posted
On foreign policy, why should I vote for Kerry?
Pro-Bush people, feel free to join in the melee, I guess, but I'd really like to hear from people who are voting for Kerry based on this. I'm kind of wavering because I've been hanging out with a pretty right-wing crowd (ironic, yes? ), and I'm beginning to not be able to see the other side....and that's bad.
posted
Simplest reason, he could hardly bungle it worse than Bush.
Bush's foreign policy has been characterized by failure after failure. He ignored terrorism in favor of Iraq, a potential reason 9/11 wasn't stopped. He pulled out of talks with NK, which provoked them (when an egomaniac is in charge, if you can avoid it, don't provoke him!). He has ceded Afghanistan to the warlords (again). He has begun ceding Iraq to warlords (we no longer control several of the major cities in Iraq), and has completely ignored international companies who may be able to do the job better (say, by not continuing previously demonstrated corrupt practices as Halliburton has) in various areas of recontruction, which non-presence was also the sole major sticking point of the UN contributing troops.
Bush managed to pull few countries into Iraq, and many of the few we pulled in are now pulling out. Given that most of the countries of the world agree that a successful Iraqi transition is important, this is very telling as to his inability to conduct effective foreign policy.
Major military leaders and former statesmen are lining up behind Kerry. Bush is supported by Neocon factions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'd be fascinated if I could hear a reason why you should vote for Bush. Especially as regards foreign policy.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I'd be fascinated if I could hear a reason why you should vote for Bush.
1. Tax Break 2. More relaxed FDA 3. Rules concerning the use of public lands for off-roading both under Federal and State jurisdiction. 4. Gun control or the lack thereof 5. Pro-life beliefs. 6. I dislike Kerry's wife. Instantly. Without much of a reason.
Considering my severe lack of factual information recently, and my ability to become severely confused, 5 out of 6 reasons can't be all bad.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because foreign policy represents who we are, not when everything goes our way, but when we actually have to listen and put our very good principles in practice in a hostile environment.
Every four years, the nation comes together and decides who we are as a people. This isn't about taxes or exploitation. This isn't even about what each person is going to do. The answer from that question flows from who we are. Which candidate dignifies who we are as a people.
When Bush started going off on, "I know how these people think. I how these people work." If he is talking about terrorists, no he doesn't, and he has made it plain that he doesn't care. If he was talking about anybody else, it was just offensive. It's a question about who we are and which candidate you'd be proud to send out to represent you in the world.
Kerry cuts spending on the military. The military is unable to do its job as effectively. He pulls a few troops out of Iraq after a little while. Casualties escalate. We start to hear some reassuring shpeel about how the Iraqi government, thanks to Kerry's administration, is now stable. We ignore the increased number of Iraqi administration officials getting assasinated. Pretty soon, we pull out of Iraq almost entirely, and of course, it collapses.
If Kerry wins, I predict this or something similar will happen within a year.
I honestly think he could bungle it worse.
To paraphrase fugu:
Major military leaders and former statesmen are lining up behind Bush. Kerry is supported by Neocommunist factions.
I'm not trying to dismiss your support of Kerry. I'm just trying to say that the sentence was rhetoric with little substance simply because all I had to do was substitute names.
One other thing that is bothering me: Supporters of Kerry put Bush down because he is not a very smooth talker. He says "Uh, and uhm" too much and occassionally he slips up in his words.
Guess what folks: I do the exact same thing. I was diagnosed as a child with a speech impediment. When tired or stressed, I sometimes fall into the same pattern and become a little more difficult to understand. Apart from that, even, I repeat myself sometimes, I say uh and uhm a lot, and quite often I forget the word I was going to use.
I was talking to someone the other day about a favorite teacher of both my daughters, and one that I like really well and have spent hours volunteering for. I forgot her name. I knew her well, and I forgot her name.
So I forgive Bush for not being brilliant in front of the camera. Heaven knows I'm not.
quote:1. Tax Break 2. More relaxed FDA 3. Rules concerning the use of public lands for off-roading both under Federal and State jurisdiction. 4. Gun control or the lack thereof 5. Pro-life beliefs. 6. I dislike Kerry's wife. Instantly. Without much of a reason.
Considering my severe lack of factual information recently, and my ability to become severely confused, 5 out of 6 reasons can't be all bad.
Er. Dude, you may want to check your facts.
1. Under Kerry's plan, unless you're in (I believe) the top 2% of the economic ladder, you're getting a bigger tax break than you would under Bush.
2. This is a good thing?
3. Again, this is a good thing? Nature preserves are meant to be preserved. Hikers don't damage the environment much -- snowmobiles or ATVs do.
4. Again, you like that the Republican party just put assault weapons back on the streets?
5. I'm pro-life myself, but banning stem cell research and destroying foreign aid to women over the issue is idiotic. To say nothing of Bush's incredible incompetence -- what has he done actually regarding the issue?
6. Always a sound reason to vote against the candidate, because you, "without much of a reason," don't like his spouse. You're reaching to find a reason to vote against Kerry.
And none of these have anything to do with foreign policy (unless you count cutting funding for foreign aid which dares mention the existence of abortion, bravo Bush), which was the second half of my two-sentence post.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Alucard, just how much of a tax break did you get from Bush? And how badly did your state taxes go up when Bush cut funding to mandated state-run programs? How much of a hit did you take on insurance and medical costs? I would bet that you saw an overall negative effect--the Bush tax cuts cost you money.
Unless, of course, you're pulling in over $250,000 to $350,000 a year.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly I think people should be happy to pay taxes. Why should we not have to pay for our roads, schools, military, and the million other things the government provides?
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Bush cut funding and benefits to veterans... VETERANS!
But, back on topic Kerry's policies simply sound more logical. He's not flip flopping, he's doing something Bush can never do, shift when he realizes that his previous assumptions were wrong.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If folks paid equally into the tax system, you probably wouldn't hear as much complaining . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush's primary support is neoconservative. Kerry's isn't neocommunist .
Bush's administration has been characterized by groups of reputable scientists criticizing its science, by groups of reputable economists (including the major conservative think tanks and members of his own administration (who then get fired)) criticizing its economics, et cetera.
Also, I find your paranoia regarding Kerry and the military strange. Kerry has consistently voted to increase funding for the military. Has he voted for every bill doing so? No, but he's voted for by far most of them, particularly almost all of those that are primarily about military spending (his vote against those weapons systems? on a bill that had them as a tacked on rider), with few exceptions (and those mainly over differences of philosophy as to how the military should grow, not whether or not it should).
Is there anything at all in his record you can point to that suggests he might actually cut military funding? If not, where did you get this idea that seems to me, rather absurd. He's voted for military spending in the past, and he's saying he'll support military spending in the future as of right now, why don't you believe the combination of his record and his words?
Bush, on the contrary, has made a point even in these times to cut military benefits spending:
His administration claims it has given the DoVA the largest increase in spending ever, and this is true. But the increased spending is to cover the highly increased number of people previously not on active duty (for instance, in the Guard) now on active duty for extended periods while still being a decrease in the benefits given for each veteran. These are the actions of a man you trust with military spending.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is Kerry's logical solution to what is going on in Iraq now?
"I'm going to hold a summit, and because it is me and not this, I'm sorry to say it, incompetent president, then other nations will listen to me and will suddenly be overcome with a desire to send their troops into Iraq to support us"
Okay, those aren't his exact words. But that seems to be what he implied.
But I don't think that is what he will actually do. I really do think that he will pull out of Iraq as quickly as he politically can, if he gets elected.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:On foreign policy, why should I vote for Kerry?
Because Kerry is not hatred internationally, and thus has the credibility to create a true global coalition against terror.
Because Kerry has proposed a smarter and more sensitive war on terror, that use our limited resources to fight Al Qaeda rather than spreading "liberty" to largely unrelated countries, and that is designed to bring the Arab world back to our side, isolating the terrorists.
Because the plan now is failing, and while Kerry has proposed changes, Bush insists on staying his course, refusing to admit any mistakes.
Because the biggest supposed complaints against Kerry are things he never proposed - that conservatives simply say he would do.
quote:One other thing that is bothering me: Supporters of Kerry put Bush down because he is not a very smooth talker. He says "Uh, and uhm" too much and occassionally he slips up in his words.
It's not that. It's that he assumed that the points he was making were obvious. How many times did he look into the camera with the, "Of course, I'm right" look. That wouldn't have mattered except I didn't see that he was obviously right. Bush had a chance to show that he was curious, instead he thought he could appeal to common sense. *shrugs* It didn't help when he said that he exhausted all the options.
posted
Kerry's plan on Iraq? What you heard did seem to be going through a filter. Let me lay out a bit.
Bush has said he wants the UN in and has invited them in. The UN will go in on one big condition -- non-US companies get to bid on contracts. Bush says no to this condition. Kerry, however, is willing to concede that in order to get american troops out quicker.
Considering that Halliburton has undeniably had corrupt practices in the past and has had problems with corrupt practices in Iraq already, plus uses tax shelters to shield much of their corporate earnings from US taxes anyways, I don't see this as being an unreasonable concession, particularly if one's goal is to save american lives and build international support and coalitions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: ... he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.
Kerry, in reply:
quote: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war.
...
I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote.
Hence, my fears about what Kerry would actually do once in office.
I could not check my facts, since the US communist party website is down, but in fact the communists back Kerry.
quote: But I don't think that is what he will actually do. I really do think that he will pull out of Iraq as quickly as he politically can, if he gets elected.
I don't think so. I think if Iraq goes down the path of civil war, Kerry needs to be able to show evidence that he did everything possible to avoid it or it will cost him the next election.
