What is he basing the charge on? Does he have any evidence? Or did he just wake up from a bad dream?

At this point we do have North Korea admitting that they are developing WMDs and have them in their possession and are ready to use them against the U.S. And yet we just ignore them. But any rumor of WMDs or terrorist connections in the U.S. and severe consequences are immediatly threatened.

None of the states in the middle east have any weapons capable of hitting the U.S. except for Pakistan and they are our ally.

Dream...

I just posted the headline as it came across. When I find a hot-link, I will add it and a quote.

You appear have fallen for the myth propagated to some extent by the major media: that if there is no news about Korea, then Bush isn't paying it any attention. If you look more closely, this administration has been active with North Korea all along. After all, it was this administration's active probings that discovered that the North Korean nuclear program was still active, after it was supposedly terminated when Clinton agreed to blackmail in 1994.

Believe it or not, the US Government, and the President, can do more than one thing at once. And they are working frantically on the North Korean problem, which is far different from Iraq and hence requires different (and perhaps quieter) work. For all we know, something like the following warning was quietly issued: http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000191.html .

Oh, and Pakistan has no weapon capable of "hitting" the US - their missiles do not have that range.

However, almost every country in the middle east possesses WMD's in the form of chemical and biological agents, and these could be smuggled into the US to "hit" us.

The War on Terrorism requires a significant change in thinking, because we are in a new era in the history of man - one in which a single individual, possessing a weapon whose source is anonymous, can cause tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Start thinking that way and you may understand the Bush administration's actions in a different light. They are far from perfect, but their actions and strategies are based on THEIR understanding of this new era. Consider the possible impact of this in just one area: http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000141.html .

I would be interested in YOUR solution to the problem of North Korea. More bribery? If you think that would work, look at history. Also look at this and the trailing discussion: http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000206.html . The problem with bribery is verification. The Norks can take our money, our non-aggression agreement, or whatever else they get, and STILL anonymously sell nukes to the Islamofascists in an untraceable way. A number of bloggers, including myself, and more recently some editorialists have been pointing this out. If you want a real nightmare, imagine the Norks selling a bomb to the Chechens who set it off in Moscow. Global nuclear war? Perhaps.

So again, what is your solution, other than criticizing bush whenever he deals with the middle east rather than focusing his attention autistically on North Korea?

This ain't the 20th century any more!

Well said!

Its not particularly difficult to determine whether these two countries are supporting terrorism. Syria still holds most of Lebanon. If there are still terrorist camps in the Bakaa Valley, then Syria is supporting terrorism. If there are still Hamas and Hezballah offices in Demascus, they are supporting terrorism. Same goes for Iran. Its not like Bush is going out on a limb here. If this is the new game of 'questioning' the presidents credibility every time he makes an obvious statement, shame on you. This is serious business and most of the left has already shown ample evidence that playing politics is more important to them.

John Moore

Whenever I see the Bush admin. comment on North Korea they say that it is not our problem, that it is a reginal problem. What about the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, why are they there if this is a regional problem?

Here is a link to the story: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3127574.
I see nothing in it to sustantiate the claim. I don't think it is wise to make such charges without saying what they are based on, it just makes the U.S. look more paranoid and isolated to the rest of the world.

The main homebase of the terrorist is Saudi Arabia, yet they are never mentioned as supporting terrorists by Bush directly. And the U.S. continues to do nothing about reducing imports of oil from Saudi Arabia. It is ironic that the most visous terrorists in the world are supported by oil money from Saudi Arabia which they make off of oil exported the the U.S.

Responding to Dream (his comments in italics):

The world is a lot more complex than many seem to think. You write:

Whenever I see the Bush admin. comment on North Korea they say that it is not our problem, that it is a reginal problem. What about the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, why are they there if this is a regional problem?

The reason is that the nuclearization of North Korea directly affects its four neighbors: South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. Furthermore, without the support of those neighbors, the ability of the US to deal with the problem is significantly decreased. China is the chief "sponsor" of North Korea and in the past has said that it would defend the Norks from attack.

Consider the regional consequences of a nuclear-missile armed Korea: Japan will probably launch a crash program to build offensive nuclear missiles. They already have huge amounts of plutonium; South Korea will revive their program and will do the same. Most likely, this would lead to nuclearization by Vietnam and Taiwan. We then end up with a multipolar nuclearized east Asia, something that is not in the interests of many of the parties - especially China - we hope. So it IS a regional problem.

But Bush never said that it is not our problem. He has simply insisted on multilateral talks and the shouldering of responsibility by the regional powers in addition to our (major) contribution.

As far as our 37,000 troops, they are there because the US has long been the protector of South Korea. In retrospect, it might be better if we had pushed South Korea a little harder (like we are doing now by moving our troops away from the DMZ), so that they would take responsibility for their northern neighbor rather than burying their heads in the sand, bribing that neighbor, and lying to their people about it.

East Asia is one of the most important strategic regions in the world (probably rivaled only by the Persian Gulf) to the United States. Hence we have troops and bases in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska.

The only reason we could give a fig about North Korea is their impact on the rest of the region, their plan to develop nuclear tipped ICBM's, and their stated intention to sell nuclear weapons [implicitly, to terrorists]. In fact, only the later makes it a true crisis of major proportions.

Here is a link to the story: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3127574.

Thanks for looking it up, but I already found one.


I see nothing in it to sustantiate the claim. I don't think it is wise to make such charges without saying what they are based on, it just makes the U.S. look more paranoid and isolated to the rest of the world.

You see nothing to substantiate the claim? Didn't you read Mark's post? The claims are so obviously true that Bush doesn't need to repeatedly substantiate them. Syria provides a large area of Lebanon (which is under Syrian military occupation) to Hezbollah, which is funded by Iran. How's that for a little info. Oh, and until 9-11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than all other middle eastern terrorist groups put together. Just Hezbollah is enough to make the claims obviously true. Good luck finding anyone responsible to dispute the facts I just laid out!


The main homebase of the terrorist is Saudi Arabia, yet they are never mentioned as supporting terrorists by Bush directly.

The main ideological heart of Al Quaeda is Saudi Arabian Wahabism. The major spreader of the Wahabi cult is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has also funded anti-Israeli terrorists, and Saudi individuals have and probably do fund Al Quaeda.

But Saudi Arabia is neither the main base of terror or the most active one. Iran has long been considered by the US to be the most significant terrorist state, until Afghanistan, which we have taken care of.

However, Saudi Arabia is receiving significant pressure from the Bush administration. Is it enough? I don't know. Would I like to see the place cleaned out? Of course, as would the Bush administration. Are there complicating factors? You betcha, with oil being an important one.

And the U.S. continues to do nothing about reducing imports of oil from Saudi Arabia. It is ironic that the most visous terrorists in the world are supported by oil money from Saudi Arabia which they make off of oil exported the the U.S.

Oil is a fungible commodity. That means it doesn't come with a "Made in XXX" stamp on it. We import little of our oil directly from Saudi Arabia. The most important role of Saudi Arabia in the oil world is smoothing out spikes in supply and demand, because they have vast excess capacity beyond their average deliveries.

If you have a problem with oil in Saudi Arabia, take it up with Allah! We didn't put the oil there.

Of course, by improving Iraq's oil industry, we can reduce Saudi Arabia's influence. Iraq has huge oil resources, almost rivaling the Saudis... they just don't have the capacity to deliver it.

So perhaps you should cheer our conquest of Iraq and its future conversion, hopefully, to a free market democracy. It will reduce our "dependence" on Saudi oil, even though that was not even as high as #3 on the reasons to attack it.

As far as reducing dependence on oil in general, that is a much more complex and difficult topic. Suffice it to say that, if we had 100% agreement in the US on a solution, and were willing to suffer through 20 years of economic disruption and recession, and were willing to drill in all the prohibited areas (mostly the continental shelf), we could significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I say this as an engineer who has looked a bit at the economics and capacities of alternative energy and transportation systems. Even so, none of that would solve the current crisis.

Once again, since you failed to answer before, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO ALL OF THIS?

What would you do about North Korea? Iraq? Iran (rapidly nuclearizing, with the second-highest official in the land claiming that nuking Israel would be a good thing because there are so many Muslims that the inevitable response would anhilate the Jews and enough Muslims would survive for a victory http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000146.html )? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia?

