It seems to me that this election is really about the war on terror. And it seems to me that despite claims that the candidates hold the same views, and claims that one or the other is merely flip-flopping, George Bush and John Kerry do take starkly different approaches towards the war on terror. It seems to me that the choice is one between a sensitive war and a simplistic war...
Bush: The Simplistic War on Terror -The war on terror is a "crusade," a battle between good and evil -We must do "whatever it takes" to stop terrorism -All nations and peoples are either "with us or against us." We must fight a unilateral war, rather than compromise. -We must admit no mistakes, we must be the flawless hero -All enemies of freedom are on the side of terror -We must win the war, above all else
Kerry: The Sensitive War on Terror -The war on terror is a complex situation that must be dealt with in the right manner -We cannot do "whatever it takes." We must respect American values, human rights, international law, fiscal restraints, etc. -We must make this a multilateral effort, and compromise to get our allies' support -We must recognize failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and our policies in general. -We must prioritize, and focus on stopping terrorism, rather than overthrowing unrelated tyrants -We must fight the war the right way, above all else
In short, Bush's war is a clear-cut, black-and-white, simple situation where we keep pressing forward to eventually succeed. It is a war based on faith. It's a crusade. And Kerry's war is a tricky situation in which we must remain sensitive to new information, other considerations, and details. It is a war based on deliberation. It's about choosing the so-called "right" course, rather than the boldest course.
It is all well and good to vote based on whatever reasons we feel are important, but it is important to understand how the nation and the world will take the outcome of this election. It's more than a referendum on which man will run the country. It's a referendum on which war we plan to fight. Regardless of the real reasons we vote, if Bush wins our leaders and the whole world will believe we, the people, have endorsed his simplistic approach. And if Kerry wins the interpretation will be that we are demanding something more sensitive to the complexities of the situation.
We should understand what we are really voting for. So which war do we really want?
You should know what I think.
[ September 27, 2004, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, it is at least certain whose spin you prefer.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I'm surprised. I didn't peg you for a Bush supporter. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But which spin do YOU prefer? That's the question.
Or, more appropriate, which spin do you think the country should accept?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The simple approach just doesn't work. It creates more problems than it solves. Terrorism is a complex problem with complex causes. Whoever is in charge should realize that. Using a simplistic approach is like using a sledgehammer to do open heart surgery.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't accept either spin.
I don't think either of them have handled, or would handle, the war on terror in a humane, intelligent fashion.
I draw these conclusions from the way Kerry has voted on the war on terror, and from the rhetoric Bush has thrown about during the war on terror.
In my opinion, we are more likely to win the war on terror with Bush as commander in chief, because he has shown a penchant for action, whereas Kerry has shown a penchant for flip-flopping with the whims of the Democratic and Moderate elecorate.
[ September 27, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know... It seems like Bush's approach will lead to more terrorists being created. Democrasy is not something you can force on people with violence and still make it appealing.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If a war can't be won humanely, perhaps it's best not to fight it at all.
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
Simplistic. Bush all the friggin way. Well... when it comes to Kerry anyway.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Democrasy is not something you can force on people with violence and still make it appealing.
Two things I find amazing about this common attitude: 1. That the people supposedly who hold our democratic values most dear (those who are against the Patriot Act, those who actually attend protests) are so willing to deny those same freedoms to citizens of other nations. What if someone told you, that you weren't "ready" for democracy? 2. People act as if the Iraqis and Afghans had somehow chosen to under dictatorships. Remember what made it a dictatorship? The fact that it was forced upon them. The whole point of giving people democracy is so that they can choose the government they want.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: If a war can't be won humanely, perhaps it's best not to fight it at all.
Would you consider the firebombing of civilian cities humane? If not, then should we have bothered fighting World War II? If a war is forced upon you as World War II and the "War on Terror" have been you don't have the choice of prioritizing vague values of "humanely" over not fighting it. Unless you want to take the pacifist approach and just sit back, let them kill you, while you maintain your dignity. This attitude is fine for an individual to take, but by imposing the view on others you are actually killing them, by making them take the same route of passivity.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I believe Kerry is right in that the war against terror is complex and nuanced, and must be fought with multi-layered, nuanced strategies.
However, it was idiotic for him to use the phrase "sensitive War" in campaign speeches. That phrase just will not fly in fly-over country.
quote: We cannot do "whatever it takes." We must respect American values, human rights, international law, fiscal restraints, etc.
tres hear, hear.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No candidate has proposed a pacifist solution to terror, though.
Kerry has, however, proposed a solution in which we both fight the war AND do it humanely.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
quote: If a war can't be won humanely, perhaps it's best not to fight it at all.
The problem with this is that it assumes the other side will see the wisdom of non-violence and will appropriately react by also pledging to not fight at all.
Otherwise, it is merely surrender to the violent. Is that who you want dictating?
Being pacifist even to the point of death is appropriate in some cases, but only when there is a dominant democracy of people who will be sufficiently horrified by the killing of innocent non-violents that they willingly stop the killing.
[ September 27, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: AmkaProblemka ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
NFL, did I say Iraq isn't ready for democracy? No, I did not. I stated that you cannot force democracy on people and have it be appealing. You can't bomb people into submission and take away their will. It is wrong. It will only lead them to fight back harder and it will create more al Queda members each moment the US continues to occupy Iraq. Each second they validate the claims of the enemy. They see America as a treat, as trying to strip away their freedom rather than giving them freedom. You are not dealing with children you are trying to civilize with disipline and rewards. You are dealing with people who think differently, who have a different perspective and have, (in part, due to America in the past,) have been forced under a horrible dictatorship. Many of them probably do not see the US as being much different than Saddam. Especially after the prison scandals. There has to be a better way to handle things. A more precise and surgical way of doing it that involves less lives being taken and destroyed. Force democracy on the people of Iraq and have many of them view it as a poison and not as the good system it is!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
We haven't "bombed people into submission" though. We bombed Germany and Japan into submission, we didn't do the same to Iraq. In fact we intentionally avoided trying to crush them militarily. In the first Gulf War we were slowed by the masses of Iraqi soldiers trying to surrender. This time around, we actually went around the Iraqi armies. We fought Saddam, not the Iraqi people.
How are we "forcing" democracy upon Afgahnistan and Iraq anymore than democracy is being "forced" upon you or me? No, they're not children, which is precisely the reason why we should give them the option of choosing their own government instead of allowing a dictator rule over their lives.
What does it mean to do something "precise(ly) and surgical(ly)?" You're just throwing around words that sound nice without any description of what they actually mean. Does that we specifically target are Iraqis to democratitize? Does that mean to only let certain, small areas have democracy? Does that mean only kill people selectively? If its the last I would argue that that is what we're doing already. We're not targeting entire neighborhoods to demolish.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It means taking an approach even though it might be slow and unglamorous. My problem with the war in Iraq is from the very beginning it seemed rushed. Like declaring major combat to be over when it wasn't. Changing a country is something that takes decades. This administration acts like it's something that can be done in a year, wrapped up neatly by election day. It doesn't work like this... Perhaps I am a bit naive. The solution I want may not exist. But I do know that every time civilians die in this war or situations like Abu Grirab happen unchecked, it's a victory for the terrorist. In my opinion they should have wrapped up Afghanistan first. Then, after doing a lot of research and trying to understand the culture of Iraq, they should have helped the people to overthrow Saddam themselves. (Which, I read the other day was tried, but then scrapped leaving the people hanging.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Would you consider the firebombing of civilian cities humane? If not, then should we have bothered fighting World War II?"
I would argue that we should not have firebombed civilian cities.
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
quote: What would you think if Saudia Arabia decided we were "ready" for a theocratic monarchy, invaded our country, overthrew GWB, and installed their own puppet government? Because that's exactly what we're trying to do in Iraq (and I don't think it would work any better here than it's working there)
The difference is that in a democracy, if they truly wanted a theocratic dictatorship, they could eventually vote to install just such a government and change their constitution accordingly. Such an option would require a revolution in the situation you are describing.
Posted by Turgan (Member # 6697) on :
ha ha ha ha Bush all the way. :-)
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:By forcing them to accept democracy, we aren't giving them the option of choosing their own government.
Now wait a second. Don't the words "forced" and "democracy" contradict each other? The Iraqis, however bad the conditions are now, at least have a future.
And I'm so tired of defending this war. For crying out loud, if you're against the war because it's claimed a lot of American lives, that's fine. But the idea that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam is preposterous.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Why is it preposterous? Is it that much better to have civil war, anarchy, and terrorists ruling the streets than a dictator?
Besides... at this point, after all of this destruction, it seems just as likely that Iraq will end up with another dictator in five years as it is likely to end up a stable democracy. Only this time it might be a fundamentalist dictator that actually does support Al Qaeda.
[ September 27, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Democracy has some unappealing characteristics, and a majority rule, especially if everyone is supposed to vote for their self-interest, is nearly a scene from Lord of the Flies. Without a sense of public identity that everyone accepts, and knows everyone else accepts, democracy is terribly dangerous.
I'm not just talking about about the average voter being uninformed, that's the least of our problems. The average voter being self-interested, greedy, or untrustworthy is the nightmare, and further, if everyone else knows that the average voter is this corrupt, the government implodes. A real fear comes along with a new democracy, especially with a strong central government, and this real fear isn't something to be depreciated.
Democracy is going to come in Iraq and Afghanistan, but whether it comes sooner or later is not going to be a military factor.
[ September 27, 2004, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Why is it preposterous? Is it that much better to have civil war, anarchy, and terrorists ruling the streets than a dictator?
Even if that weren't an exaggeration, I would still answer yes. Iraq is in transition. Its future is uncertain, but it still HAS a future. And it's up to the Iraqi people what kind of future that will be.
If we pulled out of Iraq now, then there's a good chance it would end up ruled by another dictator. Either that or those terrorist bastards would go on a murderous rampage until they could put themselves in power. That's precisely why we need to stick it out. All this Monday-morning quarterbacking is a waste of time and energy. I wish we were all more determined to fix this problem than exploit.
All this "we should have never gone there" is pointless. It's been almost two years since the war started. The horse is dead. Stop beating it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Took, the problem is that people are dying, and while we may feel comfortable sacrificing those people in the name of Iraq's future. I don't know if that was our choice to begin with.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Or we can pull out and let a greater number of Iraqis die. That's the only other option. We did it in Vietnam. We can do it again. But I find it morally reprehensible.
[ September 27, 2004, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: FoolishTook ]
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Democracy and the ability to choose one's own government is worth it. But it can have a heavy price to pay.
And democracy is something that has to be earned. We can make a point that we are giving this to the Iraqis and Afghanis, but once the "gift" is bestowed upon them, they have to keep earning it every single day until it has taken root so strong that it cannot just be swept up and taken from the populace.
People, the public, always has the power when a government, whatever form it takes, begins. Throughout history the public has given it to someone or had it taken from them. Monarchies had to have it given to them by the people, Republics the same, Communism grew from the masses, even theocracies must arise from the people (without believers committed to their beliefs, how could a theocracy rule?).
What we are doing, for better or worse, is hopefully handing the people of these two countries back that power. We hope that they will find it for the dear and rare gift it is and safeguard it themselves from being taken away from again. It says, here is another chance, use this preciously.
But what if they put no value on it as a people? What if they choose to put the power back into the hands of a dictator or theocratic group? It is their choice, after all. Well, before long, they will end up as poorly off as they ever were, if not worse off.
But it would be a crime to have never, ever given them the chance. Whatever your thoughts are on the wars, we did pull two nations out of ratholes that no one should have to live in. What they do, once they are out in the light of day and breathing free air, in the end, is up to them.
I believe, that no matter who we elect this time around, we will stand for a while and allow these two countries to get their sea legs under them, rather than abandon them to those who would take away their fledgling freedom.
But, once again, in the long run, they hold their own freedom and fate in their hands.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Well said, Lost Ashes.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Democracy and the ability to choose one's own government is worth it.
says you. Democracy is not the ability to choose one's own government. My governor is Arnold Schwarzenegger, an action star who I don't particularly like or support. Democracy gave me a vote, it gave me a ticket to be one of 33 million other people I may not like or support. Why shouldn't I support a divine theocracy of someone I like and support rather than this democracy which often reveals itself as as much of a pain as it is worth. If democracy is a gift, I want to return it.
Democracy as merely the power of the opinion of the majority is crap if it's not buttressed by a publically agreed upon set of basic principles.
quote:People, the public, always has the power when a government, whatever form it takes, begins.
In Iraq, Saddam Hussein had the power. Then we did. Now some other government that's neither public nor US has the power. The people are too busy trying to stay alive. Unless you are talking about the first men ever, governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and while that may not be the same as political power, and I don't think it is, those weapons can multiply the strength of the government to squash any of the people and their political power.
