CH

I'd like to take some time to defend my alternative to your strategy, and point out a few other things as well.


Now, you've mentioned that you don't consider it feasible that the Middle East, and the Islamic extremists thereof, would not be content to fight amongst themselves should the U.S. pusue an isolationist policy. No doubt you are correct to some extent. However, I will point to a tremendous amount of empirical evidence that suggests that the very first thing they will do is begin fighting amongst themselves, or at least fighting Israel.

A cursory glance at the history of the Middle East reveals that it has spent most of its' time fighting either (a) itself or (b) Europe. And don't forget the Iran-Iraq war, the ashes of which still smolder. If the U.S. were to withdraw from Iraq in the manner I prescribed, what makes you think they would do anything differently?
I mentioned splitting Iraq into 3 parts, one for each major demographic. Why wouldn't the Muslims pursue a war against the Kurds if U.S. intervention was not a threat? Why would the Shiites not engage the Sunnis? Why would Iran not invade Iraq? Why would the Islamic Middle East not make war upon Israel?
History indicates that they would.

Even then, there is a significant possibility of European intervention in the case of an Islamic invasion of Israel. Britian is certainly a champion of Israel, they created the state to begin with. And there are many Eastern European nations that have a very real reason to fear an Islamic hegemony. In all probability, they would rise to defend Israel. And let us not forget about Russia, which might play a part as well. I suspect that the memory of the Afghan war remains fresh in the minds of her leaders and people. Perhaps she will choose to abstain from conflict in Afghanistan should a militant Islamic government rise again. Or perhaps she will elect to "nip the probelm in the bud" so to speak.
In any case, there is little reason to believe that the jihadists would not have a more pressing problem than the U.S. in the event that they decide to become militaristic against Israel or any other nation. I hardly think that we are going to invoke their wrath by abandoning Israel, and certainly not by withdrawing from Iraq.

Now, assuming that you believe even a fraction of what I just said, our policies would diverge here, I'd prefer to remain Isolationist. I believe that Islam will not act out against a state that does not interfere in their affairs significantly, and I believe that our remote location affords us some protection from their misguided intentions. History would agree (minus a couple of incidents, certainly on a much smaller scale than 98/11), and I think we should follow what history has taught us.

However, instead of advocating a zero-tolerance policy against terrorism that involves the destruction of two Saudi Arabian cities (which has been mentioned)
perhaps you would consider allowing the extremists to massacre the Kurds or invade Israel or whatever they end up doing. Surely we stand to lose nothing by their infighting, and we gain supreme justification for war, perhaps even in the form the measures you have advocated.

I also believe that is highly unlikely that the U.S. will be the victim of another major strike, should you choose to endorse my policy. Jihadists have failed to strike another devestating blow (or any blow, really, despite a few pathetic attempts) against the U.S. in the past 7 years, despite the fact that millions of tons of illegal drugs arrive here every year. Either they lack the means, or they lack the intelligence, but they certainly aren't going to fare any better if they are fighting with themselves, Israel, or Europe.

To be completely honest with you I, myself, have a distrust of Islam. I've met a lot of nice Muslims, who seem to be tired of their oppressive theocrats, but I've also read most of the Koran, and I didn't like what I saw. Perhaps it is inevitable that the West will again go to war with the East, as it has for millenia, but I do not think that yours is the proper method. Not only will it fail to garner popular support, but it will make the U.S. an imperialist agressor nation in the eyes of everyone, not just Islam. And in the end, that could destroy us. Take a lesson from the British Empire, or the Holy Roman Empire, or Imperial Rome, or the Persian Empire, or any empire that has ever exsisted. All were destroyed from within before being destroyed from without. Your policy is the worst of both worlds. Just look at the anti-war sentiment that exsists today, and the prevailing view of the U.S. in international politics. Not only are we seen as belligerent, we are also seen as incompetent. And you would risk exacerbating this state of affairs on the hope that destroying the most holy cities of Islam will end the war on terror? Remember that Jerusalem is a holy city in the Islamic faith as well.

