[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

[Wally Buck]

Brad,

As always you comments are well though out and I think you make many good 
points. I do have to question some of them.

>That could be political strategic interests
>or financial strategic interests.  In the case of Iraq
>it was some of both.....

I for one don't think we should be going to war to better our financial 
position. What were the political reasons of the war? The best political 
reason I can come up with is the war took the public eye off the struggling 
economy. I can see going to war to protect National Security. I concede that 
it is open to debate if our National Security was at risk.

>.Iraq was a threat to its
>neighbors, peace in the region, and a known supporter
>of terriorism (payments to suicide bombers in
>Palistine to name just one).

Notice how none of the threatened neighbors joined us in the coalition. This 
really bothers me. If the coalition had the support of Desert Storm I would 
buy into this reasoning.. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordon, Turkey and others all 
were on board then. If they did not want to protect them selves then why 
should we?

>If we can make Iraq a
>free democracy that will be wonderful.  It will be a
>tough mission but I for one think its possible.  We
>did have other objectives in addition to those but how
>can any of that "lofty" stuff be a bad thing?...
>
I agree with the above although this was not given as the initial reason for 
the war and the history of the reason makes this an iffy proposition. If 
this had been pushed form the get go may be it would be easier to buy into 
this reasoning. Also it seems to me that perhaps they don't want a democracy 
but we shall see.

>.....You may not believe Bush 43 but most trust
>Powell.  He couldn't reveal all his sources and
>methods for evidence of WMD without putting people in
>harms way.  That we haven't found any WMD YET is
>frustrating but by no means proof that they didn't
>exist.  Saddam had six months of UN negotiations
>leading up to the war to hide them.  I personally
>believe that as we capture more Iraqi officials the
>truth will eventually come out.  But then again I may
>be naive.....

When you say most trust Powell are you refering to US citizens or world 
leaders....I am not sure if this is really true in either case. Regardless 
he is not the President and he is not the one calling the shots. Also I 
don't need his sources or methods but most of the so called facts layed out 
to the UN have yet to be proven as accurate. I do agree that Iraq admitted 
to having the WMD at one point and can not prove they destroyed them. I hope 
we find them.

>...We have many other options with North Korea and are
>presently using them.  Our ally, Japan, has far more
>to fear from N. Korea than the US and China has no
>interest in having nukes on the Korean pennusula.
>China is co-operating with us on this issue, and, as
>N. Korea's largest trading partner has much influence
>over the eventual outcome.  You would'nt want us to
>use arms sooner than necessary, would you?...

I agree here as well. Let diplomacy run its course. Let the countries with 
the most to lose handle this. I think we should have used this same logic 
with Iraq but we didn't. I think the only reason is oil plus the fact that 
Iraq is weak and North Korea could really raise some hell if provoked.

>As Wally pointed out, Jimmy Carter struggled with the
>word "nuclear" and he had a degree in nuclear physics.
>  Jimmy also "talked funny" to some people but I for
>one never questioned his intelligence.  By most
>peoples assessment he was one of our smartest
>Presidents.  Notice I didn't say one of the best, just
>smartest.  Both Bush 41 and 43 are "speech
>challenged".  As a compassionate conservative I
>applaud them for achieving so much despite their
>handicap and can't believe a good liberal wouldn't do
>so as well.  No, I'm not squeamish.....

Carter was terrible President, nice guy, able diplomat (Camp David Accord) 
but not a good leader. Bush 41 although not a dynamic speaker impressed me 
much more the Bush 43. Bush 41 made his own way, I am not sure Bush  43 
could have done the same.

>The US has
>propped up foriegn governments since at least the end
>of the Civil War, by administrations of both parties
>with mixed results.  I know very little about
>Pinochet.  The Shah of Iran I know a little about. One
>of my good friends here in Memphis (and my co-pilot
>last month) was the Shah of Iran's sons roommate at US
>Air Force pilot training in Texas.  Its a wonderful
>story about love (he married a West Texas girl),
>politics, and the American Dream but that story will
>have to wait for another day.  The point is, life for
>Iranians under the Shah wasn't that bad.  Religious
>fanatics took control of the government.  Sound
>familiar?

I just think the Shah is another example of our Country building gone bad. I 
am hard pressed to find an example of when it has actually done any good 
over the long haul but I am sure it has happened at some point in history. 
It always seems to lead to increased US resentment. Perhaps if we didn't 
prop up the Shah there would not have been the religous takeover and the 
resulting US backlash (hostages). I admit to not being very knowledgable 
about this. It does seem that in spite of our best intentions these things 
always lead to resentment.


>I posed that question to my First and Second Officer
>this morning on the way back from Tampa (co-pilot and
>engineer).  They are both members of the Memphis Air
>National Guard and recently spent a year on active
>duty supporting activities in Afghanastan.  They asked
>me to remind you that we have been keeping an eye on
>Saddam by enforcing the "no fly zone" for over ten
>years and various other methods which they won't talk
>about because you and I are civilians and don't have
>security clearance.

No disrespect to your friends but I would think any thing we were dong 
behind the scenes in Iraq would be discussed in the milatary on a need to 
know basis. I wonder what pilots flying over Afghanastan would know about 
any top secret stuff in Iraq.  Anyway why did we not continue with this 
strategy?

>.....Slim, I wrote a twenty-five page paper on the oil
>exploration business last year with two pages of
>references.  I'm no oil expert but I'll be happy to
>mail you a copy and then you will know at least as
>much about oil as I do.  Iraq was producing about 2/3
>of its OPEC quota under the UN "Food for Oil" program.
>  Much of that was smuggled out of the country and sold
>on the open market.  Marc Rich was one of those
>individuals who traded in Iraqi oil and was a fugitave
>from US Justice until Bill Clinton pardoned him in his
>last hours in office.  I agree with you that its not
>good to have Saddam in charge of oil.  There is no
>reason the Iraqi people can't have a good standard of
>living and hopefully we can accomplish that....
>

I don't question the facts here. The Rich pardon was a disgrace. Why is it 
our place to deem who should be in charge of another countries assets? I 
know the answer here, it is becasue it is in our best interests. We should 
run our country in our best interests, not run other countries in our best 
interests.


>My point
>is, everything I say and believe in is based on
>research.

Brad I have no doubt that you have done your homework and don't dispute your 
sources. However one can draw different conclusions from the same facts.

Wally

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail