You cannot deal with terrorists, and Syria is a terrorist state.

Iran will still have Russia for support even if Syria cuts ties with them. That being said, this sounds interesting, if its true. It should also be pointed out that Russia is a huge supporter of Syria. If we could separate Iran and Syria from one another, this would mean that Russia will have lost two proxies. These would be Syria and Iraq. This may lead them to consider cutting their losses and stop supporting other terrorist supporting states. We could win the GWOT quickly, if we could get Russia and China to stop supporting the terrorist supporting states.

Now you're talkin'

B,

You keep repeating this theory that Russia is the benevolent progenitor of multi-national terrorism. Russia, like any pseudo-authoritarian state isn't going to give up power to proxy armies which are going to end up biting them in the rump later (read: Chechnya). I mean think about it, why would they support a group who has stated goals of islamic revolution and freedom from western powers, when Russia is trying to supress those same forces in their territories?

First, they have to do something about this:

The Air Force, which was independent of Army Command, consisted of about 100,000 regular and 37,500 reserve officers and men. In 1985 its 9 fighter-ground attack squadrons and an estimated 15 interceptor squadrons totaled approximately 650 combat aircraft. Almost all combat planes were Soviet manufactured and included 50 MiG-25 and MiG-25R (Foxbat) interceptors and nearly 200 MiG-23S/U (Flogger) and Su-17 FitterK ground-attack and multirole aircraft. In 1986 there were reports that the Soviet Union had agreed to provide Syria at least two squadrons of the advanced supersonic MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter aircraft equipped with top-of-the-line avionics. The air force was equipped with approximately ninety attack helicopters of the Mi-24/Mi-25 Hind and SA-342 Gazelle types. As part of an effort to upgrade its command-and-control network, the air force was reported to have the Tu-126 (Moss) AWACS.

Boy this would be great to achieve this. Whoever brokered a deal like this would deserve a Pulitzer, unlike some other people who received a Pulitzer I will not name.

never, ever trust a baathist.

Hey, Keep,
I think you're confusing Pulitzer with Nobel -- but its not like any neocon nutjobs are likely to win either any time soon -- so I guess it doesn't matter much after all.

With all the problems going on at this time, da prez is preaching to the choir about his veto of stem cell research funding.

All the lily white Falwellians applaud every incorrect statement the moron makes. Oh Geez!

*vomits a little in my mouth*

TEO said: "You keep repeating this theory that Russia is the benevolent progenitor of multi-national terrorism."

I didn't say that, BP did. But I will try to come to his (at least partial) defense if for no other reason than I agree with him in substance if not detail. IMHO, Russia will play whatever political calculus is necessary to keep us as maximally involved in the ME while at the same time trying to minimize the risk to themselves. But it's not just Russia that plays that kind of game -- everyone does. Including us. There was a time when we supported OBL and the Taliban. There was a time when we supported Saddam. Tell me those adventures didn't come back and bite us in the butt, however unintentionally.

And for anyone to think that this putative deal with Syria is anything but the same sort of calculus is kidding themselves. It always applies no matter what you do. You could advocate marching to Damascus, but the same calculus still applies -- how best to project influence while minimizing risk.

With all the problems going on at this time, da prez is preaching to the choir about his veto of stem cell research funding.

All the lily white Falwellians applaud every incorrect statement the moron makes. Oh Geez!

*vomits a little in my mouth*

...Ha ha, 'da prez'? No wonder you're a lib. At least use correct grammer if you're going to bash President(that's how you spell it) Bush.

Now, anyway, inncorrect statments that Bush makes? What proof do you have that they're all incorrect? Tell us that

With all the problems going on at this time, da prez is preaching to the choir about his veto of stem cell research funding.

All the lily white Falwellians applaud every incorrect statement the moron makes. Oh Geez!

*vomits a little in my mouth*

...Ha ha, 'da prez'? No wonder you're a lib. At least use correct grammer if you're going to bash President(that's how you spell it) Bush.

Now, anyway, inncorrect statments that Bush makes? What proof do you have that they're all incorrect? Tell us that

RB,
as Rev and Kahn have demonstrated before, the libs, especially Ash, never respond to questions, they just blab on and on and on...

RB,
As Rev and Kahn have demonstrated, the libs especially Ash don't answer questions. They just blab on and on and on.....

You're right. See, it's because they can't come back with good comebacks. It's impossible for them, eh?

Rico,

I don't think I was pointing my response to B. at you, but I appreciate the response.

Russia isn't looking for world domination, and even less are they looking for our destruction:

1) We are a fairly large importer of their oil
2) The stated policy of Russia is a multi-pronged approach to international stability, They see China, themselves and us as the players on the world stage who have the greatest influence to keep things moving as smoothly as possible.
3) As I said, it would be very unlikely that they would embolden the same people who they are fighting a very bloody conflict with in Chechnya. They have intimate knowledge of how dangerous a rogue group can be, why would they make the same mistake they saw us make?

The one thing that seems to support you and B.P's claim is the large amount of money Russia gets when prices on the open oil markets soar, so using their influence to help stir the pot of instability does help their GDP, but I don't know if we can infer that is enough of a reason for them to be pulling strings behind the scenes.

RB,
as Rev and Kahn have demonstrated before, the libs, especially Ash, never respond to questions, they just blab on and on and on...

Unlike that brilliant point, mare!

I'm hurt, Ash. You comment on my mom's comment, but not mine?

...*sniff*

Ash,
There's more brilliance where that came from, just give me something worth commenting on,use a little grey matter this time. As for your brilliant reply to AFwife, your a shit!

RB,

"No wonder you're a lib. At least use correct grammer if you're going to bash President(that's how you spell it) Bush."

If you're going to take the time to bash someone else's grammar (that's how you spell it), then atleast have the intelligence to spell-check.

P.S. I think your Easy-Mac is done, hurry before it gets cold.

The premise sounds interesting. I was surprised by the deal they offered Iran. As were the Iranians and the Koreans apparently.

Anybody ever see Gregory Peck in "Pork Chop Hill"?

Seems to me the Hamas and Hizbollah attacks (if actually under Iranian influence) remind me of that. Frankly - and i hate to admit this - the politics and deep seated hatreds in that whole area are a little too complex for me to get a handle on. Maybe buying Syria away from Iran would work. Heck, I don't know.

I think that having Condi Rice in there will make the difference. She is pretty damn smart.

RB,

"No wonder you're a lib. At least use correct grammer if you're going to bash President(that's how you spell it) Bush."

If you're going to take the time to bash someone else's grammar (that's how you spell it), then atleast have the intelligence to spell-check.

P.S. I think your Easy-Mac is done, hurry before it gets cold."

TEO,

When did at least become one word?

P.S. Thanks for the update; I didn't hear the timr go off

RB,

"No wonder you're a lib. At least use correct grammer if you're going to bash President(that's how you spell it) Bush."

If you're going to take the time to bash someone else's grammar (that's how you spell it), then atleast have the intelligence to spell-check.

P.S. I think your Easy-Mac is done, hurry before it gets cold."

Since when did 'at least' become one word?

P.S. Thanks for the update. Didn't hear the timer

...nutjobs are likely to win either any time soon

Yea, they're reserved for nice people like Yasser Arafat, child-molesting terrorist who likely died of AIDs from too many "brokeback" sessions with his fellow rubble dwellers. Or...he could have gotten it somewhere in the Clinton White House since he was the most frequent overnight guest.

RB,

Here is a little tip, no one takes people seriously who have to use grammar to rebut a point on a blog...enjoy irrelevance, I look foward to more of your smart, snappy retorts.

TEO,
We are so glad you're here to instruct us on proper "blogging" Your replies are so witty, relevant, responsive, and above all factual.

TEO: In my opinion Rico comes pretty close to nailing it. Russia wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. Their leadership has said so many times. They view the USA as their major challenge. They have made this clear to. The plan appears to be to support every rogue element they can. This way they can keep the USA tied down in a series of smaller engagements. This keeps the focus off of them. Then when they are ready to make a move against the US they may do so. It appears to me that the US government may have fallen for Russia's game. There could be things going on behind the scenes we are not aware of. I hope there is. Also, as Rico points out, all of this instability increases oil prices which gives them even more money to supply terrorists with.