You will not bring about some kind of Pax Americana by these actions, you will destroy the country. Evidently, you have never read the Koran or studied its' principles. The destruction of Mecca and Medina will do nothing but guarantee a worldwide Jihad against the U.S. These are people who are fighting in the belief that that their actions will reserve them a place in paradise. And worse, they are usually uneducated people who actually believe that.
Also, in case you have forgotten, we can't even afford our own domestic policies at this juncture, let alone a war, let alone an anti-terrorist war against every willing Islamic nation in the world. How will you pay for it? You'll destroy the currency through inflation alone. Not to mention the depletion of oil supplies, which this nation is in no shape to whether at the moment.

Why not let history repeat itself? Withdraw America as gracefully as possible. Let Islam do what it has always done. Then you can either take advantage of the situation or remain isolationist until the situation warrants intervention. That way, you would have a justification for your policy. Or, depending on how it turns out, you could remain isolationist. In my ideal scenario, the Middle East ends up under Europe's thumb once again, which, historically, is the only time it will not cause trouble.

You've already voiced concerns about "appeasement". This is not appeasement. We'd just be wating for a fovourable situation to develop. Maybe it works out, and maybe ot doesn't, but in either case we get some economic recovery from your other policies and don't waste money or incur the wrath of the rest of the world while we wait.

The U.S. has always prospered by staying out of foreign wars (or showing up late, at least). Would you refute Jefferson's advice to stay out of entangling alliances and foreign wars, whilst concentrating on trade? In our first century and-a-half, the U.S. followed this policy, and it made us a superpower. When we did not, it devestated us. Even our own Constitution was written to keep us out of wars, requiring the approval of Congress before hostilities could be declared.

So I ask you, in the event that you should ever be elected to public office, remember what lessons history has taught us, and remember the advice of our greatest founders. The U.S. is supposed to be a land of opportunity, not one of imperialist aggression. Do not make us a target for the ire of other nations, and if you have to do so, at least make sure that we dominate them economically.

Talk about totally missing the point. Ask yourself just how few people there might actually be in your "silent majority" if people such as us, with disparate backgrounds and viewpoints have the same opinion of your foreign policy flaws.

As for providing better alternatives to your proposals, that is a cop out. We're not the ones running here,it's you. We're the people you have to convince to support you if you want to be elected, and as my straw poll shows you are just not doing it.

There's about 8 days left of the poll. Change some minds and do better on the next one or declare an end to your candidacy.

UnderSea - I am not going to respond directly to that yet - mainly because I think there are alot of good points in there that I really need to spend some thought on before I try to answer. I have to admit - there are some views and reasonings that - at least at first glance - seem very reasonable. Let me chew on it for a day or so and I will give you some feedback.

This is the stuff I had hoped for - things that make me - and hopefully everyone else - sit back and THINK. Thanks! :yeah:

By my count August, seems I have 2 people at least that are in agreement. 2 plus myself seems to be 3 - same as you, Mikhayl and Aramike make 3. Sorry but I don't see your little "click" being somehow much more numerous than those that agree with me. At least - last time I checked 3 was equal to 3.

"There's about 8 days left of the poll. Change some minds and do better on the next one or declare an end to your candidacy."

You will forgive me if I don't put much stock in YOUR poll. Then again - maybe you won't - but I won't lose sleep either way. As for "declaring an end to my candidacy" - exactly who do you think you are to make such a demand? Fact is - 17% for a candidate without major backing and a D or an R beside his name is - in a political sense - a major victory. In most states - that amount is enough to guarantee him a place on the ballot. Hmm... maybe I should consider your poll after all? :har:

*Cracking knuckles*I do remember that I asked for you to do this. You say that as though you think you're bringing down some hammer - having read your replies, I believe your evaluation to be wrong.I was making a generalization. I'm willing to bet you're the only one who couldn't figure that out, which seems to lead to the conclusion that you're grasping at straws in an absurd attempt to discredit me.

Made me chuckle, thanks.KNOWING that there are no clear battle lines and UNDERSTANDING that there are no clear battle lines are two different things.

The majority of your rhetoric (especially your innane attempts to morally equate your "Terrorist Option" with WWII) supports the assertion that you do not understand.

Oh, and "stop while I can"? What an ARROGANT statement! What exactly does that mean?

As for you, I'd say "quit while you're ahead" but we passed that point a long time ago...

PS: I'm not your son. *sarcasm*But it's clear that you have the demeanor to be president. *sarcasm off*Your (failed) attempts at picking apart my verbiage says otherwise. If you weren't desperate, you'd be able to stick to the point rather than making an attempt to make me out to be some liar.

Definitely desperation.And yet there was no untruth... heh.This is the kind of statement that makes people perceive you as "arrogant". You didn't call me to account for anything except the ghosts you've made up to make yourself feel better. But, more importantly, how would you know my attitude in response to being "called to account" if I hadn't even responded yet?

Extremely arrogant...

Here, let me explain it to you in different terms. If I were, say, planning a war (we'll stay on theme here) and said that I knew the enemy had massive air and ground forces, but focused my planning solely upon the ground forces, one could draw the conclusion that I don't understand the air threat.

It would be a silly defense for me to say "but I said that I know the enemy has airforces".

Yet, that's the very logic you're using in an attempt to discredit me. Ultimately you only further discredit yourself.This made me laugh. Loudly.

What, exactly, do you think an election is? One cannot expect to successfully campaign for POTUS on the "Unpopular Candidate" platform... :doh: I'm not the one saying I want to be President, or that I would be even qualified for the job.

However, I do have many ideas and a plan - trust me, it's a lot more complicated and difficult than "Destroy Mecca". But that plan doesn't mitigate the outrage that most of us (I'd better not generalize or you'll throw a fit) have over your plan, and you're the one that matters here.

As far as my plan goes, it's irrelevent to yours so why bring it up?Well, we've seen how well your calling me to the carpet has worked, haven't we? :know:

I haven't misrepresented a thing.I'm fine with that. Yet you're the one stating you wish to run for president, and your policy on terrorism is revolting to me. As such, you'd better get used to people not simply shrugging things off as a disagreement.*YAWN*. This is the fourth time you've made this very inaccurate statement.No, you showed me what you perceived to be an untrue statement. And I've showed you in this very reply how my words were 100% accurate from my perspective which is drawn from your supporting statements.

But what I find peculiar here is how much you're focusing on this "untrue" statement when it is merely a minor part of my point. Could it be that the rest of the argument hit home and you would rather divert attention to something so minute? Hmm.Actually, that's kind of what you're doing. I'm not attempting to discredit you - I'm attempting to illustrate the extreme flaws in your view on terror.

You, on the other hand, have turned this into a "you lied" type of thread. No, I didn't. You just didn't think hard enough about my statement.I didn't say your view was "garbage". I said that your statement that I wouldn't recognize victory was garbage. That's why I use the "Quote" feature - to make sure it's easy to keep my replies in context. Obviously context isn't important to you.

Either that, or you fell of your high horse and are deliberately attempting to use untruths to discredit me. In any case, here's a good time for the term "ironic".Perhaps, but I have noticed that you have a very arrogant tone.

I'm not calling you names either, btw. So what's your point?I'm starting to worry that your grasp of the English language is somewhat lacking. Every post you've made in this thread has been composed mostly of rhetoric.

Look the word "rhetoric" up. There are plenty of online dictionaries.

Oh, and to put things back into context - what I referred to as "garbage rhetoric" was your assertion that I wouldn't recognize victory. It was and still is garbage rhetoric.

Next.This is where I believe you do NOT understand terrorism. "Vast majority" doesn't matter. Did Timothy McVeigh have the "vast majority" of basements open to him?

A terrorist doesn't need the "vast majority" - he only needs one.

But in any case, should you destroy Mecca or any other city, people who sympathize will be coming out of the woodwork. You'd be making terrorism EASIER.

What you propose ultimately makes being a mainstream Muslim more difficult and being a terrorist a lot easier.Are you serious? That doesn't prove anything.

Terrorists in a cave does NOT prove that terrorists are NOT in basements. That's preposterous. And then to extrapolate that somehow it is somehow proof that your tactic would work is even more absurd.

