|
Author
|
Topic: War in Iraq
|
joshua221 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 46 of 56 (118056)
06-23-2004 8:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by Loudmouth
06-23-2004 5:54 PM
|
|
VOTE NADER
The earth is flat.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Loudmouth, posted 06-23-2004 5:54 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 47 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2004 9:49 PM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 47 of 56 (118061)
06-23-2004 9:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by joshua221
06-23-2004 8:37 PM
|
|
VOTE NADER and Elect Bush.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by joshua221, posted 06-23-2004 8:37 PM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
paisano
Member (Idle past 6448 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: 05-07-2004
|
|
|
Message 48 of 56 (118072)
06-23-2004 11:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by Loudmouth
06-23-2004 5:54 PM
|
|
In this way the political establishment will realize that it isn't voter apathy but voter frustration due to the limited number of candidates for president. This tactic might actually birth a strong third party in the US. Who knows. N-th parties do exist (Greens, Libertarians, US Taxpayers) but haven't attracted wide support. Perhaps this is because they tend to represent the extremes on either end. Most people who long for a third party seem to want something centrist. Not many third party candidates fit this (Anderson in 1980 and arguably Perot in 1992 would be the closest I can think of ). Myself, I'd prefer McCain, Powell or Giuliani as Republican Predidential candidates. But it's Bush, or Kerry, this time around. I predict Kerry will lose unless he starts running a more optimistic campaign, and jettisons Michael Moore the way Clinton did Sister Souljah in 1992. I still await coherent arguments why Kerry is the better choice (none of this puerile "Bush sux" business).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Loudmouth, posted 06-23-2004 5:54 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2004 5:01 AM | | paisano has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 49 of 56 (118121)
06-24-2004 1:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by joshua221
06-22-2004 12:38 AM
|
|
Why we HAD to invade Iraq!!!!!
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by joshua221, posted 06-22-2004 12:38 AM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 50 of 56 (118185)
06-24-2004 5:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by paisano
06-23-2004 11:01 PM
|
|
I still await coherent arguments why Kerry is the better choice Well, from what I've read of his biography, he's a man of courage and integrity, with proven leadership experience. In addition he's well-educated, well-spoken, and capable of appreciating the nuance of an issue, rather than having a need to abstract everything into black and white. Our current president has none of those qualities, as far as I can see.
I predict Kerry will lose unless he starts running a more optimistic campaign What could be more optimistic than "there are some things wrong with the world that we all can help fix"? I mean, I guess you could say "everything is great; nothing's wrong; no need to change leaders", but that's wishful thinking, not optimism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by paisano, posted 06-23-2004 11:01 PM | | paisano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by paisano, posted 06-24-2004 8:48 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
paisano
Member (Idle past 6448 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: 05-07-2004
|
|
|
Message 51 of 56 (118212)
06-24-2004 8:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
06-24-2004 5:01 AM
|
|
If you're alluding to Kerry's military experience, yes, he's seen combat, Bush didn't. Though flying F-102s was far from risk-free, they had a pretty high attrition rate in normal operations. I looked at Kerry's FITREPS online and the picture that emerges is that of a competent junior officer with combat experience. Nothing more (or less) than that. I suspect Bush would have done as well if deployed. As to Bush being inarticulate, this is painfully obvious. But does it correlate with low intelligence? Not necessarily. I've known many technicians of very few words who were uncanny in their technical brilliance. As to nuanced thinking; this has its value, in places such as the faculty lounge, or on these boards, or debating arcana of non-critical policy. But sometimes clear, decisive action, often in the face of conflicting or incomplete information, is what is needed. It is possible to nuance oneself into paralysis in such cases. Is Kerry capable of decisive action? The combat experience suggests he is. So why is his Iraq alternative policy so vague and muddled ? "We'll try the UN" just doesn't cut it. They are the very antithesis of decisive action, and often operating contrary to American interests. Yes, looking out for American interests is part of the President's job. Finally, it is one thing to state that "there are problems". In fact, its trivially obvious. How one is going to adress those problems is what's really at issue. Exaggerating them is not helpful, either. I hear Bush compared to Hoover, and this is laughable. We don't have lines at soup kitchens and 33% unemployment. I'm still an "undecided voter" (but leaning Bush as you might surmise). But the venom of the far Left does not appeal, any more than the Falwell wing of the Republicans does.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2004 5:01 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 52 of 56 (118217)
06-24-2004 9:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by paisano
06-24-2004 8:48 AM
|
|
I suspect Bush would have done as well if deployed. You act like he didn't have any choice in the matter. Kerry chose to "deploy" himself - he requested duty in the Vietnam theatre. Bush, on the other hand, somehow landed in flight school - ahead of hundreds on a waiting list - with the bare minimum test scores required to qualify. There was absolutely no danger of Bush being deployed to Vietnam if he didn't want to go. Moreover to suggest that "he would have done as well" totally ignores the content of many of Bush's officer reviews.