[ September 28, 2004, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:By forcing them to accept democracy, we aren't giving them the option of choosing their own government.
quote:If democracy is a gift, I want to return it.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:All this Monday-morning quarterbacking is a waste of time and energy.
Speak for yourself... I've been calling the same plays since Saturday night.
And it's certainly not a waste of time and energy, because in a few weeks we are going to have to decide whether or not to fire our coach. If he's been calling all the wrong plays, that certainly should factor big into our decision.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Xap-- I listened to Kerry this morning, and found his arguments on Iraq vapid.
As others have pointed out, he did vote to give the President authority to invade, and now he's contesting that he's been right about Iraq all along, and that this war is wrong.
He is banking on people not pointing out that he, along with a majority of our elected representatives, supported invasion. He is banking on people's emotions running so high against the invasion of Iraq, they forget that he voted down the line for it-- until he realized some of his own constituency was against it, anyway. Not that that's a bad thing. The bad thing is jumping up on the bandwagon after it's been travelling for weeks, and claiming you were here all along.
Listening to Kerry, I did not hear much concrete information about how he would handle Iraq. I heard concrete numbers on health care reform, and education reform-- but only rhetoric and mudslinging on Iraq. (Incidentally, I also listened to Bush, and heard nothing better)
Bush will take action-- I feel this, because he's demonstrated that capacity. Kerry will hem and haw, and whine, and flip-flop. I feel this because he's demonstrated that capacity. In my opinion, Kerry will not be able to wage as an effective war against terrorists as Bush.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
So, Irami, did you vote for Davis the first time around?
One part of a democracy, that some people seem to forget, is that it is supposed to be a majority vote that makes the decision. If you are on the losing side of a vote, get over it. Your position, whatever it was, apparently wasn't agreed with by the majority of folks.
But, you still had the opportunity to not just voice, but vote your opinion. And in a few years, you get to make that vote again. Perhaps you'll then be proven right, or perhaps you won't. But at least you have the opportunity.
What other political system would you prefer Irami? What other political system is there that at least works to say that we are all equal in deciding our future?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:As others have pointed out, he did vote to give the President authority to invade, and now he's contesting that he's been right about Iraq all along, and that this war is wrong.
In all fairness, he may have been right all along. Voting for the Iraq War doesn't mean he wanted it. It just means he didn't want to be painted as unpatriotic for not supporting a war that was going to happen. Experienced politicians often end up doing that sometimes. It's not a good thing, but it happens.
quote:He is banking on people not pointing out that he, along with a majority of our elected representatives, supported invasion.
No, that is sure to be pointed out. I think he is banking on the public accepting that he can change his mind when he's made a mistake. That's the "sensitive" way to do it - new information means a new position. That's in contrast to Bush, who seems to keep the same position no matter how much new information comes in to contradict it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Xap-- Kerry said he supported the invasion of Iraq.
Not sure how reliable this site is, but here are the quotes:
quote:Q: On March 19 Pres. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?
KERRY: I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
Q: Gov. Dean, you've criticized Sen. Kerry on the campaign trail saying he's tried to have it both ways on the issue of Iraq.
DEAN: I'm delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone. I appreciate that we have a strong military in this country, and I'd keep a strong military in this country. But this was the wrong war at the wrong time because we have set a new policy of preventive war in this country. Sooner or later we're going to see another country copy [that policy].
Q: But do you believe Kerry is still trying to have it both ways?
DEAN: That's not up to me to judge that. That's up to the voters to judge that, and I'm sure they will.
Source: [X-ref to Dean] Democratic Debate in Columbia SC May 3, 2003
Now he saying that he knew from the outset that invasion was a bad idea. Gary Trudeau will be happy-- he can use the flipping coin icon again in Dunesbury.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oops, looks like the link above doesn't include all the remarks-- here's the text from the Washington Post:
It bothers me that people are twisting what Kerry said to say that he supported the war and that now he doesn't. That's not at all what he said. What he said is, in my opinion, much worse.
His response to being asked if he knew now what he knew then, would he still vote for the war was essentially "Yes, because I think that the President should have the authority to go to war. Congress's job is to rubber stamp it." This is a consistent stand that he has taken. If you look at the quotes above, you can see that he doesn't support the war. He supports the President (as in the office and not the person) being able to go to war if he chooses. John Kerry seems to think that as a Senator, he should have voted to give the President to go to war. his complaint is that, if he were President, he would not have chosen to go to war.
Quite honestly, I find the idea that the Presidnet should be able to unilaterally decide if the country should go to war without getting Congressional approval is a really, really awful one. But, as far as I can tell, that is exactly what John Kerry has said. OF course, usng this against him or even recognizing it would require breaking from the lockstep "Flip-Flop" mindlessness that seems to make up the vast majority of the republican campaign against him, so it's not going to happen.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But hasn't Bush flip-flopped as well as the Republicans so delicately put it? Ultimate flip-flop. Going from saying that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 to implying it over and over as a justification for a war that is getting messier by the second.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Squicky-- I don't see how you pull that out of Kerry's comments.
quote:It bothers me that people are twisting what Kerry said to say that he supported the war and that now he doesn't.
Um. . . he said in the debate above that he supported the war. Now he's saying he always knew it was a bad idea.
What's the confusion? No one is twisting Kerry's words. They're his own words, after all.
[ September 28, 2004, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, It's a pretty close paraphrase to his reply when he was asked if knowing what he knew now (no WMD, no ties to al-Queda, etc.) would he still have voted for the war. I'm sure you can find the exact quote somewhere. As I said, his yes was justfied by saying that he would have done so because he felt that the President should have that authority, not because he felt that the war was the right thing. Likewise here:
quote:I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.
he doesn't support the war at all. The thing he supports is the disarming of Saddam Hussein. What he supported about the war was that the president (and I'm pretty sure he means office, not person) made the decision. He supported the president, not the decision he made. That's spooky talk to me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Here's the thing. After 9/11 there seemed to just be... This ferver and everyone was caught up in it. Republicans, Democrats. Most Democrats supported the war because they thought it was the right thing to do at the time. They voted for it because they didn't want to seem unpatriotic. But, after much thought, research and consideration they began to see that maybe the war wasn't handled correctly and started to object. It's understandable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Show me where he says that he supported the war. I've yet to see any quote that explicitly says that. Instead, I've seen him say that he supported the president when he decided to go to war. From what I've seen, he has been as consistent in this support as he has been in saying that he felt that the decision to go to war was a bad idea. I could be wrong. Certainly I wasn't paying all that much attention during the primaries, but all the statements that I've seen Bush supporters use to say John Kerry flip-flopped on the war don't actually show that he ever supported the war for it's own sake.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Holy cow, Squick.
I'm utterly flabbergasted.
Forest for the trees?
[ September 28, 2004, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Right back at ya Scott. Do you believe in anything that can't be broken down into 10 simple words?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The Democrats had been playing politics - that much is clear (and not surprising, given both parties do that stuff constantly).
The important thing is that NOW when the election is on the line, Kerry has come out to reject the war on Iraq. I'll leave it to Kerry to explain what he felt before or why he felt the way he did, because I can't say for sure.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Sopwith,
Democracy wasn't any more valid because my candidate won. I just think that people need to take a hard look at what we export when we ship democracy without principles. That the people pick the idiot or God picks the idiot or the parliment picks the idiot isn't relevant. Admittedly, it is a little relevant, but democracy for the sake of democracy is a little bit like anarchy for the sake of anarchy. At least with a theocracy, you have a government that is beholden to some standard, ostensibly God.
Look, if I had a good deal under Saddam's regime, and the coalition forces are ransacking my place for the sake of some democracy, a government wherein I will get outvoted anyway, I don't know if I'm that thankful.
I'm a big believer in democracy. I don't even mind majority-rule, but I'll be damned if the system is so perfect, even if people work, that it inherently warrants all of these violent, and necessarily anti-democratic, means. Democracy isn't necessarily good. It certainly isn't the most efficient, and apparently, not even the least violent or appropriate with respect to every culture. The cardinals pick the pope, but what if the US forced the Catholic church to open the ballot to every Catholic in the world, in the name of democracy. I imagine that the papacy would ask us where we get off.
When we whitewash the essential thorniness of democracy when we export it to countries, it's like enforcing a free market economy without considering anti-trust cases, tariffs or unions, and if we want to be cheerleaders for democracy, I don't know if we get to be surprised when the people don't buy it.
[ September 28, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Quite honestly, I find the idea that the Presidnet should be able to unilaterally decide if the country should go to war without getting Congressional approval is a really, really awful one. But, as far as I can tell, that is exactly what John Kerry has said.
