In 2002 he named three countries as being part of an axis that was sponsoring terrorism and seeking weapons of mass destruction.

I think he has overstretched the budget, overstretched the military capability of the US and has not looked at the bigger picture of "outside of the Middle East"

The US is losing a dozen soldiers a day, 7 days a week and with the potential for a new front on the Syrian border the casualty rate will only get worse.

Meanwhile the Muslim independance movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Thailand and Mindanao are allowing the spread of radical Islamic ideology to grow unabated.

Africa ... ? Thats an entirely different prospect. Most of northern Nigeria (the bit with the oil) has adopted Sharia law. They stone women for committing adultery,cutting the limbs of petty thieves.

The terrorists' recruiting and training operations are largely conducted over the internet, and they use identity theft and other scams to hide their movements. They conduct financing through the hawala system of informal money transfers.

Its cost the US half a trillion dollars and counting to get to the election stage in Iraq. At that rate it will be bankrupt in 5 years unless it finds the oil its looking for.

When the Kurds declared their independance, it sat like a haemorrhoid with the Iraqis. Then you'll get the SUnnis revolting from the Shia.

Meanwhile you have the Baathist exiles and foreign insurgents (the US & UK included) continuing to escalate the violence.

Then if the Iraqi duly elected govt asks the US to leave, it will probably be with the Baathists to organise a bloodless coup. Just to get rid of the West.

Then Iraq will end up even more destabilised.

This happens when you have a country that was artificially created by a colonial power (the Brits) jamming three distinct and incompatible groups into one boundary.

A one-size-fits-all democracy is not an effective foreign policy when you are dealing with 3 different cultures.

Western democracy is based on a distinct separation of church and state, you cannot make that seperation with the muslim world.

Then you have some smart alec in the islamic world who will come up with the idea of destroying the west from within.

I could see the terrorists hooking up with the Far East drug cartels in a much more organised way.

Very similarly the way the IRA went to Gadaffi and then exchanged training for guns from the Colombian drug cartels.

Due to the central asian republics imploding. Drug production is the fastest growing part of the economy.

I find that quite ironic that the muslims dont touch alcohol, let alone crack!!!

Although I have been in bars in Hurghada where the Saudis come in, off comes the hijab and out comes the Johnnie Walker black!

The Axis of evil also included North Korea. What has he done about them? Nothing! He cant. That would incur the wrath of China!

You have a madman in charge of the worlds 3rd largest army with nukes that he can hit the PAcific Northwest of the States with, and who's lead export is counterfeit American Benjamins!!!

So, I would say that of the three original countries that formed the Axis of evil (Iran, Iraq and N Korea) He has screwed the pooch on all three.

He is also moving up the chart of genocidal maniacs and is currently behind Atila the Hun in terms of innocents that he has slaughtered. Only Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler to beat

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Before he wakes up the sleeping Chinese giant!

I agree, especially the sleeping dragon part. That has been a part of their philosophy since time began, and i would say the soil is thoroughly seeded.

eh... bad guy on our side bad guy on thier side.. all bad guys
rather him than chavez/castro (he ight be a zombie)/the iran dude/kim jon funky hairdoo...

power corrupts.
oh well
learn to live with it
machine is to big, ya wont stop it.

it is interesting that the "axis of evil" were all countries threatening to deal in currencies other than the dollar....more than enuf reason to perform genocide....

Belushi, do you have a solution, a suggestion, a plan, an idea or is that just another rant?

I thought that was very controlled!!!

My solution would probably be abhorrent to the majority on here.

Pull out of the Middle East. Entirely. No more funding the Israelis, no more interfering with a 3000 year old squabble.

Instead of trying to take their oil by force, develop new methods of propulsion that dont include destroying the environment.

The half a trillion dollars spent on the war could be spent on new forms of energy.

