Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Bill White · 2004-04-21 08:06:54

The Wall Street Journal is running an essay by [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004970]Ahmad Chalabi who is a key player for the Americans, to say the least.

Interesting reading.

Byron · 2004-04-21 08:12:31

And since Saudi Arabia is necessarily involved, IMHO we need to prepare our economy to survive a few years, or more, without ANY Persian Gulf oil exports. Thus far terrorists have not committed sabotage against the oil terminals but that only shows they are not that desperate yet.

They may not be that desperate yet, but they will be. And terrorists generally don't care about money...only their undying hatred towards the West. Yeah, I'd *love* to see us embarking on a multi-trillion dollar program to change over to a non-oil economy, but even if we start now, it'll take 20 years or more, and nearly everyone would have to pay through greatly increased taxes, lowered standard of living, etc. Oil is what makes everything "cheap"...and there's simply no way we're going to be able to change over to a non-fossil fuel economy in a short time span...it simply cannot be done, not without great pain and economic suffering.

Little wonder they're busy topping off those oil reserves in Louisana...I have a strong feeling we're going to depend on those sooner or later, even though it won't nearly be enough. But dagumit, it'd be nice if they would pass a $5000 SUV tax or something, just to get us started on the road to energy independence... ???

B

Palomar · 2004-04-21 08:18:20

Cobra: We have had this war thrust upon us, we need to accept that it's going to be a long and hard fight and that we aren't fighting a country or an organization, but a mentality. An idealogy. I am willing to do whatever it takes to make sure we win this fight because the alternative is immensely worse. The Saudis are a big factor in the spread of this terrorist, anti-western, fundamentalist Islam problem. They need to be dealt with. If we can do it through means other than war I'm all for it, but war needs to be an option.

*I understand the threat of anti-western religious nuts (ideology/mentality). I agree we need to and should combat it. What we seem to disagree on is the -method- for dealing with it. I think the Iraq mess is only *fueling* the hatred against us, and not in a way which can be flattering to us ("well, they hate us worse because we're right and they won't admit it"). Bush looks like a liar (at worst) or terribly misguided (at best) because of the WMDs issue alone. The fact that the credibility of the highest office in the U.S. is found lacking concerns me. Bush has little credibility. What I don't understand is why the Saudis are perpetrating a lot of hostility against their greatest cu$tomer (the U.S.)? Who else is going to buy their oil in quantities such as we do, and who -can- pay their prices?

Cobra: It doesn't matter what reason Bush or any other pol gives for the action, only that it's taken. If a cover story about uranium crappin' sand sharks is what it takes to sell it the public, fine. Our enemies are in this fight heart and soul and they want to see us wiped from the face of the Earth. We can no longer afford to treat this is a "war of choice," it isn't.
I'm really not trying to come down too harsh on you, Cindy.

*Well, I -don't- feel you're coming down harsh on me.

I'm re-reading your statements. Wait a minute...you -don't- have a problem with unproven pretexts for war? Will the public continue to support unproven pretexts for war, if more are given? Probably... :-\ But I don't.

We should have stuck to the path of focusing on Afghanistan, including rebuilding that nation as promised by us to them, and continued routing out Al-Qaeda and bin Laden with a passion. I don't see Iraq/Saddam in the same light as bin Laden/Al-Qaeda. I see the latter as -the- threat. You can ask who is funding Al-Qaeda? Of course, rich oil sheiks and guys like Saddam. So, I guess we would have to go after everyone; flatten out the Middle East, attack them all. I just don't think that's possible...we could wind up destroying OURSELVES in the process. There have got to be other workable and less drastic methods of dealing with this. And it doesn't help that I really don't trust the Bush Administration to tell the truth. I don't doubt at all that anti-Western fundamentalist Muslims ARE a very real threat. But to what extent they are a threat, how to deal with them with least amount of harm -to us-...god, I don't know. I feel like most people don't know, and the ones who do (in power) might be lying/manipulating for their own ends. Those are my honest feelings and thoughts on the matter.

Quote Me: No, no, no...there is no reason to go to Syria or Saudi Arabia, it would be cutting our own throats. We're already in enough of a pickle!
Cobra: How fortunate that we aren't fighting WWII today...

*But Cobra, those enemies fought under a specific and identifiable flag (Nazi and Rising Sun). This is an entirely different matter...scattered renegade terrorists of a variety of nationalities. Again, yes, I'm for fighting terrorists and anti-Western religious nuts...I just want to be sure we're taking as correct a path as possible in doing that. I'm not convinced the war in Iraq is it.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-04-21 08:26:40

And since Saudi Arabia is necessarily involved, IMHO we need to prepare our economy to survive a few years, or more, without ANY Persian Gulf oil exports. Thus far terrorists have not committed sabotage against the oil terminals but that only shows they are not that desperate yet.
They may not be that desperate yet, but they will be. And terrorists generally don't care about money...only their undying hatred towards the West. Yeah, I'd *love* to see us embarking on a multi-trillion dollar program to change over to a non-oil economy, but even if we start now, it'll take 20 years or more, and nearly everyone would have to pay through greatly increased taxes, lowered standard of living, etc. Oil is what makes everything "cheap"...and there's simply no way we're going to be able to change over to a non-fossil fuel economy in a short time span...it simply cannot be done, not without great pain and economic suffering.
Little wonder they're busy topping off those oil reserves in Louisana...I have a strong feeling we're going to depend on those sooner or later, even though it won't nearly be enough. But dagumit, it'd be nice if they would pass a $5000 SUV tax or something, just to get us started on the road to energy independence... ???
B

And rather than tell us the truth our "leaders" give us this:

[http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/tax23_20030523.htm]http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/tax23_20030523.htm

Mundaka · 2004-04-21 15:44:43

Bill White · 2004-04-21 16:40:49

A few weeks ago I was astounded to read that we lost a helo near Fallajuh to a SAM, not RPGs, but a military grade SAM.
<snip>
They aren't ready to admit they are losing.
A SAM? Bad news Bill -- I'll bet a month's pay it was made in China. Looks like our 1980s strategy in Afganistan was learned by our "most favored" trading partner.
Your comment about the oil rigs is perceptive -- I wonder how much an autoclave, some sewage, and a distillery would cost . . . cheap oil anyone? (blatant rip off of that new oil producing technique Cindy was talking about.)

What about surplus Soviet? How much do you make anyways?

Just joshin'. . . :;):

= = =

Anyway, read http://dunamai.com/articles/Islam/fall_ … d.htm]this.

The Saudi system seemed--and still seems--frighteningly vulnerable to attack. Although Saudi Arabia has more than eighty active oil and natural-gas fields, and more than a thousand working wells, half its proven oil reserves are contained in only eight fields--including Ghawar, the world's largest onshore oil field, and Safaniya, the world's largest offshore oil field. Various confidential scenarios have suggested that if terrorists were simultaneously to hit only a few sensitive points “downstream” in the oil system from these eight fields--points that control more than 10,000 miles of pipe, both onshore and offshore, in which oil moves from wells to refineries and from refineries to ports, within the kingdom and without--they could effectively put the Saudis out of the oil business for about two years. And it just would not he that hard to do.

= = =

And this from yahoo:

About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces "actually worked against" U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the 1st Armored Division said Wednesday

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-21 18:37:46

Indeed. We can invade every Islamic country in the world, and it would not change their ideology. It would only make them hate us worse.
We have already been hurt enough over Iraq. Invading more countries would invite UN condemnations and economic sanctions. Our allies would stop supporting us and other countries would wonder who will be next and ally against us. We could even end up in a real war. That is not something that we want happening.

Most of the "problem nations" can be dealt with by means other than invasions. But direct large-scale military action will at times be needed. If we refuse to do so, we will lose.

Does Dubya (A.K.A. "The 'W' word") want us out of Iraq? Wait and see. I think Syria is next, Iran and Saudi Arabia can -- and should --both be done via internal revolutions (Both are ripe for a fall and an invasion of either would turn our friends there into foes. An infidel bootprint in Mecca or Medina would insure our troops had some A1 training for the following seven or eight weeks, followed by enough murderous resentment to keep them in fighting trim for the next thousand years.)

I agree with the internal revolution position. If we can get others to fight our battles for us it's prudent to do so.

In this age of the internet (do you read the Iraqi bloggers?) and the car bomb and the global flow of advanced weapons (or even obsolete weapons like the SAM-7) and an American dislike of casualties, is "being Roman, or British" feasible?

It is the American "dislike" of casualties (who likes casualties?) that really causes problems for such an approach. However in this situation we have an advantage the Romans did not and the British had only an inkling of: Vastly superior capability, a world of difference. A third-rate country being invaded by the US military is like the US being invaded by space aliens, the only way the lesser power can win is for the greater power to make a series of whopping mistakes.

The British military experts, by the way, seem to rather universally condemn American tactics as foolish and counterproductive.

Like us, the Brits have gotten a bit soft during the last half-century or so, not to mention developing a certain discomfort with the "old school British" methods and motives.

Sad to say, we're going to be over there for a very long time to come...and we honestly have no choice but to "dig in" and fight these terrorists on their home territory, or we'll be paying the price on our soil time and time again. Every time I get disgusted over all the death and violence over there, seeing Bush's constant mis-handling of the situation, etc, etc, I just have to think about one thing: 9-11. If we are unwilling to fight this war (which I consider the beginnings of WWIII (or WWIV, according to some), they *will* continue to attack us, anyway they can.

Well said Byron. War sucks, but in this case the alternative is worse.

Little wonder they're busy topping off those oil reserves in Louisana...I have a strong feeling we're going to depend on those sooner or later, even though it won't nearly be enough. But dagumit, it'd be nice if they would pass a $5000 SUV tax or something, just to get us started on the road to energy independence...

:hm: Maybe offering some incentive for hydrogen cars. Maybe producing them for starters and offering incentives for installing the needed infrastructure. A positive (a better choice) is always preferable to a negative (punitive taxes)

They need to get on the ball with that.

What I don't understand is why the Saudis are perpetrating a lot of hostility against their greatest cu$tomer (the U.S.)? Who else is going to buy their oil in quantities such as we do, and who -can- pay their prices?

Part of it is religious looniness, but another factor as that they are no longer the only game in town. They know that the US could tap its own oil fields, and the Caspian Sea operations are poised to take a big chunk out of the market. They're worried their biggest customer might start shopping around and they're frustrated and scared.

I'm re-reading your statements. Wait a minute...you -don't- have a problem with unproven pretexts for war? Will the public continue to support unproven pretexts for war, if more are given? Probably... :-\ But I don't.

Knew this was coming. I have a problem with such pretexts if I'm initially fooled by them. But in this case I would have supported a war in Iraq for a host of other reasons that weren't so public. I don't think Bush was lying about the WMD, I doubt that he was even mistaken, they went somewhere. But weapons aren't enough of a reason as far as I'm concerned. To me, all the harping on the apparent lack of WMD in Iraq seems to indicate that those doing the harping accept such a premise as a valid reason for war, and therefore should be making out a list of targets right now.

The WMD issue may have been a convenient cover, but so is the ranting about them not being found. Everyone's spewing out bullshiz to obfuscate their own objectives. The key is to filter it out and see what's really in play.

So if Bush tries to tell me personally that we need to invade Syria to catch the Uranium sand shark that threatens world peace I'm gonna call him a jackass. But if something greater is at stake and enough people who don't/can't/won't see the real issues buy the shark story... hey, let's roll.

Quote
Quote Me: No, no, no...there is no reason to go to Syria or Saudi Arabia, it would be cutting our own throats. We're already in enough of a pickle!
Cobra: How fortunate that we aren't fighting WWII today...

*But Cobra, those enemies fought under a specific and identifiable flag (Nazi and Rising Sun). This is an entirely different matter...scattered renegade terrorists of a variety of nationalities. Again, yes, I'm for fighting terrorists and anti-Western religious nuts...I just want to be sure we're taking as correct a path as possible in doing that. I'm not convinced the war in Iraq is it.

Yes, this is worse. It's harder. This enemy wants not only to defeat us, but to destroy us completely. If not Iraq, it would be somewhere else. We can't win this staying in Afghanistan while our enemies hide behind imaginary lines on a map.

Palomar · 2004-04-21 19:08:09

::waves white flag::

I sincerely hope Bush & Co -ARE- doing the right thing, whether I can see it or not.

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-04-21 21:03:14

If we refuse to do so, we will lose.

Lose what? It is not like the Islamic countries are about to invade America.

clark · 2004-04-22 08:55:23

Well then, I guess Hitler had it right. More living space is needed.

The Republic only works if the goverened can trust in the words of their elected leaders. Clinton was a jackass becuase he wasted his trust on an intern. Bush is just a lying SOB.

"We're doing this for the good of our people, and theirs. Many of them want us to do this."

Now, how will we ever know?

As a side note, I watched the last press confrence Bush did, and the pointed question on why Bush was appearing with Cheney at the 9/11 commission was so much fun. The commission wanted to see him alone, but Bush just kept saying "I look forward to appearing before..." over and over again.

Maybe we need to do as you suggest Cobra, but I for one think we need someone else leading us, and making that decision. Not Bush and company.

Alt2War · 2004-04-22 08:59:48

Uprising in Saudi Arabia.

I tell you they are a decade or less from a general revolt. Perhaps much sooner as things worsen in Israel and Iraq.

We have decided to tie ourselves at the hip with the war hawks in Israel, whom even the majority of israeli citizens do not agree with.

Slowly but surely, whether we like it or not, we are being cast as the most promenient advisary to Islam in the world. Our actions often, though for the most part coincidently, fall right into the role the worst villans of the middle east have cast us into.

Palomar · 2004-04-22 09:25:56

Slowly but surely, whether we like it or not, we are being cast as the most promenient advisary to Islam in the world. Our actions often, though for the most part coincidently, fall right into the role the worst villans of the middle east have cast us into.

*If someone hates you enough (person to person, or nation to nation, or ideology to ideology), they will try their damnedest to make you -wrong- no matter what.

What do we do? Stop acting altogether, no matter what? Let them guilt induce us into having their way entirely?

We've been "the worst villains" in the minds of the Middle East for a long, long time...long before Dubya came into Office. Even though hijacking Western airplanes in the 1970s and 1980s, and threatening to kill pilots, passengers, and stewardesses, was commonplace. What was the "big beef" they had with us -then-?

You mentioned Israel. The Palestinian deal is something, IMO, which the rest of the Arab world likes to flag around whenever they're displeased with the U.S. It's their little trump card. Knowing human nature, I actually DOUBT the rich Arab nations -want- to see the Pals-Israeli dispute ended peacefully...goodbye trump card. I'll go so far as to say it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the rich Arabs are pumping $$ and suicide bombers into Israel not so much because they hate the Israelis so badly, but because they don't want their precious Anti-American-rhetoric trump card (Pals-Israeli conflict) taken away from them (via peace accords/resolutions). Yes, strife and suicide bombers in Gaza serve the rich Arabs' interests more than peace ever would.

Has America done wrong things, made mistakes? Yep. But this nation is not the big evil villain 24/7/365 that some propogandists are making it out to be.

I disagree with Cobra Commander about going into Saudi Arabia and Syria, etc., essentially on the basis that our enemy (anti-Western terrorists and religious nuts) aren't centered -in- any one particular nation over there. They move about, mostly clandestinely. I supported our campaign in Afghanistan, not because it was one particular nation (and that this tactic should be repeated and repeated ala Iraq now) but because it was -proven- (prior to invasion) to be a hotbed of Al-Qaeda activity, training, etc.

We need to keep monitoring their movements and root them out wherever/whenever possible.

Alt2War, if someone hates enough, they'll do/say -anything- to make the other party look as bad as possible. Just because they're cranking up the hatred over there doesn't mean they -are- right. Never underestimate propoganda (either way), jealousy, or guilt induction tactics. They'd hate us no matter what, -partly- because they're jealous of our power and wealth (1970s...what were we supposedly doing to them then?). Just like they'd be jealous of Peru if it were the wealthiest and most powerful nation.

