When a ship sets sail for the lost city of Atlantis, and after, say, three years, seven months, and nineteen days, the crew mutinies because they haven't found what they thought they would find, making the captain walk the plank only to replace him with a new captain who promises to find Atlantis with more efficience and less pain won't do at all. The prudent thing to do, at that point, is to turn the boat around and set a course--for home. Some tasks are doomed from the start no matter who captains them.

Absolutely nothing will change except that we will be less equipped to counter-act China. This is a setback for the U.S. military.

A setback???

Rumsfield got us into this mess, only someone else can get us out.

Oh.

And guess who just became chairman of the armed servies comittee???

CARL LEVIN BABY!!!!!

BAM!

Total Democratic domination in Washington.

AMNESTY IS ON THE WAY!

AMNESTY IS ON THE WAY!

AMNESTY IS ON THE WAY!

WOOT!!

Responding to the above is beneath me.

Too much to take Ben-T?

Here's some more;

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/09/america/LA_GEN_Venezuela_US.php

A Guide To The New Democratic Senate:

Carl Levin will be in charge of Armed Services.

Joe Biden will be in charge of Foriegn Relations. He's already promised "Fullbright style" hearings on Iraq "in the first week."

Patrick Leahy will be in charge of judicary. There will be no pro-life judges appointed by this president.

Barbra Boxer will be in charge of Environment and Public Works. There will be global warming legislation. And George Bush will sign it.

Robert Byrd will be in charge of appropriations. Look for lots of new bridges in WV.

Jesse Bingaman will be in charge of Energy and Natural Resources. There will be significant energy conservation measures and alternitive energy reserach.

John Kerry will be chairman of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Even I have to laugh at that. The guy who MARRIED his way into money overseas small bussiness. What a joke.

Kent Conrad will be in charge of Budget. He will bring fiscal discipline to Washington.

Max Baucus will be in charge of Finance. Estate tax reform is dead. The President's tax cuts on the top earners will be repealed.

: )

In the House Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner will be replaced by John Conyers.

Enough said.

Amnesty is coming.

Amnesty is coming.

Yeah, let's get those good old down home San Francisco values into the house. We're doomed.

Is Bush crazy? How does he expect to get Gates past the Democrats?

HeHe

Amensty is coming. For better or worse, you are correct. These people are already here and it probably not realistic to deport all of them.

While I don't like amnesty, it is invevitable. With that said the first thing we will have to do is to secure the border. Amnesty, for the illegals already here, coupled with enhanced border security might be an acceptable compromise.

You must understand that the massive influx of illegal aliens is nothing less than an invasion. You seem pretty excited about rewarding people who have invaded the US. No wonder we can't trust liberals, such as George W. Bush, the Democrats, and most Republicans with national security. They are all liberals. Liberals get excited about their country being invaded.

Btw, hopefully we won't go over board on this global warming regulation. If we do, we can forget energy independence.

The issues we currently have are there are no viable substitutes for oil that will be available in the next few decades and we have a large amount of oil and gas reserves in the US that we can't type because of excessive environmental regulations. The end result of this has been to make us overly dependent on foreign oil sources. Right now we need our foreign suppliers of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and others more than they need us and they don't like us very much. This is a very bad position for the US to be in.

If the Democrats want to push some of these ideas that will make us more dependent on our enemies for our energy needs and if they wish to reward those who would invade us with amnesty, they find their majorities in Congress are short lived. Perhpas then we can get some real conservatives in the House and the Senate.

Ben-T

How exactly will the appointment of Robert Gates as Sec of Defense make us less equipped to counter act China? I think we are already ill equiped to counter act China or Russia. In any event, the strength and power of Russia and China, especially Russia, has increased exponentially during the Rumsfeld tenure. It seems to me, if part of our national policy is going to be to contain China and Russia, we need a change. What we have done to date has not been successul in containing either of these countries.

Frankly the sacking of Rumsfeld is over due. It should have been done about two years ago.

If illegals are granted amnesty, it will be just another indication that our government has surrendered and has given up on its duty to protect its citizens and to maintain the sovereignty of the United States.

This country is sinking already under the weight of a population it can't control with a percentage of that population not believing they are Americans. So, allowing people who are criminals in the first place to stay and essentially reward them for breaking the law is ludicrous.

How much more third world welfare can we provide?

Pi$$ing against the tide, I suspect.

JANINE
Do you believe in UFOs, astral projection, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trans-mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?

WINSTON
Hey, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

THE HOMOS ARE COMMING! THE HOMOS ARE COMMING! iTS TIME FOR THIS CONSERVATIVE TO PULL OUT THE GUNS AND HUNKER DOWN!!!!!

What does amnesty have to do with Rumsfeld's retirement, you moron?

"Ben-T

How exactly will the appointment of Robert Gates as Sec of Defense make us less equipped to counter act China? I think we are already ill equiped to counter act China or Russia. In any event, the strength and power of Russia and China, especially Russia, has increased exponentially during the Rumsfeld tenure. It seems to me, if part of our national policy is going to be to contain China and Russia, we need a change. What we have done to date has not been successul in containing either of these countries. " -B.Poster

Because Rumsfeld was in the middle of a massive military overhaul program designed to reform the US military to face 21st century threats-namely Russia and China, and he was sacked in the middle of it.

