Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

loganmule · 10-16-2004, 02:38 PM

I just watched the Crossfire segment, from the Fark link, and have enjoyed reading the spirited debate about Stewart's appearance in particular, and his idealogy in general. I think the guy is funny myself, though others here obviously do not. As for the point he was trying to make on Crossfire, I think it was pretty simple. Shows like that simply reiterate the talking points of the respective sides, as opposed to debating the MERITS of each of the various issues taken on either side, and Stewart's point was that this isn't only disingenuous, it's a waste of time. Take Iraq, for example. After 9-11, Bush or any other person in his position (Kerry admittedly included) could not have risked ignoring multiple intelligence sources unanimously indicating that Saddam had WMD's. Better to attack that threat abroad rather than to defend it here. As for a coalition, the U.N., France, Germany and Russia were too invested in Saddam and the food for oil scam, among other things, to join with the U.S., whether it had been Bush, Kerry, or even John Stewart doing the asking. Perhaps Bush could have somehow communicated to Saddam that he really would take the U.S. to war against him, but I doubt it, since there had been nothing but empty threats over the preceding decade. It isn't fair to attack Bush based on the benefit of hindsight...he had every right to rely on the intelligence and his advisors. On the other hand, there wasn't a workable plan "to win the peace", to use Kerry's words. I fault Bush for that but not a lot, because any plan for peace would be problematic...I certainly haven't heard anything from Kerry that truly suggests he'd have done any better. Kerry has a plan for everything, but these "plans" are painted in very large strokes. The simple fact is that after removing Saddam, there would have been no workable way of instituting a democratic regime sufficiently strong to avoid a power vacuum and civil war, while at the same time getting out of the country quickly enough to be seen as liberators and not occupiers.

I think Stewart's point (or mine anyway) is that we need for each side to be examined on the underlying assumptions and the accuracy of them. It would be beating a dead horse now, but I'd still like to hear Kerry try to explain, in specific terms, how he could have "won the peace" under the specific circumstances which we were presented with. Any debater worth his or her salt could take Bush or Kerry to task on the issue, and make it clear (whether either of them would admit it or not) that the decision to go to war instead of ignoring the WMD threat was justifiable and that the war could be "won", in the sense that Saddam would be removed, but that the aftermath would inevitably result some variation of the cluster fuck we're currently to try to resolve. I would like to see similar examination and debate on the primary issues, including jobs, immigration, homeland security, equal rights, etc.

10-16-2004, 02:38 PM	#67 (permalink)
loganmule Junkie Location: midwest	I just watched the Crossfire segment, from the Fark link, and have enjoyed reading the spirited debate about Stewart's appearance in particular, and his idealogy in general. I think the guy is funny myself, though others here obviously do not. As for the point he was trying to make on Crossfire, I think it was pretty simple. Shows like that simply reiterate the talking points of the respective sides, as opposed to debating the MERITS of each of the various issues taken on either side, and Stewart's point was that this isn't only disingenuous, it's a waste of time. Take Iraq, for example. After 9-11, Bush or any other person in his position (Kerry admittedly included) could not have risked ignoring multiple intelligence sources unanimously indicating that Saddam had WMD's. Better to attack that threat abroad rather than to defend it here. As for a coalition, the U.N., France, Germany and Russia were too invested in Saddam and the food for oil scam, among other things, to join with the U.S., whether it had been Bush, Kerry, or even John Stewart doing the asking. Perhaps Bush could have somehow communicated to Saddam that he really would take the U.S. to war against him, but I doubt it, since there had been nothing but empty threats over the preceding decade. It isn't fair to attack Bush based on the benefit of hindsight...he had every right to rely on the intelligence and his advisors. On the other hand, there wasn't a workable plan "to win the peace", to use Kerry's words. I fault Bush for that but not a lot, because any plan for peace would be problematic...I certainly haven't heard anything from Kerry that truly suggests he'd have done any better. Kerry has a plan for everything, but these "plans" are painted in very large strokes. The simple fact is that after removing Saddam, there would have been no workable way of instituting a democratic regime sufficiently strong to avoid a power vacuum and civil war, while at the same time getting out of the country quickly enough to be seen as liberators and not occupiers. I think Stewart's point (or mine anyway) is that we need for each side to be examined on the underlying assumptions and the accuracy of them. It would be beating a dead horse now, but I'd still like to hear Kerry try to explain, in specific terms, how he could have "won the peace" under the specific circumstances which we were presented with. Any debater worth his or her salt could take Bush or Kerry to task on the issue, and make it clear (whether either of them would admit it or not) that the decision to go to war instead of ignoring the WMD threat was justifiable and that the war could be "won", in the sense that Saddam would be removed, but that the aftermath would inevitably result some variation of the cluster fuck we're currently to try to resolve. I would like to see similar examination and debate on the primary issues, including jobs, immigration, homeland security, equal rights, etc.