[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

[brad haslett]

Wally,

Good news and bad news.  The good news is my return
trip to Tampa was canceled because they put an MD-10
on it (same airplane as a DC-10 but with a new
"improved" 2-man cockpit instead of a 3-man cockpit)
and I don't fly the MD-10.  The bad news is that I'm
now home and you have to listen to me rant and rave
(or not, thats what DELETE is for}  Here goes.


--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Brad,
> 
> As always you comments are well though out and I
> think you make many good 
> points. I do have to question some of them.
> 
> >That could be political strategic interests
> >or financial strategic interests.  In the case of
> Iraq
> >it was some of both.....
> 
> I for one don't think we should be going to war to
> better our financial 
> position. What were the political reasons of the
> war? The best political 
> reason I can come up with is the war took the public
> eye off the struggling 
> economy. I can see going to war to protect National
> Security. I concede that 
> it is open to debate if our National Security was at
> risk.

BH......... Ending worldwide terrorism is in the best
interest of the worldwide economy, not just ours. 
Whether you like it or not our economy is very
inter-dependent with other nations.  Look at what
happened to the stock market after the Towers fell. 
While financial health may sound like a bad thing to
some folks, a failing economy hurts everyone
regardless of financial position.  Frankly, our only
stable and reliable ally in the region is Israel.  The
House of Saud is crumbling and has been the source of
many of the discontents.  Iraq WAS funding political
instability in the region.  The radical Muslums have
proven that they can and will attack us on our own
soil.  How can you ignore instability in the region as
a threat?.................BH
> 
> >.Iraq was a threat to its
> >neighbors, peace in the region, and a known
> supporter
> >of terriorism (payments to suicide bombers in
> >Palistine to name just one).
> 
> Notice how none of the threatened neighbors joined
> us in the coalition. This 
> really bothers me. If the coalition had the support
> of Desert Storm I would 
> buy into this reasoning.. Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
> Jordon, Turkey and others all 
> were on board then. If they did not want to protect
> them selves then why 
> should we?

BH.........It is a dis-appointment that more Muslum
countries didn't sign on this time.  Saudi Arabia's
ruling family is at risk of losing power and took the
safe course.  Turkey had just installed a new
government and the vote to join the effort fell short
by only a handfull of votes. Jordan is now run by King
Hussain's son as opposed to the King who was married
to an American during Gulf War 1 but that's just
guesswork on my part.  Egypt?  Dunno.  It is a
certainty that Jordan, Syria, and Turkey were dealing
in smuggled Iraqi oil so maybe it was just financial
self-interest. I will once again refer to an article
in the March/April issue of "Foreign Affairs" by Ken
Pollack that addresses that specific question in
detail.  I'm not sure if its available on line but if
I ever get a scanner I'll send you a
copy.................
> 
> >If we can make Iraq a
> >free democracy that will be wonderful.  It will be
> a
> >tough mission but I for one think its possible.  We
> >did have other objectives in addition to those but
> how
> >can any of that "lofty" stuff be a bad thing?...
> >
> I agree with the above although this was not given
> as the initial reason for 
> the war and the history of the reason makes this an
> iffy proposition. If 
> this had been pushed form the get go may be it would
> be easier to buy into 
> this reasoning. Also it seems to me that perhaps
> they don't want a democracy 
> but we shall see.

...............Many experts question whether the Iraqi
people can handle a democracy.  That is no disrespect
to the Iraqi's, its just that they have lived under a
dictator for so long they are not prepared.  Pushing
for a democracy in Iraq on the front end would
certainly have prevented the neighbors from coming on
board.  It may have sold in the US but certainly not
among the Princes who control the oil in the various
countries and have everything to lose..........



> 
> >.....You may not believe Bush 43 but most trust
> >Powell.  He couldn't reveal all his sources and
> >methods for evidence of WMD without putting people
> in
> >harms way.  That we haven't found any WMD YET is
> >frustrating but by no means proof that they didn't
> >exist.  Saddam had six months of UN negotiations
> >leading up to the war to hide them.  I personally
> >believe that as we capture more Iraqi officials the
> >truth will eventually come out.  But then again I
> may
> >be naive.....
> 
> When you say most trust Powell are you refering to
> US citizens or world 
> leaders....I am not sure if this is really true in
> either case. Regardless 
> he is not the President and he is not the one
> calling the shots. Also I 
> don't need his sources or methods but most of the so
> called facts layed out 
> to the UN have yet to be proven as accurate. I do
> agree that Iraq admitted 
> to having the WMD at one point and can not prove
> they destroyed them. I hope 
> we find them.


