Libya apparently felt compelled to throw in the towel on nukes. Why is not entirely clear, but I think there's a good argument that Khadaffy Duck finally picked up the clue phone by way of Saddam Hussein's spider hole. Sometimes, indirect works too.
North Korea's house of cards will fold eventually. They can't keep their trains from exploding, little hope they can keep their nukes from boiling over in their laps.
Iran is a real problem. No need for an Iraqi-style invasion here. In fact that would be foolish, troops would only get in their way. If the Iranians don't get wise their fate is most likely a strategic nuclear strike down on their heads. In the end game Israel isn't going to sit on its hands and allow the Iranians to put nuke tips on their spears. I think the only thing keeping Israel from going off has been Bush's willingness to mix it up in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If Kerry is elected and wimps out with a bunch of Jimmy Carter peace-speak, I would look for the Israelis to cut their own trail and light Iran up. That is one example for an early poster who pondered the question of how would foreign policy be much different under Kerry.
What I want to know is why are we feeding money to the Russkijs who insist upon building nuke facilities for the Iranians? I thought the payoffs were supposed to kill these sorts of things.
WmB
To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net
Retirement perk, I guess. Just another fringe benefit of the imperial presidency, like the pharoanic presidential libraries that have come into voge the last 30 years or so. Kim M
I don't know about that. Israel and Iran have always had a funny relationship. Even when they weren't speaking to other, which is most of the time for the last 25 years, they have always cooperated when it seemed worthwhile to both. Kim M
having gone to college next door to the jfk library, i found it invaluable for ww2 references and a great place to meet fenale history majors. and it looks really nice.
Tell any true Persian from Iran that he is an Iranian, and see the reaction. Vehemently angry would be right. I used to work in a building full of Iranians, and Persians, and trust me they are two different things ! Persians seem to look at the world on a far more global scale. They know their history. They have far more eloquence, and class than any other Muslim IMHO.
Tell any true Israeli that he is related to the Palestinians and he will tell you that the only people in the ME he is related to are the Persians. Never figured this one out, and never asked my Jewish friends for any more of an answer....................
The Clinton administration signed the treaty in 1998. The Bush administration decided to reject it.
and then bassie led us to:
which stated: Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials announced the administration's opposition to Kyoto in March 2001, six months before 9/11, arguing that Kyoto would seriously harm the American economy and that the treaty was unfair in that it did not require developing nations to cut their energy use. They echoed the U.S. Senate's 95-0 Sense of the Senate vote against ratifying any such treaty -- a stunning display of bipartisan unity and a reason Clinton never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. However, while Cheney blasted Kyoto, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters that, since Kyoto had not been ratified, there was nothing to withdraw from.
I guess reading and understanding arn't some of your better skills bassie. Do you want that in plain english? The clinton admin wanted it, they signed it, the Chinese and Indians don't give a damn who signs it, they're not going to stop anyway, the Russians really arn't all that stupid and the American congress wasn't either. The Bush admin, didn't like it one bit either and said so but since the congress had already said no way then the matter was a mute point. So what don't you understand when Al said " The US Senate unanimously rejected the Kyoto Accords during Clinton's administration. It wasn't Bush that nixed US participation".
Don't give me your liberal bullshit about "yea but he should have". No he shouldn't. He was elected to oversee the protection of America. That includes the economic welfare as well as the security of her people and if other country's don't like it, tough, consider the source. Hell they're trying to lookout for their own interests not ours. Slick Willies forgien policy was make them like me by giving them what ever they wanted regardless of how damaging it was to our on economy.
I just had this conversation with an environ/liberal friend of mine (here named EL for conversations sake)
EL: We should get rid of Bush, and just one reason is that he wont push the Koyoto treaty through.
AM: Koyoto is an unfairly based set of regulations to inhibit US heavy industry while other nations can catch up to the same level.
EL: No, we need Koyoto, all the scientists agreed that we need to do something, and Koyoto is the first step in the right direction.
AM: If this pollution is so severe, than why do the worst polluters get a pass on it, and are allowed to pollute at levels that the USA cannot ?
EL: You don't understand, we need to let these countries get parity with the US, it's only fair, and besides we pollute more than other countries.
AM: Please do tell me which countries we pollute more than, and BTW break it down by factory/industry/per capita, and make a fair comparison, which you cant, because US heavy industry is the most advanced, and hence consequently pollutes less per capita than India, and or China, which get a pass on Koyoto. Where is the parity here ?
EL: Again, you don't understand, we need to do something, even if others do not.
AM: So what you are telling me is that fairness doesn't apply evenly to all nations involved here, so what good does it benefit the world if the worst polluters get a pass ??
EL:Because the USA needs to set the example to the rest of the world
AM: What about all the lost job's due to the extremely high price of conformation with Koyoto. What about the damage to the US economy ?
EL: What about the rest of the world ?
AM: Mr. Bush wasn't elected to look out for the rest of the world. He answers only to the American taxpayer.
EL: Then that's the problem (he seriously said this !)
AM: Are you an American citizen or not ?
EL: I'm a citizen of the world
AM: What about the citizens that live right here all around you ?
EL: It's up to them to see the light and do the right thing.
AM: But what about America ?
EL: I could care less about America, I only care about the planet.
AM: So the welfare of your fellow Americans matters little ?
