Bush or Kerry or ???



Danian said:
While the White House has the sheer might, I'm afraid that it's lost some of the global clout it used to have. The tactics of late have focused far more on brute strength than on diplomacy. The White House does not have the ability to end the rebellion. If it did, it would've done so a lot sooner to solidfy its re-election bid as well as start preparing us for the next phase in the Global War on Terror. Fortunately, most of the negative of this campaign has been largely directed at and personified in GWB and his administration rather than leveled against the country. For the most part, people all over the world still have some respect for the USA. When GWB & company finally depart the political arena (whether in 2004 or 2008), some of the darker aspects of our current situation will depart with them. Unfortunately, if Kerry wins the election, he will have much to do to repair our global impression and political power. He will be too distracted to take care of other business. Ultimately, in terms of building a power base, it may be more beneficial for the Democrats to lose the coming election, watch as things get worse internationally and domestically, and have overwhelming support for 2008 and beyond. (That last statement pertains only to Democratic political power, not for what's good for the country or the world. Think strategic long term.)
More or less agreed, Danian. Regarding global clout, I definitely can't argue that the United States' standing -- in terms of credibility, trust, integrity, you name it -- has bottomed out. And when I suggested that American military might and political influence could squash an Iraqi rebellion, I should have been clearer: I meant that in terms of full-scale, broad combat, the US and its waning allies could supress most any enemy (or the open civil war you hypothesized).

But I agree... the insurgency and general unrest in Iraq? The ongoing mess of warring factions, power vacuums, and Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan? And, it follows, the continuing threat of terrorism worldwide? I don't believe the current administration has near a deft enough hand to solve those problems, and uneasily, I'm not convinced a Kerry administration would either -- though I won't have any trouble casting my vote.
 
Beastt said:
Has anyone noticed the marked similarity between the phrase, "global war on terror" and "world war"? I think it not unlikely that this is where Bush and his cohorts are leading the world.
Very much the point, methinks. The current administration goes to great lengths to distill the current operations down to the level of mythic simplicity of the Good War; it's a feature of the president's worldview. And, we need to admit, a feature of his particularly apocalyptic brand of theology.
 
lokstah said:
Very much the point, methinks. The current administration goes to great lengths to distill the current operations down to the level of mythic simplicity of the Good War; it's a feature of the president's worldview. And, we need to admit, a feature of his particularly apocalyptic brand of theology.

How is it that it completely escapes those who always see themselves as fighting, "the good war", as you put it, that men in every army around the world see their fight as "the good fight" even as they slaughter those opposed to them who are also fighting "the good fight". With all of this killing perhaps no one is truly good. No one sees themselves as evil despite the evil they may do. As an example, look to the courageous American soldier, fighting "for his country" and putting his very life at risk to defeat and kill those attempting to defend their homeland against the invasion we have perpetrated.
 
lokstah said:
And when I suggested that American military might and political influence could squash an Iraqi rebellion, I should have been clearer: I meant that in terms of full-scale, broad combat, the US and its waning allies could supress most any enemy (or the open civil war you hypothesized).
I wish I could completely agree with you here. But I have my concerns. I was talking with a colleague of mine (who used to work in the UN) today on this subject. We agreed that the US military is the most powerful, unmatched force in the world today. But it was designed to fight against and defeat other militaries. It was never designed or meant to fight an entire country. To attempt to will prove to be counter-productive in the end. In order to attain peace in the region, the Iraqi people must rise up against the insurgents and fight for the peace they desperately want. The US military (& coalition forces) should be there to assist them in their efforts, not to force the peace onto them. We can suppress the insurgents, but only until the next time they decide to rise up. To truly defeat them, you do not necessarily have to kill them, only remove their will to fight.
 
Has anyone noticed an disturbing similarity of our present circumstances to George Orwell's "1984". Looks like Mr. Orwell was only 20 years off. We are now in a situation of permanent "global" war that allows the government to suspend certain civil rights. Not only that, but now "war is peace" and truth is lie. Words no longer have a meaning. They can be used to manipulate pubic opinion without regard for "truth". Whatever that is.
 
Beastt said:
Much of the world considers our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to be terroristic in nature.
While I have deep reservations about Iraq, I view Afghanistan as a completely justified military action. I think Beastt forgets it was the Taliban that harbored Bin Laden. They had a chance to give him up and survive. They chose to stand with terrorist.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
While I have deep reservations about Iraq, I view Afghanistan as a completely justified military action. I think Beastt forgets it was the Taliban that harbored Bin Laden. They had a chance to give him up and survive. They chose to stand with terrorist.
The decision to invade Afghanistan was, admittedly, a more complicated issue than the Iraqi adventure, and one which toddled along on some principles that made sense. There was some logic to identifying that the Taliban was the closest thing bin Laden and Al Qaeda had to a host, and a sense of immediacy for the need to track the 911 culprits down and dissolve their state ties.

In a really simplified world, you could suggest that any Democratic administration would have done the same.

To be fair, that's probably true on some level. The counter, though, is that the whole affair would have played out with key differences -- differences in pace, differences in initial negotiations, in resource management, in managing our foreign relations, in the scale of the operation and the priorities assumed on the ground. We could hypothesize all day and night about what those differences might be -- at this point, I like to imagine them with a lot of idealism -- but the big one isn't too difficult to suppose: we wouldn't have approached the operation with the presumption that a more massive and more visible invasion was mere months off.
 
lokstah said:
The decision to invade Afghanistan was, admittedly, a more complicated issue than the Iraqi adventure, and one which toddled along on some principles that made sense. There was some logic to identifying that the Taliban was the closest thing bin Laden and Al Qaeda had to a host, and a sense of immediacy for the need to track the 911 culprits down and dissolve their state ties.

In a really simplified world, you could suggest that any Democratic administration would have done the same.

To be fair, that's probably true on some level. The counter, though, is that the whole affair would have played out with key differences -- differences in pace, differences in initial negotiations, in resource management, in managing our foreign relations, in the scale of the operation and the priorities assumed on the ground. We could hypothesize all day and night about what those differences might be -- at this point, I like to imagine them with a lot of idealism -- but the big one isn't too difficult to suppose: we wouldn't have approached the operation with the presumption that a more massive and more visible invasion was mere months off.
True. But the point was made that others perceive our actions in Afghanistan as terrorists. What negotiations? We demanded Bin Laden. They refused. End of story. There is no hypothesizes to be made.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
True. But the point was made that others perceive our actions in Afghanistan as terrorists. What negotiations? We demanded Bin Laden. They refused. End of story. There is no hypothesizes to be made.
Well, again, certain landmarks in the chronology might have been the same under different leadership (like the decision to deploy troops and pursue Al Qaeda). But it's unwise to oversimplify the total sphere of activity surround events like those -- a nation executing a war has a whole lot of responsibility. The Bush administration pretty dismissively shirked off a chorus of requests from different parties to offer evidence linking bin Laden to 911; not a particularly outrageous request, given our mantra at the time (deliver this man, or we'll level your nation and put your innocent civilians at risk).

Would more sensitive diplomacy have made any major alterations to our ultimate course? Likely not, except that it would have laid the foundation for more cooperative foreign allies in years to come -- and lessened the (likely true) accusation that Afghanistan had been a target of US opportunity for some time; that its occupation was envisioned years before.

And regarding the perception of our actions there as terrorism -- well, that's unfair, but let's be honest: to the peasants and farmers scattered throughout the Afghan wildlands, many of whom wouldn't know CNN from Wheel of Fortune, our bombs were cold, unfeeling, unjust pieces of terror. Innocent lives lost are innocent lives lost.
 
lokstah said:
The Bush administration pretty dismissively shirked off a chorus of requests from different parties to offer evidence linking bin Laden to 911; not a particularly outrageous request, given our mantra at the time (deliver this man, or we'll level your nation and put your innocent civilians at risk).

Would more sensitive diplomacy have made any major alterations to our ultimate course? Likely not, except that it would have laid the foundation for more cooperative foreign allies in years to come -- and lessened the (likely true) accusation that Afghanistan had been a target of US opportunity for some time; that its occupation was envisioned years before.

And regarding the perception of our actions there as terrorism -- well, that's unfair, but let's be honest: to the peasants and farmers scattered throughout the Afghan wildlands, many of whom wouldn't know CNN from Wheel of Fortune, our bombs were cold, unfeeling, unjust pieces of terror. Innocent lives lost are innocent lives lost.
Is this where you insert the 'pipeline' theory? Is this where the conspiracy gets spun? Proof that Bin Laden was behind 9/11? Are you kidding me? Those against the 'administration' always fall back on the 'innocent lives' argument. What about the innocent lives killed in the Chinese embassy? Where was your anger then? Perhaps the repressive regime of the Taliban was felt by those same peasants and farmers as terror. You definitely need to vote for Kerry. He will provide you with that 'more sensitive' war on terror.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
You definitely need to vote for Kerry. He will provide you with that 'more sensitive' war on terror.
Hey don't forget Dan Rather...News flash..CBS experts "can't" authenticate those memos they were throwing around in our faces last week...Gee...Kerry's campaign should provide better evidence next time if it's going to try and use the media... :rolleyes:
 
Bikerman2004 said:
Is this where you insert the 'pipeline' theory? Is this where the conspiracy gets spun? Proof that Bin Laden was behind 9/11? Are you kidding me? Those against the 'administration' always fall back on the 'innocent lives' argument. What about the innocent lives killed in the Chinese embassy? Where was your anger then? Perhaps the repressive regime of the Taliban was felt by those same peasants and farmers as terror. You definitely need to vote for Kerry. He will provide you with that 'more sensitive' war on terror.
Alright, slow down, please. Holster the red herrings. We can have a civil discussion here, but if you run down six tangents at once, it won't work.

I don't recall ever suggesting that the invasion of Afghanistan lacked any justification (though I did reference the opposite, actually); I did venture towards discussing the shades of grey which complicate both sides of the argument, something I thought we were interested in investigating. I never suggested the Taliban weren't bastards, and you have no idea what was going through my head when innocent Chinese lost their lives in the Balkans -- because I didn't say anything about it. Nor did I give any indication that I subscribed to a pipeline theory. So please, if you'd like to get into those matters, let's do it with a bit of restraint, so that we can exchange something meaningful.

Firing the same shells back and forth on these boards gets tiring...
 
lokstah said:
Nor did I give any indication that I subscribed to a pipeline theory. So please, if you'd like to get into those matters, let's do it with a bit of restraint, so that we can exchange something meaningful.

Firing the same shells back and forth on these boards gets tiring...
Originally Posted by lokstah
and lessened the (likely true) accusation that Afghanistan had been a target of US opportunity for some time; that its occupation was envisioned years before.



Then exactly what does this mean? Don't throw something out here and expect it go unchallenged.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
Originally Posted by lokstah
...and lessened the (likely true) accusation that Afghanistan had been a target of US opportunity for some time; that its occupation was envisioned years before.

Then exactly what does this mean? Don't throw something out here and expect it go unchallenged.
Bikerman, you didn't "challenge" me; you simply projected an easily criticized identity on me (lefty-conspiracy-nut) and walked off. If we're not trying to understand each other a little better, we're wasting our time hollaring. Let's give one another the benefit of the doubt -- you and I are more or less strangers.

It isn't a matter of "secret conspiracy" that Afghanistan has long been a valuable commodity on the global stage, for strategic and economic reasons; even so, suggesting as much is not akin to claiming that the Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rove had drafted official, White House approved plans to overrun the place. I'm not contesting that such plans existed.

As a thinking person, and a liberal who's skeptical of the Bush crew, I suspect such plans have long been twirling in their heads while they slept -- it's a matter of strategy. I believe that it's naive to ignore the economic and strategic worth these persons held Afghanistan in when considering factors that may have influenced the decision to invade -- after all, these are *complex* matters, and a lot of considerations come into play when weighing these things out.

But the evidence of correspondences or records indicating an official agenda along those lines is weak, and so, as a thinking individual, I hold those theories at arm's length.

Got it?

In any case, Bikerman, I already made my (albeit reluctant) acceptance of the justification for the Afghan invasion clear. Give me credit for that, and have a little respect for my inclination to question the murkier areas.
 
In last week's WASHINGTONPOSTWABCNEWS Poll, John F. Kerry was viewed favorably by 36 percent of registered voters, down 18 points over the past six months.

But just how low Kerry's standing has fallen cannot be appreciated fully without comparing his standing with that of other household names in GALLUP polls over the years, the POST's Dana Milbank reported on Tuesday.

Kerry finds himself in a dead heat with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy, and behind Herbert Hoover -- although he narrowly beats O.J. Simpson.

Michael Jordan: 83 (2000)

Tony Blair: 76 (2003)

Pope John Paul II: 73 (2003)

Democratic Party: 54 (2004)

John Ashcroft: 49 (2003)

Michael Dukakis: 47 (1988)

Prince Charles: 45 (2003)

Herbert Hoover: 43 (1944)

Jesse Jackson: 38 (2003)

Vladimir Putin: 38 (2003)

John Kerry: 36 (2004)

Martha Stewart: 36 (2004)

Joseph McCarthy: 35 (1954)

END

From the Drudge Report. Just the facts, don't shoot the messenger. Source at top
 
...don't think us Kerry voters aren't worried. The Bush campaign has been masterful in turning the tide this Summer, and the Kerry campaign has been toothless.

