Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests How well has Bush handled the war of terror?

Originally posted by Davo:

---

'Maliciously attack'??? Give me a break.

---

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

---

Hey BlackonTan, how's the sunroof?

---

Originally posted by BlackOnTan:

---

My point is still valid however.

---

Originally posted by Flemloid 3.0:

---

Originally posted by Red1998SVT:

---

Originally posted by Flemloid 3.0:

---

theres no point in even discussing it.

---

Flemloid says there is no point in discussing Bush's record before the election. Is this a common point of view among Bush supporters?

---

let me correct you...

as I said before I am not supporting jack.. I simply stated that bush is going to win... just to get you heated...

I just stood back and stated that no matter what you think or who reads this... bush is going to win. Just being an ass... sorry... but keep going...

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Iraq has HUGE tracts of uninhabited desert. No sh!t it's not under government control; it's not under the control of the insurgent element either, Einstein.

---

Originally posted by BlackOnTan:

---

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

---

Hey BlackonTan, how's the sunroof?

---

Well, honestly...it's the same piece of crap it has always been. It has been raining quite often around here, so I have neglected to put forth any effort into my sunroof...seems pointless. When it stops raining I will resume working on what appears to be a lost cause at this point. Did you get your motor assembly back together properly?

---

He never sent me the gear, so I never pulled the motor. My sunroof works fine, I was just going to test the improved gear for him. But enough about talking about Contours...

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

The number of American casualties PALES in comparison to the losses that Hussein's regime have taken, in addition to the insurgency losses...

---

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You are an astonishingly rude young man, JaTo. I'm sorry to see this. But it certainly is in keeping with the behavior of your political soulmates (Cheney, Rove, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.). One's behavior is the mirror of one's character.

---

As is one's intellect a reflection of their abilities. Again, you've done little more than rehash and prop up partisan propaganda. Furthermore, I do get angry and I think folks should get angry when countered with sincere ignorance. It has entered every crevice of American society to the detriment of all. It's a curse and a disease that tells people to swallow sound-bytes, polls the latest "feel-good" philosophy du-jour because it makes them feel better about swallowing distortions and obfucations.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You concede that the insurgency is increasing its attacks.

---

This is a fact. Everyone with any measure of intelligence projected this occurance, so you proudly throwing this up is akin to claiming that the sky is blue. With twice the amount of troops or half the amount we have today, there would exist the certainty that the closer we approached elections in Iraq, the higher likelyhood of attempts by malcontents to disrupt the process.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

So, I take it we agree that Bush has not secured most of Iraq and its borders. Let���?�s call this what it is: a military failure. A competent commander in chief would not get bogged down in a guerilla war in a hostile region.

---

Most commander in chiefs have only had to deal with fixed military entities within geographical or political borders; need I rehash that yet again Iraq is different and no amount of troops could come close to stemming the inrush of wackos that are making their way into that region? Competency or a lack of it has next to nothing to do with the external factors that are working against us here, because the ALWAYS would be there, no matter how well planned the post-invasion excercise would have been.

Take most any war in a geographically sizeable area throughout history and you will find that any border that hasn't been walled in WILL be pourous, no matter how many troops you try and throw at the situation. I challenge you to look at a map of Iraq and gauge the distances that would have to be covered. To make a similar comparison, gauge it with the US/Mexican border and run the numbers on how many illegal immigrants pour across them on a daily basis.

Let me put this in as simple and easily understood terms as I possibly can:

IRAQ'S BORDERS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOCK DOWN AND SECURE.

This situation would have existed no matter how well the post-war planning was mapped out and executed.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You try to excuse this failure by saying "it's getting closer to election time," but does that make it any less a failure? The insurgents have been increasing their attacks virtually throughout the occupation. The upcoming election may be one motivation, but they have never lacked for motivations.

---

Which is it? You can't have it both ways! You claim that insurgents would have these motivations despite anything detracting them from it, so AGAIN, let me put forth that it's not because of a lack of troops that we are seeing so many attacks. True, more troops means better response time towards these pockets of insurgents, but it's not a PREVENTATIVE measure.

When you have a group of extremists that see suicide as one of the preferred methods of attack, it doesn't matter HOW many troops you have on the ground, as is seen in Israel.

