On 24 Jun 2004 14:04:12 -0700, (Alex Horvath)
wrote:

We can never win this war on terrorism by killing people. Even Tenet
says that to call the war on terrorism a war is incorrect, it is no
more a war than the war on crime or the war on drugs neither of which
will ever have an endpoint.

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".


We have probably increased the number of terrorists 10 fold by
invading Iraq. There are millions upon millions of potential recruits
throughout the world.

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.



The solution to the terrorism problem has been staring us in the face
for 40 years but I'm afraid we are just too blind to see it. We
unconditionally support Israel as they commit what basically amounts
to genocide.

Woah! back up Jack. Who is it that continually sends homicide bombers
into which country to blow up innocent civilians? Is Israel to blame
for fighting back? Does Israel not have a right to peaceful
sovereignty?

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

Like who?

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)

Dave

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

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?

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

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

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:16:15 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


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

Those are the only two alternatives? How about dealing with third world
countries as we deal with first world countries?


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

Gun ownership in many of the countries we are talking about, especially
Arab countries, is pervasive. It hasn't helped them prevent tyrants.

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

Like who?

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

As you didn't like my link, I'll just name a few. Somoza, Pinochet,
Trujillo, Diem, the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos,
Batista, Francois & Jean Claude Duvalier, Francisco Franco, George
Papadopoulas, Pol Pot, . . .



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.

Please, Blum could be a looney tune. It wouldn't change a factual list of
CIA interventions.


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.

Many of our interventions, predate communism.

http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resourc...rventions.html


The democratic free market
model is far superior to a socialist one, no matter what Mr. Blum seems to
think.

I see part of your problem. You are confusing a political system with an
economic system. Very easy to do, hell the CIA does it all the time.
What do you think? Was Chile better off under a democratically elected
Allende or a US imposed tyrant Pinochet?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lorma.../soa/chile.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...8/nsaebb8i.htm

thunder wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:16:15 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


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

Those are the only two alternatives? How about dealing with third world
countries as we deal with first world countries?


Don't confuse Dave; he is unaware there are possibilities beyond black
or white.