As usual you're passing off your assumptions as proof.Yes, you were defining "victory conditions". And I was pointing out how your "condition" was impossible (my point all along). Therefore, it was irrelevent.

I didn't confuse the issue - I was specifically addressing your "victory conditions". You, on the other hand, chose to confuse it. Hmm...Entirely based upon the assumptions that:

1. Someone would know.
2. That someone would understand what they are seeing.
3. That someone would be aware of the threat posed by not reporting it.
4. That someone would care about that threat.
5. The terrorists are unable to hide their intentions.

I could go on and on, but there's no point. Your entire plan is based upon assumptions.Your logic is flawed as it is based upon assumptions.

That's why good leaders use logic AND precedence.It's a big world. REAL logic would assume that people would be able to find a place to hide.

As for your resource argument - did Timothy McVeigh have HAMAS funding him?

Did he need it?

You do NOT understand the nature of terrorism. Period.My wording? Excuse me?

My wording was precise and accurate. YOU chose to make it mean something else.A "shaken" Muslim world does not indicate the target would be effective at all. That's an assumption you're making, suspiciously absent a definition for "effective".The Six Day War - for starters.Let's just say I'd rather have president who doesn't arbitrarily throw away human lives based upon how things "seem" to him...Not at all. Yet another example of your contextual struggles...How Presidential. :salute:

In any case, why do you need my alternatives? They are irrelevent to the debate on YOUR plan.Won't like it? HAH!

Just wondering how long it took, after you wrote it, before you were done being supremely satisfied with yourself... :har: That's silly. The American people need a leader who knows HOW to see it but knows how to control his response to how he sees it. The job of the President isn't to "call it like he sees it", it's to make policy decisions on how he sees it.Again, more contextual flaws.

:yawn:

Maybe you should check your count.

People who said or clearly implied they disagree with Haplo:

1. Aramike
2. August
3. Mikhayl
4. UnderseaLcpl
5. AngusJS
6. baggygreen
7. Kapt Z
8. joegrundman
9. XabbaRus

It's odd that you say you have 3 people in agreement and PICK three people from the other side to equate it to...

Oh, and 17% here sure doesn't represent your "silent majority". I'm betting the 83% is more likely to do so. And, if you know anything about how political polling works (which you should, considering), your 17% is probably equal to about .1%.

You know, if you were actually as willing to listen to other people as you claim, the outrage at your idea would have forced you to back off the plan by now. Personally, I'm starting to think it's all just grandstanding - no serious candidate for president would feel out a campaign on a bulletin board.

I'm glad that it made you think, and please understand that it may not be the perfect policy to pursue. Even if you choose to endorse it, please remember that you can't come right out and say that it is your policy. It needs to be presented in politically correct steps, as I outlined before.
There are probably better policies out there, devised by minds much greater than my own (which really doesn't fall into the category of "great"), but allow me a little poetic license) , but my only goal here was to get you to step back and think about the ramifications of your actions.

Perhaps you will decide in favor of my plan, or perhaps not, but more than anything, I would urge you to think along the same lines that our founding fathers did. They were not perfect men, but they had great foresight, and they wrote a Constitution upon which this nation could stand. Should you ever obtain the office of President, I would hope that you would weigh their advice and ideals heavily before commiting to a policy. Admittedly, some of their writings leave some room for interpretation, but outright belligerence is not among those.

There is a lot of potential in your policies and platforms, and they may well see you into office someday, assuming you can deliver your intentions to the people and the special interests in a suitable manner. And I would hope that should you do so, you would keep faith with Constitutional law.

Of course, everything I have said thus far has been my opinion. But I am glad that it has given you pause to think. Even if you do not agree that my policy is the wisest, or even if you retain the assertion that yours is best, the important thing is that you have really spent some time considering other options.