He was the best Secretary of Defense we have had for a long time, and he was sacked to provide the GOP with a scapegoat. Rumsfeld was over confident, Rumsfeld didn't think he would need enough troops, Rumsfeld did this, Rumsfeld did that.

Hardly. Rumsfeld predicted Iraq would be, and I quote; "A long, hard, slog". In 2003. When everyone else, the democrats included, were predicting a three week war.

Of the people who berate supposed "San Francisco" values and cry about illegal immigrants, I will bet that neither of those issues has had any personal effect on them. Whatever happened to minding one's own business? It is an ethical position embraced most strongly by the WWII generation and has been lost. Live and let die, and if you can't do that, please stop whining.

“Minding one’s own business?” Who’s business is illegal immigration if not the citizen’s of the United States? If someone wants to take advantage of what the US has to offer why can’t they walk in through the front door? Why should the people of Mexico not have to go through the same legal channels as everyone else? If the process to come here needs to be tweaked by all means let’s do it but that shouldn’t be an excuse for coming here illegally.

It is estimated that 10-15% of the people who come across the border commit crimes while they are here. That’s 10-15% out of 12 million people! The guy who killed that police officer in Houston a while back was an illegal from Mexico who had been thrown out of this country several times and just kept coming back over. This sort of thing happens more often than we here about in the news. And you’re going to sit there and say “live and let live” and “mind you own business”?

You’re way off base, Chuck. Illegal immigration is the business of everyone in this country.

You also stated: “It is an ethical position embraced most strongly by the WWII generation and has been lost.”

Do you care to clarify that statement?

One last thing: Does anyone know what the process is to immigrate to this country legally?

Mariner, him say: "The guy who killed that police officer in Houston a while back was an illegal from Mexico who had been thrown out of this country several times and just kept coming back over."

How do you suppose we stop someone from "just keeps coming back over"?

Shock treatissement. Electro-playground mentality? Prison?

Take any population of 12 million and there will be an increase in the crime rate by about 15%...now, if only we can find our sources...

“How do you suppose we stop someone from "just keeps coming back over"?” [sic]

We secure the border, numbnuts. We use Border Patrol, The Minutemen and the military if necessary. That and we follow through on building that large wall the government has been talking about. Maybe you heard about it on the news.

If you’re asking if someone that commits a violent crime in this country should go to prison the answer is yes.

I didn’t say that crime in this country has risen by 15%, I said that 10-15% of the 12 Million people in this country illegally commit crimes. Wouldn't you consider that a significant number?

Source: Department of Justice.

That was one retarded comment. Is English your first language? Are you related to Haha by any chance?

I can't wait until the day after amnesty is declared.

People will be in the streets with Mexican flags!

Last week, the New York newspapers conveniantly left out that the 18 year old construction worker who killed the actress and then staged a fake suicide was an illegal immigrant.

My friend/co-worker was engaged this past year and it took 6 months for his future wife to be allowed into the country (and no she's not a mail-order bride). He had to obtain a fiance's visa for her, and the State Dept does a backround check (she's from the Philippines). It cost him roughly $1-2k with all of the paperwork (in triplicate to different agencies).

Twist on an old yarn: a liberal is a conservative that hasn't been mugged, robbed, raped, in an auto accident or otherwise financially impacted by an illegal alien.

You're day will come lib boy.

Always good to see the true intelligence level of the whacko right wing mafia. If you can't speak proper English then you can't criticize anyone. Unless you're W of course. LMAO

You see FTW, your friend f'ed up and followed the correct and legal path. He and his bride to be should have gotten with the program and taken the illegal contrarian route by buying her a ticket to Mexico and then she could have just walked across the border. And she could have been immediately eligible for welfare and immune to the laws that govern the majority of citizens in the U.S.

Come on! Isn't this what our alleged leaders are demonstrating should happen?

"We secure the border, numbnuts. We use Border Patrol, The Minutemen and the military if necessary."

That is about the most puerile and idealistic "solution" that I've ever heard. You cannot "seal" a border. Security is porous.

Marooner...

Posting "Source: Department of Justice." doesn't make your source a source. Give us a link, genius.

Back to the topic, though (which was Rumsfeld, not Mexicans): Does anyone else feel like Rummy tucking tail and running is a pretty cowardly stance? I mean, he is somewhat responsible for the deaths of 2500+ US soldiers..

Dem: Yeah, god forbid someone actually has to learn the language of the country they’re planning on living in. My god!

Radio: Wrong, a border can be secured. Like Mexico secures its borders with its other neighbors. Everyone but us. It’s funny how I hear very little criticism about that. Of course some people will get through, but increasing our border security will slow the tidal wave of illegal immigration considerably. Hopefully at a certain point it will be easier to come here legally than just walk across the border. That way we know who we’re letting in.
I’d be careful calling someone else puerile after that nonsensical comment you made earlier in the thread.
I’m curious: What solution, if any, do you propose for the problem of illegal immigration?