As far as why other nations would help us, which you seem to be driving at in the preceding paragraph, well, there's the offer to let their companies share in the profits to be made form reconstructing Iraq, instead of restricing this work to only US companies. In point of fact, this is more or less what OSC said should be done in one of his columns.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post Fugu. Bush never explained during the debate why Halliburton exclusivity was more important than getting more countries involved in Iraq. If more countries have a stake in Iraq's economic development, there will be more international support for our nation building efforts.
If Bush has an answer to this, I sure would like to hear it.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, you asked for reasons, I gave you reasons. I never said they were my reasons.
But I will bite!:
quote: 1. Under Kerry's plan, unless you're in (I believe) the top 2% of the economic ladder, you're getting a bigger tax break than you would under Bush.
2. This is a good thing?
3. Again, this is a good thing? Nature preserves are meant to be preserved. Hikers don't damage the environment much -- snowmobiles or ATVs do.
4. Again, you like that the Republican party just put assault weapons back on the streets?
5. I'm pro-life myself, but banning stem cell research and destroying foreign aid to women over the issue is idiotic. To say nothing of Bush's incredible incompetence -- what has he done actually regarding the issue?
6. Always a sound reason to vote against the candidate, because you, "without much of a reason," don't like his spouse. You're reaching to find a reason to vote against Kerry.
1. Republican "trickle-down" economics is a thing of beauty. It's like this joke I heard, ironically, about a former President.
You see, there was this man golfing, who stumbled across a frog that said, if you kiss me, I will bring you luck. The man was skeptical, but he picked up the frog and brought him with him. The frog would correct his club selection and tell him repeatedly which club to use. The man miraculously golfed the best game of his life. He decided to take the frog to Las Vegas. Whether it was craps, cards, or roulette, the frog helped win a small fortune. The casino, naturally, put him up for the night. At that point, the man had to acknoledge that the frog had brought him luck, so he bent over and kissed the frog. The frog then turned into this lustfully-looking girl who became instantly swooned by the man. One thing led to another, and then the police barged through the door and...
That's exactly how it happened officer, or my name is not William Jefferson Clinton!
2. Historically, under a Democratic FDA there are less drugs to make it to market in a calendar year than when a Republican is in office. Those in the pharmaceutical industry push for drugs to make it through the FDA ASAP to extend their patent protection granted at the point of NDA status. Therefore, more money for them. As a pharmacist, this is very concerning, especially with Vioxx taken off the market today.
3. The cars we drive, and more importantly, the diesel engines that power our ground transportation of the US cause infinitely more pollution than ATVs riding trails in a park. For anyone who does not ride an ATV to make this claim is absurd. See Hatfield-McCoy trails of West Virginia as one successful example of how off-road motorsports can be a safe and successful venture. I personally can't even keep a trail open in my back yard after one year because the darn thing keeps growing shut on me. Puh-leaze!
4. No, I don't. But for the uninformed, assault weapons were never taken off the streets. Nine types of assault rifles were banned from sale in the US. But there were many makes and model still for sale. A local gun shop had for sale (last year) this really futuristic-looking AK47 clone that fired 9MM ammo semi-automatically. It sold for $900. I was shocked. Lalo, sadly, some people do want this, so even if GWB had a third eye in his forehead, they would still vote for him.
5. I work with a person who is devoutly religious and a Democrat. But she will vote for Bush in November just because of this issue. It is that important to some, Lalo.
6. And you are telling me that there are no votes of this kind in the land of the free? I am just answering your terse and wide-open challenge.
Again, I never once said I believe any of it. But some of your fellow Americans do.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said they didn't, I said they weren't his primary support.
As for the defense bill, perhaps you should do some research instead of listening to Republican propaganda in this case.
Specifically, it was a huge catchall bill, only partly for military funding, some $5 billion of it went just to providing Iraq electricity, for instance. Much of the funding was being channeled through Halliburton. It was being put forth as an emergency spending bill instead of part of the budget, even though the funding need was both predictable in advance and was not needed immediately -- we're still plowing through the monies of the first funding bill for Iraq (somewhat ahead of schedule, but there's lots left), this is for the next round of expenditures which will come sometime next year.
I repeat, do you have any reason at all for believing Kerry wishes to cut military spending? Voting against a particular military spending bill is not being against military spending, that's like saying someone who wouldn't vote for a bill for Star Wars because they wanted it all to go for pay increases was against military spending. You need to look at someone's record, and Kerry's record has been consistently in favor of strong military spending.
I am guessing that the more drugs that are released by the FDA, the more they will flood the free market economy, thereby allowing economic principles like competition to drive their prices down.
OR!
The delays caused by an overly-thorough or inept FDA might allow brand-name drugs to have a short patent-life, thereby allowing a more inexpensive generic to come to market "sooner"
You see, a pharmaceutical company has 18 years of patent protection from the point it is granted its New Drug Application (NDA) from the FDA. This occurs very early in the manufacturing process of a prospective drug. Then, there are 4 phases a drug must go through before it hits the market. These phases typically take years! So, the sooner the pharmaceutical company gets the drug through the FDA, the longer they have patent protection, and price protection.
Speed, sorry I pulled you into my maelstrom of madness.
