Lorien: Are we effectively creating a government that will stick out in the Middle East as a democratic nation that opposes terrorism and fundamentalist Islam that is opposed to the West? Is it a civil war? Could it become a shiite dominated nation that is a puppet government of Iran? I've never been a blanket proponent of the Murtha plan....though if the costs become too high...that could be an alternative at some point. Do we have the capacity to put in more troops on the ground? I'm not sure we do. All troops on the ground have been experiencing extended stays. We have not ramped up with 50-100,000 or more troops. Do we have them available? In the current political climate in the US can we increase troops on the ground to get to that point? Will we see troops from allies? (ha no shot at that). I'm not sure that the reason to increase troops was a political decision by any means. Certainly there would not have been effective political debate against it, within the first year or two after the war started. Certainly many in the military were suggesting it. The army just hit its quota for new soldiers this year, but barely and it has taken a combination of increased incentives to recruiters and recruits and admittedly some lowering of standards. Last year they missed the quota. We aren't adding 2-500,000 in new recruits to the army. We hit something like 80,000 or so this year. Frankly, without a draft we may not be able to reach a number --but I'd like to see that debated by experts in the know. That issue has been an undercurrent issue that doesn't hit the public. So I'm not sure. with regard to N. Korea Neither Bush nor Clinton stopped the North Koreans in their tracks. Neither policy has worked. Some more involved with the Bush efforts have stated that immediately after reaching some level of agreement the US immediately put financial restrictions on the North Koreans...and that spurred them to move forward with their most recent efforts to detonate a nuclear explosion. Why are we so unable to get better agreement from the Chinese and Russians to effect changes there. Should we talk with them one on one or in a group of six. I'm not sure...but in either case they have to be willing to talk...and they aren't ....and when it comes to a group of six we obviously don't have a level of agreement with the Chinese to effect a mutuality there. Why not. Obviously the Chinese punched an enormous hole in the UN resolution. Where are we in that regard? Is Bush looking at that? On Iran.... I suppose you are questioning if Democrats have a policy alternative for Iran. I don't know either. With regard to special forces....lets remember that our intelligence is weak. Basically we have no ground intelligence that has been effective in N. Korea, didn't have it in Iraq, and I doubt we have it in Iran. I'm not sure if we even know where all there nuclear weapons are. Should we be out there defining enemies so clearly and strongly if we can't effectively back our words? Should we have attacked Iraq in the first place? It seems to me the administration built and constructed an argument to do so...cherry picking questionable intelligence....and surrounding the effort in a creative description of world wide terrorism. If this isn't working well we should be looking hard at alternatives and developing them in lieu of what we are currently doing.
Helluva leadership position, all of that. i think the questions are asking are the same everyone is asking; and its all besides the point. If you want to lead (as the democrats do), you have to at least propose solutions to the problems. My 1 post is better than 99% of the democrats out there. I've proposed solutions to each problem we face. Whether you like the ideas or not isn't too relevant. And that's the point I've been driving at. Carping and complaining may get people to hate the current plan, but if you don't have your own plan, you are just masturbating.
What happens when an armed criminal takes people hostage? You try to talk. You negotiate deals. And if that fails you use force. One on one talks isn't "rewarding" bad behavior
So, this situation is analogous to the US being held hostage? Nice assessment What happened last time the US held one on one talks with NK? What caused the one on one talks and what was the result? Please try to read a little history. Furthermore, a nuclear country is not a police situation. It's a military threat. You deal with them in entirely different ways.
Donald Rumsfeld (non-executive director of ABB) sold two light water nuclear reactors to them didn't he.
I could have swore that was Clinton and that those reactors never made sale. Are you demonstrating, once again, that facts do not matter?
No buddy, it was Rummy on Clintons watch: http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html And before you stand 100% behind your Presidents just remember Billy boy said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
Mate, why do you so resolutely stoutley defend these crooks, when are you finally going to wake up? Remember I am not anti-American, I am here to wake you sheeple up.
About 10 minutes after you stop being stupid Did you actually read the story you posted? http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html And you blame the reactor on Rumsfeld. As I said, can you be any dumber? Furthermore...Geesh... http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...r+reactors+completed&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 Anymore idiocy you'd like to add?
Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB. The company that won the contract. And you are the one calling me stupid. Sheesh.
Yes I am, actually. Primarily because you are stupid and seem to absolve the party who actually signed the treaty of any sort of blame in your warped little world. Secondarily since the reactors weren't completed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework Third, the processed plutonium didn't come from those reactors. mainly because they weren't completed, but secondarily, because the plutonium came from the Yongbyon reactor. Which was built in the 60's from Soviet technology. Any more idiocy you'd like contribute or are we done here?
ABB sold equipment to the U.S. government, who gave that equipment to North Korea. To somehow blame Donald Rumsfeld or ABB is either purposefully dishonest or frighteningly stupid. I'll let you tell us which category you fall in.
The interview Why Did YouTube Flag David Zucker's Political Spoof? is very interesting in that is highlights how reasonable people are fleeing the Democratic Party -- without changing their core beliefs. ZUCKER: Well, you know, I was a Democrat for my whole life as was my family for, you know, generation after generation. And I think 9/11 kind of changed my mind. Wait a minute. I said, wait, this is real. And I think I thought that the most important issue facing us is security. I mean, it had to be more important than my environmental interests or my pro choice attitude or just any other opinions I had. It just was security above all. And I just wasn't comfortable with the Democrats' response and so while I voted for Gore and Lieberman in 2000, in 2004 was the first time I'd ever voted for a Republican president. Plus, of course, the full video clip is bloody hilarious.
Just to save you all time, you should know that the dorkatron just posted a story from Wednesday, 3 April, 2002. News must travel really slow in the CPUK.
Update: Condi Rice is flying to the East to meet with other interested parties, specifically the Chinese...to see if she can work with them(convince them) to exert pressure on the N Koreans and/or investigage ships. I hope she is successful. When Bolton immediately spoke to the "quality" of the UN resolution it smelled of political efforts to advertise the strength of a resolution....when the resolution has large holes in it.
Lorien: My position, as with some of the Democratic positions out there is to look very hard at all circumstances, conditions, etc. and then develop a going ahead formula. To date we seem to have an administration that was focused on going to war against Iraq in late 2001 (November 21) and then developed reasons to support it. I'd suggest we think through the problem first.
Can you imagine that way of thinking at any job interview in the business world? Let's say the North Koreans nuke Japan during the inaguration ball for the next Democratic President. First, they will ask "Who are the North Koreans?", then they will follow up with "Where is North Korea?", eventually getting to "Who is Japan?" and "Where is Japan?" Then they will ask who our allies are. Then they will want to know why North Korea would nuke Japan. Then they would want a Republican to explain to them how nuclear weapons work. Then they will look at the reasons why Kim Jong Il might not be satisfied in his personal life. Then they will look at the conditions of peasants in North Korea. Then they will consider the circumstances around the attack. Then they will discuss how the various options will effect their poll numbers. Then they will ask Barbara Streisand what to do. If Al Gore had won the election in 2000, the Taliban would have lasted until the Republicans took the Presidency back in 2004.
Hate to break the awful news to you will, but the taliban is still there, and they're retaking over regions. Mission Accomplished!