Yes, let's just forget all the airliner passengers, and cruiseship passengers, of the 1970s and 1980s who were killed, raped, threatened with death, etc., because folks of Arab descent don't like the Pals-Israeli thing; that was "okay." We should just take it, right?

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-04-22 09:43:11

Slowly but surely, whether we like it or not, we are being cast as the most promenient advisary to Islam in the world. Our actions often, though for the most part coincidently, fall right into the role the worst villans of the middle east have cast us into.

Yup, this is true.

Yup, it ain't fair.

Bottom line? We are getting our butts kicked in that theater of war known as "Psy-Ops" or Psychological Operations.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-22 19:18:51

Lose what? It is not like the Islamic countries are about to invade America.

That's the point. they don't want to conquer us, they want to destroy us. Losing means more 9/11's.

Maybe we need to do as you suggest Cobra, but I for one think we need someone else leading us, and making that decision. Not Bush and company.

Who would you suggest, out of curiosity? Personally, it doesn't matter to me who does it as long as it gets done.

Great post, Cindy. And for the record, I'm not excited about invading Saudi Arabia, just trying to be prepared for a worst-case scenario. If we need to strike hard, I'm for it.

Bottom line? We are getting our butts kicked in that theater of war known as "Psy-Ops" or Psychological Operations.

We've not been real swift on the propaganda front for decades. Need to work on that whole "winning the hearts and minds" thing.

Euler · 2004-04-22 20:20:33

That's the point. they don't want to conquer us, they want to destroy us. Losing means more 9/11's.

A small fraction of their population is trying to kill a very small fraction of our population. I can live with that, and it is no reason to make a large fraction of their population want to kill us. 9/11 was a one time occurrence and it is unlikely that they will be able to use the same method again. However, even if they were able to successfully launch more 9/11 scale attacks, they would not be able to destroy us. Not even close. Consider that if a 9/11 scale attack happened every day, the population of the US would still increase. As long as we can prevent the terrorists from acquiring a stockpile of nuclear weapons, they can not do us any serious harm.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-22 21:49:56

As long as we can prevent the terrorists from acquiring a stockpile of nuclear weapons, they can not do us any serious harm.

I think what they've managed so far is pretty damn serious. This small minority you refer to wants to see us all dead, and we need to stop them.

Euler · 2004-04-22 21:59:23

I think what they've managed so far is pretty damn serious.

I suppose this is just something that we will have to disagree on. I compare terrorism with traffic accidents or domestic crime and conclude that it is pretty insignificant, while you seem to think that we are in danger of being wiped out.

Bill White · 2004-04-22 22:04:04

As long as we can prevent the terrorists from acquiring a stockpile of nuclear weapons, they can not do us any serious harm.
I think what they've managed so far is pretty damn serious. This small minority you refer to wants to see us all dead, and we need to stop them.

I am not really sure I agree with this. 9-11 was a master stroke of Psy-Ops, the objective of which was to goad the United States into emotional and imprudent reaction.

Edit: The Psy-Ops campaigns are far more important than our actual casualties. We got sucker punched on 9-11 yet our psychological reaction is the only consequence that can harm America as an entity, in the long run.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-22 22:43:14

I suppose this is just something that we will have to disagree on. I compare terrorism with traffic accidents or domestic crime and conclude that it is pretty insignificant, while you seem to think that we are in danger of being wiped out.

I certainly don't think that a few terrorist attacks are going to wipe us out, but I'm not willing to just throw my hands up and accept it. If murderers and rapists move into your neighborhood do you just give up on dealing with it?

I am not really sure I agree with this. 9-11 was a master stroke of Psy-Ops, the objective of which was to goad the United States into emotional and imprudent reaction.

Good point, yet the pan-Arab Jihad they seem to have hoped for hasn't materialized. They're making mistakes too.

Euler · 2004-04-22 23:25:09

If murderers and rapists move into your neighborhood do you just give up on dealing with it?

If you have evidence that your neighbor is a rapist or murderer, you call the police. Fighting terrorism is also a job for the police, along with the FBI, the CIA, and special forces. It is not a job for an invading army unless there is clear evidence that the terrorists are being sponsored by a foreign government.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-04-23 07:47:50

I'm not American, so I don't profess to have a very good understanding of U.S. politics. But from what I've picked up here on New Mars from Democrats (and one or two communists), the picture seems to be that Bush is a warmonger and those who find his war-like attitude distasteful should vote for Kerry.
Well, I was happy enough to go along with that until I read an article in the Australian newspaper last Tuesday. The article was written by John Laughland, a trustee of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, and was entitled: "If it's war you want, then go Democrats - John Kerry is more hawkish than that neo-con George W. Bush".

The article commented on how Kerry is profiting from his perceived status as a critic of George W. Bush's foreign policy. It goes on to say:-

A patrician grandee with a pleasing mix of liberal and patriotic views might seem to many Americans a welcome relief from the bellicose Texan with his faux swagger and his team of men who seem to have military-industrial complex written across their menacing foreheads. But if anti-war Americans do elect Kerry for that reason, they will have duped themselves. Warmongering will be worse under Kerry than under Bush and real peaceniks should therefore vote for Dubya. Bush and Kerry agree on almost everything in foreign policy but, where they disagree, Kerry is more hawkish.

The article continued:-

Kerry voted for the war on Iraq and continues to support it wholeheartedly. He said last December that those who continue to oppose the war "don't have the judgment to be president - or the credibility to be elected president". Kerry does not even say that Bush has jeopardised US security by attacking Iraq instead of facing down the al-Qa'ida threat; he is not Richard Clarke. Instead, Kerry says: " No one can doubt that we are safer - and Iraq is better - because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Apparently, in February, Kerry criticised Bush's plan to hand back power to the Iraqis as being too quick - a 'cut and run' strategy, even though 110,000 American troops are to remain in Iraq indefinitely.
Back to the article:-

Above all, Kerry is, like Bush, committed to the world military supremacy of the US. "We must never retreat from having the strongest military in the world," says the possible future president. Kerry claims that Bush has weakened the military and so he has promised 40,000 more active-duty army troops. ...
... Kerry explicitly lists certain populations as representing a special danger to the US - Saudi Arabians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Indonesians and Pakistanis - and he reproaches Bush's grandiose plan to democratise the entire Middle East not for its over-weening ambition but for its timidity.
Kerry has attacked the Bush administration for adopting a kid gloves approach to the Saudi Kingdom, which he has repeatedly accused of complicity in the funding of Islamic extremism and terror, and he has said the Saudi interior minister is guilty of "hate speech" and of promoting "wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theories". This recalls Frum and Perle's* surprising classification of Saudi Arabia as "an unfriendly power". Serious neo-cons, indeed, might be calculating that the bungling Bush is more of a liability than an asset for their desire to remodel the Middle East and to consolidate the US's unchallenged military power.
Kerry might be just what they need to draw the sting of that left-wing anti-Americanism around the world and in the US that inspires so much anti-war feeling. The Kosovo war showed that a war for human rights and against oppression, fought by a slick Democrat, plays far better with world public opinion than all that red-neck bull about dangers to national security. It will be far easier for president Kerry to fight new wars than for the mistrusted and discredited Bush. So to those who think that the election of a Democratic president will put an end to US militarism, I say: You ain't seen nothin' yet.

[* Authors of the "latest neo-con manifesto, An End To Evil.]

According to John Laughland, it makes little difference to the course of U.S. foreign policy whether you vote for Bush or Kerry. If this is a true reflection of the present political debate in America, how come so many people here declare their support for Kerry mainly on the basis that they think of Bush as a warmongering oil man with a poor grasp of international affairs?
Could it be that a personal dislike of Bush is causing some to give a knee-jerk vote to Kerry without pausing to examine whether he, Kerry, may actually be worse than the object of their disdain?

I have no opinion on that question because I really don't know enough about the workings of politics within the United States. But, if the article is correct, the upcoming election looks like being a non-event as far as foreign policy is concerned. Kerry will be at least as aggressive on the international stage as Bush has been, if not more so!

Interesting stuff, no? ???

Palomar · 2004-04-23 08:05:59

Bush and Kerry agree on almost everything in foreign policy but, where they disagree, Kerry is more hawkish
... According to John Laughland, it makes little difference to the course of U.S. foreign policy whether you vote for Bush or Kerry. If this is a true reflection of the present political debate in America, how come so many people here declare their support for Kerry mainly on the basis that they think of Bush as a warmongering oil man with a poor grasp of international affairs?
Could it be that a personal dislike of Bush is causing some to give a knee-jerk vote to Kerry without pausing to examine whether he, Kerry, may actually be worse than the object of their disdain?
...
But, if the article is correct, the upcoming election looks like being a non-event as far as foreign policy is concerned. Kerry will be at least as aggressive on the international stage as Bush has been, if not more so!
Interesting stuff, no? ???

*Hi Shaun.

Yes, that is interesting. Especially considering the majority of folks (Americans) at a Yahoo! group I was participating in recently seemed unanimously decided on Kerry being a mamby-pamby wimp who'll probably "have bin Laden over for cocktails in Manhattan."

One man at the group stated he's feeling so conflicted over the Bush and Kerry that he may just "sit out" the upcoming vote...NOT vote, in other words.

I've considered that myself.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-04-23 08:25:11

In my opinion the difference is that Kerry will treat the Europeans as partners, not subordinates. Also, Kerry won't write checks (cheques) America cannot cash.

Example, about 6 or 8 months ago a neo-con pundit defined success in Iraq as being a coalition favored government that extended full diplomatic recognition to Israel and openly traded with Israel.

Nice goal IMHO but utterly unrealistic.

Cobra Commander · 2004-04-23 08:42:31

The problem with Kerry is that we don't really know where he stands. For every "hawkish" position he's taken there's a corresponding "dove."

He always seems to say what people want to hear, and that makes me very suspicious.

Maybe I'll actually vote for Kerry... Before I vote against him.

Example, about 6 or 8 months ago a neo-con pundit defined success in Iraq as being a coalition favored government that extended full diplomatic recognition to Israel and openly traded with Israel.
Nice goal IMHO but utterly unrealistic.

Yeah, some pundit took a big puff of the happy gas before stating that.

Bill White · 2004-04-23 08:56:16

The problem with Kerry is that we don't really know where he stands. For every "hawkish" position he's taken there's a corresponding "dove."
He always seems to say what people want to hear, and that makes me very suspicious.
Maybe I'll actually vote for Kerry... Before I vote against him.
Example, about 6 or 8 months ago a neo-con pundit defined success in Iraq as being a coalition favored government that extended full diplomatic recognition to Israel and openly traded with Israel.
Nice goal IMHO but utterly unrealistic.
Yeah, some pundit took a big puff of the happy gas before stating that.

Frankly, I would rather circle aimlessly for a while rather than charge headlong in the wrong direction.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-04-21 08:06:54

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#27 2004-04-21 08:12:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#28 2004-04-21 08:18:20

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#29 2004-04-21 08:26:40

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#30 2004-04-21 15:44:43

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#31 2004-04-21 16:40:49

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#32 2004-04-21 18:37:46

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#33 2004-04-21 19:08:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#34 2004-04-21 21:03:14

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#35 2004-04-22 08:55:23

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#36 2004-04-22 08:59:48

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#37 2004-04-22 09:25:56

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#38 2004-04-22 09:43:11

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#39 2004-04-22 19:18:51

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#40 2004-04-22 20:20:33

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#41 2004-04-22 21:49:56

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#42 2004-04-22 21:59:23

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#43 2004-04-22 22:04:04

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#44 2004-04-22 22:43:14

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#45 2004-04-22 23:25:09

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#46 2004-04-23 07:47:50

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#47 2004-04-23 08:05:59

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#48 2004-04-23 08:25:11

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#49 2004-04-23 08:42:31

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

#50 2004-04-23 08:56:16

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics *2*

Board footer

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2

Re: Appropriate Topics: War & Politics 2