"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2003 15:26:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Doug, should we have allowed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the idea
that commerce would resolve any problems arising therefrom?

John H


You are confusing the issue. It's one thing to go to the aid of an ally
that
has been attacked. The PNAC doctrine encourages
"preemptive" strikes on countries that *may* be a *potential* threat to
us,
(solely determined by the Executive Branch).

Is not the 'picking of allies' part of the shaping of circumstances
which you find so abhorrent? Is not the picking of allies in our
fundamental interests? Is it our right to pick our allies? Chuck,
these are all things you find arrogant!

A preemptive strike doesn't constitute "picking an ally", John.

What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an
economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow.

How come Gadaffi couldn't be bought prior to our removing the governments of
Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't you think that it's possible he caved out of
fear rather than greed?

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:44:49 +0000, NOYB wrote:

How come Gadaffi couldn't be bought prior to our removing the governments
of Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't you think that it's possible he caved out
of fear rather than greed?

The process started long before Afghanistan, Iraq, or GWB. Reagan's
bombing might have woke him up. A little history:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3338713.stm

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


What we just did with Libya may end up being a perfect example of an
economic "preemptive strike". Gadaffi has been bought, somehow.

How come Gadaffi couldn't be bought prior to our removing the governments
of
Afghanistan and Iraq? Don't you think that it's possible he caved out of
fear rather than greed?


Neither you nor I have a clue why he flipped. However, either guess is
convenient.