Do you consider the ramp-up of Iran's nuclear program a success for the
Bush Administration's foreign policy? How about President Bush's
schmoozing with Vladimir Putin, asking him to not give (or sell,
actually) the Iranians any nuclear material, which they went ahead and
did anyway?


NOYB wrote:
Diplomacy would have done nothing to halt either action from taking place.

I didn't say 'diplomacy' I said 'foreign policy.' Neither President
Bush's soapy smile nor his saber-rattling have succeeded, unless you
have a very odd definition of 'success.'


Of course, he could have used Clinton-style diplomacy: send $4 billion
their way and *hope* that they stop (a la N. Korea).

Or he could have spent less, and simply bought the nuclear material from
Russia directly. Would have cost less. Of course, it wouldn't have
helped his campaign donors reap immense profits.

BTW if you're going to mention Clinton, you should also mention that his
policies *were* successful.



Last heard from, you were stamping your little feet and ranting that there
was no insurgency in Iraq. Has a brief cooling-off period allowed some
reality to sink in? Maybe I shouldn't mention it.


The attacks in Iraq are terrorist attacks committed by foreigners...

Really? You mean about 5% to 10% of them are committed by foreigners,
don't you?

... and not
a part of some large domestic insurgency.

Actually, a lot of it *is* terrorism, but then OTOH any attacks against
uniformed military personell are not terrorism, by definition. And
insurgency is defined as resistance to civil authority, nyet?

In other words, you are finally 'fessing up that you have no facts, so
you quibble over semantics. Thanks.

DSK