Hawks tell Bush how to win war on terror

[zimv20]

link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/31/wcons31.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/31/ixportaltop.html)


President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.

In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.

Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.

Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities.

Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents.

It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the Pentagon's civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

Such officials prevailed over invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but have been seen as on the back foot since the autumn as their post-war visions of building a secular, free-market Iraq were scaled back in favour of compromise and a swift handover of power next June.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.

The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.

The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia". Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they write.

The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organisations" as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America".

The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets.

[Sayhey]

I will have to read the book, but I wonder if there is any discussion of the cost to our nation in the amount of lives, dollars, and damage to our anti-colonial legacy that must be lost in pursuit of this neocon wet dream? Not to mention the continued sacrifice of our liberties on the altar of neoconservative ambition.

Richard Perle has been an advocate of war and confrontation from his earliest days and is one of the most rabid of the neoconservatives. I had hoped when his sweetheart deals had been exposed by Seymour Hersh at the New Yorker we would be rid of his own particular virulence. I see that along with David Frum (from whose poisoned pen we have the famed "axis of evil" speech) he has made a comeback. It feels like being trapped in a horror movie when just when you thought the monster destroyed, it jumps out at you from a new dark corner.

I guess that I should be thankful that in Perle at least we have a open advocate for empire. Can it be more obvious that the plans to reorder the middle east are an ideologically driven power grab?

[wwworry]

that guy (pearle) watches too many movies.

[pseudobrit]

That is flat out ****ing scary.

[Macmaniac]

Wow if we followed those policies we will really be in deep S%^#. Pissing off North Korea is the last thing the South Koreans want, don't forget they can be hit with at least 2 Nukes from the North. Texas style diplomacy will not work here.

[Dont Hurt Me]

well appeasement diplomacy didnt work either, Clinton sent in the food,supplies,oil and they still kept building the bomb. behind his back. Bottom line dont trust a dictator no matter how many times he lies to you.

[ThomasJefferson]

This is "foreign policy" for domestic consumption. Tweak the French, threaten to punch-out everybody in the bar and the wacko-bloviating talk-radio conservative ditto-head vote will come out this November. Morons.

The West has tried to impose its will on Middle-East culture, religion, economic or political structures since the 11th century and Asia since the 17th.

Always fails.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
well appeasement diplomacy didnt work either, Clinton sent in the food,supplies,oil and they still kept building the bomb. behind his back. Bottom line dont trust a dictator no matter how many times he lies to you.

Don't Hurt Me,

how come anything short of military confrontation is appeasement? Should we accuse Bush and Blair of appeasement because Libya is voluntarily giving up their nuclear ambitions and the troops aren't landing in Tripoli?

[ThomasJefferson]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
well appeasement diplomacy didnt work either, Clinton sent in ....

Ah yes, the appeasement policy.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Feel free to insert the word of your choice if appeasement bothers you so, this guy is a killer just as bad or worse then Saddam and we gave him the time to build the bomb on Clintons watch. They made a fool out of the U.N. and Clinton. im sure this will be spinned into other things now like what about this what about that it still doesnt change the fact that we got a crazy N korean dictator/killer/murderer who now has the bomb because we played nice.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thomasjefferson i guess you forgot or perhaps were not yet born when Iran was holding our hostages, at this time the U.S was needing to keep Iran in check. Iraq allready hated these guys. Just more spin, keep focus on N Korea.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Feel free to insert the word of your choice if appeasement bothers you so, this guy is a killer just as bad or worse then Saddam and we gave him the time to build the bomb on Clintons watch. They made a fool out of the U.N. and Clinton. im sure this will be spinned into other things now like what about this what about that it still doesnt change the fact that we got a crazy N korean dictator/killer/murderer who now has the bomb because we played nice.

You and I have been in this discussion before concerning North Korea. I'm all for ending their nuclear program. I just don't want to do it at the cost of millions of South Korean lives, and the lives of countless thousands of US soldiers. That is the likely outcome of Perle's approach. In this case, the use of diplomacy in the form of the negotiations that have taken place between the US, N. Korea, S. Korea, Japan, China, and Russia seems like not only the safest option for everyone, but also the most likely to succeed.

