Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (448218)	1/17/2009 11:27:45 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575173

Bush has GOADED Iran and N. Korea to build Nukes. They're BOTH more dangerous by far than when he came in. How has Bush "goaded" either of these two? Simply calling them what they were (an axis of evil) did not change, in any way, either of their nuclear programs. We know that both countries had programs underway long before the remark was made. So, in what way did Bush "goad" these chronic belligerents? In fact, the Bush administration has done everything possible to undo the damage of failed Clinton policies with respect to NK. And the truth of the matter is that Bush left the NK situation no better or no worse than he found it. The problem being handed over to Obama is no worse than the one Bush received when he came into office, and that is frankly, something of an accomplishment. They have shut down their plutonium facilities, which is good, but on the other hand, they have been able to manufacture enough for a number of weapons. Remember, early in the Bush presidency, it was determined that Clinton's agreement was being violated on a wholesale basis. Short of an attack, probably the best Bush could hope for was some containment of the problem. Many have argued that Iran is more dangerous or more powerful today than they were when Bush took office. But like most criticism of Bush foreign policy, that view is highly superficial. Everyone conveniently forgets that now, instead of a bitter US enemy next door to Iran, there is now a US ally. That's a big deal (and, of course, they will want to have a good relationship with Iran if possible). Iran began buying nuclear technology from AQ Kahn in 1989 and continued to do so until at least 1996, and the programs weren't publicly exposed until after Bush took office. It would be both naive and superficial to claim that Bush is somehow responsible for these developments. This is nothing more than shooting the messenger. There is a very big concern about Obama's policy going forward, since what he has indicated to date indicates gross incompetency in dealing with aggressive foreign powers. In general, when a belligerent foreign power applauds the election of a president, it is a sign the wrong president has been elected. As with NK, Iran could not have been stopped short of an attack. While I would have supported the US leveling their nuclear facilities, most people would not have, and in looking back I believe it was the correct policy for us not to have done so. Bush has created a Shiite State in Iraq which will always be in more sympathy with Iran than us. First, the population of Iraq has not changed materially - it continues to be about 1/3 Sunni. So is Bahrain, but we manage to have a decent relationship with THEM. And you can bet that if Iran moved against Bahrain, they would be knocking on our door for military support JUST LIKE KUWAIT did. The fact is that Sunnis and Shiites will work together (as they did in Sudan when bin Laden was there in the early 90s) when it suits their interests. And both WANT the US on their side when the other moves against them. Bush turned a SMALL group of al Queada in Afghanistan into a LARGE group of al Queada in Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world. It is inarguable that AQ has been decimated. While they may have more sympathizers, they are unable to act. They can't train them. They can't organize them. They can't control them. They can't fund them. The simple, INDISPUTABLE truth is that the US has not been attacked since 9/11 and GWB is solely responsible for that. Not one person in ten would have said, on 9/20/2001, that they believed we could get through the rest of the Bush term without another, bigger attack. Every knowledgeable expert on the subject believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is not a question of "if" but a question of "when". The American intelligence community, universally, believes that a nuclear terrorist attack is the biggest single threat we face. And we've just come through 7.5 years of nothing. Nada. It is sad, but I have to agree with the FBI agent who, after 9/11, said, "They didn't kill enough people". Only 3,000 dead is not enough to keep Americans focused. They'll have to kill a million, maybe more, before the American people will understand that it wasn't, as SilentZ claimed, "a lucky hit". Over the last 7.5 years, they have not been able to organize sufficiently to do it. We can only hope, as Americans, that Obama will be as focused on protecting us as Bush was.