Rodchester

"The classic example of 'blowback' was the fall of the Shah of Iran." No doubt about this one. A classic expamle of how to fuck it up. And intel was wrong then too.

"So, this is what the world is actually like? Governments will always deceive or manipulate the people. Right, for their own good." The heart of darkness.....

You're going to the Gym in Pontiac aren't you? What's the name of that place?

What do you got to do to get banned?

TeleNut: That is so funny that you know about that. I was in the 504 PIR shortly after Grenada (the live-fire ARTEP). A writer had spent lots of time with the unit supposedly writing a script on Grenada. It was sold to the Army as a story about the evolution of the Army from Vietnam to Grenada told through the eyes of an old veteran. The Army saw the script and shit, and the USMC said sure we’ll do it. It wasn't just the Ranger Regiment that was pissed off. As far as the stability isue goes. All that I said was that historically stability, as opposed to democracy, was the goal. Also pointed out previously is that MANY, including NeoCons and lefties, believe that democracies don't fight each other. One could say that stability is still the goal, but instead of short-term fixes (dictators) they are now looking long-term by using democracy to create stability. One historical point that suggests possible failure is Vietnam. Many point to the early attempts at democracy in South Vietnam and say that its failure is Iraq's future. They usually assert that without some history of democracy it cannot (or is at least unlikely to) succeed. It is important to understand that the success and/or failure of the democracy issue simply cannot be gauged in the short time that has passed. It’s like asking if you've won the marathon in the first mile. I guess if you drop out of the race, it can be answered as a failure. But for now the race is on. I'm watching...and according to some here I'm a cheerleader!!!

Stonehead: You are correct, but keep it in context. Very few times was the goal to turn the country into a democratic country. The goal was usually local or regional stability. The stability was usually acheived through the mechanism of what ever strongman we could drudge up. A truely bad policy that usually did not acheive the goal of stability. Korea worked its way into one, after many years of problems, corruption, and coups.

Who's squirming? So you don't know the difference between Pol. Sci and NSPS. No problem. And when MattP picked up that fact I addressed it...so what is wrong with that? I don't hear MattP complaining. Further, your challenging me for evidence of Bush's intentions in trying to bring democracy to Iraq have nothing to do with past history. Recall we were talking about the Bush administration's intentions on the democracy issue...remember that one? That has been going on for about a year, not much more likley even less. Certainly not much of a history. What's that about misrepresentation? All that I said was that I take it at face value and wait to see what happens. In fact, what I said was: In this communication directed to you I specifically acknowledge that it being a lie is possibility. Squirm, squirm. Did you formulate any other possibility other than Bush lied about democracy? Squirm, squirm. Did you suggest that not believing his stated intent was correct? yes. So does this mean I'm a Bush cheerleader? Otherwise I'd like to say that many of you have engaged in some fairly interesting debate and exchange of ideas herein. To you, MattP and Norm nad telenut, CBS, and many others.

CBS: My take on it is as follows: The Arab Sunnis (not the Kurd Sunnis) are MOST likley fighting for a two main reasons, to keep power (not share it with Shites), and fear of the Shites gaining power (the Shites conducting retribution against the Arab Sunnis). While I believe that there are some Al Queda there, I think that they are numberically not the majority of the opposition. However, it is likely that they are recruiting as many former soldiers (big mistake by Bush to disband the Army) and also from the disenfranchised Shites, in otherwords, those that are likely to buy into the Islamic Fundalmentalist junk. I also think they are recruiting in the West Bank and the Palastinian slums of Oman. The thoery is USUALLY that a constitution with an outline not only of the governmental powers, but also the rights of individuals is laid out. Further, a proportional representation system (like a parliment) can be used to ensure that each group and nation gets some level of representation. This is what I said earlier that it may (assuming it ever happens at all) not look like a Jeffersonian democracy. If this is set up, it could work. But of course this is all lies and none of this will happen...because according to ERF, I can show him that it hasn't happened already. Lies, lies, lies. But you

When did I say I was a political scientist? Isaid I am a student of law and NSPS...you dolt. Why are you misrepresenting what I said? Or do you not know the difference betwen Pol. Sci. and NSPS? If you read my posts, I stated clearly that failure is quite possible. Misrepresentation? Further, I stated that this was a stated goal of the administration. I also observed that it could be something that they would actually try to do and that we need to wait and see. Evidence? Past? It hasn't even been a year yet... Boy, its obvious that you're a North American. I bet you want it now. Gimme gimme gimme. Who said strictly? Misrepresenting? You seem to embrace the Bush doctrine of they're either with you, or against you. Sorry, I'm not totally with either. Your simple simon assumptions are so partisan. Man I'll just join one of the parties and tow the line because if I disagree with you at all, I must be in the other camp...only two camps in that bi-polar world you got there? So since I'm not in your camp, what camp am I in. tell me which party line I am regurgitating.

"Nation building could not have been the primary motive for intervention:" I didn't say it was even a motive. I was discusing democracy. The term nation building is so iften misused and misunderstood (blame the media mostly). Bringing democracy to a multi-national state (Iraq) is not nation building. There are many multi-national states that are democratic.

Does that mean you are plainly suggesting that it is a lie? Do you have any proof that it is a lie, or is it a simple-simon assumption that you are making? Sure, I'm taking it a face value. How does that make me a Bush Cheerleader? Usually, I give people the benefit of the doubt. Do you assume they are lying? Or do you just assume Bush is a liar? "Very simple, here:" Good to see things are so simple for you. You should run for office. You'd be great at it. We'll see how the democracy thing plays out.....

My recollection is that the Administration cited many reasons, but they ran with the WMD because it stuck.

ERF: Well, one of Bush's stated goal/intentions at the very beginning, and that has always stayed roughly the same, has been to eventually bring some form of democracy to Iraq. The fact that this goal has been stated, and continues to be stated, has nothing to do with whether or not I, or anyone for that matter, is a supporter of the war or of Bush. It is a fact that it is the Administration’s stated intention. Now, whether or not it succeeds or whether or not that was just a lie remains to be seen. I cannot understand how you extrapolate that this makes me a Bush cheerleader. I take it this is a politically partisan discussion for you? MattP: Oddly enough, this is a point that the NeoCons and the Left generally agree upon: Democracies don't fight each other. History demonstrates that this is generally correct. Do I believe they will allow a democracy? Yes, I think they'll try. It is cheaper and easier to manage a region in peace than it is in its present state. Of course it SHOULD be a democracy with some form of a guarantee of individual rights (i.e. Bill of Rights). Though I think it will take a considerable amount of time and it will likely not look much like a Jeffersonian democracy. Look at what the Kurds in the north did prior to the invasion. Keep in mind we in the USA have existed under at least four governments (the crown, The Continental Congress, the Articles, and Constitution) before we got it right. And even then we still had that thing called the civil war some 70+ years into the constitution. Making an assumption that they don't want democracy based on the actions of the reactionary right wing in Iraq is a bankrupt assumption. (not saying you're saying that MattP, just a statement). I'm not so sure I'd bank on the Islamic rule thing (although clearly a possibility). Iraq has a long and rich history (and sometimes troubled) of being secular. While the Shites are getting huge pressure from Persia (Iran), they are not Persian Shites, they are Arabic Shites. They speak a different language, and have a separate (though related) heritage. They are distrusting of the USA, but hey are distrusting of everyone. They've been screwed so long it only makes sense. Events in Iran could greatly effect the Iraqi Shites. This remains to be seen, but it is clear that MANY in Iran are pushing for more democracy, not less. All that said, I think it is going to be a difficult road with a good possibility of failure. Remember, Germany failed when it elected a nightmare who proceeded to take away individual rights, disarm the masses and then sack the judiciary before he unleashed hell upon the world. I will comment that I believe that the potential good is outweighed by the potential bad. Is it worth the risk? I don’t know. We’ll find out in about 25 years. I’ll be REALLY old then. Can I still post on cc.com when I’m too old to climb?

You know, the I Love Bush thing can have other meanings.....It would be a great slogan for the Lesbian Alliance. On that note, why is it lesbians and straight men don't get along better. You'd think that since they both love Bush, they'd get along really well. Maybe it the competition for Bush? Hmmm. Just thinking out loud.

Hey..I know something we can ALL agree on...Dan - lied...and the board sprayed.

