| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Chris Hayes" |
| Date: |
10 May 2005 11:04:18 PM |
| Object: |
Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
http://www.mises.org/story/1811
Why the State Celebrates Its Failures
by Grant M. N=FClle
[Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005]
The second anniversary of America's expedition into Iraq passed with
relatively scant fanfare. Since hostilities in Mesopotamia commenced,
thousands of American and Iraqi casualties have been tallied. Every
month Washington spends billion of dollars on counterinsurgency and
rebuilding efforts in Iraq and further afield, which swells the
nation's largest budget and budget deficit in its history[i].
As vast quantities of blood and treasure are expended abroad,
Washington politicians win plaudits domestically for their
warmongering, and government contracting at home and abroad burgeon, on
what basis is this imperial project-financed by foreign lenders and
American taxpayers-justified?
Whiffed on a curveball
The "slam dunk" pretext for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam Hussein's
reputed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. Although the Bush
administration touted the virtues of toppling a mass murderer and
inspiring/imposing democracy across the Middle East, the most
compelling and controversial justification put to the American people
was the prospect of Saddam striking the U.S. with WMD himself or by
proxy, given his alleged connections to al-Qaeda. Only when the hyped
weapons failed to surface, and they have yet to do so, did the Bush
administration quickly scrap the weapons talking points and opt for the
democratization gambit.
Judging by the findings of the latest presidential commission to
investigate the intelligence failures concerning Saddam's fictitious
arsenal, it is clear the nation's security services and the American
people were duped, however willingly. The 14-month, $10 million
presidential commission concluded that virtually every shred of
evidence produced by the government's $40 billion per annum
intelligence apparatus was predicated on gravely flawed information. At
the center of the commission's report[ii] on the pre-war amalgamation
of WMD evidence was the Iraqi ex-pat code-named "Curveball," a chemical
engineer and brother of one of the aides to Ahmed Chalabi, head of the
then Pentagon-connected Iraqi National Congress.
Although American intelligence officers never met Curveball before the
war, save on one occasion, his dubious claims were unquestioningly
infused into the Bush administration's case against Iraq. The sole
Iraqi source spoke with frank specificity about Iraq's alleged
biological weapons programs and existence of mobile labs described by
then-Secretary of State Colin Powell during his now infamous Feb. 2003
address to the United Nations.
Post-war investigations showed that Curveball was not even in the
country at the times he claimed to have taken part in illicit weapons
work. CIA analysts who lobbied for the agency to come clean about its
star source's duplicity were sacked.
According to the commission, U.S. intelligence agencies' reliance on
Curveball and their failure to scrutinize his claims was the "primary
reason" that the CIA and other spy agencies "fundamentally misjudged
the status of Iraq's weapons programs."
Washington's other showpiece examples of Saddam's malevolent
intent-secret acquisitions of uranium and aluminum tubes for a
resurrected nuclear program and fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles
capable of discharging nasty chemical agents above U.S. cities-were
all undermined in turn by outside organizations. Inspectors from the
International Atomic Energy Agency discovered in Jan. 2003 that
documents fingering Iraq for attempting to purchase uranium from Niger
were forged, a mere inconvenience the CIA opted to ignore until a few
months after the war.
America's leading centrifuge physicists, who characterized it as
technically garbled and unmistakably false, dismissed the CIA's case
for aluminum tubes. Without convincingly substantiating in the first
place how unmanned aerial vehicles would make the trek from Iraq to
America undetected, the White House's claim was duly refuted by UN
Weapons inspectors before the war, who correctly assessed the vehicles
as fit for reconnaissance missions, not WMD delivery.
The glaring deficiency of the Robb-Silberman commission's report is
that its remit did not entail investigating policy-makers' (mis)use of
intelligence. Though the commission's findings explicitly deny that
political pressure was exerted on intelligence analysts to ensure
information fit the Bush administration's bellicose agenda, the
dismissal is belied by the text's accounts; one could reasonably infer
such a colossal blunder could not have been perpetrated without
direction from political handlers at the top.
Rather, Bush secures re-election for prosecuting a war under
deliberately false pretenses against an infirm adversary unconnected to
9-11. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's appointment to head the
World Bank smacks of former defense secretary and Vietnam War architect
Robert McNamara's selection in 1968. Condoleezza Rice becomes secretary
of state while her subordinate Stephen Hadley, assumes her former post.
A figure instrumental in ensuring the spurious uranium story posited in
the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bob Joseph, gets to be under
secretary of state. Lastly, George Tenet-head of the CIA during this
mess-is awarded a medal of freedom for presumably bending
intelligence to suit his boss's whims.
Hence, the Bush administration is exonerated by default and is
presented with an unprecedented opportunity to take credit for the
massive revamp of intelligence collection at home and abroad. If
justice were to be served, the president and his cronies would be held
to account for their actions.
Political and commercial means
To understand why the ruling political class is exempt from reproach
for their misguided and devious policies, one must recognize that the
state operates by distinct rules.
For starters, consider managers who deliberately fib about the health
of the commercial enterprise they run or that the company is simply
unable to pay its bills, which is tantamount to the entity failing at
its chief functions-serving customers and providing a return on
investment to its owners. Should management's chicanery or the firm's
woes be unmasked, whether by the keen eye of investment analysts, savvy
traders or competitors, the business's core stakeholders may choose to
sell shares and/or discontinue patronage.
Contractual and civil remedies ensure that the transgressors receive
comeuppance for their misdeeds and the business is liquidated, so that
the residual factors of production are better employed in more honest
and successful enterprises. At the heart of the process is the
voluntary exchange of property rights, embodied by enforceable
contracts and monitored by shareholders and their agents (traders) as
well as consumers, who ultimately decide the fate of businesses via
profits and losses, the unmistakable gauge of customer satisfaction.
Rarely are executives retained or promoted for presiding over
spectacular or chronic mistakes detrimental to shareholder value and
customer retention. Indeed, consumers jettison faltering entities as
quickly as they embrace burgeoning enterprises, which equally applies
to businesses' stewards.
Conversely, the government sector does not operate by the sanctity of
property rights, marginally adjusts to market signals and is only
nominally accountable at the ballot box. As the only
organization-save criminal gangs-that parasitically thrives on
plundering the fruits of others, it is apparent that the aforementioned
features of commercial exchanges are absent.
One simply cannot determine whether government agencies are efficient
and effective at bureaucratic activity and any accrual of revenue by
state agencies through their own production of goods and services is
funded solely through taxation[iii]. Only in the marketplace, where all
property transactions between individuals are voluntary, may one
properly account for revenues and expenditures and measure an
organization's success or shortcoming.
Since the state's viability is inexorably linked to the predation of
others' production, it follows that government administrators would
jealously guard its turf from rivals, thereby ensuring the state
retains a monopoly on the provision of defense and justice services.
Murray Rothbard made no distinction between the state and a criminal
gang[iv], save the scale of its operations and its perceived legitimacy
among a majority of its subjects. Ascendancy over waterways, roads, and
land ownership-including eminent domain-the post office and
education are often cited as vital to the state's viability.
As with any monopoly, the price of the good or service produced tends
to rise and the efficiency and effectiveness of output falls. Imbued
with the disutility of labor common to all men and bereft of
competition, much less the scruples and yardsticks of voluntary
production and exchange and profits and losses, state agencies tend
toward profligacy.
What is more, democracy is the political system most conducive to
burgeoning expenditures and an ever-expanding state due to its
intrinsic incentive structure.
Democracy deconstructed
As Hans Hermann-Hoppe adeptly describes in Democracy: The God that
failed, the democratic state is inherently a "public" monopoly. Unlike
privately-owned monopolies, e.g., monarchies where the sovereign
generally has an incentive to moderate expropriations of property to
preserve the realm's present value for heirs, state officials in a
democracy are mere caretakers who cannot privately enrich themselves
from ownership or sale of government property.
Rather, a moral hazard and tragedy of the commons ensues as bureaucrats
and politicians may merely exercise use of government property while on
the state payroll, precipitating a strong inducement to maximize
current use of government property, irrespective if such activities
entail dire consequences for taxpayers and the economy at large.
