Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Evan Zimmerman <evan.zimmerman AT gmail.com>]

If that is so, and those are major reasons for going to Iraq, would
you agree that it's the government's duty to convince/educate the
populance about those reasons, rather than profer other arbitrary, and
in this case incorrect, rationale?
If what you're suggesting is true, then we're working with the
assumption that the pentagon understood the rationale, but felt they
that it was not sufficient to use as justification to the country for
us to go to war. We're not smart or 'big picture' enough, right?
Doesn't that say enough about all of this if the America people would
not accept the "real" reasons, and so other means of persuasion had to
be found? Don't we still have a say?

> Pray that whoever wins, it is by a 3% margin or more.

Yes, please.


Evan


On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:14 -0400 (GMT-04:00), rua AT mindspring.com
<rua AT mindspring.com> wrote:
> Regading: "I can't talk to someone who is stupid enough to buy that."
> 
> Z,
> 
> I have long been of the opinion that we invaded Iraq because of reasons 
> other than WMD.
> I believe I've posted numerous times that it was part of a global, 
> long-term strategy,
> ala the game RISK.
> 
>  I would hope our strategists think in terms of 20 years or more, although 
> the public may not have the appreciation for strategy to support that kind 
> of long term planning. Imagine how disastrous it would be for our 
> strategists and sitting presidents to think in terms only of their term in 
> office. You don't make history-changing invasions like this to find a few 
> bombs. Our presence in Korea has been stable for decades, same with the 
> Berlin wall, and Cuba. Stability was kept, people and goverments were 
> allowed to self-govern, and atrocities were curbed. Lincoln was widely 
> opposed, as was Washington when they offered superior strategies. Lincoln 
> had a better understanding and sense of responsbility for the country than 
> many of his detractors,
> and stood by his decision despite enormous loss of life as a percentage of 
> our population.
> 
> I enjoyed Dan's analysis, although I don't know if that is the driving 
> cause or one of several. I do think his analysis underscores the maxim 
> "countries don't have friends, they have interests". I think it is entirely 
> within the realm of possibility, that Bush made choices that he thought 
> protected American interests, and were good for the most citizens of the 
> country. I don't believe Bush' goal was a short term snatch and grab, nor a 
> 'you hit my father', nor any of the other trivial motivations thrown about. 
> Bush is already rich; his friends are already rich; the best thing he can 
> do for his family and his ego, is to affect a great change for the better 
> in the world. If you want to disagree on tactics, fine, but I fail to see a 
> believable motive for the conspiracy theories.
> 
> Pray that whoever wins, it is by a 3% margin or more.
> 
> Don
> 
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
>