EL: That's right... Since we all have to live on this planet, there is no reason for America to be this strong, and powerful. We need to give our wealth to the world as a whole
AM: And then you will be the first one to give up all you own ?
EL: Only when all people in this country do, than so will I........
Oh well people, ya git the idea. This went on for a while, until I got him ready to blow a gasket.
Ya can tell when they reach that point as words nazi, and fascist were the principle names he used to describe me at this point...........
There's nothing fictional about either the WMDs or ties to al Qaeda. Both have been found, just not enough to satisfy the Left which BTW won't say how much would be 'enough'. I wonder if that's so they can keep moving the goalposts at will......
I'm always gratified to be compared to a *true* American hero and combat vet like Bill. I can't hold a candle to his contributions in the service of our country but I'm honored nonetheless.
Ummmmmm... that would be right here in Australia. Despite the presence of Li'l John and his giggle Cabinet, it's still the bestest place on this poor, benighted planet. Not being rude, but you can keep the US for the USians. :-) Although if I had to take a second choice, somewhere in Canada would possibly be it. West Coast, maybe Denman Is.
What? No offense was or is meant but aren't you a self-proclaimed liberal? In any case I don't use the term as a pejorative - I'm a classical liberal myself.
That's a description of classical liberalism, to which most all Americans subscribe, not liberalism in the modern sense of the word.
vital national
Agreed!
Only in the sense that Saddam's regime (apparently) didn't actually have any nuclear warheads on hand yet. I don't think anyone claimed that it did. Should we have waited until it then?
Directly in what way? Military action? I don't think that was a viable option with N. Korea or a necessary one with Iran.
Sure there are, and I happen to agree with Bush's priorities.
intransigence, whether by
That's certainly a risk. OTOH the South Korean armed forces aren't exactly something to be trifled with, especially when backed up with US air and sea power.
Why should we commit large numbers of US ground troops to defend South Korea? It's not defenseless, nor is it unaware of the threat, as it was in 1950. We're not talking about a weak sister here like we are when we consider our Arab 'allies' in the Middle East, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Dan Quayle never got to prove his mettle as President. Carter did, and was found sorely lacking.
All we have to go on is his Senate non-record. That's not very encouraging.
All I can say is that if he's elected I hope to God you're right....
Who called for a full-scale invasion? Certainly not me.
Well, ISTR that Carter tried that....
Oh, really? IMO the Iran crisis was effectively the start of our war with Islamofascism. Things might have worked out far differently if we had nipped it in the bud then.
When was the plan to 'win the peace' (the Marshall Plan) after WWII in Europe developed and implemented? 1948? We haven't even been in Iraq for two full years yet. Too bad the American people don't seem to have the same patience now as they did then.
Islamic fanatics,
Have you checked out the situation in Najaf lately? Looks like with Sistani's help (a Good Thing AFAIC) the shrine is back in the hands of the majority Shi'ite religious authorities, the interim Iraqi government is re-asserting its authority in the city, and Sadr's gang of thugs has gone home. It may not hold but at least for the time being he's out and we didn't have to assault the shrine after all.
themselves care
See above. For that matter, most of Iraq is peaceful outside of a few flashpoints. And I'd like to know your source for the allegation that 'most of the new recruits to the Iraqi army are deserting'.
Supporting the democratic forces in Iran. Clandestinely if possible, overtly if necessary. The mullahs are sitting in a house of cards.
I don't advocate the use of nuclear weapons unless absolutely necessary - you should know that. An appropriate use of tactical airpower could however have devastating effects on their nuclear program, whether it be Israeli or US airpower.
To what strategic purpose? We don't have enough military resources to act solely out of altruism.
We've hardly abandoned Afghanistan to its fate, now have we? There are *far* more US forces there now than were comitted to the actual invasion.
So long as they choose to fight us in Iraq...
Sounds to me like you're damning with faint praise. The administration's efforts deserve more than that.
Except that bunches of terrorists are being killed *in Iraq*. Whether they're directly linked to al Qaeda or not is immaterial. The enemy is Islamofascism in whatever guise it presents itself.
And the administration has nothing to do with this heightened awareness?
Agreed.
Let's hope so.
No, it's not. It's ridiculous and a gross misuse of resources that could be used much more effectively.
And when al Qaeda starts recruiting whites, blacks, and Asians? Then what?
even dirty bombs,
We don't know that, and even if it's true now it may not be in the future.
But not from Iraq or Libya....
I don't disagree with that now that Saddam's been overthrown.
That's what I don't understand about the liberals. NONE means that could not have any, not even ONE, yet we found several specialized arty shells. Several is more than none last time I checked. Same with terrorist links. Hell even the one's with the Palestinians are/were enough for me !
What this really shows is the lack of valid moral principles on their part. The do not see evil and good as black and white, but more of a gray area, where what matters is that they can do what they want and feel good. (even at others expense) and that whenever someone else does something that makes them feel bad, it has to go. But this is not based on any set moral, and or ethical principles, but on personal satisfaction, regardless of the morals involved. (and others peoples rights/feelings)
They NEVER had the goalposts set in one place for any length of time. Look at Dole vs. Clinton. A real hero's war record didn't matter.
Their idea of variable goalposts, mirrors their moral flexibility.......... (something I do not have)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.