"Regrets, I've had a few; But then again, too few to mention"

[DrTeeth]

If this administration had known what it knows now in terms of the CIA report and the present situation on the ground in Iraq, would they still have gone to war?

 

[nbcrusader]

Does it really matter, or should we evaluate policy in a monday morning quarterback forum?

 

[BVS]

Does it really matter, or should we evaluate policy in a monday morning quarterback forum?

Isn't this what the "pro-war" people are doing with the "anti-war" people?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

While I live in America and fear the draft, I think the world should be a lot more greatful of our country for the sacrifices we have made from the beginning of our history to the present. I'm not saying war is always the answer or anything close to that, but the US is a country that has always put freedom and protection for all people as a priority.

While Iraq wouldn't be my first choice, we have done some great things in that country that won't get reported because of bias in the news media. We don't see the great clips of Iraqi's celebrating over removed statues of Saddam anymore, and we don't see many Iraqi's thanking us anymore.

There was a great article I read today about Saddam Hussein's motives being revealed. He indeed wanted WMD to compete with Iran, and without a doubt they would be at war for no reason had we not made the sacrifice to remove him from power. I'm not one of those crazy people who thinks we should rebuild Iraq by ourselves, or stay in Iraq much longer. We need the world's cooperation to bring stability into that nation.

Most people outside my country have this hatred for Bush that is beyond me. He made more than a few mistakes, but on a positive note, he brought a large percentage of Al Qaida members to justice. We act like Osama bin Laden is the only terrorist threat out there, which is not true. It will be a wonderful day for the entire planet when we do find him, and I believe we will.

We also have other threats to worry about, such as North Korea, Iran, and any other country who chooses to put the world at risk, as we would hate to have a nuclear war all over the world. While the bipartisanship went down the gutter in this country, we need it more than anything in order to win the war on terror, which could result in a nuke to blow up the entire planet if we don't prevent it.

 

[pax]

.

Most people outside my country have this hatred for Bush that is beyond me.

I agree with this a lot. I am certainly no fan of Bush's, but I miss the days when we could have civil disagreements about politics and still not have such an intense distaste for opponents. I don't like a lot of Bush's policies, but I don't believe he's a bad man. He seems to be a good person who loves his family and his country, and although I disagree with things he does and says, I can still see that.

Unfortunately, lots of people can't. That is beyond me, too.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Yeah, too bad we can't have civil disagreements about politics without grabbing people by the throat. In the case that Kerry does become president, which he probably will, I just hope that he takes steps to defend America. The next presidential term will not be easy for either one, because defending our country - and protecting the world - is more important than ever before.

 

[Klaus]

DrTeeth
sure, same ammount of oil ...
ok, i was just kidding

We knew about the Human Right abuses in Iraq since the 80ies if this was the real reason for war - nothing changed.
But i'm unsure if they could "sell" a war just because of human rights violations to the UK and US public.

While I live in America and fear the draft, I think the world should be a lot more greatful of our country for the sacrifices we have made from the beginning of our history to the present.

I agree with you here but people seem to be short-minded when it comes to be more greatful or thankful.
Just take a look how disrespectful the current administration behaved against France - and remember that without them not only the Statue of liberty (which was designed as a symbol for the friendship between both countries) wouldn't exist but chances are high that todays USA would still be a UK-province.

Macfistowannabe
I really hope that too many people hate bush. It's a difficult situation now here, Mr. Bush didn't behave too nice when he declared everything "irrelevant" which didn't support his Iraq opinion before the war.
Today in Germany there is again a debate if and how Germany can help in Iraq. But i think a new president would make it much easier that these ideas get a wider support than today.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I'm not against everything you said, in fact I can agree with you about France. However, there is a reason why the administration has become frustrated with them. They are a tough ally to win, and we tried over and over again to get support from them. The abuse cases in Iraq is nothing to be proud of, and it resulted in terrible, barbaric murders of our troops. Kerry understands how important diplomacy is, but I don't think he understands how difficult it is to win.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

Just take a look how disrespectful the current administration behaved against France - and remember that without them not only the Statue of liberty (which was designed as a symbol for the friendship between both countries) wouldn't exist but chances are high that todays USA would still be a UK-province.