We are working towards getting the Iraqis up to speed on taking care of their own security needs, though it is slow-going. We are also working towards stemming the influx of extremist nutcases into Iraq; this is also difficult and slow-going. The fact is that if things had the stamp of the Jackass on it, as well as a seal of UN approval, no matter HOW bad they would have been proceeding, it would receive popular applause.

Failure? No. Difficult and slow-going? Absolutely. I've seen nowhere that this administration said reconstruction would be a walk in the park; quite the opposite. Every time I've heard it discussed, it was mentioned that it would be time-consuming, difficult and an iterative process.

Mistakes have been made, but to call the occupation a wholesale failure simply reaks of partisan ignorance. I am unaware of any occupation by very many countries througout history that have been "walks in the park", but that it should have been has magically seemed to manifest itself during an election year. It's as if mass stupidity has become an airborne disease and it's no surprise, since the mainsteam media makes a living serving as the mouthpieces of sensationalism, pain, suffering and death. Good news is UNPROFITABLE news these days, as it apparently doens't draw the pairs of eyes towards the idiot-box as rape, murder, despair, etc.

The fact is we aren't bogged down in a military advancement; we are bogged down in reconstruction.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

The fact that the insurgents are not in control of all the remote areas and the borders does not make the occupation a success.

---

Nor does it make it an epic failure, either.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

As you know, the only "secure" area is the Green Zone, and even that is questionable lately, considering the recent attacks there.

---

Welcome to the new face of military occupation in the 21st century. Somalia was a harbinger of this (though not technically an occupation), Afghanistan a potent reminder and Iraq a full-fledged lesson in it. We are no longer dealing with societies of cohesive, highly educated and motivated individuals that are self-contained in a geographical area that get the picture when they've been soundly "whipped".

We are dealing with fractured groups (some of which are lead by extremists), all jockeying for positions of political significance and trying to maintain or build power. We are also dealing with a population that has been suppressed for DECADES and that is in the throes of massive economic and political turmoil, that is being stabilized slowly. We are dealing with extremists external to Iraq coming in and exacerbating matters that much worse when they get a chance to.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Sure, lots of agencies said they thought Saddam had WMDs. But most agencies also admitted that they had no solid recent intelligence, and that they could only really guess. The CIA was so badly burned by 9/11 (and so pressured by the Bush Adminstration) that they were overstating the threat dramatically. Bush chose to ignore the thinness of the CIA's evidence. That was a huge mistake.

---

Then EVERY Senator needs to be hit over the head with this, as I cannot recall but a smattering of a few that didn't see Iraq as an acceptable risk in light of their lack of cooperation over a decade and especially in the days past 9/11. Before March of '03, would you REALLY want to give someone like Saddam Hussein the "benefit of the doubt"? Someone who had failed to account for tons of VX gas and a fair amount of biotoxins under UN mandate?

Intelligence agencies don't speak of certainties very often. They talk in terms of "probability"; it's the nature of the business. Perhaps when clairvoyance is visited upon them, then they can cease to speak as such. Until then, all we have is probability based off of the intelligence we have in hand.

No, the mistake would have been if Bush had told Tenet to kiss off after he said that the WMD case for invading Iraq was a "slam dunk". One doesn't typically naysay their DCI and I challenge you to find a US President who has wholesale discounted what their intelligence arm has provided them.

The FACT stands that there existed NO way of knowing whether Hussein still possessed WMD without invasion. We invaded, and as it turns out, our intelligence seemed to be wrong (apparently driven by the lies that Hussein's lieutenants told him and his rampant fears over Iran).

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

What? Of course there were "concerns"; that is not an issue. Here's the real issue: the UN weapons inspectors found nothing! And the collective intelligence of the UN was that the evidence of a WMD threat was too weak to support an invasion.

---

This will continue to be a fundamental disagreement, as the UN weapons inspectors continued to find "nothing" even though equipment and armaments continued to be moved around and hidden until around '95 when one of Hussein's brother-in-laws defected and tattled on him. The continued to find "nothing", even though more discoveries were made in '98 and I believe in '00 as well (have to check on the last date). For the US to entrust it's security to a group that had roadblock upon roadblock put in front of them and who also voiced RAMPANT concerns about the level of cooperation they received, the dual-use equipment that disappeared, the scientists who they never were able to fully interview without Iraq military personnel in their immediate presence, and who considered Iraq a big enough threat to maintain weapons inspections for a decade just smacks of myopia.

