jps wrote:

In article , rgrew176
@aol.com says...
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction

You've completely missed the point Dave. No one questions the
possibility the WMDs were there.

Oh really? It was not that long ago that you were on that bandwagon
where you were claiming that there were no WMD and that the war "was all
about oil".



The complaint is how we went there to solve the problem. No consensus,
no coalition, no use of diplomacy.

We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in
the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France
Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us.


A march to war on trumped up information

According to which facts?


(leave WMDs behind a moment),
beating the drums ever louder -- foregoing diplomatic resolutions for a
**** you, get out of my way, he's toast approach.

Diplomacy had been going on for the last 12 years. Technically, since
the conditions of the UN resolution which ended the Gulf war, have been
violated, we were doing nothing more than finding Saddam in default, and
resuming what we stopped 12 years ago.


It's the unilateral
approach that has America completely responsible militarily, monetarily,
ethically, morally responsible for the outcome. Our kids lives and our
cash at risk.

Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your
premise is flawed.


Bush is finally getting around to the true ambition of this
administration, to shove democracy down the throats of the mideast.

And that's a bad thing? That people have self determination? Would they
rather have someone tell them what to do and threaten their families if
they don't?


As many of the rec.boats contributors have been telling you and others,
the basis of this action can be found in the treatises written by the
political alliance known as Project for the New American Century.

Even if true, what is fundamentally wrong with getting everyone on the
same page? There would be less potential for conflict if we were all
allowed the same freedoms.


It's based on the 1970s movement initiated by Kissinger and has as its
founding premise the idea that controlling the mideast is manditory if
the US expects to remain the only superpower.

Not exactly. It's not about US supremecy as it is about global cohesion.


It's not about having
control of the oil product, it's about holding sway in the territory.

What happened to your old "it's about the oil" cry?



That insures it doesn't fall into the wrong hands and the ability to
have a hand in determining world oil pricing.

Now, you are finally hearing Bush's long term plan. It's not about
terrorism or Osama bin Laden. It's about influencing control over the
region.

We don't "control" our own country. Control implies a dictatorship-like
regime. Establishing a freely elected democracy is hardly "controlling"
it. We might be pushing history along a little faster, but the end
result is worth it.


So, the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on a
movement that was in place long before the events of 911. Bush and Rice
decided within days to use the events to draw Iraq into the the fray.

Again, where are your facts? Who is your "deep throat"?


So, have fun pointing at trees Dave, but don't forget to notice the
forest.


I find it curious, although not that all surprising that you don't find
it the least bit disengenuous that those quoted people have shifted
their viewpoints so radically and in such a partisan way.

Dave