Russia has the one of the world's largest oil reserves and it has the world's largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal. This makes them arguably the most powerful country on earth. This at least puts them on par with the USA. This does not seem to be good enough for them. This country wishes to achieve global hegemony. Its goals are the same as the former Soviet Union. As such, it is the single greatest threat to America and the free world in the world today.

If we could just get Russia and to a lesser extent China to stop supporting the terrorist supporting states it would likely be fairly easy to win the GWOT. I hope and pray we can diplomatically persuade Russia to stop supporting these states.

If we can separate them from Syria and finish separating them from Iraq, the Russian leadership may find it is in their best interests to reach an honorable settlement and stop supporting Islamic Extremists.

Mary,

Thanks, baby, 'preciate the kind words.

Go with God(s)

TEO: Part of the problem with dealing with a threat like Russia is there is little national will now to deal with the threat posed by Islamic Extremists, much less to deal with an even bigger threat. Right now I feel like a "fortress America" concept where we withdraw all of our military assets from around the world and positioning them around and in the US. This might be the best option.

Russia isn't looking for world domination

Spoken like a true Commie! Ve Vill not eenvade chu. Trust me. Please, drink warning next time.

And RB, don't believe Brown eye. As soon as he feels bested, he refuses to answer and just squeals like a pig like that guy in "Deliverance."

TEO: Part of the problem with dealing with a threat like Russia is there is little national will now to deal with the threat posed by Islamic Extremists, much less to deal with an even bigger threat. Right now I feel like a "fortress America" concept where we withdraw all of our military assets from around the world and positioning them around and in the US. This might be the best option.

B.

You make things up as you go along, please show me where Russia is backing terrorists.

Secondly, Russia has nowhere near the most up to date missle arsenal out there, infact, they haven't engineered a new missle since 1985. The biggest threat from Russias' stockpiles of nukes is proliferation or accidental launch from outdated tracking and launch equipment. Can you quote me the information to where you're getting your assertion that they have the most state of the art nuclear arsenal?

The single biggest threat, IMO, to the world is overeager states who feel as though they have some sort of mandate (from God?) to pre-emptively invade, and remake by providence other nations...especially when they have nukes.

please show me where Russia is backing terrorists.

Hard on the heels of the Bratislava summit, Russia signed a deal with Iran to provide nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which Russia has helped build. The announcement aroused concern in Washington, at the International Atomic Energy Agency and among Russian environmentalists. U.S. Senator John McCain went so far as to call for Russia's exclusion from this year's G8 summit.

Syria is armed with Russian aircraft and weapons systems. Hezbollah uses Kaytusha Russian-make rockets. Iran's nuclear plants, certainly being used to refine and develop nuclear weapons for terror was built and supplied by Russia. And there's much, much more evidence that Russia provides support to terrorists around the globe. Yep, Brown Eye, Mother Russia is a terrorist supporter.

TEO: There was a report about Russia's newest WMDs from the MSN NBC a while back. I think this is where I read about this. Also, the Hetitage Foundation did a study on this. Probably the most up to date information on this can be found at www.jrnyquist.com. I'm not making this up. I wish I were.

"The single biggest threat, IMO, to the world is overeager states who feel as though they have some sort of mandate (from God?) to pre-emptively invade, and remake by providence other nations...especially when they have nukes." The invasion of Iraq came about becuase of the violation of UN Resoultions because Iraq posed a major security threat to the US. Saddam was given ample warning. 30 nations saw the same threats we did and felt it was worth acting on. Unfortunately due to mistakes in execution the goals are in danger of not being achieved.

The Iranian leadership feels as though it has a divine right to rule the world. They have said so, that they are not shy about stating that they feel this is their right. To this end they have threatened to "wipe Israel from the map." "Death to America." "Death to Israel." "We shall burn the roots of the anglo saxon race." Iran does not have nukes yet but they are likely to have them within a matter of months. American nukes are unlikely to be used in a pre emptive strike. The only way this would happen is to deal with a direct and known survival threat. Islamic extremist culture, as it is, poses a survival threat to the US. As such, it should be remade. Now would be the best time to do it before they become stronger. If we don't act decisively now, we run the risk of them remaking us in the name of Allah.