This is further compounded by recent information that Hussein possibly wanted to keep up the ruse with the UN on weapons inspections and WMD so as to keep Iran in the dark and give them a level of doubt, as he apparently saw them as the bigger threat to his rule. If this is indeed the case, then invasion was inevitable; it was just a matter of time.

So, the UN may have been proven right in their offhand assertion that Iraq possessed no WMD, despite being metaphorically shackled, chained and blinded when conducting these inspections (many palaces were never visited, and the ones that were visited were done so only after a period of warning was given).

The US and many other countries that asserted that Hussein still had unaccounted for a fairly large amount of WMD (this is still true today, as there still exists amounts of material that remain unaccounted for) were proven wrong, due to the shell game Hussein was playing with the UN and the game of standoff that he wanted to play with Iran.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You are making a HUGE and dangerous assumption here. Do you really think the war in Iraq is preventing Al Quaeda and other terrorists from planning attacks on the US? On which facts do you base that opinion, or is it just a wild guess?

---

Although the Iraq war wasn't meant to do this, it certainly has "moved the target" in the short-term with regard to a fair portion of extremist groups. If it's keeping a significant flow of extremists from turning their eyes and efforts here, then it is FACTUALLY pulling resources away from hitting targets on US soil, NO? This isn't detracting from planning attacks on the US; nothing will do that. I figured this would be construed as common sense, but I've seen a large lack of that in recent years...

Do I need to further simplify this down?

It is much better to fight this war on our own time and place of choosing, than letting terrorists dictate the when and where. If we are attracting them to Iraq, God save our troops, but isn't this better than not attracting a fair amount of them somewhere else other than the continental US? Somewhere where we have the weapons and materials at ready to deal with them?

It's not a pleasant situation, but it is what it is.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Then why did they start hating us at about the same time we started supporting Israel and supporting repressive dictators in the region, including (to name a few) the Shah of Iran, the Saudis, every oil-rich principality in the Gulf, and Saddam himself?

---

Islamic fundamentalists and nationalists started hating Western powers since the British times of empire, hated the Western powers for establishing a Jewish state in their midst, and hating US and Russia for playing each side off of the other during the Cold War. They hate western ideology and progressiveness (as shown with Saddat's assassination in Eqypt)...

Our actions aren't guilt-free during the Cold War, as we had bigger concerns than breeding dislike among the Arab population; we sacrificed attention to one extraordinarily small issue then (terrorism) to pay much more attention to the defeat of communism and keeping the USSR at bay in the Middle-East and away from one of THE strategic resources that both of us were vying for: oil.

So, let me guess: In order to appease the relative unknown issue of terrorism, you would have totally revamped our foreign policy during the Cold War to appease the extremist Arab element, instead of taking care of relevant issues at hand with the USSR?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

BUSH and CHENEY call Iraq the centerpiece in the war on terror! Do you need proof of this? Their speeches have made that claim several times.

---

No, your pals in the media and the left side of the aisle in the Senate have shoved these words in the mouths of Bush and Cheney. They have recently said that Iraq "is now at the center of the war on terror", as this is precisely what it has evolved into.

I can't find anything that shows where they state that it is the "centerpiece of the war on terror", but I can find spots where Kerry hops up and down claiming they are saying this.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

It really is best to concede obvious points, or your credibility is ruined, JaTo. Even Republicans admit that Bush has alienated a great many of our most important allies.

---

I want sources on this, instead of vauge references and translations that amount to "we've pissed France and Germany off". We haven't been popular within certain circles due to our actions, yes, but this insipid foolishness that we've alienated our allies fully and utterly by our actions with Iraq shows a large amount of ignorance. Some of our allies have given us cause to march down a path of our own choosing, intstead of a path of coercion and political muckery...