The statue of Liberty and UK-province example is completely irrelevant. The Statue of Liberty was a gift in the 1880's and the French helped the American efforts in the Revolution over 200 years ago. On the other hand in much more recent history, I seem to recall the U.S. being there to help Europe a couple times, then completely rebuild it and protect it from the Soviet Union.

How disrespectful the current administration behaved against France??? Well, why would we behave respectfully towards countries with officials that were bribed by Saddam Hussein to resist the U.S.?? The oil for food scam shows that Saddam paid almost 2 billion dollars to French officials.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm

Perhaps if certian members of the U.N. security council hadn't been on Saddams payroll, there would be much more international cooperation in regards to Iraq.

 

[starsforu2]

How disrespectful the current administration behaved against France??? Well, why would we behave respectfully towards countries with officials that were bribed by Saddam Hussein to resist the U.S.?? The oil for food scam shows that Saddam paid almost 2 billion dollars to French officials.

Thank You, Thank You. Thank You. No discussion of US relations with France can be complete without this startling fact. But was particularly despicable about France's actions [toward America] was that not only did they not join the coalition, but they actively lobbied against it with other member nations. I don't blame Canada for not wanting to get involved, but I would be pretty upset if they went to other nations offering things in exchange for a NO vote on going to Iraq. France knew their cash cow was about to be slaughtered and they sought to protect it.

And then we are vilified at every opportunity and every misstep.
Does America do bone-headed things? Why Yes we do, but it would be nice to have a discussion about it without dealing with "No Blood for Oil" accusations or "Bush is a Nazi" arguments. The first argument was first made in 1990 during the first gulf war, and if we wanted the oil that bad, we wouldn't have let Sadaam live. Did the war have something to do with oil, Yes of course it did, but not like everyone insinuates. Given the amount of people Sadaam killed with his more limited resources, imagine how much more power he would have had sitting on the stockpiles of oil in Kuwait. It would have been better had we taken him out back then, but the political will wasn't there. I'm afraid we didn't realize that Terrorism was going to be such a threat to us in the US, and it took an additional 10 years before they hit us hard enough for us to react. The Bush Nazi comparison so diminishes the evil that Hitler released onto the World and onto the Jews specifically. Millions of deaths are on Hitler's hands. Even if you attributed all the death in the world on Bush's policies, I doubt that they would add up to the body count at Hitler's camps.

Thanks, sorry for going on so long. I hear a lot of distortions on replay, and my rhetorical engine starts typing. I'm just glad that U2 embraces all ideological types, because at the end it's about the love of the music.

After all that I never did answer the thrust of this thread: Probably not, but who knows. I we could see through everyone's poker hand would evil even be allowed to grow? But we don't know, and Sadaam sure acted like he had them. Heck, he might have even thought they he had them. Who knows? We do know that he hates us and was paying out $25,000 per suicide bomber in Palestine. And if that isn't a definition of a funding terrorism, I don't know what is. Personally, I think we (The UN or the US) should intervene more frequently when vast numbers of people are systematically killed. I'm smacking my head about the Sudan and hope that we won't look back on it like we do Rawanda.

Thanks for listening.

 

[Klaus]

The statue of Liberty and UK-province example is completely irrelevant.

Ah, that's almost the rethoric of the administration

The Statue of Liberty was a gift in the 1880's

And do you remember the history of the Statue of Liberty?
It would get really offtopic if i'd write down the whole story but let me mark some highlights (maybee other readers forgot parts of the history)

Bartholdi was THE sculptor of his time. He started his work on the statue of liberty 1875 and Gustave Eiffel helped him with the statics inside. he sent the arm of the Statue of liberty 1876 to the world expo in philadelphia but his work wasn't finished till 1884.
The statue was a gift of the french citizens (they collected 250.000 $ - an incredible amount of money at that time!) to the american citizens.
Thanks to J. Pulizer the american citizens collected 100.000 $ to build the base for the statue.
At the induction both sides said it was a symbol of the relationship between these countries (remember 1776).