Let me ask, does it concern you that our already stretched thin military will be asked to possibly invade and occupy Syria, Iran, and North Korea? That on top of the current actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do you think would be the consequences if we do everything that Perle is advocating? Does it bother you that our nation, born in a battle against a colonial power, could find itself as the new de facto colonial power of the middle east? While I agree with you that Kim Jong Il is a dangerous man and we should work to disarm him of WMDs it doesn't follow that I have to agree with Perle's program. Do you?

[Dont Hurt Me]

I like you dont want to see our guys killed, nor do i want to start a war. we do have to be ready though in case this guy does afterall he has been threating S.Korea ,the U.S and Japan over and over. I think we have to engage everyone in the region that nukes can not be allowed in N.Korea. Bush is doing this. China has a very large role in this since them and the Soviet Union have helped this guy. but we cant just sit back and think it will all work out as Clinton and his team did. If the U.N cant get together on this then like usual it will be up to the U.S and its Allies to come up with a solution. I would like to make a very good point sayhey and that is Dictators seem to have a big problem understanding anything but the big stick. ask Saddam, ask Hitler, ask Kadafi, ask Stalin, and this list goes on and on. this has nothing to do with the mid east except the fact like you mention we have a lot of troops there. Diplomacy first,second and third then the big stick.

[ThomasJefferson]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Thomasjefferson i guess you forgot or perhaps were not yet born when Iran was holding our hostages, at this time the U.S was needing to keep Iran in check. Iraq allready hated these guys. Just more spin, keep focus on N Korea.

Actually, the article mentions a bit more than just N. Korea. So I addressed what I choose too.

I hate to throw water on those worked into a hot lather by the new conservative "manifesto" for confronting all the bad guys, but .. doesn't North Korea have 10,000 artillery pieces in range of downtown Seoul (urban population +11 million). And, haven't they been there just a wee-wee bit longer than Clinton? Oh well, who needs facts when you have a "manifesto".

Sounds like the usual political bloviating by conservatives in an election cycle.

Yes, Don't Hurt Me", I do remember the hostage crisis. I was in college at the time. But, I do wonder about Rumsfeld's visit in 1983. Since Reagan/Bush-Daddy were "appeasing" Saddam then, in order to contain Iran, does that mean his use of biological and chemical weapons was "not" a war crime? I mean, since Reagan/Bush looked the other way .. was it ok then? Now, this is not a defense of than naughty little Iraqi boy, but ... Johnny Cochran would love to twist that one in court...

[Dont Hurt Me]

the geneva convention prohibits chemical and biological weapons does it not. but when you are dealing with dictators they do as they want since they answer to no one. At the time keeping Iran in check was a good idea but i doubt very much Rumsfeld or Reagan were telling Saddam to go gas people. The biggest threat to world peace are the dictators and terrorist. untill 911 we were very complacent with these guys. Not anymore. Lets hope that common sense will prevail but have you heard the Crazy N Korean utter anything that indicates he has common sense? his country is starving, people are in goulags, it has almost no economy, yet it can squander its resources on weapons when they are the last thing it needs. we have never threatened them since the Korean war yet he continues to threaten his neighbors. Him and Saddam have a lot in common but now thanks again to a complacent Clinton administration they have the bomb.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I like you dont want to see our guys killed, nor do i want to start a war. we do have to be ready though in case this guy does afterall he has been threating S.Korea ,the U.S and Japan over and over. I think we have to engage everyone in the region that nukes can not be allowed in N.Korea. Bush is doing this. China has a very large role in this since them and the Soviet Union have helped this guy. but we cant just sit back and think it will all work out as Clinton and his team did. If the U.N cant get together on this then like usual it will be up to the U.S and its Allies to come up with a solution. I would like to make a very good point sayhey and that is Dictators seem to have a big problem understanding anything but the big stick. ask Saddam, ask Hitler, ask Kadafi, ask Stalin, and this list goes on and on. this has nothing to do with the mid east except the fact like you mention we have a lot of troops there. Diplomacy first,second and third then the big stick.

First, here's the rub about North Korea, it is true that the Bush administration is engaged in these negotiations, but Perle's statements represent a sabotage of those efforts. There has long been a split within the administration with Powell on one side and the neoconservatives, like Perle, on another. This manifesto is a broadside against Powell. I'm for supporting the negotiations not giving in to the fear mongering that Perle is spewing forth.