Some of our allies have alienated the US in order to further their own political agendas and control (take France and Germany for example over control of the EU vs. many countries that support US policy that can't stand Chirac or Schroeder and the way they are strongarming Europe into doing their bidding). Take the issue of Turkey being admitted into the EU and the roadblocks that France has CONSTANTLY put forth, as they know that this fairly strong US ally will marginalize their efforts of control. Take the "Food for Oil" scandal, look at the unsecured loans that both France and Germany have given Iraq, look at the oil ties, the financial ties, look at the personal ties that Chirac had with Hussein, look at the French-made nuclear reactors that were built for Iraq (and the Iraelis smartly bombed) in the '80s, look at the UN Security council votes that Iraq apparently bought France out with...

....need I go any further?

France and Germany have alienated themselves in part due to their actions and insistences, their political stances and the rhetoric they have used against the US. We have responded in like in many instances, though both sides are busy trying to stabilize things.

Spain has been given a cool reception in part due to their present administration's overt hostilitity to US policy in GENERAL. Zapatero has been reckless in his thoughts of how he would handle ETA in the past and there exist many doubts on how well he's going to handle the current threat his country faces.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

They admit the "coalition" in Iraq is really just a fig leaf consisting of the UK and a few very small and weak countries. But I see you fail to concede even that. Please post a list of these "allies" that you think are so important. The rest of us could use a laugh.

---

Well, I'm glad you think Japan, Turkey, Australia, Hungary, Poland, South Korea, Romania, Italy and the other smaller entities are a joke to you. This is precisely the type of elitist, snobbish and totally disrespectful thinking that seems to pervade those that are in disagreement with Bush's actions. If you think that the way to attract others to our cause is to sh!t all over those that have given what they are capable of, then there's a certain liberal candidate running for the White House that is the man for you. The US has almost ALWAYS been the anchor behind any multi-lateral action; the disparate troop and dollar count we've spent on Iraq has been mirrored in countless UN-sponsored activities for decades.

The fact that France and Germany weren't apart of the US-led coalition isn't due to the US "alienating" them; it has to due with their financial ties to Iraq, their power play in the EU, close relations with Hussein and apparently taking bribes to buy out a UN Security Concil vote...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

What does this have to do with Bush's performance in the war on terror?

---

Bush has aggressively pushed for far greater attention to be paid towards terrorism than any other President. Why? 9/11. If you equivocate Iraq being the only metric in the war on terror that this administration should be judged by, then you are far more shortsighted and foolish that I initially thought.

It is a sizeable one, but it is not the only one.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

By the way, you insinuated several times that my original post was a "cut and paste", or that it was written by some other individuals. I'm not sure why you feel that is meaningful, but I can assure you that I wrote it in its entirety. I drew on the many publications I read, but I wrote it after reading this forum for some time and seeing that many members assumed, without explanation, that Bush was worthy of our support almost solely on the basis of his performance in the war on terror.

---

I'm sorry, but so much of this smacks of the typical "spin cycle" factoids that get thrown out unthinkingly without the weight of careful consideration behind them. The RNC has done their fair share of populating the airwaves with their own swill and sewage, but I see FAR more from the left that I think I ever have.

I look forward to the rest of your "defence"...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

So you think Bush's conduct of the war is a success so long as the body count is in our favor? That is truly sick. Not since Vietnam has anyone (except you) tried to pass off body counts as evidence of winning.

---

This type of thinking IS sick. It's been the media that has propogated this belief as it's the ONLY thing they report on out of Iraq, and it's shown in the light of our efforts falling into total ruin. Furthermore, I've never been so ignorant to suggest that the bigger the body-count, the father we are on the way to seeing a free Iraq. I take extreme offence at you ASSuming this position.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You concede that Bush has failed to control this trade (an essential source of terrorist funding), even though it is right out in the open and could be eliminated with proper troop levels and committment.

---

Not too bright, are you? There's nothing to concede, as NO ONE has ever controlled it. The Russians tried and failed during their invasion and their troop strength in Afghanistan was MASSIVE compared to ours (120,000 troops compared to at most 20,000 on our part).

Care to explain how more troops and more committment would fix this, and at the same time not aggrivate the situation there further? Regime change comes much easier and much quicker than cultural change; we must tackle one thing at a time and the easiest ones first. Even with ideal conditions, the Afghan drug trade is going to be as difficult as stamping out the Columbian drug trade, if not more so.