Hehe: I’m glad you chimed in. I have a story everyone may enjoy and it involves you. I have a friend who is a professional writer and teaches writing at one of the local colleges here in AZ. She also teaches basic English once a week to new citizens. I shared a couple of your posts with her last week and she was just amazed an adult would communicate as poorly as you do, especially on a website dedicated to intelligent debate. Well, I spoke to her just after lunch today and she told me she’s been using a couple of your posts as an example of what not to do. She has her students identify the grammatical and spelling errors and then as homework has them re-write your comments so they are readable.
Oh, wait a minute. What am I saying? Communicating well isn’t really that important anyway, is it?

Amnesty may well happen, but I wouldn’t count on it just yet. I think the Democratic Party may be a bit more cautious then you think on a divisive issue like carte blanche amnesty. Just as they got voted in Tuesday they can get voted out next election cycle if they go against what most people in this country want. Make no mistake, the vast majority in this country want a secure border with Mexico and are against amnesty.

You want to see public opinion really turn against amnesty? Then let them march in the streets waving the Mexican flag. Nothing would galvanize the anti-illegal movement more than that. The first rally staged in AZ proved that.

Dem, Radio, Haha, Other left wingers:
What’s the problem with coming here legally, anyway?

Again, Mariner, no source. You are, in fact, incorrect: Mexico undergoes waves of immigration from Guatemala. There is no real way to secure a border, inch by inch...

Unless, that is, you have a mind a sort of wall. A Berlin Wall.

I enjoy the fact that everyone who disagrees with you is instantly a "left winger". My, you're such a cad!

"You want to see public opinion really turn against amnesty? Then let them march in the streets waving the Mexican flag. Nothing would galvanize the anti-illegal movement more than that. The first rally staged in AZ proved that."

Where's your proof that this "galvanized the anti-illegal movement"? You are truly sourceless, my man.

Radio,
I'm not going to do your research for you. The info is valid, go find it yourself if you need to verify it.

You have done no research yourself. Simply post a link, just one that,for example, qualifies anything you've been spouting here. How can you argue that the use of a flag instantly galvanizes those who 1) aren't really against the nation for which that flag stands and 2) that something so nebulous as "sentiment" can be quantified and "surveyed"?

I love this: you cry for hard facts but provide none yourself. And yet, since you're asserting the argument, the burden of proof lies with you. Make me believe what you're saying!

Radiopurge, agree or dissent with the following assertion?

"A state must be sovereign if it is to be considered independent."

Ben,

Is there a standing notion of what we would call a state? If by sovereign, do you mean "not under foreign control" or the more precise, "exercising supreme authority within a limited sphere"?

President Bush waved a Mexican flag on a video he sent to Hispanic voters during the 2004 election and that didn't stop all the Bush cultists from thinking he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

If Mr Bush wants amnesty, he'll get it. What to do about the war in Iraq is a moot point because the United States has very little control over Iraq right now. Right now our "plan" is just to hope things get better. But the war in Iraq is basically finished -- the American people have now spoken against it and are no longer supportive. Bush will probably pass this albatross on to the next president who likewise won't be able to do anything to make it work.

At no point was I ever in support of the war in Iraq. I was always 100% against it -- even when the Bush Administration was running a 24/7 disinformation campaign about Iraq's deadly weapons of mass destruction. I don't have to make any excuses or rationalizations. That cannot be said by those who supported the war -- Neocons, Bush cultists, and most Democrat and Republican weenies.

Radio,
One more time. Mexico may well have waves of immigration from Guatemala. That doesn't mean they don't ruthlessly enforce that border when they catch someone coming across illegally. Newsweek had an article about that very thing earlier in the year. I don't have that issue in front of me but I'll try and find it tonight.

“Where's your proof that this "galvanized the anti-illegal movement"?” I live in Arizona and was here when the rallies took place. I saw and heard the reaction to the people waving the Mexican flag on the local news and by speaking to people when I was out and about. Do you want a link to the lady I spoke to at the park or the guy I spoke to while having a beer? My assertions and opinions are based on what I heard from the news outlets, from speaking to people and from my own observations. If you want to research what happened at that rally and what the reactions were go to the Arizona Republic or local news stations archives.

“How can you argue that the use of a flag instantly galvanizes those who 1) aren't really against the nation for which that flag stands and 2) that something so nebulous as "sentiment" can be quantified and "surveyed"?”

You’re putting words into my mouth here. My point is there were many people who took exception to the Mexican flags being waved in the first AZ rally this year. They felt (and I agree) that if these people want to truly be part of the US then why are they flying the Mexican flag? It was very insulting to many of us and the local news outlets felt that it in fact hurt the very cause the rallies were supposed to have brought attention to.
I never stated that sentiment can be quantified. Where is that coming from?

I’ll tell you what: I’ll make it a point to do a better job recording and providing the links and sources to help back up my claims. Fair enough?

Also, I would like to apologize to you and everyone else for the numbnuts and left winger comments. I’ve been a bit big on the name calling and need to stop.

Mariner,

That was my point: Mexico, in protecting their borders, cannot enforce every square mile of border. What are you looking for, a force field?

ps.

This: "Do you want a link to the lady I spoke to at the park or the guy I spoke to while having a beer?"

