i am going to meet kerry

Posted by: sean

i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:04 AM

i am a regional coordinator for the kerry campaign (as of yesterday). today, i found out that kerry is coming to town soon (not allowed to report when or where yet) and that i get special seating and a behind the scenes pass. cool beans.<br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Nat値 Security Cncl staff specialist.
Posted by: Michael

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:15 AM

cool beans. Ahhhhh if you say so. <br><br>Also just because he said he's coming to town soon he may decide he's not coming to town soon after he decided he was coming to town soon. <br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:19 AM

Good luck Sean, that should be quite an interesting experience. I don't know that his position on Iraq is all that different from Bush, other than the fact that he would try harder to make it an international effort. He is beholden to the goals of the power elite too that seeks to control the oil, so no big differences there. But, in the end I do think he will provide more intelligent leadership than the neocons and Bush. Just about anything will be better than those idiots are doing to the US. <br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:27 AM

Are you going to be able to direct any questions towards him? I'd be curious to know if there's anything he'd suggest besides the UN to get us out of this mess...<br><br>Also, ask him if he uses a Mac or a PC...<br><br>[color:red]You slap my back, I'll slap yours!</font color=red>
Posted by: srumrill

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:30 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Also just because he said he's coming to town soon he may decide he's not coming to town soon after he decided he was coming to town soon.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Hilarious!!! <br><br>
Posted by: srumrill

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:34 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Also, ask him if he uses a Mac or a PC...<p><hr></blockquote><p>He uses a PC. All the Dem candidates were asked that when they were in a debate in Boston this past Winter.<br><br>Shapton was the only one who used a Mac (sigh).<br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:37 AM

Oh yeah, I remember that now...<br><br>Well, get him to switch then!!! <br><br>[color:red]You slap my back, I'll slap yours!</font color=red>
Posted by: srumrill

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:44 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well, get him to switch then!!!<p><hr></blockquote><p>That shouldn't be too hard now, should it? <br><br>
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:45 AM

Yeah, but then he'll go and switch back later on...<br><br>[color:red]You slap my back, I'll slap yours!</font color=red>
Posted by: drjohn

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:51 AM

Did you volunteer for the job or did they enlist you after they found out you were the only guy in town with his car's right turn signal purposely disconnected.<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:54 AM

Great<br><br>Give him a Hawaiian Punch for me - hehehehe<br><br>
Posted by:

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 11:56 AM

In the immortal words of Groundskeeper Willie:<br><br>"... wasting more energy than Ricky Martin's girlfriend. Hiiiii-yooooh!"<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 12:07 PM

what's wrong with allowing the UN to get us out of this mess? dubya is getting support from NATO, but it was made clear yesterday that this "support" would not be additional troops. obviously, the world doesn't want to help dubya and it will be necessary for kerry to win before we get that kind of support. that should be enough reason to vote kerry for many people who are tired of seeing our soldiers dying daily.<br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Nat値 Security Cncl staff specialist.
Posted by: DaddyMac

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 12:15 PM

I definitely think it's worth a shot, but I want him to have a back up plan if the UN reverts to its passive, squabbling ways...<br><br>It's bad enough trying to get things done when an organization is made up of all of ONE country's representatives- now imagine ALL the different cultures, and differing ideologies WITHIN those cultures- it's a wonder they all agree on what time to eat lunch every day...<br><br><br>[color:red]You slap my back, I'll slap yours!</font color=red>
Posted by: JohnR

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 12:54 PM

Sorry to hear that <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Michael

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 12:57 PM

But he does have a G5 <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 01:36 PM

I'll admit I'm seriously under-informed about the some of the questions I'm going to ask in regards to the UN. So, since you seem to be more informed Sean and you can probably save me some Google time I'll ask you (or anyone else who'd like to chime in...<br><br> 1) What past mess has the UN gotten anyone out of?<br><br>2) If Iraqis respected the UN why did they blow up their building and people and drive them out of the country?<br><br>3) Are you saying the world hates Bush so much they are willing to let the new democracy in Iraq fail? In other words, "the world" is only going to help Iraq depending on who is running America? So, the world doesn't give a rats-a$$ about Iraq and its people because if they did shouldn't they be helping no matter that their personel differences are with Bush, don't you think?<br><br>4) You think we should pick the president based on who we think the world wants to be president? Shouldn't we be picking who will be looking out for the best interest of America?<br><br>Dean Davis
Posted by: JohnR