On a personal note, my assessment on my property taxes went up $150,000 this year. I also jumped into the next tax bracket because of some serious overtime I worked last year, (which really made me proud to pay taxes). Sorry, Allegra, but when you pay $40,000 in taxes a year, it gets to be a bit of a concern!
posted
Actually, the tax bracket I refer to was increased during the Clinton administration. The top bracket was 36%, I believe, and was increased to 39.6%. It has yet to be lowered, Republican in office or not. Another irony, I suppose.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Major military leaders and former statesmen are lining up behind Bush. Kerry is supported by Communist factions.
Not really....a lot of the people who originally provided the plan for the Iraq invasion....the plan Rumsfeld out....support Kerry.
He listed a few tonight...or didn't you bother listening to him at all.
A lot of people told Bush and Rumsfeld that we needed more troops there if we were going to go in, but they "knew better"...even though the other people were career military professionals, and the problems they mentioned are almost exactly what is going on right now...
And Bush has the gall to stand there with his phony "Texas" accent, look at the camera and say "It's a hard job.", and claim that he didn't know what the consequences would be.
Tonight was a wonderful thing. Not as good as I hoped from Kerry, but better than I expected.
Kerry cuts spending on the military. The military is unable to do its job as effectively. He pulls a few troops out of Iraq after a little while. Casualties escalate. We start to hear some reassuring shpeel about how the Iraqi government, thanks to Kerry's administration, is now stable. We ignore the increased number of Iraqi administration officials getting assasinated. Pretty soon, we pull out of Iraq almost entirely, and of course, it collapses.
If Kerry wins, I predict this or something similar will happen within a year.
I honestly think he could bungle it worse.
To paraphrase fugu:
Major military leaders and former statesmen are lining up behind Bush. Kerry is supported by Neocommunist factions.
I'm not trying to dismiss your support of Kerry. I'm just trying to say that the sentence was rhetoric with little substance simply because all I had to do was substitute names.
One other thing that is bothering me: Supporters of Kerry put Bush down because he is not a very smooth talker. He says "Uh, and uhm" too much and occassionally he slips up in his words.
Guess what folks: I do the exact same thing. I was diagnosed as a child with a speech impediment. When tired or stressed, I sometimes fall into the same pattern and become a little more difficult to understand. Apart from that, even, I repeat myself sometimes, I say uh and uhm a lot, and quite often I forget the word I was going to use.
I was talking to someone the other day about a favorite teacher of both my daughters, and one that I like really well and have spent hours volunteering for. I forgot her name. I knew her well, and I forgot her name.
So I forgive Bush for not being brilliant in front of the camera. Heaven knows I'm not.
What the hell is this drivel? Kerry just spent that entire debate talking about how he would bolster the military.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Relax, this is just speculation! Considering Kerry as the politician of the past 20 years and not the politician trying to get elected President, I tend to have the same fears.
Kerry hinted very quickly that he is ready to remove our troops in a manner similar to scenarios in the past where we have helped nations rebuild.
Like who? South Korea? Japan? Germany? Guess what...(we still have troops there, in actual military bases). He sounded shocked that the bases in Iraq and Kuwait were looking rather permanent. Odd, don't you think.
Richard Nixon was paraphrased as saying something like It is hard to be be President and be limited to goals and ambitions that last only 4 years.
I think GWB is perplexed with the same problem, because I would not be surprised if troops are there for the next 4 years and beyond. But I hope earnestly that our powers that be can find a way to leave Iraq as a self-sufficient and autonomous country and government far sooner than later.
quote: If more countries have a stake in Iraq's economic development, there will be more international support for our nation building efforts.
It would also help restore credibility towards some of the reasons for going to war in Iraq and provide support to the claim that the US is not in this for economic reasons.
I’m not a US citizen, so I won't presume to comment on your political situation or to recommend voting for one or the other. But after lurking on many political threads since the war began, I’m getting the impression that on this board there is more concern over the international standing of the US now than there were 12 or 18 months ago.
I would just like to remind you that the prestige of US as a superpower is not the only factor to consider regarding the international community. The outcome of this election will also affect the lives of hundreds of millions outside the US, and therefore you are in a unique position as voters. It may not seem fair, but the way I see it you have an extended responsibility to look not only after your own interests but also the interests of the world.
Really, if physically possible, I would be holding my breath for the next weeks. It’s close to painful to not have any say in this. So please, take your responsibility seriously, whichever way your vote is cast.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now Ami, let me tell you my fear if Bush is elected.
I fear that he will continue to increase military spending, and will continue to use the military in ways for which military is not the most effective tool.
He will keep American troop strength at current levels in Iraq while continuing to give lip service to multi-lateralism, but giving no incentive to other nations to join in the fight.
As the situation disintegrates, word will continue to come from the administration about a new day for Iraq and how hope and democracy are "spreading like a sunrise" (direct quote from a campaign commercial. Pretty soon, American casualties climb past two thousand, then three, then five as the years go on, all while having little effect other than mobilising and motivating the Iraqi people, who now stand between the Americans and the terrorists, to side with the terrorists because they offer purpose.
