On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:08:27 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:40:40 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics.
Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is.
Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that covert
operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded".

Not underhanded, just incredibly stupid. How do you think Saddam came to
power in the first place?

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/f...s98/saddam.htm

Well, we have people here opposed to overt military action. The
alternative is covert military action.


Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be self
governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a
fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running
scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste freedom,
there will be no turning back, and their power base will evaporate.

And when Iran was once a democracy? What happened?

When you have a society which does not allow the right to own arms or
some other means to defend itself, it can easily be taken over by an
ambitious person with charisma, and the inside track to the military.
Many people can also be swayed to support someone by the promises of a
better life. Once that person seizes power, they are free to oppress
the people, establish a police state and rule by fear and intimidation



http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/1953coup.html


We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they share our
interests.

Like who?

Too numerous to name here, so a link:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html


At the same time we talk about democracy and free
elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations of
freedom utter nonsense.

We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by
democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force
this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a
potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive
dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD, killing
thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring country)

When did our foreign policy change?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...Hope_page.html

This site features the writing of someone who is so obviously left
biased that their objectivity is highly questionable. The author
borders on paranoid schizophrenia, as he tried to paint the picture of
the U.S. government looking for imaginary communists under every stone
in every country.

Communism WAS a legitimate threat. The human rights and economic
freedoms of the people under those rules were significantl;y less than
under our system of freedom and an open economy.

While we have historically adopted an "enemy of my enemy is my friend"
philosophy with regard to foreign relations, which has backfired in
our face (Iraq for example) no country in the world has done more to
advance the ideals of freedom and self determination than the U.S. I
challenge you to find any FACTUAL accounts to the contrary. The
democratic free market model is far superior to a socialist one, no
matter what Mr. Blum seems to think.

Dave