Mr Squicky. I agree whole-heartedly with the 1st sentance, but that ship has sailed long ago. The US has been in many wars since WWII, and I think none of them were declared by congress. There was a weak attempt to go back to the original intent to have congress declare war and the president wage it, but it's now defunct. [edit: The powers of the presidency have grown enormously throughout the 20th century to the present day and show no signs of reversing. Congress just isn't as powerful as it used to be.]
As far as what Kerry meant, who knows? I have heard him or his spokespeople say various things at various times on the subject.
[ September 28, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Look, Tres, as much as I love him for all the stands we took to together in the old Moral Relativism threads, has basically outlined the choices we he have in the upcoming elections:
Sensitive: We fight the war on terror the way we used to fight it, back in the good old days:
Holding real still and hoping Terrorists don't notice we're there.
Showing up at the funerals of anybody who's killed, and looking very, very sad.
As a last resort, launch cruise missles in the general direction of the continent the problem is coming from.
Simplistic: We fight the war on terror in a new way, realizing that the old way wasn't effective enough, since it led to escalation of the problem.
Since terrorists aren't countries, and can hide in holes for a long time, we attack their resources and support networks, weakening their effectiveness when they emerge
These resources will include businesses, wealthy men, and leaders of nations. All of these must be considered.
We sometimes make decisions that are unpopular in the world community.
We have to be able to stand by those decisions, going based on the best knowledge we have, not based on punditry or polling.
Finally, action against terrorists can no longer be "police action" done after the fact. We must bring down terrorist groups before they can threaten the lives of the international community.
Calling Bush's war the "Simplistic" one is as much an oversimplification as my calling Kerry's war the "Head in the sand" war. Creating a world where terrorists do not feel safe but where you and I do is a very difficult balance to achieve. Honestly, is there anybody left who hasn't already made up their mind on this? Are the debates really going to make a shred of difference?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And that's not a caricature of Kerry's position. Nooooo . . .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Still, a small, mean part of me is glad to see someone flip the tables on the opening post's ridiculous characterizations.
In DM's defense, I think the last paragraph is a pretty good indication it's supposed to be a parody of the first post.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
docmagic,
I challenge you to produce any statement from Kerry or Edwards that would back up the claim that they intend to fight it the old way - a.k.a. no war on terror whatsoever. That's a position none of the candidates have taken.
Kerry has proposed a new sort of war on terror - more new even than Bush's plan. Rather than relying on the conventional use of unilateral military force, Kerry has offered forward a plan in which the war on terror is reformulated as a truly global effort that attacks terrorism from all angles. From Kerry's own website:
quote:Today, we face three great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror; Second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; Third, to promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world, starting by winning the peace in Iraq. To meet these challenges, John Kerry's national security policy will be guided by four imperatives:
Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.
Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.
Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.
What could be more different from the post-9/11 Bush and pre-9/11 Clinton approaches? Whereas Clinton likely placed terrorism far down the list, Kerry has made it first priority. And whereas Bush has made this a war fought largely unilaterally and with military force front and center, Kerry is promosing a subtler, more strategic war, in which diplomacy is wielded as a primary weapon. It's a "sensitive" strategy, to contrast with Bush's more blunt simplification.
The Kerry camp might not like the word "sensitive" and the Bush camp might not like the word "simplistic" but that is, in fact, what these two sides are proposing, when you get down to the heart of it. Having no war has not been proposed, though.
[ September 28, 2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Right back at ya Scott. Do you believe in anything that can't be broken down into 10 simple words?
Yes.
quote:Show me where he says that he supported the war. I've yet to see any quote that explicitly says that. Instead, I've seen him say that he supported the president when he decided to go to war.
Kerry says he supported the invasion in the link that I posted. Hey, you quoted it too!
Now it's your turn to back up your statements. How do you gather that Kerry supports the idea of giving the presidential office military carte blanche?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, No, he didn't say he supported the war. As I pointed out, in what you referenced, he declared his support for two things. 1) Disarming Saddam Hussein and 2) The President. He never said he supported the war.
And the big "flip-flop" accusation comes from him responding to the question that if he knew then what he knows now, would he have voted to give the President the authority to go to war.
From the Washington Post's article on this:
quote: Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.
In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."
John Kerry has never said that he supported the decision to go to war. In fact, at least once one of his advisors speculated that had he been in President Bush's place, he would likely have done the same thing, only to quickly disassociate those remarks with any sort of offical position.