Unemployment in Baghdad right now is over 50 percent. All of those frustrated, impverished, idle people are a terror tinderbox, Ami. We are not fighting the war for heaarts and minds in Iraq, which is the only way save indefinate and overwhelming martial law, to create a sustainable future that does not involve terrorism for the people of Iraq.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie: I'm afraid that all my arguments "for" Kerry on foreign policy basically boil down to the fact that he's not Bush, and it's hard for me to imagine someone doing as badly on foreign policy as Bush has done. (In fact, I find myself disagreeing strongly with Kerry on the issue of North Korea -- but, then, it's not like Bush has done anything on that point, so a disagreement with Kerry there doesn't wind up amounting to agreement with Bush.) Consistently, in fact, Bush has done nearly the opposite of everything I would consider wise -- which wouldn't bother me so much if the results of those actions didn't turn out pretty much exactly the way I predicted in the first place.
I should not be able, with my complete lack of advisors and total lack of executive experience, to formulate a better foreign policy than a sitting president and his staff. That I have, and that nothing Bush has done so far has surprised me with its success, disappoints me to no end.
posted
I must say, someone is doing a bang-up propaganda job if they have convinced anyone paying a bit of attention that Kerry ever has been or has stated any plans of being unsupportive of the military.
Sort of like the hatchet job done on Gore's military support, actually -- his budget plan, for instance, only gave less to the military because it didn't fund Star Wars, if you left out Star Wars he wanted more money for military spending. He had been a strong supporter of the military throughout his congressional career, for instance being one of the early supporters of Gulf War 1.
One can't avoid propaganda, or even biased positions. But try to at least have positions with some basis in reality!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, the sooner the "Star Wars" project is dropped, the better. The science behind it was bad when Reagan proposed it, and it hasn't gotten any better. The current state of testing is that we can't even shoot down a target that has a homing beacon built into it (never mind one that is stealthy, or has "chaff", flares, or other countermeasures going on). And for the current Bush administration to say (which they have, though I paraphrase), "we won't really know how well it works until we build and implement the full-up system" is just pure and utter BS, and clearly an indication that they exist for no other reason than to provide a profit for their campaign contributors (in this case, military/defense contractors), and a cushy place to retire to wnen they leave office.
The most major thing I disagreed with Bill Clinton about while he was in office? That he voted to continue this all-but-bogus program.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back to how Kerry would get foreign support when Bush could not, consider this article pointing out that Kerry is hugely popular with European audiences (despite Bush's claim that he is belittling them) and that European governments may find it necessary to "deliver" if he wins.
quote:"Kerry created a mood of empathy for the Europeans, which is no surprise," said Annette Heuser, director of the Bertelsmann Foundation think-tank, of a debate Thursday pitting President Bush (news - web sites) against his Democratic rival.
"But I would warn Europeans it would then be up to us to deliver," she said, adding that Kerry's popularity with the European public could make it harder for war opponents such as France and Germany to ignore future calls for military help.
quote:Karsten Voigt, Berlin's coordinator of German-U.S. ties, said the debate would have served to confirm the gut preference of most Europeans in favor of Kerry, illustrated by a French poll Friday giving the Democrat nearly 90 percent support.
"Because in Europe, unlike in America, a lot of people were skeptical about the war, you'll probably find that the majority of Europeans found Kerry more convincing," Voigt told Reuters Television, doubting the debate would affect U.S. voting.
When the world respects your leader, it makes foreign policy a whole lot easier.
quote: I'm pro-life myself, but banning stem cell research and destroying foreign aid to women over the issue is idiotic. To say nothing of Bush's incredible incompetence -- what has he done actually regarding the issue?
I'm pro-life too, but much of the funding Bush has benned under the pro-life rubric was not going to abortions, but to simple measures like making sure traditional midwives in in third world countries had something sterile to cut unblical cords with. One of the biggest causes of neonatal death in poor countries is umbilical sepsis. In the name of preventing some abortions, he is depriving many women of needed pre and post natal care, not to mention contraception, Pap smears, etc.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm kind of wavering because I've been hanging out with a pretty right-wing crowd (ironic, yes? ), and I'm beginning to not be able to see the other side....and that's bad.
You may be hanging around with too many wonks and dudes. Wonks, dudes, and people/number crunchers like war. I think they like it for the same reason the history channel likes it.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unemployment in Baghdad right now is over 50 percent. All of those frustrated, impverished, idle people are a terror tinderbox, Ami.
Exactly.
side note:
Terrorists are those who are out to "destroy the devils of the west", Iraqi Rebels are those who are trying to drive Americans out of their country.
Two seperate beasts.
If China invaded us, how many of us would be shooting at their soldiers?
I'm a 97% pacifist and I'd be one of the first people screaming "wolverines!" as I tried to sabotage convoys with what ever weapons I could get my hands on.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On foreign-policy issues, the reason I won't be voting for John Kerry is that his plan for the future, and what he would have done in the past, seems unlikely to impossible.
