0h6gehCPvpk


iVFYcxLiRGk

ughhhhhhh... iraq in 1992 really isnt much to do with iraq 2003 or iraq 2007.

i think what this video really shows is that gore / clinton were way ahead of the ball game re: terror. kinda goes against common belief.

in conclusion: its possible to be pro gulf war 1 and not pro operation iraqi freedom without flip flopping.

Looks like we are going for a skeleton hunt!

Tahoe will be our guide.

Looks like we are going for a skeleton hunt!

Tahoe will be our guide.
I like the fox news logo. This must mean that he actually scares some GOP special interests(Oil and whatever else pays off repubics). Question to any conservatives here. Do you get any of this money that pil companies pay to your FoxNews and your candidates? If so then I can understand your blind backing of them.

I hate one sided skeleton hunts though. Lets even this out.

6 contradictions from our current Bush "Peeps"
Hz-6A59qzAU

Is Bush an idiot? You Decide.
pgPShicCCTA

b-diddy's right. Gore's right, too, but misses out at the "inconvenient truth" when it comes to the Middle East. Namely, many of the middle east messes are of our own making. Before the Soviets concluded that Reagan was willing to borrow and outspend and Gorbachev folded, we routinely would involve ourselves in a given world situation because the Soviets were (or might be) on the other side. Often, all of the options sucked and the only reason we picked one was because the Soviets seemed like they picked the other.

Let's start with Afghanistan. The roots of the Taliban Al Qaeda were the mujahadeen. Y'know, those guys Rambo freed from Soviet tyranny in Rambo III so they could beat the shit out of each other. The Taliban evolved as basically as the equivalent of the Ayatollah's regime in Iran (only without oil) getting sick and tired of being puppets to bigger countries. The Soviets went into Afghanistan because they were learning toward the west and folks like Carter (Dems played this game too) were encouraging it. A family member of mine was in Afghanistan as part of such efforts when the Soviets came in -- made for a most unmerry Christmas.

Iran was unusual at the time. Having just invaded Afghanistan, the Soviets weren't on great terms with Iran. Having backed the ousted Shah of Iran and his secret police and with the hostage situation, the U.S. and Iran hated each other. Thus, Iran became enemy of both superpowers. So, the game was for the Soviets and the U.S. to back the enemies of Iran, and whoever sucked up best got the spoils. Enter Iraq and good ol' Saddam "Key To Detroit" Hussein, who we backed despite Israeli opposition (fortunately, they were tied up with Lebanon). Despite our best efforts in funding Saddam, the Iranians had a decent stash from decades of our support, barrels of liquid money, and a lot of suicidal fighters. That kept things at a stalemate with Iraq and there was ultimately some sort of truce. Once Iraq didn't have all-out war with Iran, it wasn't at clear what to do with them. The U.S.S.R. was still huge but maybe on its way down, the Iraqis were depleted but still had a big stash of bad and knew how to use it, and there was a ton of oil involved. Do you prop up Iraq or maybe Iraq turns Soviet and gives the dying U.S.S.R. some breathing room? That'd suck for a legacy.

Any extended discussion of the dynamics of the day that doesn't involve the Soviets only tells part of the story.

I tell ya what makes me sick: Our undying support for Israel. Should have given them Idaho instead. But NOooooo we gotta support them based on some bible bullshit that THEY invented. Fuck that.

Just posting some stuff thats more in line what I think of Gore. I didn't want to mess up the Gore won the NPP thread. I thought y'all might want a lil more well rounded opinion of Gore.

Clinton and Gore made 'Weapons of mass destruction" a household name fellas, not Bush. I don't even remember B41 using it.

If I wanted to bash Gore, it'd be about dumbass things like the PMRC and the Clipper Chip. I remember when he was better known as Mr. Tipper Gore.

I always figured "weapons of mass destruction" was an easier bundle of words than "biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons". Google shows that the term was definitely in vogue at the time of the Gulf War, well before Clinton was on the national radar. I seem to remember Colin Powell using that particular term in Gulf War daze.

Tip was bitch slapping twisted sister. I was saving that for the Gore contest toc.

Google might say that, but Tahoe doesn't. :)

I'm not saying it was never used but iirc, some of the Dems were playing politics with the Gulf war saying Bush didn't finish the job. Friggin politics. I'm not and never will say the Republicans aren't guilty of ridiculous stuff too, but to believe that its only the Reps is following the Dems talking points blindly.

b-diddy's right. Gore's right, too, but misses out at the "inconvenient truth" when it comes to the Middle East. Namely, many of the middle east messes are of our own making. Before the Soviets concluded that Reagan was willing to borrow and outspend and Gorbachev folded, we routinely would involve ourselves in a given world situation because the Soviets were (or might be) on the other side. Often, all of the options sucked and the only reason we picked one was because the Soviets seemed like they picked the other.

Let's start with Afghanistan. The roots of the Taliban Al Qaeda were the mujahadeen. Y'know, those guys Rambo freed from Soviet tyranny in Rambo III so they could beat the shit out of each other. The Taliban evolved as basically as the equivalent of the Ayatollah's regime in Iran (only without oil) getting sick and tired of being puppets to bigger countries. The Soviets went into Afghanistan because they were learning toward the west and folks like Carter (Dems played this game too) were encouraging it. A family member of mine was in Afghanistan as part of such efforts when the Soviets came in -- made for a most unmerry Christmas.

Iran was unusual at the time. Having just invaded Afghanistan, the Soviets weren't on great terms with Iran. Having backed the ousted Shah of Iran and his secret police and with the hostage situation, the U.S. and Iran hated each other. Thus, Iran became enemy of both superpowers. So, the game was for the Soviets and the U.S. to back the enemies of Iran, and whoever sucked up best got the spoils. Enter Iraq and good ol' Saddam "Key To Detroit" Hussein, who we backed despite Israeli opposition (fortunately, they were tied up with Lebanon). Despite our best efforts in funding Saddam, the Iranians had a decent stash from decades of our support, barrels of liquid money, and a lot of suicidal fighters. That kept things at a stalemate with Iraq and there was ultimately some sort of truce. Once Iraq didn't have all-out war with Iran, it wasn't at clear what to do with them. The U.S.S.R. was still huge but maybe on its way down, the Iraqis were depleted but still had a big stash of bad and knew how to use it, and there was a ton of oil involved. Do you prop up Iraq or maybe Iraq turns Soviet and gives the dying U.S.S.R. some breathing room? That'd suck for a legacy.

Any extended discussion of the dynamics of the day that doesn't involve the Soviets only tells part of the story.

1.You are not going far enough back. If you want a true starting point to blame for the messes, we look to the British and French Colonial Powers that divided the Middle East into what we see today after the fall of the Ottoman’s in 1918. How else due you explain the straight lines set up as border contours in the Middle East? As for picking options, you can thank the Truman Doctrine for that direction. After 1947, President Truman decided to pursue the policy of “Containment” to stop countries from entering the Soviet Bloc, since then and till the fall of the Soviet Union that has been the foreign policy of the United States towards the Soviet Union.

2. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are two separate entities, and are not to be combined. The Taliban were a loose alliance of Afghanis who partnered with other Afghanis Warlords to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Would you believe that most of the Taliban were not even Afghanis? They were in fact mostly Saudis and Pakistani and were funneled into the country through Pakistan. This is false, the Taliban rose to power on the platform of bringing Islamic rule to the country. The Soviets went into the country to expand their influence and gain territory in the Middle East. This was possible only by the fact that the 1970s were a good time for the Soviet Union. America had received a tarnished reputation in Vietnam, Eastern Europe was pacified so they supported the local Afghan Communist Party and helped them take over, sounds familiar doesn’t it?

3. Here is a history question for you, what was the underlying factor that caused the U.S to help install the ousted Shah of Iran? Answer: Look up Operation Ajax and marvel at the fact that it was the British who wanted the liberal Prime Minister Mossadegh removed because he threatened to nationalize the British controlled oil companies. Now then, when the Shah was about to be overthrown what was response of President Carter? Did he help his ally? No and as a result we get the Islamic Republic or Iran who, in one of the most daring acts of humiliation seizes the American Embassy and takes American hostages. Was that not an act of war? Did the Islamic Republic not take over sovereign American territory? Did they not violate international law? How long did the Hostage Crisis last? 444 days, far longer than needed. As for Iraq, the U.S only began supplying Saddam after both sides attacked neutral oil tankers. National Interests were being harmed by this war and President Regan sought to punish Iran not for targeting tankers but for the hostage crisis.

4.Quite true but your history on the entire region is slightly mistaken. I hope I cleared a few things up for you.



I tell ya what makes me sick: Our undying support for Israel. Should have given them Idaho instead. But NOooooo we gotta support them based on some bible bullshit that THEY invented. Fuck that.

Based on what exactly Zip? Please provide this evidence you have to support this statement. Otherwise I will tell my opinion, why we support Israel: National Interests. Are you aware that when the state of Israel was founded the U.S did not recognize them at once? Did you not know that Secretary of State George C. Marshall argued to President Truman that to recognize Israel would cause bad relations with the entire Middle East? Here is the rub, during the Cold War the Soviets supported the Arabs and therefore the U.S needed to respond by supporting Israel and therefore the U.S had gained a tenuous ally. National Interests are the reason behind U.S support for Israel, without them we would have to depend on traitors like Saudi Arabia for intelligence in the Middle East.

I do agree that politicians of all stripes are a little to eager to suggest military action to enhance their stature among the military chauvinist voters where a more creative solution would be infinitely preferable. If a military strike was truly considered to be the "action of last resort", it would never be used, because it's just a miserably ineffective way to solve any problem.

For instance - does anyone here really think that the best way to deal with Iran's snotty attitude and awful human rights record right now is an airstrike? It's like saying that the best solution to being broke is to go to the movies. It's a non-sequitur.

Of course it's a problem - the belief in a wrathful deity who rewards people in the afterlife is totally incompatible with a nuclear materials program. I'm not saying it isn't a big problem, because it is. But military action is probably the worst possible solution you could pick for that problem. What about a trade embargo? Naval blockade? How about we drop leaflets over Iran saying "if you can find a way out of your country, we'll guarantee you citizenship in the US"? That could create a massive drain of educated skilled workers from Iran. How about we infiltrate their nuclear materials labs with saboteurs? There are a million better solutions, but because so many fuckwit lamebrains get full-on wood when they imagine jets and bombs and fire, a politician will always get a little more cred when they suggest a military strike. They'll get people to vote for them who would never vote for any other reason in a million years, and they are the least qualified voters you could think of.

What about a trade embargo? Naval blockade? How about we drop leaflets over Iran saying "if you can find a way out of your country, we'll guarantee you citizenship in the US"? That could create a massive drain of educated skilled workers from Iran. How about we infiltrate their nuclear materials labs with saboteurs? There are a million better solutions

Military options are potent solutions to certain situations. I agree that the military is not needed yet to solve Iran, but if they somehow get their hands on tactical nukes are you willing to consider military strikes?

I seem to remember Colin Powell using that particular term in Gulf War daze.
which were the days of another Bush. ouch.

For instance - does anyone here really think that the best way to deal with Iran's snotty attitude and awful human rights record right now is an airstrike? It's like saying that the best solution to being broke is to go to the movies. It's a non-sequitur.



Snotty attitude is what you call it? I call it defiant and extremely dangerous. Dems and Reps agree on that, Swam. I think that is really an underestimation of whats going on to call it a 'snotty attitude' and thats it.

Bush has been lobying for one of the Arab nations to take the lead on stopping Irans nuclear program. The new France gov't and German gov't are now behind Bush's efforts. Refer to France's latest speech at the UN, I think it was. The world is coming together and guess what, Bush hasn't changed one bit. They are moving to his position.

