steissd, That's another difference we have; I'm against the US agression on Iraq. All I've heard is rhetoric and no proof that Saddam is any danger to our security. c.i.
NewHaven,
NK does not have missles with that range.
It is not an aggression: it is a kind of global police operation against the dangerous ruler that supports terror. And I wish the U.S. Army the fast victory with minimum (if any) GI casualties.
If Saddam is not replaced this will encourage the other rogue regimes to act in the same way.
steissd, How did you come to the conclusion, "If Saddam is not replaced this will encourage the other rogue regimes to act in the same way." Who? We alrady have rogue nations in Africa, but nobody seems to bother with them! Kim? Heck, amost half his countrymen are starving to death. c.i.
I meant rogue regimes in the Islamic countries. By the way, I would not object if Kim is replaced either, this would make it possible to reunite Koreas creating one more strong and prosperous democratic country in Asia (that will be comparable to Japan by its economic potential and freedom that the citizens enjoy).
About Africa. I guess, the world community starts being concerned about rogue regime of Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
With concern over North Korea's nuclear capabilities growing, President Bush reassured the American people Monday that "extreme force" will be used to remove Saddam Hussein from power if the Iraqi president fails to give up suspected weapons of mass destruction.
"For years, Kim Jong Il has acted in blatant disregard of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons, and last week, he rejected it outright," Bush told reporters after a National Security Council meeting on North Korea. "We cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to remain in the hands of volatile, unpredictable leaders. Which is exactly why we must act quickly and decisively against Saddam Hussein."
Bush on North Korea:"We Must Attack Iraq"
PDiddie, All I've seen GW do on NK is back peddle. He said he will not negotiate with NK, but the latest news is that he is willing to provide NK with oil and food.
c.i.
c.i
Is it possible that no one has defined the meaning of the word negotiate for him. It would appear not only does he have problems when speaking english his comprehension isn't much better.
As you all know, I would take a much harder line with North Korea. On the other hand, nothing in the administration's dealing with the problem precludes a stiffening of our position if talking won't achieve our ends. I don't believe talking with Kim will ever be effective, and that eventually we will have to resort to force.
Many of you posting here have argued long and strenuously for some sort of negotiation to avoid an outright shooting war. The Bush administration appears to have heard you, and now you condemn him for it. It appears that no matter what is done by the shrub, you will be unhappy. That's a pretty good arguement in itself to ignor the yammering of the "peace at any price" wing of the Democratic Party. As D. Boone used to say, "figure out what's right, an go ahead", or the famous naval injunction, "Damn the torpedos, full steam ahead".
I think we need to sit back a bit, and give the kid a chance to play his hand. He's the one sitting at the table, and no one has clearly seen his cards yet. Kim and Saddam, the bet's to you. They now get to choose whether to up the ante, call, or fold. I suggest they would be wise to fold, but maybe they just need to see our hole-cards. That's a pretty risky choice for them, but I'm confident we have a winning hand.
Asherman, There's never been a question as to our winning 'hand.' The problem lies with GW's inability to comprehend the conflicting statements he's making from one speech to the next. c.i.
Now shrub isn't likely to be on anyones list of the world's great minds, but that isn't a prerequesit for leadership or statesmanship. He mangles the language and may have had only a hazy idea of the shape of the globe when he came into office, but he has grown more in office than many would give him credit for. Inconsistency seems to be a problem, but that may because the wide-world isn't seeing the full picture. I like the decisiveness and resolution he has shown.
Trying to second guess policy as it unfolds is a risky business. Partisan politics should be set aside, and we should have some faith in the good intentions of our government. They will make mistakes, and they will have some successes that the wide-world will never know.
The worst clients I've had were of average intelligence. Ditto the worst bosses. If one believes Dubya is of average intelligence. I don't believe a C average in a school like Harvard Business College is giving us a clue but there's score floating around on the Interent placing him around a score of 100. I don't exactly trust those and I might agree that leadership doesn't always require knowledge and intelligence, that is if you were leading a machine shop. Statesmanship is something Dubya has to hope of reaching, especially without the crony mouthpieces surrounding him. Statesmanship does required knowledge and intelligence. I'd be interested in Dubya's grades in history and sociology, but in action I can see they can't be very good. He's in school now.
LW, I agree with you! It's a little late for GW to be learning on the job. c.i.
Most Presidents learn on the job. Truman, in my opinion one of the great Presidents during the 20th century, was only a semi-successful small town retailer and minor machine politician until he inherited the job. Wilson may have been extemely intelligent, but history hasn't been terribly kind to him. This President has gathered around him a distinguished band of advisors. He apparently does listen to them, and then makes his decision. There is no evidence that Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Powell, or Rice are making the final choices. Shrub seems to use his advisors with a great deal of political savvy.
Compared to that unspeakable team that last sat in the Executive chair, Bush has demostrated real character and resolve during a time of crisis. We may not agree with some of his policies, but Bush isn't driven so much by the popularity polls as some. Before a wild rush to judgement, give the kid a chance.
I happen to think the last one in office made a lot of very wise decisions that was for the American people and people of the world. This guy scares me, I hope there is a world left when he leaves in two years. Everything he does is for popularity and the rich. Sorry Asherman, this man stinks!
We shall see, we shall see. Unfortunately, we'll all be dead long before the judgement of history is finally rendered.
Asherman: as a man of language and its nuances i am sure you can recognize the mysteries of understanding/misunderstanding: as in "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" which seems all too clear as to meaning "the hell with the danger, lets get the job done"
BUT change the comma and we have "Damn, the torpedos full speed ahead" which gives us a clear meaning of "danger! lets get the hell out of here".
Battles are not generally won by the faint of heart. I don't recommend losing battles, much less wars. We have been under attack for many years, yet chose to sleep and dream. When the towers were hit, it certainly looked like the Giant was shaken awake. Many called for instant retaliation, and the use of nuclear weapons were advocated by some. We were told that this is a different kind of war than Americans are used to. Most of our enemies now recognize that to meet us on the open field of battle is suicide. They have resorted to unconventional warfare, to terrorism and a strategy designed to sapp our strength by undermining the National Will.
Afghanistan allowed itself to become too closely associated with Al Queda, and it's radical Islamic government was destroyed. Bin Laden and others of his ilk remain at large and dangerous; hidden, armed and protected by other enemy states. Radical terrorists can be rendered much less dangerous by eliminating their bases of operations. Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebannon, and others are sanctuaries for the terrorists. What will it take to convince these states that harboring, financing and arming radical Islamic terrorists is not a good idea? Iraq and North Korea situations are closely watched by others. What message do we want to send? American devotion to fair play, kindness, and moderation are viewed by our enemies as weaknesses to be played upon.
Is the giant going back to sleep? Have we forgotten already the depth of hatred borne us by militant Islam? Can we kid ourselves into believing that the old rules still apply, and that the enemy will play according to those rules?
China and possibly Russia can be added to that list - now we got good old World War III. That should just about suit the hawks!
I kinda prefer diplomacy and spending all that war money on good deeds rather than bringing life as we know it to a halt.
