Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:VJsEj.22063$Er2.509@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "SkippyPB" <swiegand@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>"Howard Brazee" <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As you say, I'm all for killing the terrorists, when they can be 
>>>>>>>found.
>>>>>>>But part of the "education" process is to provide a social 
>>>>>>>environment
>>>>>>>in which that can take place. As Bush pointed out, democracies are 
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>prone to starting wars with innocent neighbors. I do not think it
is
>>>>>>>the population of Iraq that is so opposed to democracy; the problem

>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>being im****ted from other countries, like Iran.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When democracies (and other states) start wars, they define the
enemy
>>>>>> as guilty.   And every state is guilty of stuff.    If we don't
find
>>>>>> weapons of mass destruction, we change our excuse.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone who thinks Sadam Hussein wasn't interested in WMD is ignorant
>>>>>of recent history and clueless about human nature. If we did not find
>>>>>them, it was because he had moved them elsewhere, and/or not yet
>>>>>developed what he wanted. What would have been better, to have waged
>>>>>WWII in Europe, or taken Hitler out when he first started violating
>>>>>the Armistice agreement? The latter would have saved some 50 million
>>>>>lives and the devastation of Europe. Sadam Hussein, like Joseph
Stalin,
>>>>>is one of the few men in history who have fair claim to being more
evil
>>>>>than Hitler. Even Hitler had friends and people he cared about, but
>>>>>Saddam Hussein, like Stalin, had no such human emotion and was more
>>>>>like a reptile than a human. Hussein was a serious danger to anyone
on
>>>>>the planet, and I for one will gladly pay my share of taxes to take
him
>>>>>out. But people clueless about human nature, like Neville
Chamberlain,
>>>>>never understand true evil until it bites their heads off, and then
it
>>>>>is too late, unfortunately, usually for many others.
>>>>
>>>> But that's not the point.  Bush SAID before the UN and the American
>>>> people one of the reason's for invading Iraq was because Sadam HAD
>>>> WMD's.  The fact is, and there is almost no doubt that Bush knew
this,
>>>> he hadn't had any for nearly 10 years having disposed of them after
>>>> the Gulf War.  Bush also said before the UN and the American people
>>>> that Sadam was linked to Al Qaeda.  Again, something he knew not to
be
>>>> true, but was used as another reason to invade Iraq. And how about
the
>>>> way he humiliated Colen Powell with the neuclear Milk Factory or
>>>> nuclear train to nowhere or the attempt (untrue) to buy radioactive
>>>> material from Niger?  Lies, upon lies, upon lies.
>>>>
>>>> Just because Sadam was "interested" in WMDs is no reason to invade.
>>>> Fidel Castro has been "interested" in WMDs for over 30 years and Bush
>>>> didn't invade him.  Hell, Hugo Chavez is probably interested in WMDs
>>>> and we're not invading him.
>>>
>>> Ahem. Saddam actually *used* WMD on the Kurds, people in his
>>> own country. I think that demonstrates far more than mere *interest*.
>>>
>>>> You compare Sadam to Stalin (not even close) as what?  A reason to
>>>> assuage your guilt for sup****ting Bush and his invasion of Iraq?  If
>>>> being inhuman to your people is the criteria, then why haven't we
>>>> bombed China for their treatment of Tibet?  Why haven't we invaded
>>>> Burma for their suppression of democracy in that country?  Or invaded
>>>> North Korea whose people are slowly starving and have a demigod for a
>>>> ruler? Why haven't we put a substantial force in Darfur to help end
>>>> the genocide there?
>>
>> Excellent questions. It is ridicuolous to claim the moral high ground
in 
>> one area, and not in all. You're either moral and good or you're not.
>>
>> Being moral when it suits you is not being moral.
>>
>>
>>>> Bottom line is, your sup****t for Bush and his
>>>> Iraq invasion is illogical.
>>
>> Not so much illogical as simply political. Logic and politics seldom
mix 
>> well.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was equal to Hitler or Stalin in the
>>> amount of damage he did, but in the evil of nature. Given the same
>>> op****tunities, Saddam would have been just as evil and ruthless as
>>> either of them.
>>
>> Since when was being ruthless an indication of evil? When OUR generals
do 
>> it is "stregth of purpose" and "tenacity", when the opposition do it , 
>> they are "ruthess". In neither case is it an indication of "evil".
>
> It's not just about "how" but "why". Saddam's "why" was all
> about himself, at the expense of everyone else; i.e. like Stalin.

