"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week

As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that 4
or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much. Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq
was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad
idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess."
You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is useless
when applied to long term problems.



Depends on what you mean by "normal". The 24x7 cycle is represented by the
shallowest of resources, specifically the cable & network channels. Nobody
interested in depth considers those sources to be "normal".

"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.

" Tuuk" wrote in message news:90Ucc.11734

And also there Harry,,, Doesn't the Kerry Family own Heinz Ketchup? Do you
know how much offshore labor or non American labor is used for making that
Product? How come when Kerry was asked about this, he only claimed that he
has nothing to do with the managing of the firm? He (or his wife) own the
firm, but have no control over management? He criticizes the president
over
his job migration thing, and Kerry himself takes advantage of lower income
earning labor.

Tuuk, you have to be fair when it is due. Neither John Kerry nor the Kerry
family "owns the firm". Kerry had nothing major to do with Heinz before he
married into it. In fact, his wife had nothing to do with it before SHE
married into it. Heinz is a publicly traded company in which Teresa Heinz,
by virtue of her first husband's death, is a very major shareholder.

Heinz is an international concern in the truest sense of the word. Some 60%
of their sales are outside of the US. Its only reasonable to locate
production close to markets when possible. Last figures I saw indicated
about 60% of sales outside of the US, and about 72% of production outside of
the US. So, they're maybe a little unbalanced, but nowhere near a major
offender.

Much as I'd love to cover him in catsup, this one won't work.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:57:02 -0400, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.

Very well done, John. Even those who disagree with your political view would
have to credit this post as a good job.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.

Why didn't BushCo TELL us that, in the beginning, or even NOW? If it
is so very clear to you, then it must be just as clear to Bush and his
cabinet. Why did he say we were going to Iraq to rid the world of
Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, if he knew we were actually
going there because of the above reasons? Am I to understand that,
because you've listed the above reasons, and those reasons only, that
you AGREE that Bush lied to us?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

" Tuuk" wrote in message news:90Ucc.11734

And also there Harry,,, Doesn't the Kerry Family own Heinz Ketchup? Do
you
know how much offshore labor or non American labor is used for making
that
Product? How come when Kerry was asked about this, he only claimed that
he
has nothing to do with the managing of the firm? He (or his wife) own
the
firm, but have no control over management? He criticizes the president
over
his job migration thing, and Kerry himself takes advantage of lower
income
earning labor.

Tuuk, you have to be fair when it is due. Neither John Kerry nor the
Kerry
family "owns the firm". Kerry had nothing major to do with Heinz before
he
married into it. In fact, his wife had nothing to do with it before SHE
married into it. Heinz is a publicly traded company in which Teresa
Heinz,
by virtue of her first husband's death, is a very major shareholder.

Heinz is an international concern in the truest sense of the word. Some
60%
of their sales are outside of the US. Its only reasonable to locate
production close to markets when possible.

.....especially for food products whose raw materials are highly perishable,
like tomatoes. This logic probably escaped Tuuk, though. :-)

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:57:02 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

Saddam's Iraq was many things, but unstable it was not. Today's Iraq is
unstable. Hopefully this will change, but it is not a certainty.
Unfortunately, at this moment, I would say a civil war is as likely as a
democracy.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant
force, and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for
al Qaeda.

We have effectively removed Afghanistan as a stable anything, except
perhaps a stable source of opium. There are some positive signs. Perhaps
if Iraq hadn't put Afghanistan on the back burner, we could have claimed
some real successes.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have
bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

Maybe, Iran certainly isn't our friend, but neither do they seem to be
exporting problems for us. Iran has domestic problems to deal with,
including a democratic movement that threatens the Islamic regime.


4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the
entire northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

Personally, I'm not much of a fan of Israel's Likud hardliners. Let them
fight their own battles. As an aside, you do know that Syria was a
coalition member in the Gulf War. They are Israel's enemy, not
necessarily ours.


6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

Reagan's bombing of Libya changed Qadhafi. Libya's efforts at
normalization predate Bush's War on Terror.


7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both
communicated with the US, indicating a preference for a softer,
non-militant, non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an
end to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

Sudan's troubles are mostly ethnic/religious.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

LOL, normalized relations don't necessarily mean allies.


11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power
in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the
region, see their influence jeopardized.

Egypt's influence is not based on oil.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most
indicating a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just
a battle.

Geopolitical chess is a very dangerous game, especially since no human can
see the end result. Food for thought, Iraq and Iran were once both strong
allies.

"basskisser" wrote in message

Why didn't BushCo TELL us that, in the beginning, or even NOW?

Because it takes more than 45 seconds to explain properly, and most
Americans are too damned ignorant of geography and world events to follow
along. Consider the bell curve.


.....Am I to understand that,
because you've listed the above reasons, and those reasons only, that
you AGREE that Bush lied to us?

No, not at all. He posited that portion of the argument that would resonate
in an ADD, sound-bite society. Fact is, he didn't have to explain anything
in detail. Leaders are elected in a Republic to exercise their judgment. A
leader is someone who can and will take you where you need to, but don't
want to go. Make the decision, and do it. Gallup polls and focus groups
are for those trying to evade responsibility. Do you think Roosevelt or
Churchill explained every detail to their respective populations? Asked
permission? Ever read about Coventry? Think anyone in the US Congress
would have the stones to make that kind of decision?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Why didn't BushCo TELL us that, in the beginning, or even NOW?

Because it takes more than 45 seconds to explain properly, and most
Americans are too damned ignorant of geography and world events to follow
along. Consider the bell curve.


.....Am I to understand that,
because you've listed the above reasons, and those reasons only, that
you AGREE that Bush lied to us?

No, not at all. He posited that portion of the argument that would
resonate
in an ADD, sound-bite society. Fact is, he didn't have to explain
anything
in detail. Leaders are elected in a Republic to exercise their judgment.
A
leader is someone who can and will take you where you need to, but don't
want to go. Make the decision, and do it. Gallup polls and focus groups
are for those trying to evade responsibility. Do you think Roosevelt or
Churchill explained every detail to their respective populations? Asked
permission? Ever read about Coventry? Think anyone in the US Congress
would have the stones to make that kind of decision?



Bull****. There are plenty of real reporters who would've given Bush as much
time as he wanted, to explain his policies in depth to people who would
listen. He never tried, not that he could've done it without a script. But,
there are plenty of citizens who would've listened.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...

snip

every Arab or Islamic government from Gibraltar ...

NEWS UPDATE: Gibraltar last had an Islamic Government in 1492
===========

We have been British since 1704 which predates the founding of
the American state.

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com