[Deleted]

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[stork]

The free ride looks like just plain old politics to me. But then again I have never herd of this Erich Marquardt either. So this really don't hold much water IMO.

[mr-pirk]

I would have to agree with the writer of the artical. You have to deal with who you have to deal with in politics. Folks I know kept saying "why go to war in Iraq when they "may" have wmd's and not North Korea when we know they have them". "Why the double standard?"
Why put up with Pakistan selling nuke technology?.....the same reason we put up with Saudi Arabia's vailed support of terrorist....we think we can work with them and somehow to a degree control them.
We aren't worried about North Korea because we have a degree of influance with Russia and China and there by can exercise a degree of control over North Korea...in other words just out-wait Kim Jong II till he either quits or is overthrown or comes around to our way of thinking.
Iraq was the most convenient legal target in the muslem world to take out after 9-11. It was done to show the muslem nations that America could and would arrange things so that any muslem nation could be overthrown if they offended America enough. I don't mean to imply that Iraq was responsable for 9-11...they just happened to be a good target to show the muslem world what could be done to a muslem nation if America wanted them punished.
Mr-Pirk

[James B]

There is a lot of free advice about how and when we sholud do this or that. Most is from people who have little or no idea of whats at stake and whats going on behind the scene. We have no idea what kind of agreements are in the works on any of these issues. A lot of arm chair quarterbacks who have no clue as to what the answers are or what our polocy should be have nothing better to do than run down who ever is at the top. When I hear the bashing of someone by someone who doesn't have any better ideas it gets my goat.

[mr-pirk]

Hello Jamse B
I may have misrepresented my position. I went back and re-read the artical posted and I then noticed the word "hypocisy". The word carrys conatations<sp> of something bad and in that respect I disagree with the writers choice of words. I think "duplicitious"<sp> might have been a better choice for the writer to have used.
When I re-read the artical a second time it did seem to have a anti-bush forgin policy flavor to it. I am mostly pro-bush forgin policy except for his stance on free-trade with out the strings of a minimum standard of living clause attached to it or any consideration for a countrys enviromental policy and Bush's immigration policy towards illegal migration from Mexico. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
Mr-Pirk