Doesn't mean this:

"Nothing would galvanize the anti-illegal movement more than that. The first rally staged in AZ proved that."

So, those two (count 'em: 2!) people you "surveyed" are a movement?

Mariner, I am willing to agree with you as far as the continued use of a flag in the context of staking a foreign claim in a country could be viewed as incendiary. But you cannot assume that whoever waves the flag in this cause, be it Bush or some anonymous bystander, is out to deny this nation's "sovereignty".

Mariner,

Neither did I hope nor seek to offend you. If that did perchance to happen, I too apologize.

"Is there a standing notion of what we would call a state? If by sovereign, do you mean "not under foreign control" or the more precise, "exercising supreme authority within a limited sphere"?" -radiopurge

Either works.

“So, those two (count 'em: 2!) people you "surveyed" are a movement?”
I was being facetious referring to the two people I spoke to. Don’t put words in my mouth. No, two people are not a movement and I never said I “surveyed” anyone. These were casual communications, which is a valid way of finding out how people feel. Are you denying that the majority of people are against illegal immigration? I’m curious to find out how you feel about the topics discussed today.

Here’s that source from Newsweek regarding how Mexico enforces their southern borders (Informal format).

Issue: June 5, 2006, page 38.
“Stepping Over The Line” Joseph Contreras

Meant to say "The people I spoke to were casual communications". Sorry, hit post instead of preview.

No. Either doesn't work. They are very different, and far removed from one another. The first notion doesn't imply ownership nor majority influence by a foreign entity, the second implies that there is no equal or even lesser contending power in the "sphere".
I don't believe that the US is a sovereign nation in neither sense, nor has it been for a very long time. Aside from that, the notion of sovereignty is a tricky one, and sometimes a red herring: You cannot be a truly sovereign entity, nor can any "invisible hand" guide a nation without a compromise to sovereignty (at least in the first case). Hell, sovereignty directly conflicts with individuals "liberties" to buy up large parts of this country.

Actually, you did say two people. I'm not putting anything into your mouth.

asdf, like most 'conservatives,' is incapable of differentiating libertarian from liberal thought. He seems to be throwing all thought different than his own into the liberal camp. What about an ethic of minding one's own business sounds liberal to you? It used to be a conservative notion, but has been replaced by religious tyrrany. And I've been mugged by Americans and asked for work by illegal immigrants. I'm sorry that my experiences don't comport with your ideas. I'm sorry your day came. What is it that an illegal immigrant did to you?

"No. Either doesn't work. They are very different, and far removed from one another. The first notion doesn't imply ownership nor majority influence by a foreign entity, the second implies that there is no equal or even lesser contending power in the "sphere".
I don't believe that the US is a sovereign nation in neither sense, nor has it been for a very long time. Aside from that, the notion of sovereignty is a tricky one, and sometimes a red herring: You cannot be a truly sovereign entity, nor can any "invisible hand" guide a nation without a compromise to sovereignty (at least in the first case). Hell, sovereignty directly conflicts with individuals "liberties" to buy up large parts of this country." -radiopurge

I meant that you could reply to either or to both, however you felt.

That post above was essentially dodging the issue.

Ben

If Rumsfeld was trying to reform the military to handle threats posed by Russia and China, he appears to have done a poor job. During his tenure, the power of Russia and China has increased significantly. American power has declined substantially. It seems to me that to properly deal with China will require a much larger military. To properly deal with Russia will require massive upgrades to the nuclear arsenal.

During the tenure of Rumsfeld, the military has not been increased in size and the nuclear arsenal has not been upgraded. Had we substantially increased the size of the military after 911 we would probably be in a better positon in Afghanistan and Iraq now but we did not, so this is where we find ourselves. For better or worse, we will be withdrawing from Iraq soon.

The commitment of troops we have now is unsustaiable and we do not have enough there to achieve the mission and we will not be getting more troops. As such, the only option available is withrawl in masse. There will likely be a small contingent of troops based in Kurdish areas who will be there to try and place a check on Iran. The end result of a horribly botched Iraq policy will likely be that the US will no longer be the dominant power in the world for the foreseeable future, if ever again. For all intents and purposes the US has already been replaced as the world's dominant power by Russia and China.

Two things that we should begin to do now to adjust to the new global realities would be to: 1.)Begin developing more of our own oil and gas reserves. It is silly to continue buying so much of them from countries who hate us. Our currently energy policy only enriches those who hate us. There are no viable substitutes for oil right now and there will not be for the foreseeable future. By developing more of our own resources this will give us more leverage when dealing with the world's major oil suppliers. Right now we have none. 2.) Secure the borders with Mexico and enforce our immigration laws. Had we simply enforce our immigration laws we may have been able to prevent 911.

To an extent, you are right about Rumsfeld being scapegoated but the bottom line with Don Rumsfeld was the country was not getting good results. He needed to be removed. Unfortunately it should have been done about three years ago.

My understanding is the person tapped to be the new Sec of Defense is a Russia expert. This is good. Unfortunately he is from the CIA and the CIA failed us badly in the run up to the Iraq war, however, he was head of the CIA during the early 90s. This was long before the intellegence that led to the second Iraq war was formulated. Hopefully he will do better than Rumsfeld. Its sure hard to imagine anyone doing worse than Rumsfeld.

