Re: FDR was a war CRIMINAL! Plus why people DESPISE libs and their LIES

Eddie G wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 05:30:49 GMT, gtski <xxgtskixm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Eddie G wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 05:40:19 GMT, gtski <xxgtskixm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It would be interesting to ask the "what would you do now" question of
everyone in the Senate. Of course no one in their right mind would
have voted for war knowing that there were really no WMDs and that we
would be setting a precedent for America as preemptive invaders. (I've
heard that PNAC is down to one employee now, which should be
indicative of the success of their Iraq strategy.)

It would be even more interesting to ask Bush and cabinet whether they
would still invade. I believe the answer is Yes.

I agree. But, there is a LOT of 'reason' behind going into Iraq that never gets discussed in the media. Not sure why. Bush was/is looking 5,10, 20 yrs down the road. There is a 'group' of folks (think tank types) who look at where 'things' are 'going' and all that shit. They give lots of advice to the govt about what and where the world is headed and what it means to us, and the rest of the world.


That think tank would be the aforementioned PNAC:
www.NewAmericanCentury.org and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac .
Members included Cheney, Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Armitage.
Pretty much the crew that advanced the idea that America would be met
with flowers. They were dead wrong, and as a result the PNAC is almost
done for.

They didn't dream up the strategy IIRC, but they certainly subscribed to a version of it. Also, they were not 'dead wrong'... a question might be.. what 'percentage' of the Iraqi population is/are 'attacking' coalition forces... considering who is 'dying' in Iraq one might wonder who the 'enemy' of the insurgency is...


So, that was our long-term strategy.

How so..?? What you mentioned sounds pretty short term. Would Saddam in power be a better 'choice' right now...?? In 10 years..??

If you read the PNAC charter you
will see much of the impulse and cold, calculated rationale for the
Iraq invasion. That calculation was transformed into the
Iraq-Terrorists-911-Iraq-Terrorists-911 mantra to sell it. Pretty
scarey in itself.


The shocking thing though is that we needed a "new Pearl Harbor"
(search for those words in the PNAC site) in order to realize our
goals in the middle east.

Isn't THAT reality, the need for a Pearl Harbor to get public support, a pretty scary thing as well...???

This would explain why Iraq, and not Saudi
Arabia, was pushed as the homeland of the terrorists, and why this
started on Sept 12. Maybe even the 11th.

SA is an *ally* and goes out of it's way to 'help' the USA . . . the leaders (royal family) act with a semblance of reason and haven't been attacking other countries in the region. Iraq was the 'obvious' choice. Putting oneself in the immediate post 9-11 time frame, and Bushs decision not to wait to again be 'hit first'... the question is whether to 'get involved' and be pro-active in the region or not. If yes, then where/how... Iraq is the obvious spot. Whether the Bush admin and Rumsfeld 'handled' the operation in the 'best' way is debatable... and in my opinion a different argument than whether Saddam should or should not have been removed.



The general public has trouble planning for what to watch on TV next week much less what global problems will be forthcoming in ten years. And CERTAINLY can not agree on what to DO about a problem that is looming in 10 years.


The PNAC's theories have definitely committed us for way longer than
10 years. Problem is, they were wrong about nearly everything.

IMO the PNAC gets/got it's 'theories' from others and merely formed a political action group to further it's agenda.

Regardless, the USA has rarely been very 'long term' in it's approach to foreign policy...
.