Dammit, Undersea, why must you be so much more diplomatic than I am??? :haha:

Aramike and Mikhayl - I said in the first post of this thread - "I fully expect to learn quite a bit as I hope you all do as well." By that I made it obvious I was looking for other views to also consider. I have invited each person - you two specifically - to put out some of your own ideas. When I have done so, your response has been basically "well our ideas don't matter - your the one considering running for office.". I was under the impression that we follow the US Constitution, and thus have a representative form of government. I cannot know every idea. Once again your statements to the effect of "you are running - you should know it all" show your simply sitting back and waiting for someone to just come and make it all better for you. Sorry - life - and government - just doesn't work that way.

So far the both of you have either called me, or intimated that I am, arrogant. If I had the attitude that I had all the perfect answers, then I would be as arrogant as you charge me with. Rather I have come to a very small segment of people that I may one day choose to explore representing, to get feedback and discussion on various issues. There have been a couple of people that have thrown out ideas that - while not "in line" with my own - are worthy of great exploration and consideration. Apparently because I disagree with YOU - I am somehow arrogant. Because I am willing to put the security of this country above the views of other segments of the world - I am arrogant. Its one thing to disagree with the policy - and obviously you do. But the accusations and rebuttals are a waste of time - mine at least.

If you want to bring a fresh option for discussion - please do so. I will be more than happy to discuss them after I have a chance to consider them. If you want to simply repeat incessantly why you think my view is wrong - then understand that I accept you see it differently, but am no longer going to waste my time on responding to repetative posts. Neither of us is going to convince the other, so it is better to simply agree to disagree.

Having read Undersea's ideas - I have to say there are some things in there that may alter my position - at least slightly. This is what a good debate and communication does - it refines existing ideas, and incorporates new ones to make them more workable and acceptable to all. You have asked about my ability to work with Congress. Gentleman - this is a perfect example of how you accomplish things - you listen to the IDEAS of others and weigh them in regards to the intended outcome. You avoid repetative - and non-constructive - "discussions" with those that refuse to help move the process forward.

Maybe that is arrogant. Simply is the way I go about things. I have tried to get you to see it the way I do. You don't. I respect that. I still don't really know how YOU see the way the future would go - because neither of you is willing to share those thoughts. That is your right as well. But gentleman - if your waiting till someone has the "perfect" answer for you - without helping to shape it (as it seems you are refusing to do here) - just be prepared for a long wait.

I have no ill will toward either of you, and hope that you choose to help smooth all the rough edges of the policies I may promote. That choice is yours. If so, I will look forward to considering additional ideas and views. If not, I simply wish you both well, and God bless you both.

The arrogance remark was in response to specific comments you made:Those are just a couple of examples. It's clearly not just because you disagree with us, as you claim.

In any case, I have demonstrated, point-by-point, how your position is made up almost purely of assumptions. Your position is repulsive to many of us because you would throw away millions of lives based nothing more on your "logic" driven by your assumptions and complete misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism. What you don't get is that it only takes one guy to blow up a building - to hold an entire religion responsible for every practicioner in the very least invites totalitarianism - more realistically it is unfeesible.

A complete plan for controlling terrorism would be based upon the fact that the war cannot be won due to its nature. Therefore it would include economic, military, diplomatic, and legal components - far more complicated than a threat to blow up Mecca and hope the Muslim world falls in line.

Ok Undersea - I will give you a response this weekend. With the kids and work, my time has been limited on the pc - and its going to take some time to type out a full response. Bear with me.

Mikhayl - I will also respond and answer your question. Actually the two responses dovetail together nicely.

I suspect it should be saturday.

Looking forward to hearing it.:up:

Ok - ran a bit late but heck - life happens.

Undersea, you have some great ideas that probably should have been followed along time ago. Thanks again for making me really think things through.

Here is my take on the ideas, and foreign policy as a whole. Our foreign policy is a mess right now - and that is because we have so many ECONOMIC interests in the world at large. We allow other countries to become dependant on us, as we become dependant on them. Most of our interest in the middle east is due to the fact we have, and will for the forseeable future, a petroleum dependant economy.

Right now, we buy more oil from south america than we do the middle east, but the countries we buy it from - their GOVERNMENTS are rather unfriendly to us. So we are forced to keep countries like the Saudi's supported and on friendly terms - so that we can met our minimum requirements should something down south happen.

