[dadman]

Gameplan (http://counterpunch.org/christison02082003.html)

[Khornet]

Dung. Manure. Stool. Guano.

[dadman]

So is perpetual war, setting up and supporting corrupt governments, and Patriot/Homeland Security Acts.
Read Zbigniew Brzezinski's book 'The Grand Chessboard'.
Interesting preface. A look inside US global policy.

Book Info (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465027261/qid=1045014565/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-5188348-7921447)

[Guy B. Meredith]

First real tabloid press I've seen on the internet. I didn't scroll down far enough for articles on babies born to AL mothers and alien fathers or Elvis sightings. The PeeWee headline and other shock jock language is sufficient.

[dadman]

Scroll all you want, you won't find aliens or Elvis.
If you read ZB's book and the article(s) from CP, you may learn that there are other reasons behind 'the war'.
Read. Get another view.

[Khornet]

wasn't he instrumental in giving us the brilliant Carter foreign policy? He was one of their policy mentors. Certainly a reliable sage. His incisive grasp of world events gave us...Ronald Reagan, so he WAS good for something, I guess.

[dadman]

Go to the amazon.com link and read some of the reviews of Mr. ZB's book. Also, read some of the free excerpts at the same site. At the least, read the back cover reviews.
ZB has been instrumental in foriegn policy. He isn't some flunkie using a computer. I don't agree with a lot of what ZB says or has done, but he has the respect of world policy makers. People like him are calling the shots, not us keyboard pounders. Reading his book and items at news sources like CP will show you why we have our fingers in a lot of areas.
Current Iraq war preperations aren't about WMD, freedom, mom, apple pie, and the flag. There's deeper reasons, and the info's out in the open.

[Khornet]

...is that the respect of most world policy makers isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. And if Zbig is calling the shots, we're lost..AGAIN. Back to the '70s!

[MrAcheson]

Just because someone is a former CIA analyst does not mean this isn't a biased piece of partisan claptrap. There are plenty of liberal partisans in working in government civil service, even in the "conservative" areas of the military and intelligence.

As a refutation the outline of his main points is basically:

*The Sept 11 attacks were caused either through action or inaction by GW Bush.

*This is all personal problem for Bush because of his familial history with Hussien and familial predilection for political power.

I'm not going to bother responding to those....

*Bush is attempting to "wag the dog."

Well it certainly isn't working since the stock market drops as soon as we go to war...

*Bush is not trying to disarm Iraq or create a more democratic society there, he is actually just seeking a puppet government.

*Bush is actually seeking oil, global dominantion for the US, and a pro-israeli restructuring of the entire Middle East.

Bush was accused of being an isolationist in the presidential campaign, the opposite of the global dominator the left is now calling him. America has never truly sought to be a colonial power like the European nations historically. Europe can't seem to come to grips with the fact that we don't want to repeat their mistakes.

Likewise we couldn't care less about Iraqi oil. Gulf War I was about securing the worlds oil supply from Hussein, but Gulf War II will not be. Hussein is not a threat to the world oil supply because he doesn't have a large enough conventional army for that purpose anymore. You need a conventional army to hold territory.

Is Bush trying to disarm Iraq? Yes. Without WMD they are much less of a threat to anyone especially us. This is the threat. Hussein can supply terrorists with WMD for a fraction of the cost of running a conventional army and use that to strike at his enemies. This is analogous to what every arab government has done after major losses in conventional wars. The growth of islamic terrorism was been directly related to the inability of the arab nations to win a war with Israel. We are now a target of terrorism because (a) we support Israel and (b) we crushed an Islamic government in Gulf War I (c) we used Saudi Arabia as a base to do so.

Puppet government? No. We want a government that will not sponsor our enemies overty or covertly. The truth is that we don't care what form it takes as long as we don't have to pay to maintain it.

As for the last bit. Are we trying to reshape the predominant culture of the Middle East? Yes, undoubtably. Why? Because the dominant culture of the Middle East is the sponsor of terrorist regimes and organizations in order to circumvent their inability to win major wars against Israel and the US. Most arab governments don't care and will not crack down on these regimes and organizations because it is not in their best interest to do so. This is showing them where their interests truly lie. It is compelling them to cooperate in anti-terrorist activities. It is putting instruction in concepts like tolerance of cultural differences at the top of their list of priorities. It is saying the US has the will to fight and die if necessary to secure freedom for ourselves and others. We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail.

[dadman]

I posted the two links from sources opposite of the policy scale so that others may see that there's other reasons why we're prepping for war.
I think it's a narrow view to have in believing we're going after WMD only.
Zbig may or may not be calling the shots. There are others who are and respect and implement policies like ZB's. It's beneficial to know what their vision for the future is, and how it will affect you long term.