On the other hand in much more recent history, I seem to recall the U.S. being there to help Europe a couple times, then completely rebuild it and protect it from the Soviet Union.

Right and i'm thankful for that. Let me remind you that the americans didn't declare war to Germany when they invaded france.
But of course without the US the world would have bin devided in 2 pieces and neither Stalin nor Hitler was a President of my choice.

with "completely rebuild" i think you reference to the care-packages?
Because democracies have bin there before and the physical rebuilding of France and especially germany had to be done by these people. Especially women because most men were dead or POWs

How disrespectful the current administration behaved against France??? Well, why would we behave respectfully towards countries with officials that were bribed by Saddam Hussein to resist the U.S.??

Not proven yet and i'm unwilling to believe these sources without a proof - same sources which told us that saddam had WMDs and could launch rockets in a few minutes

The oil for food scam shows that Saddam paid almost 2 billion dollars to French officials.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm

Here's the answer, i hate url-bashing but it's worth a look:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3723924.stm
"Allegations that French officials were offered bribes by Saddam Hussein are unverified, France has said."

Perhaps if certian members of the U.N. security council hadn't been on Saddams payroll, there would be much more international cooperation in regards to Iraq.

Perhaps if the US government wasn't on the payroll of the INC, KDP, SCIRI, PUK, CMM and INA there wouldn't have bin a Iraq invasion at all?

I guess you don't know all of the above mentioned institutions but the INC (head: Ahmad Chalabi) was the most famous one.

The US administration and UK played the "game" of an imminent threat why they had to react immediately this destroyed lots of their credibility when they just talk about liberating Iraqi people now.
Don't get me wrong i'm happy that Saddam lost his job. I'm an ai member for a long time and we tried to raise preasure on this man for a long time (also when he still was our ally (European and US)).
But this dosn't justify what the US and the UK government has done. Cheating their own citizens AND the UN to justify the invasion with unrealistic dreams of cheering iraqis witth flowers to greet and no efficient plan-b if something goes wrong (well everyone who didn't believe it would work out itself was brandmarked as Saddam supporter these days.

So after all this time it's good that Saddam is gone, it's bad that Mr. Bush destroyed lots of credibility of the United states, it's bad that Mr Bushs work helped al-quaida more to recute new members than anything else since 9/11 and it's bad that they forgot about Pakistan, North Korea, Palestine and Iran.
You can't fight against all problems at the same time you have to set priorities and i think there was much wasted international energy by setting Iraq to No.1 priority as long as Al-Quaida is still there, Afghanistan is a mess and Pakistan is an nuclear power, unstable as hell with the daily chance of a radical muslim "revolution"

 

[starsforu2]

I found Klaus' rebuttal interesting, in part because there are some things I am not familiar with I.E.

Perhaps if the US government wasn't on the payroll of the INC, KDP, SCIRI, PUK, CMM and INA there wouldn't have bin a Iraq invasion at all?

So, I can't argue on the content of that statement, but I would like to offer a different opinion on some of your conclusions.

So after all this time it's good that Saddam is gone, it's bad that Mr. Bush destroyed lots of credibility of the United states, it's bad that Mr Bushs work helped al-quaida more to recute new members than anything else since 9/11 and it's bad that they forgot about Pakistan, North Korea, Palestine and Iran.

I don't think that Al-quaida is hurting for recruitment reasons. They sent 19 people to their death on 9/11/01 and we weren't in Iraq then. I don't think that you can say that 3000 innocent people dying was justified because we have bases in Saudi Arabia or because we support Israel. That's all it took in 2001. But I don't think either of those things were wrong for us to do.

I don't think that Iraq is a diversion, because I think a US soldier has a much better chance defending himself in Iraq than my grandmother has in NY.