Your last statement, except for the nukes, describe Iran and their Islamic Extremists allies perfectly.

Given that the American people seem to lack the will to act decisively to do what would be necessary to crush this threat once and for all, "fortress America" may be the best option. This would at least eliminate some of their sorry excuses.

TEO, I didn't say it was an easy calculus. It never is (and when it appears to be it is likely to be an illusion). Nor did I say that Russia is either looking for world domination or our demise. But I think they would very much like to see us bogged down in the ME. To his credit, BP has been constantly reminding us of that, as well as the fact that Russia and China stand to gain to the extent that we do become unilaterally bogged down in a broader conflict. If there is any element to which I agree wholeheartedly, it is that.

To my mind, whether or not Russia is the "benevolent progenitor of multinational terrorism" is, to some extent, a matter of definition. I like your term "multinational terrorism", by the way, because it could mean so many specific things without conjuring up some sort of monolithic entity like "global terrorism" does (what a farce that term is). Let me explain a little...

The way I see it, there is no question that both Syria and Iran are pretty good customers for Russia. And to the extent that they can continue to keep them happy, terrorist groups under their influence are less likely to support anti-Russian offensives. The fact that said terrorist groups have other, bigger fish to fry doesn't hurt, either. And I believe it was this past February when it came out almost similtaneously (within the same week, as I recall) that Russia had launched a spy satellite for Israel (presumably to allow them better surveillance of Iran) and had closed a deal with Iran to supply them with supersonic cruise missiles. On top of that is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose growing influence seems to be largely ignored up to now on this blog. But it very well may be that Iran, among others, will be inducted soon -- along with Pakistan, India, and Mongolia.

So I really question Russia's "benevolence". In fact, I'm pretty sure the word doesn't apply in any way, shape, or form. Then again, if one were truly objective about it, one would be hard-pressed to apply the term to any nation's international dealings. But that may just be my cynicism showing through.

On the plus side, Russia has many achilles heels. But Europe's dependence on their oil and gas reserves isn't likely to be one of them. What are they going to do -- stop importing Russian oil? However, Russia is a polyglot nation to such an extent that it almost defines the word. Within that reality is a host of opportunities to which we could avail ourselves and make life miserable for them. But it would come at a price.

On a completely different topic (and one which has nothing to do with you, TEO), is it only me that sees the irony in the present topic? "Deal With Syria"? Gosh, wasn't it just yesterday that the same author was advocating invading Damascus? And wasn't it just the day before when the same author was foretelling the end of the Democratic party because they couldn't agree on anything? Too funny.

Anyway, the invasion of Damascus idea was predicated on the notion that it would provide some sort of "final solution". Yeah, as if. Examples offered were the successes in democratizing Germany and Japan. And I think it was you, TEO, that pointed out two things: (1) that WWII came about because the first "final solution" (WWI) turned out to be an inadequate solution, and: (2) Germany and Japan were relatively isolated culturally and ideologically, so the resistance was not likely to spread as it might in the ME (or Islam more generally). I would also like to add that WWII, while it may have been a "solution" to fascism, also propagated the conditions leading to the Cold War. Likewise, in response to Germany's "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" the Zionist movement (which did exist prior, as fascist sentiments grew in Europe throughout the 20s and 30s) gathered steam, which in turn set up the conditions for much of the strife we see in the ME today.

It's funny how final solutions never really are. I don't mean "ho ho" funny, just ironic. As always I think the bottom line is... you can't just do the right thing, you have to do the right thing right.

TEO: A more detailed reply to your post should be forthcoming. It was submitted outside of type key. The most extensive information about the threats from Russia comes from www.jrnyquist.com. Also there have been several articles about Russia testing new nuclear missles. The most recent one I remember was on msn, I think. I'm not making it up. I wish I were.