All we can do now is try and manage the situation as best we can now. Unfortunately enemies who posed an existential threat to the US before 911 are now even stronger. If George W. Bush is not the worst president in the history of the Republic it is hard to imagine who could have been worse.

"If Rumsfeld was trying to reform the military to handle threats posed by Russia and China, he appears to have done a poor job. During his tenure, the power of Russia and China has increased significantly. American power has declined substantially. It seems to me that to properly deal with China will require a much larger military. To properly deal with Russia will require massive upgrades to the nuclear arsenal." -B.Poster

On the first, China and Russia are simply not more powerful than they would have been otherwise. They're growth has been checked.

Secondly, we aren't going to take on China or Russia by adopting their strategic model. If god-forbid we actually had to fight them-it would be highly cost ineffective to take them on tank for tank-artillery piece for artillery piece. Much better to maximize our own strategic strengths-air power, space technology, strategic flexibility. That was the aim of the Rumsfeld program.

"During the tenure of Rumsfeld, the military has not been increased in size and the nuclear arsenal has not been upgraded. Had we substantially increased the size of the military after 911 we would probably be in a better positon in Afghanistan and Iraq now but we did not, so this is where we find ourselves. For better or worse, we will be withdrawing from Iraq soon." -B.Poster

We'd have a military that was unnecessarily expensive and too large to maintain its key strengths-speed and flexibility.

For better or for worse, we won't be leaving Iraq until after either a military or an extremely severe diplomatic confrontation with Iran.

But nevertheless-I don't see the strategic benefit in staying in Iraq. We've already completed all our strategic objectives in the country.

"Two things that we should begin to do now to adjust to the new global realities would be to: 1.)Begin developing more of our own oil and gas reserves. It is silly to continue buying so much of them from countries who hate us. Our currently energy policy only enriches those who hate us. There are no viable substitutes for oil right now and there will not be for the foreseeable future. By developing more of our own resources this will give us more leverage when dealing with the world's major oil suppliers. Right now we have none. 2.) Secure the borders with Mexico and enforce our immigration laws. Had we simply enforce our immigration laws we may have been able to prevent 911." -B.Poster

Sure, both are good ideas.

"To an extent, you are right about Rumsfeld being scapegoated but the bottom line with Don Rumsfeld was the country was not getting good results. He needed to be removed. Unfortunately it should have been done about three years ago.

My understanding is the person tapped to be the new Sec of Defense is a Russia expert. This is good. Unfortunately he is from the CIA and the CIA failed us badly in the run up to the Iraq war, however, he was head of the CIA during the early 90s. This was long before the intellegence that led to the second Iraq war was formulated. Hopefully he will do better than Rumsfeld. Its sure hard to imagine anyone doing worse than Rumsfeld." -B.Poster

Essentially, Bush 41 is running the White House again. Which is an extremely welcome development, I assumed Bush's white house would be much more like his father's, so I assumed he would be much closer to his father than he proved to be, which lead me to overestimate the competence he would bring to the job.

"All we can do now is try and manage the situation as best we can now. Unfortunately enemies who posed an existential threat to the US before 911 are now even stronger. If George W. Bush is not the worst president in the history of the Republic it is hard to imagine who could have been worse." -B.Poster

Who, exactly?

Al Qaeda? Before 9/11 it was a centralized, unified force, with clear objectives and clear plans on how to get there. Since then it doesn't exist as anything other than a brand name for terrorism. The closest it has is Al Qaeda in Iraq, and that is increasingly crippled.

Russia? I can't imagine how. Their attempts at expanding into Eastern Europe were met with the repudiation of the Color Revolutions. Other than that they really just haven't done much.

China? They are now diplomatically crippled in East Asia, due to their unsightly ties with North Korea, and they have reawakened Japanese nationalism-which will provide a constant regional foil to them.

People like to say that Bush's policies have "weakened America and made our enemies stronger".

Well, WHO? Which enemies, specifically, are stronger? In what strategic ways, specifically is America notably weaker?

What a joke AM.

I have a masters degree in English for Christ's sake.

My communications skills are just fine.

I often choose to imatate the retards of the Republican Party on this site.

And I could care less what I sound like on the Internet.

Don't confuse laziness and lethargy with an inability to communicate.

Not everyone takes FlynnFiles are serious as you.

Some people have lives.

And don't even get me started on how grammar and spelling are bullsh*t.

Language naturally evolves. There is no right or wrong way to spell a word.

Maybe your "friend" should take a linguistics course.

Peace dude.

You're good for a laugh as always.

Eric, as the Chief Executive of the United States, who is sworn to uphold our laws and protect the people of this country, Bush is guilty of taking a weak, almost complicit, stand on the current invasion by criminal illegal aliens. For that, I am disgusted with him.

I've defended Bush for other things but if I were to agree at all with his critics that he should be impeached, I could be convinced that he should be impeached for his lack of testicular fortitude with regards to our porous borders and the fact that they are allowed to stay and enjoy all of the benefits that apply to legal citizens.