All of the other problem countries that you mention do not have the history that Iraq has. If your position is that we needed to invade someone else before Iraq, then I ask who and why and why not diplomacy first? Iraq was the one country that has continued to defy the UN Security Council, and the World. There are many people smarter than me, who believe that Iran will throw off it's current leadership without us invading. There is also a belief that we can still negotiate with North Korea primarily with China's aid. (After all, it's their neighborhood and they are a world Power). Palestine is primarily Israel's problem, although we do step in from time to time to say stuff. Pakistan is worrisome, but at the moment seems to at least have a leader we can work with.

So, you and I both agree that the world is messed up, and we disagree about whether we are doing the right things to fix it. I would be curious about how we should proceed, because I have too often heard critique without solutions. I think we both want solutions and not just finger-pointing.
Thanks!

 

[deep]

I don't believe he's a bad man. He seems to be a good person who loves his family and his country, .

I have said this many times.

The problem is .....


he is the worst President, ever.


Lives are in the balance.

Israel's days are numbered with his policies.

He may be a decent man.

That does not mean he is qualifed.

Many conservatives feel the same way about Carter. Very decent man, and they argue very poor President.

 

[DrTeeth]

I expected this thread to derail eventually but didn't expect it so soon though.

I guess putting it in bold underlined italics wasn't enough so I'll just repeat the question: "Would" (not "should") they have gone to war?

 

[deep]

If this administration had known what it knows now in terms of the CIA report and the present situation on the ground in Iraq, would they still have gone to war?

FRIGGIN HELL YES!


What makes you think THEY did not know?

The REAL question is:

If the TRUTH was out would THEY have gone to war?

My answer is no.

At every fork in the road THEY spun it THEIR way to get the American people on board.

 

[STING2]

If this administration had known what it knows now in terms of the CIA report and the present situation on the ground in Iraq, would they still have gone to war?

Of course! Because the fact remains that Saddam as of today has still failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. The report stated there were no WMD only because they were unable to find any. They did indicate in the report that WMD could have been smuggled out of the country before the war. A more likely possiblity is that WMD was hidden in the vast deserts of Iraq. The possibilities to hide such items which are tiny is practically infinite. VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT is only possible with the cooperation of those being disarmed.

As of today, according to United Nations Weapons inspectors,(as they said back in November of 1998 and November of 2002) Saddam still has not accounted for 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

Some "theorize" that such weapons were destroyed years ago by Saddam, but there is still no evidence that proves that. Why would Saddam dismantle such weapons in secret thus denying himself and the regime the opportunity to get out from under Sanctions?

Saddam was given a process to follow for Verifiable disarmament in 1991 that could have easily been completed by 1993. Instead, Saddam complied, then cheated, then complied, then cheated and blocked inspections, then began harrassment of inspectors and almost always blocking inspections by 1996/1997. The process became futile in 1998 and the inspectors were withdrawn and not allowed to return in November of 1998. Coalition forces launched the largest bombing campaign of Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War. Inspectors in November of 1998 listed all of the WMD Saddam had failed to account for and considered Saddam dangerous in regards to WMD. In November of 2002, Saddam let inspectors back in and claimed that the WMD, which he had admitted to having in 1998 had been destroyed, but refused to show any evidence of that destruction. Saddam was given one last chance to resolve the issue and he chose not too. As long as Saddam failed to comply with the UN resolutions and account for the WMD, the use of military force was a necessity. The CIA's report has not changed this fact.

 

[anitram]

I believe this administration would have gone to this war no matter what.

 

[indra]

I believe this administration would have gone to this war no matter what.

Yup. Exactly.

 

[A_Wanderer]

They would not have gone to war if Saddam had nuclear weapons. If he had achieved that goal then he would be untouchable. Which is what the entire point of preemption is, to prevent that sort of situation ever arising and ensuring that American power can be preserved across the region with little threat to its interests.

 

[Klaus]

I found Klaus' rebuttal interesting, in part because there are some things I am not familiar with I.E.

They are various groups who called themself "Iraqi opposition" and spent lots of money to come to power.
See Iraq is a verry rich country and some of these groups give a *** about the Iraqi people, they want the money (oil).
One of these groups were here at our university shortly after the first iraq war and they allready announced that they lobby in Washington to get in power in iraq. They were absolutely sure that it works, we told them "no way you can't buy US politics". Well shame on me, i was young and naive

I don't think that Al-quaida is hurting for recruitment reasons. They sent 19 people to their death on 9/11/01 and we weren't in Iraq then. I don't think that you can say that 3000 innocent people dying was justified because we have bases in Saudi Arabia or because we support Israel. That's all it took in 2001. But I don't think either of those things were wrong for us to do.

I don't think that violence against unarmed civilians can ever be justified!

I think supporting israel is a good thing but we have to take care what they do with our help. I don't think it's a good idea to support sharon in all of his actions. When i see Mr. Sharon i see a man who comited war crimes (killing unarmed women and children).

I don't think that Iraq is a diversion, because I think a US soldier has a much better chance defending himself in Iraq than my grandmother has in NY.

You're right, the ones who can't defend themself are the iraqi civilists.
They are - like every civilian - dependend on police and military who protects them. Since the beginning of this Iraq war it seemed that there were other priorities than civilians (remember there was a US tank in front of the oil-ministerium but noone stoped the looters of Hospitals.

All of the other problem countries that you mention do not have the history that Iraq has.

Right, Iraq has - like most countries - a verry genuine history. It was a colony and then after WWII the west and east supported dictators to "stabilize" the country and bring it closer to the western/eastern block.
I'm personally convinced that Saddam wouldn't exist if our politics didn't fu**k up Iran with the support of the Shah, a dictator not less cruel than Saddam.

If your position is that we needed to invade someone else before Iraq, then I ask who and why and why not diplomacy first?

No, not invading! i don't think i wrote that the US should invade any of the above countries.
I think diplomacy (yes this one has to do with talking - difficult negitiations) is the key.
Even saddam was willing to let the weapon inspectors in - and even rockets were destroyed by unmovic before the US invaded Iraq because the imminent threat didn't allow any more negotiations.

Iraq was the one country that has continued to defy the UN Security Council, and the World. There are many people smarter than me, who believe that Iran will throw off it's current leadership without us invading.

I wouldn't call myself smarter than you but i agree that Iran will throw off it's current regime.
In iran lots of things changed in the last 15 years and i think a revolution has to start inside the country. We can't decide for other countries "It's time for democracy - now!" and be suprised that they simply don't agree that our ideas for their country differs from their plans.

There is also a belief that we can still negotiate with North Korea primarily with China's aid. (After all, it's their neighborhood and they are a world Power).

Right and there would be more chances for diplomacy if the US didn't start Iraq war and pissed off lots of country - not with the war itself but with the arogant way it hapened.
(like "We know it better than you, everyone not with us is against us, everyone with criticizm is "Irrelevant", "Freedom Fries" etc.

Palestine is primarily Israel's problem,

No it's not! The world decided to build a country Israel down there and people who lived in that country are now forced to live in gethos. European and US politics lead to this situation and it's our duty now to clean up some of that mess what hapens to the palestine citizens.
This dosn't mean that we should support Arafat or any radical group who supports terrorism or even accomplishes terrorstrikes. But it's our job to relieve some of the inhumane cruelties which hapens to simple citizens there.

although we do step in from time to time to say stuff. Pakistan is worrisome, but at the moment seems to at least have a leader we can work with.

Why do you think we can work with him? Just because he says he supports us? I wouldn't trust that guy, chances aren't bad that this leader also supports al-quaida and uses the coalition with the US to survive.

So, you and I both agree that the world is messed up, and we disagree about whether we are doing the right things to fix it. I would be curious about how we should proceed, because I have too often heard critique without solutions. I think we both want solutions and not just finger-pointing.
Thanks!

There is no global easy solution - i think we can both agree with that statement. Give me specific questions and i'll try to answer them (i mentioned some things above).

We need smart leaders who can accomplish a lot with diplomacy.
Politics isn't an easy game, it's about talking to others who have different lifestyles and different ideas about human values and how society should look like. There are two ways to resolve this. Either you nuke everyone who dosn't agree with you or you try to convince people that your way is the better way.
I think we can convince people that our way is the more desirable one. If we want to do this we have to behave like a lighttower of our ideas, that means no dirty tricks, no cheating etc.

A_Wanderer

They would not have gone to war if Saddam had nuclear weapons. If he had achieved that goal then he would be untouchable. Which is what the entire point of preemption is, to prevent that sort of situation ever arising and ensuring that American power can be preserved across the region with little threat to its interests.

This sends a clear message to all criminal regimes of the world "Develop Nuclear weapons or youre Fu**ed.
Not the best message from my point of view

 

[starsforu2]

I started down the path of point by point rebuttal, and sometimes even agreeing, but then I got tired.

I truly think that one of the primary differences in our view of the world is that I don't believe that Diplomacy always works. I think as rational human beings we propose, we argue, we find a place of agreement. When one party breaks a promise repeatedly, we can continue diplomacy, but eventually we end up at an or else scenario.

The UN, and the US passed that last resolution which said "Disarm, or else". He chose not to. If we had let him continue on his merry way, the message sent is to just ignore the UN, eventually they'll get bored or give up. So we had to move.

You also assume that he is a rational man. Or a truthful man. When playing any game, you go by a set of rules. The game plays well, until someone decides to cheat, or throw out the rules, or uses things that aren't even in the box. People need to realize that some people just won't play by the rules and to hamstring ourselves simply puts us in greater danger.

If you want an example look no further than Bill Clinton's attempts to employ diplomacy with Arafat and Kim Jong Il.

He assumed that if Israel was willing to put enough on the table Arafat would take it. It wasn't enough and never would be enough for him, because the terrorist groups who work in that region have one stated goal. The ELIMINATION of Israel. Not the establishment of a Palestinian country, or the pre-1967 borders. They want Israel dead. Since Oslo fell apart, the bombings have escalated far greater than in other times during Israel's existence.

In 1995 Bill Clinton agreed to give NK a Nuclear Plant in exchange for a promise to not pursue nuclear weapons. Well, we know how that is going today. You can't assume that everyone is going to play by your rules or your morality. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think that if you see that they are willing to starve their people in order to attain power, they aren't worth brokering with.

Bill Clinton went into Bosnia unilaterally during his presidency, and we're still cleaning up there. The UN is still very much involved. I wonder if your problem isn't the action as it is the man who led it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

> Very good point on the PA and its consistent use of "bomber" diplomacy.
> Jimmy Carter needs reciognition for his part in the N-Korean Nuclear Crisis.
- I love this, new album and a whole lot of new people coming into FYM, really livens things up.

I say again; No War - Unless a Democrat is President.

 

[Klaus]

I started down the path of point by point rebuttal, and sometimes even agreeing, but then I got tired.

I truly think that one of the primary differences in our view of the world is that I don't believe that Diplomacy always works. I think as rational human beings we propose, we argue, we find a place of agreement. When one party breaks a promise repeatedly, we can continue diplomacy, but eventually we end up at an or else scenario.

Right, Diplomacy dosn't allways work. Good presidents are able to get more with diplomacy than stupid presidents but there is allways a point were diplomacy simply dosn't work anymore. (For example another country declaring war on you)

The UN, and the US passed that last resolution which said "Disarm, or else". He chose not to. If we had let him continue on his merry way, the message sent is to just ignore the UN, eventually they'll get bored or give up. So we had to move.

Well he siad he had dissarmed and UNMOVIC was there to find out if he dissarmed or not.
Finally the US-led colaition "of the willing" decided that the threat was to imminent and Unmovic couldn't finish their job.