We're worried alright.
 
lokstah said:
Got it?

In any case, Bikerman, I already made my (albeit reluctant) acceptance of the justification for the Afghan invasion clear. Give me credit for that, and have a little respect for my inclination to question the murkier areas.
True, you did accept it. Then just tossed a few barbs out there to make sure everyone knew you didn't like it. Unfortunately, your hate for Bush is so deep, you cannot accept the simple fact that maybe, just maybe, we went into Afghanistan just because they harbored Bin Laden. You suggest Bush as having other motives to go into Afghanistan. I know what the strategic importance of Afghanistan is, but tell us what economic commodity Afghanistan has.
 
Bikerman2004 said:
True, you did accept it. Then just tossed a few barbs out there to make sure everyone knew you didn't like it. Unfortunately, your hate for Bush is so deep, you cannot accept the simple fact that maybe, just maybe, we went into Afghanistan just because they harbored Bin Laden. You suggest Bush as having other motives to go into Afghanistan. I know what the strategic importance of Afghanistan is, but tell us what economic commodity Afghanistan has.
If my "hate for Bush is so deep" as to prevent my having a clear view of the Afghan conflict, your hate for two-sided discourse on the matter is too deep to permit you to engage in a sensible discussion about it. You haven't offered a single suggestion regarding the Afghan invasion -- that it was justified on some level; that hunting Bin Laden was a meaningful goal -- that I've disagreed with.

I've conceded both of these contentions, as I have since 2001. I've never denied that obliterating Al Qaeda wasn't the key to the Afghan war.

That I've got minimal respect for the Bush administration shouldn't preclude our having a sensible discussion, and neither should my "not liking" the invasion, despite accepting it.

Finally, that Afghanistan is of importance to the global oil industry is not in question. Neither is it in question (or a matter of conspiracy) that the American oil industry, in conjunction with the US government, has had major development plans for Afghanistan for at least 15 years. What is in question is the extent to which those issues influence the Bush administration's foreign policy -- and on that note, Bikerman, I've acknowledged the evidence falls well short of suggesting a major role of American oil in the war planning.

What incenses you so much? That I have personal suspicions to the contrary? Where the facts are concerned, I've been as reasonable and made as many concessions as any opponent of the Bush administration. You seem pretty flame-prone.
 
lokstah said:
If my "hate for Bush is so deep" as to prevent my having a clear view of the Afghan conflict, your hate for two-sided discourse on the matter is too deep to permit you to engage in a sensible discussion about it.

That I've got minimal respect for the Bush administration shouldn't preclude our having a sensible discussion, and neither should my "not liking" the invasion, despite accepting it.

Finally, that Afghanistan is of importance to the global oil industry is not in question. Neither is it in question (or a matter of conspiracy) that the American oil industry, in conjunction with the US government, has had major development plans for Afghanistan for at least 15 years. What is in question is the extent to which those issues influence the Bush administration's foreign policy -- and on that note, Bikerman, I've acknowledged the evidence falls well short of suggesting a major role of American oil in the war planning.

What incenses you so much? That I have personal suspicions to the contrary? Where the facts are concerned, I've been as reasonable and made as many concessions as any opponent of the Bush administration. You seem pretty flame-prone.
It is impossible to have a discussion when one side talks about vague and fuzzy issues. Why am I incensed? Is that what you call someone who disagrees with you? You're reasonable where the facts are concerned? Since when did vague accusations become fact? What is telling about your discussion is how you refer to Afghanistan as an invasion. You haven't conceded anything about Afghanistan. I doubt that you would even say this is the one thing that Bush did that you agree with. We can have a discussion but lets leave out the vague and unproven 'oil' line. Or is it that you believe its all for the oil?
 
Bikerman2004 said:
It is impossible to have a discussion when one side talks about vague and fuzzy issues. Why am I incensed? Is that what you call someone who disagrees with you? You're reasonable where the facts are concerned? Since when did vague accusations become fact? What is telling about your discussion is how you refer to Afghanistan as an invasion. You haven't conceded anything about Afghanistan. I doubt that you would even say this is the one thing that Bush did that you agree with. We can have a discussion but lets leave out the vague and unproven 'oil' line. Or is it that you believe its all for the oil?
Sorry, but I think we're done. I tried, but I don't understand you, and I don't think you understand me. I'll leave this one to the jury.