Until our economy does not depend on outside sources of oil - be it domestic production, or an entire shift in our energy production, we cannot responsibly divest ourself of the middle east.

Add to that the fact you have 3 nuclear capable countries in the region, as well as 2 countries that have demonstrated that they aspire to attain nuclear capabilities, the attitude of just close the doors and windows and stay home and let the rest of the world be, isn't possible. 2 of those countries have been, and tend to stay at, a nearly at war state - Pakistan and India - while the third, Israel - is the pariah that most of the region would love to take out.

When you include Syria and Iran - who have repeatedly been shown to be pursuing nuclear weapons ability, and both being overtly hostile to Israel - and not exactly fond of us, do we really want to just let the region be? If we were to do so, the nuclear proliferation problem would become a nightmare. Or do you think that Iran or Syria would take every step possible to keep those weapons out of the hands of terrorists that would otherwise use them on us? Remember - with terrorists, they don't need a missile that can hit us.......

Had we never become involved in the region economically - thus pumping at least tens of trillions of dollars into it over time, the region wouldn't be even as "advanced" as it is. We wouldn't be facing the issues we do now. Unfortunately, we did, and now we are tied to it. Following an isolationist course now would only create an opportunity for some to cripple us (further) economically while not solving any security concerns long term. 50 years ago - I think it would have been a wise course. Now - its not.

So that leaves us with - what do we do now? We have busted the eggs - we better make an omelet. First lets define the situation - we have 3 sets of people/ countries we are dealing with. I will group them by relation - those that like us - those that don't - and those that are ambivilant. The third really lean one way or the other.

The countries that like us - are not an issue. They seek a relatively stable region as well, and can work with other countries in the region to accomplish this. For example, the recent Egypt -Israeli co-operation against Hamas. These states understand that rogue elements respect no border, and thus work together when opportunity presents itself.

Then you have the ones that don't like us - and they seem to have no respect for anyone - their own people, their neighbors, etc. Again we will use Syria and Iran as examples - both are even now doing all they can to destabilize their neighbors so they can gain more power. They are overtly hostile to anyone - or any government, that does not turn a blind eye. They are willing to severely repress their own people in an effort to continue to solidify and strengthen their grip on their own country - as well as expand that reach to the region.

Then you have countries that are "on the fence". Turkey comes to mind - as they are an "ally" - but often refuse to work with other entities to help build stability. Pakistan is another good example. India tends to do the same, though their current economic health is tied more directly to us and thus they tend to work toward mutual goals a bit more readily. Most of these countries have internal power struggles that keep them from getting off the fence.

To fix this - we have to stop coddling the "powerful" of these nations. We supported Musharref and he did what - took aid from us - and tried to solidify his grip on power. Instead of throwing support behind "leaders" - we need to support IDEAS - with accountability. Instead of a monetary aid package - we work with fairly elected leaders to open up economic possibilities. Like - "You offer reasonable working conditions in making x/y/z product at a specified quality - and you can see a certain $ amount of it to American consumers with no tarriff.". You do this - and you create an economic incentive that helps both sides. You help them build wealth and opportunity. On the other hand - you get a country that doesn't want to play ball - you close trade, or make it really expensive. This can go all the way to sanctions - working with those countries in the region to throttle non-cooperative nations. True, most will turn to Russia as an outlet - but it will still hurt deeply.

I have to close since I have a drive I have to make - but I will post again this evening regarding the diplomatic side of this (though I touched on it) - and will also not how this affects the war on terror as well.

Alright, lets continue.

As you can see - my foreign policy would consider the economic facets of this country's stance and actions. But foreign policy is not just about economics.

Diplomacy is the fine art of getting someone (or in this case a country or group) to do what you want - at an acceptable "cost". Its all about give and take - understanding what the person on the other side can accept and what they can't. We can't approach diplomacy purely through the carrot or stick of economics. We also have to accept that there are some things that diplomacy can accomplish much easier than other ways. Yet we also must realize that there are also things that we cannot accomplish purely through diplomacy.

Now I know my usage of verbs - things like "what we want" - sounds very imperialistic - that is purely my way of speaking - so don't go looking too deep.

