Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[Mercator]

BTW, it was actually the previous president of Iraq, Al Bakr who gave Saddam (his cousin) power in the Ba'ath party as vice president, and as the president grew older, Saddam , by himself, kept consolidating his power until he made Al Bakr resign as president... it was not the CIA who did this.

In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was
assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But,
however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup
in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such
anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of
nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the
US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run,
US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist
Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was
Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go!

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed
assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a
CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath
Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in
Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA
then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of
communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these
supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass
murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.
Source: Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept The Secrets: Richard Helms and the
CIA, 1979, pp. 160-164.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed
assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a
CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath
Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in
Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA
then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of
communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these
supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass
murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.
Source: Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept The Secrets: Richard Helms and the .

if it was a mistake to put him in office, then it was not a mistake to take him out of office

 

[2CentsWorth]

if it was a mistake to put him in office, then it was not a mistake to take him out of office

What is shown in the quote of your post is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of US foreign policy. Our foreign policy is what needs to be addressed, not this one case regarding Saddam. Why don't people see this -- Why do they make the argument you make instead?

There were two chances to remove Saddam. The first was when we received warnings from operatives in Iraq at the time Saddam was growing in power. The second was the Gulf War under Bush Sr. These mistakes do not justify making an even larger mistake. What logic is this?

Also, what this shows is that the US engages in illegal activity of various kinds, and if this is to be the case, why not continue with assassination attempts rather than taking American soldiers to war with great loss of life?

In any event, be consistent in your reasoning. If regime change is justified in the case of Saddam, then we must always reason it is justified in similar situations in other parts of the world. These continued arguments are ridiculous.

 

[Mercator]

if it was a mistake to put him in office, then it was not a mistake to take him out of office

This was only a refute of your statement that the CIA had nothing to do with it. Your response reveals a lot: you are not entitled to decide about other countries' govenments. Period.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

If regime change is justified in the case of Saddam, then we must always reason it is justified in similar situations in other parts of the world.

I agree, regime change would be justified in other parts of the world.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

you are not entitled to decide about other countries' govenments. Period.

what if the government in question was responsible for genocide? Was the US not entitled to decide that the governments of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany were to be disposed of, a decision that, btw, cost us 1/2 a million American lives to the benefit of the Europeans and Chinese?

Should we have just minded our own business?

The fact of the matter is that if Europe needed us again, we would defend her again, regardless of how evil or stupid you may think we are. Does that count for nothing? The one time that we need to do something for our own national security, you would think that we are the Nazis re-incarnated ourselves, wouldn't you?

http://www.friendsofbosnia.org/edu_kos.html

With a failed UN mission, the credibility of NATO waning, and facing a retreat of UN peacekeepers, President Clinton took the lead in August 1995 and launched a limited bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb positions. This, coupled with a Croatian offensive against the Croatian and Bosnian Serbs, forced Karadzic and Mladic to agree to peace negotiations commencing in Dayton, Ohio, in November 1995.

Reality check: what did Europe do while these people were slaughtered? Antics such as this lead to me believe that regions of the world where the US provides military defense are quite happy to leave it that way since they couldn't afford it anyway: this makes the US the de facto world police force. We clean up the mess of others, and then get spit on.

If you don't like the arrangement, then write your senator or whatever it is that you have over there.

 

[Art]

what if the government in question was responsible for genocide? Was the US not entitled to decide that the governments of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany were to be disposed of, a decision that, btw, cost us 1/2 a million American lives to the benefit of the Europeans and Chinese?

Should we have just minded our own business?

And I thought it was because Japan bombed Pearl Harbour that America finally entered the war. I hadn't realized it was a purely altruistic move to help the europeans and the Chinese.

The fact of the matter is that if Europe needed us again, we would defend her again, regardless of how evil or stupid you may think we are. Does that count for nothing?

It would seem that it is the present US government that the world requires protection from!

The one time that we need to do something for our own national security, you would think that we are the Nazis re-incarnated ourselves, wouldn't you?