For that matter, I suppose you could go down a line of recent Presidents and lodge the same charge against them. But I hold Bush responsible for his total disregard for the will of the American people and not doing more to keep these people out.

Deportation and strict border security is the only way to address this problem.

And, I’m sure this has to be partially Rumsfeld’s fault. ;-\

"Al Qaeda? Before 9/11 it was a centralized, unified force, with clear objectives and clear plans on how to get there."

Funded for many years by the CIA.

Uhm, no?

The CIA funded the Afghan Muhajideen. That was a seperate organization which had disbanded by the time Al Qaeda was founded.

Parts of ("elements", i.e., individuals) associated with the Mujahadeen were certainly financed by the CIA, some of these went on to be affiliated with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Ben

Thanks for the reply to my post. Here are a few of my thoughts on what you wrote.

The growth of China may have been checked but I don't think so. They have expanded into South America and Central America while we have been focused on Iraq. It does not seem to me that Russia has been checked at all. Instability in the middle east drives up the price of oil. Oil and weapons are Russia's major exports. Russia uses the profits from oil to manufacture and sell more weapons and to upgrade their own military capabilities. Russia has significantly upgraded their nuclear arsenal in recent years. Also Russia has expanded into Central and South America. While we have been busy in Iraq Russia seems to be quitely outflanking us. Also, the influence of Russia and probably China has increased significantly in Iran and Syria. I freely admit I tend to be a little paranoid. I could be over reacting.

The strategic model used by Russia and China seems to be to use proxies to try and tie down the United States and its allies. Some of Russia's proxies are Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and several leftist governments throughout South America. Both Russia and China use North Korea as a proxy against the US and its allies. These various proxies are probably often times not aware that they are being used this way. Often times it is the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The United States should try to find and use proxies. The trick to it is being able to have "plausible deniability" regarding the actions of the proxy. By using proxies this saves money and it means fewer soldiers have to be used.

I think you are right that Bush is now using the people who were in his father's White House. I suspect the strategy that will be employed will be the use of proxies to engage Iran and Syria after we withdraw from Shia and Sunni areas. According to some reports there are about 12,000 Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq right now. These Al Qaeda are being actively supported by Iran and Syria. There are plenty of Iraqis who don't like Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria. Finding a proxy should not be a problem. The trick will be keeping enough distance from the proxy so that we have plausible deniability for the actions of the proxy.

Right now Al Qaeda may not be as capable of world wide operations as they once were, however, I don't know. In any event, Al Qaeda in Iraq will need to be bottled up where they are now. As we will be withdrawing soon, we will want to have some proxies to help us.

I agree with you about China's unsightly arrangements with North Korea. This has gotten Japan's attention. I suggest we capitalize on this. We should encourage Japan, South Korea, and Tawian to build up their militaries and to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. This way South Korea and Japan could act as a check against Russia and China and we could move our troops out of South Korea and Japan. My understanding is most of the citizens of Japan and South Korea don't want us there any way. Having a nuclear armed and a more militarily potent South Korea and Japan would be a win-win all the way around.

I suspect North Korea under its current leadership may have become a greater liability to China than an asset. I would not be surprised if China uses a proxy to over throw the North Korean government. In my considered opinion, no one uses proxies better than Russia and China use them.

How have Bush's policies made America weaker and our enemies stronger? These are my considered opinions. Of course I could be wrong. Also, I freely admit I can be a bit paranoid sometimes. While we have been focused on Iraq, Russia and China have expanded their influence in places where they did not have as big of a presence as before. Instability in the middle east has played a large role in driving up the price of oil. This has benefited Russia substantially. They have used the profits from oil sales to upgrade their military.

The current "democracy" that we helped install in Iraq is closer to Iran than it is to us. Iran was a major threat to the US even before the US and its allies invaded Iraq. In fact, Iran was probably a bigger threat to the US and the West than Iraq ever was or ever could be. In any dispute with Iran, the Iraqi government would probably side with Iran. This would make any confrontation with Iran more problematic than it would have been before "Iraqi Freedom."

Sanctions against Iran are unlikely to work. Too may nations buy Iranian oil. In any event, Russia and China would probably seek to undermine them. An all out invasion of Iran is out of the question. Congress and the Aemrican people would never support it. In the event of an aeiral bombing against Iranian nuclear sites, Congress and the American people would likely go completely ballistic against the Bush Administration. Also, bombing the nuclear sites would be unlikely to destroy Iran's nuclear bomb making capability. It would only set it back by at most a few years, at most. This coupled with the massive civilian casualties that such an operation would cause make such an operation more harmlful than beneficial to American interests.

I think the optimal solution for Iran would be a coup. According to some reports there are some groups within Iran who are suffering mightily under the mullahs. We could work with them. Unfortunately right now there does not exist the stomach for this within the American government.

For better or worse, I predict the US will do nothing about Iran except to try and contain the threat. America will not stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. A nuclear armed Iran is not a good situation but I think it is something we could manage.

Israel cannot live with a nuclear armed Iran. Due to Iran's virulent hatred of Israel, Israel's small size, and its close proximity to Iran a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Israel may be forced to act regardless of the risks or the political consequences. What does seem clear is Israel will be forced to act before the US would have to act to remove the Iranian threat.

