Richy,
Let me get this straight. Your source for the supposed "transcript" of a "private meeting" between Glaspie and Hussein is a Pakastani newspaper? You must be joking. Try again.
And your "proof" of a State Dept. stand-down is the fact that a dozen or so Arabs entered the US pre-911 fraudulently? I see.
The FBI accusation. Connect the dots? Read between the lines? Jesus, I hope you're not a judge when you're not in the War Room presenting flimsy support for half-baked theories.
As for the AP article whose lines we're supposed to be parting to reveal truths, you make a poor, unsubstantiated leap from incompetence to conspiracy.
The next time you attempt to present an opinion as fact, please provide legitimate supporting documentation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as your follow-up post, Richy, war is defined as:
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. an invasion is defined as:
The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory. By my understanding these are not mutually exclusive. And I do believe the US met and continues to meet military resistance.
"unnecessary slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent people." What in God's name are you on? The most recent count of civilian deaths resulting from the War in Iraq is 43,520. You can find data here:
Iraq Body Count; a nice liberal-minded site that actually gathers facts. And by the way, that casualty number includes all the deaths resulting from the actions of insurgents, foreign-born terrorists, and Sunni/Shiite civil agression.
You said:
"So, using simple deductive reasoning, there was no gov't sponsored "corrupted version of Islam." Your intelligence falls a little flat here Rich. Re-read the statement. My meaning there was pretty clear, but allow me to translate:
Had the US executed this war effectively, and in the manner I had hoped, terrorists, and paticularly the nations which sponsor them (mostly in that region), would reevaluate, post-haste, out of fear of meeting the same fate. Now, many would say that this iw wishful thinking. But the Bush camp mucked this thing up so bad that in fact, the opposite has occurred: Iran, Syria, North Korea, et. al. are infact emboldened.
Obviously I am not referring to an ay attempt to deter Iraq , as it is that country whose regime we are changing and thus no "deterrent" is necessary as we are fomenting a governemnt that will not sponsor terrorism. Right? So, you're second point there is moot based on your misread. Although, of course, Iraq, did in fact sponsor terrorism.
Your third point is irrelevant for the reasons discussed above. But, for the record, the Saddam Hussein government engaged in quite barbaric and inhuman acts against the Iraqi population, whom I would consider part of the planet.
As for your second to last statement, that's your opinion, thanks for sharing it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guitarzan, your argumets are little too sloppy and disjointed. That said, you appear to be concluding that unless one is directly attacked, there is no basis for war or any kind of military intervention. However, in another thread you surmise:
"The first Bush started and ended a WAR." as opposed to his son who
"re-created Vietnam". Correct me if I am wrong, but this statement regarding Bush Sr. seems to be at odds with your requirements for engagin in military action.
As for directing me what I can and can't support, thanks for the help, Ma.
The rest of your post is just a gaggle of confused rambling. I don't think there's anything else requiring a response.