Somewhere here on UseNet I read that the re-enlistmanet rate was
96% of the DOD's goal for re-enlistment and last year it was over
100% of last year's goal. I agree that 96% of their goal is pretty
good, but I don't know if the goal has changed.
Perhaps if someone can find the raw numbers, we can do our own arithmetic
and then argue about that.
On the subject of statistics I read a striking example of math
And it found the age of youths using marijuana is falling.
The teenagers aged 12 to 17 said on average they started
trying marijuana at 13 1/2. The same survey found that adults
aged 18 to 25 had first tried it at 16.
Do you know how stupid people look who base their international policy
opinions on movies?
Well, I don't consider ridding the world of an international menace as being
a waste of time. I don't think that the Iraqi people would agree with you
either Randy. I shudder to think what our country would be like (if it
existed at all) with your kind of attitude running things throughout it's
It was quite evident that by 2003 Hussein was no longer an
_International Menace_ he had virtually no control at all
over the northern third of HIS OWN country and marginal control
over the southern third. He didn't dare invade Kuwait again
and could not hope to prevail in an attack on any of his other
neighbors. Any use of chemical or biological weapons, even
assuming he had them, internally in Iraq, say agains the Kurds
again let alone against another country, would have been enough
to galvanize the rest of the world into finishing him off.
Clearly he was a menace to his own people and ridding the world
of him was not a waste of time.
Now, suppose 30 Senators and 30% of the members of the House not
only agree but also think that is reason enough alone to invade
Iraq. If the President goes to the Congress with that reason
alone, hw won't be authorized to use military force.
Now, suppose other argumetns and the supporting evidence
is enough to swing another 10% to his side, he still won't
have enough votes.
So, suppose he makes up a few lies and uses those to get another
20 or 30% to vote his way. Based on the available evidence,
specifically that every supposed WMD site we told UNMOVIC about
turned out to have been been long-abandoned, that the Iraqi
nuclear program had been long-abandoned, and so on, I suppose
that is EXACTLY what happened.
The invasion was not a waste of time. It also seems to have
been a major factor in convincing Lybia to abondon its WMD
programs. But unfortunately for us, it also was a Godsend
to bin Laden, it reversed the tide of worldwide public opinion
and support which had previously favored us against him, and
undoubtably (yep, just speculation here) has helped him recruit
thousands to his side while sapping US strength and resolve.
It was not good for us.
We paid a hell of a price to depose Saddam Hussein. I think
the Kurds will remember and repay us if we don't turn on them
and screw them over to make up with the Turks or some such.
It won't help us much with anybody else in the Mid East.
On 16 Jul 2004 01:07:08 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org (Fred the Red
Shirt) vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
They did rely on information from the CIA. It just happened to be only
the info that suited them! There is no lie. <G>
All countries that have "investigated" this have conveniently come up
with the same answer. "The govt acted on intel. They did not lie to
The fact that they only heard what they wanted to hear (or HWMBO
wanted them to hear) is never mentioned.
Bush had the option of choosing another director. Whether a
change of director would have produced a different chain of
events is, of course, a matter of speculation.
Regardless of director or quantity/quality of information, the
decision to attack Iraq was made by Bush. No one else can or
should be held personally responsible if his decision wasn't a
good decision. Personal responsibility falls to the
decision-maker alone. In the real world, we all experience the
consequences of our leaders' decisions - good and bad; but the
responsibility for the decision itself belongs strictly to the
If the basis for making the decision is flawed, that doesn't
excuse the bad decision or relieve the decision-maker of the
least amount of responsibility. Ignorance (lack of accurate
information) has never been an excuse for a poor decision.
[If you have a problem with that logic, consider the following:
A driver is stopped by police for driving his car at 50 mph in a
25 mph zone. Do you think that either the patrolman or the judge
will be swayed by the fact that his passenger told him the speed
limit was 55 mph?
