Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Iraq Schmiraq

Iraq (in the news again) is old news. This administration has successfully spread the new version of American freedom to Afganistan, and has continued that vision to Iraq. Whoever takes over next will be left with that legacy.

What people should be thinking (and talking) about is "what's next?" Our leadership continues to preach on the continuing "war on terror". We've seen that the favorite tool in the toolbox by the current administration is unsupported American interventions/invasions. Right now, during the election season, the administration's next target is unknown, but after the election, if the same administration remains, where will our military be sent to next? (without international cooperation)

Is this the best way to support our troops?

Whatever is said between now and the election, remember that this administration has a track record for saying one thing, and then pushing through their own agenda, with or without support from the electorate, or the rest of the world.

The interesting thing is they lie just like a drug addict.

There is always some kernal of truth in it so that they can claim they told the truth -- even though they made damned sure that the message they got across was not the truth.

I watcht the Republican Convention and all the speakers they had and wondered why these people were chosen to speak at the GOP Convention when their counsel and their beliefs were not represented in the Administration's actions for the past four years. I wondered what is the Administration so embarrassed about that they do not have those who actually shaped their policies speak.

I listen to Mr. Bush and I listen to Mr. Cheney and I compare what they are saying now to what they have done for the past four years, and I have no idea what to expect for the next four -- knowing that in 2000 they said one thing and then did another.

But then, if we have learned anything about the Bush Administration it is that honesty is not their strong suit. But good marketing that masks the reality is.

Iran Schmiran is your answer Ron.

I watcht the Republican Convention and all the speakers they had and wondered why these people were chosen to speak at the GOP Convention when their counsel and their beliefs were not represented in the Administration's actions for the past four years.

There's two reasons for that, John. First, because you hold to your own warped view of things, reality is naturally going to seem a little strange to you. Secondly, it's covering too long of a time span for you to keep focused - your guy changes *his* positions on a daily basis. In order for you to understand it you're going to have to learn how to follow a train of logic over a longer span..... say, a few weeks.

I think it's what you do on a regular basis, John Andrew.. think of ways to discredit the Bush Administration and project your dissapproval that has warped the way you see things... We all are Republican. Some just don't know it.

.
.
.

My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans, how do you know if you are a Republican? I'll tell you how.

If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen ...if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican! (Arnold)

Strictly looking at the WMD’s to terrorists through tyrants connection. To wit: we simply cannot take the chance that a tyrant with WMD’s will openly (the North Korean blackmail gambit) or surreptitiously leak mass destruction technology to terrorist organizations.

Syria has responded positively to US pressure, so they are off the table.

Iran and North Korea are complex problems. Here the administration seems to be finally getting the message that, as powerful as we are, we are going to need international cooperation to deal with these two problems.

Hopefully by now Bush is no longer shocked to find out that the world is deeply troubled by his unilateral actions, but what would one expect when our President gets his news only from his advisors. (Why Rice was surprised the world felt this way is, on the other hand, unfathomable. But she’s made other similarly unfathomable statements, so maybe it’s just BS on her/their part.)

With the clerics in Iran, we are not dealing with the kind of monstrous tyrant as in Iraq. Here humanitarian justification for aggression is not going to play, and this administration knows that. Also, taking out Iran’s dispersed and partly hidden nuclear capability is not the cake walk as it was in Iraq. Maybe Israel would have tried it already it if it were feasible.

Nonetheless, with the unexpectedly aggressive and unpredictable US staring at them from right across the border, the intimidation that worked with Syria (not to mention Libya) makes a compromise appear more, shall we say, attractive to the Iranians. (Somehow it reminds me of when Gossage used to purposely throw his first warm up pitch into the dirt and his second one into the screen behind home plate.)

We sign a non-aggression pact with them and agree to back off from meddling in their internal dissonance. They agree to use their nuclear technology for strictly peaceful purposes along with stopping their meddling in Iraq. Maybe we sweeten the pot by offering, say, outsourcing to their highly educated but vastly unemployed young adults in their crumbling archaic WPA-type economy.

Is monitoring by a suitable international organization part of the deal. You bet!

In North Korea, international cooperation is again essential, particularly with China and Russia. And we better show some “sensitivity” in dealing with the Russians on this one, including not negotiating with Chechnya on our own. Here all we are likely to seek, in the near term at least, are assurances that mass destruction technology is kept out of terrorist hands.

What would happen if Kerry were elected. Pretty much the same big stick, soft speak thing.

I don’t like Kerry the person but who cares. I didn’t like Nixon either but he was one of our shrewdest most effective presidents in the international arena.

Kerry’s major advantage here is the fresh slate: continuing to pursue the necessary policies while handling our allies with more diplomacy and awareness, which, of course, is what he meant by "sensitively." That was a signal to our Allies as well as us. They heard it.

My biggest problem with Kerry is he is likely not a team player, evidenced by his failing to listen to his advisors about letting go of the Vietnam thing, as well as his testifying to congress back during the Vietnam war.