A short note, I have a very different view of what the Clinton administration did and would recommend a Frontline special for information concerning those years. It's at PBS' (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/view/) website and can be viewed online.

Secondly, as to dictators, I'm all for promoting democracy. As I've said before, I don't think it can be done with bayonets and bullets. There are times when war must happen, but I believe they are few and represent a failure of other efforts that should be tried first. I would note that neither your position or mine is one that is advocated by Perle. The proposal as laid out in the article would be a disaster.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Perle position is not mine, i dont think he would be advocating this if he was stationed in the DMZ. but it would have been better to do something before they had the bomb then doing it now. however you want to look at this it was a Clinton failure for not following up more closely and doing more or getting more nations involved. The Clinton administration didnt have to many hawks and Clinton was most definitely a nice guy. sometimes you need more then a nice guy when dealing with Dictators.

[Thanatoast]

Don't Hurt Me,

If the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of chemical or biological weapons, why did our government look the other way when Saddam used them? For that matter, why did we sell him the stock to produce them in the first place?

You say the biggest threat to world peace are dictators and terrorists. I disagree. Dictators can kill, yes, but their scope is limited. North Korea could do some serious damage, but only the US has turned the idea of "world peace" on its head by destablizing the international law system and invading two nations in the name of "security". Of course our first reaction is to lash out against those who hurt us (and in the case of Iraq, those who didn't) but in the end, using force to preclude the use of force is kinda oxymoronic don't you think?

You also say that until 9-11 we were complacent towards dictators and terrorists. Bush himself was complacent until he saw an opportunity to work the situation to his political and economic advantage. And we still are complacent. The particular people we have focused on have been easy targets, and our actions so far have not made us popular with those we are trying to win over, and have inflamed the passions of those who already didn't like us. There are many more dictators left, and we support many of them.

"yet it can squander its resources on weapons when they are the last thing it needs" - an very insightfull statement. I only wish it was applied to ourselves as well. We spend more on the military in this country than almost anything else. Who exactly are we guarding against? Did our military make a difference when the planes hit the world trade center? Has our huge military budget stopped guerilla fighting in Iraq? Has our awesome military might stopped Kim Jong Il from producing nulear weapons? Maybe they're there to protect us from invasion by Canada, who knows? I certainly can't figure it out. Statecraft is what is needed these days, not bombs. They destroy, they don't build. Unfortunately the neoconservative movenment in this country has not yet figured out the difference between genuine agreement and arm-twisting.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Perle position is not mine, i dont think he would be advocating this if he was stationed in the DMZ. but it would have been better to do something before they had the bomb then doing it now. however you want to look at this it was a Clinton failure for not following up more closely and doing more or getting more nations involved. The Clinton administration didnt have to many hawks and Clinton was most definitely a nice guy. sometimes you need more then a nice guy when dealing with Dictators.

N Korea could have built the bomb years ago and it wasn't until Bush included them in the axis of evil speech that they declared their bomb program restarted. So you see, they felt threatened and the only thing that could protect them was a nuclear arms program. So get off your Clinton bashing.

If you really want to make a go of it the why not wonder why N Korea is making noises now and why did the 9/11 attacks happen under the Bush watch. Huh? Huh? In fact, there first bomb will probably be built while Bush is in office. What about them apples?

My point is that diplomacy never ends and is better than the alternative.

also, diplomacy isn't "doing nothing"

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by wwworry
N Korea could have built the bomb years ago and it wasn't until Bush included them in the axis of evil speech that they declared their bomb program restarted. So you see, they felt threatened and the only thing that could protect them was a nuclear arms program. So get off your Clinton bashing.

If you really want to make a go of it the why not wonder why N Korea is making noises now and why did the 9/11 attacks happen under the Bush watch. Huh? Huh? In fact, there first bomb will probably be built while Bush is in office. What about them apples?

My point is that diplomacy never ends and is better than the alternative.

also, diplomacy isn't "doing nothing" Worry you are so wrong, they never stopped working on the bomb, i know there are a lot of Democrats here but lets be honest they snowballed the Clinton administration. lets be honest again dont you remember the first attack on the trade center? it didnt work so they came back and did it again with planes, i guess you want to blame Bush for that to. stop spinning history to suite your democratic only agenda. Diplomacy never ends? why dont you ask all those Brits who were assured Germany would never attack England? you know while they were rolling threw Poland,France, and all those other countries. there is a time to swing the Big stick when all else fails. the time is not yet. Please take off those Democratic only Glasses because the reflection is nearly blinding me.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Perle position is not mine, i dont think he would be advocating this if he was stationed in the DMZ.

Pig-headed politician rule no. 15:

War is fun when you know you won't die.

[mactastic]

Perhaps if 125,000 of our troops weren't in Iraq we would be in a better position to "negotiate" with North Korea.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by ThomasJefferson
This is "foreign policy" for domestic consumption. Tweak the French, threaten to punch-out everybody in the bar and the wacko-bloviating talk-radio conservative ditto-head vote will come out this November. Morons.

Even more then that, it's the opening of a public front in the campaign to win President Bush's blessing for a sustained macho foreign policy. The timing of its release at the start of the campaign season hardly seems coincidental.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Even more then that, it's the opening of a public front in the campaign to win President Bush's blessing for a sustained macho foreign policy. The timing of its release at the start of the campaign season hardly seems coincidental.

While I doubt Rove is unhappy about this, I think it is more indicative of a push back from the recently sidelined neocons than a campaign strategy from KR.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
While I doubt Rove is unhappy about this, I think it is more indicative of a push back from the recently sidelined neocons than a campaign strategy from KR.

Well, yes, that's what I mean. The neo-cons appear to be attempting to consolidate their hold on the Bush foreign policy.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well, yes, that's what I mean. The neo-cons appear to be attempting to consolidate their hold on the Bush foreign policy.

Agreed. I think this is the open part of a policy war that is going on for the direction of foreign policy. The leak of the Rumsfeld's memo, not long ago, to blame all the problems of Iraq on CIA and timid generals is also a part of this effort. I think the neoconservatives are worried that under the pressure of the election Bush will give more credence to the Powell approach as he did in the case of North Korea.

I also think the actions of the neoconservatives allies in places like Israel are not a coincidence. If Syria could be provoked into some kind of stupid response to the recent aerial bombings and settlement announcements, the neoconservatives would have the ready made excuse to widen the war.

[mactastic]

I would imagine Rove is counseling Bush to at least give the appearance of letting the more dovish members of his cabinet take the lead at least up until the election is over. I don't think he wants to actually see lots of US servicepersons arriving DOA at Dover in the year leading up to elections. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of crisis brewing by the end of the summer.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I would imagine Rove is counseling Bush to at least give the appearance of letting the more dovish members of his cabinet take the lead at least up until the election is over. I don't think he wants to actually see lots of US servicepersons arriving DOA at Dover in the year leading up to elections. Although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of crisis brewing by the end of the summer.

You are probably right, mac. However, I can see a scenario where if the election is close enough, that Rove would counsel an invasion as a way to improve Bush's popularity. I don't know if an expansion of the war would give Bush the "rally round the flag" response that is most often the case, but I can see where Rove and others might think it would be a good election strategy. It is my biggest worry for the coming year.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Worry you are so wrong, they never stopped working on the bomb, i know there are a lot of Democrats here but lets be honest they snowballed the Clinton administration. lets be honest again dont you remember the first attack on the trade center? it didnt work so they came back and did it again with planes, i guess you want to blame Bush for that to. stop spinning history to suite your democratic only agenda. Diplomacy never ends? why dont you ask all those Brits who were assured Germany would never attack England? you know while they were rolling threw Poland,France, and all those other countries. there is a time to swing the Big stick when all else fails. the time is not yet. Please take off those Democratic only Glasses because the reflection is nearly blinding me.

I see you forgot your earlier post blaming the entire thing on Clinton and forgeting that the NK nuke program probably began under Bush I etc. etc. My responce was to throw the blame game back at you. Because, really, Bush 2 is at fault and you should take off your whatever glasses.

Also I find it amazing the way people throw around the WWII comparisons. Forget it. It does not apply.

As for diplomacy ask all the US soldiers that died fighting the Communist Soviet Union and Communist China if it worked.

[Dont Hurt Me]

History repeats itself over and over and..... appeasement can only go so far, diplomacy can only go so far. why bring up WW2? its a perfect example of diplomacy and diplomacy and appeasement and a guy named Chamberlain. after WW1 no one wanted any more war who does? but he was told everything he wanted to hear by Hitler. He even had the paperwork. he was certain and told England they would not be invaded the rest is history. N.Korea is no Nazi Germany but they are ran by a Dictator. He told Clinton they needed oil, Food and other things and in return they wouldnt continue the nuclear program. Clinton gave in they signed all those worthless papers and N.Korea just kept on going with its program. who was keeping a eye on N.Korea? So now my President has to take care of this mess. George also has to take care of the Bin Laden thing to. It does Apply. Dont give in to Dictators/Terrorist.

[Sayhey]

Dont Hurt Me,

this thread is not just about North Korea or the history of the Clinton administration's attempts to stop the Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, but I do have to take issue with you that Clinton's attempts were appeasement. I think they tried many efforts that were sabotaged by both the North Koreans and political enemies at home (Perle, Rumsfeld and others) who wished to make any attempt at a diplomatic solution into appeasement. This book of Perle's is just a continuation of that political line. Is Powell and Bush now appeasers because they have sat down with the North to negotiate the issue? The lack of success does not mean appeasement. Again it is worth your time and effort to view the Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/view/) documentary for a little more background in the history of all the parties involved.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I agree Clinton was engaging them but they seemed to have lost focus on N Korea and what they were doing after the agreement. I think there was like 1 guy that was supposed to watch the whole establishment over there so when this guy went home what do you think was going on. thats right they kept on working to build the bomb. I dont want war and either does bush. we have to be on the watch though for extremism in either camp wether in right wing Republicans( they suck) or Left wing Democrats they suck to. we dont want war mongers and we dont want appeasers. Balance

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I agree Clinton was engaging them but they seemed to have lost focus on N Korea and what they were doing after the agreement. I think there was like 1 guy that was supposed to watch the whole establishment over there so when this guy went home what do you think was going on. thats right they kept on working to build the bomb. I dont want war and either does bush. we have to be on the watch though for extremism in either camp wether in right wing Republicans( they suck) or Left wing Democrats they suck to. we dont want war mongers and we dont want appeasers. Balance

I'm not sure from this response whether you think the current administration is taking that 'balanced' approach you recommend. Is the fact that we are not invading NK right now, but rather trying to negotiate with them, appeasment? Or is it only appeasement when a political opponent does it? Do you think they have stopped working on the bomb since GWB started negotiations with them, or is Bush being played for a sucker too?

[Dont Hurt Me]

There is nothing to be gained by going down the path N.Korea is taking. They are being engaged by the current administration. Talk softly and carry a big stick. i allways like that one. Bush is making it clear we will help you but dont try to blackmail us. They on the otherhand or better yet the Crazy N. Korean have never stopped this program its been in the works for probably decades. But by getting everyone involved perhaps N.Korea will listen to its neighbors and supporters meaning China and Russia. The problem again is you are dealing with a ruthless dictator who has his people brainwashed into thinking he is a semi god. He does whatever he wants to do not what others tell him. so i am sure he is surrounded but a bunch of buttkissers and yesmen. Dictators are not good listeners, but they are Great at telling others hence he is trying to threaten the U.S saying its his way or no way. Perhaps we should make it very clear to him we will turn his country and him into a nuclear furnace if he doesnt comply with our demands to get rid of his nukes. He has what 6, we have 6 thousand.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the geneva convention prohibits chemical and biological weapons does it not.... i doubt very much Rumsfeld or Reagan were telling Saddam to go gas people.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16210
(sec of state) Shultz wanted to make it crystal clear that U.S. criticism of the use of chemical weapons was just pablum for public consumption, meant as a restatement of a "long-standing policy, and not as a pro-Iranian/anti-Iraqi gesture," as State's Lawrence S. Eagleburger told Hussein's emissary. "Our desire and our actions to prevent an Iranian victory and to continue the progress of our bilateral relations remain undiminished," Eagleburger continued, according to the then highly classified transcript of the meeting.
more info on it here:
http://www.gwu.edu/�`nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