The US had worldwide support for it's attack on Afghanistan because we accepted the legitimacy of the attack against the Taliban who were providing a safe haven for OBL and refusing to hand him over. The attack on Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with America's defense and everything to do with America's economy. We do not support wars where the objective is to secure oil for American industry.

Reality check: what did Europe do while these people were slaughtered? Antics such as this lead to me believe that regions of the world where the US provides military defense are quite happy to leave it that way since they couldn't afford it anyway: this makes the US the de facto world police force. We clean up the mess of others, and then get spit on.

Which is why most of the world thought America under the Clinton administration was a much nicer friendlier entity than it is under the paranoid Bush regime. Also FYI it was Nato who provided support for the Bosnian muslims of which America is just one member.

 

[Rev Prez]

What is shown in the quote of your post is the hypocrisy and inconsistency...

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are terms thrown around when there's no more hope for reasonable discussion. I suggest you back away and take a breath.

Our foreign policy is what needs to be addressed, not this one case regarding Saddam. Why don't people see this -- Why do they make the argument you make instead?

Because you have no argument; that is to say that you have these two propositions:

1) The US is hypocritical.
2) US foreign policy should be such and such.

Even if we ignore that the first claim is supported by the worst sort of conspiracy mongering, the most annoying thing is you never bother to rationally connect it to the second claim. It's an irritatingly common flaw in the reasoning of antiwar types.

If regime change is justified in the case of Saddam, then we must always reason it is justified in similar situations in other parts of the world. These continued arguments are ridiculous.

Which does nothing to connect "it is a hypocritical mistake to remove Saddam" with "US foreign policy should be such and such."

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are terms thrown around when there's no more hope for reasonable discussion. I suggest you back away and take a breath.
Rev Prez

Funny, I thought the term usually bandied around to obfuscate serious discussion was the term 'anti-american'

 

[alexandra]

Because you have no argument; that is to say that you have these two propositions:

1) The US is hypocritical.
2) US foreign policy should be such and such.

Even if we ignore that the first claim is supported by the worst sort of conspiracy mongering, the most annoying thing is you never bother to rationally connect it to the second claim. It's an irritatingly common flaw in the reasoning of antiwar types.



Which does nothing to connect "it is a hypocritical mistake to remove Saddam" with "US foreign policy should be such and such."

Rev Prez

It is not that people who disagree with you have no argument, Rev - it is that because of ideological differences you will not acknowledge the validity of their arguments. To me, the argument that "the US administration's foreign policy is hypocritical" makes perfect sense, and connects completely with the second statement. Here is the connection: "The US administration's foreign policy is hypocritical because while the administration sometimes supports and allies itself with dictators, at other times it summarily deposes them from power by invading their countries/assassinating them, etc". There is the hypocricy. When looked at in this way, the hypocricy is undeniable.

But this is not what's happening. While you and I disagree completely ideologically, I agree with your argument in this case. From your point of view there is nothing hypocritical at all about the US administration's foreign policy, and I would totally agree with you about that.

Here is why I agree with you, Rev Prez (and the reasons are of crucial importance): the US administration's foreign policy is not at all hypocritical because it treats other governments as either allies or foes depending on the changing needs of the powerful ruling class in the US... so, when it suits the interests of the incredibly rich and powerful elite of the US (whose interests the politicians of both the major parties represent), foreign policy changes from 'support' to 'attack'. Nothing hypocritical about that at all. But one has to see and state the reasons for the lack of hypocricy clearly. In sum, the US administration's foreign policy is ALWAYS dictated by the needs of the ruling class.

 

[Rev Prez]

Funny, I thought the term usually bandied around to obfuscate serious discussion was the term 'anti-american'

Which unsurprisingly is a term used to refer to people who have nothing more substantial to say than "America is hypocritical."

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

It is not that people who disagree with you have no argument, Rev - it is that because of ideological differences you will not acknowledge the validity of their arguments.

Which, is of course, nonsense. Brookings and TAP have plenty of people who put out informed, reasonable arguments.