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 01:41 PM

Now now now dean...remember..SOFTBALL questions PUHLEASE! <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 01:51 PM

Well, these are serious questions I have. Not "smart-ass" I already think I know the answer" type questions.<br><br>I really (out of ignorance) don't know any UN sucess stories. I just have never heard a news story start out "Today, the UN was instrumental in bringing peace and prosperity to nation X". There might be 100's such stories, I just don't know any.<br><br>I was and still am confused behind the reasons why anyone in Iraq would blow up the UN building and kill UN workers.<br><br>My third question is a source of confusion. I understand the reasons why countries like France and Germany won't send troops but what else do we expect to get out of them if Kerry is president that we wouldn't if Bush goes to a second term?<br><br>My fourth questions is of a general personal opinion nature.<br><br><br><br>Dean Davis
Posted by: sean

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 01:52 PM

please note, i am only speaking for myself.<br><br>the iraqis and the middle east respect a UN presence, which is why the insurgents made sure to scare the UN off leaving the US as the big evil. a UN presence will remove the appearance that the US is involved solely for our own financial windfall. the UN is seen as being even-handed -- at least much, much, much more so than the US.<br><br>the world is willing to let the US struggle alone because they hate the US so much. the US created the mess in Iraq and they are allowing us to fix it. if we required the world to help us solve the mess then we wouldn't have been so quick to turn our noses to them. obviously, we have things under control or we wouldn't have gone it alone. you can say that iraq is failing, but those are your words; not the rest of the world's. now, i haven't heard dubya publicly ask countries like france and germany for support on the ground, so i am not sure why they are considered to be letting iraq suffer. kerry has stated that he will ask and get their support. that's a big step.<br><br>and, i think our image in the world is very, very important. i don't think we should allow the world to choose our president, but i also think dubya is more hated than any president in my lifetime. i think dubya is doing more damage than good for our image in the world. i think kerry will not only look out for our interests, but that he will also be able to protect our interests and do so within the world community and as a participant in the world community...and, most importantly, with support from the world community. the bottom line is that fewer americans will be risking their lives each day and fewer will be dying.<br><br>regarding your first question...i should have stated that kerry will get NATO involved. the same NATO that was successful in bosnia under the direction of general wesley clark. NATO is a global security organization that can create a stable and secure environment in iraq. <br><br>cheers!<br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Nat値 Security Cncl staff specialist.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 01:59 PM

That's true. Korea was a UN Peace Keeping Action, and look what a mess that became <br><br>It's tough to construct an organization deliberately so that it will have absolutely no independent authority or power, as the "great powers" did after WW II in making the UN charter, and then blame the organization because it has no independent authority or power.<br><br>
Posted by: AfterTenSoftware

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 02:03 PM

I agree then, NATO (not UN) involvement is key in Iraq. But, Chirac has already poo-pooed that idea.<br>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3791377.stm<br><br>Your thinking is he'll change his tune under Kerry?<br><br>Also, I don't think our effort in Iraq is failing. But, if is is not failing under the status quo why do we need more international help? I mean that is what you said in your earlier post. (Paraphrasing) "We need Kerry to get us out of this Iraq mess (so that NATO will help more)". By using the word "mess" I concluded you thought the Iraq effort to date was heding for failure.<br><br>Dean Davis
Posted by: sean

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 03:12 PM

iraq may or may not be "failing" to the world, but the rate at which we have people dying, it is failing to me.<br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Nat値 Security Cncl staff specialist.
Posted by: cherry

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 06:01 PM

Take some pictures from "behind the scenes" and ask him if I can borrw 20 bucks.<br><br>Here is a photo by Garry Winogrand 1960<br><br>Sorry for the poor quaility image窯uick google find. <br><br>imho:Best political photo ever! <br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/11/04 06:23 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>cool beans<p><hr></blockquote><p>But of course!<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

No Steve, more like... - 06/11/04 06:41 PM

<br><br> <br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]I'm MattMac112, and I approve of President George W. Bush</font color=blue>
Posted by:

Re: No Steve, more like... - 06/11/04 07:02 PM

Guys.... please!<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: No Steve, more like... - 06/11/04 07:16 PM

guys, "cool beans" has to do with coffee...at least how i used it. so there...see:<br><br><br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Nat値 Security Cncl staff specialist.
Posted by: iRock

