Rumsfeld recommended that Saddam be TURNED DOWN. He was. America NEVER sold Saddam the very stuff he wanted. So he went shopping with Paris and Moscow – even Bonn.

Saddam was welcome to buy medicine ( Rusmfeld was with GD Searle at that time, IIRC ) his entreaties to buy American war goods when straight into the trash bin.

Please read this from the Wiki article that I tried to link above but which apparently failed:

“Howard Teicher served on the National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. He accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983.[15] According to his 1995 affidavit and separate interviews with former Reagan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and hi-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same:”

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat… The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[16]

The italics quote is from Teicher’s sworn affidavit.

Please read the entire article. If it’s leftist slanted propaganda then it is one good job, even fabricating Rumsfeld’s assistant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

By the way, my position on abortion can be found here.

Note also that not even religions agree on when life begins (see this—for example, the Jewish point of view).

My political position is that it should be up to the states. I think the Roe court erred in finding a constitutional right of privacy.

While there is a conflict between reality and perception, the latter for a majority in our society is that we are wealthier, happier, and liberated. Perception can and does drive reality in quasi-stable periods, which is where our society currently exists.

You must include men, not all men. We must included women, but not all women. Neither men nor women can be discussed as a monolithic class unless it is on principle. There are feminist men, or men who exploit the leverage created by feminism. There are feminist women, or women who exploit the leverage created by feminism. Feminist men and women exploit other men and women to increase their fitness.

As for neo-neocon, perhaps my only criticism is her pro-choice position, which cannot be reconciled with either science, let alone with self-evident knowledge, and the prevailing religious (i.e. moral) perspective of human life. Pro-choice or selective-child is a wicked solution — more so than “one-child” — to a “wicked” problem.

To conclude, I agree with your assessment. But don’t overlook the opportunistic men, and don’t include the virtuous women. Otherwise, you will miss the complex dynamic and motives which are directing us to realize a dysfunctional convergence.

Update: SEATO is dead, has been dead, for decades.

South East Asia Treaty Organization

The American diplomacy with Korea is strictly bilateral.

[ Japan and Korea still can’t stand each other — and for good (1916-1945) reason. They can do business together — by holding their noses.]

Hence, all dealings with Red China, Korea, Japan, and North Korea are ‘touchy.’

Rumsfeld recommended that Saddam be TURNED DOWN.

He was.

America NEVER sold Saddam the very stuff he wanted.

So he went shopping with Paris and Moscow — even Bonn.

Saddam was welcome to buy medicine ( Rusmfeld was with GD Searle at that time, IIRC ) his entreaties to buy American war goods when straight into the trash bin.

As for Iran: it was the US CONGRESS, not President Carter, that embargoed Tehran after that regime insulted us and our diplomats.

THAT embargo was the trigger for Saddam’s invasion — something that went on the record only years after the events.

Saddam figured that as long as Tehran was busy giving Congress the finger, the way was clear for him to roll over Iran’s (adjacent ) oil fields.

The mullahs had even ejected — nay imprisoned — their own air force on the eve of his invasion.

Famously, now, the mullahs had to open their prison doors to let flight officers take the war back to Baghdad. You can see (official ) re-enactments on YouTube. The prison part is not included in the video, of course.

The famous Rumsfeld mission was to SELL GD Searle drugs — and those of his peers AND to report back to the President.

Ever since, the American Left has conflated a medical sales call with martial support.

Saddam was Moscow’s boy — going back decades. NO WAY would the President or the Pentagon play ball with him.

You are DREAMING.

But I’m not – most are not. It is a matter of realism to say that a vast international system cannot be “policed” by any single nation, great power or not, hegemonic “Super Power” or not. But it can be steered or led in certain problem areas.

SEATO, for instance, can organize to check and corral threats from North Korea. But who will lead to solve conflict zones like the Spratly Islands (in the South China Sea), if not the “indispensable nation?”

There are two things missing in Chuck’s plaint about “saving us.” First is the lesson of realism. Thomas P. M Barnett put it in a 20111 lecture (which you can view on Youtube) revisiting “The Pentagon”s New Map” thesis (circa 2001-3) (SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDVOP0lEECk):
the realm of disconnected where most civil strife and violent occurs is shrinking; the process is already in motion because other people want to become richer and enjoy its benefits for themselves, which necessarily entails becoming more connected and more peaceful. The only open question is the degree of blood and violence the road takes for the world to get there.

“It’s not a neocon fantasy, you can’t vote it out of office, it’s just an observable fact,” says Barnett.

Furthermore, equally missing from Chuch’s mantra, “Bush’s War” in Iraq has, indeed, already resulted in epic positive changes for the ME. Popular government (eg, Tunisia, Morroco, Iraq, maybe Egypt) is the new alternative for theocracy, police states, and failed states.

