🚀 go-pugleaf

[Re: WW1
>    My contention was more closely related to the idea
> that had the U.S. not become embroiled in the war, the
> Brits and French would probably have been unable to do
> the things they did to Germany.

You don't know much about the Blockade of Germany
conducted by the British that starved Germany into
submission, do you?

>    The case can be made that powers Bush has assumed both
> contradict and egregiously so various subsets of the U.S.
> Constitution, especially the first ten amendments.  Given

Well make it, but no one else seriously sees how.

> that Bush swore on his honor to uphold the U.S.C. as the
> supreme law of the land, I think a good case could be
> made from an ethical PoV that he should be impeached. Of
> course, it will not happen, but one can always dream.

He also swore to protect and defend the U.S.
Doing a great job of that too.

> > Wow, Clinton couldn't do that.
>
>    Clinton would not do it because it was not a political
> expedient to his political ambitions.  Also, he was not
> as connected to "big oil" as Bush.

That just says, that Clinton would NOT protect America
because his own political considerations were more
important to him and since HE was not connected to
oil, couldn't figure out how HE-Clinton could make a buck.

I was 'connected' to the oil industry, but that doesn't mean
I benefit.  Oil could make MORE money by partnering with
the Iraqis.  Get real.  What do you think the Russians have
been trying to extort?  (Hint:  They get to shared in oil
profits for doing the right thing by supporting us.)

Take a look at the news.  Even FRANCE is coming on
board.  Iraq is EITHER starting to comply, which Bush
engineered OR we are going to STOP Sodamn Insane
permanently.

>    Given that even our own intelligence knows that
> Hussein does not have the capability to launch an
> attack even on Israel, your assertion makes no sense.

No one knows anything so stupid.  He has FIRED MISSILES
at them.  He pays suicide bombers to ATTACK THEM.

It isn't that he can or cannot, HE DOES ATTACK ISRAEL
and is somewhat proud of it.

> The only significant military power in the region is
> Israel, and though you call Hussein a madman, he's lucid
> enough not to screw with the only nuclear powerhouse in
> the region.  If Bush were really that worried about the
> threat of WMD, he'd be takin on North Korea, but wait,
> NK has no oil.....

The President said, "axis of evil:  Iraq, Iran, Korea come
first."  Iran is being handled largely diplomatically and
through policital pressure (for now); Korea is being handled
with an intermediate strategy because it is a little hard to
wage more than one or two military campaigns at one time.

Watch.  They are fixing Iraq, then they will work on the next
one more seriously.  Afganistan was only first.

Even Syria is at least SOUNDING helpful;  also note Libya's
responses.  Saudi Arabia might be making progress (we'll
see), and Yemen is certainly turned around a bit; and what
about Pakistan?  Wow.  Much more to be done there but
a start is a, well, good start.

Note:  That all of the above paragraph is about STARTS
and we will have to wait and see if progress continues.

Iraq has come CLOSER to good behavior since the
President pushed them.

Applaud for success even if you didn't predict or expect
it.  Especially if you didn't.  The U.S. Administration was
smarter than you.

Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds

> >
> > >   3. Rebuttal - military and defense spending is a net loss to the
> > >      economy.  If we had a free market, we would not have the problems
> > >      we now see in the economy.  Military and other spending does not
> > >      buy our economy anything.  It merely consumes a much higher
> > >      percentage of private sector capital that cannot then be
reinvested
> > >      to really improve the economy.
> >
> > Not strictly true.  True for bombs not for everything.
> > Still cheaper and more HONORABLE than another
> > "World Trade Center" coming down.
>
>    From a purely tactical PoV, the WTC was small potatoes.
> Further, Hussein had nothing to do with that.  Hussein
> heads the only secular government in the entire region.
> >
> > Think it through before you embarrass yourself again.
>
>    I'm not embarassed.  I'm trying to get a feeling of
> consistency in your position and I can't find it.  You
> say some things that make sense and others that are
> really difficult to take seriously.  What I do see is
> the support of the neo-cons' idea that no matter what the
> heck happens, we're going to war and we're going to kick
> Saddam's butt.  Like many have observed, regardless of what
> evidence the Iraqis post, their goose is cooked.....George
> is way too hot for a war.  Nothing will deter him, or the
> neocons who are pulling his strings.
> >
> > >    This is not.  If anything, the War of 1812 proved how difficult it
is
> > > for even a powerful nation to win a war overseas.  It ended up in
> > > stalemate, which was to the advantage of the U.S.  All in all, England
> > > never had a chance.
> >
> > Sure, like D-Day, WW1, the 1st Gulf War proved
> > it can be done by those who understand the risks,
> > and the methods of success.
>
>    The more proper comparison would be the longterm non-viability
> of the various colonial systems.  When the U.S. installs its
> puppet regime in Iraq, you don't believe that we will be leaving
> anytime soon do you?  Some well-armed contingent has to stay and
> make certain the the Iraqis obey the will of the U.S. government.
>
> >
> > >   Our military has the capability to defend the U.S.
> > > right now and is in no way ill-prepared or minimalist.  What the U.S.
> > > military is not prepared for, but which Bush favors anyway, is to go
and
> > > occupy a significant part of the rest of the globe.  Every friggin'
> > > empire in history has learned that lesson and now Bush's will too.
> >
> > You don't even know the meaning of "empire", do you?
>
>   As a matter of fact, I do.
>
> > Were the U.S. interested in Empire, we would own
> > 3/4 of the world already.  We have given almost
> > that much BACK to the PEOPLE who live there
> > when we freed them from oppression and tyranny.
>
>    The open will to empire has just surfaced.  The
> U.S. record in ethical terms WRT armed conflict
> is far from as pure as you indicate.  But, behind
> the scenes, the U.S. has pretended to empire for
> the last sixty years.  It's just done through
> different types of coercion, bribes, payoffs and
> support of terrorists when it suits government
> agenda....of course, when they fight on U.S. payroll
> they magically morph from terrorist to freedom fighter.
> That's how it happened with Hussein, Osama bin Laden
> and the like.  U.S. government policies create these
> messes and then ream the taxpayers the second time
> around to fund cleaning up the messes.  Don't you
> think it would be a better option to not create the
> mess in the first place???
> >
> > Think it through.
>
>   I have.  I just reached different conclusions than
> you did.  This week, I'm still allowed to do that,
> despite Ashcroft's wishes.  Next year, I'm not so
> sanguine about.
> >
> > Herb Martin
>
> --
> Joseph Crowe
>