On the past, his stance seems to be, "I would have done nearly everything Bush did, but better, quicker, and safer." On the future, his stance seems largely to be to 'internationalize' the war in Iraq.
If John Kerry offers up a concrete plan for doing so and there is even a hint of it actually happening, it'd cause me to seriously review my current Dubya vote. As it is, though, the closest he can come to showing that he'll be able to internationalize the war (beyond its already international nature) is to say that privately international leaders support him and hopes he wins.
quote:He ignored terrorism in favor of Iraq, a potential reason 9/11 wasn't stopped.
He 'ignored' terrorism? Just by going to war in Iraq, that's ignoring terrorism? This is reminescent of angry arguments against police officers who ticket people for speeding. "Why don't you go arrest some dangerous criminals?!" people sometimes say. My response to that is, "Can't we do both? Aren't they doing both?" Just because you have more than one priority does not necessarily mean any of them are being ignored.
quote:He pulled out of talks with NK, which provoked them (when an egomaniac is in charge, if you can avoid it, don't provoke him!).
It seems to me that when an egomaniac is in charge, pandering to him is not the best course of action-especially when that egomaniac has a history at taking offense at things like humming off tune.
quote:He has ceded Afghanistan to the warlords (again). He has begun ceding Iraq to warlords (we no longer control several of the major cities in Iraq)
I do think Bush is not handling Afghanistan in particular and Iraq wisely in these areas. It seems to me that by ceding the enemy territory or times of day, you only grant them immunity and increase their chance of victory. Time will tell, but I'm very uneasy that American troops are said to be 'unable to enter' certain cities.
But this is a reason to vote against Bush, not as Kasie asked for Kerry.
Since the UN was unwilling to enforce with any degree of promptness or seriousness its own laws in Iraq-laws made after an aggressive war was lost by Saddam Hussein-I don't think the UN gets much respect on the Iraq issue, and I question their likely effectiveness if UN troops were on the ground anyway.
quote:Bush managed to pull few countries into Iraq, and many of the few we pulled in are now pulling out. Given that most of the countries of the world agree that a successful Iraqi transition is important, this is very telling as to his inability to conduct effective foreign policy.
Bush managed to persuade many countries to join us in Iraq, with a few notable exceptions. France, Germany, and Russia. Those are the notable exceptions, really. All three nations have proven, suspect dealings with Saddam Hussein up until his ouster, which is in my eyes more telling than Bush's 'failure' to convince them to help.
But again, that is at most a reason for voting against Bush and not for Kerry. I fail to see any scenario by which Kerry would've enlisted their support. Nothing he has said he would have done, and nothing he has actually done, indicates that-if I'm wrong, someone please point me to a quote of his.
quote:Major military leaders and former statesmen are lining up behind Kerry. Bush is supported by Neocon factions.
Which military leaders, balanced against which support Bush? And statesmen? That's interesting, given the state of the world pre Sept. 11th. Their endorsement (if it exists) as a group is a suspect thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. If one hangs out with people who will likely vote for Bush, one is hanging out with the wrong crowd Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, what a great thread! I think Irami makes a good point about how our foreign policy reflects us. In that respect, I believe that Kerry would've done a better job than Bush. In fact, I believe that just about anyone who didn't align themself with Cheney and Rumsfeld would've done a better job. Mainly because the crew that is in charge now decided that nothing short of war with Iraq would work. I believe that they made that decision first and that all evidence arriving on their desks after that point was interpreted in that light. For evidence of this, I point to one thing -- that Colin Powell, who saw that same evidence, was not convinced and tried to get the administration to pursue diplomatic measures. Later, he had a choice to go along or be replaced, but in the first instance they steamrollered him.
I believe there is ample evidence to believe that Bush et al. mismanaged and misinterpreted the intelligence information that came across their desks. I also believe that they then filtered what they received before it was passed along to other decision makers in our government. That is their right as the administration and we know how much they like to insist upon the rights of the Executive Branch. I won't say they did it to deliberately decieve. If I believed that, I'd be howling for impeachment. No, rather, I think that everything was interpreted through the lens of their initial bias and was used only to feed it.
Now, let's concentrate on Kerry and why one might want to vote for him.
#1, it doesn't matter what he "might have done" different in Iraq. We're already in Iraq in case people haven't noticed. Whether he likes or dislikes how it was handled, whoever hold the office next year will be dealing with the situation as it exists.
#2, Kerry's plan for Iraq has the following elements: - increase focus on Bin Laden -- solve that issue and chase the PROVEN terrorists until they are eliminated or completely neutralized.
- work with the Arab community. I believe a Kerry election would allow the US to play a leading role in summits involving the other Arab nations. Bush talked about this as already being planned, but it's Japan doing the planning. Not us. I think we need to be totally involved in setting the meetings up.