For better or worse, the US will not be engaging Iran in a direct military confrontation. Actions taken against Iran, if any, will not involve the use of the American military. It will be done through proxies.

I have said here and elsewhere that America will not engage in a direct military confrontation with Iran unless Iran or its terrorist proxies attack the American homeland or American interests outside of the middle east. I have also stated that all American troops who are based in Shia and Sunni areas will be out of these areas by the end of July 2007. Instead of the current contingent of 150,000 troops in Iraq there will be 10,000 or fewer and they will based in Kurdish areas. If either of these predictions turn out to be wrong, I will come here and and you can tell me how wrong I was :)

"Parts of ("elements", i.e., individuals) associated with the Mujahadeen were certainly financed by the CIA, some of these went on to be affiliated with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda." -hatsoffgenius

Correct. Meaning you lied. The CIA did not fund Al Qaeda at any point.

"The growth of China may have been checked but I don't think so. They have expanded into South America and Central America while we have been focused on Iraq. It does not seem to me that Russia has been checked at all. Instability in the middle east drives up the price of oil. Oil and weapons are Russia's major exports. Russia uses the profits from oil to manufacture and sell more weapons and to upgrade their own military capabilities. Russia has significantly upgraded their nuclear arsenal in recent years. Also Russia has expanded into Central and South America. While we have been busy in Iraq Russia seems to be quitely outflanking us. Also, the influence of Russia and probably China has increased significantly in Iran and Syria. I freely admit I tend to be a little paranoid. I could be over reacting." -B.Poster

South America is a strategic afterthought in comparison with the Middle East. I'm not worried about it.

We are leaving the age when ground-based ICBMS will be strategically viable. It doesn't matter how advanced the ICBMs sitting in your siloes are, if they can be destroyed by enemy satellites in orbit. And the US military is the only one in the world pursuing a campaign to establish total space superiority.

"I think you are right that Bush is now using the people who were in his father's White House. I suspect the strategy that will be employed will be the use of proxies to engage Iran and Syria after we withdraw from Shia and Sunni areas. According to some reports there are about 12,000 Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq right now. These Al Qaeda are being actively supported by Iran and Syria. There are plenty of Iraqis who don't like Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria. Finding a proxy should not be a problem. The trick will be keeping enough distance from the proxy so that we have plausible deniability for the actions of the proxy." -B.Poster

I would not be surprised if there is an Iraqi military coup in the country, which we then use to fight said forces.

"I agree with you about China's unsightly arrangements with North Korea. This has gotten Japan's attention. I suggest we capitalize on this. We should encourage Japan, South Korea, and Tawian to build up their militaries and to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. This way South Korea and Japan could act as a check against Russia and China and we could move our troops out of South Korea and Japan. My understanding is most of the citizens of Japan and South Korea don't want us there any way. Having a nuclear armed and a more militarily potent South Korea and Japan would be a win-win all the way around." -B.Poster

Agreed.

"How have Bush's policies made America weaker and our enemies stronger? These are my considered opinions. Of course I could be wrong. Also, I freely admit I can be a bit paranoid sometimes. While we have been focused on Iraq, Russia and China have expanded their influence in places where they did not have as big of a presence as before. Instability in the middle east has played a large role in driving up the price of oil. This has benefited Russia substantially. They have used the profits from oil sales to upgrade their military." -B.Poster

How has Middle East instability driven up the price of Russian Oil?

"The current "democracy" that we helped install in Iraq is closer to Iran than it is to us. Iran was a major threat to the US even before the US and its allies invaded Iraq. In fact, Iran was probably a bigger threat to the US and the West than Iraq ever was or ever could be. In any dispute with Iran, the Iraqi government would probably side with Iran. This would make any confrontation with Iran more problematic than it would have been before "Iraqi Freedom."" -B.Poster

This part I agree with.

"Sanctions against Iran are unlikely to work. Too may nations buy Iranian oil. In any event, Russia and China would probably seek to undermine them. An all out invasion of Iran is out of the question. Congress and the Aemrican people would never support it. In the event of an aeiral bombing against Iranian nuclear sites, Congress and the American people would likely go completely ballistic against the Bush Administration. Also, bombing the nuclear sites would be unlikely to destroy Iran's nuclear bomb making capability. It would only set it back by at most a few years, at most. This coupled with the massive civilian casualties that such an operation would cause make such an operation more harmlful than beneficial to American interests." -B.Poster

I am confident that Iran will close off the Straight of Hormuz, in response to bombing either from us or from Israel. 20% of the world oil supply passes through the straight every day. The inevitably result will be a naval war between the US and Iran in the gulf (accompanied by US bombing). One that Iran cannot possibly win.

I agree that any kind of invasion of Iran is completely out of the question .

"I think the optimal solution for Iran would be a coup. According to some reports there are some groups within Iran who are suffering mightily under the mullahs. We could work with them. Unfortunately right now there does not exist the stomach for this within the American government." -B.Poster

A coup would be great. Unfortunately, I am unsure of any group within Iran that would be capable of such an action. The mullahs have the support of the Iranian military.