I'm holding my breath!

John Moore

First of all, I appreciate your informative response.

But, the only way that North Korea could have developed a nuclear weapons program in the first place is through the support of China. So how then is the U.S. expecting the Chinese government stop North Korea from developing the weapons which they supported and support them developing.

I think it is not possible to keep nations such as Iran, Syria, or North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, if they feel they have a need for such weapons. The best thing the U.S. could do is reduce the tension in the Mideast and Asia by developing a realistic foreign policy. By threatening nations with war at every opportunity, the U.S. is provoking the development and spread of nuclear weapons.

The U.S. should stop supporting the communist, totalitarian government of China. I know it would not be in the U.S. interest to cut all ties immediately, but the U.S. should pressure China much more by supporting the democratic movements in that nation.

By having a foreign policy which supports governments such as Saudi Arabia and China. Both of which have terrible human rights records, the signals that are sent to the rest of the world are that the U.S. cares less about human rights than it does about money and power. Therefore, nations such as Saudi Arabia and China will do little to improve their human rights record, but will do all they can to pump money into the U.S. election campaign because they now that is what really matters to U.S. "leaders".

They will also continue to pursue proxy wars to achieve their militaristic objectives. Saudi Arabia has an interest in controlling the Mideast and China has an interest in controlling Asia, they both know they cannot do it directly but they can indirectly by providing support to terrorists and rogue governments such as North Korea.

The U.S. should have reduced its dependence on oil over 20 years ago right after the OPEC crisis. So by now 20+ years later there would be minimal oil imports from the Mideast, but instead there is more then ever. Thats an example of the current short sighted foreign policy. By giving China "Most Favorite Trade Nation" status is that another sign of a short sighted foreign policy?

Mark Buehner wrote:

"Its not particularly difficult to determine whether these two countries are supporting terrorism. Syria still holds most of Lebanon. If there are still terrorist camps in the Bakaa Valley, then Syria is supporting terrorism. If there are still Hamas and Hezballah offices in Demascus, they are supporting terrorism."

The U.S. holds most of Iraq and Afganistan does that also mean that if there are terrorist camps in those nations that U.S. supports terrorism?

You raise interesting points. Yes, China did not prevent nuke development in North Korea. However, most of the aid to NK was from Pakistan in exchange for missile exports to Pakistan. China hopefully now feels differently about the consequences of a nuclear NK. If not, part of US policy should be to change their minds, by hurting them economically, ramping up support for Taiwan (which is the only international issue the Chinese are truly irrational about), and reminding China of the consequences of a nuclear Japan. I suspect that is what some of these talks are about.

However, it may not work.

It is possible to keep those nations from developing nukes. The question is how, and at what cost. You say:

"By threatening nations with war at every opportunity, the U.S. is provoking the development and spread of nuclear weapons.

and suggest that we should "reduce tensions."

Unfortunately, this just isn't true. Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea and others (Brazil, South Africa) started their nuclear weapons programs while we were not threatening them with war, and with the exception of the last two nations, have kept the programs going every since.

Iraq got its reactor (for which the only realistic use was nuclear weapons) in the early '80s from the French! Fortunately the Israelis destroyed it.

The United States ignored North Korea under the Clinton administration UNTIL the Norks started producing plutonium. At that point, rather than threatening war, we payed them huge amounts in terms of new nuclear reactors, food and oil. They continued their nuclear program (with enriched uranium, which they thought we wouldn't detect).

We have only recently started threatening nations, and that was because WE WERE ATTACKED. That woke up many people who before had believed as you do: that peace and love and reducing tension will keep us safe. It didn't work for Israel, and on 9/11 we found out it didn't work for us.

I would not say that the US supports the government of China, although again Clinton was very close to them. We do, however, have to live with the fact that China has a huge population, a huge economy, the world's largest army, and most importantly, a number of nuclear armed ICBM's which can hit the united states. Thus we have no choice but to deal with them (just as we had no choice but to deal with the USSR).

I think US foreign policy with regards to Saudi Arabia has indeed been foolish. Once we discovered the Wahabi-Al Quaeda axis (which was first shown in the 1993 bombing of the world trade center), we should have started cracking down on them. We didn't. I hope that Bush does now, but again this is hard to do. If we just ignore them, they can do just fine without us. So it is not clear exactly how we can hurt them, short of invasion (you don't want that, do you)? Most of their oil goes to Europe and Japan, not us!

There has long been a debate in foreign policy betweek RealPolitik (as practiced by George Bush Sr, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon) and "moral" foreign policy, which Clinton selectively attempted in a few places (Kosovo). It is clear that different approaches are appropriate for different times and fiferent countries and different adversaries.

The US cares most, after 9-11, about survival, not money. As far as power, we are amazingly non-imperialistic given the power we have. But we need power to defend ourselves, and that is what we are doing.

BTW... Saudi Arabia has little interest in controlling the Middle East. Saddam and Iran had/have that interest. Saudi Arabia's rulers just want to enjoy their money and be left alone. The Saudi Wahabis, with whom the leaders struck a devils bargain many decades ago, however, want to control THE WHOLE WORLD. More specifically, they want to convert the world to Islam and are willing to sacrifice billions of people, theirs and ours, if that is what it takes.

That willingness, combined with the potential availability of weapons of mass destruction, is what makes this particular time in history so dangerous. It is also why there are no simple answers (one can destroy Iraq's WMD's and Baathists, but what do you do about North Korea's possibly underground nukes?).

As far as how we should have reduced our dependence 20 years ago... hey, we tried. That stupid 55 mph speed limit was in effect for almost 30 years! Cars get vastly better mileage than they did then (at a cost of about 3000 lives per year - the same as the World Trade Center death count).

"Most Favored Nation" trade status for China just means that we trade with them the same as we trade with everyone other than a few rogue states. I really don't know if that is correct policy or not - the issues are far more complex than have been alluded to here, and divining the consequences of alternatives are very difficult.

China indeed wants to be the East Asian hegemon, but they screwed up big time by making India into an antagonist, since India is also armed with nuclear missiles and is huge. But I don't see how a nuclear armed North Korea further's China's hegemonic ambitions. Could you please elucidate?


I am still waiting for a solution to the North Korean crisis from you. Lessening tensions DOES NOT WORK (demonstrably over 50 years) in that situation. In a few years, that looney regime will have the capability to kill millions of Americans with nuclear missiles, and then they can sell as much plutonium as they want to Al Qaeda. Given that their total LEGAL foreign exports are only $750,000,000 per year, they have a strong incentive to sell things on the black market!

So... what do you do now?

What do you do about Iranian sponsorship of Hizballah?

What do you do about Syria's creation of a terrorist breeding ground in South Lebanon, where Hizballah runs the government and allows in almost every other terrorist group for cross-training, etc, and where Hizballah haz 10,000 short and mediuim range missiles, some with chemical warheads, aimed at Israel?

Dream,

Regarding Syria supporting terrorism...

Syria is a totalitarian police state which controls the Bakaa Valley (and all of Lebanon). Nothing happens in Syria without their consent. So yes, the fact that Syria controls the territory in which the terrorists operate means that Syria supports terrorism.

You are not doing yourself any good by contending that point! Everybody knows that Syria supports terrorism. The offices of many of the worst terrorist groups are in Damascus. Syria is waging a proxy war against Israel, having failed in 3 actual wars to conquer them. They are doing so through terrorists, although Hizballah is primarily controlled and funded by Iran, but operates its anti-Israeli operations (as opposed to anti-US operations) in Syria.

These are facts. Simple, clear facts that have been all over the news for many years!

Your comparison of the US control of Iraq to Syrian control of Lebanon is a cheap rhetorical trick. Were the control (or partial control) of territory the only consideration, it might make sense. But they aren't, and it doesn't!

John Moore

Syria and Lebanon are on Israel's border, they are not a direct threat to the U.S. Israel at this point can defend itself, if Israel has not bombed Lebanon and Syria why should the U.S. be worried?

Hizballah has been in Lebanon for a long time before the attacks of 9/11. They are not very pleasant but neither are the Chinese, Pakistani, and Saudi Arabian governments. It may not be easy for Syria to change their policy with respect to Hizballah and Lebanon just as it is difficult for the U.S. to change its policy with respect to China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. I'm sure its a complicated situation that will take time to resolve. It is not realistic for the U.S. to expect overnight change, but there should be pressure applied.

There should be a policy of dealing with nations that support "terrorists" but that should not necessarily mean that the U.S. will send in its military. The military should only be used if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies and/or there is no other diplomatic/economic way to deal with the situation.

The attack on Afghanistan was fully justified, since the Taliban was a direct threat to the U.S. and its allies. The attack on Iraq was not justified, because there was no direct or imminent threat from Iraq, and Iraq was being dealt with by the U.N.

The policy of the U.S. should be clear and simple. If the U.S. is threatened or attacked the consequences will be extremely severe. As they were in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

North Korea should be sent clear and simple message that if nuclear weapons are in their possession they will be destroyed. North Korea cannot be allowed to posses nuclear weapons since their government cannot be trusted with not using and/or spreading them to other nations or terrorists organizations.

China should also be sent a simple message that they should join the U.S. in removing any nuclear capability from North Korea, if they want to continue doing business with the U.S. and being an "ally." It should be a joint mission between China and the U.S. taking out North Korea's nuclear capability.

As for why China supported North Korea's nuclear development, they may want North Korea to start a war with the South and Japan in-order to improve their economic and political position in Asia. Or they might not be the great ally of the U.S. that this admin. thinks says they are.

I know its only a Dream.

John Moore

Please take a look at the following article http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-21-intel-usat_x.htm

Please note how the Bush administration delayed the report and blocked info about Saudi Arabia from appearing in the report.

It seems the Bush admin. is serious about fighting terrorism when they are dealing with weak/poor nations such as Afganistan and Iraq, but when it comes to richer nations they are very cautious. Do you remember how Kuwait was supposed to become a democracy after the 91' Gulf war. Whatever happened to that?

Okay... here is the new thinking that is so important and that was highlighted by 9-11:

...There now exist small, portable weapons that can kill large numbers of people. Most notable are chemical, biological and nuclear. Each has different strategic issues. This is not new, although their proliferation is in some areas.

...There exist rogue regimes that are seeking or may have these kinds of weapons. The possession of these ultimately cannot be stopped without a regime change. The reason is that these weapons can be manufactured and stored secretly. nspections cannot be carried out effectively in such an environment, and these dictatorships would not allow adequately intrusive inspections because of the impact on their society and hence their hold on power.

The easiest WMD's to make are chemical. Next are biological (which have a number of drawbacks). The hardest to make, and the most important in most scenarios are nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons by rogue regimes is unprecedented.

...There exists a broad, ill-defined Islamofascist movement which seeks to destroy the west or to force, by violence, the conversion of the rest of the world (especially the west) to fundamentalist Islam (Taliban/Wahabi style). This is not unprecedented, although the movement has grown. This is largely because of the failure of Muslim, especially Arab and Persian regimes to provide freedom, security and prosperity for their people. It is also encouraged by the old ploy used by middle-eastern tyrants: spread hatred and fear of outsiders (or infidels or jews in particular) in order to distract the populate from internal problems.

These Islamofascist groups are willing to use suicidal attackers, perform any atrocity, kill any number of people (did you check my Rafsanjani reference?), and use any means possible to achieve their goal. This is relatively new in the terrorist environment, since in the past the main international terrorist movement was Palestinian, which had specific political goals and was subject to deterrence.

The combination of rogue states with nukes and suicidal terrorist cults is ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED in the experience of mankind. This is why I keep saying that a new kind of thinking is required.

This combination represents a terrible threat to all of civilization. It represents a terrible threat to all westerners. It cannot be appeased. It doesn't matter how peaceful we are with the people of the middle east. We are dealing with a vicious religious cult with global aims.

Most important, it cannot be ignored. The threat is too great. The US IS THREATENED. These people are a direct threat to the US. They tell us so all the time, and they told us so before 9-11, but we didn't listen.

Now we need to listen. We must do all we can to prevent WMD's from falling into their hands. We must do all we can to destroy the environment that created this madness.

