[opendtv] Re: SINCLAIR TO AIR "A POW STORY: POLITICS, PRESSUREAND THE MEDIA"
- From: "Dewey Weaver" <dweaver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:37:28 -0400
Bob - I define easy as launching cruise missles against an aspirin factory and
bombing an empty AQ camp after you've tipped off Pakistan because you were
worried about hurting their feelings.
Iraq was the right move for Bush. He knew that Saddam had used WMD against his
own people and his neighbors. He knew that Saddam had compromised the UN,
France, Germany and Russia with Oil for Food money. He knew Saddam was housing
terrorist and compensating terrorist for killing Jews and Westerners. He knew
that starting in Iraq would lead to an impact on others in the region. Libya
fell within days of us yanking Saddam from his dirty rathole. Syria has a
choice now and our guys on the border have been taking incoming shells from
across Syria in the recent days - guess that is going to force a decision soon.
Guess who is Iran's next door neighbors now? Two US Allies. Nice containment
strategy if you think about it.
Thinking about N. Korea.. don't you think that Bush's assumption that their
neighbors may be in a better position to influence that region than we are
right now was a good decision. Kim is just looking for bribe money anyway and
the last liberals in the White House surely gave him everything he wanted
including money and nuclear fuel.
America has a history of making tough choices - in Vietnam - what else turned
communist around that country?????
Was Omaha Beach easy??? If it wasn't for us - the Brits and the French would
still be doing the goosestep as their national dance.
The battle of good and evil continues. John Kerry is not the man to lead it.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:43:15 -0400
>That works for Afghanistan but not necessarily Iraq. Saddam was single
>mindedly trying to stay alive IMO. He was not that great a supporter of
>Islam. He pointed Iraq in a more western direction allowing women to
>drive, embracing western culture across the board.
>
>He was more a target of Islamic terrorist along with the royal family in
>Suadi Arabia and a secular leader like Musharraf in Pakistan. If Saddam
>supported terror is was in reflex action like the martyr family house
>payments to Palestinians with the aim to deflect the terrorism from
>himself.
>
>The US after all made deals with Saddam in the past, he was a
>pragmatist, we could have probably easily made a deal with him this time
>also. In fact I think he expected it.
>
>Bush made the easiest choice in picking Iraq as a target. He passed on
>N. Korea, Iran and Pakistan all far more in bed with terrorist and all
>far more lethal to the US in the VERY short run. Two of them could
>supply terrorist with actual nuclear weapons now and Iran could any time
>now.
>
>Bush wouldn't have had to rely on faulty intelligence to decide whether
>these countries had ties to terrorist or possessed nuclear weapons.
>Pakistan has nuclear weapons, N. Korea says they have nuclear weapons
>and the missiles to deliver them and Iran is working furiously to have both.
>
>So why did we attack Iraq? My first choice would have been Syria. They
>have contacts with terrorist. They have training camps all over the
>place. We have known about them for 30 years. Why did we make a deal
>with Pakistan instead of invading? We had the troupes right on the
>border, they had lots of terrorists that they were in bed with and they
>have nuclear weapons. They probably have Osama as well. Why are we
>bargaining with N. Korea instead of invading?
>
>Why because its too hard. We don't do hard things. We look for easy
>things and our presidents tell us it will cost nothing. We buy off and
>make deals with the hard ones.
>
>We all know why we invaded Iraq. It was supposed to be easy, Saddam had
>tried to kill Bush senior and it was politically a win win, or so we
>thought.
>
>And I have to admit I was for the war. My only excuse is that I thought
>with Colin Powell around we would do it right. And I thought it would be
>easy also. I think it would have been also if we had gone in with
>overwhelming force and our allies. As it is we need a new president IMO.
>
>Bob Miller
>
>
>
>Dewey Weaver wrote:
>
>>Bert - what this comes down to is a battle of good vrs evil starting with
>>militant islam wanting you and all of your children dead. Who are the folks
>>best equipped to deal with this reality? Those who worry about their hair
>>(never elect anyone who resembles a Q-tip) or those brave enough to set aside
>>political risk and take the fight to an enemy those who's goal is to destroy
>>Western civilization.
>>
>>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>>From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>Reply-To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:27:46 -0400
>>
>>
>>
>>>John Golitsis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do my comments really sound partisan to you? They
>>>>weren't meant to be. Who says that all Republicans
>>>>are going to be in favour (note the CDN spelling) of
>>>>this, anyway? I'll bet that there's a good number
>>>>who aren't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I hate to digress, but ...
>>>
>>>Excellent point. Folks in other countries are probably
>>>unaware of the level of inconsistency that has crept
>>>into the rhetoric of the two US political parties.
>>>
>>>The Democrats, back in the Carter years, were quite
>>>happy with large deficits and were instrumental in
>>>dismantling much of covert intelligence operations.
>>>You can search on Church Committee Hearings for the
>>>motivation for the latter:
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------
>>>"In its consideration of covert action, the Committee
>>>was struck by the basic tension--if not
>>>incompatibility--of covert operations and the demands
>>>of a constitutional system. Secrecy is essential to
>>>covert operations; secrecy can, however, become a source
>>>of power, a barrier to serious policy debate within the
>>>government, and a means of circumventing the
>>>established checks and procedures of government. The
>>>Committee found that secrecy and compartmentation
>>>contributed to a temptation on the part of the Executive
>>>to resort to covert operations in order to avoid
>>>bureaucratic, congressional, and public debate."
>>>
>>>The Church Committee, 1973
>>>
>>>http://pw1.netcom.com/~ncoic/cia_info.htm
>>>---------------------------------------
>>>
>>>These days, the Democrats are finding themselves
>>>having to object to the disconnected mess they
>>>helped create in the intelligence community, and to
>>>the lack of intelligence gathering assets that existed
>>>before 9/11. Not to mention the deficit spending of
>>>this administration, which they thought was perfectly
>>>okay back when the economy was a shambles in the Carter
>>>years (double digit inflation and unemployment).
>>>
>>>Anyone care to guess how the Vietnam War was funded?
>>>
>>>On the other side of the coin --
>>>
>>>The Republican party seems to have been highjacked
>>>by the religious right? Republicans finding themselves
>>>opposing scientific research on religious/moral
>>>grounds? When did this happen? Or using human rights
>>>arguments to justify an invasion? That's a strange
>>>indeed. What happened to the undercurrent of
>>>isolationism the Republicans have always been known
>>>for?
>>>
>>>This is the weirdest election I've seen, certainly.
>>>And it's even more strange to hear Democracts and
>>>Republicans debate their inconsistent views so
>>>vehemently.
>>>
>>>Bert
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>>
>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>>>FreeLists.org
>>>
>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>>>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>
>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>>FreeLists.org
>>
>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>FreeLists.org
>
>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
