Subtlety is not one of my strengths

Welcome to Small.To v2.0
Thursday, July 19 2018

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Singin\' In the Rain Part II, the Return of Moisture
Authored by: soildork onWednesday, April 02 2003
Uh, yeah, I do think I caught on to the double entendre, but for all third party folks out there, I wanted to define where I am and am not. But, all that aside, I will dive back into our discussion.

If it is about money, why do we invade the 9th largest oil producing country? Why did we go into Afghanistan, where it is a nightmare to return a dollar on the dime? It is about spreading Freedom. Let\'s think long term. When Iraq falls, Iran will be flanked by two fledgling democracies, just the sort of fertile petri dish that may encourage the students and other pro-democracy folks to rise up and overthrow the Shahs, the oppressive ruling minority. These pro-democracy protests have been happening for awhile, and have been quashed by the government. So, the axis of evil, as well as terrorist supporting regimes, will be cut in half, with Syria and North Korea to remain. Syria will be changed when they no longer have the support of the other oppressors they are surrounded by, when the people realize that they don\'t have to absorb the punishment doled out to them by their \"leaders.\" Even if Syria does not change, Israel has a fraction of the threat to her nationhood than before this process began, and they have shown that they can whip Syria\'s butt in a war. All of the sudden, the map is changed, not by country borders, but by democratic systems propagating amongst the free. Now, here is the catch. If, those people then choose to deny themselves freedom and a pseudo-democratic system, then they should be afforded that right, and seek their own destiny. The funny thing is, humans instinctively choose to better their circumstances, so the architecture of freedom drawings are founded on that premise.

Again, it is clear to the world that we select the places to help first that we have a stake in, or that threaten our friends. And, don\'t bring up Rwanda or the Congo, Bill Clinton elected not to go there for whatever reason. Heck, he wouldn\'t even label it as genocide, and directed his cabinet to avoid that term, lest it evoke a response from our people. I guess negotiating Enron contracts in India was more important at the time.

This much is clear for any further discussion to continue.The philosophy of this administration should not be judged by the behavior of the fools that came before that thought in a different manner. North Korea? Again, trap laid by Clinton, and now, it is far outside the realm of propagating freedom with threat of force or encouragement of its people, because nuclear weapons and a madman are involved. That country needed to be addressed 10 years ago, when it was hip to think DOW 10,000.

Pakistan. Yes, they are our allies, so the government there says. The people may be tribal and fragmented, but we cannot change a country because the people (and especially not its government) disagree with us. Saudi? The same... Jordan? The king is a US ally, and we have troops in country there. Heck, Prince Ali graduated from Princeton a year behind me, and loves America (Let\'s just say every fraternity on campus rushed him, and wanted to tell him dues were $10,000 a year). So, do you think we should bomb people based upon what Amnesty International says? Wouldn\'t we have to pick a war with China, and bomb ourselves in the process? Your logic is not linear, I am afraid.

The ball starts rolling in Iraq, and the end-game is to free the peoples of multiple nations, and to let them start over instead of living in the 14th century.

So, methinks the sky is blue, sky is drizzling, but the sun is coming out, and it will be a wonderful day.

Now, if the Saudi princes are overthrown in a few years by the growing Wahabi portion of the country, then, I would agree with you, and say we should be concerned with them. Until that day comes, they are an ally of this country. And, as such, they deserve to run their country with some sense of freedom. The parts of the country that are not Wahab are reasonably democratic, or could be.

And, if your head is spinning, it is because you are grasping on to whatever fleeting things lie before you, because my arguments have been consistent, and linear. We are fighting this war to protect our interests and sovereignty, AND to free an oppressed people, an historical conflux. The Iraqi regime poses a threat to us, and to its own people. Why not kill two birds with one stone? And, what more dire threat is there than weapons of mass destruction with a man who has proven he uses them? Would you advocate picking a war with North Korea b/c of the UN\'s ridiculous inspection/diplomacy failures, on the assumption that Kim Jong Il might uses nukes??

And, a correction of I may...The Saudi government did not produce ObL. The Wahabi exteremist minority did. The Saudi government did not fund him, the Wahabi extremists, and their sympathizers did, including some listed as US citizens. I know why he got the burr in his saddle to begin with, but would he rather have let a Sunni dictator take over his Shiite custody of Mecca? Muslims are just as brutal to one another as we were when we had our Civil War. ObL wanted to be a rebel, and revered as a savior, and we are the token target.

In reality though, Freedom is the target. Al Qaeda states that they want all governments to be Muslim, and Wahab in particular. Don\'t let your head spin, I am still talking about Freedom.

(As for my personal opinions about AI, I will hold them at this time. Suffice it to say that the group has noble goals and impressive capabilities, but may be driven by an agenda in some instances.)

If you read that Mr. S.\'s remarks were merely an assessment that \"flipping off our allies and enemies isn\'t a long term strategy for international relations,\" then I can see why you agree, and generally agree as well, provided we stay grounded in our sovereignty. As I have stated, there are multiple opportunities in the future for our economy, and the world\'s as well, to expand as interactions begin with democratic countries in the middle east. But, that is a gamble that they select us when they are free. A mere gamble. That is why it is plain for me to see that it isn\'t driven by money. It is driven by freedom, the reduction of threat to ourselves and our allies, and the potential to have more interactions with a part of the world that is closed off to us now.

Wagging like no tomorrow...