This is from the Iranian leader Mahmoud Amadinejad, "We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world." Minus the nukes, whick Iran should have in a few months, your last sentence describes Iran perfectly. The US in contrast is a post Chrisian republic whose foreign policy does not factor in religon. This is part of where we go wrong. We either can't or won't grasp the religous nature of this enemy.

Rico

Great post!! Its to bad I'm not as articulate as you seem to be. Given the difficulty of international relations, "fortress America" looks better all the time.

TEO: Having re read your post you suggest we are trying to remake Iraq and other nations. While crushing Islamic Extremism would be a noble goal, we have not tried to remake them per se. We removed governments who posed a national security threat to the US and we introduced democratic reforms, in the hope that they would choose something different than before. We assumed they would choose something non threatening to us. Where we erred was we allowed Islamic Extremists to enter the political process thinking that they would moderate themselves. These gropus never should have been allowed to enter the process. This would be like defeating Nazi Germany and allowing the Nazis to run for office in the new Germany. I suspect we allowed Islamists into the political process because a post Christian country like the US has trouble making value judgements. In any event, we only committed the forces to Afghanitan that were necessary to help the Northern Alliance overthrow the government. In the case of Iraq we only committed the force necessary to overthrow the government. There is no way we could remake those countries even if we wanted to with the current force structure.

Normally I give women a pass Mary, but since you appear either androgynous (not differentiated as to man or woman) or a diesel dike, I'll make an exception. See my answer to you at the Bush Says Syria thread.

BTW You are Reverand Sacashits wife aren't you?

Holy Interbreeding Batman, we've got a whole family here:

Mama Dike
Papa Sacashit
SonRush Dittohead

Rico,

I will do more research on the webs connecting Russia to the US, but from what I have read, it seems much more like a red-herring than anything else; They make their money on arms sales and Oil, and the longer we are around to play 'big-bad wolf' to the ME's Three-little pigs, the more sales they will rack-up, and the more oil they can sell us, but I have been wrong before, so I appreciate you and B.P. keepin' me honest.

I never did like the term "Global Terrorism" either, it does allude to some mythical, monolithic force, with a secret base somewhere.

I find it odd that the concerns about pan-Arab nationalism being set in motion, not by a prolific ME leader, but by our own hubris has always struck me as ironic. I don't understand how anyone thinks that merely using force to eradicate a religious/political belief is somehow going to be a solution in the long run, I think we need to stop playing right into the hands of these ME leaders, and truly reform what is left of the UN so that we have some international cover for the hard work that needs to be done in helping to lift the shroud of tyranny and terror that many of the supposed allies we have in the ME perpetrate on their people; It's a catch-22, where by we are the only force which can properly "nudge" these governments, but that our mere shadow can made the moderate voice dim to the shrill sound of "anti-imperialism" that gets thrown about in the wider ME.

B.Poster, you can try to retreat into your belly button, but the fact remains you can't pull it in with you. IMHO, as comforting as the concept may be, Fortress America is not an option. Dealing with Russia, China, and the rest of the world aren't either. They have to be done. The fact that the issues are tough doesn't absolve us from dealing with them. The question is how to do it?

For the record, I don't think either Russia or China wants to see Iran develop nuclear weapons. Then again, considering China's relative complacency with respect to NK, I could be wrong. It is pretty clear, though, that they could pull the plug on NK if they wanted to (literally as well as figuratively). Perhaps they're waiting for us to deal on Taiwan? I don't know (but I wouldn't be at all surprised). My guess is that IF some sort of significant accord is announced vis-a-vis NK, soon thereafter Taiwan will come floating down the river, so to speak. Of course, the two events will never be officially linked.

Normally I give women a pass

Doesn't surprise me. Like them boys, huh? The younger the better no doubt.

so I appreciate you and B.P. keepin' me honest

You, honest? Fat chance.

I don't understand how anyone thinks that merely using force to eradicate a religious/political belief is somehow going to be a solution in the long run

Who proposes that? More wishful thinking? The Islamo-fascist terrorists are the ones using force. You meet that force with superior force until they stop using force because your force hurts them so much they abandon it. Then you can talk. But not until then.

I think we need to stop playing right into the hands of these ME leaders

Commonly known as the Carter/Clinton approach...

and truly reform what is left of the UN

Back to Fantasy Land again? Reform the UN by kicking their raping, thieving asses out of New York. Let Brussels have them. Or the Netherlands - they're the ones pushing a Pedophile law - perfect for the child molesting animals in blue hats.

It's a catch-22, where by we are the only force which can properly "nudge" these governments, but that our mere shadow can made the moderate voice dim to the shrill sound of "anti-imperialism" that gets thrown about in the wider ME.

Its only a Catch-22 for the naive and uninformed. Diplomacy, coddling tin-pot dictators, enabling terrorists, and "speaking out" against anyone who tries to clean up the serial messes created by the UN and Liberals everywhere have been tried and we are now where they set us up to be. Time for us to abandon that 60's era John Lennon crap (remember he was murdered). We gave peace a chance. Didn't work. Now its time to clean up the mess, which takes adult leaders which explains why the Democrats are on the sidelines carping and whining.

TEO, the more research the better as far as I'm concerned. If you want to try to kick my ass, have at it. Heck, I'll even bend down for you. Because as I see it, it's not about me. It's about the truth. And the more light you, or anyone else, can shed on the issue the better off we'll all be. Knowledge is power. And the less we have the more likely we can be used as pawns in someone else's power game.

But having said that, I don't know what you're calling a "red herring". I think you pretty much summed up Russia's motivations in this statement: "They make their money on arms sales and Oil, and the longer we are around to play 'big-bad wolf' to the ME's Three-little pigs, the more sales they will rack-up, and the more oil they can sell us."

I mean really... that pretty much sums it up in my mind. Cutthroat capitalism at its finest. What more is there to understand? My term, "political calculus" was not intended to be imbued with some sort of ideology, so I hope you didn't take it that way. For the most part, ideology takes a back seat when it comes to international power politics. International power politics is directed at projecting influence. And that influence is projected in the interests of the bottom line.

I could argue that point almost endlessly, but I'll just let it float for now.

And in principle, I agree with your last paragraph, too. I think we made a major mistake in attacking Iraq without the UN's imprimatur -- or at least that of NATO. Yes, the UN is badly in need of reform. But I remain convinced that had we waited a few months we could have gotten their blessing (or at least NATO's). Had we done so, that could have changed everything. And in the mean time, things could have gone much better in Afghanistan, too. But because that didn't happen, it can never rise to anything above speculation. Still, I think the speculation is well-founded. Likewise, I think that if everything went as "splendidly" as Cheney, Pearle, Wolfowitz, and others were predicting prior to the invasion, things would have been really peachy for us, not only in Iraq, but in the broader ME. But that didn't happen either. As it stands, I fear we have lost the momentum in Iraq. I haven't completely lost hope, but I do think that until we find a way to (a) get the momentum back, or (b) extricate ourselves in such a way as to prevent things from developing into a jihadist hell hole, we will remain in a very difficult position as far as influencing events in the ME goes.

Unfortunately, I don't think either (a) or (b) are very likely in the near term. A couple of days ago Gen. Schumacher, the chief of command of the US Army in Iraq said that he thinks we're "closer to the beginning than to the end" there. My, isn't that a comforting thought? In the mean time you can count on Russia, China, and probably a few others as well (Iran comes to mind, as does Qatar, UAE, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia) making it as difficult for us as possible as long as they think the political calculus is in their favor. Thus, I think that until we manage to do one of those things, the political calculus will remain exceedingly difficult for us. And the key may be to make it as difficult as possible for them -- as long as the political calculus remains in our favor (and to the extent that it mitigates theirs).

Finally, let me say that I enjoy your posts, TEO -- at least those not devoted to bombast. I don't always agree, but they do make me think. And that's what it's all about, IMHO.

Rico

I think you are regular reader of b4b. As such you have probably seen from my previous post, part of the "fortress America" plan includes arming our allies with nuclear weapons to act as buffers between Russia, China, and the Islamic Extremists. This would help us to be able to pull back some of our troops from places such as Japan and South Korea. Some of the residents of these places don't want our people there any way. If we lessen our military foot print around the world, this would eliminate some of the excuses that people have not to like us.