[dadman]

MrAcheson,
Re-read 'Gameplan'.
In Bill Christons 'Gameplan' article, he doesn't subscribe to GW being responsible for 9/11 due to action/inaction.
Mr. Christon is pointing out that there are conspiracy theories stating such, which he classifies as Catagory 1. Cat 1 theories he considers least important, based on flimsy bits of evidence, and doesn't want to be bothered with them until an iron clad case is made.
Cat 4 is the most important reasons. BC says that the three combined reasons in Cat 4 are, in his view, the real causes of an expanded preemptive war against Iraq- if that war actually takes place.

[Monkeyleg]

Oh, geezis, there's another conspiracist in our midst:

" *The Sept 11 attacks were caused either through action or inaction by GW Bush."

You, of course, have proof that our president let thousands of people die to advance a political agenda. Can I assume that you likewise think that former presidents allowed the bombing of the USS Cole, the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the humiliation of dragging dead Airmen through the streets of Mogadishu, or the imprisonment of US civilians in Iran for more than a year--these were poltical ploys?

If I have to buy into your conspiracy, it's either that GW did or did not take action prior to 9/11. Which is it? You can't have both, so lay out your theory.

While you're posting, I'll run to the neighborhood 7/11 for some tinfoil.

[dadman]

Monkeyleg,
Who are you addressing when you say "...another conspiracist in our midst"?
Who are you asking for proof?
Bill Christon in 'Gameplan' pointed out theories that don't have proper evidence for backing. BC has four catagories plainly laid out. Cat 1 theories he doesn't support.
MrAcheson, in his reply, was pointing out a statement from the Cat 1/Con theories from BC's article(GW responsible by action/inaction).
I presented two sources of info from opposite points of view that show there may be other reasons for the war preps than the ones given.
Be a little more thorough when reading replies. And, read the BC article and ZB book.
I believe that MrA and I agree that GW and past presidents weren't responsible for the events you mention.

Don't run off to the store for tinfoil just yet.

[Joe Gunns]

I do not low-rate zbig I think he is a really smart guy. So was n.chamberlin. The Z-man is so much higher on the food chain than I that my opinions are absolutely irrelevant when compared to his. He is plugged in to the ruling elite. I listen to sports radio. Christianson is so much higher-powered than I, that I should have better sense than to challenge his conclusions However -comma- -space- I do have differing opinions which I, as a free-born American want to share.

Despite his disclaimers, the fact that Christianson spends so much space on catagories 1-3 obviously means that they are important to the overall "weight" of his arguement. However since he dismisses them in so many words, I will let him get away with the tactic.

His supposed key points are in Cat 4. My thoughts, admittedly based on ivory tower ignorance, rather than the knowledge and experience of a former CIA man are:

Reason 1. If we wanted control of oil: a) we could have stayed in Kuwait to "protect" them from Iraqi bad guys. b) we could have maintained combat in Gulf War I until northern objectives were captured and Saddam deposed. And subsequently occupied the country/installed puppets/whatever.

Reason 2. If not us, who? If not now, when? Message for Christianson: We ARE the dominant power in the world!
We abdicated our responsibility at the end of WWII. We are close to doing so again. It is on our heads as a country if we allow various rogue powers to become/remain serious threats to their neighbor's and our own security. (N korea will receive due attention in its own time.) Just as much as the stronger or armed individual has an onus when witnessing dangerous activity in the neighborhood.

Reason 3. Its about damn time somebody did something to try to make a strategic change in the Middle East! We have been going around the same bloody block there for fifty years. What a shock that we should contemplate doing so to benefit Israel, which, despite some lapses, is our strongest ally in the region.

I do not want the young men and women, friends of my daughter who have been guests in my house, to die in the desert, to be horribly maimed for life, to suffer permanent disability from expsure to pathogens or poisons, to be POW's. I pray that they and those with them are spared that trial. They are soldiers and airmen who freely enlisted in the volunteer military. It is the military men and women who bear the burden of running the supreme risks so that the civilians at home, deserving or not, are safer. If we back off before the goal is reached, our service people will be safer, our citizens and those of our allies will be at greater risk.

Christianson also needs to keep in mind that a tough stance is needed to produce change. The time when Ike could quietly hint under the table of a willingness to use nukes is gone. The many years of ineffectual leadership between Ike and Reagan and since have produced an environment where American leaders are not taken at their word. This requires brinksmanship diplomacy. If Khrushchev had thought Kennedy tougher, the Cuban crisis would probably not have happened. JFK needed to go to the brink to convince the Russians of his seriousness of purpose. Bush is in a similar position. Like President James Polk of '54 40 or Fight' fame, he must maintain a posture of belligerence, if there is to be any hope of resolving this crisis short of combat. Combat may result in the end. Like any future, there is a vast array of possible outcomes from total disaster to a millenium of peace. Among these is a short, successful war, a period of stabilization followed by disengagement. We have done such in the past. I hope that it works that way this time.


Ok, guess I'll go put my head back in the sack.
Regards,
Joe