It's a good and articulate point but one of fantasy.

Kerry seems to think he's some kind of knight in shining armor and is magically going to start convincing nations to join us in Iraq by holding a summit. Summits at this point are over. I'd rather have someone doing something about the problem rather than talking about the problem. We did that for 10 years and it got us no where.

Kerry wants to talk about things...Bush wants to take action. I'd rather someone take action.

"So, I trust in our administration to make that decision. It's what I "hired" them for. "

We "hired" Congress to play a pretty big part in that decision too. I assume Sen Kerry isn't really working from hindsight since he's been as much in the loop as every other Congressman and Senator.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Kerry wants to talk about things...Bush wants to take action. I'd rather someone take action"

Does it matter if that action is justified or correct, or is any action better than talking?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

In this case I think it's been clearly established, justified, and supported.

"In this case I think it's been clearly established, justified, and supported."

well, that's quite obviously up for debate since the country is about evenly split on Pres Bush and the war, but that's not my question. Is it your opinion that action is better than talk, even if the action turns out to be wrong or not quite right? Is it better to get a move on and figure it out later, or sit and talk it through?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Well, you didn't ask me, but I will chime in nonetheless- apologies in advance.

Talk is always better than action in a context like this: The context of going to war and taking and losing lives. Talk is always, repeat- ALWAYS better. If you doubt it, you haven't smelled a dead person shot to pieces in a car for three days.

War is a last resort, and the most abhorent alternative.

I hoped against hope for a diplomatic solution in Iraq. It was tried- ad nauseum, by the U.S., Russia, Oman and many others. Saddam Hussein had options before him that HE could have selected to save power, money, lives and the most important thing in many middle eastern male dominated cultures- save face. He did have that option. In the 11th hour he could have saved his son's lives by going into an immune exhile in Oman. In the tenth hour he could have brokered a face-saving deal with Russia and Putin. IN the first hour he could have negotiated a settlement with the U.N. and Subsequently the U.S.

How many times did Saddam Hussein appear before the U.N. General Assembly to plead for a diplomatic solution? How many times? Zero. He sent his cartoonish, laughable cronies to "represent" the Iraqi people and save them from war.

Hussein betrayed his sacred trust to his country, his people, his religion, and even his family. He made bad decisions. He paid in full. He was and is being held accountable. Bin Ladin too, living in a hole or a safehouse in total fear with his days numbered either by his own lifespan or the world's largest military intent on finding him.

Bush did in Afghanistan (in 120 days) what the Russians couldn't do in 5 years. He did it with a few thousand men. Russia had 30,000 casualties and wounded. They left with their tall between their legs and Afghanistan looking like a "Mad Max" movie.

Words are always better than action in my opinion. Always.

Trouble is, they just don't always work.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

>>>Bush did in Afghanistan (in 120 days) what the Russians couldn't do in 5 years.



I hear you repeat this over & over.

The fact is that Russia marched in, took control, and suffered 6 years of guerilla assualts, and eventually left.

Word on the street (you can do your own research) is that afghan warlords control vast territories of afghanistan.

It seems that the difference between us & the soviets is that the soviets wanted a communist regime while we don't really care what becomes of the country.

Yeah, let's not get ahead of ouselves in Afghanistan. If 5 years from now the central govt. is toppled by warlords after a prolonged guerilla/civil war we're not going to look so good then either.

---

_______________________________________________

I think that what you are trying to say is that if given option 1, use diplomacy to achieve wonderful end and option 2, use military force to achieve the same end, then always pick option 1. If so, this makes good sense.

A more realistic choice is between option 1, diplomacy that may produce a result A and option 2, military force that may produce result B. Or, option 1, continued diplomacy that may or may not achieve result A and option 2, military force that may or may not achieve the same result.

There are, of course, lots of times when all the talking in the world won't solve a problem. A good example is the diplimacy between France and Great Britain on the one hand and Nazi Germany on the other. If you haven't read The Gathering Storm, the first book of the first volume of Churchill's history of the second world war, let me know and I'll drop my copy off the next time I visit Bikesport.

Another good example of a problem that talking won't solve is what's going on in the Sudan right now. It's probably not on most people's radar screens, but the government there, having killed and ensalved and couple million Christians has now turned its sights on a region that practices a different version of Islam. Two countries on the UN Security Council, China and someone else, possibly France, but I'm not sure, have natural resource concessions from the Sudanese government. As a result, they are blocking efforts to do anything. So, the last I heard, the UN was debating whether to tell the Sudan that if it doesn't stop the killing in 30 days, the UN will start to debate whether to impose sanctions.

I don't have a really good answer as to what to do in the Sudan. We can't be the world's policeman and our resources are stretched pretty thin already. But, if no one else is going to take out the trash, then what do you do?

In my opinion, only two presidents (Washington and Roosevelt) have not been heavily critisized during their administrations. The positives of most presidents are realized/acknowledged until decades after they are out of office.

The president is being critisized for "not waiting" ... had he waited, he would have been critisized for that. Presidency is a no win situation.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --