Asherman, We're not saying that old rules still apply. What we are saying is that GW speaks with forked tongue, back-peddles on his statements, does very little for world ecology, emphasizes most of his tax breaks to the rich and famous (very little to the middle class and the poor), and has a myopic view of his war with Iraq - even thought the world at large is against it. He is willing to spend billions to fight a war with a pepsqueek nation like Iraq and NK, but fails to care about the US citizens that do not have medical insurance, food on the table, or shelter over their heads. These are 'REAL' needs of the American people. Something is drastically wrong when our 'leader' fails to care for it's own people over going to war where he cries wolf, but can't prove it. c.i.
I, for one, do not vote for the U.S. president based on his view of "world ecology".
cjh, I'm sure there are people who do vote on a candidate with a ecology platform, but that's not the point I'm making. I never trusted GW when he was a candidate, and did not vote for him or Albore. c.i.
Actually, the Cold War was WWIII.
America's enemies can not be bought off, nor appeased. They must be either destroyed, or rendered relatively harmless. It is our military strength that provides the shield on which our allies depend. Radical Islamic terrorists are dedicated to a Jihad against the West, and are willing to die to achieve victory. That movement is widely popular throughout Southwest Asia. If the terrorist faction looks as if it is going to win, their strength will be muliplied many times. If it looks as if they are going to lose, the support of Southwest Asian governments and peoples will be lessened.
Our friends will prosper if we are successful. They may gripe about the costs, or the horrors of war, but in the end they will choose to support the United States. The alternative is to support those countries whose avowed goal is the destruction of Western values, or to hope that the victors in this struggle will be kind and merciful.
You mention China. I believe that China poses the single greatest conventional risk to world peace. Conditions within the PRC could easily deteriorate to the point where China would become truly aggressive. Famine and disease, coupled with a population too large for the available resources, make China a smoldering ember that could errupt into a bonfire. Russia is problematic, but I think that it is currently more Western in outlook than it has been in many years. The Russians are as threatened by the Radical Islamic terrrorists as the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, or Israel. Russia has great problems, and they need to be watched closely.
WWIV? Probably it began sometime back in the early 1990's. How will it end do you think? Which side is most likely to be victorious? Which side are you on; the side of Western Civilization, or on the side of those who think Western Civilization is Satanic and the ultimate Evil?
If I'm not mistaken, Bush just got sand kicked in his face by a 97-lb. Korean weakling:
North Korea rejected as "pie in the sky" U.S. offers of talks and possible aid in exchange for abandoning its nuclear ambitions, accusing Washington on Wednesday of staging a "deceptive drama" to mislead world opinion.
Washington's "loudmouthed supply of energy and food aid are like a pie in the sky, as they are possible only after the DPRK is totally disarmed," a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a report by the country's foreign news outlet, KCNA.
North Korea Rejects US Conditions on Talks
Asherman, We will be considered the "ultimate evil" if we strike Iraq without just cause. All we've heard so far is rhetoric from Bush and company. The world needs more.
PDiddie, Actually GW got sand thrown in his face by the whole world community by rejecting his war with Iraq ship.
GW is now spending millions every day by sending our troops and equipment to the Gulf. That money could be better spent helping our citizens at home.
c.i.
As to the shrub. No matter how much you dislike the man, how much you believe him incapable of performing the duties of his office, he is the President. The stakes are high, but we can't just call "Kings X" to the game because you don't agree with the strategy followed by the fellow who is sitting at the table on our behalf. Would you prefer that Congress be setting the policies and strategy? Bush is who we have, not someone else. It is the Bush administration that will call the shots.
Bush may not be re-elected, but that is well into the future. The problems we face are upon us, and will not wait. If things go well, then Bush may be re-elected and a hundred years from now he may be hailed as a great leader. If things don't go so well, as some of you predict, then we will as a nation have to cross that bridge as best we may. I don't believe that Gore would have been any better President, and may have been worse. Gore is a bright man, but he's always had trouble leading people. His policies and strategies often show keen insight, but in a time of crisis there is no time to ponder and explore all the alternatives available. Gore is a bright man, but he probably would have been indecisive and tentative in the present situation we face. Maybe not, but we'll never know.
Pat Oliphant today: Bush; "Ok i'll take N.Korea out of the axis of evil, I'll apologize for calling you a loathsome pygmy and i agree to call you a great leader, I won't claim the US can fight 2 wars at the same time and I'll promise your not next on our hit list after Iraq and you promise not to develop nuclear weapons?
N.Korea "no"
The legislature did establish policy -- they were asked to vote in support and it's only conjecture what would transpire if they voted nay. I believe Bush meant to say "Access of Evil."
As I've said before, you can't negotiate with North Korea. Many here argued that the administration should try to "play nice" with Kim. Our government tried the approach you advocated, and it has failed. We return to the status quo ante, how can we eliminate the DPRK nuclear program? Bush tried talking, now we have two choices. First, we can let Kim The Current get away with it and produce more atom bombs to threaten us with, or we can follow the tough approach. Prepare our forces for war, issue an ultimatum and if it isn't accepted, strike North Korea's nuclear facilities. If Kim decides to push the matter to another level, then defeat him on the battlefield.
If Bush had followed the hard-line, many of you would have complained that the administration was too warlike. It seems that nothing the poor boy does is going to meet with your approval.
perhaps mis-speak and double-speak have not worked so well for Bush, perhaps its time for Rove to suggest no-speak.
I'm curious if the confrontational blustering is just an attempt to hide the tentative approach this administration is really taking toward foreign policy? Why do we even have a State Department if it's not establishing foreign policy? And what is Colin Powell actually doing? I hear all the gears stripping and grinding to a halt.
kinda like when Nixon was in the trenches with USSR and used a visit to China to goad the Ruskies back to the table, he "forgot" to tell his State Dept what he was doing.
Kissinger was aware of the strategy, and was arguably the architect.
Kissinger was an architect like Frank Lloyd Wright was a diplomat.
Asherman,
Thanks for your consistently insightful and informative posts on this and other threads. I read them all with interest and find something original (for me) and useful in nearly every one.
I cherish your good opinion, and that of others such as Timber, Setanta, Trespassor, Tantor, Cicero, and the whole host who must remain un-named. I know that sometimes I go on too long, but my remarks are as short as I can make them. I try not to stick my large nose into every pie, and to confine my remarks to stuff I know a little bit about.
Here's a thought, Asherman. How about if he kept his mouth shut?
That way, he won't need to keep back-peddling, and seem a fool when he does. c.i.