I think you've seen how many years it's taken to even marginally put a dent in that, and it still isn't a pretty picture...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

BTW, I hope you are not trying to argue that Bush should be excused for this failure, just because others have failed in the past. A failure is a failure; it is not a success just because others have failed too.

---

If you wish to continue to argue such a futile point, feel free to do so. Even if we wished to smash the drug trade in Afghanistan, we do not have the facilities to do so, nor is the environment ripe to pursue such a policy now.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

What in the world . . .? Do you really mean this? Even the Bush Administration is still asserting that Afghanistan will be secured, and have a democratic election, and will become a solid mainstream nation state. You are turning Bush doctrine on its head!

---

I've never said I marched LOCKSTEP with what comes out of some of the Republican mouthpieces in regard to Afghanistan.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You are saying the task of securing Afghanistan is impossible, and that much of Afghanistan will always be an open haven for terrorists.

---

I firmly believe that parts of it will be, as sections of it are so sparsely populated and isolated that firm control is impossible. Notice I say PARTS, not the ENTIRE country. Regional containment will still have to be a practiced measure, as I seriously doubt that Islamic extremism will ever be fully stamped out of there in our lifetime.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

If you are correct, then what was the purpose of our invasion there? Why would you support the expensive and deadly war to oust the Taliban, when you assert that they (or other Islamic extremists) will always be able to operate there?

---

Why else? Are you this completely naieve?

WE INVADED AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE THE TALIBAN WERE STATE-SPONSORS OF TERRORISM AND HOUSED BIN-LADEN AND WE WISHED TO OUST THEM TO RID OURSELVES WITH THE WORST OFFENDERS AND MOST EASILY DISPLACED IN A REGION WITH THE HIGHEST KNOWN CONCENTRATION OF AL-QAEDA.

We aimed to hammer away at the known bulk of them and remove a SECURE and ENTRENCHED haven for them. Far better to have your enemy on the run than safe and snug tucked away somewhere, as it makes their aims, goals and plans MUCH more difficult.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Why would you support Bush when you don't share his goals in Afghanistan, and you don't think they are even realistic?

---

Some measure of control is better than NO measure of control. If we can work to marginalize as much support, ease of operations and comfort within Afghanistan for terrorists and Islamic extremists, SO MUCH THE BETTER.

This is what we are doing.

I take it by your indignance that you would have preferred that we not go into Afghanistan at all?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. I have never heard even the most partisan Bush lackey try to pin Bush's failures in Afghanistan on ex-president Clinton.

---

I'm not, though I admit I did sail over your point. I'm merely stating fact that if Clinton had of done his due-diligence and taken Bin-Laden out the NUMEROUS times we had a chance to, some of our difficulties today would be less so. Read the 9/11 report and get educated, as it's sorely lacking on your part.

Furthermore, we did learn a thing or two from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Massively-deployed force doesn't make for a successful operation, nor does speed. It was impossible for the US to respond quickly enough to ensure with a high level of probability that we would capture the bulk of the Al-Qaeda leadership.

Again, which way do you want it? On one hand, I hear that we shouldn't respond quickly to threats, then on the other you say we didn't respond quickly enough.

Do you actually have a cohesive clue as to what you belive?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Again, please focus on the topic at hand. My point was that Bush botched the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by going in too late and too light. Changing the subject to Clinton is comical.

---

Fine, as I think that even if Clinton had nailed Bin-Laden, we would have still invaded Afghanistan. So, we went in too late and too light, eh?

Allow me to offer you this refresher:

Point 1) We go into Iraq afer a decade of UN sanctions falling on their feet to fully account for Hussein's WMD capabilities, in addition to working on months of war planning. You insist it was pre-mature, despite intelligence reports and a DCI telling our CIC that it was a "slam dunk".

Point 2) We go into Agfhanistan ONE MONTH after 9/11, as it takes time for the military to properly maneuver and prepare. You insist that it was too late.

Am I the only one picking up on the unbelieveable amount of thick-headedness here?

If you INSIST that we went in TOO LATE in Afghanistan, then YOU MUST concede that our MULTI-LATERAL efforts through the UN were a WASTE OF TIME.