Re: No Steve, more like... - 06/11/04 09:34 PM

<br><br><br>Psst Sean don't ride bikes with Kerry. Let us know how it goes, that's neat.<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: No Steve, more like... - 06/12/04 11:29 AM

So thats were Swaty went LOL<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 12:22 PM

makes you wonder what backroom deals Kerry has made already with the French and Germans, if he thinks as soon as he's President he'll be able to get them involved in Iraq. Afterall, the majority population of both countries are against it.<br><br>I think everyone has made their bed. Americans are forced to help Iraq alone. The French and Germans have to continue the line of 'we were against the war, but for Saddam's removal, for security in Iraq but not for sending troops', etc.<br><br>The best hope for Iraq seems to be the Iraqi people themselves not the UN or NATO or even neighboring Arab countries. Tough road ahead - lets hope for the best. I just wish the people not willing to help will not try to get in the way of those that are helping.<br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
Posted by: Michael

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 12:30 PM

No matter what happens in the next 4 years it will be a win win for a president Kerry. If things work out then aren't we lucky he's the president now and if things don't work out well it's because Bush made such a mess of it he couldn't undo it and that will be especially true in regards to the middle east.<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 12:42 PM

Well lets be fair - Bush did not Start this mess, the terrorist did as well as Saddam.<br><br>Bush just SEEMs to be mismanaging the mess and creating a larger one.<br><br>Just my 2 cents<br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 12:56 PM

i think the people in those countries are merely against dubya; not against helping in iraq...right now, though, helping in iraq is akin to helping dubya and that's a big no-no elsewhere...which is why dubya probably won't ask for more troops (at least publicly).<br><br>but, i agree that iraqis need to get up to snuff and create their own security if they really want their own sovereignty. of course, kerry also says he'll step up the effort towards this goal. <br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Nat値 Security Cncl staff specialist.
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 02:55 PM

"i think the people in those countries are merely against dubya; not against helping in iraq"<br><br>makes me wonder how they sleep at night with these moral dilemmas. <br><br>They also seem to be for UN resolutions but not for enforcing them, which is like having laws without punishment.<br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 03:01 PM

I think the people in those countries, or at least their governments, were for letting the UN protocols take their course. On the whole, seems they were right, IMHO.<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 03:39 PM

That would explain why they were against the war. Is there a UN protocol they are waiting for to take the course in order to help now?<br><br>I think countries not involved now with helping, are not there because it is simply too dangerous for them to be there. <br><br>And I respectfully disagree that they were right. Using perfect hindsight, I think Saddam should have taken out back in 1991 and the Iraqi's wouldn't have had to suffer through all those years of sanctions and brutality while UN protocols were punishing Iraq and Saddam was building palaces. Just as doing something has it's consequences, doing nothing has it's consequences too.<br><br>Both solutions are not cost free.<br><br>I think President Bush is doing a fine job with involving the UN, when the UN can help. An interim government has been set up and a resolution pass 15-0 supporting it. He's asked NATO for help and France and Germany respectfully declined. I'm sure he'll ask again, in the meantime you can't turn your back and not help Iraq the best way you can.<br><br>I certainly wouldn't want to rely on the UN as my sole means of getting help.<br><br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 03:48 PM

You could ask the same thing about there being an American protocol for asking for help--how long before it becomes obvious that it's necessary to do so?<br><br>I understand your point about taking out Saddam. But I also understand the position that taking the initiative to remove governments that we don't like is a dangerous thing to do. And that's not to say that Saddam wasn't monstrous. He was. But so are many many other governments.<br><br>And please understand that I'm not suggesting that such leaders or governments should simply be left alone. I am suggesting that teh human race has come to the point in its global development that it may require a real international government, in which the rule of international law is real, and is enforced by an international police force. All pie in the sky at this point, I acknowledge, and a pretty scary proposition for countries like the US or any ohter major power because it entails recognizing an authority beyond the national borders that might be as significant to the nation as the federal government is to the state governments. And that's scary, no doubt about it.<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 03:58 PM

were for letting the UN protocols take their course.<br><br>The UN had 10 YEARs of protocols, they failed because of decision by committee. They can never decide on what to do in a timely fashion - there are always a stick in the mud at the UN so to speak<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 04:23 PM

