Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[Occhidiangela]

Tell you what, give me one example where a democracy invaded a non-democratic country, imposed democracy, moved out, and the imposed democracy survived one decade after the invader left.

I find imposing democracy at the point of a bayonet problematic myself, but a glass half full observation would be "there's always a first time to get something right . . ." I find that a risky position to hold, since that leads us to "hope as a method" approach, which has not been shown to be a sound method of enacting change. The jury is still out.

The question unanswered is: is an Islamic Republic with a multi party parliament a version of democracy? I have no idea, but it would be a very different model than the standard Enlightenment era democracy, which by definition acts toward wresting civil control from both the ancien regime AND The Church. How that fits into the modern world is unknown, since no one has seen one of these work lately. Turkey, however, has shown how a secular state can serve an Islalmic population, but you will note that it was Home Grown by a militarist. Attaturk. The military guarantees the secularity of the Turkish Constitution. Ours does not necessarily work quite that way, and I wonder at anyone trying to import Western Democarcy in a land accustomed to Caudillos.

What I want is to find solutions to terrorism and analyze what have been the results, whether good or bad, of what's happened so far.

You and me both, since about 1972, and personally since about 1979. I consider the assault on the American Embassy and the hostage deal in Teheran a terrorist act, or at the least an Outlaw Act.

So far, the information age and decentralization of political power into the hands of whoever has money has enabled terrorism more than it has curtailed it. Extranational organizations have been on DoD's list of problems to solve since about 1991. Problem is, since we do not officialy sanction assassniation as a policy supporting activity, the ability to use "privileged sanctuary" (see the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos during VN war for an example) by hiding behind the alleged innocence of "legitimate" governments gives the terrorist a safe haven from which to operate, and Belgian, Swiss, and Lichtensteinian banks allow for covert financing to go on virtually unimpeded. With safe haven, resources, and an enemy who retrains himself, the terrorist always has the initiative. Add to that the American Liberal assault on the Intelligence arms for the past 30 years, and the terrorist are working against a handicapped foe. Your Mossad discussion is, or should be, an example for a method on how to "do it in the dark."

Check the principles of war, anywhere, and you find that Initiative is a key factor to keep in YOUR hand. American Doctrine, British Doctrine, old SOviet doctrine, Sun Tzu, etc. If the War on Terror is to be fought, maybe it needs to be fought in the shadows, and maybe the initiative needs to be regained.

Yeah, but to do so you need to understand how things evolve on the world scale. And to do *that* you need to know some history. If every time a certain situation arose the outcome was negative, it takes ignorance or partisanship (or optimism bordering on idiocy) to expect different results the next time that situation occurred. But that is *exactly* what the "at least we brought democracy to Iraq" fools are claiming. Will this be the exception -- possible but not probable.

We brought a lot of high explosives to Iraq, and an aim to change the place. That has happened, for better and for worse. There is an intention to enabling a representative form of government's growth. That is very much a work in progress, and there are those working against the US to prevent just that from happening, not the least of which is, I suspect, the King of Saudi Arabia and the Govt in Iran.

Ignorance? Yeah, it is ignorant to bring up terrorism in a discussion on the invasion of Iraq.

It was an aggressive approach to Mid East security, which includes terrorism and the security of the golabl economy's oil supply. Was it engendered by impatience? Probably, and probably a hard look at how unfruitful the past 25 years of Mid East security policies have been in solving anything. Camp David was the last thing that sorta worked, at the cost of billions $US per year. Ya pay on the installment plan, just like for your house. :blink:

If the global economy hits the skids, then the US and its way of life suffers Big Time. It is the job of any president to protect our way of life. Was invading Iraq a good way to do that? I have no idea. It was a gamble, a risk taken, based on, IMO, the assumption that Pres GW Bush loses in 2004.

At least my bile has some substance. Unlike the regurgitations of those who ignorantly continue to repeat the administration's party line.

Pete, your distaste for GW Bush and his inner circle seems to have influenced your ability to see this as anything other than an "'either/or" issue in this conversation. I contend that "it" is a hell of a lot more complex than that. My only support for the GW Bush position in re the War on Terror that is germane to this conversation has to do with the attempt, possibly Quixotic, to take on anyone who supports or gives harbor to State Sponsored terrorism. The thin thread there is the payoffs to Palestinian bombers. Hmmmm, Maybe Syria should start worrying . . . the safe haven for Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad for years . . .

I am still trying to puzle out whether or not this move was aimed at a secondary effect of smoking out terrorists by getting them to try to move, and act, and to awaken sleeper cells. A hell of an expensive way to make that happen. See your Mossad example again. :rolleyes:

If we base all of our opinions on the administration's rhetoric, the picture painted is . . . ambiguous at best, naively simplistic at worst, and to make matters worse, it depends upon which voice is speaking at the time. I have heard any number of supporters of the Pres describe him as a good leader. ROnald Reagan, for all of his imperfections, was a good leader, in that he got people to me work to do in the same direction and speak, generally, from the same playbook. Some of the strong personalities that Pres Bush has working with him, I won't say For Him at present, sometimes forget, I think, that their role is

To Serve.

They could all take a page out of Sec State Colin Powell's book on that one. Ya know, the page in the play book entitled

Team Player.

Occhi