You can't have it both ways. We tried leaning on the Taliban through the UN. Hell, we tried leaning on them through Saudi Arabia, UAE and another Arabic country that were the only three that internationally recognized the Taliban as a legitimate governing body there.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

I have no idea what point this paragraph is attempting to make.

---

Of course not; it would pin you down on the half-cocked junk you are trying to sell here.

Just answer the question.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

JaTo concedes two points (albeit patently obvious ones)? Wait while I recover from the shock.

---

As I have constantly maintained in the past, this administration has made some mistakes and miscalculations, even though I FIRMLY think that by far and away they are on the correct path.

This isn't a sprint to the finish line where the smallest mistake can sink everything to ruin; this is an endurance race and one that is going to see miscalculations that can cause complications, but not toss everything into a pit of despair.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Securing Iraq is "IMPOSSIBLE"? Then what are we doing there? What could we possibly accomplish there if we can't even secure the country?

---

Again, we went in to remove the threat of WMD in the hands of Hussein, enforce the terms of UN 1441 and ensure that Husseins lackeys would no longer maintain any sort of threat to the US or her interests. This is what we went in for.

I think we've accomplished the above without Iraq being totally secure; we've pretty much established that the WMD excercise was one based on inexact intelligence estimates.

The reason we are staying is to clean up after ourselves and ensure that it doesn't disentegrate into a complete cesspool for terrorists. This is in-progress and has been difficult due to the PRECISE fact that Iraq's borders are damn-well impossible to police and control.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

How could we do what Bush has said we are there to do (save the Iraqis from bad leadership, conduct elections, turn it into a model of democracy, avert Islamic extremism, etc).

---

We do it with patience, difficulty and resolve; much of what has been said in the past during this and other reconstruction efforts. In this particular one, we've got a much more difficult path ahead of us.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Again, you are stating a position that is in fundamental conflict with that of your candidate (who you support, you have said, mainly because of his policies and performance in the war). You have to explain these contradictions.

---

Again, I don't totally buy into EVERYTHING Bush or his staff sells (especially the political BS that is meant to dazzle the media), much like I only buy into perhaps 10% of what his opposition has been trying to peddle. I belive we have our existing policies tacking along the correct path with a few variations here and there; I also believe that the correct path is one that is fraught with difficult times, pain and an amount of loss and sacrifice. Doing the right thing isn't always the easiest thing, nor is it the thing that brings about the quickest results.

Totally and utterly securing Iraq will be impossible, as it's impossible to do this to any geographical region that I'm aware of. Securing it enough to where a measure of stability and saftey can take hold will come with time and difficulty.

Invading Iraq has removed Hussein as a concern. We are fairly certain that we no longer need to worry about WMD from that country, after decades of the UN utterly failing to come to any firm conclusion.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You are flopping around like a fish in a bucket here.

---

Please don't mistake your "tour de force" for my own.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

On the one hand, you support unilateral military force in Iraq,

---

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. Just becase the ENTIRE UN wasn't involved in Iraq doesn't mean that our actions and those of our ALLIES was "unilateral" (especially with the French being bought off). We had PLENTY of support going in and we still maintain the vast majority of it today.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

but on the other hand you support diplomacy toward Iran and NK?

---

Because the situations are different! Why is it that you can't see this? Where has Iran or NK flubbed all over a decade of UN mandates? Where have they attacked US interests and invaded another country? Are they negociating with us? Yes, though I do admit having reservations that these negociations are in good faith.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Throwing up straw men (alleging that I support "leveling" Iran, or that I support pre-emptive force there) is silly in an online forum, because it is easy to see that I suggested nothing of the sort.

---

Then what in the Hell do you support, other than bashing away at current policy with NO answers or coherent thought of your own, apart from chanting the ever-present mantra of "Change, change, change"?

Give me some meat to sink my teeth into! If there's a better plan, let's hear it and let's also hear why it's a valid one and how it is TOTALLY different than the ones that are being pursued today.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Please focus, young man. I made the simple point that Bush has been distracted by Iraq and has all but ignored the threat of Iran and NK.

---

Points are rarely simple in the political arena, especially in regard with international relations and nuclear proliferation concerns, even though you insist on making them simple to artificially prop up your empty rhetoric.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

In other words, he has pretended that Iraq was some immediate and grave threat, while ignoring more serious threats like Iran and NK.

---

Show me where we've ignored Iran and NK. If you mean we haven't invaded them, yes, we've ignored them. Otherwise, show me where we haven't been actively engaged in INSISTING that they be monitored and policed, as well as working with a multitude of other countries and through the UN to push for a peaceful solution to their apparent nuclear aspirations. I utterly and completely challenge you to find where the Bush administration has pushed back from the table and said "see ya", therefore TOTALLY abandoning negociation. Has it garnered the attention that Afghanistan and Iraq has as of late? Not quite.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

But you did not address that point. You went off into wild speculation about what I think should be done about Iran and NK. That would be an interesting topic, but it is not the topic of this thread. No need for me to go on here; I think you agree that Bush has been distracted by Iraq and has given short shrift to Iran and NK. So my simple point has been made.

---

Paying attention to more IMMEDIATE and PRESSING concerns doesn't mean that DPRK and Iran have been hung our to dry. Quite the OPPOSITE. This administration has been paying more attention to them than ANY other (except perhaps Carters on Iran, but that is an entirely different situation and concern that what we have now).

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

All the more reason for Bush to have been aware of the REAL threats there, and NOT to be distracted by a weak dictator in Iraq, who tried to kill his father.

---

I'd call a regime that failed to account for TONS of missing VX and various other biotoxins under UN resolutions for decades more than a "distraction". Hundreds of US senators and representatives in the Clinton and Bush adminstration did, most intelligence communities did and in the light of 9/11, most of the world did (except for Germany, France and Russia; two of the three having some SERIOUS conflicts of interest in this, though).

Quit trying to play "revisionist history" here and chage facts. You make it sound as if everyone on this planet FACTUALLY KNEW that Iraq had absolutely no WMD before we invaded and came up empty-handed. This wasn't the case.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Dodging the question again. The point I made here is that Iran and NK have little to fear from us while we are bogged down in Iraq.

---

Then why are both parties working with the UN and have begun negociations or preparations for them again? If they have so little to fear, why are they still working to interface with us and the UN?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

We are in no position to address Iran and NK with any authority right now, because our diplomatic and miltary forces are engaged elsewhere.

---

You're telling me that with TONS of US steel parked merely hundreds of miles away from Iran and the LARGEST military buildup in the Gulf since '91, that Iran is less concerned about us now?

Don't think for a minute that Iran hasn't figured out that the success we had in invading and kicking the Hell out of Iraq (notice I said INVADING, not REBUILDING) is a VERY repeatable excercise if the overwhelming reason presents itself. Why do you think they've been working with IAEA and the UN without their typical and constant hostile rhetoric?

If anything, their concern has been heightened and so have their reasons for cooperation. I fail to see where we are at the point where we need military ultimatums towards DPRK or Iran now.

Finally, where are our diplomatic resources engaged at, if not Iran and DPRK? I seem to recall Armitage and Powell working with other European diplomats to address Iran's offers and counter-offers over Uranium enrichment. I call BS on your verbage here.

The same with DPRK. South Korea, Japan, China, the US and the collective of the UN are all approaching Kim Jong-Ils ministers on multi-lateral talks on their nuclear programs (which came into existance before Bush was in office, I might add).

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Our options have been reduced, period.

---

Only in your mind.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Instead, you went off on another tangent, barking about how China is somehow preventing the world's only superpower from bringing NK under control. This is defeatism, JaTo, and it is just excuse-mongering for Bush. You are so busy making excuses for your candidate that you are not willing to admit that he has focused on the wrong places.

---

This isn't a tangent. It's a solid and pertinent FACT that invasion has never been a valid option unless DPRK attacked South Korea first. China is one of the few countries that does maintain somewhat of a relationship with DPRK; given that they are the largest import/export partner and serve as a backer of the starving and impovrished country, they are THE gateway to DPRK, politically.

Furthermore, I haven't seen our attention wane from DPRK anymore than I have seen it wane from Iran. I am constantly seeing and reading about where we are trying to PEACEFULLY engage with these countries, as given the present circumstances, it is the correct way of handling them.

It's reality, something I STRONGLY suggest you partake in.