I have been saying for two years that we are now in World War IV, and we are likely to require mobilizations, security precautions and probably casualties on a scale reminiscent of World War II, except that a lot more of OUR casualties will be our civilians in our cities.

You say:
The policy of the U.S. should be clear and simple. If the U.S. is threatened or attacked the consequences will be extremely severe. As they were in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan."

That policy led to 9-11. It didn't work. Furthermore, as WMD's spread to more countries, it becomesThis is why the doctrine of pre-emptive war (hardly original with us, by the way) is so important. We have to do our best to stop our attackers before they attack.

Do not doubt: We Are At War. This isn't your little terrorist problem of the old days. It isn't a typical geopolitical problem. It is a threat of the greatest magnitude, probably greater than that at the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it is here, now.

You say:
North Korea should be sent clear and simple message that if nuclear weapons are in their possession they will be destroyed. North Korea cannot be allowed to posses nuclear weapons since their government cannot be trusted with not using and/or spreading them to other nations or terrorists organizations.

How do you propose to do this? Many of those weapons may be hundreds of feet underground in unknown locations. Shall we use ground burst nukes? They might work, but would cause massive fallout. I believe we should have destroyed the plutonium-laden fuel rods before they were squirreled away - the minute the IAEA cameras were removed, but we didn't. That mistake is on Bush IMHO.

Now, we can squawk all we want. The question is: what do we do if they ignore us. You say we will destroy their weapons. I agree that we should do so. Are you willing to pay the price? I think it will require a total occupation of that country (preferrably by the South Koreans) just to find the things. As I said before, I don't think we can meet their blackmail (even if I thought we should) and be convinced that they are not continuing to develop or sell WMD's.

I agree that we need to get tougher with China. I hope we are doing so.

But if reports are to be believed, the Norks may already have nukes that they may already be selling. How long do we wait for the Chinese to act? So far, they have been far from helpful.

This administration hardly considers China a great ally. It was Clinton who considered them an ally (and a great source of campaign funds). This administration recognizes China for what it is: a giant country, with a corrupt, repressive and somewhat incompetent government, with serious internal problems, with nuclear ICBMs, and with imperial ambitions. Like I said before... figuring out what will actually produce the desired behavior on the part of the Chinese is difficult.

As far has China hoping that North Korea would start a war with their nukes... this would be an economic catastrophe for the world, and especially Japan and China. The Chinese government already has serious internal problems, including vast economic disparities between regions, hundreds of millions (!!) unemployed, whille those in favored provinces live relatively well, and an implied social contract to deliver prosperity to their people. Such a war is likely to lead to the collapse into anarchy of China - hardly an outcome they desire.

Remember this: dictators like those who run China, North Korea, Cuba, and formerly the USSR have one primary issue: their personal safety and the continuance of their rule and their associated perks. All of their actions need to be viewed with this in mind. But they also tend to be highly egocentric, or in the case of Saddam, Kim Jong Il and Stalin, malignant narcissists. People of this kind are monsters. They are evil. They will stop at nothing. They have no conscience, but they have an insatiable desire to be praised and worshipped.
This also plays into their decision making.

And yes, its only a dream.

I think the US will be extremely lucky not to have a major city nuked or gassed in the next 2 years. I expect such an event. I expected a major event before 9-11, although my estimate was for a biological attack (probably anthrax), not airliner cruise missiles.

It is human nature to not want to see threats as severe until they become personal or tie to personal experience. I think this makes it hard for Americans to recognize the danger of our current situation and the likelihood of catastrophic attack.

Dream,

You post:

t seems the Bush admin. is serious about fighting terrorism when they are dealing with weak/poor nations such as Afganistan and Iraq, but when it comes to richer nations they are very cautious. Do you remember how Kuwait was supposed to become a democracy after the 91' Gulf war. Whatever happened to that?

Why do you keep trying to oversimplify the situation. I don't have time to explain all the complexities of which I am aware, and I'm an amateur at this stuff.

You take a very complex situation (relationship with Saudi Arabia) and boil it down to "we're serious with poor nations and caution with richer ones." That's just ridiculous. It is looking at a many dimensional situation in a one dimensional way.

It would also help if the facts were correct. Iraq is and was not a poor nation. It has the second largest oil reserves in the middle east! Saudi Arabia is no longer a rich nation - it has squandered its wealth, it has huge unemployment and huge debts.

Please don't use this Marxist excuse for reasoning. It is just too simplistic.

Gotta go. I have a crash project I am working on, and can't spend all my time blogging. Also, my dinner is ready.

I don't even have time to preview and edit my comments.

Cheers.

John

North Korea has joined the MAD alliance. I’ll bet the administration has informed NK of that fact. I would guess any nuclear detonation on American soil would define NK last day on earth.

John

I know I am being overly simplistic, but I am trying to point out the hypocracy of the Bush administation. Anyways thanks for your informative responses. And I hope our intelligence and deplomacy improves so we can avoid another 9/11.

Take care,

"None of the states in the middle east have any weapons capable of hitting the U.S. "

Seems like they had a few weapons capable of hitting the US on 9-11. All the people I saw dancing and celebrating the feats of Mssrs Atta et al on 9-12 were in the Mid East not North Korea.

Dream,
You are trying to prove a hypocrisy that probably doesn't exist. Being overly simplistic doesn't do the job.

I would suggest that you come to the situation with your mind already made up. Something like:

Bus...Oil...Saudi Arabia... Ah Ha.

It takes a lot more than that!

But you are right about some of our weaknesses, and we do need to do better.

We are not going to avoid another 9-11. There will be a much worse one pretty soon, if the nukes get out. If not, expect more, but less lethal attacks - anthrax spores released into shopping centers or other crowded areas, truck bombs (did you know the 1993 WTCtruck bomb was laced with cyanide, which fortunately was destroyed by the explosion?), suicide bombers, etc.

We may not win. We certainly aren't trying hard enough. We are in for some very dangerous times, and a lot of innocent people are going to die. Hopefully most of them will not be our citizens!

Dream said: "Syria and Lebanon are on Israel's border, they are not a direct threat to the U.S. Israel at this point can defend itself, if Israel has not bombed Lebanon and Syria why should the U.S. be worried? "

Afghanistan is about as far away and remote from New York City as you can get on the globe. And yet 3000+ people paid with their lives for us ignoring their little terrorist training wonderland. Not a direct threat eh? Were you thinking the same thing when Clinton tried to Tomahawk Bin Laden the first time? Terrorism and terrorist training cannot be allowed to go unchecked anywhere or it is a threat everywhere. How could you have missed that lesson?

Mark - Dream had a dream in a dream. He woke and splooged. Excuse him. Let him dream on.

Mark Buehner

It is not possible for the U.S. to militarily eliminate all terrorists from the face of the Earth. In the case of the Tailiban and Al Qaeda there was plenty of intelligence pointing to the fact that they were a threat to the U.S. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S. embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole prior to attacks on the WTC. They should have been declared an enemy long before and should have been dealt with. It now looks like mistakes in intelligence and strategy lead to the attacks on the WTC. Hopefully, those mistakes have now been addressed and future attacks will be much more difficult.

If there are other terror groups or nations out there with the intent of attacking U.S. interests or its allies, an alliance of U.N. or NATO should be formed to deal with them; but, the case should be made first. Also it should be know that any state which harbors terrorists will be dealt with severely for the actions of the terror groups within that state.

Hezbollah has been nearly as provacative to Americans as Al Quada ever was (in fact before 9/11 they had killed more Americans than any other organization). Hezbollah is nurtured in Syria and funded in Iran according to every intelligence agency on earth. Heck, they admit it. By the standards you just stated, Syria and Iran are our enemies.


"Also it should be know that any state which harbors terrorists will be dealt with severely for the actions of the terror groups within that state."

So what are we arguing about?

Dream said: "In the case of the Tailiban and Al Qaeda there was plenty of intelligence pointing to the fact that they were a threat to the U.S. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S. embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole prior to attacks on the WTC. They should have been declared an enemy long before and should have been dealt with."

I agree. Now lets apply that to Syria and Iran.