If it failed, why were there no WMDs? I call that a success.<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 04:43 PM

"You could ask the same thing about there being an American protocol for asking for help--how long before it becomes obvious that it's necessary to do so?"<br><br>Let's not forget that American protocol did ask for help in the form of a UN resolution that France said it would veto no matter what. Asked for help outside the UN and got a small coallition. Asked for help on the ground after Saddam was toppled. Asking for help is not a weak point for the US.<br><br>Everyone speaks of Bush's arrogance and I submit that Chirac was just as arrogant. Germany was in the midst of elections and played to popular opinion rather than seek what was right at the UN. Russia was and still is concerned about the money that Saddam owes them. No one is less or more guilty than the other. They all played hard ball and lost.<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 06:15 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> They all played hard ball and lost.<br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> You sort of went around the block but didn't respond to yoyo's post.<br><br>1) The reason Bush went to war was WMD's. <br>2) There is no number 2. There were no WMD's thus Chirac and Shroeder were correct in not going along with an invasion of a sovereign nation. <br><br>There is only one who played hardball and lost. Bush. Convincing the world otherwise is impossible. Convincing the American public seems to be somewhat easier as a majority thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11.<br><br>
Posted by: JonnyCat

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 06:54 PM

"You sort of went around the block but didn't respond to yoyo's post"<br><br>My apologies to yoyo, if I didn't respond to his post.<br><br>I wasn't disputing that there were disagreements to the original war or invasion of Iraq. And I'm not disputing that no WMD were found.<br><br>So, why are the original protesting countries not willing to help Iraq right now? What makes Kerry think that if he becomes President that he can get France and Germany more involved than they are now.<br><br>Let me see if I can come up with a few possible scenario's<br><br>1) Kerry is making back room deals with France and Germany. They are resisting helping now because they like the deals and want to see Bush fail in Iraq so Kerry can get elected. A little conspiratorial, I agree.<br><br>2) Kerry will be President on Jan 2005. By then elections in Iraq will be occuring or soon to be occuring. The security situation will be better and the country will be safer. Thus France and Germany would be more willing to get involved. But wait, the same would apply if Bush were re-elected. <br><br>3) Kerry beleives that the only reason Germany and France won't get involved is because they are still pissed at Bush for going to war. Interesting scenario because while a resolution to go to war was trying to be worked out, France threaten to veto anything. So was France being arrogant and pushing their view at the security counsel or was the US by effectively veto'ing the veto and going ahead anyways with Britian, Australia, Poland, Spain .... In the meantime, it's becoming harder and harder for Germany and France who original protested the war to justify not helping Iraq now that sovrenty is being handed back to them - minus the brutal dictator.<br><br>So, why are the original protesting countries not willing to help Iraq right now?<br><br>[color:blue]All your sock puppets are belong to us</font color=blue>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 07:16 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> So, why are the original protesting countries not willing to help Iraq right now?<br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> Because they do not want anything to do with the spiraling down mess that is Iraq that Bush created. <br><br>Your scenarios are plausible if you just remove the conspiratorial nature. Kerry can make front room deals with Germany and France. He doesn't have to make deals at all. He gets elected and naturally France and Germany will be more amenable to contribute after Bush is history. much easier for them to convince their countries that this is a tidal shift and now they can get on board. They can't touch Iraq with a barge pole now because it would go against everything they have espoused until now and it would also go against the vast majority of French and German's wishes. They are democracies after all.<br><br>Kerry is elected and this is the only way to then get NATO and the UN on board. Bush isn't going anywhere with them now. The economy picks up and a great gnashing of neoconservative teeth as Kerry gets all the credit. <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/12/04 08:28 PM

Once a Bonesmen, always a Bonesmen.<br><br>got to let your eyes adjust<br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/13/04 09:59 AM

As far as I know, ther are no backroom deals. Not that it's impossible. After all, we have the model of Ronald Reagan bartering withthe Iranians to release the US hostages only after he came into office.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/13/04 02:58 PM

