" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?



NOYB wrote:
I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same thing
about Iran: we needed a staging area.


For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq? Why didn't
President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that Saddam
reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a staging
area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he said?

In other words, your answer is 1- untrue 2- illogical 3- contrary to
what the Bush Administration has stated. I guess you must really hate
those rotten lying incompetent *******s!



By your own assertions, you've proved that Bush has not been fighting
terror effectively... and that he's buddying up to terrorist sponsoring
nations.


He's not "buddying up".


Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia?

... He's using them for whatever little help we can get
from them until the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on
terror.

Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan?

... It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.


You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and
announce it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on
Clinton's watch. So his policy by definition was effective. Meanwhile
how many billions has Bush spent on ineffective policy?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
" To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop
its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the
Middle East, and for other purposes. "

(Syria Accountability Act, May 2003)


I didn't forget it at all, I pointed out that the same situation has
existed in Syria since the 1980s. Why did Bush invade Iraq when Syria has
needed attention for such a long time?



NOYB wrote:
I'll give you the same answer that I gave you when you asked the same
thing about Iran: we needed a staging area.


For what? Why didn't we need a "staging area" to invade Iraq?

We already had *TWO*: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, we were
supposed to have Turkey also...but they backed out at the last
minute...which cost us the ability to cut off the Baghdad to Syria escape
route used by fleeing Baath officials (and Russian Spetsnatz hauling WMD).



Why didn't President Bush go to Congress and say, "Listen, we all know that
Saddam reeks and we got this UN resolution against him, plus we need a
staging area for further military adventures in the area." Is that what he
said?

You never play poker, do you?



He's not "buddying up".


Oh really? Not with Pakistan & Saudi Arabia?

No. We've made pretty strong demands on the Saudis and Pakistanis. We on
cordial terms with the rulers of both of those countries because we share a
common enemy: Islamic extremists.



... He's using them for whatever little help we can get from them until
the time is right to move on to the next phase in the war on terror.

Which will be when? They discover oil in Pakistan?


... It's no different from what any other president has ever done
(ie--Clinton using $4billion US dollars to buy false assurances from the
North Koreans). The difference, however, is that Bush is getting results
from the concessions.

You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.

Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave
them. They didn't develop them overnight.


So his policy by definition was effective.

Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing
their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective
policy.

You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.



NOYB wrote:
Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton gave
them. They didn't develop them overnight.


Not according to the inspectors.

Actually, there were some indications of duplicity by the North Koreans
during the '90s, but it was partially over missiles and partially over
material which the IAEA removed.

If North Korea developed nukes before, it was probably on Bush Sr's watch.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp


So his policy by definition was effective.


Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from announcing
their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's effective
policy.


???
Do you really believe this?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.



NOYB wrote:
Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton
gave them. They didn't develop them overnight.


Not according to the inspectors.

Actually, there were some indications of duplicity by the North Koreans
during the '90s, but it was partially over missiles and partially over
material which the IAEA removed.

If North Korea developed nukes before, it was probably on Bush Sr's watch.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp


So Clinton gave them the funding that they needed to further a nuke program
that was started years earlier?

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You seem to forget, the North Koreans did not build nukes... and announce
it to the world, while defying us to do anything about it... on Clinton's
watch.



NOYB wrote:
Horsepoop. They were building them all along using the money Clinton
gave them. They didn't develop them overnight.


Not according to the inspectors.

Actually, there were some indications of duplicity by the North Koreans
during the '90s, but it was partially over missiles and partially over
material which the IAEA removed.

If North Korea developed nukes before, it was probably on Bush Sr's watch.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp


So his policy by definition was effective.


Why was it effective? Because he paid them off to keep them from
announcing their nuke program until he left office? Yeah...sure...that's
effective policy.


???
Do you really believe this?


I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from pursuing
WMD. You obviously see nothing wrong with it...and neither do most members
of Congress.

From the Syria Accountability Act:


(c) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO SYRIA AND LEBANON- The President is
authorized to provide assistance to Syria and Lebanon under chapter 1 of
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.)
(relating to development assistance), if the President--

(1) makes the certification described in subsection (d);

(2) determines that substantial progress has been made in negotiations
aimed at achieving--

(A) a peace agreement between Israel and Syria; and

(B) a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon; and

(3) determines that the Government of Syria is strictly respecting the
sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of
Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon
through the Lebanese army throughout Lebanon, as required under paragraph
(4) of United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (1982).

(d) CERTIFICATION- The President shall transmit to the appropriate
congressional committees a certification of any determination made by the
President that--

(1) the Government of Syria does not--

(A) provide support for international terrorist groups; and

(B) allow terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine--General Command to maintain facilities in Syria;

(2) the Government of Syria has withdrawn all Syrian military,
intelligence, and other security personnel from Lebanon;

(3) the Government of Syria has ceased the development and deployment of
ballistic missiles and has ceased the development and production of
biological and chemical weapons; and

(4) the Government of Syria is no longer in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolution 661 or a subsequent relevant United Nations
resolution.

(This method of diplomacy *DOES NOT WORK*.)

NOYB wrote:
I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from pursuing
WMD.

But do you genuinely believe that Clinton paid the North Koreans to not
announce their development of nukes?


... You obviously see nothing wrong with it...

Actually, that depends on how it's done. Money (specifically in dollars)
that is either loaned or granted to other countries comes back to us in
the form of profitable trade with that country... which gives us an
economic lever to use on them, since no countries have as big an economy
as ours.

But I noticed you don't hesitate to attribute to me statements and
attitudes that I have never expressed. Nice going, especially when you
dodge questions and backpedal on previous statements.

As for your statement that this form of diplomacy doesn't work... wrong.
It *has* worked, and worked wuite well. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from
pursuing WMD.

But do you genuinely believe that Clinton paid the North Koreans to not
announce their development of nukes?


... You obviously see nothing wrong with it...

Actually, that depends on how it's done. Money (specifically in dollars)
that is either loaned or granted to other countries comes back to us in
the form of profitable trade with that country... which gives us an
economic lever to use on them, since no countries have as big an economy
as ours.

But I noticed you don't hesitate to attribute to me statements and
attitudes that I have never expressed. Nice going, especially when you
dodge questions and backpedal on previous statements.

As for your statement that this form of diplomacy doesn't work... wrong.
It *has* worked, and worked wuite well. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?

Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.

Bert Robbins wrote:
Diplomacy only works when there is a threat of military coercion.


Wrong.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
I don't believe in paying incentives to countries to keep them from
pursuing WMD.

But do you genuinely believe that Clinton paid the North Koreans to not
announce their development of nukes?

No, I think he believed that he bought some time with the bribe ...and
figured the next administration could deal with the mess once he left
office.




... You obviously see nothing wrong with it...

Actually, that depends on how it's done. Money (specifically in dollars)
that is either loaned or granted to other countries comes back to us in
the form of profitable trade with that country... which gives us an
economic lever to use on them, since no countries have as big an economy
as ours.

But I noticed you don't hesitate to attribute to me statements and
attitudes that I have never expressed. Nice going, especially when you
dodge questions and backpedal on previous statements.

As for your statement that this form of diplomacy doesn't work... wrong.
It *has* worked, and worked wuite well. Ever heard of the Marshall Plan?


Ummmmm. The Marshall Plan was implemented *after* the ass-kicking. It's
never worked as a method of appeasement.