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.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe