Kerry quote on Terrorists in NYTIMES

[Fantasea]

Bush taught them how ineffective he is at being a leader. I'm glad we got rid of Saddam but what about Bin Laden. Bush has showed them that if he can't succeed in getting a real terrorist and threat to humanity he will take the easy way out and blame it on someone else.

While instant gratification may be great, some things take longer than others.

So just sit back, watch the progress, and continue to enjoy the non-contact sport of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. You play it very well. 20/20, I'd say.

 

[Fantasea]

Maybe the Taliban and Hussein have learned something. If so, they are at least capable of learning something. One would also hope that Bush has learned something, although past experience leads one to doubt that. In any event, he is not going to attack either Syria or especially Iran. For one thing he is pretty well scraping the bottom of the military barrel, and the country can't afford any more adventures.

With all of the surprises he's come up with, what makes you so sure he hasn't a few more up his sleeve?

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

With all of the surprises he's come up with, what makes you so sure he hasn't a few more up his sleeve?

At this point it would not be a surprise if he did try some damn fool thing, but the country wouldn't go along with it.

I will say that the appearance of a credible Iranian opposition movement might change the equation a bit. The keyword here is credible. No such movement is on the radar.

 

[Fantasea]

At this point it would not be a surprise if he did try some damn fool thing, but the country wouldn't go along with it.

I will say that the appearance of a credible Iranian opposition movement might change the equation a bit. The keyword here is credible. No such movement is on the radar.

Think back a bit to Libya. It had long been a thorn in our side. However, a first hand look at 'Shock and Awe' and a little diplomatic shmoozing convinced Qaddafi to give up his nuclear ambitions without a fight.

Perhaps it will be all downhill with Syria and Iran, too. After seeing what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think the rulers of both don't want to be next in line and, after some diplomatic discussions, are likely to follow the lead of Libya.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

It would indeed be nice if Iran and Syria gave up all nuclear ambitions with diplomatic talks but if they don't and bush goes on the rampage again I think it is safe to say that he would meet with stronger oppostition inside and outside the country.

 

[pwo]

If those countries don't listen to us, there will be problems. But if we go to war I think we will have more allies than with Iraq. Or least I hope because it would be hard to go in alone. European countries are in the talks also, aren't they. If Iran doesn't disarm, it would be a slap in the face to those countires also. France better not wuss out this time.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

I have trouble blaming france for not entering a war they saw as unjust.

 

[Fantasea]

It would indeed be nice if Iran and Syria gave up all nuclear ambitions with diplomatic talks but if they don't and bush goes on the rampage again I think it is safe to say that he would meet with stronger oppostition inside and outside the country.

As the saying goes, they may be dumb, but they're not stupid.

Think of it this way. If the electorate felt about the president the way the polls and the media said it did, why was he re-elected?

The president has much more popular support than we will ever know.

 

[Fantasea]

I have trouble blaming france for not entering a war they saw as unjust.

Do the words, "UN Food For Oil Program Scandal", mean anything to you?

 

[alienken]

PRES. Bush is doing the things that Clinton should have done. Binladen is somewhere that we can't go (yet). We can't just go into any country looking for him unless war is envolved. Seria. This is why freedom is the best way to fight terrorism. Benladen can only hide in countries that he can cozy up with the dictator thug in charge.

 

[GarzaUK]

Do the words, "UN Food For Oil Program Scandal", mean anything to you?

Actually France wasn't the only one in the UN to say no to Iraq. Germany, Russia, China, the pope managed to convince Mexico, Guinea and other nations to say no. Only 3,4 or at most 5 out of 12 supported the war in Iraq, thats why the US/UK withdrew it from the UN.

Think about it, if only France and Germany voted no, the US and UK would have pushed it forward to get propaganda over them. The truth is the US and UK didn't even get half the votes of the Security Council. Why was this? They surely had the same intelligence as the US. Even Mexico said no lol.

 

[Fantasea]

Actually France wasn't the only one in the UN to say no to Iraq. Germany, Russia, China, the pope managed to convince Mexico, Guinea and other nations to say no. Only 3,4 or at most 5 out of 12 supported the war in Iraq, thats why the US/UK withdrew it from the UN.

Think about it, if only France and Germany voted no, the US and UK would have pushed it forward to get propaganda over them. The truth is the US and UK didn't even get half the votes of the Security Council. Why was this? They surely had the same intelligence as the US. Even Mexico said no lol.

Funny you should mention Germany, Russia, and China. They, too, along with France were playing footsie with Iraq over 'Food for Oil' shenanigans and violations of the UN weapons embargoes, too. They all stood to lose, financially, if Saddam Hussein's applecart was upset.

They fought mightily to avoid that, but to no avail.

Mexico? The way that the Mexican government is blatantly exporting its unemployed, I'm surprised that it didn't send the largest contingent to Iraq.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Ya and with us sending all of our jobs over seas, pretty soon we are going to be fighting mexico for cargo space on ships to export OUR unemployed.

 

[Fantasea]

Ya and with us sending all of our jobs over seas, pretty soon we are going to be fighting mexico for cargo space on ships to export OUR unemployed.

So, does your complaint lie with the Clinton Administration that enacted the NAFTA legislation which opened the floodgates, or the consumers who won't buy American because they can save money on imported goods?

 

[Rhadamanthus]

My complaint lies with anyone who is so shortsighted as to set personal gain over the good of the country.

 

[Squawker]

I will say that the appearance of a credible Iranian opposition movement might change the equation a bit. The keyword here is credible. No such movement is on the radar.

If you remember in the State of The Union President Bush gave the Iranians a carrot. I don't recall the exact quote but it was on the order of "if the people should decide to change their government the US would be here to support them." An uprising to overthrow the government there is not too far off.

 

[Fantasea]

My complaint lies with anyone who is so shortsighted as to set personal gain over the good of the country.

I can't seem to find an answer to my question among the words in your post.

However, do you remember Diogenes? He was the ancient Greek who spent his days and nights walking the streets of Athens in search of an honest man. He never found one.

Good luck in your quest.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

That is because when you wish for an answer it must be spelled out in bold print.

In the Clinton Administration mind, NAFTA could have been something they thought would help the world. I don't know. Though I am not very familiar with NAFTA and it's results it seems to me that it has done more harm then good. If the Clinton Administration truly enacted NAFTA for nothing more than personal gain then yes, my quarrel lies with them. But I am not going to blame the North American Trade Agreement for every single outsourced job in this country. I cannot lay all the blame with the American people for buying these foreign good either. We all know how much easier it is to buy something that's a good deal cheaper than something else even if it is made in China. I do believe that there are honest people out there. I'm not on a quest to find them, I think that given the chance they will show themselves, but I don't think they are to be found in the Whitehouse within the next four years.

 

[Fantasea]

That is because when you wish for an answer it must be spelled out in bold print.

In the Clinton Administration mind, NAFTA could have been something they thought would help the world. I don't know. Though I am not very familiar with NAFTA and it's results it seems to me that it has done more harm then good. If the Clinton Administration truly enacted NAFTA for nothing more than personal gain then yes, my quarrel lies with them. But I am not going to blame the North American Trade Agreement for every single outsourced job in this country. I cannot lay all the blame with the American people for buying these foreign good either. We all know how much easier it is to buy something that's a good deal cheaper than something else even if it is made in China. I do believe that there are honest people out there. I'm not on a quest to find them, I think that given the chance they will show themselves, but I don't think they are to be found in the Whitehouse within the next four years.

I hope you won't be offended when I describe your post as convoluted.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

So, does your complaint lie with the Clinton Administration that enacted the NAFTA legislation which opened the floodgates, or the consumers who won't buy American because they can save money on imported goods?

The flood was already in progress in the direction of Asia. All NAFTA did was divert some of it in the direction of Mexico and Canada. This was preferable. Every job that is created in Mexico means just that many fewer wetbacks.

Consumers don't necessarily buy imported goods to save money. When imported blue jeans are selling for around $50, imported sauce pans for around $25 and imported DVRs for $800, the only ones saving money are the people selling them. Consumers are not really benefitting all that much.

My stepson is an obsessive buyer of American goods, and goes to great lengths to do so. However, a great deal of his clothing bears a "Made in China" tag. It is hard to find things actually made in America. :hm

 

[Fantasea]

That is because when you wish for an answer it must be spelled out in bold print.

In the Clinton Administration mind, NAFTA could have been something they thought would help the world. I don't know. Though I am not very familiar with NAFTA and it's results it seems to me that it has done more harm then good. If the Clinton Administration truly enacted NAFTA for nothing more than personal gain then yes, my quarrel lies with them. But I am not going to blame the North American Trade Agreement for every single outsourced job in this country. I cannot lay all the blame with the American people for buying these foreign good either. We all know how much easier it is to buy something that's a good deal cheaper than something else even if it is made in China. I do believe that there are honest people out there. I'm not on a quest to find them, I think that given the chance they will show themselves, but I don't think they are to be found in the Whitehouse within the next four years.

Thank you for your answer which I am having difficulty understanding since you seem to be saying both yes, no, and I don't know.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

The world of politics is not drawn in black and white, but color.

 

[Fantasea]

The world of politics is not drawn in black and white, but color.

That may be true in some places. However in the US, the struggle is for a shade of gray that indicates that the Republicans are expected to cave in to the Democrats. It would be foolish for them to do so.

When they were in power, did anyone ever see a Democratic compromise? Their motto seemed to have been, "To the victors belong the spoils."

Their policies, practices, and platform have caused many of their supporters to switch camps. How else, after forty years in power, did they lose complete control in just three consecutive elections over a span of only six years?

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Why do the republicans have to cave into the democrats for people to find a political balance betwean differing views?

 

[anomaly]

That may be true in some places. However in the US, the struggle is for a shade of gray that indicates that the Republicans are expected to cave in to the Democrats. It would be foolish for them to do so.

When they were in power, did anyone ever see a Democratic compromise? Their motto seemed to have been, "To the victors belong the spoils."

Their policies, practices, and platform have caused many of their supporters to switch camps. How else, after forty years in power, did they lose complete control in just three consecutive elections over a span of only six years?

Fant, don't you realize? The backlash era of 'woe is me' conservatism is over. Embrace your new God, the 'free' market! Market populism is the new ideology of the right wing. And whoever said the Republicans had to cave into Dems? Last time I checked, the Republicans control all 3 branches of gov't.