And you don't think US policy in the region is motivated by self interest?

>
>> And what are the criteria for measuring "evil of nature"?
>
> If you can't answer that yourself, then there is no explaination that
> you will understand. Good and evil are not about logic, they're
> about motive and character.

No they are not.  They are subjective ideas installed into people by their

upbringing and culture. One man's good is another man's evil.

You believe in the absolute wickedness of human beings and so that is what

you see and find. I don't, and so I don't find that. (I see bad behaviour 
but I recognise it as such and not Satanic evil.)

>
>> Is it the degree to which someone disagrees with us?
>
> Hardly. :-)
>
>> I don't believe people are "evil of nature".
>
> Sorry. Then you are clueless.

No, I have many clues to the goodness and nobility of the Human spirit. I 
see examples every day.  There is blackness in the world, but it is not 
there because of Nature. The Universe is amoral. Events happen. What we 
think about them makes them "good" or "bad". If you don't understand that,

then it isn't me who is clueless.

>
>> Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Only if there is no such thing as evil, and you only see it as
> situational ethics. Again, that's clueless.

There is no such thing as evil any more than there is good. (No God, no 
Devil.) They are concepts invented by Humans. That doesn't mean there is
no 
right or wrong behaviour or no morality. Neither does it mean that events 
have no consequences for people, which may be perceived as "good" or
"bad". 
Generally the more positive an outcome for people, the more "good" it is; 
and vice versa. But there is no intrinsic "goodness or badness" in the 
events which occur. The Universe simply doesn't care. It isn't me who is 
lacking clues here.

>
>> As long as you advocate bombing and killing people ("terrorists") you
are 
>> morally no better than those you target. If they are "evil" so are you.
>
> So, you equate killing a small child for fun with executing a
> Charles Manson with killing entirely by accident?

No, and I didn't say that.

> See, you
> are clueless.

I would be if I agreed with you.

> It isn't just the killing, it's also the reason for
> the killing. Reason or motivation has to do with character.
>
 That's like saying that arms and legs have to do with personality.

>
>> (Note: I'm not saying we shouldn't strike back at terrorists; just that

>> we shouldn't delude ourselves that we have any more moral right to do
so 
>> than they had to attack us... two wrongs don't make a right; they just 
>> make us feel better and hopefully prevent further wrongs by eliminating

>> the perpetrators...)
>
> Why should we "strike back" at terrorists, if killing is, by
> definition, bad? If there is no moral absolute, then there
> is no good or bad.

You're almost there...

>Sorry, but that's clueless.

Oh dear, missed it again...

Repetition doesn't make your case any stronger. I am no more clueless now 
than I was six paragraphs above. I didn't say "Killing is bad". (Although
it 
certainly is for the victims). Your attempts to put stupidity into my
mouth 
are futile.

>
>>> Saddam was in a position to capture the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
>>> You think 9/11 was damaging to the U.S.? That would be *nothing*
>>> compared to the damage caused to all industrialized countries if he
>>> had done so. Look what he did in Kuwait. I would prefer to have troops
>>> stationed in Iraq to prevent that from happening, than to have troops
>>> stationed in Saudi Arabia *after* it happened. Iraq would certainly
>>> have been nuked in such an eventuality. Jimmy Carter made that
>>> official U.S. policy. Anyone think that would have been better than
>>> this?
>>>
>>> I don't know how honest or dishonest George Bush was about Iraq. But
>>> I know with certainty that I am very glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and
>>> I think we are better off today than we would have been had we not
>>> invaded Iraq, whatever his reasons were.
>>
>> Do you think the majority of people in Iraq think they are better off? 
>> Does it matter to you?
>
> Do the majority of the people in Russia think they are better off?

