Apologies for the confusion.

Here's the new scenario.


Today you awoke and you don't know how it happened, but you are the President of the United States.

You can't turn back the hands of time, you can't undo things already done. You begin your presidency today...March 4, 2003.

What's your game plan for the WOT and related issues such as ME conflict and NK crisis, since all are intertwined to a great degree.

Well first and foremost ill deal with EVERY crisis. I think bush has been letting some things go. Like in the newspaper today front page their was somthing about NK fighters shadow an american spy plane through international waters. And america was able to get 4 fighter jets up in the air, it is not about how much problems there are but ow bad we can endur them. Like the WOT is simple, going into caves where al-quada lives. But also is the NK crisis abut the power plant. In other wards dont just focus on one thing focus on everything


**BTW im too young to be president**

Such a broad banded question.

For the kid above...how does a single incident prove that NK is being ignored? That post made no sense (BTW, I am from Cleveland also)

Here is my reply:

IRAQ : Continue with the current military buildup. End all discussions about a new UN resolution. War is inevitable at this point, we should just get it done. Every day we delay gives SH and the terrorists time to plot a response. I would give a clearcut speech to the American people stating the reasoning for war and answer the "Why Now" question.

In less than 2 weeks, I would be bombing Baghdad into submission. Follow that up with a swift ground force that uses air superiority to limit friendly resistance. Of course there will be casualties, but hopefully limited. A surgical bombing such as happened in the Gulf War should limit civilian casualties while destroying military objectives.

The main point in Iraq is less about regime change and more about installing a democracy in Iraq. The difference is subtle, but distinct. For example, I would not be for assassinating Saddam as a means of regime change. Why? It does not rid the country of its existing oppressive government and Saddam's cronies. The current power structure would still be in place, with a new head man in charge. (That is, of course, if you don't kill one of his numerous body doubles instead).

Installing a fledgling democracy in Iraq is the key. The difference between radical Muslim extremists and the West cannot be solved at the point of a gun. The only way to do it is to SHOW them freedom--freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Once they have tasted it, they will never give it up. It will spread to surrounding countries (Iran, for example).

I believe that George W. Bush is on the right track on Iraq. I hope he doesn't repeat some of the mistakes of the past (namely installing a puppet dictator or installing a democracy without some backing to make it viable). We all know that democracy is a fragile thing. To make it work takes sacrifice and determination. It is not an easy course he has set. The bottom line is : a leader's job is to LEAD, not follow. He must determine what is in the nation's best interest and then go, not second guess himself or overly listen to opinion polls. Let the people's voice be heard through their votes. If his leadership is unpopular, the people will decide.

As for the other fronts: NK is crying out for attention. I would ignore them publicly while trying to talk to them privately. We all know the the North Korean people is starving and oppressed.

Bin Laden: continue the underground fight against this madman. The "war" on terrorism is more of a mindset than a military action. Thousands of operatives and dozens of Al-Queda leaders have been apprehended since 9/11. The trend needs to continue.

Of course, no issue is going to be solved on a message board. Public knowledge falls far short of the known Intelligence on these (and frankly, hundreds of other) issues.

I agree to continue with Iraq, its Way too late to stop any buildups.

North Korea hasn't been attended too, to much.

A. North Korea continues to build missiles when we provide empty threats and no build up

B. North Korea restarted its nuclear program and the US found it could deliver to USA but the USA hasn't done anything about that. Not even a minor buildup in SK

C. North Korea was found in breach of some nuclear pact that is in the UN the united states just brushed it off with more empty threats

D. We are abandoning the problem with north Korea


And please don't ever call me "kid" I deserve what everyone else gets i'd like to be treated as an adult thank you so much

If i were Prez Today, i'd attack Iraq now with whomever has joined up for the war because the longer we wait for war, the more nosedives the NYSE takes everyday because of the geopolitical situation

I would also open diplomatic channels with North Korea to settle that conflict down & insist that Kim Jong stop developing Nuclear Weapons & convince him that the U.S. is not planning to attack him.

Also, i'd try to repair the major rift between the United States & Germany & France after the verbal conflict over Iraq.

Basically what GB is doing right now.

1. Roll out our troops to the middle east.
2. Keep stringing those guys in the UN along, giving them an impression that they are something more than a high society debate club. When we are ready, go in and decisively remove Saddam and his regime.
3. Keep telling that crackpot in NK that crying and kicking his feet will continue to net him treatment akin to a baby. Keep up the message that Kim Jong is an international problem that needs to be dealt with by the international community. We all know that in the end, if NK doesn't straighten up, the US will have to go over there and clean house.
4. Let the now awake CIA and FBI do their jobs and bring OBL and company to justice. Frankly though, that isn't really important, there are more terrorists being made every day in the middle east and other places. We have to convert these countries like Iraq into democracies that have a nice stack of middle class people who would rather work and enjoy life than to strap on 5 lbs of TNT to blow up the nearest pile of Israelis/Americans/InfidelOfTheWeek with.

Sorry Juber3...

BTW, we have 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea and (usually) a carrier group stationed in Japan. It's not as if we have no troops ready to take action (if necessary) against North Korean aggression.

The North Korean situation is very sticky. Its too close to China for us to do much about. That's why we are encouraging China to deal with it (maybe with their recent leadership change something will be done).

I mean thats not enought to deal with the crisis. We can launch an attack from carriers but i doubt that will happen

I agree but what is the possibility fo it happenenin 10/100?

#1) I 'd hire Monica Lewinski back ASAP. Seems the economy responds better to sex rumors then to war.
#2) I too would hit Iraq. The movement seems to be losing steam as far as public opinion is concerned. Worse, our troops are sitting there in the desert and getting ansy about their future.
#3) I think North Korea is just making a lot of noise. I'd do it just as it is being done.
#4) Cut off every dime and nickel of US aid going to France and Russia if there is any.
#5) Have someone tell me what exactly happened in Roswell NM!!!!!

I wrote this for another venue, but I guess it'll fit in here (at least with the cuss words bleeped out):


Notes Toward an Izdaarian Foreign Policy


I'd be pretty much an isolationist, but very serious about the old "Don't tread on me" Gadsden flag. If any nation harbors or encourages terrorists that attack us, they can expect a swift and sudden regime change. Not in the form of an invasion probably. More likely a smart bomb right into the Presidential office during business hours, and without consulting the UN.

And I would not be deterred by the argument that the next guy might be worse. If he is, he'll get the same. A generally non-interventionist policy combined with that invariable retaliatory stance would mean there'd be minimal upside to messing with us and maximal downside.

I'd bring the troops home from Europe and most other overseas locations. Might have to wait a bit on Korea til that situation stabilizes, but we shouldn't leave them there forever and need to stabilize it ASAP. If the Chinese can't or won't reign in NK, maybe we should give the bomb to Japan and SK to even things up.

And I'd get serious about U.S. border security. Right now it's a ******* joke, and the administration doesn't seem at all serious about fixing it.

I'd absolutely continue the missile defense project and accelerate it as much as possible. I'd rebuild the humint side of our intelligence capability. Right now our intelligence agencies are not up to KGB or Mossad standards and they should be.

I'd accelerate the space program, but mostly not through NASA which has become a hidebound bureaucracy whose primary mission is defending their monopoly on space travel. **** that. I'd bypass them by doing X projects and/or offering cash bounties a la the Pournelle proposal.

I'd put a lot of resources into energy independence. Space is a large component of that in the form of solar power satellites, and so is nuclear power.

All of the above would be paid for by cutting the portions of the defense budget that don't suit the above strategies, and some from the domestic side as necessary. That's all by way of late night notes on a napkin, all subject to revision upon expert advice but that's the general direction I'd want.

Who's with me?

P.S.: Is that a Right or a Left program? Or does it even make sense to categorize it that way?