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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on May 11, 2005
I agree with you for the most part Dog, but i think there's a lot of truth in what he said.
on May 11, 2005
We have a better shot with NK via China then Iran. I see almost NO hope with Iran. If Bush had saved his powder in Iraq, we might have been in a better position in Iran. Another indication of how we are not wanted is the demonstrations today in Afghanistan against the United States. We delude ourselves if we think the Moslems in any way support what we're doing.
on May 11, 2005
Another indication of how we are not wanted is the demonstrations today in Afghanistan against the United States. We delude ourselves if we think the Moslems in any way support what we're doing.


As usual Col you never tell the full story. The "demostrations" were about a report that someone put a copy of their "book" in the trash or something. Their religion is the problem col, not what we are doing.
on May 11, 2005
you are correct that is the specific issue. It shows the level of dissatisfaction in the Moslem world for the United States presence in their turf.
on May 11, 2005
So, was it a Republican strategist, or a WSJ reporter? The Col. seems to be lauding a turncoat Republican above. Was this 1970's document written in Word?
on May 11, 2005
you are correct that is the specific issue. It shows the level of dissatisfaction in the Moslem world for the United States presence in their turf.


The protests had nothing to do with the U.S. on their "turf". The demostrations were based upon an article in Newsweek.
Anyways the muslim world is filled with disatifaction about anything that isn't islamic. That's one of their main problems.

Since you like polls so much.

WASHINGTON, March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States' global war on terrorism, more people in the world's largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them. This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia released today.

"In a stunning turnaround of public opinion, support for Bin Laden and terrorism in the world's most populous Muslim nation has dropped significantly, while favorable views of the United States have increased," said Kenneth Ballen, President of Terror Free Tomorrow, which commissioned the poll. "The poll shows that the reason for this positive change is the American response to the tsunami," Ballen added.


Link
on May 11, 2005
I knew that. The issue is that the Muslims do not want the U S in their part of the world. We are occupiers NOT liberators!
on May 11, 2005
knew that. The issue is that the Muslims do not want the U S in their part of the world. We are occupiers NOT liberators!


Well the quoted piece by island dog says you are WRONG, once again.
on May 11, 2005
How do you explain the rioters in Afghanistan shouting "death to America." That sounds a bit more convincing in some polls that you questioned on other things. You Bushies who believe we have made friends in the Muslim world have got your head buried in the sand.
on May 11, 2005
COL Gene, there are solid military, political, and practical reasons for dealing with Iraq first, and other rogue states afterwards. For example: We'd been in a state of war with Iraq since about 1991. The UNSC had repeatedly found the Hussein regime to be in violation of UNSC resoutions. Iran is difficult to pressure, without strong bases in the region; access to Iraq ends up being a strategic prerequisite to pressuring other state sponsors of terrorism in the region. As it turns out, if your long-term goal is to shatter the entire rogue states/state sponsors of terorrism paradigm, Iraq is a pretty good place to start.

The Iranian mullah's nuclear program was a lot further along than Saddam Hussein's, but the mullahs have been much more careful about not giving the civilized world plausible excuses to kick their ass. So they ended up a little further down the list than Saddam did. Now it looks like we're shooting for a self-determined regime change (and change of national heart) in Iran, in respone to recent world events.

Kim Jong Il is a totally different problem. We can't use force against North Korea, because North Korea can guarantee the immediate destruction of Seoul (using conventional or chem/bio weapons) no matter how the conflict ultimately ends. So that's why we didn't invade North Korea, but adopted a diplomatic approach instead.

Meanwhile... what motivates a shoplifter to run for the door faster? The clerk he knows doesn't care and won't bust him, or the loss prevention dude heading down the aisle straight towards him? Oh, no! By doing his job, the loss prevention dude has totally accelerated the shoplifter's getaway attempt! Clearly, we should just leave shoplifters alone! Besides, if both North Korea and the U.S. accelerate their programs (North Korea to have a nuclear deterrent, and the U.S. to stop them), then the relative rate of acceleration in the NK program is pretty much zero.

Seriously: If a gunslinger has been inching his hand towards his revolver all evening long, sooner or later his hand is going to be on the pistol grip. Then he'll draw, and then he'll shoot you. Sooner or later, his hand is going to be so close to his gun that you must draw, even if that means risking him out-drawing you. Your only other option is to keep waiting, which only guarantees that he'll out-draw you.

BARTENDER BILL: Hey, my shift is done, I'm outta here. You ready to take over?

BARTENDER GEORGE: Yep, sure am. You have a good night, Jake.

BILL: I surely will, Earl. Thanks! Oh, by the way, watch out for Black Bart, down at the end of the bar. He's been drinking heavily, and he's been edging his hand towards his gun. I reckon he's about ready to draw it now, and start shooting people.

GEORGE: The hell? And you didn't do anything about it?

BILL: Enh. I didn't want the hassle. You know how Bart gets. I figured I'd let you deal with it. Good luck!
on May 11, 2005

Reply #54 By: COL Gene - 5/11/2005 5:22:34 PM
How do you explain the rioters in Afghanistan shouting "death to America." That sounds a bit more convincing in some polls that you questioned on other things. You Bushies who believe we have made friends in the Muslim world have got your head buried in the sand


--Do you judge a book by its cover, just because those people in the riots are angry with us, DOES NOT mean that every afghani is angry with us. Also, hmmm,friends, would you consider iraqi's who risk their lives to save american soldiers from roadside bombs, or those who have risked their lives[and some lost] to help the americans defeat the terrorists friends? sure...friends in the cause of liberating their country....hmmm? Oh, and not all Bushies are ignorant fools....[At least i don't consider myself to be...[ i'm a bushie btw, in case you didn't notice,at least until the next election...]

on May 11, 2005
Reply #55 By: stutefish - 5/11/2005 5:37:40 PM


seems reasonable.....
on May 11, 2005
" What sped up North Korea's Nuke program faster?"
One has to think Rumsfeld's company selling the nuclear energy to North Korea had something to do with it. Let's keep in mind that the guilty party is the one who facilitated the North Korean nuclear program by selling them the materials needed to make nuclear weapons. Good grief people don't you see that it's all thanks to Rumsfeld's company which he sits on the board of?
on May 11, 2005
I never said every person in Afghanistan , Iraq or every Muslim hates America. What I am saying is we have made many enemies in the Muslim world. every time we support of Israel when it does things like the builds settlements or walls beyond their borders we create more enemies. the ruling princes love George Bush but many of the people support people like Osama bin Laden.
on May 11, 2005

" What sped up North Korea's Nuke program faster?"
One has to think Rumsfeld's company selling the nuclear energy to North Korea had something to do with it. Let's keep in mind that the guilty party is the one who facilitated the North Korean nuclear program by selling them the materials needed to make nuclear weapons. Good grief people don't you see that it's all thanks to Rumsfeld's company which he sits on the board of?


Wanna try again? This time think "Slick Willie" and his cronies.
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5