As has been observed here on a number of previous occasions, answering a 
question with a question is no answer at all. You have gone on record as 
saying you feel that "we" (meaning the people of the USA) are better off. 
than if they had not invaded Iraq... (there seem to be quite a number of 
them contesting this assertion; the coming polls will be very 
interesting...)

My two questions above therefore follow naturally. They are not rhetorical

and I should have thought an upright moral character such as yourself,
armed 
with the absolute authority of your belief system, could have answered 
without hesitation.

Here, try again:  Do you think the majority of people in Iraq think they
are 
better off? Does it matter to you?


> Neither society society has the experience with freedom to know.
> In a sense, they're like babies in democracy.

Just as well they have a wise father like the USA helping them grow
towards 
the One True Way, then isn't it?

Let's impose democracy on them and free them from the shackles of Islam.
(If 
we manage to keep the price of gas under $7 a gallon in the process, hey, 
that is no less than we deserve for bringing them to the light...)


>
>> As you watch the price of gas at the pump rise unstoppably, do you
think 
>> all the dead young men (on all sides) were worth the sacrifice?
>>
>> What difference has it made?
>
> No one can answer that.

I see. That's like programmers saying "It can't be done" when what they 
really mean (but could never say it...) is: " I don't know how to do
that".

The guys who, when you do what they insisted was impossible, then say:
"Aw, 
well, of course...if you do it like THAT...."

> Rarely in history is there certainty of
> result beforehand. Leaders must make decisions in a fog of
> uncertainty. Did Roosevelt know that the Japanese were about
> to attack Pearl Harbor? The fact is that the U.S. had information
> to that effect. It's also a fact that the information was only part
> of the whole picture which, for Roosevelt at the time, was far
> from clear.

The information apparently never made it to Roosevelt.  US Naval 
intelligence could not believe the Japanese Enigma code had been broken
and 
so rejected the information. Anyway, that's all water under the bridge and

the Japanese were duly punished for it with overwhelming force that made 
everythign OK again... Unfortunately, the same options can't be used
against 
Osama Bin Laden because he's too smart to fight fair...


>This is a fact that few of severe critics of the Iraq
> war take into consideration. It's easy to be a Monday Morning
> Quarterback once the result is known. It's a far different thing
> to make the decisions beforehand.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and we should certainly do

extensive planning before putting young people (theirs and ours) at risk.
>
>> Getting Saddam out of Kuwait was a proper thing to do, nothing to do
with 
>> gasoline (although I suspect that was certainly a contributing factor
to 
>> the decision to get involved). Invading Iraq, on the other hand, was
NOT 
>> a moral thing to do, WMD or no WMD. As has been pointed out by others 
>> here, there are many "rogue states" who DO actually have WMD. The West 
>> does not invade them.
>>
>> Saddam treated people who opposed him, ruthlessly and badly. He needed
to 
>> be removed, but whether that should have been done by interference from

>> the West or not, is arguable.
>>
>>> I also know that it's easy
>>> to criticize in hindsight, and much harder to know what's the best
>>> strategy beforehand.
>>
>> Yes, it is. That's why some time for reflection and looking at possible

>> outcomes is usually a good thing before sending in the Marines.
>>
>>> It's also easy to *say* worse things would not
>>> have happened, when it isn't your neck on the line having to make the
>>> decisions.
>>
>>
>> It is easy to SAY anything. That's why politicians do so...
>>
>>> George Bush's primary responsibility is to protect American
>>> lives and property, and that applies to *probable* threats as well as
>>> formally proven and documented threats.
>>
>> Putting young men in harm's way is not a good way to protect their
lives 
>> or property. If people are to die, and sometimes they have to, it
should 
>> be a VERY carefully weighed and calculated strategy that minimises the 
>> risk to them, and everyone, from the Commander in Chief to the troops
on 
>> the ground should realise what the plan is, what the possible outcomes 
>> are, and why it is necessary to do what is being done. In other words, 
>> there should be a clear entrance strategy, a clear plan of action, and
a 
>> clear exit strategy.
>
> What do you insist that Bush did not carefully weigh those things?