The Republican party line is that John Kerry has slip-flopped on the war, saying that he supports in, then saying he doesn't. Taking a simplistic either-or look at it, you can support this story, but not, I think, if you actually look at what he's said. Of course, as I've said, I think what he said is even worse and it actually moved me into the absolutely not voting for him column.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote: Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.
See, to me, this just sounds like buzzwords for "We aren't going to do things that will upset sovriegns." He doesn't make allowances for the idea that some nations will only align with us in hanging back from the fight.
Because he can't seriously be suggesting that he will be able to pull out the magical "Create allies" wand in the secret drawer in the oval office, and make everybody come on board with what we want to do. The only way to gain more allies is to align your actions more with their desires.
In other words, fight the war they way the French and the Germans want, just so we can say they're on our side.
This is the way we fought terrorism before, never taking a step more than we thought the international community would accept. Clinton would have loved to do more against terrorism, but he was, among other things, afraid of jeapordizing our situation in the international scene (read the 9/11 report).
quote:Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.
So this would be why he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.
Seriously, this is just more of the same. Every President says he's going to be strong on defense, amass troops and get good weapons. This is hardly innovative thinking.
quote: Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
Again, this sounds like political speak to me, code words that basically mean, "We're going to be real nice and hope the terrorists will start to like us. When Islamist propaganda bombards potential recruits about what a bunch of infidels the Americans are, it will be rendered powerless by the sheer force of our good will."
Again, this is old, pre 9/11 thinking. We thought that if we stayed out of their business, they would stay out of ours. It's hard for some people to grasp that, just like the High School Quarterback, some people hate and resent us just for who we are, irrespective of what we actually do.
No matter how many kids we help who are picked on, no matter how many kids we tutor or hang out with, there are still going to be kids who hate and resent us.
As for the "diplomatic and intelligence" statments--this basically says if specific information is recieved, we'll take specific action against individual threats. Again, that's what we've always done. He's just saying we're going to try to do it better than we used to.
quote:Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.
Environmentalism is hardly new. But believe it or not, this is the one I'd most support him in. I'd love to see us get away from our reliance on oil.
I drive a car that, while not a hybrid, gets over 30 miles to the gallon. My dad rides a scooter that, while not electric, gets just over 8 million miles to the gallon, or something along those lines. We're both seriously looking at hybrids.
What all of that says, though, is that this is already happening. When enough of us want to use less oil, somebody's going to provide it for us.
Kerry can either force production of these cars, which could cause companies to lose money if they produce more than what is consumed, or he could illegalize or tax gas vehicles, which again, I would see as an imposition, my distaste for our oil dependence notwithstanding.
It just comes across as more environmental feel-good talk to me.
[ September 30, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Just saying, "He never said the actual words "X X X X," does not a convincing argument make.
Can you provide evidence that Kerry feels the way you say he does-- i.e., that the office of President should have rubber-stamp powers when it comes to military action?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
docmagik, You've missed the critical difference between the "old way" and Kerry's proposal: Terrorism was not a priority in 1999. Clinton didn't really fight it, because people didn't really care that much. In contrast, Kerry stated he will make it a top priority, along with preventing the spread of WMDs.
The ideas may be "pre-9/11" ideas, but that is becuase Bush has ruled ever since 9/11, and has used his simplistic policies ever since. To equate a sensitive war on terror with no war whatsoever is not reasonable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Clinton didn't really fight it, because people didn't really care that much.
Wow. And I thought OSC was harsh on the Clintons.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
It's not harsh. It's true. Neither did Bush I or Bush II before 9/11.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
So your argument is basically, "He's going to fight terrorism the old way really, really well?"
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No, my argument is he's going to fight the war on terrorism in a new way, rather than in the simplistic, blunt fashion Bush has or not at all as Clinton did. And it's not my argument - it's simply what the man says.
The old way to fight terrorism was to conduct no war on it at all. Kerry has never proposed this.
[ September 30, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
So your arguement is that the old ways were never really tried.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No. As I said, the old way to fight terrorism was to conduct no war on it at all. Kerry has never proposed this.
<Points to previous post>
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Then to qualify--your argument is that the old philosphies, the old ideas of how a war on terror should be fought, were never really tried.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
No. The old philosophy on how to fight terrorism was to conduct no war on it at all. Kerry has, again, never proposed this.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote: In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)