"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?

"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.