Because it has transpired and is observably evident that there was no 
effective and workable exit strategy, that there was no consideration of
how 
the Iraqis were supposed to continue once Saddam was toppled, no 
understanding of the warring factions that Saddam's "ruthlessness" had
kept 
controlled for years, no sensitivity to an Iraqi mindset, no ideas or even

passing concern for Iraq at all, just get Saddam out and secure the oil 
supply.

> I'm sure he did. Presidents don't make decisions all alone, they have
> a multitude of counselors.

There is no lack of talent in the USA; it just seems that President Bush 
doesn't surround himself with people of stature. There appears to be a 
culture of "cronyism" in the White House.

>
>>> Your objections remind me of the people harping that Y2K turned out
>>> not to be so bad. Well, only idiots expected their cars and microwaves
>>> to explode.
>>
>> Did anybody really believe that, or are you simply repeating an urban 
>> myth whipped up by journalists?
>
> I don't know how many people actually belived it, I just remember
> people spouting such nonsense. I do remember being asked by
> people about such things.
>
>> And, if some people DID believe it, does that mean they are "idiots"? 
>> What about people who are simply not well informed on technology?
>
> Anyone who uses an automobile and never has to enter a date
> into it should realize they a correct date isn't necessary for an
> automobile to function. Was there ever a story (before Y2K)
> circulated where someone's car stopped and the fdate had to
> be entered for it to run? I seriously doubt it. Many people do
> not know how to set the date on their VCRs (this is a common
> cliche, the blinking 00:00), and they never exploded. You don't
> have to be a techie to figure such things out.
>
>> I believe you are far too free with labelling people as idiots or
morons 
>> simply because they disagree with you, but then, I would say that :-)
>
> You're pretty free with labelling youself, like "liar". :-) It's not
about
> disagreeing with anything, it's about having no understanding.

I'll bow to your superiorty in the "having no understanding" department...

:-)

>
>>>But the reason why Y2K wasn't bad was because millions of
>>> programmers worked their brains out fixing the problems in time. I was
>>> one of them, and damaged my health in the process.
>>
>> Working oneself to the point of health endangerment is hardly very 
>> bright; some might think it idiotic...:-)
>
> I agree, it was stupid. I am a person who has always takem my
> responsibilities very seriously. I knew many people were depending
> on my work, and "in the heat of battle" allowed that to drive me too
> hard. I would not do it again.

Good. No-one should ever do that.
>
>> Yes, a huge amount of valuable work was done, and credit is due to
those 
>> who did it. But let's not forget that the computer industry caused the 
>> problem in the first place; it was therefore beholden on the computer 
>> industry to fix it.
>
> I agree, but management should have started fixing the problem
> sooner, rather than waiting until the last minute.

Uh huh, management were to blame, right? :-)

>
>>> It's easy to harp
>>> and complain, after the problem has been fixed. Terrorism isn't fixed,
>>> but Saddam Hussein is fixed, permanently, and terrorism has been held
>>> back, at least to a degree.
>>
I don't think I'm harping or complaining. I'm simply asking a few
questions. 
I'm not the only one. I don't consider questioning the Government (mine or

anyone else's...) to be "unpatriotic", on the contrary, I consider it the 
duty of all responsible citizens in duly elected democracies.to keep the 
people representing them honest.

