Taro T

So, this stowable shovel (with the swivel head) is 4.5 Billion years old? Wow, that's pretty cool.

Clearly nothing will top that for best in thread. How's this for new wurst? Whenever the fish played against Kelly's Bills, all good fans would boudin!

Sheesh, that has to be the wurst post yet!

Alannah Myles - "Black Velvet" off her self titled album.

I definitely agree with your final point and see your point in the 1st paragraph. However, it seems to me (again as an outsider going off what I see / hear) that while there is a certain level of trying to not completely upend the apple cart, there is also a great deal of "realism" (of the Brent Scowcroft variety) that colors their views and influences their actions. It appears to me that this attitude that certain things should not, will not, or could not happen tends to keep individuals persuing their own agendas at the expense of the stated policies that are supposed to be implemented. (Agendas is probably too strong a word but I am having trouble right now coming up with a word that more precisely means what I am trying to state.) The "realism", to me, tends to work against proactive policies as it seems to favor status quo and views change as necessarily bad as the ripple effects of change are not only unpredictable but predictably bad. If the people that are necessary to implement a "proactive" policy are not on board with it, can there ever truly BE a "proactive foreign policy"?

Thanks for the BGN info. I downloaded the Phase 2 report and will try to read through it.

I should have added "in KJI's opinion" in regards to the economy not being devastated. If he does agree that the economy would be devastated and he wouldn't have the resources to keep the military on his side, I would expect that he would opt for the status quo. You and BiB seem to believe that KJI would realize that the economy would be devastated and his (and his heir's) hold on power would be short lived. I hope you are correct.

Unfortunately I haven't read that one; didn't think I had the right clearances to access it. Could you provide a Cliff's Notes version? Can the status quo mindset be changed or are we doomed to dither while China, India, and others supplant the US on the world stage?

I was referring, in a rather poorly stated manner, to whether KJI thought that China would not support sanctions against a DPRK led united Korea. If China and other nations with ties to China would trade with Korea, then although the economy is definitely much worse off than prior to a war and a controlled economy, it isn't necessarily devastated. His opinion of where China would stand in relations with a reunited China would definitely fit into his decisions on whether to attack ROK.

I would tend to agree with this view, but have questions about the actual implementation of foreign policy. (The questions are actually tangential to this discussion and I apologize for such.) From an outsider's perspective, it APPEARS that a lot of the career staffers in the departments/agencies that affect foreign policy (State Department, CIA, etc.) seem to have a "status quo" mentality. They seem to oftentimes favor / work towards policies that support the current players and only seek minor / incremental changes in the way the world operates. For example, they seemed to favor Clinton's NK policies rather than Bush's. (This is the impression I get from various news sources, as I stated, I don't know that this is reality but it is my perception.) If this is the case, can effective proactive foreign policy truly be implemented? If it can't be implemented, can the status quo within these departments be changed (proactively, of course!) to allow for proactive implementation of goals?

I expect that it would end up disasterous for DPRK and ROK for KJI to preemptively strike, but if KJI sees an opportunity to create a legacy I thought it would be something they might consider. Ken's points about Japan are very interesting, maybe that would be a way for him to stake his place in history, so to speak. Although I would hope that he would realize that course of action could very likely end with the Korean peninsula reunited under Southern control. (That would beget another question, would China be willing to let Korea reunite under ROK control, if it were in direct response to an unproved attack by DPRK on Japan; rather than face the possibility of WW III when the US defended Japan?) If Seoul fell in a preemptive attack, would the rest of the country necessarily have to be decimated for DPRK to assume control of the whole country? I assume fighting would continue, but I don't have a good feel for how fierce it would be. I am certain that the US, Japan, and some other Western countries would impose trade sanctions on the newly unified Korea; but would China allow the UN to impose sanctions knowing that sanctions would turn the entire peninsula into the basket case that the Northern half had been? If China were to come around within a couple of years to seeing this not as not necessarily being a bad thing (IF there were a way to keep Korea economically viable, China's influence in SE Asia would necessarily increase and that of the US and Japan would diminish.) Note, China doesn't have to necessarily be unwilling to impose/support sanctions for this scenario to become viable; if KJI THINKS China may go along with it in some way, would he be willing to do this? Your and Ken's answer lead me to believe that the answer to the question is NO. I truly hope you are correct as this does provide more time for multilateral talks to succeed.

As none of the options appear to be "good", I would prefer a course based on option 1. One thing this option provides is additional time to try and figure out how to proceed in a manner that will end up with a viable Iraq at the end of the process. I also would like to see Saddam's trial get put in order instead of the circus it seems to be. Perhaps if the Kurds and Shiites saw that they really do not have to fear Saddam nor his top advisers returning to power, they may be a bit more willing to strike compromises with the Sunnis on matters of "national" security and how to divvy up oil revenues. As to options 2, 4, 5, or 6; I see them creating many more problems than the current ones and am in no hurry to choose one of them.

As KJI gets closer to his deathbed and the country continues to be a basket case, how likely do you see a preemptive strike against ROK? Does KJI have enough fuel and other supplies currently to pull something like this off? I know he has no problems with his people suffering hardships, so additional sacrifice of the people would be something I doubt he would have problems with. I'd expect China to be very unhappy with an attack, but if DPRK could get control of ROK's resources wouldn't it be able to replace (for a few years, until it turns the South into the toilet that it is,) or think it could replace, the aid that currently comes in from China? Also, if DPRK did increase its saber rattling (up to a possible strike on the the South), would this be an opportunity that China would sieze to try to preemptively attack Taiwan? (CTM could probably say whether China currently has the naval capability to attempt this. If they don't, the question becomes moot quickly.) I doubt that China would risk an attack within the next 2-1/2 years (assuming they have the capability to do it), but depending upon the next occupant in the WH, I could see that as a possibility but don't have a good feel for how likely it would be. My gut feel is that China would prefer diplomatic means to exert additional influence in Taiwan, but I wonder if they would be willing to risk military action if they saw the US was too busy putting out other fires and thought that the US wouldn't have the stomach for joining another conflict. I hope that KJI (and mainland China) doesn't see this strategy as having a legitimate chance of success, but was curious as to how viable the NKoreans see this course of events.

Wow, not a good 6 months for 60's TV legends. Gilligan goes in September, and now Barney. Thanks for the memories guys.

The US definitely screwed up by not bringing in Miller, but I don't think the squad will have to worry too much about getting relegated to the B pool in the future. Miller and DiPietro are only 25 and should have their best hockey still ahead of them. The 2nd pick overall in this year's draft, Bobby Ryan, was a Yank and the US has other young players such as Connolly that could be ready to take their game up another level in the near future. Goaltending will be key, and I expect the US goaltending to be better in the future. Especially if Don Waddell isn't picking the team.

Gee, what are the odds a couple of "women in comfortable shoes" would like women's hockey and hate the "Great One"?

Fair enough.

OK Karnac, who are you voting for in '08? With that kind of "success" rate, you might be able to make a little money. Based on your other posts, I don't think you would vote for her; but PLEASE tell me it isn't Bill's wife.

The way I remember it, it was more of a case of him not dignifying the offer with a response. Apparently, he felt the reigning CotY should have been offered a multiyear deal, and the 1 year deal wasn't worthy of a response.

The Sabres/Darcy gave him an offer of a 1 year extension. He ignored it for about 3 weeks and the Sabres eventually withdrew it and signed Lindy.

Or just MAYBE, the guy doesn't have an NHL head coaching gig because he turned down 2 offers to be a head coach (Buffalo and Tampa Bay) and has turned down at least 1 offer to be an assistant coach. Throw that on top of not getting along with your front office (it was so obvious that he and Muckler couldn't coexist, that Muckler got fired) and your best player, and then I think we might have a reason WHY the guy isn't an NHL head coach. It MUST be because he's an Indian.

No, no, the Secret Service waited 3 hours before allowing Whittington to be transported to the hospital because that's how long it took to get him to sign secret papers in which he agreed that the "accident" was entirely his fault and that Dick Chaney had no involvement in the incident whatsoever. Heck, Chaney wasn't even there. Uh huh.

I didn't know he had EVER held a press conference as VP. How in the world did I miss the last one?

The al-Tikriti just means that the guy is from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit.

It all depends on perspective. Compared to Randi Rhodes (sp?), Ed IS a moderate. Heck compared to her, Ed's a Republican.