Quote:
Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 3 2004, 12:09 PM
I simply find it hypocritical that someone would write what he did in 2001 as above, egging on the Bush agenda that actually came to pass and calling for even more, then come on the board a few years later and write this as he did last week:
And who could blame a nation from wanting to park a nuke in the middle of an American city? How anyone can not agree that Bush and Co. are criminals and have committed attrocities against humanity is beyond me?
|
How does this:
2. Removal of Saddam Hussein. Do the job right this time and get this idiot out of power. Preferably bomb his ass until he's dead, but placing him in a cell with a big horny black guy named Abraham would be sufficient. Open the country up to democratic elections.
Relate to what you are saying above. I'm new here so can't vouch for any personal animosity between the two of you, but seriously, it doesn't look to me like that big a change in position. His position would appear to be to get rid of Saddam. It's open for debate how that is accomplished.
Bush is the one who fabricated the reasoning and then turned the US military loose to fight a guerilla war. In pursuing this action, he has alienated the US, killed tens of thousands of innocents, and fostered the terrorist feelings that the war was supposed to prevent.
Afghanistan was handled reasonably well. They built international support, aided their own people in overthrowing the regime, and have managed to plant the seeds of democracy. It's questionable if any of this can happen in Iraq.
The entire PNAC agenda isn't bad in its goal - the insidious part is in its tactics. Saying that you want "democracy" by "implementing" it on the population is a total oxymoron. Peace through war and financial independence by buying American are other examples.
As for the rest of Lanny's e-mail to you, the points are right on the money as for what the ideal could be for the middle east. The devil is in the details.