It is possible to nuance oneself into paralysis in such cases. Of course. But as a general principle, it's always better to think too much than not at all, right? Is it really wrong to prefer a leader who gives thought to the issues, as opposed to one who takes hasty, "decisive", wrong-headed action, and then refuses to even admit a mistake or change course? Sorry, Paisano. I've gotta lean towards the candidate who can think.
So why is his Iraq alternative policy so vague and muddled ? Because the situation in Iraq is vague and muddled. Moreover:
quote:
A Strategy for Success in Iraq
To establish security and move forward with the transition to Iraqi sovereignty, the President must show true leadership in going to the major powers to secure their support of Lakhdar Brahimi’s mission, the establishment of a high commissioner for governance and reconstruction, and the creation of a NATO mission for Iraq. These steps are critical to creating a stable Iraq with a representative government and secure in its borders. Meeting this objective is in the interests of NATO member states, Iraq’s neighbors and all members of the international community. True leadership means sharing authority and responsibility for Iraq with others who have an interest in Iraq’s success. Sharing responsibility is the only way to gain new military and financial commitments, allowing America to truly share the burden and the risk. I. Make Iraq a Part of NATO’s Global Mission NATO is now a global security organization and creating a stable and secure environment in Iraq must be one of its global missions. Every member of NATO has a huge stake in Iraq’s future. NATO agreement to take on this mission should be reached no later than the NATO summit in late June. NATO can take on this mission in phases, beginning with taking control of Iraq’s border security, and taking over responsibility for northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and the training of Iraqi security forces. This would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, open the door to participation by non-NATO countries like India and Pakistan, and send an important message to the American people that we are not bearing the security burden in Iraq virtually alone. II. Authorize a High Commissioner for Governance and Reconstruction An international High Commissioner should be authorized by the UN Security Council to organize the political transition to Iraqi sovereignty and the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction with the new Iraqi government. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, the High Commissioner will organize elections and the drafting of a constitution, and coordinate reconstruction. The High Commissioner should be an individual who is highly regarded by the international community and who has the credibility and capacity to talk to all the Iraqi people. The High Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqi people. While the process of establishing the High Commissioner is underway, we must fully support the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi to set-up an Iraqi interim entity. III. Launch a Massive Effort to Build an Iraqi Security Force We need a massive training effort to build an Iraqi security force that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed and must be rethought and reformed. Training must be done in the field, on the job as well as in the classroom. This key task should be part of the NATO mission, and units should be put on the street with backup from international security forces. The creation of viable Iraqi security forces — military and police — is crucial to a successful exit for us and other international forces.
That's Kerry's plan for Iraq, from his webpage. That sounds a lot less vague to me than "we'll stay the course", which is more or less the only thing I've heard from Bush on the subject.
How one is going to adress those problems is what's really at issue. I totally agree. All I've seen from Bush are plans that only have the appearance of addressing issues, from abstinence-only sex ed to a countdown to turing over power to an Iraqi government (in less than 6 days!) that doesn't yet fully exist.
But the venom of the far Left does not appeal So look past the venom. Go to Kerry's website and see what he stands for. (I suspect you haven't done that yet.) It's possible to have an intelligent debate on this issue, but it won't happen so long as conservatives cast any sort of opposition as "venom" or "Bush-hating." Kerry isn't "far left." You'd know that if you paid attention to what the far left thinks about Kerry. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by paisano, posted 06-24-2004 8:48 AM | | paisano has not replied |
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 53 of 56 (118323)
06-24-2004 2:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by paisano
06-23-2004 10:24 AM
|
|
quote:
The terroriists become terrorists for the same reasons the SS became SS. Naivete and questionable moral equivalence aside, they still want us dead.
Come on, that’s a gross and unfair stereotype. People become "terrorists" because that is the weapon by which the poor can fight the rich. Its exactly this blind Evil/Good dichotomy that is causing the problem; you just can’t grant that anyone opposes you legitimately. There are only those who agree with you, and evildoers. THAT’S how people end up joining the SS; by being convinced they can do no wrong.
quote:
But to suggest that our enemies will make nice if we're just nicer to them is suicidally naive.
That’s nuts; yes, it is the case that if the US stops bombing people, playing protectionist games, and flaunting its unilateralism, then it would have fewer enemies, without a doubt. But as we see in the above paragraph, you don’t seem to WANT fewer enemies.
quote:
If you hold to such theories of moral equivalence, you have forfeited any rational basis for criticizing the actions of anyone, including Bush.
Why? Don’t be absurd. This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-24-2004 01:49 PM This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-24-2004 01:55 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by paisano, posted 06-23-2004 10:24 AM | | paisano has not replied |
|
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: 05-03-2004
|
Re: war for oil?
quote:
Furthermore, the US now directly controls a or the major oil-producing nation, meaning that the US has the ability to render OPEC even less relevant than it is now.
See, I'm just not sold on that stance. Iraq, preinvasion, was a secular state and as I said was willing to pump and sell oil. What we may end up with now could be a strongly muslim country which, after a couple of elections, may or may not like us. It is likely we may have been better off with the previous regime. Also, Saddam was able to maintain control of the country and the oil rarely stopped flowing but under the new system it is much more difficult to secure the pipeline. As you can probably tell I am by no means an expert on the subject but the "war for oil" strategy just doesn't strike me as sufficient reason to go in, our money is always far more likely to get us oil than violence.
|
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5039 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: 05-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 55 of 56 (118332)
06-24-2004 3:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by paisano
06-24-2004 8:48 AM
|
|
quote:
I looked at Kerry's FITREPS online and the picture that emerges is that of a competent junior officer with combat experience. Nothing more (or less) than that. I suspect Bush would have done as well if deployed.
I'm not sure where you looked but this is what I found on Kerry's webpage:
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/veterans/service.html writes: February 28, 1969 — For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 28 February 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94 and Officer in Tactical Command of a three-boat mission. As the force approached the target area on the narrow Dong Cung River, all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less than fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. The daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers. The PCF gunners captured many enemy weapons in the battle that followed. On a request from U.S. Army advisors ashore, Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry ordered PCFs 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats again were taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF-94; with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission. His actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. This doesn't sound like "...a competent junior officer with combat experience. Nothing more (or less) than that." This sounds like a man who put his life on the line for his country. And I don't mean that in the "I hid in the reserves so I am a hero" sense, I mean that in the "I charged a VC rocket" sense.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by paisano, posted 06-24-2004 8:48 AM | | paisano has not replied |
|
contracycle
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 56 of 56 (118367)
06-24-2004 4:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 54 by bob_gray
06-24-2004 3:04 PM
|
|
Re: war for oil?
quote:
See, I'm just not sold on that stance. Iraq, preinvasion, was a secular state and as I said was willing to pump and sell oil. What we may end up with now could be a strongly muslim country which, after a couple of elections, may or may not like us.
Well, sure. Plans can backfire; strategy is not conceived from full knowledge of destiny. But equally, does this hostility to the US matter if you have the might to ignore their objections? I mean, the US steadily ignores all sorts of objections, about global warming, about nuclear proliferation, etc etc.
quote:
As you can probably tell I am by no means an expert on the subject but the "war for oil" strategy just doesn't strike me as sufficient reason to go in, our money is always far more likely to get us oil than violence.
Only assuming a functional market that continues to operate, and the willingness of oil producing countries to participate in that market. Given the US support for Israeli terrorism, it's conceivable that the US could end up under OPEC embargo. Posession, as they say, is nine tenths of the law. The actual, material presence of the US military establishes a much firmer, more secure, expectation of continued supply. This is good for business; its good for domestic politics; it is good for national prestige and power projection. The market is not reliable in times of conflict. Thus both US and societ doctrines for WWIII contained inital moves against the middle eastern oilfields. If the US is in fact at war, as the Bush Doctrine asserts, then this is the only logical opening to employ.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 54 by bob_gray, posted 06-24-2004 3:04 PM | | bob_gray has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2