When it comes to countries that are "on the fence" or those that actively dislike us - we need to show them the following:

#1 - Our word is good. This is something that we have failed at for decades.
#2 - We accept differences in culture and religion with respect and tolerance, but not to the level where we will condone things such as human rights abuses.
#3 - We have no imperialistic goals in the region.
#4 - We will support leadership that works to better its own countrymen through freedom and respect.
#5 - We will NOT work with or support - but rather will work to isolate - those that choose to disrespect their neighbor states and other sovereign nations via enticing, encouraging or supporting acts of hate or terrorism under the guise of religion, nationalism or any other basis.
#6 - Continuation of the acts listed above in #5 - if they result in the deaths of American citizens - can be considered acts of war and dealt with accordingly.
#7 - We support the current nationalistic boundaries as they are currently recognized in the region, and will offer aid in maintaining those borders as they stand - or support a change should one come about via negotiation and reasonable agreement of the parties involved.
#8 - Countries and parties will find an OBJECTIVE resource in assisting to resolve existing border disputes should they turn to us to assist in mediating talks.

Yes - that does mean not always taking Israel's side - as has been done in the past. It means offering Pakistan and India a place to sit and talk with someone at the table that holds both as allies. It means understanding that rattling a sword is how some regimes operate - but that we cannot respond in the same way. A diplomatic discussion is more than just throwing bloody swords on the table and seeing who blinks first. But it does mean that any agreements we make must be clear in what our response is should they be broken.

Let me give an example by using Iran. Right now, we have no irrefutable evidence of what their nuclear program is up to. Granted - there is no doubt in my mind - but irrefutable proof - we don't have. We do know they are supporting insurgent activities in their neighbor, Iraq. Ok - so how do we get them to cooperate with the world community regarding their nuclear program, as well as cease their support for terrorism in their neighbors?

Look at what their needs are - look at what their CULTURAL requirements are, and tailor offers that meet what those conditions. For instance - the government of Iran claims that the nuclear program is for energy production only. Instead of making them a pariah over it - lets offer to work with them - and their ally Russia - to implement the necessary safeguards - with independant AND UN verification - and waste removal (so there is no enrichable material unaccounted for) so that they cannot claim an INDEPENDANT nuclear program is necessary - and we meet the cultural condition of allowing them an "out" by working through their ally - instead of only and directly with the "evil west".

Now - sure it would probably never be accepted - but would it hurt to try? If it is - great - one thing solved. If not - then whatever the future holds - at least an honest and good faith effort was made. As Aramike likes to say - we would hold the Moral High Ground.

As for support for terrorism in a neighbor state - sit down with them and be clear - we can - and will - catch you at it. We will paint you as a threat - not just to your neighbors - but to all states in the region and the world. All the nice words to your friends in Russia are great - but make no mistake - THEY UNDERSTAND the threat that terrorists pose. They have been victimized enough by it. They also know that your goals in the long run - are not in their best interest. Same with all the states in the region. You think Egypt wants to see you funding cells in their borders? All we need is the proof of what your doing - sure everyone KNOWS it now - but the governments are able to turn a blind eye because its not put in front of them and their people. Even if they don't all turn on you at that point - WE WILL - because it is your IED's - your training - your support - that is costing the lives of our people. That - as I said - is an act of war.

Its time to call a spade a spade - and give these states the choice - either change their actions - or continue while KNOWING the repercussions. And when it comes to Iran - I seem to recall that when we first went into Iraq alot of commentators were asking - would we stop - or turn left into syria or right into Iran. I also would not hesitate to remind Iran that the Ayatollah took power from an ally of ours- the Shah - and I think he is still alive and well in exile and probably wouldn't be too upset if we set him back up. *Another big failure - we didn't support him and keep him in power during the coup attempt.....*

I don't have a problem letting people be - encouraging right action and isolating those who choose a path of hate and terror.

I like it. I believe I can't fairly criticize the government if I haven't make a fair effort myself to improve it.

So Captain Haplo, if you are really running for president, I would like to be your Veep or Secretary of State.