You also assume that he is a rational man. Or a truthful man. When playing any game, you go by a set of rules. The game plays well, until someone decides to cheat, or throw out the rules, or uses things that aren't even in the box. People need to realize that some people just won't play by the rules and to hamstring ourselves simply puts us in greater danger.

Rational - yes. Truthful - no

Most countries in the world play diplomatic games, including the US and the countries of Europe.

I didn't trust Mr. Hussein and i was suprised that he didn't have any serious amount of WMDs left. Seems he bluffed with the WMDs - maybee to be not invaded by his neighbours?

If you want an example look no further than Bill Clinton's attempts to employ diplomacy with Arafat and Kim Jong Il.

I have no problem admiting that Mr. Clinton didn't allways do his job perfect.
His worst decisions to me were bombings of mid-east to get medias attention away from Mrs Levinsky

He assumed that if Israel was willing to put enough on the table Arafat would take it. It wasn't enough and never would be enough for him, because the terrorist groups who work in that region have one stated goal. The ELIMINATION of Israel. Not the establishment of a Palestinian country, or the pre-1967 borders. They want Israel dead. Since Oslo fell apart, the bombings have escalated far greater than in other times during Israel's existence.

It wasn't enough and won't be enough for Arafat because he's useless once there is peace between Israel and Palestine. Same for Mr. Sharon.
So i think the peace-process can't be done by mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat that's why US and European diplomacy is neccessary.
Israel and palestine are dependent on external help so the EU and the US should work together to raise presure on both parties.
You can disslike it but you can't ignore that Mr. Arafat was the only democratic elected leader of palestine. Most palestines don't like him because they know he's a corrupt man. the main reasons that he is still in power is Sharon and Bush.
If another country attacks you (war or just verbal) people tend to rally behind their leaders and that's exactly what hapens if Mr. Sharon and Mr. Bush call Arafat "irrelevant".

Solutions? Well maybe UN controlled Palestine terretories. UN controlled borderline between Israel and palestine, No Israeli army there - then democratic elections etc.

In 1995 Bill Clinton agreed to give NK a Nuclear Plant in exchange for a promise to not pursue nuclear weapons. Well, we know how that is going today. You can't assume that everyone is going to play by your rules or your morality. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think that if you see that they are willing to starve their people in order to attain power, they aren't worth brokering with.

You're right and i never said that you can solve all problems by diplomacy. You couldn't stop men like Stalin with diplomacy. You need the balance of power and diplomacy to archive something.
Because of the Iraq war north korea was sure they have some time to go on with their A-Bomb plans. Why? Chances are low that US won't wage a war in Iraq and North Korea at the same time. That's why i'm sure North Korea has no interest in a stabile Iraq.

Bill Clinton went into Bosnia unilaterally during his presidency, and we're still cleaning up there. The UN is still very much involved. I wonder if your problem isn't the action as it is the man who led it.

I thought Bosnia was a Nato operation but i have to reread that.

 

[Scarletwine]

This is a direct lie Bush told in the debate. This military officer is asking for more troops.
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/baltsun.htm
...
Requests and questions

Since May, Brig. Gen. Oscar B. Hilman, commander of the 81st Brigade Combat Team, a National Guard unit from Washington state that operates the base, has requested 500 to 700 more soldiers. But he said the request has been denied.

"Because the enemy is persistent, we need additional forces. We asked twice," said Hilman, who arrived here in April for a yearlong stint. But Hilman said he was told that "there are no additional forces," and that U.S. soldiers are needed elsewhere, particularly to battle insurgents and cover a large area to the north that includes the rebellious cities of Tikrit and Samarra.

The 81st Brigade's top enlisted man, Sgt. Maj. Robert Barr, said the soldiers here are frustrated, and that he often hears the same question: "Why aren't we stopping it or killing their guys who are doing it?"

Their complaints contrast sharply with statements by President Bush and top Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who say U.S. troop strength is sufficient but that more soldiers will be sent if senior commanders ask.