Actually, the thing that dismays me most about Kerry is his apparent incompetence in running an effective campaign. Congress doesn’t give one the kind of executive experience needed for the Presidency and boy is it showing. In fact, on second thought, a Kerry administration might be a disaster in the early going because he doesn’t have the luxury Bush had of an relatively uneventful beginning.

I conjecture that Bush also sent a signal to our Allies with his admission that much of his diplomatic problems stem from his Texan culture, much like LBJ. He’s a good guy, and considerate … just not "aware." (maybe I would have used that word in place of sensitive if I were the Dems.)

Bottom line prediction. No matter who’s elected, the terrorist situation will be brought under control. Can’t eliminate it but at least we will now truly do our best to keep WMD’s out of their hands.

Those worried by Cheney’s presence in another term might be interested in what I was told Chris Matthews predicted, namely that Cheney would resign soon after the election for health reasons and be replaced by someone who would challenge Hillary in 2008. Plausible, I think.

MM, neither Syria, nor Iran, nor even North Korea are off the table. My opinion.

MusicMagellan, several times now I have heard you voice a clearer understanding of what's going on in the world than either of the candidates. Ever considered politics?

I assume you're talking about the US candidates. You don't live in the US, though, do you? Nevertheless...

Both candidates have the pick of the crop in intelligence, military advice, world situations and politics, foreign and domestic threats, economics, you name it. Yet you, erginc, know more than all of them.

You're a Canadian, aren't you? Are you so ashamed of your country that you won't even list Canada in your profile?

Sad.

Gryphon, excuse me Mr. Cranky, I was complementing MM on his opinion, not claiming that I knew more than all of them, in fact I have taken care to state that I know very little about politics quite often in my posts. But that does not mean I do not have the right to express my opinion based on my nationality, however uninformed.

Ashamed of my origins, not at all Gryphon, I listed my country of origin for the first month or so I was here. But it was due to the ongoing dismissive comments such as yours and some others and an oft demonstrated paranoia regarding any "other", that frankly I simply got tired of hearing these comments instead of getting a reasonable response. So I decided to retreat in to being an anonymous citizen of the world. Sadly, the truth is some of you became much nicer to me when you thought I was one of your own.

Unfortunately your last post proves that I am right, you Gryphon are all to happy to dismiss and accuse because I might possibly be a Canadian.

Once again really disappointing, I might add. Shame on you.

I'm an Albertan damn it!!!

I was going to mention the great disrespect we have for Renauda.

You said that he knew, and you recognized that he knew, more than the candidates. Let me check:

"I have heard you voice a clearer understanding of what's going on in the world than either of the candidates."

Yep, sounds like you think you guys have a clearer understanding of what's going on in the world than either Kerry or Bush. You are ashamed of being Canadian. Be a woman and admit it. If you are chastised for your political (or otherwise) views, it will not be be because of your homeland. My only point about your being Canadian has to do with your position on "the" candidates. a) "the" candidates to you would be Canadian. The correct reference would be "your" candidates since they're not "your" candidates. See the difference? b) you glibly comment on our two (major) presidential candidates claiming, by inference, that you know more and understand the world better than either the two of them. I doubt that is true. But even if it were you can expect some flack on it. Regardless, if you make the statement you should have the backbone to stand up to it. Not weasle out of it.

We all comment on another's country and politics. I have commented on Paul Martin, for example, but you didn't read me trying to infer Paul Martin was mine.

Well you are welcome to have him and the rest of his Cabinet. Can't you launch a Fenian raid or something and smuggle him back across the Line? Send them on to Mexico?

In Texas they Remember the Alamo. In Alberta we will never forget the Liberal's National Energy Program- all $50 Billion dollars it cost to each and every Albertan!

I said in regards to MM's post, "I have heard you voice a clearer understanding of what's going on in the world than either of the candidates."

Gryphon said..."Yep, sounds like you think you guys have a clearer understanding of what's going on in the world than either Kerry or Bush."

Huh? You guys? I have never stated that I have a clearer understanding of politics than anybody, unlike some of you, except this brief and possibly badly worded casual complement to MM. If I have and in doing so have offended any of you as Americans, I take it back, everything I've ever said in this forum, as a woman, as a Canadian, and as a citizen of the world.

As for you Gryphon, and sadly I do so because of your continuing display of uncalled for verbal conduct, I will resort to two euphemistic words, which I rarely say, sex and travel.

I wouldn't have put it quite that way-- but then it helps if you take a more brash Albertan than polite Canadian approach in these debates. Try *out-of-country non franchised stakeholder in the global political decision making process*.

Actually I wish the Canadians who post here would for once go for broke and do their dirty laundry in public.

It seems Gryphon thought you were being sarcastic, Erginc. For what it's worth, I took your statement at face value. From the posts of yours I read, I think our world views are similar, and I too found MM's post (on which you commented) to be quite insightful. There Gryphon. Ptoooey!

Is that what I think it means?

If so, that was extraordinarily euphemistic. Well done! You remind me of Ariel (whom I miss) in a way..Your sentences are not as long and as complex, but that's good.