizens. The Kingdom came to the realization that oil won't last forever. They decided that they should invest in educating their people so that the country could have the capacity to support itself with new industries and businesses led by the new highly educated Saudi. So far, so good. Once they put it into effect the population really took to it and sent their young men off to college. What do you suppose 80% of them chose to major in? You got it! Religious Studies. The government is paying them to memorize the Quran. Saudi is the home of Wahhabism. That is cause for concern, if indeed they are studying their brand of theology in such numbers, the chances are quite high that some are going to be radicalised; as they seem to call it.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Apr 12, 2010 23:18:57 GMT
You are on the money with that post Fret
|
|