From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:4359b361$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:4359ab14{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:43599f1f{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer"  wrote
in message
>>> news:435995bc{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Bush knew a lot of this to begin with, hence the lying
part...  I know
>>>> you don't agree, but you know I don't agree with you about
it either.
>>>
>>> That's more pure conjecture, and you know it.
>>>
>>>> We really ought to just can discussions like this as none of us are
>>>> going to change anyone else's mind.
>>>
>>> Can't argue with that, I could be lying, but I think I mostly enter
>>> these threads after a new post is entered falsely claiming (yet again,
>>> with the same lack of evidence) that Bush is lying -- when those false
>>> claims stop coming, my refutation won't be necessary.
>>>
>>>>You choose to trust Bush, fine, that's okay, but at least
understand why
>>>>we might not.
>>>
>>> Trusting in his doctrine and his implementation of same is one thing,
>>> certainly I can understand a pacifist not wanting to go along with
>>> that --  but to then take it out to the illogical conclusion along the
>>> lines of: "well, he's a war mongering chimp and he lies
besides" in
>>> effort to refute that doctrine is, quite simply nonsensical.
>>>
>>
>> Which may be why so few say that. More will say that he was too quick to
>> make a rash judgment with apparently selective intelligence while
>> ignoring or downplaying intelligence that disagreed with the
>> Administrations viewpoint.
>
> They may say that, and it's still conjecture. But, point taken on the
> previous point, most don't use such harsh terms, not overtly anyway  surely don't go out of their way to refute the far left either though>

Which is largely irrelevant. I notice the Republicans haven't  repudiated
the far right either .

>
>>> If you think the world would be better off with Saddam in power, that we
>>> should just roll over and not "stir things up" in
the world, just say
>>> so, don't try to undermine our foreign policy by interjecting
the "Bush
>>> lied" pomposity at every turn (and yes, Bob, I know
you're not a primary
>>> offender in that regard)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Simply because one doesn't like the war or the methods use doesn't
>> indicate that they think the world would be better off with Saddam still
>> in power. That's about as accurate as my saying you obliviously think the
>> world is better off with the Communist Chinese in power as you haven't
>> called for the US to change their regime.
>
> If I thought we could win, I would. Perhaps we could have won that one (or
> not needed to, and still may not -- see below), had not the usual suspects
> undermined our efforts in Vietnam, That false, "Uncle Walter" induced
> loss, coupled with Jimmy Carter's wimpshit handling of the hostage crisis
> some 7 years later in Iran set us on the course we're playing now.  time frame between the events that brought us to today are amazing close
> together in retrospect, aren't they?>

Ever looked at the South Vietnamese government of that era ? Supporting a
corrupt self serving government was not exactly in the interest of freedom.
One of the reasons the Communist 'won' there and in China is they were seen
as supporting the people against foreign occupiers and corruption. In China
the Communist were the only semi effective force against the Japanese but
they were SEEN as fighting them. The Nationalist were more interested in
fighting the Communist after the war. Had we actively supported the Chinese
Communist against the Japanese, we might have been able to influence and
steer them towards freedom and democracy. But that's all water over, under,
around the dam now 

> That said, the idea of freedom is unstoppable, as long as the world can
> see that it hasn't been abandoned by the United States. Bush has proven
> beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have not abandoned that end -- that is
> the underlying long-term message behind the 25M Afghanis and 25M Iraqis
> voting and pursuing freedom.

I'll have to disagree that Bush has proven that. He talks a good game but ......
>
> On the bright side, as a result of the Bush Doctrine, or perhaps merely
> encouraged by it, China will come around on their own, they've not got any
> choice, their people can get around the firewalls and see that we're in
> the world freedom business, even if our own opposing party citizens cannot
>  them along for the long-term road to freedom, so we don't have to take
> them out in the near-term>
>
China moves slowly. Bush doctrine isn't even on the radar there. If
anything has helped the Chinese move towards freedom it's been the greater
interaction with the free countries over the last 40 odd years. it allowed
them to get a better view of the world. Of course the failure of the
Communist government to improve life for the people hasn't hurt matters
either . I figure China will change over the next few years but it
will be from Internal, not external pressures.

We couldn't take out Korea except with Nukes at the present time. I doubt
the Chinese would er appreciate our taking N Korea out, even by traditional
means. Last time we tried they objected rather vehemently . Their military
and industrial situation has improved somewhat since then also . 
best thing is for us to stay out except for humanitarian aid. let the
people of N. Korea  learn for themselves that we are not what their leaders
portray. South Korea can also serve the cause of freedom if N Korea will
lower the barriers. I think Korea would put up a good fight if the Chinese
tried to come in. That whole nationalism thing, outsiders, conquerors etc.
For some reason people don't like outsiders trying to tell them what to do
. I would like to see the Chinese moderate the N. Koreans with
their influence though.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5