To me, the argument that "the US administration's foreign policy is hypocritical" makes perfect sense, and connects completely with the second statement.

And, once again, you won't tell us how.

There is the hypocricy. When looked at in this way, the hypocricy is undeniable.

For the sake of argument and exploring quetzalcoatl9's point, I conceded that US foreign policy is hypocritical. I'm asking you to show how "US foreign policy should be such and such" follows. You refuse to do so.

But this is not what's happening. While you and I disagree completely ideologically, I agree with your argument in this case. From your point of view there is nothing hypocritical at all about the US administration's foreign policy, and I would totally agree with you about that.

It doesn't matter what my view is on American hypocrisy; to be honest, I don't really care how you, Art, 2CentsWorth or anyone else feel on the matter. I doubt few serious people except those behind the C-SPAN camerias are at all interested in such a sad a boring, sad debate. On the other hand, I do want to know how 2CentsWorth gets from A to B. Hell, it'd be nice if he'd bother to tell us what B is in the first place; all I know is it's "such and such."

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

Which unsurprisingly is a term used to refer to people who have nothing more substantial to say than "America is hypocritical."

Rev Prez

Not fair, Rev - have you read my post above, where I explain why the statement 'America is hypocritical' is actually substantial rather than 'not substantial', as you claim? (Sorry about butting into your discussion briefly, Art )

 

[Rev Prez]

Not fair, Rev -

It's entirely fair. I'm not trying to bash you at length for an amateurish treatment of long discredited political and economic theory. All I want to address is 2CentsWorth's response to quetzalcoatl9's point on rectifying mistakes. It would help if he actually prescribed policy, and I welcome any clarification from somebody with his political leanings.

...have you read my post above, where I explain why the statement 'America is hypocritical' is actually substantial rather than 'not substantial', as you claim? (Sorry about butting into your discussion briefly, Art )

You mean your diluted rehash of Marxist theory? I'm not interested, but I'm sure you can find someone in this thread or elsewhere to take it up.

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

And, once again, you won't tell us how.

For the sake of argument and exploring quetzalcoatl9's point, I conceded that US foreign policy is hypocritical. I'm asking you to show how "US foreign policy should be such and such" follows. You refuse to do so.

Don't do this, Rev. You are deliberately omitting bits of what I write - I DID explain how. Here it is again:

Here is the connection: "The US administration's foreign policy is hypocritical because while the administration sometimes supports and allies itself with dictators, at other times it summarily deposes them from power by invading their countries/assassinating them, etc". There is the hypocricy. When looked at in this way, the hypocricy is undeniable.

Again, I would insist that you take my whole argument into account rather than leaving out vital bits of it in your responses. This is not the way to argue logically: you cannot just ignore the points made by your adversary.

It doesn't matter what my view is on American hypocrisy; to be honest, I don't really care how you, Art, 2CentsWorth or anyone else feel on the matter. I doubt few serious people except those behind the C-SPAN camerias are at all interested in such a sad a boring, sad debate. On the other hand, I do want to know how 2CentsWorth gets from A to B. Hell, it'd be nice if he'd bother to tell us what B is in the first place; all I know is it's "such and such."

Rev Prez

Well, one could argue that everything discussed in these forums is nothing more than just "a boring, sad debate". I can guarantee you wouldn't have this view, though, if your life was in danger and you lived (say) in Iraq. It would be more than just "a boring, sad debate" then, wouldn't it? Can you not even begin to put yourself in another's shoes for a second?

 

[alexandra]

You mean your diluted rehash of Marxist theory? I'm not interested, but I'm sure you can find someone in this thread or elsewhere to take it up.

Rev Prez

If you could ever be bothered to study what you so dismissively call my "diluted rehash of Marxist theory" we could discuss things intelligently. Do you even know anything at all about Marxism except the propaganda you have been subjected to about it? Yeah, it's "reds under the bed", huh?

Here is a golden rule in argument, Rev: Do not attack the person - address the issue. That is how all logical enquiry is conducted. And if we (hopefully educated) people are unable to conduct a logical discussion, there truly is no hope left.

 

[Rev Prez]

If you could ever be bothered to study...

I have bothered to study Marxist theory. It is a significant development in social sciences that was discredited long ago. I don't need to dwell on it anymore than I need to dwell on aether (or by analogy, some unknown crank's "diluted rehash" of the idea).

Here is a golden rule in argument, Rev: Do not attack the person - address the issue.

It would help if you didn't lace your lecturing with blatant lies. I haven't attacked you or anyone else. I've pointed out that I have no intentions of getting into a discussion of Marxism. You're free to discuss it all you want; just don't expect me to get involved.

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

It would help if you didn't lace your lecturing with blatant lies. I haven't attacked you or anyone else. I've pointed out that I have no intentions of getting into a discussion of Marxism. You're free to discuss it all you want; just don't expect me to get involved.

Rev Prez

There are absolutely no "blatant lies" in my argument (and no, I am not 'lecturing' either; I am simply stating my views). Where are the lies? I am giving you my analysis of the situation. Here it is again:

From your point of view there is nothing hypocritical at all about the US administration's foreign policy, and I would totally agree with you about that.

Here is why I agree with you, Rev Prez (and the reasons are of crucial importance): the US administration's foreign policy is not at all hypocritical because it treats other governments as either allies or foes depending on the changing needs of the powerful ruling class in the US... so, when it suits the interests of the incredibly rich and powerful elite of the US (whose interests the politicians of both the major parties represent), foreign policy changes from 'support' to 'attack'. Nothing hypocritical about that at all. But one has to see and state the reasons for the lack of hypocricy clearly. In sum, the US administration's foreign policy is ALWAYS dictated by the needs of the ruling class.

Now, you may choose not to respond - but the only reason I can think of why you would NOT respond is because you cannot think of a counter-argument. By all indications then, my analysis is correct (since you cannot refute it). So don't answer - not answering is simply conceding

 

[Rev Prez]

There are absolutely no "blatant lies"...

Yes, there are. Specifically the completely untrue charge that I've attacked you.

Now, you may choose not to respond - but the only reason I can think of why you would NOT respond is because you cannot think of a counter-argument.

Then think that.

Rev Prez

 

[alexandra]

I have bothered to study Marxist theory. It is a significant development in social sciences that was discredited long ago.

Rev Prez

To discredit a scientific theory you must replace it with another that better explains reality. There is no better theory to explain our current social reality. 'Post-modernism' is an anti-theory, and it is this paltry excuse of a 'theory' that has been proclaimed as the superior theory to Marxism. Post-modernism explains nothing - but it certainly serves the interests of the powerful in obscuring absolutely everything. Again: Marxism has in no way (absolutely none) been discredited.

 

[Rev Prez]

To discredit a scientific theory you must replace it with another that better explains reality.

Um, no. To discredit a scientific theory we only need show it is inconsistent with observed or experimental evidence. Theory on its own cannot supplant theory.

'Post-modernism' is an anti-theory, and it is this paltry excuse of a 'theory' that has been proclaimed as the superior theory to Marxism.

Wow, that's just...wow. And with that, I think we're done with this tangent.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

I agree, regime change would be justified in other parts of the world.

A fundamental problem with 'regime change' as a military objective is that with no official government structure left in place to formally sign a surrender the war is unlikely to have a clear end and so as is the case in Iraq it becomes an endless war of attrition.
Even in WW2 the main protagonists still had a governmental structure in place at the end of the war which allowed for the signing of surrender terms and an official declaration to the end of hostilities, without this the conflict could have dragged on for many years.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

A fundamental problem with 'regime change' as a military objective is that with no official government structure left in place to formally sign a surrender the war is unlikely to have a clear end and so as is the case in Iraq it becomes an endless war of attrition.
Even in WW2 the main protagonists still had a governmental structure in place at the end of the war which allowed for the signing of surrender terms and an official declaration to the end of hostilities, without this the conflict could have dragged on for many years.

