View Full Version : A good read...
PaceAdvantage
05-09-2005, 06:55 PM
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson050605.html
What would an administration advised by Madeline Albright, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Jamie Rubin, Nancy Pelosi, or Jimmy Carter do if Iran sent a nuke into Israel, or North Korea fired a series of missiles over the top of Japan?
Or, if al Qaeda, operating from a sanctuary in Iran or Syria, took out the Sears Tower, how would a Kennedy, Kerry, or Gore respond? Six cruise missiles? A police matter? Proper work for the DA? Better "intelligence"? Let's work with our allies? Get the U.N. involved?
Whatever we think of George Bush, we know he would do something real — and just what that something might be frightens into hesitation — and yes, fear — many of those who would otherwise like to try something pretty awful.
But if you listen to Dr. Dean and his class venom, it hardly seems comparable with how he lives or how he was brought up. John Kerry's super power boat, Teresa Kerry's numerous mansions, Arianna Huffington's gated estate, George Soros's jet, Ted Turner's ranches, Sean Penn's digs — all this and more, whether fairly or unfairly, suggest hypocrisy and insincerity: Something like, "High taxes, government regulation, racial quotas, and more entitlements won't hurt me since I have so much money at my own disposal anyway, but will at least make me feel good that we are transferring capital to the less fortunate."
Worse yet, such easy largess and the cost of caring often translate into contempt for the small businessman, entrepreneur, and salesperson who is supposedly illiberal because he worries that he has less disposable income and is less secure. And when you add in cracks about Wal-Mart, McDonald's, and the "Christian Right" — all the things the more cultured avoid — then the architects of a supposedly populist party seem to be ignorant of their own constituencies.
Secretariat
05-09-2005, 07:05 PM
I wasn't familiar with this guy. This is all I could find.
HTTP://WWW.AMNATION.COM/VFR/ARCHIVES/002638.HTML
HANSON ABANDONS NEOCON WAR POLICY
Victor Hanson, the triumphalist champion of neocon wars for democracy, seems to have turned away from the neoconservative view to embrace positions long advocated at this website. In his weekly article at NRO, he urges that the United States: (1) give up on democratic nation-building as a policy; (2) adopt the alternative strategy (put forward by Andrew Bacevich and Mark Helprin and frequently discussed favorably by me) of controlling errant Muslim regimes by threatening to punish them and then punishing them, instead of taking them over and trying to re-create them in our preferred image; (3) shun the Muslim world if it rejects all our efforts on their behalf; (4) cut off aid to Egypt and other dictatorial and hostile Muslim regimes; (5) stop most immigration of Muslims into this country.
(In connection with Hanson's turnabout, we should also remember George Will's recent rejection of the neocons.)
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson050605.html
What would an administration advised by Madeline Albright, Barbara Boxer, Joe Biden, Jamie Rubin, Nancy Pelosi, or Jimmy Carter do if Iran sent a nuke into Israel, or North Korea fired a series of missiles over the top of Japan?
You forget we took care of Milshoveck with none of the angst we're experincing with Bush/Hussien.......
Dare I remind you, N. Korea and Iran did not Develop Nuke's with Democrats at the wheel. They've done all this on his watch. Might I also add... They attcked the US while he was president.
Nothing said is logical. They attacked us WHEN he was president. No one disputes the evidence was there to stop the attack.
Where and exactly how do you surmise that Bush is the Security President? Did'nt he read a childrens book for 7 minutes after finding out the country was attacked.
So much of what is said is so illogical. On September 10th 2001 was the time for Geroge Bush to be the security president. He failed.
Whats up is down, what's down is up. The Country experience's its worst attack in Modern times and The guy who was in charge of keeping the watch got caught with his pants down, then acted non-chalant upon the news.....and somehow , someway...he's convinced you that he's a the Security President. Are you guys Drunk?
If I asked you to hold $100 dollars and you lost it....would I call you my Banker friend? LOL>... Really. Think about.
JustRalph
05-09-2005, 08:18 PM
Dare I remind you, N. Korea and Iran did not Develop Nuke's with Democrats at the wheel. They've done all this on his watch. Might I also add... They attcked the US while he was president.
Wait a minute........that is not true.........see these notes from Meet the press last week
Sunday, May 1, 2005 11:39 a.m. EDT
Card: North Korea Got Nukes on Clinton's Watch
White House chief of staff Andrew Card fired back at New York Sen. Hillary Clinton on Sunday, pointing out that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il obtained his first nuclear weapon while her husband was president.
After citing Mrs. Clinton's claim Friday that Pyongyang developed a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. during the Bush administration, NBC's "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked Card: "Could it be said that President Bush was so focused on Iraq that another far greater threat emerged - and that six nuclear bombs were developed by North Korea on his watch?"
Card shot back:
"Or on President Clinton's watch. Some of those weapons may well have been produced as they were violating the agreement they had with President Clinton. That's what a North Korean delegation said to an American diplomat. And they said it with great pride."
On Friday, Mrs. Clinton blamed the Bush administration for not stopping Pyongyang as it perfected its ability to strike the U.S. with ICBMs.
"They couldn't do that when George Bush became president, and now they can," she told the New York Times.
In fact, two years before her husband left office, a Congressional study warned that North Korea would soon gain the capacity to make nuclear bombs thanks to the plutonium produced by two light water nuclear reactors given to Pyongyang by the Clinton administration.
The report by the House North Korea Advisory Group also flatly stated: "Unlike five years ago [before the Clinton administration's Agreed Framework was implemented], North Korea can now strike the United States with a missile that could deliver high explosive, chemical, biological, or possibly nuclear weapons."
Wait a minute........that is not true.........see these notes from Meet the press last week
Sunday, May 1, 2005 11:39 a.m. EDT
Card: North Korea Got Nukes on Clinton's Watch
Card shot back:
"Or on President Clinton's watch. Some of those weapons may well have been produced as they were violating the agreement they had with President Clinton. That's what a North Korean delegation said to an American diplomat. And they said it with great pride."
."
#1 "May have"
#2, If he did, it was 1. And it wasn't intercontinental
#3 You need "hard water" reactors to make bombs.
#4 This guy Card is from Massachusetts and you can't trust them Bastards.
"Dare I remind you, N. Korea and Iran did not Develop Nuke's with Democrats at the wheel. They've done all this on his watch. Might I also add... They attcked the US while he was president."
1. They were being developed long bereo Bush took office.
2. They atacked the USA several times during Clinton's watch - WTC, Army barracks, the Blackhawk down incident, Embassies, and the USS Cole.
Equineer
05-10-2005, 12:15 AM
I recently had a fascinating conversation with an old friend, a published spy thriller novelist who has sketched out a bizarre yet plausible plot outline for consideration by his publisher. He certainly caused me to wonder about how we think about nuclear terror, and who might conceivably become culpably involved in such an atrocity.
Without giving away what he really has in mind, which is exquisitely bizarre, let's take a contrarian view of where things stand.
Do many Americans really think nations like Iran and N. Korea harbor pipe dreams of initiating a nuclear war with America? The only nations with substantial nuclear arsenals are America, Russia, China, France, Great Britain, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Of these, none except Russia has a nuclear arsenal that approaches even five percent (5%) of America's arsenal.
In any case, a nuclear terrorist attack is a manyfold more plausible scenario to worry about than nuclear war. Our own National Intelligence Council stated in 2004 that a nuclear war is now less probable than at any time since 1950. However, conflicts in national agendas are such that a rogue nuclear device might make its way into terrorist hands through many channels, not all of them obvious or straightforward.
It may even be that the United States is no longer the most logical direct target for a nuclear terror attack.
Speculation about nuclear terror has been a recurring media topic since 9/11. It is questionable, however, whether media scenarios for nuclear terror have evolved in response to dramatic changes in circumstances since 9/11. The long-range goals of the terrorists remain intact, but the intersection between terror strategy and global politics may have moved outside the boundaries of nuclear scenarios typically portrayed in the U.S. media, which seem to assume little has changed since 9/11.
The metaphor of theater has always been applicable to acts of terror, and modern terrorists play to a global audience of billions via 24/365 media coverage. Terror strategists try to calculate the worldwide consequences of major attacks by considering potential reactions within several different audiences, each of which includes three target sectors: news media, general public, and government decision makers. These three target sectors are sometimes called the Triangle of Political Communication for terrorist movements.
Moreover, threat experts understand that bin Laden and other terrorist leaders view major attacks as calculated messages. In fact, "making speeches" and "sending messages" are consistently the most literal translation of bin Laden's own words to describe carrying out terror attacks.
As things stand today, the terrorists have enjoyed so much success that their strategy may be impacted as much by success as it is by their hatred of U.S. foreign policy and American culture. Worldwide anti-American sentiment has reached unprecedented proportions. Indeed, between 9/11 and today, we have witnessed an astonishing reversal in worldwide sentiment towards America.
Ironically, widespread anti-American sentiment may have become a deterrent to a nuclear terror attack on American soil. Terror strategists must know that such an attack would instantly reset worldwide sentiment back to 9/11, thereby squandering all the success that Bush has handed to them.
Some threat experts are quietly concerned that a viable terror strategy would be an attempt to blame America for a nuclear holocaust on foreign soil. In this scenario, the target might well be a foreign population adjacent to one of our strategic foreign military bases. Compared to successfully attacking America directly, a foreign target could be far more vulnerable, and a foreign targeting strategy could facilitate the acquisition of a rogue nuclear device by the terrorists.
Thus, whereas a nuclear holocaust in Boston would reverse the tide of global anti-American sentiment, a foreign holocaust offers the potential to incite worldwide fear and panic while deflecting cause-and-effect blame towards America.
Notwithstanding our denials and scientific evidence to the contrary, a large portion of the world's population would be susceptible to propaganda alleging that an American nuclear device detonated by accident or through negligence. From yet another foreign perspective, many people could be persuaded to view the presence of U.S. military bases as a dangerous liability, and many foreign governments would come under increased pressure to expel American military forces.
It is conceivable that a calculating mind like bin Laden's might consider an Arab monarchy like Kuwait or an EU nation like Germany as better targets than America, considering all the ramifications of a nuclear terror attack. Of course, neither Kuwait nor Germany were mentioned by my friend (i.e., both too obvious), whose plot idea is really a bizarre tour through darkest alleys of international treachery and intrigue.
PaceAdvantage
05-10-2005, 01:07 AM
You guys and gals really are a funny lot. I mean, at least I can guarantee myself ONE laugh per day coming to the off-topic section.
Thank you!
"....published spy thriller novelist!!!!..." :lol: that's a good one VS!
And Suff, your simpleton conclusion about how it was Bush who failed us on 9/11!!! That's an oldie, but still a goodie!! Thank you for laugh #2!
Equineer
05-10-2005, 01:41 AM
Get a life PA... go earn yourself some Eclipse votes... a life of posting non sequitur trailers to my enlightened posts may give some readers the impression you are jealous or at least compulsively obsessed with me! :lol:
PaceAdvantage
05-10-2005, 01:45 AM
There was nothing non sequitur(d) about my last post to you. Read it again baby....
"Enlightened posts" = laugh #3 from this thread alone!! Now you're starting to sound like Derek2u/Kreed. But then again, you're one of his idols, so why am I not surprised....
BTW, care to meet up at Saratoga this year? An enlightened and well connected soul such as yourself should have no trouble getting away to the Spa....heck, you might be able to give a few of your fans your autograph if you're lucky (whether they ask for it or not!!)
"
[QUOTE]1. They were being developed long bereo Bush took office.
No. They were not.
2. They atacked the USA several times during Clinton's watch - WTC, Army barracks, the Blackhawk down incident, Embassies, and the USS Cole
Yes, and they were captured and brought to Justice.
Does no one else find it unsatisfactory that we've fought 2 wars, lost 1000's of soldiers, had 10's of thousands wounded, spent ourselves into generational debt, and we don't have Bin Laden?
lsbets
05-10-2005, 08:42 AM
Suff - do you remember Carter's trip to North Korea to get them to stop developing nukes? Happenned before Bush.
And I'm curious, who was captured and brought to justice after the attack on the USS Cole? Was Aidid captured and brought to justice after we turned tail and ran away from Somalia? What about the leaders who planned and financed the embasy attacks? Did we even go after them and try?
JustRalph
05-10-2005, 08:55 AM
No. They were not.
Come on Mike.....there is tons of proof that they were not only developed on Clinton's watch, they were advanced due to the deal that Clinton cut with them.
Suff - do you remember Carter's trip to North Korea to get them to stop developing nukes? Happenned before Bush.
And I'm curious, who was captured and brought to justice after the attack on the USS Cole? Was Aidid captured and brought to justice after we turned tail and ran away from Somalia? What about the leaders who planned and financed the embasy attacks? Did we even go after them and try?
What you are asking is did "all" the Attackers get caught or Killed?
No. But Many and most were, and certainly the attacks that took place on our soil were.
And what Bush supporters conistently keep avoiding is an "honest" look at where we are...
Even if I were concede that Korea advanced Thier Nuclear Program under Clinton? So What? So Damn what? The point.. The main point isn't that.
It's that you...ISBETS...and PA, and JUSTRALPH.... have told me and other on this board, That one of the REASONS or BENEFITS of Bush's presidential style is we've "RESTORED FEAR IN OUR ENEMEY!!!
That is such nonsense...False bravdao..Childish , comic book nonreality... Because North Korea Now.. RIGHT NOW has 6 missile's that we believe can reach the US...and even if I were to concede he had 1 or 2 or even 3.. under Clinton. If I were to use your logic.. he still should have 3 right? Because he's in "fear"..because George Bush has put the world on Notice right?
But we both know, he's ignored Bush. As has the World. World Leaders don't Fear George Bush. As a Matter of Fact they're ringing thier hands with Glee that such a BUFFOON is in charge of America. They are Arming up, and raping our economy while he stumbles along.
I Guess Iran did'nt get the message.. because they're nuking right along
and so is India, and so is Pakistan..
Who do you think is Buying this "George Bush has instilled Fear" mantra?
Yesterday PA posted an Opinion piece, that Contained no hard facts...But Implied that Middle East regimes are "teetering", and it credited this "teetering" on George Bush's hawkish stance. You can't have it both ways. Bush takes credits Syria's withdrawal, but blames who? For N. Korea Nuking up? Bill Clinton?
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.