🚀 go-pugleaf

hehe...Bernard you were doing so well having a civil debate. Then your
ideas werent holding up and you got personal.

>What policy? What coherent vision have you expressed?

The vision that we needed to try and put paid to the idea that its ok
to support Dictators as long as they are our Dictators. We needed to
start trying to change peoples lives for the better in the ME, not
ignore them and hope that our defenses keep us safe. This will be a
very long road but its a much better road then to just stand around
wishing for better. 

Saddam was the natural first block to be knocked down. 
1. He was intimately tied to terror
	a. Made threats of individual Arabs being able to reach us.
	b. Attempted to assasinate President Bush using fanatics
	c. Conspired to blow up Radio Free Europe using Islamic 	
	fanatics.
	d.Held a Major meeting of terrorists in Baghdad see Newsweek.
	e. Repeatedly met with Al Queda Leadership and sent money
	f. Harbored one of the main co-conspirators of the WTC 93 	
	bombing.
	g. Financed the Pals
	h. Trained various terror groups
	i. on and on and on....
2. He had been trying to develope Nuclear weapons from even before he
got to power. The Mayor of Paris being his main ally, that man was
Chirac.
 
	
> I could
>make valid arguments based on universally accepted norms and
>concepts and you would only counter that I was referencing
>unfounded "liberal" concepts and assessments. 

Oddly enough you have not tried to make any arguments for what your
side would do differently. 

>You have a
>worldview that is manufactured by the right wing for those who
>do not want to believe the reality of international relations.

I have a world view that is supplied to me by reading what my enemy
has planned. This has been aquired by reading his websites and
understanding his philosophy to the extent it can be understood.

>For example: The CIA has been a vital element of this nations
>national defense for decades. The Soviet Union never got the best
>of us, did they?

The CIA was absolutely rife with traitors and double agents the whole
time. We were a joke to the Soviets. We are not good at spying, it
goes against our nature. We are risk averse and because of that we
have always depended on others infiltrating the enemy. This has been a
joke amongst our enemies as all they had to do was send their agents
to meet our Handlers and boom they were in. The handlers werent really
interested in the quality of the information as much as they were with
just getting numbers of "agents" recruited.

The CIA missed so many calls during the Soviet Era it was absolutely
shameful.

We beat the Soviets inspite of the CIA not because of it. Our economy
defeated the Soviets....not our CIA.

> But as soon as the CIA bristles at Bush's attempt
>to falsely blame his ignorance of reality on them, the CIA becomes
>a useless organization in your eyes, and in the eyes of countless
>other bitter right-wingers.

That a Government agency thinks it has the right to influence the
political enviroment should give you pause. The only thing that
government agency has the right to do is to carry out the orders of
the government that was voted into power, be it Democratic or
Republican.

Having the CIA influence politics is about as good an idea as having
the Military influence it. Though it is useful to illustrate how
desparate the Democrats were this year that they tried both ways of
winning and got beat anyways.

PAPADOC


>
>Your "beliefs" in policy are whatever your heroes tell you they are.
>Whatever serves the current needs of the Bush Administration.
>WS
>