- Iraq war. I don't think either candidate has any idea what will happen there. I think Kerry's plan to increase the size of the regular military and stop using so many reservists is a good one though. I think we need regular army to take on the actual fighting and deal with the security of our own troops.
- increase specialists. This is a longer term thing, but the real problems in Afghanistan have not been caused by a lack of troops, but by a lack of the right kinds of people. I think Kerry is at least thinking about getting the specialists that are needed in the right numbers and in the right places. He can't do that overnight, but Bush didn't even seem to care that he couldn't do it overnight. Enough soldiers to fight a war on two fronts is impressive. Having adequate intelligence and having specialists when and where needed is, apparently, the limiting factor in our ability to fight wars on many fronts effectively and at the same time reduce the risks to our troops.
There is one score where I think Kerry is going to be not as good as I would've hoped. But Bush is not doing well there either. That is the question of hostages. Basically, there is only one way to deal with hostage-takers. And that is to hunt down every person who takes American hostages. Only through a policy of dogged pursuit can we send the one clear message that matters: take an American and you have already signed your death sentence.
There's a better way to be relatively immune from hostage taking, however, and that is to have the country's people generally like America. That used to be the case. It is no longer true. We would be better off to get that back. In the aftermath of 9/11, we have soured the Arab world on us, even though most of them either liked us before or at least thought we were a positive influence in the world. Seriously. As a US citizen you could go to many countries and be welcomed and feel totally safe. Not any more. The fact that a terrorist group "got us" isn't what made the difference. The difference was made when we decided to attack Iraq and things didn't work out quite right. Civilians were killed and their families hate us. And their families famillies hate us, and their families, families... etc.
It could've been handled better, but the decision to wholesale take over Iraq is the big turning point. If we hadn't done that, we could've worked far more effectively in the Arab world. We might've been able to get some help with Saddam, even.
So, I have reasons to vote against Bush -- I'm afraid of the blinders and the blunders that will effect his Adminstration's willingness to put forward all the information and treat it appropriately.
And I have some reasons for voting for Kerry other than "he's not Bush."
I also have plenty of reasons for avoiding voting for the Republican slate of candidates, but that wasn't your question.
I just don't think fighting fundamentalism abroad with fundamentalism here at home is a good idea. I think the GOP is beginning to fragment (as I predicted several years ago right here in River City) because the older "less government" types can't wrap their arms around a party that pushes a fundamentalist Christian agenda and all that means with respect to personal freedoms and government intrusiveness.
That and the deficit that Republican administrations always seem to believe are necessary.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:#1, it doesn't matter what he "might have done" different in Iraq. We're already in Iraq in case people haven't noticed. Whether he likes or dislikes how it was handled, whoever hold the office next year will be dealing with the situation as it exists.
Actually, this matters vitally. For one thing, whoever is president may have to face future similar questions in the war on terror, including whether to invade Iran or N. Korea. What Kerry would have done illustrates better judgement on these matters. And for another thing, probably more important, this vote will be interpretted by our leaders and abroad as a referendum on which approach should have been taken on Iraq. This may be even more important, because a vote for Bush will be taken as an okay to the policy of undiplomatic, unilateral, unprovoked, preemptive invasions and a vote for Kerry will be taken as rejecting that policy.
posted
He ignored terrorism pre-9/11 (I thought that was implied by the if he hadn't, 9/11 might have been stopped bit). This is solidly backed up. Richard Clarke and others part of the administration before 9/11 have testified and talked extensively about how the administration made clear it wanted to hear about Iraq, not terrorism, as far as threats to the nation went.
Not provoking != pandering. We were not pandering to him, we were slowly meeting treaty demands that we had agreed upon and he was doing likewise. We were treating with his country so there was enough food for people in it to eat. We held the upper hand and he knew it (this was, after all, a treaty of capitulation we're talking about), but he got to save face. We provoked him, and he started making nuclear weapons. You're saying this is a good thing, or that it wasn't likely once we pulled out of talks?
Given that Kerry is the only one who can get elected this election other than Bush, Bush doing horribly in some area certainly is reason to vote for Kerry .
Would you care to list troops Bush managed to pull into Iraq, by country with troop numbers? I'd be interested to hear what you thought to be many. Be sure to note all of those that have or are pulling out (well, since that's part of my thesis, after you list the many troops that are part of your thesis, I could do that if you didn't want to).
We've had suspect dealings with Saddam Hussein repeatedly throughout history, and we still have suspect dealings with many dictators. Is it a good thing? Probably not, but its certainly a normal part of international affairs. And considering Saddam Hussein most certainly was not a very big threat to those countries you mentioned (and remember, being a very big threat is the reason we tried to get people to go to war with us over), I think it very reasonable for them not to contribute to our war. Furthermore, suspect dealings with Saddam Hussein would not prevent those countries from coming in after he was deposed, they're not stupid enough (whatever you think about their morals) to put any funds towards causes that are in active military opposition to the US.
There are several big names on that list. You might find the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the latter half of Reagan's administration particularly interesting. Several were major diplomats under Bush Sr or Reagan, particularly in the middle east (such as Saudi Arabia and Israel). One is one of our foremost experts on the Soviet Union (among other things, he was ambassador 1987-1991, a period of no small importance).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, I'd just like to note that I love Hatrack
Some thoughts:
First, on Kerry and the rest of the world. While I admire that he is sriving for 'international goodwill' and I agree that we need to be respected in the world, I also feel as though his concept (and maybe America's general concept) of the 'rest of the world' is very ethnocentric: that is, we want the help of the traditionally powerful Western European nations, and that's about it. Maybe with Russia thrown in for good measure. They're the ones that are making the most noise about it, in any case. I'm beginning to see the UN (or at least the *security* related brances of the UN) as an extension of the problem, not as part of the solution. I don't necessarily think that fixing our reputation with Western European nations is the solution -- militarily, they (a) can't help us a whole lot and (b) aren't about to send terrorists to our doorsteps. I do think it's important to restore general goodwill with them simply because we can't foresee how the international scene is going to change in the next ten, twenty, or fifty years, and I think it's important that we not be completely alone in the world. But I also feel that at this point and time we need to prioritize something else. (see below )
The problem we face in the rest of the world is twofold:
(1) We *are* facing a short-term threat from Osama bin Ladin and his cronies, whether they are operating as part of al-Qaida or outside of it. Somehow, we need to deal with it.
(2) We are facing a deeper, more serious long-term threat/problem with our general perception in the Islamic world, a perception that is increasingly causing the voices of moderate Muslims to be marginalized while at the same time amplifying the extremists and providing support for their message. In Clash of Civilizations, Sam Huntington says, "It is only possible to love what we are when we hate what we are not." Islamic revolutionaries are using this concept to recruit more terrorists every day: hate is far easier to create then love, and it is easier to get potential terrorists to hate American than to love the Islamic country in which they live. (Of course, there is also the religious factor to deal with -- many of these people love their religion deeply, to the point of being willing to die for it. Here, we need to somehow manage to convince the moderates that we as a culture/civilization/nation are not attacking Islam in and of itself).
So the ultimate question is one of balance: how do we combat the short term threat while at the same time finding a long term solution (or at least while not worsening the long term problem)?
As this relates to Bush and Kerry (and my general wavering):
We'll deal with Kerry first. Positives: (1) He's willing to admit that we made a mistake going into Iraq, and acknowledges that this both distracted from the short-term war and exacerbated the long-term solution. (2) I feel as though he is more generally culturally aware, and better understand that there *is* a long term problem: he's focused on more than just the short term threat. (3) I believe Kerry won't compromise what we're striving to protect by allowing things like the Patriot Act to compromise our civil liberties.
Negatives: (1) I feel like it's important to be steadfast in our fight against terrorists. It's important to bring the international community to our side in this particular endeavor, but the fight itself is paramount. Sometimes I wonder if Kerry would lose sight of this in his drive to regain European allies.
And Bush. Positives: (1) His clear devotion to the short-term war on terror is an asset, in my opinion. So far, he seems to have done the job -- we haven't been hit again yet. He's right when he says we have to be right 100% of the time and they only have to be right once. (2) He pointed out in the debate that it would be tough to listen to a commander in chief who characterized the war in Iraq as a "grand diversion", and to a certain extent I agree with this. (I should point out that I think the reason I'm wavering on this is that I'm dating a Marine. While he's in no danger of being sent anywhere (he's only in ROTC), I keep putting myself in the shoes of a wife or a sister here at home.)
Negatives: (1) He claims he 'understands the enemy.' I think this presents an extraordinarily simplistic worldview. 'The enemy' in this case isn't an ideology or a state or even an army. The enemy is constantly changing and depends almost as much on our policy as it does on the policies of other nations and groups. (2) He has expressed little to no interest in solving the long term solution. What would he do to increase cultural awareness? Encourage the moderate Muslims within their own communities? Encourage moderate Muslim leaders and factions within nationstates (i.e. the more moderate Saudi faction)?
--
Of course, this is all complicated by the weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam had them, then, well, how could we not go after him? Obviously, he didn't -- we haven't found any -- but we didn't know that at the time. Even Putin's intelligence services backed up our claim (and Putin, of course, is a vocal opponent of the war). This, however, points to a deeper problem, one that changes the very way we think about international relations: do the greatest threats come from states? I would argue that they no longer do. Irnoically, I would feel safer with those weapons in the hands of Saddam simply because (a) the UN has the power to tie his hands and (b) Saddam had a vested interest in not using them because his ultimate goal was to stay in power. I feel like taking out Saddam led him to dispersing those weapons in any way possible -- which ultimately makes it more likely that those weapons are going to end up in the hands of terrorists, people who are NOT constrained in any way by international law or governing bodies.
Anyway, I'm going to cut this post short here because I've thrown out a ton of different ideas. I'm curious as to how people will respond. But I'm definitely voting for Kerry Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), and I'm beginning to not be able to see the other side....and that's bad.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