If Barnett is correct, the future is coming sooner than later for the Muslim ME. We have the means to either help steer the course by planting mechanisms promoting peace (eg, in post-Gadaffi Libya – another terror loving dictator the world is now rid of), for example, or risk becoming collateral damage (Obama’s oxymoronic ‘lead from behind’ that’s fomented a Western haven for ISIS in Libya).

But Bush is the true unspoken hero of the early 21st century, helping to father the ME into modern mechanisms of compromise and reform (which survey of the ME have long found they’ve wanted).

I foresaw these changes coming late this decade (roughly 20 years after toppling Saddam). But instead of late, it began early this decade.

‘Why’ the timing was so critical and benefits of Bush’s War started early comes down to the ongoing demographic transition – the bulge of youth initiating revolt ushering in constitutional governance in Tunisa, for example (imitating those ‘purple fingered’ voters in Iraq).

Thomas Sowell explained that the young are taken with radical and risky and revolutionary ideas (like Al Qaida or ISIS or Marxism – Lenin was a young middle class revolutionary), because of economics: the young have the least to lose and most to gain by following the zeal-driven ideological or utopian path. Complementarily, the older and middle aged sorts are less susceptible to utopian ideologies, and ideology in general, because of their station in life. Compromise and avoiding conflict more often and being adaptive and pragmatic are more highly valued because they have more – especially families and homes – to loose.

Thus, the sociology that Bush’s War in Iraq seized upon was deeply and historically sound in fact and dynamic. In other words, the appeal of Jihad for the young was that it provides a righteous path to challenge and overthrow existing rulers in the ME! Is all you have is the One True Religion in Islam, the solution for every problem is Jihad.

But give those same youth’s a functioning secular alternative (popular government and future with jobs), and
those 72 virgins in Heaven may not look like your life’s prime directive. In other words, the Jihadist impulse was becoming tamable during the later Bush years and earlier Obama years.

BO simply squandered much of that progress for his own dopey failed utopian punishments.

funny…
but they are poorer now, less money than the past, have fewer kids, are more unhappy, etc.

and dont include the men, they been complaining about this and the outcome for 40 years and been marginalized on it.. to the point were you can read tons of articles and things the describe their bowing out of the game and thats that.

i sure hope neo does not delete my long post.
she has a habit of doing so, and there is no way to prove my case without that long of a post.

not that it matters.
she dont like the women ruined the society post anyway… even if its correct… those that didnt ruin society, sure didnt stop the majority from doing so, and sure benefited from it as well.

but for the most part. people who dont have children are never the future!!! EVER…

Even the Chinese have a “one-child” policy, while “progressive” Western civilizations, notably America, have a pro-choice or selective-child policy — a wicked solution to a “wicked” problem. That and the normalization or promotion of deferred matrimony and child-bearing, as well as excessive and disruptive immigration, are directing us to a dysfunctional convergence. I wonder if the dodos were surprised with the end of their dynasty.

Calvin College is a top-ranked liberal arts college in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Despite their not exactly progressive view of women, German women in general supported the Nazis. Goebbels gave this speech on 18 March 1933, just six weeks after Hitler took power. The occasion was the opening of a women’s exhibition in Berlin

German Women
by Joseph Goebbels 1933
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb55.htm

Excerpts:

It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda is to German women. Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not respect them, but because we respect them too much.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation’s source of strength, the woman is its core and center.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in our big cities. In 1900, two million babies were born in Germany. Now the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most evident in the nation’s capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin’s birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants.

the only ones who say otherwise are the leftists rewriting history… duh… those who know DETAILS know otherwise. those that believe otherwise, refuse to spend the time to see DETAILS

anyway…
if you read the speeches, you start to understand why feminisms increase came right after that time! the germans showed the way to the progressives and others who favored them from overseas before the war started and it was no longer ok to do so openly.

feminism has always been a communist/fascist ideology in its modern forms… (ergo why they are polar opposites to some of the early feminists)

the whole of it can be found in speeches that mobilized women to like fascism, which was wiling to wisper the same things as today in their ears. you only have to read the speeches and not read someone summarizing stuff they are too lazy toa ctually read themselves and so promote the party line

The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is responsible for Germany’s rapid decline. We today must begin worrying about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by 1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.

how much more do you have to spell it out?
he informs the left that adoption of liberalism exterminates the group that adopts it… women in american society are the majority power force behind this… (to the point men dont want to even be with them, let alone hav families with them)

to read these speeches and not know who is giving them would clue you in

The national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our blood is assured.

oh… eliminte the inequalities for women, rebuild the society, etc…

those that study this, or lived it as my family did, know that what we are doing is a recut of this past for other reasons. where hitler and his people wanted to stop the decline in population, to preserve german culture (the way they wanted it), the western communists and such saw that they could use the same ideas that the women were attracted to, to get them to do what they did in Eden and betray their own. they ALSO knew, as evident in other speeches that the women would never accept the truth, and so, would defend to the end the lie that exterminates them!!!!!!!!!!!

every western liberal nation, and more so under Agenda 21 moving them to the cities, has shown extreme population decline.

in order to hide it, or have to admit that feminism causes birth decline till extermination, they had to let people in. at first they loosened up the immigration laws and lifted the quotas… the more the decline in white population that dominated happened, the more they had to let others in.

following demographics they went from whites in north and south, to race groups together knowing that the whites are about to have a over 30% decline in a short time when the old boomers go… and they are even more afraid that you will notice the numbers.

