[Vision2020] Why are we there?

[rvrcowboy]

Sunli wrote: "He says 'They weren't allowed in.'  That's a lie, one he's
told at least three times.  Surely he knows the difference between full
access and entry."

He was referring to GWB allegedly lying about the weapons inspectors being
allowed to do their job in Iraq.  To most of us, "they weren't allowed in"
is not a lie if the inspectors were only allowed into the country but not
allowed to do their job.  What would be the difference?  The UN was not
demanding that the inspectors be "allowed into Iraq" on a vacation afterall.
The purpose was to inspect suspected nuclear and other WMD sites.

Sunil, I don't understand how you can make this quote and then accuse me of
playing "word games".  What do you call accusing the President of lying over
this subtle difference in wording if it isn't a word game?

As for the US establishing permanent military bases in Iraq, I will believe
it when I see it.  I don't buy into those type of conspiracy theories
lightly and so far have not seen any credible evidence of it.  We have
established military bases in countries all around the world but they were
not permanent in that they were turned over to the military of the
particular countries upon our departure.

None-the-less, I do thank you for your input as I am not close minded to
learning more.  You look for evidence and I will review it openly.  Right
now my job and family life is not allowing me to do much research on my own
but after August that will likely change.

By the way, did I mention to you how great it is to have discussion with
someone here who does not resort to name calling?  Regardless of our
differences, you sir, are a gentleman.

Thank you,

Dick S


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:16 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Why are we there?


> Dick,
>
> I thought to myself when I first asked you the question, "He's not going
to
> play word games, is he?  Are we going to end up hearing about the
definition
> of 'Is?'"  And here we are, with you claiming the inspectors were not
> allowed full access.  But you did answer, and I thank you for that.
>
> Let's set that aside their access for now.  That's not what Bush has been
> saying.  He says 'They weren't allowed in.'  That's a lie, one he's told
at
> least three times.  Surely he knows the difference between full access and
> entry.  How can he keep telling this whopper?  Has he convinced it's true?
> If so, being delusional strikes me as a problem when one is the 'decider.'
> I honestly can't understand how he's been able to repeat this.  I don't
> think his handlers care if he does, because apparently it doesn't matter
> what he says.
>
> OK, back to access.  My recollection is that they were allowed access, on
> terms no one thought the Iraqis would accept.  I'll check on this.
>
> Why do I think we're there?  I think Paul Wolfowitz told us back in May,
> 2003, in the Vanity Fair interview.  Here's the pertinant quote:
>
> 'There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone
by
> almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement
> between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of
> our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years
> has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's
> been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin
> Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called
> crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting
> that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other
> positive things.'
>
> I lifted it from here:
> http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html
>
> I think that different groups within the administration had different
> reasons, or saw different benefits to this war, but the underlying reason
> was to build permanent bases in Iraq and then move our troops out of Saudi
> Arabia.  The government wants troops there (and it was the same when
Clinton
> was in office) but Saudi Arabia wasn't working.
>
> That's why there is no withdrawal strategy, because they never intended to
> withdraw the troops, not all of them, anyway.  They thought they'd
establish
> a friendly government with Chalabi in charge, or one of his buddies, and
we
> would be invited to stay.  That plan hasn't quite worked.
>
> But we're building the bases, though the Senate's recent appropriations
bill
> said that funds were not to be used to build permanent bases.  The
> administration seems to like the word 'enduring' instead of 'permanent.'
> What does 'is' mean again?
>
> And yes, I do think they will lie to us about this.  I also think all of
us,
> whether we agree with the war or not, should be asking questions about how
> we're going to fund these bases and the war.  How can we cut taxes while
> spending billions a day in Iraq?
>
> We want the bases because in the end it's about access to oil.  This
should
> have been debated in Congress before the war.  It should be debated now;
> better late than never.  I don't think Bush will do it, and I think
Congress
> is cowardly enough not to either.  They won't approach the discussion
until
> they think it's safe to do so, much as the media has done.
>
> Let me be clear, Dick, I do think that Saddam was an evil man and a
butcher.
>   But I can't join in all the attacks on him, because we simply didn't
care
> about that back when he was our boy.  We assisted him in his war with
Iran.
> I think it's hypocritical to suddenly condemn him.  The times he used
poison
> gas?  That was when we supported him, and we didn't care a whole lot about
> it then.
>
> Sunil
>
>
> >From: "rvrcowboy" <rvrcowboy at clearwire.net>
> >To: "Vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>,        "Sunil Ramalingam"
> ><sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] When good men do nothing...
> >Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:31:01 -0700
> >
> >Sunil,
> >
> >I have read the cite you gave about the U.N. Inspectors.  I have also
read
> >many others, some agreeing with you and some not.  The point being that
> >having inspectors in Iraq is not the same as those inspectors being
allowed
> >to inspect.  It is easy to pick just one cite and base your whole opinion
> >set on it without taking into account that nearly all news sources today
> >are
> >not fair and balanced on any topic.  Picking one that supports your own
> >personal views without researching others that do not just isn't honest.
> >To
> >be honest with you, I do not, at this time, believe the inspectors were
> >being allowed to do their job, even though they were allowed to be in
> >country.
> >
> >As for why we went to Iraq in the first place.  You know, as well as I,
we
> >could argue that forever.  I do believe there was intelligence, right or
> >wrong, indicating Saddam had WMD.  Even Saddam appeared to give the
> >impression he did, perhaps just to keep his enemies at bay, who knows?  I
> >do
> >believe Iraq, under Saddam, was a state sponsor of terrorism.  I also
> >believe that because of our involvement in Iraq, we most likely have not
> >experienced another 9/11 situation here in our own country.
> >
> >I believe we are still there because the Iraqi military is not yet ready
to
> >defend the new government and its people.  Again, this is a topic we
could
> >argue for a long time but that is what I believe to be the main reason.
> >Why
> >do you think we are?
> >
> >I do not know if we were 100% justified in the Iraqi invasion or not.
> >Perhaps no one will ever know.  I do not, however, believe there were
> >secret
> >agendas and hidden motives behind it.  For example, all the libs were
> >screaming it was just for oil, well, where the hell is the oil?  We could
> >certainly use some of it.
> >
> >Bottom line is that I do not feel guilty because we invaded Iraq.  I
> >believe
> >Saddam could have prevented it if he had chosen too do so.  I also do not
> >discount all the human suffering and torture under his regime.  When we
add
> >up the Iraqi death tolls, we should ask ourselves who is inflicting them
> >and
> >how many people were dying annually under Saddam's regime.
> >
> >Sometimes good men are compelled to do the right thing.  Also, good men,
> >like all men, sometimes make mistakes.  Still, all in all, I believe we
are
> >on the right track despite all the hatred from the left trying to spread
> >quilt on Americans for trying to do the right thing.
> >
> >That is my opinion.  You are welcome to yours but I will never understand
> >why people hate their own President more than the henious dictators of
> >countries who kill their own people without remorse.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Dick S.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>