But first, the govts of the West have to get through their ideas of over-inflated, self important, self-opinionated, rhetoric-laden ego. (Notice I said the west, not just the US)

But humanity is flawed, and this will never happen.

We are all too greedy, egotistical, and lack self-control.

Not a complaint, just a fact.

I vote for Belushi for President!!!

except he may not win, if Oprah was running too!!

Me and Oprah?

Naaahh ... when she goes shopping she has to buy the same thing in 6 different sizes, for when she is bloating, or reducing .. damn!

She generates so much waste paper from the till receipts that the Amazonian rain forestry commission have a special gardenfor her!!!

Belushi well that is a plan but I am not sure that if we stopped being overly agressive that the rest of the world would follow suit. Like you said it's a 3000 year old war perhaps longer maybe this won't be the first time we have nuked ourselves back to the stone age or beyond.

'Belushi',

Have you clandestinely gotten a whole of my political science Master's thesis???

Your point by point proposal is a word for word replicate!!!

Totally on the same page, Belushi.

You wrote:
"... My solution would probably be abhorrent to the majority on here..."

You certainly have already been unjustly labelled 'socialist', 'anti-american', 'hopelessly liberal', etc.
That's about the extent of the unfounded and unjustifiable abhorrations coming from the opposition. No articulate counter-argument worth the debate.

Sorry, I forgot, there are a few more 'bulk' labels that might be thrown your way:

Of course for the Israeli position you might get the Anti-Jewish tag to add to the Anti-American one.

For pulling out of the Middle-East, they'll obviously tag you 'PRO BIN LADEN / TERRORIST LOVER'.

For your renewable and green energy stand, you may very well have earned a triple hat tag made-up of: communist environmetalist, western economy subversive, and ennemy #1 of the Church of Hummer disciples and would-be disciples.

That's all.

Nothing other then empty, unfounded, panoïd rethoric.

Don't mind it.

For the fun of it, here are some interesting words :

‘There is no squabbling so violent as that between people who accepted an idea yesterday and those who will accept the same idea tomorrow.’

— Christopher Morley

'garden',

You wrote:
"... Belushi well that is a plan but I am not sure that if we stopped being overly agressive that the rest of the world would follow suit..."

For my part, taking the US (money & unconditional support of Israel) perversion out of the Israelo-Palestinian (heart of he Middle-East unrest), would go a long way in restoring equilibrium, fair to Palestinians, fair to Israelis, fair to the Arab nations.

There is no 'REST OF THE WORLD'. The equilibrium is much more subtle and wise than a rest of the world Bulk.

Western world and Middle-East nations tensions are a recent historical phenomenon. The foundation for these tensions is essentially mercantile (Alan G. reminds us of that inescapable fact to this day): the abusive exploitation by developped nations (since the industrial era) of the Oil rich reserves of Middle-Eastern countries, to feed the essential nutriment to their indsutrial-based economies.

As you very well put it 'garden': "... if we stopped being overly agressive..." , some form of more peaceful equilibrium is bound to emerge. It's physics 101!!!

Stop being overly aggresive, impositional, opportunistically abusive and controlling with other sovereign nations, they will more likely than not, stop considering the agressor as undesirable!!!

voileazur do you really believe that the radical islamic movement would pull in their horns and quit if we pulled out of the middle east? Do you think that North Korea and Iran would quit pursuing the development of nuclear weapons? Do you think that the Israeli people have no right to exist? Do you think the middle east would become a more stable place if Iran and Syria attach Israel? Sorry but physics 101 only works with matter, not on human emotions and ambitions. Look back to Europe in the 1930 did appeasement get a peaceful equalibrium? Has ignoring terrorists for the last 50 years and giving them what they want caused them to cease their lawlessness? They view each concession made as a victory and it only makes them more bold.

'gardenforge':

I'll take your points separately,
you wrote:

"... voileazur do you really believe that the radical islamic movement would pull in their horns and quit if we pulled out of the middle east?..."
Radically different form us (western civilization) maybe!?!? But if you are referring to the tensions that have escalated over the 20th century, you have to take this 'overly aggressive' factor of ours (the Western world; UK in the first half of the century, and the US in the second part) into the equation.
Their 'radical' hostility towards the Western world is a direct correlate to our 'overly aggressive' otherwise 'radical' opportunistic ways and 'imperial' impositons towards Middle-Eastern nations, with Iran at the top of the list.
Take out the 'radical' (overly aggressive) stance of the US, I say the correlate 'radical Islam' deflates proportionately. It requires taking reponsiblity for our actions. You might get away with abuse for a while, maybe, but it always rage back to bite you up the orifice!!! Can't complain when that happens.

Do you think that North Korea and Iran would quit pursuing the development of nuclear weapons?
Think we took care of the part on Iran above, as for North Korea, remember the early abuse, ... later bite up the orifice? Haven't made friends in our Korean adventures. Maybe we could start cleaning that up instead of sharpening their claws!!!

Do you think that the Israeli people have no right to exist?
Not very honest on your part. I wrote earlier : "...restoring equilibrium, fair to Palestinians, fair to Israelis, fair to the Arab nations." Do you actually think the current overly agressive approach is working?!?!? Do you not suspect that this 'overly aggressive' pressure might be a solid source of tension on the overall picture. Do you believe that the US is prompting Israel strictly out of the goodness of its heart?
A vocal part of Israelis, and Jewish diaspora are of the opinion that the US is more part of the problem, than part of the solution in the Israelo-Palestian-Arab nations conflict. The moderate voice from Israel 'wispers' that side of it diplomatically. A bit like a son whom has to tell his father, 'It's OK Dad, let me handle this.'

Do you think the middle east would become a more stable place if Iran and Syria attach Israel?
There is no telling what the place would be like without the US mother in law in the closet!!! Iran and Syria among other Arab states, are convinced the mother is going to stay in the closet forever. Only the mother-in-law could provide a positive outcome; by walking out of the closet and letting the newlyweds work it out. The MOTHER-i-l, would never be far away, nor would the European aunt.

Sorry but physics 101 only works with matter, not on human emotions and ambitions.
Sorry 'garden', 'overly aggressive' pressure, constantly applied to human situations, works like pure physics my friend. But hey , that is a whole other topic.

Look back to Europe in the 1930 did appeasement get a peaceful equalibrium?
Where was the appeasement??? Everyone was too busy with before and after 'crash' build-up and collapse to pay attention to the German 'hurricane' that was picking up force. When everyone did wake-up, the hurricane was in their backyard.
Oh and please spare us the '... if it hadn't been for the 'overly aggressive' US liberators..." B.S.
One way you could look at it 'forge', is eversince Germany took responsiblity for its 'overly aggressive' ambitions, there has been examplary equilibrium in western europe. Let's not wait for the medicine that had to be served to the Germans in WWII, to understand our part of responsiblity in today's mess.

Has ignoring terrorists for the last 50 years and giving them what they want caused them to cease their lawlessness?
I'm not sure you really meant what you just wrote here. IGNORING TERRORISTS!!! The US is the master franchisor for at least half of all terrorists and guerilla or oterwise subversive organizations in parts of the world where they have interests. Hussein's Iraq is a pure US fabrication, so is our impossible to find old 'Bin'!!! 'Give them what they wanted' is the only right part of your statement: money and weapons to do our dirty jos, is what they wanted, and its what we gave them.

They view each concession made as a victory and it only makes them more bold.
CONCESSIONS?!?!?! I'll spare you on that 'garden'...

gee you used up a whole lot of space to not answer any of the questions. I see a lot of words where a simple yes or no would suffice. Seems a while back someone called me a pontificator but I think the title belongs to you.

A very humble pontificate at that your HOLINESS!!!

GF ... Ill answer your questions for you ...

do you really believe that the radical islamic movement would pull in their horns and quit if we pulled out of the middle east?

No. Not at first. But the West has the skills to defuse the attacks. (Sounds a lot like turning the other cheek, but then after a while it will ease out)
Remember in the first Gulf War, the Iraqis started shelling Israel to try and get the rest of the Islamic world on-side. They never retaliated due to the connections with the west. The west has skills in diplomacy that are not used to full effect.

Do you think that North Korea and Iran would quit pursuing the development of nuclear weapons?
I agree with V on this. Iran pursuing? No. Attaining? Yes.
N. Korea? Well the US made a real sh1t storm there, but it is not insurmountable.
Instead of fighting fire with fire, be soft. Give the people what they want. Food, and consumables.
Make magnanimous gestures.
Get the diplomatic community to see that the West can be magnanimous. No more weapons, just Tootsie Rolls.

Do you think that the Israeli people have no right to exist?
This is a bit of a sore subject with me, as the Israelis are not my favourite group of people. In fact they rank right up there with the Nigerians for groups of people I dislike! But I will side-step this question and answer the next one instead.

Do you think the middle east would become a more stable place if Iran and Syria attach Israel?
I assume you mean attack. If you do, then I would answer no. The israelis are mean spirited, nasty fkrs. Iran would never attack them anyway, and the Syrians are not organised enough to mount a serious offensive against them.
If the largest Arab Nation in the Middle East (Egypt) got their butts kicked by the Israelis then the piddley-arsed Syrians would suffer badly.
Syria wants Lebanon. It considers Lebanon part of Syria. It is militarily and geographically a very important place to have control of.
Lebanon is (or was) the banking capital of the Middle East. Its the Switzerland .. or it was until the civil war.

The politics of the Middle East are complex and no one but the Arabs and its neighbours can sort it out. Intervention of the West is unnecessary and has backfired on all those who try to "help"

Why the hell do you think the Brits walked out in 1947???

Leaving the Middle East to do what the Middle Eastern countries do best.

Its summed up by Elizabeth I of England, who when describing the Irish, said,
"They are a delightful people, who desire nothing more than to cut each other's throats, in peace"

Belushi,

The Brits abandoned all their little step children in the ME and SE Asia at the end of WWII, because they were too weak to maintain their vast conqured empire.

The Brits in their redrawing of borders are responsible for 90 % of the worlds problems and hotspots today! The US only stepped in to fill a power vacuum created by Englands withdraw, and for the same reason we stayed in Western Europe for 60 years. To protect them and y'all from the expanding Communist threat!

Oh I can hear you fuming now, but the facts are the facts and your deinial and the English's false feelings of superiority cant shift all the blame towards the US. The history books have already been written!

Sure we have screwed things up a bit ourselves, but we were forced to adopt the problems as is for the threat of the Russian expansionism. Its kinda hard to fix 500 years of British cluster ****s and hold off another superpower in 3 or 4 major Geographic regions.

Now, I agree and have been saying the same thing as you about letting the ME solve their own problems, and probably their solution would involve putting or trying to put back the borders to a time before the British redrew them. This would mean many years of war, but exhaustion and finality would eventually settle the problems.

In the meantime, Gardenforge they would be so busy with each other, and use so much of their resources and energy in this endeavor that the US would be safer than we ever have been.

Oh Gypsy,

It will be a cold day in hell before an Englishman will ever run this country again!

Canada may be satisfied with worshipping a group of Monarchs that have never done anything but inbreed and suck up National resources, but we kicked the whole bloody lot out more than 200 years ago.

Well you dont actually have an American running your country! You have "big business" and the Oil companies.

When you actually get an American politician with a spine, a set of balls and a brain, then you will have a leader.

History is written by the victors, and as far as the Americans "cleaning" up our mess?

Using a water cannon to clean up a mess where a garden hose would have worked is hardly an effective use of resources.