Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:03:20 GMT From: "Dan RatherNot" <nonospamom> Subject: Re: 9000CSET, death of a clutch
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote in message news:2rdfrlF18k350U2nospamberlin.de... > On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:31:05 +0200, ZweefÆ <zweefnospamemeel.nl> wrote: > > In article <4150DDD5.3070903nospamo.com>, ma_twainnospamo.com says... > >> > >> Let's keep this auto group free from political topics. It has ruined > >> other groups. Thank you. > >> > > Please let's not get too paranoid about what was clearly meant humorous, > > although you're quite right about that ruining part. > > Humorous maybe, but it's always distracting at best. It's also > disillusioning when you find out that someone who seems otherwise > rational has disturbingly different and unexplainable political views. Different from whom? The Fox "News" Party line? Unexplainable? OK, I'll explain it to you. Bush squandered $150B chasing ghosts in Iraq, waging a vendeta war and seeing to it that his cronies make a killing on the killing. We were led into a murderous war by a pack of lies crafted by a pack of liers. It was bungled from the start. Inadequate troops, a fantasy land view of possible scenarios, a complete ignorance of the culture. Most shocking to me - they didn't support the troops (waving the flag doesn't count). Family members had to raise money for armoured vests and armour plating for the HumVee death traps! Once the global beacon of freedom, under Bush America has become a belligerent, warmongering, incipient police state. Now do you get it? U.S. News/Comment Is Bush Hitler? By Commentary Mar 16, 2004, 09:07 March 16, 2004-I realize I am a few months behind the curve of comparing Bush to Hitler, but there is one aspect of the comparison that I don't think has been plumbed to its proper depth. No, I am not talking about the vicious attacks against dissent, the dubious means used to seize power, or the callous disregard for civil rights. Those have been given their due. Instead, now that Bush is describing himself as a "war president," I think it is appropriate to size up Bush as he compares to the Furher as commander in chief, because both serve as good examples of what happens when you hand the world's best military to a petulant egomaniac. It is popular among anti-semites and faux intellectuals to describe Hitler as a military genius. I take issue with that characterization because while Hitler's Germany did achieve some initial military success, in my estimation those successes are more accurately attributed to German engineering, rather than the tactical brilliance of its political and military leadership. When you have the best pitchers and the best hitters in the league, winning the pennant doesn't necessarily make the manager a genius. Hitler's biggest blunder was, of course, invading Russia. Intoxicated, perhaps, by the success of the German military machine against technologically inferior foes in Poland and France, Hitler decided to open up the eastern front. The war with England wasn't yet won, but Hitler's hubris was sufficient that he went against the advice of his generals. In a very similar manner, Bush ignored the advice of scores of military and civilian planners to attack Iraq, when the war against al Qaeda was not quite over. Even if one believes the Bush administration's propaganda, and feels that Iraq was a sufficient threat that it was only a matter of time before Saddam needed to be removed from power by force, it doesn't take a genius to see that the timing of the war was misguided. Last week's serial bombings in Spain, coming nine hundred and eleven days after the September 11 attacks, were almost certainly organized and executed by al Qaeda, and stand as a testament to the terrorist group's ongoing capability to inflict mass murder in western democracies at a time and place of their choosing. Unfortunately, this did not have to be the case. While mistakes were made in the conduct of operations Afghanistan, (the use of surrogates at Tora Bora springs to mind), the fact is that the United States and coalition partners were mostly successful in putting al Qaeda on the defensive. This balance began to change when the military and intelligence resources devoted to Afghanistan were redirected towards Iraq in the winter and spring of 2004. While the initial attack in Iraq proceeded with stunning speed, in the aftermath, the United States found itself bogged down as an occupying force at an enormous cost in both men and materials. Al Qaeda was able to regroup and retrench, and the results are now evident in the blood of Spanish citizens. In a similar manner, Hitler's initial attack on Russia proceeded with stunning efficiency. After crossing the Russian border in June of 1941, the German war machine quickly gobbled up huge portions of Russian real estate. But when winter set in, the Germans found themselves mired in a quagmire. In the meantime, German resources had been diverted away from England, which enabled the English to develop radar systems that provided the early warning capability that was crucial to countering German attacks, both in the air and by U boats in the North Atlantic. Incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero has it exactly right. Right wing reactionaries who dominate the media in the United States called his election just after the attacks in Madrid an "appeasement" of al Qaeda, because he has promised to remove Spanish forces from Iraq during the campaign. However, Spanish forces have served continuously in Afghanistan, and while some of the aforementioned right wing reactionaries have inaccurately claimed that Zapatero has plans to remove them, he has made no such statement. Quite the contrary, in his first public address after the election, Zapatero told his fellow Spaniards "My top priority is fighting all forms of terrorism. My first initiative will be seeking the political support to focus all our resources in this direction.'' In light of the bloody attacks last week, I have every expectation that Zapatero has no intention of appeasing al Qaeda, and will continue to use, if not expand, the Spanish forces pursuing al Qaeda in Afghanistan. I rather doubt that Baghdad will prove to be the United State's Stalingrad. At the same time, it might prove to be Bush's. If at some point between now and next fall's elections al Qaeda mounts an attack in the United States as bloody as that in Madrid, one can hope that the voting public will finally see that Bush's war in Iraq was a misguided diversion towards an enemy with little ability to attack the United States, and away from a dangerous foe with the demonstrated capability to do exactly that.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