>> Has it? The "terrorism" is inspired by perceived injustice and
inequity, 
>> further fuelled by religious extremism. Until these things are
addressed, 
>> the "War on Terrorism" cannot be won, and will, indeed, last for 
>> generations. The weapons that are needed are ability to listen and 
>> negotiate on the one hand, and education on the other. Instead the
usual 
>> redneck solution of overwhelming force has been adopted by a redneck 
>> President (with his own agenda) who is far from the sharpest tool in
the 
>> box, and whose actions should even embarrass other rednecks.
>
> Hogwash! You can't eliminate the "perceived" you can only deal
> with realities. When people choose to perceive themselves as
> eternal victims, what is there to do about it? Force their society
> to stop teaching hate to their children, as the Moslem cultures do?

Perhaps it starts at home.

> Israel, for example, would dearly love to stop all hostilities with
> the Arabs, but they can't, because the Arabs want to destroy Israel,
> and there's nothing else that will satisfy them.

Not all Arabs feel that way. You are painting with carefully chosen blacks

and whites. The Arab/Israeli conflict is another emotive issue with shades

of grey and rights and wrongs on both sides. The annihilation of Israel is

not, and has never been, on the table. Nobody, apart from fundamental 
extremists would sup****t that position.

> There is no solution
> for such a situation, other than for Israel to entirely destroy the
> Arabs or submit to annihilation.
>

Not at all. Arabs and Jews CAN live together in peace and mutual benefit. 
They did for many years and still do in parts of the Middle East. The 
problems of the area and of the cultures involved (neither side forgives 
easily...) make it complex, but it is not impossible to resolve and the
ONLY 
solution is not necessarily the one you advocate.

>>>As George Bush said from the beginning, we
>>> may not live to see the end of this war with terrorism.
>>
>> What "beginning" was that? He didn't say it in his speech after 9/11 
>> (which I read, and found quite inspirational...)
>
> I taped his speach before congress, and yes, he did say that, quite 
> clearly.

Perhaps you could cite the context of the passage where he said "we may
not 
live to see the end of this war with Terrorism". I am unable to find it in

the transcript of the post 9/11 speech. I do think it was a beautifully 
written speech and take my hat off to the person who wrote it...

>
>>> Our children,
>>> and maybe even our grandchildren, may be fighting it. Some problems
>>> are just not easily or quickly solved; that's life.
>>
>> NO problem is easily or quickly solved if the solution involves 
>> overwhelming power. The problem with such solutions is that they do not

>> address the root cause of the problem. (they can tem****arily make the 
>> problem appear to go away, but trouble is simmering just under the 
>> surface and re-emergence is inevitable. Where people have grievances
they 
>> need justice. At the very least they need to be listened to and 
>> respected.)
>
> As I said above, that's hogwash.

Hmmm... you've never studied conflict resolution have you Judson? :-)

Listen and respect is "hogwash"?

I suspect the hogs in your neck of the woods are in dire need of 
cleaning...:-) The materials needed are obviously in very short supply...

Of course, there is no need to resolve conflict if you simply apply 
overwhelming force. There is no need for equity or justice or respect if
you 
simply stamp on disagreement... Trouble is, that used to work, when people

were uneducated and prevented from having access to knowledge. In those
days 
they could be controlled by superstition and prohibited from thinking for 
themselves. Dissent meant eternal damnation in Hell fire. But time has
moved 
on, and there is something about those evil little Humans that stops them 
from just rolling over; it makes them lie down in front of tanks, it makes

them make statements like: "Give me Liberty or give me Death.", "Better to

die on our feet than live on our knees...", it makes them demand freedom, 
question their corrupt leaders, and it makes them  seek justice, not just 
for themselves, but for all Men.

The most powerful nation on Earth can no longer impose its will by force
of 
arms, alone. And many of its citizens realise that and are glad to look
for 
other ways. You could say America is growing up.

> Those people *want* to hate.
> How are the Moslem people being "persecuted" considering
> they are the vast majority within most of the geographic locations
> they inhabit? The West has been pouring money in there for
> decades to buy oil. But look at the difference in contributions to
> society between the vast Moslem population and tiny Israel.
> Those from tiny Israel *dwarf* by many times, the contributions
> form the entire Moslem population. If they would start teaching
> their children more math and science and stop teaching hate, that
> might one day be different.

Teach the Arabs Math and Science, eh? Any idea where the word "Algebra" 
comes from...?

I'm all in favour of education in ANY society. I see it as the best chance

to bring down fanatical religious extremism and for that reason alone, I'd

advocate it. Get people actually thinking and maybe they'll see through
the 
nonsense that has been inculcated in them since birth.

Sadly it isn't just Moslem extremists who preach a doctrine of hate. (Some

people in the West actually believe that concepts like respect for other 
cultures are "hogwash"... I know... it's shocking....)


> How do you suggest that be done
> from the outside?

I see no need to do it from the outside, and I think it is presumptuous to

even want to. There are already Iraqi people studying in Western 
Universities. Iraqi women, (just like their sisters elsewhere) are pretty 
fed up with being third class citizens and there are mutterings of change.

It starts with an undercurrent, whispered conversations in secret places, 
ideas not encountered before that inspire people to the realization that 
there are OTHER ways... Give it 30 years or so. Why do you suppose that 
regimes like the Taliban and the current Iranian rulers are SO
emphatically 
against education? Intellectuals and scholars are first against the
wall... 
because they know that a thinking population is much harder to control.

>Do you not realize they would literally have to
> be conquered and enslaved to do it, unless something like Bush
> is trying to do by establi****ng democrary in Afghanistan and
> Iraq right now doesn't work?

Conquer and enslave them so we can set them free, eh?

When you finish slavishly wor****pping at the altar of Democracy as the One

True Way, you might actually do some travelling and see if there is
anything 
of value in other systems, or even give some thought as to what is
required 
for Democracy to work.

>>> I can think of nothing that would encourage
>>> and embolden the terrorists more.
>>
>> The "terrorists" don't need encouraging or emboldenment and pulling 
>> troops out of Iraq will neither increase nor diminish their resolve.
>
> Again, you show cluelessness about human nature. People, even
> terrorists, do not live in a vacuum; they are influenced by events.

It is you who show cluelessness by believing that fanatics are influenced
by 
anything. These are not "normal people" (who certainly are influenced by 
events). People committed to Al Quaeda don't change their commitment
because 
the US has troops in Iraq or anywhere else. It is a different kind of war,

but that obviously hasn't filtered through to you yet.

This is a war of IDEOLOGY. The weapons and tactics are not tanks, planes, 
and guns.

But you have consistently demonstrated here that you're not good on 
ideology. One idea is enough for you. The One True Way... (And you call ME

clueless... :-))

>
>> (It will definitely save American lives and probably save Iraqui lives,

>> though...)
>>
>> These are people fanatically committed to a "cause", prepared to
destroy 
>> themselves and others, their motivation is hardly subject for dispute.
>
> You ignore the inevitable human response to long term failure and
> frustration and discouragement from unattained goals. Not all people,
> which includes not all terrorists, respond identically. But people are
> people, and have generally common emotions and responses to them.
> It won't stop all terrorists, no. But effectively blunting their efforts
> over time, while improving the lot of the population from which the
> terrorists come (e.g. establi****ng democracy there, if that's possible)
> will definitely have a positive effect over time. These things don't
> come about over the space of a few years, it takes decades.

A much more reasoned statement. Your assumption that establi****ng
democracy 
there will have a positive effect over time, may not be correct. It 
certainly WOULD have if they establish it themselves; it won't if it is 
imposed on them. And I don't agree that having their efforts militarily 
thwarted will change the Terrorist's determination. If anything, it
probably 
increases it (just like carpet bombing the North Vietnamese).
>
>> When Bin Laden is finally captured, someone else will take his place 
>> (he's probably already training a number of replacements), and that 
>> replacement probably won't be over six feet tall and need dialysis.
Given 
>> that it has proved impossible so far to capture or kill Bin Laden (who 
>> doesn't exactly blend into the scenery), there is even less hope of 
>> catching his successor. The best chance is to infiltrate his
organization 
>> and that doesn't seem to be so easy.
>
> Not done yet does not equate to impossible.