1930 had the highest level of caucasians
110,286,740 – 89.8% and 1940 118,214,870 – 89.8%

then
1950 89.5%
1960 88.6%
1970 87.5%
1980 83.1%
1990 80.3%
2000 75.1%
2010 72.4%

and last year and this year they have been celebrating
Five Charts That Show Why a Post-White America Is Already Here
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120370/five-graphics-show-why-post-white-america-already-here

[this is why the feminists are losing power to the racialists, there are not enough feminists left to matter as a political force, and so they side with who will dominate demographically]

The trend was punctuated by the arrival in 2011 of the first “majority-minority” birth cohort, the first in which the majority of U.S. babies were nonwhite minorities.
Consequently, the racial makeup of the nation’s younger population is beginning to contrast sharply with that of baby boomers and seniors.

The most recent information from the census and elsewhere shows how quickly the shift is happening. From 2000 to 2010, a decade during which the white population as a whole grew by just 1.2 percent, the number of white children in the United States declined by 4.3 million.

In comparative terms, whites constituted just 53 percent of America’s young people (down from nearly 70 percent in 1990)

feminism is self exterminating… and unopposable…

census projections show the white child population continuing to decline for years to come. White children will become a minority of children under age 18 well before 2020, and, soon thereafter, the white population as a whole is projected to begin to decrease

now, how do you hide this 30 year change? hide it to the point that even neo will argue (in the past, not necessarily today) that it isnt happening or not that severe

The reason for the divergence is straightforward: In the white population, there will be fewer births than deaths, and nowhere near enough whites emigrating to the United States to make up the difference
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
With white fertility below replacement level, there will not be enough births to keep the total white population from falling. At the same time, there is a growing presence of new minorities among women of childbearing age
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
the white population is aging more rapidly than that of other racial groups. The 2010 census indicated that the median age for whites was 42 years.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
By 2030, approximately 26 percent of the nation’s whites but just 13 percent of minorities will be seniors.

GOOD JOB women… you went out of the family en masse, and you supported abortion, putting off marraige, behaviors that increased STDs, and on and on… (some even talking about post birth abortions now)

you can read tons of articles about this decline, the marraige strike (see above) and so on.

all obama and dems are doing is taking up the early fight to win the hearts of the replacements…

the fun will be watching the power of caucasian feminist women decline to irrelevency, then want their men to “do something”

this group will be more and more put upon to pay for the other groups… they will have their birth rates decline more. jews go with them… eventually they will be a minority being put upon by a majority that thinks they are the opposite, and will happily load them into ovens or exterminate them as they are the reason for all racism and ills in the world..

GAME SET MATCH…

but it will be ignored…
its already just about too late, but until its so undeniable it wont e important enough to discuss in a way that accepts the outcome, and that the reason for this is feminisms rise, and the decline of marraige, a key goal of feminism

and it dont matter if you argue otherwise…
what will be will be even if your wrong but think your right.

and THAT is the whole purpose of these immigration games
the population is in such decline that the Dems know to switch from the party of women, to the party of minorities… the demographic change is unchangeable now.

no group has ever recovered from below replacement.

like in the movie DOA…
the man was alive and talking, but already dead..
being alive and talking and using that current condition to ascertain the outcome was wrong, he would be dead given the poison he took and the conditions. and no matter how healthy he appeared on the surface today, tomorrow, not so much.

we swallowed the poison..
arguing it wont kill you wont work
its already done so…

and there is nothing you can say or do to get the women of the west to suddenly turn around and have dozens of kids to change the outcome…

in fact, given books and such, their power has waned enough that one can say what the end is without being erased, or removed or neutralized… why bother? the end cant be changed.

Exactly.

The modern mass of immigrants, often those who are classified as “refugees”, demonstrate an ambition to neither assimilate nor integrate with the native population, but rather to disrupt it through installation of their own minority leaders and interests. This is either the outcome of excessive immigration or indoctrination by a subversive domestic group.

Still, they would realize far less leverage if not for the dysfunctional pro-creation policies normalized, and voluntarily accepted, in their host societies. Pass the opiates.