Holy Sh*t!

[alleyallen]

So people were crapping on Bush for being too unilateral, now they're crapping on him for being too multilateral.

Yeah, makes sense. ::)

You know what, Lyman? For once, I totally agree with you. We are attacking Bush no matter what he does, and it's accomplishing nothing.

And you're even more right when you say when need to put the blame where it belongs.

Right now, my blame money is on you!

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

So people were crapping on Bush for being too unilateral, now they're crapping on him for being too multilateral.

Yeah, makes sense. ::)

You know what, Lyman? For once, I totally agree with you. We are attacking Bush no matter what he does, and it's accomplishing nothing.

And you're even more right when you say when need to put the blame where it belongs.

Right now, my blame money is on you!

Do I get a cut of that blame money?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

I'm not even getting involved in this. Once this is posted, the argument is over.

 

[HeinekenMan]

Here's an example of Bush's inconsistency with his foreign policy:

Iraq - Saddam Hussein has (biological) weapons of mass destruction that he might sell to terrorists we must invade as he's a threat to world peace

North Korea - We know they sell nuclear technology to terrorists and that they just conducted a nuclear weapons test, but let's look for a diplomatic solution

Iran - We know that the 9/11 terrorists were allowed to pass through the country with forged passports with no problems, that their president held American citizens hostage in the 80s, he wants to obliterate our strongest ally in the region (Israel) and he's advanced his country's nuclear program ten-fold since Saddam left power, but let's look for a diplomatic solution to their growing nuclear program.

Your entire post is based on a faulty premise: that you need to be consistent in your foreign policy. You don't treat every country, even the dangerous ones, the same. To draw an analogy to parenting, my father once told me that being a fair parent doesn't mean every kid gets treated exactly equally. It means you treat that child fairly in the context of the circumstances. You can justifiably criticize Bush's actions in relation to each country, but claiming he needs some kind of consistency is foolish.

I have to say that I agree with Pope on that point. It's a good one. But I also think Joe is talking more about priorities than anything else. Regardless of which strategy works best, it's logical to assume that more emphasis should be placed on countries that pose a direct nuclear threat, as opposed to an imagined one. Or maybe the strategy with North Korea is to sit back and play chess all day. After all, this could be the new Cold War. I hate to use that analogy, primarily because I'm sure TV pundits have beens spouting such stuff for weeks, but I think it's apt.