ok.. so back to the timeless question of "is the glass half empty or half full?". Then on to the psyche profile of those involved. What's never assumed or discussed is that maybe the glass is to large. Maybe because that would be a threat to both parties?

Well put.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel, IMHO. My contention is that we have a very long way to go.

I'm not ready to unfurl the "Mission Accomplished" banners at this time.

Saddam, love him or hate him, was a stabilizing factor in the Mideast. It's possible that the new Iraq govenment will be as well. I believe it's going to take many years of US occupation & resources to get there.

I am not for a minute arguing that Saddam was better for the Iraqi people than a democratic government, but governments imposed on people -- that they themselves didnt' fight to create -- are not likely to last.

thanks.. It'll take a considerable amount of time before the Travel Agents have a marketable package for vacations/holidays.

Cold war Central and South Americia is a simple study on stabilizing. The cost of a Mexican/ USSR funded threat led the CIA to make some dicey moves.

Imposed governments usually fail due to the lack leadership, for whatever details or reasons, from the imposer. Creating a win-win Long Lasting situation in todays world can only be accomplished thru stable economics, not thru military force imo.

An engineering friend of mine resolved the "half full, half empty" problem.

His take is the glass is simply too big.....

I soon realized this was going to be difficult when it became apparent we didn't have the hearts and minds of those we "liberated".

Sherwood

Yes, but why can't people be more appreciative when you invade their country, kill many of their fellow citizens and then install a government that will address US interests more than their own.

This hearts, minds and liberation business didn't quite turn out the way that bush and company said it would.

yep.. I guess we are like the weekend guest that doesn't want to leave.. as far as many over there are concerned.

Stabilizing factor! He waged war on Iran and invaded Kuwait. He paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He also had designs on Saudi Arabia. He was more about spreading violence than stability.

Also, it is improper to use the words "stabilizing" and "middle east" in the same sentence. That scenario doesn't exist as yet.

Good point though about the new Iraqi government being imposed on the Iraqis. But how could they have rid themselves of Saddam w/o some outside help. I think with the new Iraqi government along with the Kurds and the close proximity to Turkey, there may be some spreading of some form of stability.

definately.. but don't forget about Israel's military influence and economic power.. and as soon as we trash Libya the rest of the faithful will fall in line, in only my opnion. They should have their own NATO system and put Turkey in charge of member security. I think Turkey has the potential for being the alliance's leader based upon my prospective of their historical Ottman Empire culture. Turkey being placed in that position would keep the local turkey power brokers united, busy, and focused together on how to make some big bucks on the transformations. Somehow strong credable economics is always the end result that feeds everything and keep everyone pacified imo.

The Kurds is a later complicated story imo.. but so far those Kurds are "doing the right thing".
I'm not an expert..

I'm with tech on this one.. meaning you knew exactly what you're dealing with.. of course I understand that he was a big pia.. so big that he wore out his welcome to the world community..

When discussing a specific topic such as Sad'am it makes me long for the days before the Dem Church Comm began castrating the CIA. Years ago, when the CIA was managing Central America, I hitch hiked solo thru Hondoras. Kids with uniforms and weapons would give me a big wave.. It confused me until I found out later that they figured I must be a local CIA guy 'cause no tourist would be doing what I'm doing.. meaning give the CIA a manager like the old/dead CIA boss Bill Casey and the mid east would be assisted in getting their act together.

oh yeah.. the complete congress would have to return to the post WW2 survival mode in order to untie the pros.

Well said Craig. I guess since pinkie's (red ufo) gone we can depend on Thom for our supply of 'neocon" lore.

Ronin, have to respectfully disagree with you and tech about the stabilizing effect of Saddam. To me he was about as stabilizing as Yassar is in his region. I think Saddam actually became a little mad with power - annexing Kuwait, warring with Iran, gassing the Kurds, building monuments to himself, putting together that Candy-ass Republican guard (what a gang of pussies they turned out to be) and letting his demon spawn have their way with the Iraqi people. He also financed terrorism and harbored terrorists - what middle east country doesn't? But he provided the resources to crank it up a notch above just strapping on bombs and blowing up restaurants.

He didn't exactly wear out his welcome either. Old Europe loved the guy. They were going to let him stay in power indefinetly as long as the oil for palaces program was in place. They knew he was building that stupid long range gun to shoot scuds at Israel and turned a blind eye.

As long as the objects of his abuse were his own people and Jews, there was a hands-off policy - even by the US, to our shame, when we sold him arms to fight w/Iran.

I agree with everything you said. My point was that the intelligence community had him figured out.. It wasn't some unknown without a profile.

and "Old Europe loved the guy"
---- Xuck Old Europe. The world community imo is the US and our friends.

Ok, here's another conspiracy theory to get you goin':

http://www.rense.com/general31/thr.htm

Ronin,
so the world community in your eyes is everybody except the Old Europeans? You're throwing out a whole chunk of stuff there, my friend.

Old Europe is not contributing to the world community in proportion to the amount of influence they have. They are bogged down with huge socialist stlye governments and are mostly content with taking care of their own while letting the US do the heavy lifting.

My parents recently returned from a trip to Hungary, Poland and Romania and they couldn't belive how educated the people were there working in service sector jobs. Guys with PHD's waiting tables and such.

Also, there was a recent seminar I attended where one of Bechtel's project managers talked about his work in Kazahkstan. The Kazakians (sp) are educated, speak multiple languages (their alphabet has like 150 letters for cryin' out loud) and are motivated now that they aren't beat down by communism. They have known oil reserves of 18 billion bbls with the potential of 70 billion bbls (middle east reserves are 250 billion bbls).

My point is that there are educated people out there who, given a chance, will be the engine for world-wide prosperity. Old Europe is going the other way. Refusing to recognize thier falling birth rate and socialist programs are draining the life out of thier countries.

The difference is, corporations hire people based on profit and loss. Governments just take money and dole it out based on their political viability - whatever it takes to stay in power. There is no system as ridiculus as handing over all of your money to a government and hoping they'll take care of you. The individuals doling out the money will be the only ones who are wealthy. Any trend toward such a government needs to be resisted.

As far as the birth rate, for a society to sustain itself, there needs to be 2.1 people per couple. If a society doesn't maintiain this factor, that society/culture will die out. If our culture is not worth saving, then by all means, we should abort our future and immigrants will bring thier culture in to fill in the gaps.

I'm for immigration and welcome all those yearning to be free. Bring the best from your country and live free! I happen to think the US is the world's best chance for freedom, so I would like to see the American dream continue on.

It's up to the electorate to control their government. Without oversight, the government (like a corporation) is managed by people; some competent, some honest, some greedy, some negligent, some incompetent, some loyal, some disloyal, some power-hungry, some clueless. In other words, a cross-section of America.

How many of us vote? Of those, how many of us care enough to do something about government waste? As of now, those in power know there's not enough of us that care enough. That's my brief state-of-the-nation speech for today.

Sherwood