The Tragic End To Bush's ......

[FOTD]

The Wall Street Journal seems to be moving left of far right since ole Rupert bought the paper. Is it real?

The Tragic End of Bush's North Korea Policy
By JOHN R. BOLTON


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121478274355214441.html

"With much fanfare and choreography, but little substance, the administration has accepted a North Korean "declaration" about its nuclear program that is narrowly limited, incomplete and almost certainly dishonest in material respects. In exchange, President Bush personally declared that North Korea is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism or an enemy of the United States."

What must the Iranians think?

What deal will be cut with Syria?

I'm puttin on my tin hat after just watching Charlie Wilson's War.

[Conan71]

Bolton's words are haunting.  Wasn't a lot of what he was saying in this op-ed the logic in invading Iraq?

How did you like Charlie Wilson's War?  Is it worth renting?

[Dana431]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Bolton's words are haunting.  Wasn't a lot of what he was saying in this op-ed the logic in invading Iraq?

How did you like Charlie Wilson's War?  Is it worth renting?

I highly recommend Charlie Wilson's War.  Serious, funny, and a good message at the end.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Dana431

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Bolton's words are haunting.  Wasn't a lot of what he was saying in this op-ed the logic in invading Iraq?

How did you like Charlie Wilson's War?  Is it worth renting?

I highly recommend Charlie Wilson's War.  Serious, funny, and a good message at the end.

Somewhat off topic, but;

It drives me crazy when people say that we should never have armed the Afghan rebels, that it all led to our current problems with terrorism. While somewhat true the Afghan war shattered the Soviet Union and exposed the sham that was the Soviet economy and military. It more than anything else ended the cold war. Anyone with a brain would trade our current problems for the cold war and the threat we lived under at all times back then.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Dana431

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Bolton's words are haunting.  Wasn't a lot of what he was saying in this op-ed the logic in invading Iraq?

How did you like Charlie Wilson's War?  Is it worth renting?

I highly recommend Charlie Wilson's War.  Serious, funny, and a good message at the end.

Somewhat off topic, but;

It drives me crazy when people say that we should never have armed the Afghan rebels, that it all led to our current problems with terrorism. While somewhat true the Afghan war shattered the Soviet Union and exposed the sham that was the Soviet economy and military. It more than anything else ended the cold war. Anyone with a brain would trade our current problems for the cold war and the threat we lived under at all times back then.

Well Swake, what have we learned about foreign policy?  Strange bedfellows become arch enemies. []

Until 1989, the USSR was our most intimidating enemy.  We thought terrorists were small groups of guys who smoked desert weed and decided to hi-jack an airliner.  

We did the right thing at the time with the Afghan rebels.

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by swake
It drives me crazy when people say that we should never have armed the Afghan rebels, that it all led to our current problems with terrorism. While somewhat true the Afghan war shattered the Soviet Union and exposed the sham that was the Soviet economy and military. It more than anything else ended the cold war. Anyone with a brain would trade our current problems for the cold war and the threat we lived under at all times back then.

I don't know that I would.  The Soviets had bigger guns than the terrorists do, but the Soviets knew we had guns as big as theirs pointed at them, and they knew what would happen if they fired their weapons at us.  The Soviets didn't want to die.  The terrorists don't care whether they live or die.  That is why I'm more afraid of terrorists than I was during the Cold War.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Dana431

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Bolton's words are haunting.  Wasn't a lot of what he was saying in this op-ed the logic in invading Iraq?

How did you like Charlie Wilson's War?  Is it worth renting?

I highly recommend Charlie Wilson's War.  Serious, funny, and a good message at the end.

Somewhat off topic, but;

It drives me crazy when people say that we should never have armed the Afghan rebels, that it all led to our current problems with terrorism. While somewhat true the Afghan war shattered the Soviet Union and exposed the sham that was the Soviet economy and military. It more than anything else ended the cold war. Anyone with a brain would trade our current problems for the cold war and the threat we lived under at all times back then.

The message of Charlie Wilson's war was not that we shouldn't have armed Afghan rebels, but that we had an obligation to the people there once the Soviets left.  The real tragedy was that, with the exception of a few, no one ever saw the Afghans as a group of people who deserved a better life; instead, they saw Afghanistan simply as a tool to use against the Soviets.  Yes, the Afghan war was instrumental in the downfall of the Soviet Union.  But they should have been treated as more than mere pawns in the cold war.

[cannon_fodder]

The problem there is we never did help the Afghans (wink wink).  So when they defeated the Soviets we couldn't openly move in and help them. And even if we did, we might just be talking about what a big mistake it was sticking our heads in the middle of the Afghan civil war.

I agree with the premise, that we have an obligation to fix nations we help mess up - but in fact we have demonstrated painfully that the best of intentions don't always matter (see, e.g., Somalia, Vietnam, Iraq, current Afghan).

[RecycleMichael]

Why don't we invade Mexico?

They got great beaches, oil and the troops will be closer to home for the furloughs.

Then we can turn them into states and solve the whole illegal immigration issue once and for all.

[cannon_fodder]

Bush to invade Mexicao for oil, beaches, and Mexican women in a bold move!!eleven!
- Rushisneverwrong.com

[Conan71]

No, they took Mexico off the invasion schedule when PEMEX announced they only have nine years of reserves left.  At least that's the word I'm getting from my friends at The Meadows this week.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by bugo

The terrorists don't care whether they live or die.  That is why I'm more afraid of terrorists than I was during the Cold War.

Oh, please.

How many divisions do the terrorists have? How many aircraft? How many nuclear submarines? How many naval ships? How many nuclear-tipped  missiles?

If anyone thinks a small band of terrorists who can barely find a power switch on a Dell computer is a bigger threat to the United States than the old Soviet Union, which had bunches of all the above and plenty of technological expertise to boot, someone needs a big reality check.

You're giving the terrorists more credit than they deserve.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Why don't we invade Mexico?

They got great beaches, oil and the troops will be closer to home for the furloughs.

Then we can turn them into states and solve the whole illegal immigration issue once and for all.

Come on!  We invade Mexico every year at spring break!  

All we get is lousy T-shirts!

[FOTD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30mon1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Editorial
Israel's Diplomatic Offensive

Published: June 30, 2008
"Few countries can afford the luxury of limiting their diplomacy to friendly countries and peace-loving parties. National security often requires negotiating with dangerous enemies. Fortunately, Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is now displaying a clearer grasp of such realities than President Bush has mustered.

"We should 'pray for the peace of Jerusalem' as the Bible says, even if that is not what radical Zionists ... desire."

Israel is increasingly willing to explore conversations with states and groups Washington would prefer to ignore and isolate. In recent weeks it has agreed to a limited, Egyptian-brokered cease-fire with the Hamas authorities in Gaza and is engaged in indirect peace talks with Syria, sponsored by Turkey. It is attempting to start similar discussions with the Lebanese government, despite — or more likely because of — Hezbollah's growing political influence.

There are clear risks. Hamas may not respect or enforce the cease-fire; there have been almost daily violations. Syria may be as unbudging as it has been in past negotiations. Hezbollah may block talks with Lebanon or use them to buy time to build up its armaments and political leverage. Mr. Olmert, politically weak and legally besieged, may not have the staying power to see any of these initiatives through.

Israel is still right to try. With its security and even survival at stake, it would have been irresponsible to continue to let Washington's ideological blinders constrain Israeli diplomacy.

To its credit, the administration has given belated support to Israel's diplomatic initiatives.

This new burst of diplomatic activity has revived a long-running Mideast policy debate. Does real progress toward peace require constant American nudging and nurturing? Or do the parties only move ahead when their own sense of self-interest propels them?

It is a question with no one simple answer. True, it was Anwar el-Sadat's surprise 1977 visit to Jerusalem that led to the breakthrough peace treaty between Egypt and Israel two years later. And it was secret talks in Oslo that truly began the historic, if failed, Israeli-Palestinian peace process of the 1990s. In neither case was America trying to discourage negotiations. And in both, subsequent progress depended heavily on very active United States involvement.

Even when there is a strong mutual desire for peace, the history of distrust and the weakness of political leaders can be overcome only with the kind of outside help the United States can uniquely offer. Syria might be much more willing to make peace with Israel — and cut its ties to Iran — if it were offered the same kind of step-by-step diplomatic and economic rehabilitation that Washington has recently used to induce more constructive behavior from Libya and North Korea.

Israel's latest diplomatic initiatives come despite, not because of, seven years of malign Mideast neglect by the Bush administration. If any long-term good is to come of them, the next American administration will need to be truly committed to diplomacy — and a lot more adept at it. "


Israel tries the Obama approach to negotiating with its enemies. But not Bush, of course, except for North Korea. But they don't have any oil to speak of, so what the heck!

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Dana431

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Bolton's words are haunting.  Wasn't a lot of what he was saying in this op-ed the logic in invading Iraq?

How did you like Charlie Wilson's War?  Is it worth renting?

I highly recommend Charlie Wilson's War.  Serious, funny, and a good message at the end.

Somewhat off topic, but;

It drives me crazy when people say that we should never have armed the Afghan rebels, that it all led to our current problems with terrorism. While somewhat true the Afghan war shattered the Soviet Union and exposed the sham that was the Soviet economy and military. It more than anything else ended the cold war. Anyone with a brain would trade our current problems for the cold war and the threat we lived under at all times back then.

Well Swake, what have we learned about foreign policy?  Strange bedfellows become arch enemies. []

Until 1989, the USSR was our most intimidating enemy.  We thought terrorists were small groups of guys who smoked desert weed and decided to hi-jack an airliner.  

We did the right thing at the time with the Afghan rebels.

I must respectfully disagree: we should have been quite leary of the Afghan resistance, rendering no aid nor comfort nor support of any kind (and making sure nobody else did either). Any group that's brave enough to confront the Soviets like that, would think nothing of coming after us. I do wonder, had the soviets wiped them out, would we have had a 9/11, or even the war in the Middle East?