As concerns government finance, officials conduct the borrowing and
enjoy the resultant political plaudits from the constituencies that
benefit from state largesse while other private citizens defray the
expenditures and debts via taxation or government-stoked money
creation. Indeed, Hoppe contends an elected president can run up public
debts, instigate inflation, inaugurate long-running wars, and introduce
other state projects footed by hapless taxpayers without being held
personally liable for the consequences.
Rothbard's Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy methodically
chronicles how the personnel of successive democratically-elected
administrations manipulated American foreign policy to secure the
narrow self-interests of connected business interests whilst justifying
these massive, costly and incessant interventions on the pretext of
combating communism or promoting democracy.
Politicians who have aggressively expanded the state in America and
elsewhere are extolled as great. Verily, democratic governance provides
an alluring career for aspiring politicians, their cronies and
bureaucrats. Not only do officials have the resources accrued by the
state at their disposal, they also exercise the authority and
wherewithal to confiscate private property and participate in the
process of spending and borrowing-absent individual culpability-all
the while receiving a salary and pension funded by taxpayers.
Furthermore, politicians and appointed administrators are only
accountable during regular popularity contests, in which voters can
reshuffle personnel but are not inclined to alter fundamentally the
scheme of free-for-all theft.
Hoppe states democracy abolishes the distinction between rulers and
ruled-the limited opportunity to become a member of the royal family
that pervaded under monarchy-and assumes that any member of the
political system may ascend to the upper echelons of governance. Given
the state's indispensable need to steal for its subsistence and the
nearly unfettered entry into the ranks of the ruling class, democracy
renders it that much easier for politicians to accelerate exactions
from the public, as the gates remain open for any individual or faction
to gain access to governmental powers and impose the same taxes or
regulations themselves. As democracy has taken root in the United
States and elsewhere, jostling between rival political factions has
been less about how flaccid or robust the state should be, but what
direction the state should take as its scope expands.
The ability of elected politicians and entrenched bureaucrats to
institutionalize and enforce systematic predation and redistribution of
private property is an outcome of the democratic ethos itself. Indeed,
the grand bargain of democracy is this: every individual within the
system-whether voluntarily or not-cedes the inviolable title to his
or her property for the ability to either elect, participate in or
marshal a political movement that competes for the privilege of seizing
and spending everyone else's money. It follows that individual
responsibility and private property ownership are seriously impaired
and denigrated as the government-instituted "law of the jungle" taps
innate human characteristics such as envy, self-preservation, and
keenness for gratification.
As Frederic Bastiat explained in The Law, self-preservation and
self-development are universal instincts among men as is the preference
to do so with the minimum amount of pain and the maximum level of ease.
Plunder then is favored over production, so long as the risks and
inputs of confiscation are not as agonizing or as indomitable as the
painstaking act of production and exchange. When given an opportunity
to seize private property or stipulate regulations on owner's use
thereof, as democratic rule is wont to do, participants in the
political system vie for the chance to apply the state's coercive arm
in service of their supporters' ends.
Motivated by envy and self-preservation, all classes of individuals
demand, whether through forceful or pacific means, the franchise as its
price for defraying the expenses of others running the government. Once
empowered to help decide the course of public expenditures-Bastiat
wrote-plundered classes opt to be as licentious as other enfranchised
classes, rendering the systematic looting universal, even though such
profligacy is undeniably detrimental to the economy's well-being.
It should be noted that the chief feedback mechanism of democratic
government, voting, does occur in private enterprises and associations.
Beyond this superficial similarity, however, there are acute
distinctions. Shareholders exercise voting rights in a corporation
proportionate to stock ownership whereas every eligible voter in a
democratic election is entitled to one vote, irrespective if they are
net tax-eaters or taxpayers.
Should shareholders grow disaffected by voting procedures, business
strategies or dividends payouts they may opt out of owning a portion of
an enterprise by selling stock, a prerogative denied to democratic
voters who must acquiesce to government spending plans and
policies-regardless of consent-lest they risk jail or emigration.
The intrinsic tenuousness of property ownership in a democratic system
and the inability to extricate oneself and possessions from possible
confiscation accelerates the temptation to seize other people's goods.