I think the thing to remember about all of this is that no matter which way you slice it, all the US is doing is setting up a puppet government that will look after US interests in the region before anything else. The Iraqi Governing Council or whatever it is called is merely a tool to maintain our control over things based on our model of how things should be run in Iraq. When you have a foreign power that has the last word is that really granting full sovereignty to Iraq? No, it is not. Until you have that in place where Iraq truly has full control and veto power over what the US miliarty command tells them, it is all just so much smoke and mirrors. <br><br>Now how do you expect Iraq to mend when you are letting old die-hard Baathists back into the government? You really think these folks have changed in the last year? Just give them time and they will have another despot in place just like Saddam. <br><br>The main benefit I see to having the UN in there is to keep a watchful eye on things to make sure there are no gross violations being made. Iraqi military and security forces? Well, we know how brave they are, right? You certainly cannot depend on them to uphold the laws, first sign of trouble and they disappear into the woodwork. Face it, they are just not dependable and reliable. What was the attrition rate I read about concerning the new inductees/recruits into the new securty forces, just something ridiculous. <br><br>Other countires sending troops? Yeah, you might see some from a few insignificant countries, but the major players on the world stage are not about to send troops. This is Bush's war, he said we would go it alone.......and we are. <br><br>All in all, just a very badly planned series of events. Why didn't we go and finish it in 1991? Bush Sr knew better than to get involved in this hornet's nest unlike his son and those that have been formulating foreign policy during his administration. You know, sometimes you just have to maintain the status quo, no matter how bad it may seem, because the alternatives are muc, much worse. In the meantime, you have a much more troubling scenario developing with Iran. They admit they have a nuclear program, they are unwilling to stop it and we are spread so thin now, we couldn't even begin to think about dealing with that militarily. The resources aren't there for that. Personnel wise and financially, it is beyond our abilities to address Afghanistan, Iraq AND Iran. <br><br>The one really odd thing that I keep thinking about is why on earth anyone in their right mind would think we could not contain Hussein? I mean the guy had a few Scuds left that maybe could or could not reach Israel. There was no way in hell that anything that he had could ever have reached the US. Just not there. Yet, we were able to contain the USSR for some 40 years with their thousands upons thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at us. The whole thing is just totally incomprehensible that any attack was IMMINENT. How they ever sold people on that one is beyond me because it was just so far fetched, yet it swayed people and had us shaking in our boots. <br><br>In the end, whether you believe it or not, this still all has to do with nothing else but OIL. That is the plain hard truth. The US wants to exert control over the region to gain a foothold there with Iraq as a starting point. Once that is in place, getting to the other oil in Central Asia would be easier. That is also a great factor in why we went into Afghanistan because we needed that country conquered to make it possible to build the pipeline from Central Asian oilfields through Afghanistan to the terminus on the other end. As you know though, Afghanistan remains a wild and wooly place, hell even Karzai can't dare to venture much outside of Kabul for fear of getting his head blown off. <br><br>Like I have said many time before, the US is ill prepared to deal with this, they just do not understand how things work in that part of the world and they never will. You can pour your billions and billions into this, but in the end, the fierceness and independence of these people will result in our defeat. The British couldn't conquer them either. Just go back in time and find out about the history of the region, time and time again, invaders, conquerers were defeated and routed. Yes, we have all the high tech stuff, but sometimes that isn't enough when you are dealing with two-faced scum like this that will cut your throat as soon as you turn you back. They may live in medieval times, but they are pretty effective in the methods of defending their territory. <br><br>Well, that's how I see it at least. There's a lot more going on here than we realize. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: i am going to meet kerry - 06/13/04 03:52 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Well, that's how I see it at least. There's a lot more going on here than we realize. <br> <p><hr></blockquote><p> All in all, a pretty thorough synopsis of the last few years. Can't quibble about a single point you made. <br><br>Now, the thing is, you are not an international diplomat, right? So why is it so obvious to you that this "plant the US flag and democracy will spring forth to infect all of the middle east" ever get instilled as a doctrine that we should follow? It was and is now even more apparent that this idea is just plain stupid.<br><br>Stupid in '91 because I believe Bush senior was correct in not stepping over the line, and stupid now as we try to force feed democracy to a people who just are not listening. Why should they? We certainly have given them ample reasons to not listen to us. in 1775 would you like to have a big red target painted on your back that said "Tory"? <br><br>No, we want a controlled revolution but we aren't going to get it. We are going to be bummed out when Iraq becomes IranII. Since Iran planned it all through Chalibii into Bush this would not be a very surprising outcome.<br><br><br><br>