"For better or worse, I predict the US will do nothing about Iran except to try and contain the threat. America will not stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. A nuclear armed Iran is not a good situation but I think it is something we could manage.

Israel cannot live with a nuclear armed Iran. Due to Iran's virulent hatred of Israel, Israel's small size, and its close proximity to Iran a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Israel may be forced to act regardless of the risks or the political consequences. What does seem clear is Israel will be forced to act before the US would have to act to remove the Iranian threat. " -B.Poster

The US would be incapable of remaining outside of any conflict between Iran and Israel. However I cannot imagine that the US force contribution would be any larger than 1-2 carrier battle groups.

The Kurds as well would get involved. The Peshmerga is currently conducting training operations with Israeli special forces.

Ben

The end results of the Rumsfeld tenure or those of the Bush administration are not known at this time. The Bush administration is not over yet. Both Rumsfeld and Bush may yet be remembered favorably by historians however, at this time, the results of Rumsfeld's military transformation or those of the Bush administration do not look good to me.

You write: "South America is a strategic afterthought in comparison to the middle east I'm not worried about it." We get more of our oil from Venezuela and Mexcio than we do from the middle east. Perhaps you should be more concerned about. The fact that our major oil suppliers in South and Central America are slowly being taken over by leftist governments who sympathize with our enemies in the middle east is a major concern. Mexico almost elected for themselves a leftist government who would have attempted to closely ally Mexico with Venezuela. It is my contention that Iraq has caused us to spend less time focusing on South and Central America. As a result of this, we have Hugo Chavez. This is a far more dangerous threat to America than Iraq or Iran could ever be.

You write: "We are leaving the age where ground based ICBMs will be strategically viable. It doesn't amtter how advanced the ICBMs sitting in your siloes are, if they can be destroyed by enemy satelites in orbit. And the US military is the only one in the world pursuing a campaign to establish total space superiority." Russia not only has land based ICBMs. They also have submarine based nuclear war heads. Any effort to deal with their nuclear arsenal will have to, at a minimum, take this into account. The current missle defense systems being developed are completely inadequate to deal with the nuclear arsenals of Russia or China. They are not even being developed with those countries in mind. The current missle defense systems are being designed to deal with limited nuclear threats, such as those from North Korea or Iran. The US does not seem to be the only country developing space based weapons. The Russians and the Chinese are busy in this area. In fact, it seems to me that the US efforts in this area are in response to Russian and Chinese efforts. In other words, if Russia and China shut down their efforts in this area, the US will quickly shut down its efforts here. Actually, if much of the Democrat leadership had its way, the US will cease research into space weapons technology. This will leave this area wide open to Russia and China. They will not stop just becuase the US does.

You write: "I would not be surprised if there is an Iraqi military coup in the country, which we use to fight said forces." I agree. The coup will probably happen after we have withdrawn. The Iraq Study Group has given up on the goal of "Jeffersonian democracy" as former Sec of State James Baker called it. President Bush wants to make a final go of it. Apparently the Bush Administration is going to try to give it about six more months and contribute about 20,000 more troops to try and bring order to chaos. I don't think this is enough troops nor is six months a long enough time. George W. Bush will probably be facing impeachment hearings very soon. Given his horrible amnesty plan I suspect few Conservatives will stand with him. I know that unless he changes direction significantly I will not. Between impeachment hearings and the Iraq Study Group report Bush will not have the power to keep troops in Iraq even if he wants to. My prediction is still that all of our troops will be officially out of Shia and Sunni areas by July 31, 2007. My tentative prediction is one of the old regime's former Army officers will emerge on top in "Sunnistan" and the US will support him in a proxy war against Iran.

"How has Middle East instability driven up the price of Russian oil?" My understanding of the oil market indicates that it is a world wide market. Instability in the Middle East drives up the price of oil that is sold any where. This causes the price of Venezuealan, Russian, and even Mexican oil to increase in price.

Russia who had one of the most advanced militaries in the world even before the Iraq war has used their increased profits from oil sales to upgrade their military even further. It is my contention that, to date, Russia has been the biggest winner in the GWOT. The GWOT is not over yet. We may still prevail but we will need changes in some of our strategies and we will need better execution in others.

I agree with you that a coup in Iran is probably not feasible at this time. There likely are some people we could support within Iran to bring about a coup but I don't think the US or its allies have the stomach for this right now.

If Israel is forced to bomb Iran, I agree wtih you that Iran will cut off the strait of Hormuz. The US will want to prevent things from getting to the point where Israel is forced to bomb Iran, as cutting off the strait of Hormuz would be devestating to the US economy. I just pray the US does not try to do to Israel what Britian did to the Sudetenland before WWII.

In the event of an actual bombing of Iran by either Israel or the US, this would probably lead to WWIII. On one side you would have the US, Israel, Britian, Inida, Japan, Tawian, and South Korea. Also the Kurs would likely side with us. In addition to this, some Iragi goups might side with us. On the other side you would have Russia, China, Iran, most of the middle east, France, and Germany. This could get very nasty very quickly. The US can probably manage a nuclear Iran, Unfortunately, for reasons discussed above, Israel cannot. They will have no choice but to take military action against Iran should they get too close to a nuclear weapon.