This involves some political calculus, as you call it. For example, there is no guarantee that these people we have sold weapons to will not turn against us or engage in other nefarious activities. It's clearly not easy. I'm suggesting this because it is becoming apparent to me that the American people just don't have the will to see this through to a complete victory. This may be the best we can do.

Btw, I hope sacrificing Taiwan would not be part of a deal on North Korea's nukes. This would be terrible.

I hope sacrificing Taiwan would not be part of a deal

Rule #1 of plans. If it contains the phrase, "I hope..." abandon the whole concept or idea behind the plan, for no "plan" should have any need in it for "hope."

Rev

I agree entirely. I don't like plans that include hope.

What I was referring to is Rico seemed to suggest that a part of a deal to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program would mean that Taiwan would come "floating down the river." Rico seemed to suggest taht part of a deal to resolve North Korea's nuclear program might mean sacrificing Tawain. This would be terrible to sacrifice a small democratic nation in this manner. There are some politicians who would do this. Such a compromise would be amoral.

I suggest selling nuclear weapons to Tawain. This way they would have a deterrent against China and we could move our Navy out of the area.

"Fortress America" is not only a pipe dream, it is a very dangerous pipe dream. Pulling back now would give the terrorists more leverage, fodder and time to develop even more nasty ways to kill. They would not leave us alone, and there is no way to know how many sleeper cells there are in the US because some of the MSM keep giving away our monitoring information.

If you notice, Japan became much less radical when faced with overwhelming force. Let us hope that the same level of force is not needed with Iran, but I would not count on that.

KJ: I think you are right. I don't think fortress America is a very good option. Unfortunately we don't seem to have many good options right now.

I realized in about June 2003 that to win this war we were going to need a massive mobilization of military forces. This still has not happened. I think I know what needs to be done but the American people and even the Republicans and the Democrats have yet to come to terms with the size and the scope of this threat.

The Government can only engage in policies that can be supported by the American people. The American people seem unwilling to make the kind of sacrifices that will be necessary to drive a final stake through the heart of Islamic Extremism. Given this reality, it may be time to look at some way to conatin the threat, until such time as we or someone else can deal with it more decisiively.

I realized in about June 2003 that to win this war we were going to need a massive mobilization of military forces.

Old thinking, I'm afraid. What Rumsfeld called, "Cold-war mentality." What is needed is what has now been built: a force of asymmetrical forces designed to seek out and destroy the terrorist enemy. The military has that and in any head-to-head confrontation with the terrorist enemy, the terrorists are wiped out to a man. So more "boots" (which is getting to be a very tiresome phrase) will not solve the problem, since the problem lies elsewhere.

I think I know what needs to be done but the American people and even the Republicans and the Democrats have yet to come to terms with the size and the scope of this threat.

That would certainly be a big help, but given the fanaticism of the anti-war left, it is not likely. They have, for all intents and purposes, allowed their unreasoned hatred of this administration and the President align them with the enemies we are trying to defeat. We struggle in this war, but mostly with our own lack of national will. This, I suspect, is the net result of the pot-bellied, graying hippie generation who are trying to relive their 1960-era protest days against the Viet Nam war. These two wars have nothing - nothing - in common, but as they say, give a kid a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

The Government can only engage in policies that can be supported by the American people.

Statement of the obvious.

The American people seem unwilling to make the kind of sacrifices that will be necessary to drive a final stake through the heart of Islamic Extremism.

I don't think you're right about that. I think you fail to give credit to the real "American people" who don't sit around attacking everything we do in this war because they're not on the nightly news or in the far-left motivated MSM and talk shows. But they're out there in the millions. I live in a Red State and most people I meet and talk to want the menace defeated.

Given this reality, it may be time to look at some way to conatin the threat, until such time as we or someone else can deal with it more decisiively.ash.

Containment NEVER works. Never. It is the same kind of thinking that results in "fixed fortifications." And George Patton said, "Fixed fortifications are monuments to human stupidity."