Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Iraq
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tieguy" data-source="post: 73340" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p><span style="color: Blue">In fact it has everything to do with region building. Syria and Iran are held in check. Israel and the palestinians are actually progressing. Libya has actually started cooperating with us to garner our approval. Afghanistan is our and pakistan has become very helpfull. You and I cannot comment on the success because the press will not spend enough time reporting those. I do sense that you choose to ignore the successes for some reason? </span></p><p> </p><p> Less oil is being pumped today than four years agoterrorist attacks have multiplied a hundred-fold. Iran has elected a theocratic right winger, and Syria has been emboldened enough to assassinate a foreign leader.</p><p> </p><p> <span style="color: Blue">It appears you really don't understand the concept of region building every setback is not defeat. The area is progressing . Our troops have been doing a lot of good over there. An occasional assassination by syria does not constitute defeat. You really appear to trying to narrow your focus here. Some facets of this region building effort such as Irans theocracy collapsing into a democracy may take decades. Trying to rush the jury on this one won't answer the questions. A good region building effort will take a long time with slow progress and your occasional setbacks. </span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p><p> 3) Nowhere did you address the failure of the Bush foreign policy, other than to say it's not so. You resort to name calling, which lessens any substance your thoughts may have had.</p><p> </p><p> <span style="color: Blue">LOL, you're really something. Reread my post. Civil until the point you start using the expression neo-con. In fact you did not ask me to address any failures of Bushs foriegn policy. You asked me to read a link leading to an article with a very narrow focus of old tired dialogue which I easily squashed. I met the requirements of your request. When you post links and ask us to comment on them you limit the required response and should not expect us to expand beyond that analysis unless we choose to do so. </span></p><p> </p><p> Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you likening the fall of the Soviet Union to what you imagine our tact is in Iran?</p><p> </p><p> <span style="color: Blue">This one seems to be causing you great difficulty. you raised the point on Europe I addressed it seperately from Iran. Iran is overblown as a threat. Iran is an influence in the region that point has to be recognized and handled diplomatically. At the same time we provide a western appeal that is very appealing to many of the younger Iranians who despise the oppressive leadership of the current theocracy. We and our western culture are as much a threat to Iran as they are to our efforts in Iraq. We will handle Iran with diplomacy because that is what the situation requires. I think all options including military are possible for syria. We have those options now where we did not before. Take a look at history. We park our troops where we sit fit to stabalize a part of the world. Korea is another example. Fairly stable area. If north korea wanted to make it appear things are getting worse all they would have to do is step up DMZ attacks against us. The press would then becme alarmist and state that conditions were worsening in that region. But in the end North Korea can talk all they want but they do not have the food or resources to fight a sustained war and would collapse quickly if they engaged us. The nuclear threat is limited. North Korea has limited means to produce the product required. We have the technology to liquidate those means anytime we feel North Korea is a threat. In reality North korea is a very containable threat. So as you look at the bits and pieces of the alleged foriegn policy failures you keep trying to raise you find that Bush is actually following the same general philosophy that we have followed for the last century and that the logic is sound. We tend to overstate the threat of other countries to the united states much like the republican guard was overstated as a threat to our troops. Time </span></p><p><span style="color: Blue">will tell but at this point the logic is actually very sound.</span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p><p><span style="color: Blue"></span></p></blockquote><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 73340, member: 1912"] [COLOR=Blue]In fact it has everything to do with region building. Syria and Iran are held in check. Israel and the palestinians are actually progressing. Libya has actually started cooperating with us to garner our approval. Afghanistan is our and pakistan has become very helpfull. You and I cannot comment on the success because the press will not spend enough time reporting those. I do sense that you choose to ignore the successes for some reason? [/COLOR] Less oil is being pumped today than four years agoterrorist attacks have multiplied a hundred-fold. Iran has elected a theocratic right winger, and Syria has been emboldened enough to assassinate a foreign leader. [COLOR=Blue]It appears you really don't understand the concept of region building every setback is not defeat. The area is progressing . Our troops have been doing a lot of good over there. An occasional assassination by syria does not constitute defeat. You really appear to trying to narrow your focus here. Some facets of this region building effort such as Irans theocracy collapsing into a democracy may take decades. Trying to rush the jury on this one won't answer the questions. A good region building effort will take a long time with slow progress and your occasional setbacks. [/COLOR] 3) Nowhere did you address the failure of the Bush foreign policy, other than to say it's not so. You resort to name calling, which lessens any substance your thoughts may have had. [COLOR=Blue]LOL, you're really something. Reread my post. Civil until the point you start using the expression neo-con. In fact you did not ask me to address any failures of Bushs foriegn policy. You asked me to read a link leading to an article with a very narrow focus of old tired dialogue which I easily squashed. I met the requirements of your request. When you post links and ask us to comment on them you limit the required response and should not expect us to expand beyond that analysis unless we choose to do so. [/COLOR] Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you likening the fall of the Soviet Union to what you imagine our tact is in Iran? [COLOR=Blue]This one seems to be causing you great difficulty. you raised the point on Europe I addressed it seperately from Iran. Iran is overblown as a threat. Iran is an influence in the region that point has to be recognized and handled diplomatically. At the same time we provide a western appeal that is very appealing to many of the younger Iranians who despise the oppressive leadership of the current theocracy. We and our western culture are as much a threat to Iran as they are to our efforts in Iraq. We will handle Iran with diplomacy because that is what the situation requires. I think all options including military are possible for syria. We have those options now where we did not before. Take a look at history. We park our troops where we sit fit to stabalize a part of the world. Korea is another example. Fairly stable area. If north korea wanted to make it appear things are getting worse all they would have to do is step up DMZ attacks against us. The press would then becme alarmist and state that conditions were worsening in that region. But in the end North Korea can talk all they want but they do not have the food or resources to fight a sustained war and would collapse quickly if they engaged us. The nuclear threat is limited. North Korea has limited means to produce the product required. We have the technology to liquidate those means anytime we feel North Korea is a threat. In reality North korea is a very containable threat. So as you look at the bits and pieces of the alleged foriegn policy failures you keep trying to raise you find that Bush is actually following the same general philosophy that we have followed for the last century and that the logic is sound. We tend to overstate the threat of other countries to the united states much like the republican guard was overstated as a threat to our troops. Time will tell but at this point the logic is actually very sound. [/COLOR][/quote] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Iraq
Top