This is a valid point.

None the less, it is a difficulty of "how" or "will this work", and not one of "is it morally right", which is fine with me.

 

[Art]

This is a valid point.

None the less, it is a difficulty of "how" or "will this work", and not one of "is it morally right", which is fine with me.

Somehow I doubt Bush and Co. would recognise a 'moral' if it jumped up and bit them on their collective behinds. It also shows astounding naivety / stupidity that they had not considered this and it's likely consequences when they planned the military campaign.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

And I thought it was because Japan bombed Pearl Harbour that America finally entered the war. I hadn't realized it was a purely altruistic move to help the europeans and the Chinese.

Don't twist words, of course Pearl Harbour had everything to do with it, but we also could have continued to sit back while Hitler decimated Western Europe. And it is a fact that the Chinese did benefit; that that was not our objective doesn't really matter.

As a 2nd generation European-American, I see Europeans like a fickle girlfriend. Europe was more than happy to side with the US because it was clear that we had no aspirations for conquering Europe, and were an ocean away anyway. The Soviets however, were in Europe's backyard and had every aspiration for conquering Europe or at the least "Finlandizing" it. I'm not saying that we didn't get anything out of it also, but Europe has only benefitted by having the US as an ally.

The attack on Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with America's defense and everything to do with America's economy. We do not support wars where the objective is to secure oil for American industry.

What if it became known that ensuring the security of oil is a national security issue, because without it we would be in serious trouble. Our military, which consumes a large fraction of our oil, would not be able to operate without it - nor help defend the other precious regions of the world that rely upon our defense, such as Europe and Latin America. The price of the dollar is also linked to oil sale, since oil is sold in dollars - losing that would likely cause an economic collapse of the US, which would lead to an economic collapse of the world.

We can only imagine what such a state of affairs that would be - but probably similar to what happened to Europe after Rome fell.

Which is why most of the world thought America under the Clinton administration was a much nicer friendlier entity than it is under the paranoid Bush regime. Also FYI it was Nato who provided support for the Bosnian muslims of which America is just one member.

It makes no difference who is in office. In fact, it is most likely that the Democrats will win the presidential election in 2009 - and when they do, I guarantee you that military actions will continue, because it is a national security council issue on both sides of the aisle. The "good cop/bad cop/dems/republicans" that you may see is a scam. Clinton has already expressed his support for the war on Iraq. Infact, he had been predicting that we would need to go to war with Iraq (over WMD no less!) for many years now.

NATO is led by the US and US forces. It is nice that it is a European alliance, but everyone knows that when NATO does something it is the US doing something. Europeans did not care about what was going on in Eastern Europe. It was CLINTON who made the call to put a stop to it, not the leaders of France or the UK or Germany or Italy or anyone else.

I have been honest in giving credit to Europe when it is justified. Just be a man and give credit where credit is due.

 

[Rev Prez]

It makes no difference who is in office. In fact, it is most likely that the Democrats will win the presidential election in 2009...

Most likely? What's structurally different about the American electorate than we've seen in the past two cycles?

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Most likely? What's structurally different about the American electorate than we've seen in the past two cycles?

Rev Prez

Because it tends to go (on the average) Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, etc. , changing every 8 years. Also, Bush won by a very very narrow margin, and his approval rating has plummeted in this 2nd term.

 

[Art]

Don't twist words, of course Pearl Harbour had everything to do with it, but we also could have continued to sit back while Hitler decimated Western Europe. And it is a fact that the Chinese did benefit; that that was not our objective doesn't really matter.

what if the government in question was responsible for genocide? Was the US not entitled to decide that the governments of Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany were to be disposed of, a decision that, btw, cost us 1/2 a million American lives to the benefit of the Europeans and Chinese?

Should we have just minded our own business?

Here are your words. I was pointing out that the option (which btw America was exercising) to mind their own business was taken away from them by the Japanese. Now please explain how I twisted your words?