BH........I mean most of the US trusts Powell.  The
World probably wouldn't trust anyone from the US
regardless of his record...........BH
> 
> >...We have many other options with North Korea and
> are
> >presently using them.  Our ally, Japan, has far
> more
> >to fear from N. Korea than the US and China has no
> >interest in having nukes on the Korean pennusula.
> >China is co-operating with us on this issue, and,
> as
> >N. Korea's largest trading partner has much
> influence
> >over the eventual outcome.  You would'nt want us to
> >use arms sooner than necessary, would you?...
> 
> I agree here as well. Let diplomacy run its course.
> Let the countries with 
> the most to lose handle this. I think we should have
> used this same logic 
> with Iraq but we didn't. I think the only reason is
> oil plus the fact that 
> Iraq is weak and North Korea could really raise some
> hell if provoked.

BH.........We let diplomacy run its course in Iraq for
over ten years.  Saddam was supposed to disarm at the
end of Gulf War 1, he didn't.  His neighbors were
trading with him outside the UN sanctions and defeated
the "oil for food" program.  France, Germany, and
Russia were all doing business with Saddam and was
happy with the status quo............BH.
> 
> >As Wally pointed out, Jimmy Carter struggled with
> the
> >word "nuclear" and he had a degree in nuclear
> physics.
> >  Jimmy also "talked funny" to some people but I
> for
> >one never questioned his intelligence.  By most
> >peoples assessment he was one of our smartest
> >Presidents.  Notice I didn't say one of the best,
> just
> >smartest.  Both Bush 41 and 43 are "speech
> >challenged".  As a compassionate conservative I
> >applaud them for achieving so much despite their
> >handicap and can't believe a good liberal wouldn't
> do
> >so as well.  No, I'm not squeamish.....
> 
> Carter was terrible President, nice guy, able
> diplomat (Camp David Accord) 
> but not a good leader. Bush 41 although not a
> dynamic speaker impressed me 
> much more the Bush 43. Bush 41 made his own way, I
> am not sure Bush  43 
> could have done the same.

BH..........We have at least another year of 43 to go.
 I'll let his record in history speak for
itself.......BH
> 
> >The US has
> >propped up foriegn governments since at least the
> end
> >of the Civil War, by administrations of both
> parties
> >with mixed results.  I know very little about
> >Pinochet.  The Shah of Iran I know a little about.
> One
> >of my good friends here in Memphis (and my co-pilot
> >last month) was the Shah of Iran's sons roommate at
> US
> >Air Force pilot training in Texas.  Its a wonderful
> >story about love (he married a West Texas girl),
> >politics, and the American Dream but that story
> will
> >have to wait for another day.  The point is, life
> for
> >Iranians under the Shah wasn't that bad.  Religious
> >fanatics took control of the government.  Sound
> >familiar?
> 
> I just think the Shah is another example of our
> Country building gone bad. I 
> am hard pressed to find an example of when it has
> actually done any good 
> over the long haul but I am sure it has happened at
> some point in history. 
> It always seems to lead to increased US resentment.
> Perhaps if we didn't 
> prop up the Shah there would not have been the
> religous takeover and the 
> resulting US backlash (hostages). I admit to not
> being very knowledgable 
> about this. It does seem that in spite of our best
> intentions these things 
> always lead to resentment.

BH..........I agree our record of nation building has
met with mixed results regardless of who was President
at the time.  I give the nod to Dr. Rice as having a
better handle on this than me.........BH
> 
> 
> >I posed that question to my First and Second
> Officer
> >this morning on the way back from Tampa (co-pilot
> and
> >engineer).  They are both members of the Memphis
> Air
> >National Guard and recently spent a year on active
> >duty supporting activities in Afghanastan.  They
> asked
> >me to remind you that we have been keeping an eye
> on
> >Saddam by enforcing the "no fly zone" for over ten
> >years and various other methods which they won't
> talk
> >about because you and I are civilians and don't
> have
> >security clearance.
> 
> No disrespect to your friends but I would think any
> thing we were dong 
> behind the scenes in Iraq would be discussed in the
> milatary on a need to 
> know basis. I wonder what pilots flying over
> Afghanastan would know about 
> any top secret stuff in Iraq.  Anyway why did we not
> continue with this 
> strategy?

BH.............Their unit supports everyone in that
area out of Germany.  The primary thrust of their
mission was to Afghanastan but they made trips to the
Gulf area as well.  Those boys, fighter pilots,
transports, etc. all drink and eat together and they
share a lot of info with each other.  They don't share
 much with me and I respect them for that.  I think
what they were referring to was that the "no fly zone"
kept Saddam from launching another gas attack via
airborne equipment like he did on the Kurds.  There
has been a lot of recon efforts in that area for a
long time and the units are all dependent on each
other so even though stuff is supposed to be "hush,
hush" they figure out what the others are doing. 
Still, they keep it from me, even when they're
drunk.............BH
> 
> >.....Slim, I wrote a twenty-five page paper on the
> oil
> >exploration business last year with two pages of
> >references.  I'm no oil expert but I'll be happy to
> >mail you a copy and then you will know at least as
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com