Dream: "If there are other terror groups or nations out there with the intent of attacking U.S. interests or its allies, an alliance of U.N. or NATO should be formed to deal with them"

But what if they fail to act because one of their interests were at stake as in the case of France and Iraq? I guess we would have to go it alone, right?

USF, Mark

If a case is made that Syria and Iran harbor terrorists that are a threat to the U.S., allies, or world stability and all diplomatic non-military avenues are exhausted. Then I would support forming a coalition to deal with the situation preferably with NATO and U.N. backing.

In the case of France not supporting the U.S. stance on Iraq, I believe they wanted more time for U.N. weapons inspectors to do their job. If the U.S. had waited longer and/or made a better case, France and Germany would have joined the U.S., and it would be a lot easier on U.S. troops and the Iraqi people. Also it would be a lot easier with dealing with places like Syria and Iran.

I know you'll respond that we waited 12 years, in that case why couldn't we wait 6 to 12 more months and have had a strong coalition to deal with Saddam and other terrorist groups. U.S. troops were sent in in such a hurry that their were initially logistical problems.

The U.S. needs to form coalitions to deal with global terrorism. It is not possible to win this war alone. A strong case and a solid policy needs to be in-place before military action. Intelligence needs to be improved, if not for poor intelligence there would have been no WTC.

Theoretical question Dream. What if we find that some given nation is supporting and harboring terrorism, but despite an infinite amount of diplomacy we cant gain UN or Nato approval. Theoretically, are we then bound to live with that threat, or have we other recourse?

Dream: RE case for Iranian and Syrian involvement in terrorism... allies etc.

Syria and terrorists:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/syria.html

Syria shows no sign of ejecting terrorists:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/wbomb204.xml

Iran and terrorists:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iran.html

U.S. says Iran knowingly harboring al Qaeda
(Iran denies that it has Saif al-Adel)
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/28/iran.alqaeda/

Iranians finally fess up and admit he is there, and they captured him! Guess what? They wanted to trade him for senior leaders of an anti-Iranian terrorist group called Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK).
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/27/1053801392866.html

Israel is an ally. The continuation of terror in the middle east and the unresolved Palestinain issue (due to the fact that the Islamofacist swine will not stop supporting the terrorists that kill innocent people) has a major effect on global security.

I hear what you are trying to say, and admit that the way you describe is preferable, but Im not optimistic that it will always be possible. I too would like to see a united front in that war against terror but other countries sometimes put priorities on short term interests that conflict with the long term one of defeating global terror.

As for the French coming around... Youre right about my response. Youre way more optimistic than I was about that.

Wonderful posts John.

Regarding the French, I seem to remember Chirac saying that under no circumstances would he support a UN resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq.

But
In the case of France, there was no morality issue. Chirac's primary concern was the revenues France was enjoying from Saddam Hussein's continued leadership of Iraq.
Chirac could care less about the atrocities Saddam & Sons were inflicting on their own people nor about the threat they posed for the west.
I suppose he feels safe within the EU collective and rests assured that by the very nature of the U.S., we will, as has always been the case, rescue France from any sour fruits of their mistakes.

ACtually, Chirac said there were no circumstances he knew of at this time.

Or so he claims now.

Dream wrote,
"I think it is not possible to keep nations such as Iran, Syria, or North Korea from developing nuclear weapons, if they feel they have a need for such weapons. The best thing the U.S. could do is reduce the tension in the Mideast and Asia by developing a realistic foreign policy. By threatening nations with war at every opportunity, the U.S. is provoking the development and spread of nuclear weapons."

What exactly is a 'Realisitc Foreign Policy.' If America decided to NOT pressure these countries with the threat of War or War-like Activity, then what would America have left to do to stop the Countries from creating Nukes?

If America did nothing, they'd make Nukes. If America decides to do 'Something' then perhaps they won't have Nukes?

I mean you have to be optimistic about the world. You can't assume that North Korea along with Syria and Iran are all going Nuclear and there is no way to stop it. It is pure, unrational, thinking. Certainly if America gave them a reason to believe it is not in their best interests to go Nuclear then they won't.

If we can convince them! But how do you convince them? Verbally assault them? I don't think words do anything. Howard Dean loves words, but I love action. Actions speak louder than words.

Have no friends not equal to yourself.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: