Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.




An unintended consequence of George W. Bush’s Iraq war policy is for rogue states, who fear a U S invasion, to move quickly and acquire nuclear weapons. That was the conclusion of a Republican strategist who appeared on the Chris Matthews show this evening.

His contention was very simple. If you’re the dictator of a rogue state who wants protection against an Iraq like invasion obtain a handful of nuclear weapons. Although this was not the initial rationale for countries like North Korea and Iran to seek these weapons it does make sense, given the Bush preemptive attack policy, to secure a small number of nuclear weapons to deter any such attack in the future by the United States. Great going Mr.Bush!

Comments (Page 1)
on May 09, 2005
That's obviously not the case with Libya who gave up their nuclear ambitions because of the U.S. response in Iraq. As usual you produce no links, no sources, just something you heard on a left wing show and have to present as proof that your obsessiveness over Bush is somehow justified.

North Korea and Iran have been trying to get nuclear weapons for a long time. But that probably doesn't matter to you because it's probably hard to blame Bush for something thats been going on for years. North Korea and Iran will not deter the U.S. with a "few" missiles.
on May 09, 2005
I clearly stated the source which was that Chris Matthews show May 9, 2005. I did not remember the name of the Republican strategist that made the statement but I'm sure if you contact the Chris Matthews show you could find the name of that person. It doesn't change the fact that was the discussion and quite frankly it makes a great deal of sense. Not every rogue state has the capability of developing a nuclear weapon but for those who have started down that path , the Bush policy of preemptive attack certainly would give them a great deal of reason to accelerate the development of such weapons. If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons prior to George Bush's invasion I doubt that it would've taken place.
on May 09, 2005
I clearly stated the source which was that Chris Matthews show May 9, 2005. I did not remember the name of the Republican strategist that made the statement but I'm sure if you contact the Chris Matthews show you could find the name of that person. It doesn't change the fact that was the discussion and quite frankly it makes a great deal of sense. Not every rogue state has the capability of developing a nuclear weapon but for those who have started down that path , the Bush policy of preemptive attack certainly would give them a great deal of reason to accelerate the development of such weapons. If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons prior to George Bush's invasion I doubt that it would've taken place


No matter how you slice this it's an "opinion" and nothing more. But here you are presenting it as though it's fact.
on May 09, 2005

North Korea has been pursuing nukes since at least the early 90s.

on May 10, 2005
I saw the report on Hardball and i will re-post the transcript as soon as they add it to the MSNBC site.
(it usually takes 48-72 hours for them to post)

Think about it for a second. Wether or not a country has been trying to develop nukes is one thing, but to say that a country like Iran isn't motivated to achieving capability asap because of what they see as an impending attack by the US is extremely naive.

A lot of countries would like nukes to point at us. It's been a reality ever since Harry S. made a couple of phone calls back in 1945.
on May 10, 2005
"That was the conclusion of a Republican strategist who appeared on the Chris Matthews show this evening."
Sorry to chime in here but I and millions have known this since about two months after 911. Republican strategist saying this now, in the mainstream? Just like the aids orphans as guinea pigs this is old news to people like me.
on May 10, 2005
Wisdom often dawns late. The whole world has been saying and the Bush-Blair duo went ahead regardless that {1} Iraq id not have WMD and [2] invasion of Iraq will make an unstable volatile region even worse. Further, many have been saying that Al Qaeda will emege stronger if Iraq is destabalised. Bush has done just that and without an exit strategy in place USA is floundering in Iraq. The insurgency is now spread even into Kurdish areas, the Sectarian violence has increased and the ordinary Iraqi looks upon the New Govt, suppossedly thrown up in a free and fair election with utter contempt and will not last.

Col Gene as usual has hit a sharp point.
on May 10, 2005
Iran has been pursuing nukes since the 1990s
on May 10, 2005
Yup, COL. We have been saying all along...... If dubya drags us into an Iraqi invasion it would accomplish two things:

1. Completely destablilize an already precarious middle east.

2. Play right into Bin Laden's hand. It's exactly what he wanted dubya to do.

Mission Accomplished!!!
on May 10, 2005
I can stomach giving the Col 5 points on this insipid amateurish article if for no other reason that to laugh at all the sensible people who WASTE THEIR TIME DEBATING THE HUMAN EQUIVALENT OF A DNC PAMPHLET...

suckers.
on May 10, 2005
I said this was an opinion however the opinion does make sense. My question again is "DO you think Bush would have attacked Iraq if it had nuclear weapons in 2002?" It is true that the country's seeking nuclear weapons such as Iran and North Korea did not do this because of the Iraq war. However because of the preemptive attack policy of George Bush, acquiring these weapons quickly is the very best insurance policy against preemptive attack.

There are many who now believe that Saddam made it appear as if he had WMD so he could maintain control of his country by deterring others from attack. This is the very same principle that was discussed with Iran and North Korea to obtain a handful of weapons to prevent any future aggressive action by the United States or any other country such as Israel attacking Iran. Opinion- YES. Well founded based on the preemptive attack policy of George Bush - YES!
on May 10, 2005
Yup, COL. We have been saying all along...... If dubya drags us into an Iraqi invasion it would accomplish two things:

1. Completely destablilize an already precarious middle east.

2. Play right into Bin Laden's hand. It's exactly what he wanted dubya to do.



The Middle East is more stable, and amazing things have been happening in that part of the world. Elections, democracy, freedoms for those who lived under tyranny. Of course you don't see any of that. You have to look at what the MSN gives you and take it just as that. Do you even bother looking at the real progress that has happened in Iraq, or the entire Middle East for that matter?

As Draginol as stated, countries like North Korea and Iran has always had nuclear ambitions. North Korea should have been contained in the 90's, but we see the passive and appeasement approach does not work with people like this. For people to blame Bush on them trying to acquire nuclear weapons is just stupid. Although I wouldn't expect any less.
on May 10, 2005
Island Dog

I said up front that both Korea and Iran started their nuclear ambitions long before the Iraq war. The point is to prevent or deter a preemptive attack it makes a great deal of sense for both of these countries to acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. This is a possible unintended consequence of the Bush preemptive policy. None of you have answered that question " Do you believe if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons in 2002 would George Bush have attacked him? You know we would not have attacked Iraq if we knew they had nuclear weapons.

There are encouraging signs between Palestinians and Israelis if the Israelis get out of Gaza and West Bank. Today a one-month delay in the pullout of Gaza was announced. They also have not stopped the developments and insist on building their wall beyond their borders. These are destabilizing actions. For the Middle East peace to have any chance of success, Israel has got to return to pre-1967 borders unless there is a negotiated change in the internationally recognized borders of Israel. If Israel attempts to unilaterally change its borders the likelihood of a settlement with the Palestinians is not good and that whole situation could erupt again. If Iran developes nuclear weapons it will be a huge destabilizing impact in that region. The acid in Iraq is what type of government ultimately survives once the United States and Britain are out of that country. Although there are some steps that have been taken that hold the potential of helping the Middle East area, it is not a stable area of the world!
on May 10, 2005
Dog?

The middle east is more stable nowadays? What is your definition of "stable"?
on May 10, 2005
" Do you believe if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons in 2002 would George Bush have attacked him? "

Yes

In 1994, the administration of President Bill Clinton had begun preparations for military action against North Korea when former President Jimmy Carter traveled to North Korea in June and extracted a promise from Kim Jong Il to freeze nuclear production. The Agreed Framework was signed on Oct. 21, 1994.
Meta
Views
» 1621
Comments
» 65
Category
Sponsored Links