But I will answer your question this way. Yes, I think could be the only way to go if they move forward and the rest of the world wants to turn a blind eye to Iran.

1.You are not going far enough back. If you want a true starting point to blame for the messes, we look to the British and French Colonial Powers that divided the Middle East into what we see today after the fall of the Ottoman’s in 1918. How else due you explain the straight lines set up as border contours in the Middle East? As for picking options, you can thank the Truman Doctrine for that direction. After 1947, President Truman decided to pursue the policy of “Containment” to stop countries from entering the Soviet Bloc, since then and till the fall of the Soviet Union that has been the foreign policy of the United States towards the Soviet Union.
Key word: "our own making", as in "U.S.". In 1918, the British and French Colonial powers weren't us. And the Truman Doctrine doesn't jibe very neatly with our Iran and Iraq dynamic of the 1980s. Iran was on its own side.


2. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are two separate entities, and are not to be combined. The Taliban were a loose alliance of Afghanis who partnered with other Afghanis Warlords to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. Would you believe that most of the Taliban were not even Afghanis? They were in fact mostly Saudis and Pakistani and were funneled into the country through Pakistan.
The evolved from the mujahideen, who were given much foreign support as well. One of the biggest supporters was this guy named Osama, a Saudi, and later the Taliban concealed Osama's Al Qaeda activities. No, they're not the same organization, but they're tied together. And yeah, I meant to put a "/" next to them -- Taliban/Al Qaeda. Whoopty-do. :)


This is false, the Taliban rose to power on the platform of bringing Islamic rule to the country.
There was also a strong desire to get out of the thumb of the big powers using them as a pissing ground. Again, it's fairly reminiscent of the Iranian Revolution, which is why I said as much.


The Soviets went into the country to expand their influence and gain territory in the Middle East. This was possible only by the fact that the 1970s were a good time for the Soviet Union. America had received a tarnished reputation in Vietnam, Eastern Europe was pacified so they supported the local Afghan Communist Party and helped them take over, sounds familiar doesn’t it?
The Afghanis were trying to keep Afghanistan under their thumb amidst a growing separatist movement. The relatively-progressive leader (I forget his name, a Musharraf-like figure so "progressive" in relative terms) wanted to get away from under the Soviets and was killed by the KGB. The new government established in his wake wasn't able to take control and cried out for Soviet help. The Soviets invaded rather than have chaos on its borders.


3. Here is a history question for you, what was the underlying factor that caused the U.S to help install the ousted Shah of Iran? Answer: Look up Operation Ajax and marvel at the fact that it was the British who wanted the liberal Prime Minister Mossadegh removed because he threatened to nationalize the British controlled oil companies. Now then, when the Shah was about to be overthrown what was response of President Carter? Did he help his ally? No and as a result we get the Islamic Republic or Iran who, in one of the most daring acts of humiliation seizes the American Embassy and takes American hostages. Was that not an act of war? Did the Islamic Republic not take over sovereign American territory? Did they not violate international law? How long did the Hostage Crisis last? 444 days, far longer than needed. As for Iraq, the U.S only began supplying Saddam after both sides attacked neutral oil tankers. National Interests were being harmed by this war and President Regan sought to punish Iran not for targeting tankers but for the hostage crisis.
And then there was Iran-Contra... ;) Yeah, I knew of Operation Ajax (but I forgot the name until you mentioned it -- I'm writing this off the cuff from my own memories, not with Google-fu). But, I'm not sure exactly what your point here is. I wasn't trying to give a huge overall history lesson. I was mostly trying to point out how "what we did" was a function of "what the Soviets did", how Gore second-guessing Bush without mentioning the Soviets (or Israel for this matter) is disingenuous. Anyone could've made a Gore-like rant about our worldwide activities, backing despots and stupid situations that come back to kick us in the ass. And, if you ignore the Soviet chess match, we come across as even more profoundly stupid than we were.