[SPG]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Perhaps we should make it very clear to him we will turn his country and him into a nuclear furnace if he doesnt comply with our demands to get rid of his nukes. He has what 6, we have 6 thousand.
ahem, As one of the million residents of a city within reach of the North Korean nuclear program, I'd rather we don't use that approach thankyouverymuch.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
untill 911 we were very complacent with these guys.
Bush was complacent about the terrorist threat. He refused to act on or even read the Clinton administration's plan to take out bin Laden.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
The biggest threat to world peace are the dictators and terrorist.Not anymore.
Some would argue that the US is an equal threat. Recently fomenting a coup in Venezuela, invading Iraq on false pretenses, and a long history of supporting brutal regimes for our own interests.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Lets hope that common sense will prevail but have you heard the Crazy N Korean utter anything that indicates he has common sense?
Not especially since I don't speak Korean, but our own Dear Leader has said plenty of ridiculous things.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
his country is starving, people are in goulags, it has almost no economy, yet it can squander its resources on weapons when they are the last thing it needs.
uh, yeah, how much is our military budget these days? How's our national health care plan? How's our free secondary education?

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
we have never threatened them since the Korean war yet he continues to threaten his neighbors.
I guess the 125,000 US troops massed at the border are just sightseeing? We did declare them a member of the "axis of evil" to be dealt with, didn't we?
Despite the kidnappings of South Koreans and Japanese a while ago, relations between the North and South were improving.

Okay, first of all it is sometimes difficult to get to the exact meaning of your posts due to the grammar and spelling errors (I apologize if english is your second language). What I believe you are saying is that we face two main threats, terrorists and dictators. I hope you don't think that the two are interchangeable or even related as allies. More often terror is used as a weapon of the oppressed against the powerful dictator. Dictators on the world stage are less of a threat to us than you would believe. A threat in 1990 to our oil supply and a decades long standoff on the Korean peninsula excluded. Hussein was a threat to his own people, but after the first gulf war and the destruction of his WMD capability by the UN, he was no threat.
Democracies are less likely to wage unprovoked wars, yet our government has a long history of supporting dictators in order to help achieve short term goals. I've even read a few quotes by officials (including Kissinger) who preferred dictators as being easier to work with and control.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Another Hardcore Democrat no doubt. let me see now clinton handed binladen over to bush? LOL:D

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Another Hardcore Democrat no doubt.

If only it was so easy to dismiss someone's argument.

let me see now clinton handed binladen over to bush? LOL:D

Is that supposed to be a slur of some kind? I don't even understand what you are trying to say with that.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Another Hardcore Democrat no doubt.
Hardcore? I don't listen to too much Hardcore anymore, a little hip hop, a little bit of the indy label stuff, and even some good ol' rock n roll, but I can't really listen to hardcore like I used too. No Doubt is pretty good though, for pop stuff, I especially like Gwen Stefani's voice.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
let me see now clinton handed binladen over to bush? LOL:D

In the waning days of the Clinton administration the FBI came up with a full plan on how to begin the long process of dismantling Al Queda. Remember the first Trade Center bombing? The USS Cole? The African embassies? The cruise missile strikes in the Sudan? Al Qaida didn't materialize instantly in September 2001.
The FBI plan was rebuffed because it was written under the Clinton administration. If you recall Bush was setting the record for the most vacation days of any president and the report was still being pushed and was eventually scheduled for his review on 9/20/2001 almost a full year after it was written.
The Bush family is very good friends with the Saudi royal family and the Bin Laden family (although not friends with Osama). Pushing a serious investigation of Saudi nationals and of the dealings of the House of Saud was not a high priority under Bush. The distrust of anything Clinton, the vacationing, the disinterest in security briefings, and the friendship with the Saudis unintentionaly created a climate where Al Qaida could flourish.
If Bush had been a better president without Saudi ties and without a total mistrust of the outgoing administration, perhaps the FBI plan would have been implemented. Maybe that plan would have failed to catch the terrorists who took down the Trade Center and hit the Pentagon, or maybe they would have broken a few cells and some of the command enough to cause the plan to be abandoned, or maybe they would have gotten a few lucky breaks and caught them all and put Al Qaida on the run.
So Clinton handed over Bin Laden? Not exactly. But the FBI under Clinton was actively working on it and Bush dropped the ball. Do you ever wonder why Bush is so reluctant to cooperate with the 9/11 commission?