Cheney: " This conflict can only end in their..."

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think you miss exactly what GWB means when he throws NK into the same bunch as Iran and Iraq. NK has sold and continues to sell, weapons and weaponry to people KNOWN to be associated with, and KNOWN international Terrorists and their organizations. Thus this implicates them as a STATE who SPONSORS by way of supplying these cowards with the firepower to continue their overt acts of aggression towards free peoples everywhere in the world. Though I am a STOUT democrat, and usually lean left when I sit in a chair, I respect that GWB has the ba11s to call a spade a spade publicly, instead of saying we'll just overlook this blatant disregard of the world publics safety by way of ignoring who they sell theyre weaponry to.

I lack your faith that GWB had such a limited view. NK is certainly one of the world's foremost weapons brokers to the unsavory. But hello . . . Pakistan . . . China . . . Russia. Either GWB is talking out of both sides of his mouth or both ends of his body. Regardless, it looks like we only have a serious problem with arms sales to the unsavory when it's somebody we can kick sand on without worrying about a real fight. I'm not saying China and Russia openly provide weaponry to terrorists but they certainly supply our less-than-friendly cohorts who subsequently sell it to anyone with cash.

 

[Mani]

Didn't see BaliBaby's post before I posted the second time, was responding to Balt.



<< What you fail to understand, Mani, is that we want peace on OUR terms, period. Forget the fact that North Korea and South Korea (primarily) are trying to reunite families torn asunder by conflict. NK is part of the 'Idiotic Statement of the Week Axis". Kim Dae Jung has a Nobel Peace Prize . . . GWB can spell Nobel and controls the US military. Who do you think has the best perspective on securing peace on the peninsula? >>



It's pretty hard NOT to understand this, it's pretty obvious from Bush's rhetoric and our "with us or against us" stances that we want peace ONLY on our own terms. But our own terms includes not being the victim of terrorist attacks. Attacking with impunity isn't going to accomplish this by itself, if anything it will stir up matters more. If we truly want peace we'll have to do what Bush had pledged not to- get into the nation-building business. Not only should we whisk away oppresive governments but we should usher in new ones- hopefully moderate and even democratic ones

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ssoooo. BabyDoc(I always that was a funny name to have for a Haitian dictator)- TADA- you are now president. Here are your constraints.

1. You have to work with real people

2 Some of those real people want to kill your people. They may be glad to negogiate with you in order to gain time and sway opinion, but they really want to kill you without compromise. In fact they have already done that.

3 You were not elected to save the world. You were elected in part to protect the citizens of the US.

A reminder: 9/11 was almost certainly in the works while Clinton was President. I doubt OBL said "Geeze, Bush is president? Gotta bomb those MoFos for that" which brings us to

4 Past policy was a failure, so you have to come up with a new plan, not reinstate one that was used against your people.

Lastly, remeber this truism- No one knows your job better than someone who has never done it.


So whats the plan pres? AND how do you carry it out.

Have fun

 

[Azraele]

<< Someone is thinking of the children and is trying to leave them a safe and secure world >>



There is no such thing as a safe and secure world. Life is fraught with dangers. There will always be terrorists in one form or another.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

<<

<< Someone is thinking of the children and is trying to leave them a safe and secure world >>

There is no such thing as a safe and secure world. Life is fraught with dangers. There will always be terrorists in one form or another. >>



True, and there will be another Hitler. Sometimes situations require drastic action. Sad but true

 

[Corn]

<< Not only should we whisk away oppresive governments but we should usher in new ones- hopefully moderate and even democratic ones >>



While that sounds great and all, the uncivilized culture of the Arab world does not want democracy.

For whatever reason, the majority population in the middle eastern region fear their own autonomy and choose to be lead by iron will of totalitarianism--either through military dictatorship or theocracy.

Just look to Algeria for a shining example of what happens when you introduce the concept of democracy to a people that don't really want it. The first chance they had at free elections the majority was more than happy to subjugate themselves to a hardline muslim theocracy. Civil war, gotta love it.

Some people justify their lives by their suffering all the while taking comfort from their plight by the more brutal suffering of other "lesser" humans, such as their women and the infidel western devils........