Key word: "our own making", as in "U.S.". In 1918, the British and French Colonial powers weren't us. And the Truman Doctrine doesn't jibe very neatly with our Iran and Iraq dynamic of the 1980s. Iran was on its own side.

I am adding a footnote to your thought that those mistakes "the U.S made" have prior history before the U.S even arrived.


The evolved from the mujahideen, who were given much foreign support as well. One of the biggest supporters was this guy named Osama, a Saudi, and later the Taliban concealed Osama's Al Qaeda activities. No, they're not the same organization, but they're tied together. And yeah, I meant to put a "/" next to them -- Taliban/Al Qaeda. Whoopty-do. :)

I don't recall the Taliban ever concealing the fact they were harboring Osama.


There was also a strong desire to get out of the thumb of the big powers using them as a pissing ground. Again, it's fairly reminiscent of the Iranian Revolution, which is why I said as much.

The Afgani's were repelling an invasion by the Soviet Union. I don't recall them stating to the powers, "we don't want anything to do with you!" Otherwise, why did they allow all these foreigners who were supplied by the Great Powers into their country?


The Afghanis were trying to keep Afghanistan under their thumb amidst a growing separatist movement. The relatively-progressive leader (I forget his name, a Musharraf-like figure so "progressive" in relative terms) wanted to get away from under the Soviets and was killed by the KGB. The new government established in his wake wasn't able to take control and cried out for Soviet help. The Soviets invaded rather than have chaos on its borders.

I remember a civil war inside Afghanistan was going on before the Soviets invaded, but this progressive you speak of? I haven't a clue, and from what I recall, the Afghani's never cried to Moscow. In fact the Afghani Communist were never in control of the countryside, all they had was the cities which came under constant attack.


And then there was Iran-Contra... ;) Yeah, I knew of Operation Ajax (but I forgot the name until you mentioned it -- I'm writing this off the cuff from my own memories, not with Google-fu). But, I'm not sure exactly what your point here is. I wasn't trying to give a huge overall history lesson. I was mostly trying to point out how "what we did" was a function of "what the Soviets did", how Gore second-guessing Bush without mentioning the Soviets (or Israel for this matter) is disingenuous. Anyone could've made a Gore-like rant about our worldwide activities, backing despots and stupid situations that come back to kick us in the ass. And, if you ignore the Soviet chess match, we come across as even more profoundly stupid than we were.


I only needed to google-fu to make sure I spelled the ousted Iranian Prime Minster's name right. I apologize for not being clear, I believed you were writing a history lesson slanted against America for being the root of all the Middile East's problems. Therefore, I was writing on that pretext and somewhat disagreeing with you.

No, not really slanted against America, just trying to point out that we were everywhere, as were the Soviets. The Cold War led to all kinds of crazy shit. And, it may yet turn out to be the case that the world really needs a couple superpowers at extreme ends to keep everyone else in line, as scary as that sounds. <deep sigh>

I always figured "weapons of mass destruction" was an easier bundle of words than "biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons". Google shows that the term was definitely in vogue at the time of the Gulf War, well before Clinton was on the national radar. I seem to remember Colin Powell using that particular term in Gulf War daze.

After the Gulf War B41 wanted ZERO to do with Sadam Hussein and Iraq. He was being criticized in some(most) corners for not finishing the job. I hardly think it would be him or his admin talking about how SH had WMDs. Cuz it would only make him look worse for not finishing the job. (41's worst decision was leaving the Kurds high and dry in the months just after the Gulf war, btw)

I'm not saying it was never used by CP, but Clinton Gore made it a household phrase. Using it for political gain? Prolly, but thats what our politicians do on both sides.

Snotty attitude is what you call it? I call it defiant and extremely dangerous. Dems and Reps agree on that, Swam. I think that is really an underestimation of whats going on to call it a 'snotty attitude' and thats it.

All I can do is say that I take the problem seriously and hope, in vain, that you read what I'm writing. But just because Joe Lieberman is involved with the Republicans on something doesn't make it bipartisan. Iran is decades away from making weapons-grade fissionable materials. I don't want them to have these materials under any circumstances. So how seriously am I supposed to take that? You tell me. Am I not alarmed enough for you?


Bush has been lobying for one of the Arab nations to take the lead on stopping Irans nuclear program. The new France gov't and German gov't are now behind Bush's efforts. Refer to France's latest speech at the UN, I think it was. The world is coming together and guess what, Bush hasn't changed one bit. They are moving to his position.

I wouldn't go that far, Tahoe. They have their own interests that aren't 100% aligned with ours.


But I will answer your question this way. Yes, I think could be the only way to go if they move forward and the rest of the world wants to turn a blind eye to Iran.

But are they turning a blind eye to Iran or are they "coming together" on this issue? You can't have it both ways.

Look - the military, like most government institutions, is not a delicate instrument. It's not clever enough to solve subtle problems. There's nothing "surgical" about airstrikes. The thing about bombs is: they blow up. If the solution to your problem requires a deft touch, the US government is not the best instrument of choice. The government is a bulldozer, not a scalpel. If you have termites in your house, you can use ingeniously crafted chemicals that interfere with their reproductive process, or you can fire up a flamethrower and just go nuts.

I find myself having to say this to Republicans a lot, but this is a complicated issue. It's not black-and-white. Iran wants to know, as a sovereign country, what the fuck is wrong with them having nuclear materials if Argentina or Pakistan are allowed to have them. Do you want to be the one to tell them the truth? That it's because their religious beliefs make them untrustworthy, after we've been telling them all this time that "the USA is not at war with Islam"? Do we tell them that "the reason we don't want you to have nuclear weapons is because we don't have much faith in the stability of your government" when we've been working to overthrow their government for decades?

The more we move toward war with Iran, the more we look like hypocrites. I acknowledge that looking like a hypocrite isn't the worst thing in the world, but it means a great deal in terms of what results you're going to get if you ask a world full of potential allies to align with you.

Its not Joe Lieberman, its Germany, France and (if you believe reports) Arab countries that don't want Iran getting nukes. France and Germany did a reversal, France moreso than Germany, for sure. If Bush goes to war, its wrong and if he negotiates behind the scenese, its wrong?

Para 2. I was just trying to answer your hypothetical, or maybe premature question, "is military or war the answer? I answer the same way, if the world doesn't coalesce and Iran is getting close, then Yes. Not now because they aren't that close and momentum is shifting in the US direction.

The reason isn't because of religion, its because Dictator Tahoe says, No more countries in the world can have nuclear weapons. End of subject.

What are your thoughts? Because Paks and India have them, Its ok, everyone can have them? I understand that mentality if 1 of your kids got a bike and the other didn't. But it doesn't work that way with Nuclear bombs, imo.

Iran wants to know, as a sovereign country, what the fuck is wrong with them having nuclear materials if Argentina or Pakistan are allowed to have them.

America wants to know, as a sovereign country, what the fuck is wrong with doing everything possible to prevent its enemies from obtaining nuclear weapons?

America wants to know, as a sovereign country, what the fuck is wrong with doing everything possible to prevent its enemies from obtaining nuclear weapons?


Some dudes wanted to know, as dudes, whats is wrong with flying a plane into the building of our enemies?

America wants to know, as a sovereign country, what the fuck is wrong with doing everything possible to prevent its enemies from obtaining nuclear weapons?


...because the enemies are sovereign countries too?

Gee I would change your wording just a little to include "preventing its freiends and enemies from getting"

America wants to know, as a sovereign country, what the fuck is wrong with doing everything possible to prevent its enemies from obtaining nuclear weapons?
Was that before or after we posted nuclear plans in Arabic, as part of Hoekstra's open source intelligence intelligence, after Bush kept his eye off the ball in North Korea so he could wage war in Iraq?

More seriously, the U.S. and Iran were doing nuclear power together for decades, with the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld involved in offering nuclear resources to Iran. The notion that they wouldn't be able to weaponize that is silly. They could 30 years ago, they can now.

As you have already stated, Iran had the help of the U.S in developing nuclear technology. If Iran had developed the ability to stockpile nukes, wouldn't the Israelies have struck by now? Better yet, I'm surprised Bush hasn't stated the fact, therefore giving him reason to threaten military action.

I think the entire Northern Hemisphere and some of the Southern Hemisphere is in the midst of a massive political realignment that is going to take a lot of time to shake itself out. I sincerely believe that in the end, religious confrontationalism is going to be the new Fascism, world enemy #1. There are going to be a lot of missteps along the way, but in the end, religious bellicosity is going to be dealt with firmly by the powers that be, and what we find to be important now may be drastically different in 20 years.

One result of this is that I think the world may end up extremely reluctant to insist on democracy for countries where Islamic political activism is popular. We've so far insisted on democracy in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, and Egypt, and every one of those policies has been (to some extent) a failure, as people insist on bringing Islamic parties into their political process. Pakistan is on the brink of a return to electoral freedom right at this very moment, and it would be a horrible mistake. We need to look more at our attitude toward countries like Libya - where Islamic extremism flourishes, but where it is also ruled with an iron fist by a military dictator - and see the relative peace that has been brought about.

The US has to constantly contend with complaints from the Muslim world that we have supported dictatorships in their countries, and that is why they are mad at us. OK, fine. But we also supported dictatorships in South America, and the Chileans aren't volunteering to blow themselves up. There's something in Islam that makes it a little easier for people to rationalize their extremist insanity, and if the US were a nation wisely ruled, the government would take these complaints in stride. "Sorry you don't like that we support dictators in your country, Pakistan," we should say, "but we need to keep a lid on you until you grow up."

Look at a remarkable country like Turkey, which had been a belligerent Islamic state before Ataturk completely transformed the country and modernized it at gunpoint. By the US policy of today, Ataturk would be regarded as an enemy because of the fact that he ruled the country by military dictatorship and did not allow Muslims religious freedom. But he was a hero to today's world because he refused to allow Turkey to become a backward Muslim state.

And where secularization fails - such as India's BJP, a right-wing Hindu party, provoking riots by failing to live up to India's 2500-year-old tradition of religious tolerance - and numerous examples in the United States where (although much less immediately catastrophic) religiously Christian approaches to foreign policy and the environment have proven to have been disastrous - there are noticeable detriments to the public good.

The reason I'm so confident that politicized religion will eventually be regarded with severe prejudice is because of evolution. To put it bluntly, we won't survive to pass on our genes if we don't start taking a hard line against religious extremism. As long as people are allowed to vociferously differ on the morality of causing the death of another person, the long-term future of the entire planet is in question.

RE:NK

It apears that the Bush aproach to NK is going to yeild longer better results than Clintons. Bush insisted on not talking to NK alone. It didn't work for Clinton. Bringing in China, etc was the way to go and NK is quieting down as China has them by the short hairs and is putting a lot of pressure on them.

Clinton gave NK such a sweet deal that maybe the NKens took us as week. NK was crazy to break that deal, but they did. They took our fuel, food and money and still built nukes.

Well there you go. Every crazy-ass country has to have a benefactor somewhere.

RE:NK

It apears that the Bush aproach to NK is going to yeild longer better results than Clintons. Bush insisted on not talking to NK alone. It didn't work for Clinton. Bringing in China, etc was the way to go and NK is quieting down as China has them by the short hairs and is putting a lot of pressure on them.

Clinton gave NK such a sweet deal that maybe the NKens took us as week. NK was crazy to break that deal, but they did. They took our fuel, food and money and still built nukes.
Say wha!?

North Korea took the fuel rods and went on to built the nukes while Bush stuck his thumb up his ass and played sit-and-spin, refusing to deal with the issue for fear of jeopardizing his plans for Iraq. It's only because NK is more dangerous as a direct result of his fuckitude that the other countries are really stepping up to the table. It's not all on Bush. The other countries not really wanting to step to the table made the whole situation tenuous at best. But the cogent thing to do was to send troops in to get those fuel rods if necessary, and Bush didn't do that.

The Clinton deal was so good that no one really lived up to it on our side, BTW, but that seems to have been forgotten about in the annals of time.

Say wha!?

North Korea took the fuel rods and went on to built the nukes while Bush stuck his thumb up his ass and played sit-and-spin, refusing to deal with the issue for fear of jeopardizing his plans for Iraq. It's only because NK is more dangerous as a direct result of his fuckitude that the other countries are really stepping up to the table. It's not all on Bush. The other countries not really wanting to step to the table made the whole situation tenuous at best. But the cogent thing to do was to send troops in to get those fuel rods if necessary, and Bush didn't do that.

The Clinton deal was so good that no one really lived up to it on our side, BTW, but that seems to have been forgotten about in the annals of time.

They took Clinton's deal (sweet deal) and ran with it. Bush will clean it up, or is heading in that direction.

Did they continue their work while Bush was in office? I'm sure they did. Why would they stop?

Did they continue their work while Bush was in office? I'm sure they did. Why would they stop?

Perhaps Bush II wanted to repudiate certain Clinton Foregin policies to appease his supporters in Congress. Not to mention that after 9/11 he labelled North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil." Which gave him a way to sneak out his part of the deal.

They took Clinton's deal (sweet deal) and ran with it. Bush will clean it up, or is heading in that direction.
It was a sweet deal on paper, but it was all lip service on our side and everyone knew that. The operating deal was simply "we give them a little, and they don't fuck with the fuel rods". When we were getting away from even that with the "axis of evil" business and stopping all communication, NK swiped the fuel rods and made themselves more of a menace. With that, the surrounding nations are coming to the table, but the damage is done. How the fuck does Bush really clean that up? They have the bombs now, and appear quite capable of hiding that capability.

I'm not so sure they have the bomb. They say they do, but most scientists said the test was not a nuke. No one knows for sure I guess.

I recall things differently. Bush said no unilaterals, we only coming to the table if China and Russia are involved (plus, SK, etc) so NK said eff U we're going ahead with our nuke program (Pyongyang), so US and Japan said we have to reconsider whether Japan will stay Nuke free. China didn't want a Nuclear penninsula and neither did Russia. They are really the only countries that can put pressure on NK. Bush played that right, imo. He knew he had some time on his hands before NK could deliver a nuke to our shoreline.

Your last point...NK prolly can hide nukes from us cuz we can't go in there the way we need to, but I'd bet China can. Not with military but seeing what they have.

Bush didn't want to get into the same trap that Clinton did, where Clinton promised things that were supposed to happen on behalf of other friendly countries like SK and Japan, only to have those other countries balk. That part I understood. The Clinton deal was basically a love letter to NK to push them into westernization and more normalized relations, but what it devolved to was "we give you some scraps and you don't go nuclear". And that was what Colin Powell was all in favor of doing... stay the course, bide time until Kim Jong Il went bye-bye and gamble on someone less crazy taking over.

But, Bush overrode Powell, took it a step further in not communicating at all, except to call NK part of the axis of evil, until everyone came to the table. This didn't work for years. NK took the fuel rods and Bush stuck his thumb up his ass and played sit-and-spin. What happened ultimately was that we had bi-lateral talks, that then evolved to six-party talks in the wake of their little nuclear experiment last year. The deal they have now is, in many senses, more than what the Clinton deal give them. NK won because they got the goods while Bush was busy with Iraq.

My impression was that that was really a nuclear bomb test of some flavor, which is why we're worried about Syria, who they seem to be in cahoots with. It's gonna be hard to figure out what they have -- our intelligence in North Korea is seemingly even worse than our intelligence in Iraq.

Our intel in NK is non-existent. We'll have to agree to disagree on some of the other points.