[Rhodes22-list] Politics: Goals

[brad haslett]

Bill,

This will have to be short since today is a fly day. 
I'd invite you to my hotel on the West side of the
Hudson for a beer but you may not have a Jersey
passport.

You wrote:

"The only question is how will we extricate ourselves
from the current mess with the least long term damage.
 No matter how you slice it, the least long term
damage is going to be a lot of damage."

We agree, the least long term damage is going to be a
lot of damage.

We both hate the current situation.  We probably WILL
see a draft soon and my 19 and 22 year old sons will
be directly in its sights.  Isolationism is no more a
solution now than it was in 1939, the world is too
small and the threat too big.

Sadamm was a sponser of terrorism.  He paid $25,000 to
families of West Bank families for suicide bombers. 
He had a nasty arsenal, including French RPG's
purchased right up to the eve of war.  We don't know
where the WMD is but we know he had them and would use
them.  If we simply killed him, or he and his sons, we
most certainly would have a civil war. 

Most Americans are not prepared for what lies ahead. 
You and I have our own choices of who we want to lead
after November, but in the long run, either one is
facing the same issue.  The primary threat to
stability in the world this century will not go away. 

Nothing would make me happier than to be completely
wrong about all of this.  I doubt it!

Brad Haslett
"CoraShen"






--- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:

> Brad,
> 
> What are you talking about?:
> 
> "The defeat of radical Islam is our goal. Iraq is
> but one battle."
> 
> Iraq wasn't a radical Islamic state, it was secular,
> and we spent a lot of money on Saddam Hussein to
> keep it that way.  Granted he was not a nice man,
> but by overthrowing him we have created a radical
> Islamic state--just the opposite of what you state
> as "our" goal.
> 
> If we let the Iraqis vote, the radical Islamists
> win.  If we don't let them vote, we create a civil
> war that will determine who gets the oil and then
> they will create 1 or more radical Islamic states.
> 
> All of this costs us a fortune in people and
> taxpayer dollars.  It's a lose-lose-lose-lose.  I
> can't see a winning scenario, can you?
> 
> We can't afford any more battles like this one, and
> no matter who wins the election in the United States
> we're eventually going to head back to isolationism
> for a generation to make sure there are no more
> battles like this one.  I don't think that's right
> either, but I can't see any other realistic
> scenario, can you?
> 
> We are running out of soldiers, plain and simple. 
> This country is not going to go for a Vietnam era
> style draft, and planeloads full of body bags.  
> 
> The population of South Vietnam was substantially
> less than the current population of Iraq.  They
> started by fighting us with sharpened bamboo sticks.
>  We were never able to "pacify" or "Vietnamize" that
> country--even though we inserted 4 times as many
> troops as we now have in Iraq.
> 
> We are not going to do that again, and we are not
> going to do this again.  The only question is how
> will we extricate ourselves from the current mess
> with the least long term damage.  No matter how you
> slice it, the least long term damage is going to be
> a lot of damage.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: brad haslett 
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list 
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics: Goals
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> After posting early this morning,  I began searching
> through my library for "Sleeping With the Devil:How
> Washington Sold Our Soul for Crude", by Robert Baer
> for a reference.  It seems this book has developed
> "feet", or perhaps it was loaned, or my 2 1/2 year
> old
> re-shelved it for me.  Anyway, I stumbled across a
> different  book that is a collection of essays
> written
> shortly after 9/11.  The author of "An Autum of
> War",
> Victor Hanson, is a professor of Classical Studies
> at
> California State University - Fresno.  Professor
> Hanson stated in an essay written December 2001 what
> I
> think is the essense of my argument supporting the
> war
> in Iraq.
> 
> "Nearly all the promised utopias of the past-facism,
> communism, third-world liberationist kleptocracy,
> and
> Islamic theocracy-have now had their day and failed
> miserably before the eyes of billions.  A
> Westernized
> and secular minority in the Middle East knows that
> the
> future lies only with freedom and democracy.  While
> hostile in a variety of ways to America, it is
> perhaps
> still the only hope of millions.  America must stand
> ready to go to war with any country of the region
> that
> kills our citizens, and stand aloof from all the
> illegitimate governments of the Middle East Bloc..."
> 
> As President Bush stated last week to the UN, " For
> too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated,
> even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the
> name of stability. Oppression became common, but
> stability never arrived.  We must take a different
> approach.  We must help the reformers of the Middle
> East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a
> community of peaceful, democratic nations."
> 
> We have mislabled this war as a war on terrorism.
> Terror is but one of the weapons used. The reality
> is
> that it is a war on Islamic militantism, no less an
> important fight than the "isms" stated above that we
> sucessfully defeated in the twentieth century. The
> defeat of radical Islam is our goal. Iraq is but one
> battle.  Our efforts to find a negotiated peace will
> be no more successful than was Chamberlin's. 
> Churchill understood.
> 
> To quote John Kennedy at his inaugural address
> referring to  the threat of communism, "Let every
> nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that
> we
> shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any
> hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in
> order
> to assure the survival and the success of liberty".
> 
> Our challenge is no less.  
> 
> Brad Haslett
> "CoraShen"
> 
> --- Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
> 
> > brad haslett wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Vietnam became the quagmire it was because we
> > didn't
> > > have clearly defined goals.  We did not lose a
> > single
> > > major battle there.  The enemy defeated us on
> our
> > own
> > > streets, in our own homes becaused we lost the
> > will.
> > > ...
> > 
> > Point well made, Brad.  This message is not about
> > Bush 
> > vs. Kerry.  It is about national policy.
> > 
> > I'd like to see 3 to 5 well defined and achievable
> > goals,
> > specific steps that will extricate us from the
> > current 
> > mess, and a clear picture of a world where
> > terrorists
> > are not motivated to harm a few to control many.
> > 
> > I probably share that feeling with several million
> > of my 
> > fellow patriots as we watch the erosion of our 
> > constitutional rights in pursuit of shifting
> > goals-de-jour.
> > 
> > Frankly, I doubt that it is possible to prevent
> > terrorists 
> > from carrying out their operations in any but the
> > most 
> > militant dictatorship.  Biological, chemical, and 
> > radiological weapons will eventually fall into the
> > hands 
> > of the terrorists.
> > 
> > I, for one, prefer to take the risks and enjoy my
> > freedom.
> > 
> > Our government has to stop constraining our own
> > freedoms,
> > rebuild our alliances around the world, improve
> our
> > intelligence (both intellectual and covert), and
> > carry out
> > a brutally effective program of assassination of
> > those who
> > threaten us.
> > 
> > We cannot continue to punish whole populations for
> > the 
> > acts of a few -- and especially we cannot act
> > against our 
> > own citizens.
> > 
> > /Bob Skinner
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com