<< If we can't handle Castro's Cuba I doubt we will be successful in Khomeni's Iran. >>



Of course would could handle Castro's Cuba--but because of their alliance with the Soviets, we wisely chose not to "handle" them other than to treat them as if they did not exist (or had the plague, whatever....).

It was amusing to witness the 'niks prophecy regarding the invasion of Afghanistan. Their comparisons of Afghanistan to Vietnam, because of the Soviet's difficulty there, just wasn't too well thought out for the simple reason that the US was helping to arm and feed the insurgency against the Soviets.

Who was going to do that for the Taliban?


We had little difficulty "handling" Saddam's Republican Guard--an army that kept Kohmeni's Iran at bay.....

 

[Mani]

Algeria is a bad example. It's all but certain that the election was rigged. Impossible numbers were fabricated on voter turnout and Bouteflika's victory. He had the military and the existing government in the palm of his hand, the so-called "deciders" who pulled all strings and held all the power. Upon his election populace opposed his presidency but when starved and stricken with poverty, changing your president isn't exactly at the top of the list of things to do.

Even if in the ridiculously unlikely scenario that Bouteflika won, the situation was akin to having 5 republican candidates run against 1 democrat. Even if the majority of the population is republican, the democrat will likely win due to the split in electorate. Bouteflika was running against 6 moderate candidates. All 6 of the other candidates moreover withdrew from the election the day before the ballot claiming that fraud was already prevalent in the balloting.

It's easy to think of people as backwards, hateful and uncivilized but just a little bit of research is all it takes to have a clue of what's really going on.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< The only way to end a 'war' is to stop fighting.
Thats my thought. You can't stop fighting by killing someone elses brother. :\ >>


One country already tried that experiment...I don't want to be another France

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ssoooo. BabyDoc(I always that was a funny name to have for a Haitian dictator)

His old man Francois was a physician and the original modern Haitian dictator (ala Papa Doc) hence came Baby Doc but I'm not sure if he was also a physician by training.

I like your challenge overhyped-Suzuki rider. I will give it some thought and then reply later. It may take some time according to another truism - it's much easier to criticize than develop a better alternative.

Your positions are quite clear from your posts, Mani. I was being facetious. My bad.

Of course would could handle Castro's Cuba--but because of their alliance with the Soviets, we wisely chose not to "handle" them other than to treat them as if they did not exist (or had the plague, whatever....).

I disagree Corn. I think our foreign policy with Cuba is the antithesis of treating them as if they did not exist. Cuba is an obsession. In particular, we codify into law our disdain for the nation and try to create an aura about them as if they had the plague to coerce other governments and private companies to treat them as we do.

Cubans lack democracy, freedom of movement/press, and many opportunities we hold dear b/c of Castro. But the US has done little of consequence in last 40+ years that has aided the plight of the typical Cuban other than offer asylum if they can make it here. Castro remains in power in spite of US disapproval/actions. In part b/c he puts down dissent as ruthlessly as any other Carribbean dictator (except maybe Papa Doc's Tonton Macoutes). But he also has popular support amongst the people. I don't know enough Iranians or Iraqis to judge how many people think about their leaders. But Castro for all his many faults still represents Cuba and most Cubans like it that way.

I don't think we had a choice during the Cuban Missile Crisis. With the blockade in place our options were limited to 1) pre-emptive attack, 2) give in to missiles on Cuba, or 3) negotiate some alternative. 1 and 2 were unacceptable to JFK (albeit apparently a few thought 1 was the best option). We handled Cuba by taking them off the table . . . no offensive acts against Cuba in perpetuity in return for complete removal of missiles from the island . . . and then the under-the-table action of removing missiles from Turkey. That shyte is smooth. No harm no foul. Yeah we're not buddies (Cuba/US/USSR) but at least you and I have an opportunity to have this conversation.

The US/USSR both disliked Khomeni b/c the worst kind of nut is a religious nut . . . they will do anything. So we both supported Iraq even though Iraq used chemical/biological weapons against Iranians and Kurdish Iraqis. So you see that absolute intolerance of weapons of mass destruction is BS. It's not HOW you kill but WHO. Now we think he sucks Russia thinks well he sucks but he's got oil and he's still not as bad as Khomeni plus both of them dislike the US. So will Russia aid our efforts against the regimes in Iran or Iraq. Hell no.

Bush gets props for his leadership in dealing with Afghanistan. Clearly, America and possibly part of South Asia is more secure b/c of our efforts there. But let's be honest . . . we really didn't get our hands all that dirty. The dirty work has certainly started in trying to extricate the vestiges of the Taliban or Al Qaeda there. But the reason we went there in the first place UBL . . . dead, alive, no clue. We call it a success b/c we toppled a state that supported terrorism. Unfortunately, before, during, and after we characterized this state as poorly organized and basically ineffective.

If GHWB/Powell/Cheney had run Saddam out of town few would have been critical. But many are grumbling and many will sit out another round including our supposed allies in the North who are enjoying direct subsidies from UN/Iraqi oil shipments. And we still lack a solution to one of the primary reasons we didn't do it the first time . . . destabilization of the region.


For whatever reason, the majority population in the middle eastern region fear their own autonomy and choose to be lead by iron will of totalitarianism--either through military dictatorship or theocracy.

False, the majority want security personal/financial for their families - just like you and me. Saddam promised it to the people. The Fadhs try to buy it. Khomeni . . . well he's just a theocrat, period. But Khatami is trying to bring a brand of democracy and respect for (non-religious) law to the people. This guy could be your neighbor - assuming it's a gated community.. Turkey - In May 2000 parliament elected Ahmet Necdet Sezer, the chief justice of the constitutional court, to the post of president. Observers described Sezer as a staunch advocate of democratic rights.. Mubarak resembles a conservative, Republican in TX ie why bother going to the polls we know who won since there's only one party. But other than Israel he has been the most consistent US ally, supporter of economic and political reform, Israeli-Arab peace, and keeping militants on a short leash.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

overhyped-Suzuki rider

Indeed! (Must be a Buell man)

And I am glad you are thinking about the possibilites to my little conundrum.I would be interested (seriously) with what you come up with.

 

[Corn]

<< False, the majority want security personal/financial for their families - just like you and me. >>



I'm sure that many do, but not enough. Most are content to suffer in the status quo (hey, no problem, 'cuz they've got their wive(s) to kick around when they're feeling down), it's just that not enough are willing to suffer to bring about the change in their lives that might foster their personal and financial security. Their current status is evidence enough with regard to what they really want.

Khatami is a mere puppet. Real reform in Iran (or in any other repressive regime for that matter) will never happen without armed revolution, period. Perhaps it's the realization that a vocal "evil" element has made it all too apparent they've got no problems blowing up innocent civilians to further the cause of suffering under the thumb of religion that's got the general population too scared to fight for themselves.

Whatever the reason, the majority population in the mid-east don't feel themselves deserving enough or their sacrifice would be too great, to fight for the freedom and security of their families. Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

 

[Pacfanweb]

<< A lot of people obviously don't know what USA did to a lot of innocent people also.>>

Such as? Show me evidence of US troops doing anything to any innocent people in the Middle East, other than in wartime. Wartime doesn't count. Innocent people die during wartime, unfortunate, but true. There has been nothing done by the US to anyone in the Middle East that warranted 9/11. Nothing. The fact that there are people over there that think they actually were justified in the actions of 9/11, the USS Cole, Beirut, etc, does nothing except prove the difference between our values and theirs.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is, they are uncivilized barbarians, particularly by today's standards. We have been trying the diplomatic approach for decades...........it has been proven over and over not to work with these complete idiots. That leaves one option. Of course, you don't stop trying to educate these primitives while you're pounding them, but they need to understand beyond a shadow of a doubt in their feeble minds that the last thing they ever need to do again is fvck with the USA. Hopefully, they'll get the message while there's still some of them left, then we can help pick up the pieces and bring them into the 20th century.


<< but seriously you're not going to stop them from breeding and being raised exactly the same way they did bfore.>>

See my last 2 sentences.

 

[IGBT]

If your a purveyor of compromise, what aspect of your or your families livelihood are you willing to give up to placate terrorism?? And when the smallpox shows up in your community do you think compromise will be an option?? :Q