As a 2nd generation European-American, I see Europeans like a fickle girlfriend. Europe was more than happy to side with the US because it was clear that we had no aspirations for conquering Europe, and were an ocean away anyway. The Soviets however, were in Europe's backyard and had every aspiration for conquering Europe or at the least "Finlandizing" it. I'm not saying that we didn't get anything out of it also, but Europe has only benefitted by having the US as an ally.

Most western european countries had fairly good relations with the USSR after WW2. The US were the ones with an idealogically diametrically opposite viewpoint that meant they felt it impossible to share the same planet with communists. Believe it or not most of us couldn't care less what political system other countries chose to live under. As many in the american government believed war with the Soviets was inevitable it was their intention to fight the war in europe to avoid damage at home.

What if it became known that ensuring the security of oil is a national security issue, because without it we would be in serious trouble. Our military, which consumes a large fraction of our oil, would not be able to operate without it - nor help defend the other precious regions of the world that rely upon our defense, such as Europe and Latin America. The price of the dollar is also linked to oil sale, since oil is sold in dollars - losing that would likely cause an economic collapse of the US, which would lead to an economic collapse of the world.

First America could cut back on her current consumption of oil (the highest in the world at 20 mill bls per day with Japan second at 5.4 mill bls per day) and second America could use her own oil reserves which stand at 22 billion bls. (data 2002)

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/oil.html

NATO is led by the US and US forces. It is nice that it is a European alliance, but everyone knows that when NATO does something it is the US doing something. Europeans did not care about what was going on in Eastern Europe. It was CLINTON who made the call to put a stop to it, not the leaders of France or the UK or Germany or Italy or anyone else.

Everything you say here is simply wrong. NATO is not led by America and it was the French and British who were the first to deploy forces and who asked Clinton to assist in Kosovo, for which, it seems to have escaped your notice, I gave Clinton credit for agreeing.

I have been honest in giving credit to Europe when it is justified. Just be a man and give credit where credit is due.

If you manage to post something at sometime that is factually correct I will be the first to acknowledge it.

 

[Rev Prez]

Because it tends to go (on the average) Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican, etc. , changing every 8 years.

Um, no it doesn't. Republicans have controlled the White House for three fifths of the time since Lincoln, another three fifths of the time since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, and two thirds of the time for the 20th century up until today. Even so, there is no general model for party success in presidential elections; almost all are conditional on periods of party continuity for the sole fact that party politics does not have constant actors.

Also, Bush won by a very very narrow margin, and his approval rating has plummeted in this 2nd term.

A wider margin than in 2002, and with a country that is structurally more divided in slight favor of conservative politics due to redistricting and reapportionment; the advantage is more pronounced and lasting in congressional and statehouse elections. To make the claim that Republicans are likely to lose in 2008 is to argue that there's been an extraordinary first order shift in the American electorate since November 2004. That the president is experience a bad first half of 2005 is not sufficient basis to declare 2008--with an entirely different Republican candidate--is lost. There are many other questions that will go into the conditional model for that election.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Believe it or not most of us couldn't care less what political system other countries chose to live under. As many in the american government believed war with the Soviets was inevitable it was their intention to fight the war in europe to avoid damage at home.

It had less to do with someone else's political system, and more do with the fact that during the Soviet push through Germany they would not have stopped until they reached the Atlantic. It's fine if you don't care what someone else's political system is, but they were quite willing to make the decision for you at gunpoint, nice!

First America could cut back on her current consumption of oil (the highest in the world at 20 mill bls per day with Japan second at 5.4 mill bls per day) and second America could use her own oil reserves which stand at 22 billion bls. (data 2002)

Agreed.

Everything you say here is simply wrong. NATO is not led by America and it was the French and British who were the first to deploy forces and who asked Clinton to assist in Kosovo, for which, it seems to have escaped your notice, I gave Clinton credit for agreeing.

Can you back this up with sources please?

If you manage to post something at sometime that is factually correct I will be the first to acknowledge it.

If you manage to appear as something other than a whiny baby, upset at the dominant stature of the US, then I will acknowledge that too.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Um, no it doesn't. Republicans have controlled the White House for three fifths of the time since Lincoln, another three fifths of the time since the 22nd Amendment was ratified, and two thirds of the time for the 20th century up until today. Even so, there is no general model for party success in presidential elections; almost all are conditional on periods of party continuity for the sole fact that party politics does not have constant actors.

Republican during Lincoln and Republicans today are completely different, they are hardly even the same party.

A wider margin than in 2002, and with a country that is structurally more divided in slight favor of conservative politics due to redistricting and reapportionment; the advantage is more pronounced and lasting in congressional and statehouse elections. To make the claim that Republicans are likely to lose in 2008 is to argue that there's been an extraordinary first order shift in the American electorate since November 2004. That the president is experience a bad first half of 2005 is not sufficient basis to declare 2008--with an entirely different Republican candidate--is lost. There are many other questions that will go into the conditional model for that election.

If you say so Reverend. I wouldn't put my money on that bet, nor would I say that any "extraordinary first order shift" has occurring, merely that people are less enthusiastic about Bush now more than ever, and that is not saying much since he only won by 1% this past election.

 

[Art]

Can you back this up with sources please?

Certainly;
First NATO is currently led by a British leader Lord Robertson
http://www.nato.int/cv/secgen/robert-e.htm

And here's a chronology of action taken in the Kosovo campaign
http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/account/chrono.htm

 

[2CentsWorth]

Somehow I doubt Bush and Co. would recognise a 'moral' if it jumped up and bit them on their collective behinds. It also shows astounding naivety / stupidity that they had not considered this and it's likely consequences when they planned the military campaign.

So true. It has been nothing but a chain of lies, with claims that the US would be greeted as liberators, that the insurgency is in it's last throes, etc. Bush's speech failed to improve support for the war, which is no surprise, and in large part because he refuses to take responsibility for mistakes. And how stupid can he be to continue linking the invasion of Iraq with 9-11?

Here's some recent poll results:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aQSQJC74SDhs

Bush's Iraq Speech Fails to Rally Support, Poll Finds (Update2)

``It's all about the war,'' Zogby said. ``This war has really polarized Americans. This is what his presidency is all about. The only thing that could change is if things start to go better on the ground, and it's not good to be at the mercy of external events.''

...Zogby said the divisive nature of the war is reflected in responses to a question about whether Bush should be impeached if it is found that he didn't tell the truth about his reasons for initiating the conflict. Forty-two percent said ``yes'' and 50 percent said ``no,'' the latest survey showed.

Whether it can be proven or not, most people know Bush didn't tell the truth about his reasons for invading Iraq. Unfortunately many don't care that he lied--that's the really disturbing thing.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Certainly;
First NATO is currently led by a British leader Lord Robertson
http://www.nato.int/cv/secgen/robert-e.htm

And here's a chronology of action taken in the Kosovo campaign
http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/account/chrono.htm

Art, your sources say nothing about the initiation of the NATO action in Kosovo!

Are you somehow trying to say that Lord Robertson made the call to go into Kosovo? That is ridiculous.

I, however, do have sources that it was Clinton who pushed for the decision to send NATO into Kosovo, not a European:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/336715.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/337348.stm
http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/15/clinton.kosovo/

CLINTON was the one flying all over Europe trying to convince them that NATO needed to do something!

When was the last time a European went flying all over the US telling them that they needed to fix the situation down in Alabama, lol.

Of course, it only makes sense that the US would play the lead role in an organization like NATO, for obvious reasons.

The Secretary General does NOT make strategic NATO decisions, that happens on the council, which the US has a de facto strong presence on.

You can learn all about how NATO works here:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=nato.htm&url=http://www.nato.int/cv/whois.htm

 

[Mercator]

When was the last time a European went flying all over the US telling them that they needed to fix the situation down in Alabama, lol.

QUOTE]
Not Alabama, but Iraq. Or did you miss Galloway?