Taro T

He's Craig Laughlin. And you are correct unfortunately (the guy was a star at my Alma Mater a few years before I got there).

I have to agree with you on that one, but the Caps announcers give them a good run for the title.

If you don't mind my asking, what did you do that caused the league to sue you a first time? And if you don't mind a further question, what was the end result of your 1st run in with them?

That would be a great thing if they can pull it off. I consider myself to be a libertarian but rarely if ever consider voting for one of their candidates because far too often they come off as a bit wacky.

I would go with a system where there were straight no leaks, but also (and importantly) only material that could truly compromise national security would be classified. Not much of a chance of the 2nd part happening unfortunately.

In answer to your previously avoided question, yes I did read the article. His comments which you quoted regarding "The End of History and the Last Man" from the article seem to directly contradict his own words IN the book. It seems to me that his more recent comments regarding EoH are splitting hairs and trying to change the focus from liberal democracy being the end point for nearly all societies to these neoconservatives tried to force liberal democracy down these other peoples throats and were wrong in doing so. I don't agree that his original premise was correct. In a liberal democracy (or in a ruthless authoritarian regime and pretty much anything in between) there will be corruption. Until people find a way to avoid and remove that corruption, there will be striving toward something better (history will continue). While it may be possible that the "Star Trek" future comes to pass, I'd highly doubt it.

I was referring back to X. Benedict's comment about his book "End of History", not the article that Mickey quoted.

I thought that Fukuyama's thesis was that Western-style democracy had shown itself to be the triumphant or "optimal" form of government, which seemed to be a premature claim even at the end of the cold war.

Mickey, isn't Fukuyama the same guy that claimed in the early '90's that we had reached the "end of history"? Considering how brilliant he was then, I'm not real concerned about his current thoughts.

Don't forget Steven Wright, Monty Python, and Red Green.

According to posts on the SR board, the game will be carried on Sirius 147 and XM 206. The game is also on WGR. The reason the game isn't on CI is neither the Sabres nor Thrashers are carrying the game and no national network (OLN, NBC, TSN, CBC) picked it up either. This happened to one Thrashers / Sabres game last season as well.

Wow. Are you using an Army entrenchment tool, a Marine entrenchment tool, or a plain old fashioned civilian shovel?

Back to topic. I would consider myself more of a libertarian than a conservative or republican but do have a tendency to vote republican more often than not. That said, following are 3 of the things I do not like about GWB. 1. I do not like the fact that he has never vetoed a single bill. 2. I do not like the fact that he cannot express himself even remotely well when he has to "think on his feet". I think his administration has some good policies, but he loses a lot of support for them by his inability to explain them. 3. I do not like the fact that his disdain for the media is so great that he oftentimes doesn't respond when his policies are challenged, either by the dems or by the pundits. He should address the nation far more often than he does.

If it weren't for the fact that she might win if she runs, I actually PREFER her campaigning and staying out of the Senate to her showing up for work each day. And actually, in NY, the possibility of her becoming president will likely gain her votes in the Senate race.

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.