"DSK" wrote in message
...
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.

Bull****. N. Korea continued to develop nukes well after Clinton bribed
them in the mid-90's. Saddam continued to aid and abet terrorists, commit
genocide against his own people, and threaten his neighbors. And al Qaeda
grew emboldened by Clinton's withdrawal of troops from Somalia.

Success my ass.





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?


No. According to the al-Jaafari, PM of Iraq, those numbers are not accurate.


... 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.

The attacks have been predominantly against civilian populations.


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.