Bastiat argues that the onset of universal plunder undermines the
purpose of law, in his view the collective organization of the
individual right to defense of life, liberty and property. The moment
law is perverted to engineer ends contrary to individual liberty, e.g.,
enshrining the notion individuals are entitled to a portion of each
other's property absent voluntary agreement, the conversion pits
morality versus the adulterated law. Thus, moral chaos is the outcome
of democratization, as one must either relinquish respect for the law
or compromise moral sense.
The divergence between morality and democratic rule can be observed in
legal positivism, the notion that right and wrong are absent prior to
the introduction of legislation. Legislation attenuates predictability
of law as the free entry into government and the intrinsic fluidity of
political priorities ensure the governing process reflects the most
urgent desires of policy-makers and the electorate, irrespective of the
long-term ramifications of the enacted rules. Furthermore, the
emergence of public or administrative law, which exempts government
agents from individual culpability when exercising their sanctioned
duties, enables the state's workforce to engage in behaviors that no
other individual may commit licitly. Lew Rockwell cites a few
euphemisms where the state excused itself from the laws it professes to
uphold, such as kidnapping posing as selective service, counterfeiting
masquerading as monetary policy and mass murder sold as foreign
policy[v].
Consequently, law is not considered negative-inimical to injustice as
Bastiat would have it-much less universal, eternally bestowed,
discoverable by man and anterior to the institution of government.
Bastiat asserts that the prior existence of life, liberty, and property
is the impetus for enacting laws in the first place. Moreover, the
demarcation between right and wrong and the very definition of crime is
obfuscated and debased by the inexhaustible and transitory adoption and
amendment of legislative diktat and the bifurcation of law codes
applicable to the rulers and the ruled.
In sum, the unique characteristics of democratic government tend,
according to Hoppe, Bastiat and others, to accelerate rising time
preference, decivilization, and the incidence of crime to the detriment
of private property, voluntary production and exchange, individual
responsibility and even morality.
Why then do Messrs. Bush, Wolfowitz, and any other politicians,
statesmen or bureaucrats get away with inaugurating recurring conflicts
and administer an ever-expanding vehicle of coercion and plunder? The
fundamental rules and ethos of democratic government impel man's innate
inclination toward self-preservation and self-development to not only
produce, trade and safeguard his own possessions but also employ legal
theft to acquire more property from others.
Politicians and their deputies are merely the best at exploiting the
system's impaired moral climate to organize the state's confiscatory
arm to serve their backer's interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Grant M. N=FClle is a Research Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises
Institute. [grantn007@yahoo.com]. Comment on the Mises Economics Blog.
[i]N=FClle, Grant. "Is Bush a budget cutter?" Mises.org. 10 March 2005.
[ii] "Commission on the capabilities of the United States regards in
Weapons of Mass Destruction."
[iii]Mises, Ludwig von. Bureaucracy.
[iv]Rothbard, Murray N. Power and Market.
[v]Rockwell, Lew. "Why the State is different." Mises.org. 30 Dec.
2003.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
10 May 2005 11:43:54 PM |
|
|
Assuming Iraq was a misstep in the war on terror, here is the reason to
support Bush:
1. The US is currently in a state of total war with Al-Qaeda. The
commander-in-chief of Al Qaeda in Iraq is al-Zarqawi. The
commander-in-chief of Al Qaeda overall is OBL.
2. Bush is the commander-in-chief of the US.
3. When a commander-in-chief makes some inevitable missteps (poorly
chosen battles in the bigger war), the people should still support the
commander-in-chief for the sake of morale and unity in a time of war,
as this was just one of many battles. Some battles will be missteps;
some battles will be good steps. The point is the larger war. Unity is
worth not dwelling on the missteps. Instead, optimize our unity and
strength to win the larger war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
11 May 2005 12:37:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Assuming Iraq was a misstep in the war on terror,
Where a "misstep in the war on terror" apparently means
ignoring terrorists and attacking someone else.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
11 May 2005 12:20:21 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Assuming Iraq was a misstep in the war on terror, here is the reason
to
support Bush:
1. The US is currently in a state of total war with Al-Qaeda. The
commander-in-chief of Al Qaeda in Iraq is al-Zarqawi. The
commander-in-chief of Al Qaeda overall is OBL.
So why isn't Bush focusing on getting OBL? He's sorta been pushed down
the Memory Hole.
2. Bush is the commander-in-chief of the US.
Irrelevant. He's a proven liar and is costing the US far more than he
is helping.
3. When a commander-in-chief makes some inevitable missteps (poorly
chosen battles in the bigger war), the people should still support
the
commander-in-chief for the sake of morale and unity in a time of war,
as this was just one of many battles. Some battles will be missteps;
some battles will be good steps. The point is the larger war. Unity
is
worth not dwelling on the missteps. Instead, optimize our unity and
strength to win the larger war.
Instead of finding fault with Bush, we should all march in lock step
for the "larger war"? Since the people in the USG can't even agree on
a single definition of "terrorism" (much less the rest of the world)
and they say this is a "war" which will take decades to fight, one
would have the obligation to criticize Bush if he's causing more harm.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
11 May 2005 07:19:11 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 10 May 2005 21:43:54 -0700,
nitin_paul_batra@hotmail.com let us all know that:
Assuming Iraq was a misstep in the war on terror, here is the reason to
support Bush:
There can be no "war on terror" in the same way that there can be
no "war on poverty" or "war on drugs": you can't fight something
amorphous and without any real plan. It's a clear violation of the
wisdom of Sun Tzu.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
12 May 2005 07:09:23 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on 10 May 2005 21:43:54 -0700,
nitin_paul_batra@hotmail.com let us all know that:
Assuming Iraq was a misstep in the war on terror, here is the reason
to
support Bush:
There can be no "war on terror" in the same way that there can be
no "war on poverty" or "war on drugs": you can't fight something
amorphous and without any real plan. It's a clear violation of the
wisdom of Sun Tzu.
Ah, but consider the advantages! Drugs can't fight back. You can
declare victory if that is to your advantage and drugs won't say a
thing. You can say you are losing the war and you need more funding.
You can declare so-and-so an ally in the war on drugs and Congress will
send money, you can say so-and-so is an enemy in the war on drugs and
send in the troops. And if so-and-so says he has nothing to do with
drugs then he's a liar and that makes him even worse. There is no
getting out of it. It's beautiful!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
11 May 2005 11:06:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:19:11 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on 10 May 2005 21:43:54 -0700,
nitin_paul_batra@hotmail.com let us all know that:
Assuming Iraq was a misstep in the war on terror, here is the reason to
support Bush:
There can be no "war on terror" in the same way that there can be
no "war on poverty" or "war on drugs": you can't fight something
amorphous and without any real plan. It's a clear violation of the
wisdom of Sun Tzu.
But you can use Clauswitz and find the 'center of gravity' and focus
on that.
Of course in this case you will be fighting terrorism by creating the
conditions for political and social reform in the Middle East (such as
creating a functioning democracy in a nation located at the central
point in the region).
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
11 May 2005 06:34:21 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 11 May 2005 09:06:18 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 07:19:11 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on 10 May 2005 21:43:54 -0700,
nitin_paul_batra@hotmail.com let us all know that:
Assuming Iraq was a misstep in the war on terror, here is the reason to
support Bush:
There can be no "war on terror" in the same way that there can be
no "war on poverty" or "war on drugs": you can't fight something
amorphous and without any real plan. It's a clear violation of the
wisdom of Sun Tzu.
But you can use Clauswitz and find the 'center of gravity' and focus
on that.
You could try, but it's like the cliche of nailing jello to a
wall.
Of course in this case you will be fighting terrorism by creating the
conditions for political and social reform in the Middle East (such as
creating a functioning democracy in a nation located at the central
point in the region).
No, you will be fomenting more terrorism (mostly against the
troops) by overthrowing, yes, a nasty dictator, and telling the
citizens that "You can have any type of government you want, so long
as it's a constitutional representative democracy and so long as
there's no Shi'ia majority".
And that's exactly what's happening.
Also, there's the problem of how do you tell the good guys from
the bad guys without a program? Like the VC, they blend in.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
11 May 2005 07:42:34 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:34:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
But you can use Clauswitz and find the 'center of gravity' and focus
on that.
You could try, but it's like the cliche of nailing jello to a
wall.
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
Of course in this case you will be fighting terrorism by creating the
conditions for political and social reform in the Middle East (such as
creating a functioning democracy in a nation located at the central
point in the region).
No, you will be fomenting more terrorism (mostly against the
troops) by overthrowing, yes, a nasty dictator, and telling the
citizens that "You can have any type of government you want, so long
as it's a constitutional representative democracy and so long as
there's no Shi'ia majority".
When did we ever say that?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
12 May 2005 05:28:56 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Wed, 11 May 2005 17:42:34 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:34:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
But you can use Clauswitz and find the 'center of gravity' and focus
on that.
You could try, but it's like the cliche of nailing jello to a
wall.
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Of course in this case you will be fighting terrorism by creating the
conditions for political and social reform in the Middle East (such as
creating a functioning democracy in a nation located at the central
point in the region).
No, you will be fomenting more terrorism (mostly against the
troops) by overthrowing, yes, a nasty dictator, and telling the
citizens that "You can have any type of government you want, so long
as it's a constitutional representative democracy and so long as
there's no Shi'ia majority".
When did we ever say that?
From the get-go, that has been Bush & Cos. policy in Iraq.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
12 May 2005 07:54:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:28:56 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 11 May 2005 17:42:34 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:34:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
But you can use Clauswitz and find the 'center of gravity' and focus
on that.
You could try, but it's like the cliche of nailing jello to a
wall.
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Then you do not understand the concept of 'center of gravity' either.
No, you will be fomenting more terrorism (mostly against the
troops) by overthrowing, yes, a nasty dictator, and telling the
citizens that "You can have any type of government you want, so long
as it's a constitutional representative democracy and so long as
there's no Shi'ia majority".
When did we ever say that?
From the get-go, that has been Bush & Cos. policy in Iraq.
Says who?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 09:58:19 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 12 May 2005 17:54:34 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:28:56 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 11 May 2005 17:42:34 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:34:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
But you can use Clauswitz and find the 'center of gravity' and focus
on that.
You could try, but it's like the cliche of nailing jello to a
wall.
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Then you do not understand the concept of 'center of gravity' either.
But I do.
No, you will be fomenting more terrorism (mostly against the
troops) by overthrowing, yes, a nasty dictator, and telling the
citizens that "You can have any type of government you want, so long
as it's a constitutional representative democracy and so long as
there's no Shi'ia majority".
When did we ever say that?
From the get-go, that has been Bush & Cos. policy in Iraq.
Says who?
Says the policy of Bush & Co.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 11:19:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:58:19 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Then you do not understand the concept of 'center of gravity' either.
But I do.
Actually, you proved that you do not with your comment above: "It's
quite decentralized."
You can claim all you want but your own words prove you wrong.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 06:31:51 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 09:19:47 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:58:19 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Then you do not understand the concept of 'center of gravity' either.
But I do.
Actually, you proved that you do not with your comment above: "It's
quite decentralized."
Actually, I proved that I do.
You can cry all you want, but your tears mean nothing to me.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
14 May 2005 01:26:58 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:31:51 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Then you do not understand the concept of 'center of gravity' either.
But I do.
Actually, you proved that you do not with your comment above: "It's
quite decentralized."
Actually, I proved that I do.
Your 'decentralized' comment betrayed your ignorance.
You are just making stuff up - aren't you?
"The commander in the field is always right and the
rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise."
General Colin Powell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
14 May 2005 07:09:51 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 23:26:58 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:31:51 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Then you do not understand the concept of 'center of gravity' either.
But I do.
Actually, you proved that you do not with your comment above: "It's
quite decentralized."
Actually, I proved that I do.
Your 'decentralized' comment betrayed your ignorance.
No it doesn't.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
14 May 2005 11:46:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:09:51 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 23:26:58 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:31:51 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Then you do not understand the concept of 'center of gravity' either.
But I do.
Actually, you proved that you do not with your comment above: "It's
quite decentralized."
Actually, I proved that I do.
Your 'decentralized' comment betrayed your ignorance.
No it doesn't.
Then explain why you think that 'decentralization' means no center of
gravity.
Especially considering that the term 'center of gravity' refers to an
event - not any particular place or thing.
"The commander in the field is always right and the
rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise."
General Colin Powell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
15 May 2005 11:56:47 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 14 May 2005 21:46:19 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Sat, 14 May 2005 19:09:51 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 23:26:58 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:31:51 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
But I do (I happen to own a copy and have read _On War_). And
there isn't one in this case. It's quite decentralized.
Then you do not understand the concept of 'center of gravity' either.
But I do.
Actually, you proved that you do not with your comment above: "It's
quite decentralized."
Actually, I proved that I do.
Your 'decentralized' comment betrayed your ignorance.
No it doesn't.
Then explain why you think that 'decentralization' means no center of
gravity.
Because there's no one central event. No one thing we can
actually "do something" about. The troops are just blindly beating the
bushes with a stick to find some event that may or may not have
happened or will have happened. They are lost. They are looking for a
nonexistant black cat in a room with no lights.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
15 May 2005 11:08:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:56:47 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
Then explain why you think that 'decentralization' means no center of
gravity.
Because there's no one central event. No one thing we can
actually "do something" about. The troops are just blindly beating the
bushes with a stick to find some event that may or may not have
happened or will have happened. They are lost. They are looking for a
nonexistant black cat in a room with no lights.
So there is no change that can occur that will result in us achieving
our aims?
What if the countries of the Middle East reformed their political,
economic and religious structures that are what produced Al Queda?
The problem is that you simply have no clue as to what you are talking
about.
BTW: You haven't a distant clue what you're talking about. In fact, you
couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season if you stood in the
middle of a field of horny clues, smeared your body with clue musk and
did the clue mating dance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
16 May 2005 07:06:38 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 15 May 2005 21:08:35 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:56:47 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
Then explain why you think that 'decentralization' means no center of
gravity.
Because there's no one central event. No one thing we can
actually "do something" about. The troops are just blindly beating the
bushes with a stick to find some event that may or may not have
happened or will have happened. They are lost. They are looking for a
nonexistant black cat in a room with no lights.
So there is no change that can occur that will result in us achieving
our aims?
Short of every terrorist suddenly dying all at once--no.
What if the countries of the Middle East reformed their political,
economic and religious structures that are what produced Al Queda?
What produced Al Queda was US government policy in the Middle
East.
The problem is: you think that the US government never does any
wrong.
What a suprise you're in for.
btw, you could never get a clue. You worship the state and all of
its accoutrements. You have no idea as to real political philosophy,
so it's best that you stop pretending that you do.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
16 May 2005 11:43:19 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 May 2005 07:06:38 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
So there is no change that can occur that will result in us achieving
our aims?
Short of every terrorist suddenly dying all at once--no.
What if the countries of the Middle East reformed their political,
economic and religious structures that are what produced Al Queda?
What produced Al Queda was US government policy in the Middle
East.
Wrong. That's the 'easy answer' for those who have not studied Al
Queda.
I bet you have no idea what AQs long term 'end state' is.
I take it you have not read Al Queda's internal documents (English
translations have been available on the Internet for years.)
The problem is: you think that the US government never does any
wrong.
Wrong. I freely admit that we make mistakes. However I refuse to
admit guilt for things we are not responsible for.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
12 May 2005 12:53:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 17:42:34 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:34:21 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
But you can use Clauswitz and find the 'center of gravity' and focus
on that.
You could try, but it's like the cliche of nailing jello to a
wall.
Not if you understand the concept of 'center of gravity.'
Of course in this case you will be fighting terrorism by creating the
conditions for political and social reform in the Middle East (such as
creating a functioning democracy in a nation located at the central
point in the region).
No, you will be fomenting more terrorism (mostly against the
troops) by overthrowing, yes, a nasty dictator, and telling the
citizens that "You can have any type of government you want, so long
as it's a constitutional representative democracy and so long as
there's no Shi'ia majority".
When did we ever say that?
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
12 May 2005 11:38:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:53:31 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 17:42:34 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
No, you will be fomenting more terrorism (mostly against the
troops) by overthrowing, yes, a nasty dictator, and telling the
citizens that "You can have any type of government you want, so long
as it's a constitutional representative democracy and so long as
there's no Shi'ia majority".
When did we ever say that?
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that is
what they get.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
12 May 2005 05:33:45 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 12 May 2005 09:38:14 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 05:53:31 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 17:42:34 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
No, you will be fomenting more terrorism (mostly against the
troops) by overthrowing, yes, a nasty dictator, and telling the
citizens that "You can have any type of government you want, so long
as it's a constitutional representative democracy and so long as
there's no Shi'ia majority".
When did we ever say that?
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that is
what they get.
They weren't allowed to have it.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
12 May 2005 07:49:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:33:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that is
what they get.
They weren't allowed to have it.
What makes you think this? (I do expect that your answer will be
amusing - even if you do not intend it to be.)
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 09:58:57 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 12 May 2005 17:49:32 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:33:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that is
what they get.
They weren't allowed to have it.
What makes you think this?
Oh, the statements of Bush, Powell, and Rice.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 11:14:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:58:57 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 12 May 2005 17:49:32 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:33:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that is
what they get.
They weren't allowed to have it.
What makes you think this?
Oh, the statements of Bush, Powell, and Rice.
Can you provide quotes? Or is your reasoning based on what you wish
they had said?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 06:30:24 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 09:14:33 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:58:57 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 12 May 2005 17:49:32 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:33:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that is
what they get.
They weren't allowed to have it.
What makes you think this?
Oh, the statements of Bush, Powell, and Rice.
Can you provide quotes?
Did you watch the evening news in 2003 and 2004?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "La N" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 06:33:19 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:v3ea8156kdkignam65ej6um0nngif3jqhl@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 09:14:33 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:58:57 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 12 May 2005 17:49:32 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:33:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that is
what they get.
They weren't allowed to have it.
What makes you think this?
Oh, the statements of Bush, Powell, and Rice.
Can you provide quotes?
Did you watch the evening news in 2003 and 2004?
I watched the news in 2003 and 2004, and I distinctly remember
a few times Bush being asked about what if the Iraqis want a
theocracy. He responded something along the lines of if that
is what they want, they will have it and the U.S. would live
with it, being that it was a democratic process etc. etc. etc.....
I'm no Bush fan and I sure as hell didn't support this war,
but I really dislike it when people make up quotes to support
their (opposing) POVs.
- nilita
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 08:47:27 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 23:33:19 GMT, "La N"
<nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:v3ea8156kdkignam65ej6um0nngif3jqhl@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 09:14:33 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:58:57 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 12 May 2005 17:49:32 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:33:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that is
what they get.
They weren't allowed to have it.
What makes you think this?
Oh, the statements of Bush, Powell, and Rice.
Can you provide quotes?
Did you watch the evening news in 2003 and 2004?
I watched the news in 2003 and 2004, and I distinctly remember
a few times Bush being asked about what if the Iraqis want a
theocracy. He responded something along the lines of if that
is what they want, they will have it and the U.S. would live
with it, being that it was a democratic process etc. etc. etc.....
I don't recall that. In fact, I recall the opposite.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: Why does Government Celebrate it's Failures? |
13 May 2005 10:57:43 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:r4ma8192b0peeene366qm6t9nsgvt12cmm@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 23:33:19 GMT, "La N"
<nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:v3ea8156kdkignam65ej6um0nngif3jqhl@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Fri, 13 May 2005 09:14:33 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> let us all know
that:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 09:58:57 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
In alt.atheism on Thu, 12 May 2005 17:49:32 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:33:45 -0500, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:
So if Iraq decides they want an Iranian-style Shi'ite theocracy,
that's somehow more beneficial to the US "War on Terror" than
leaving
Saddam in power?
Not 'more beneficial' but if that what the Iraqi people want - that
is
what they get.
They weren't allowed to have it.
What makes you think this?
Oh, the statements of Bush, Powell, and Rice.
Can you provide quotes?
Did you watch the evening news in 2003 and 2004?
I watched the news in 2003 and 2004, and I distinctly remember
a few times Bush being asked about what if the Iraqis want a
theocracy. He responded something along the lines of if that
is what they want, they will have it and the U.S. would live
with it, being that it was a democratic process etc. etc. etc.....
I don't recall that. In fact, I recall the opposite.
Bush said many things in the leadup to the war. I'm willing to bet he said
things that could be interpreted one way or the other (conceivably both, if
he was reading a speech by a good speech-writer).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