Now suppose that he stopped after accidentally killing three
children crossing the street - do you think the fact that he was
misinformed relieve him of the responsibility for their deaths?]
And to date how many /Americans/ have been sent to and killed in
this place that was, in fact, *not* a clear and present danger to
them or their country when the decision was made to attack?
Why? Tenet wasn't the one who *made the decision* to attack a
nation that was, in fact, not a "clear and present danger" to the US.
Don't hold your breath.
Having said all of that. I'll also say that I didn't like Saddam
or his government's disregard for the value of human life. I'm
not sorry that he and the worst of his cohorts have been removed
I /am/ sorry that Bush was allowed to get away with offering Iraq
as a distraction from his failure to apprehend Bin Ladin, who was
(and still is) a clear and present danger.
If I find any logic above, I'll let you know. Decisions have to be based on
information. Neither Bush nor any other president is omniscient...they have
to rely on the best judgement of others. I don't see where Bush has tried
to pass the buck here, by the way. It's just a big question whether anyone
else sitting in the oval office would have done anything different given the
Considering there is a sign posted to the contrary, I'd say no. But what if
neither the judge nor the patrolman know what the speed limit is either?
You're really stretching this argument. .
But if you had your way, they'd still be running the show.
Bad guess. If I had my way, SH would've had a fatal accident at
the end of the first gulf war.
If I have a rat loose in my house, I don't try to shut it in the
closet - which appeared to be GHWB's strategy. George Senior
seemed to have a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
My take was that, rather than being hindered, he opted for the
easy sell. It amounted to treating the most obvious symptom
without attempting to cure the disease.
The consequence of /that/ bit of "quality" decision-making
involved much loss of life - but GHWB can put in his resume that
he accomplished what he set out to do.
"Mission accomplished" and all that...
Read my lips: The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Your take is not congruent with reality. As you might recall, there was a
considerable number of nations involved against Iraq the first time around
who signed on to give international legitimacy to the operation. They were,
however, unwilling to go beyond the purpose which brought them there. Thus,
once Kuwait was free, and the army of Iraq neutralized, they were through.
GHWB could have "gone it alone" or with a lesser international coalition
behind him, perhaps but then he'd certainly have been accused of
war-mongering and lying.
Perhaps so - and perhaps I gave him too much credit for
coalition-building abilities. I'm still not sure that he couldn't
have sold the majority of the coalition countries on the
desirability of removing Saddam. I was paying really close
attention (I grew up in Saudi Arabia and still thought of the
Kuwaitis as "next door" neighbors. I rode the bus 45 miles to Al
Khobar (in the same way that kids today go to the mall) and to
the Dhahran Air Base for Boy Scout outings and to take an
aviation course. I've never thought of my self as other than
American; but SH was launching Scuds at what came closest in my
life to a "home town"); and I wasn't able to detect any trace of
a GHWB effort to sell anyone on doing more than telling the bully
to play in his own yard.
I never expected him to "go it alone"; and I'm unconvinced that
it'd have been necessary to do so - given SH's unprovoked (do I
dare use the word "preemptive"?) invasion of Kuwait. And that
invasion bore considerable resemblence to the invasion of
Czechoslovakia a half-century before (It was certainly no less
brutal) - I don't really think it'd have been difficult to sell
the international community on doing the whole job.
Clearly they were not through - and, sadly, there's never been
any shortage of people to accuse us of war-mongering and lying;
so I doubt that was much of a factor.
Only twice has the UN voted to go to war in respnse to the
invasion of one country by another. The first time the US
took advantage (thanfully) of an ill-considered decision by
the Soviets to walk out of the meeting in protest.
The second time was when GHB convinced the UN to throw Saddam
Hussein out of Iraq.
That took considerable diplomatic skill.
Had the "A" models in Alaska. They're only part of the reason for the old
story about a meeting of two pilots that goes:
"What aircraft you fly?"
(Cupping hand to ear and inclining head) "Eh?"
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.