Norm: Well said... though I do disagree with some of your statements. "The record now reflects a scheme to invade Iraq predating 9/11." This one, often said by so many, is very puzzeling to me. We have had an active scheme to remove Sadam for years. This policy was put into place by Clinton. Notice that Clinton, the one man that could complain, doesn't on this point? Paul O'Niel, if you cactually listen to what he says (as compared to what the media puts out) makes it clear that the Bush policy early on was to remove Sadam, which as O'Niel admits was simply a continuation of the Clinton policy. Also, on a finer point. Iraq is not a nation. or a nation-state. It is a mutli-national state. This means a geographic area with a government over mutliple nations (Peoples) i.e. Arabic Sunnis, Kurdish Sunnis, Arabic Shites, and of course eveyone's favorites, the Bedouins. That said, your point on the issue was clear. "Bush and co. showed the kind of appalling hubris that, when all is said and done, is not all that different from having evil intentions." This one I find a bit crazy. Many people want to compare a preeptiove action such as GWII with Hitler, WWII, evil, etc. Granted, it is concerning ANYTIME we take the offense without first being attacked. But to paint Bush's intentions to hopefully one day bring some form of democracy to the region as evil is, well, let's just say an interesting brush stroke. "and the refusal to admit international inspectors was reason enough for the civilized world to demand intervention of some kind." If by the civilzed world, you mean the UN, I'd question your choice of words. Take a hard look at the human rights commision/committe. Civilized? I hardly think a good foregin policy should be based upon Lybia, Cuba, and Syria's opinions.

CBS: DO you write for the National Enquirer?

Any thing (customs) or person (immigration) the crosses into or out of the USA going to or coming from a foreign place is subject to search (except diplomatic pouches). This has been the rule of law in the US since its founding and has been widely recognized international law for centuries. This law is applied almost universally in almost every country. Your point about the inability to stop the smuggler (or illegal worker) from crossing the borders without being checked is correct, well taken, and frustrating. I can see where you’d be pissed off. As far as it being from a friendly country goes, statistically you’re correct in implying that the VAST majority of Brits would not seek to terrorize the US, however, threats can, and do come from anywhere and everywhere. Think McViegh.

Actually this statement is incorrect. "International law" only applies to those that wish to subject themselves to it. Remember, there is no legislature or judiciary that has sovereignty over all nations (also the term nation means “people” from the Latin natio, it does not mean governments or states, but I get what you mean). A state (call it a country) decides it wants to participate, or that it does not. There is no enforcement mechanism for any legal action taken in the world court: it lacks jurisdiction. Put simply, international affairs are in a state of anarachy. We're on our own. Where international law form, it is one of agreement and based on function. It is a constant state of flux and change. As far as acting unilaterally goes, it is totally incorrect to say that this is something new, or to label it the Bush Doctrine. Clinton did so in Haiti. Carter did so in Iran. Bush I did so in Panama. Reagan in Grenada. Both Argentina and Britan did so in the Falklands. France did so in Algeria and Indo-china. And the list goes on and on. Actually this statement is incorrect. "International law" only applies to those that wish to subject themselves to it. There is no legislature or judiciary that has sovereignty over all nations (also the term nation means “people” from the Latin natio, it does not mean governments or states, but I get what you mean). A state (country) decides it wants to participate, or that it does not. There is no enforcement mechanism for any legal action taken in the world court: it lacks jurisdiction. The VAST majority of times countries at unilaterally, or with limited 'Allied' support, as opposed to true International support. There are VERY few instances in history when true international support for war, or a police action, were gathered prior to the action. Korea and GWI are the only two that come to mind. Though one may argue that WWI qualifies. I amnot commenting on if acting with UN approval is better or worse that acting unilaterally, just pointing out the reality. I am a student of law, National Security Policy, military history, and my favorite topic, nations. I actually hold degrees in National Security (focused in nations) and law. I say this not because I am trying to brag or act high and mighty, but rather to point out my basis. The statements I make here are one of observation, not of partisan politics. This is the position from which I make these observations. I do not claim to be an expert. That said, I find it curious that some here assume that anyone not on their side is automatically a Bush Cheerleader. So lets .

The road to the trailhead is rutted, but very passable with four wheel drive and decent ground clearance. Great skiing also.

Just because I said early on that I have no problem justifying the war...that means I'm a Bush cheerleader? Too funny.

DWRs can help MOST any material shed water. It works very well (OK, decent) with nylon, which is likley what is on your bag. Most bags come with some DWR on them.

"they in fact did try to make it sound like an imminent threat when they made their case that we had to go to war BEFORE the summer came and we couldn't wait for more inspections or negotiation or until our allies or the UN might want to join us." The not wanting to wait for summer thing had to do with tactical and operational problems with the operation of equipment and the burden on the individual soldier. Desert fighting in winter is easier on soldliers and equipment. This saves lves of the man on the ground. Using the weather and terrain to your benefit and the detriment of youyr eneimies is important. I can se the brass at the Pentagon saying, If we're going, lets go now" Also, the cold and windy weather eleiminates Bio weaposn entirely and pretty much eleminates checmical weapons (though not nearly as mucjh).

erf: The perception among the public may be just that. As such, it is possible that Bush will be defeated for that reason. It will be interesting.

Thanks again....