My statement started with "When", not "If" Does that imply I think it is 
impossible?

> All it takes is one person
> in the know about his whereabouts to decide to cash in on $50 million
> U.S. dollars.

If this is how he is captured, I don't believe it will be done for money.
If 
it was about money, he would have been betrayed by now.


> Killing or imprisioning bin Laden will mean more for
> Americans than for anyone else, because it will represent justice done.

See how the prospect of justice excites and pleases you? Why do you think 
that any other culture would not be equally pleased and excited to see
some?

> It took a long time, but the U.S. finally got all the terrorists 
> responsible
> for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and there was far less motivation
> there than in this.

I don't think that even one victim of that crash was resurrected by the 
bringing to justice of the perpetrators. I'm glad they were caught, but I 
don't delude myself it changes anything.

>
>> (You might ask yourself why it isn't easy... given that his
organisation 
>> is "evil", you'd think there would be people queuing up to bring it 
>> down... Could it be that the adherents to it DON'T see it as
"evil"?.... 
>> Gosh, maybe "evil" is a subjective concept as I mentioned above...)
>>
>> The War on Terrorism is NOT about personalities and military might. 
>> Perhaps a change of US president may afford an op****tunity to
re-evaluate 
>> more carefully.
>
> You keep criticising, but do not offer any alternatives.

I'm NOT "criticising". As always, I call them like I see them. What I'm 
expressing here are some opinions and they lead me to ask questions which
I 
think should be addressed. Many Americans are coming to the same
conclusions 
and the coming elections promise to be very interesting.

> If you're so
> clever, then lay out your detailed inevitably successful plans for us.
:-)
>
 My personal cleverness has no bearing on US foreign policy.

I do know something about resolving conflict (and have the certificates to

prove it...:-) however, even then I don't always apply what I know.

If you seriously want my advice (and I'm pretty sure you don't...) I would

suggest a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq (within a pretty agressive

time frame), combined with ALL interested Iraqi parties being encouraged
to 
sit around a table and try to establish what they see as the future for 
their country. That might be a democratic model or it might be an Islamic 
state, or it might be something in between. However, WHATEVER THEY decide 
should be binding and there should be no foreign interference or veto. The

only condition woud be that there would be no haven for Terrorism, and any

such haven would be subject to foreign attack.

In other words, their decision should be respected by the rest of the
world, 
even if it doesn't go the way we might like.

Foreign aid would not be dependent on what they decide. You either give
them 
aid or you don't. Aid could be targeted to schools, hospitals, law and 
order, and free exchange of students.

If they are unable to reach a compromise amongst themselves and decide to
go 
for Civil War, there should be immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces 
and just let them get on with it... The problem there is that it endangers

the oil supply and that is what this has always been about. That's a 
scenario that would need to be worked out with them, if and when it arose 
(maybe UN forces protecting oil supplies, and the revenues being held in 
trust in foreign banks until cessation of hostilities.)

Negotiation should not be conducted at the point of a gun.

All of the above is over simple and represents general approaches and 
attitudes. The details would have to be worked out for each scenario that 
arose.


>>> Regardless of whether or not the Iraq
>>> war was a good idea, pulling out too early would be a disaster, and
the
>>> stupidest thing we could possibly do, at this point.
>>
>> I disagree, and I think an increasing number of Americans disagree too.

>> The Iraquis should resolve their own problems, and should be left to do

>> so. If that means they install a regime unfriendly to the West, well, 
>> them's the breaks... The problem is, and has always been, about oil...
>>
>> However, a regime that was hostile to the West would STILL sell oil on 
>> the world market, because it is in their interest to do so. So the idea

>> of this source drying up is an improbable one.
>
> You talk about how unswervingly motivated to our destruction the
> terrorists are, willing to face death itself, then blithely assume *any
> regime* they brought into power would sell us oil. Clueless. :-)

You blithely assume that any regime the Iraqis came up with for themselves

would be backed by terrorists.  It wasn't in the past, why should it be
now?

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."