Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Sorry Stompy...but come on man! this is Tilted Politics, why so sensitive?
|
Not sensitive, it's just that I don't understand how someone would come to the conclusion that you came to (unless you were being sarcastic, but I don't think you were).
Almost everyone who responds in that manner doesn't ever really improve beyond that in later posts.
Quote:
|
What aren't? Reasons for what?
|
The reasons 1, 1a, and 1b you gave above.
Quote:
|
The thing is, nobody knows what he's going to do. What do *you* think he's going to do? There's nobody else for Kerry to reach out to, that's going to send troops into Iraq. Everybody already said no. What will Kerry do differently?
|
I believe Kerry has established that we need to pay attention to the international community a bit more. That doesn't mean we ask them, "Hey, we got attacked so... you mind if we hit back?" Even though what we did in Iraq was justified because Saddam wasn't fit to be a leader, we went about it the wrong way. There's a process for everything and you can't just pass that up.
That's my opinion, anyway.
Quote:
|
That Bush is tough on terrorists being the sole basis for forming an opinion on Bush? No, it is not the sole basis upon which I form an opinion on Bush. It is part of why I like Bush, and I don't think its a foregone conclusion that just any warm body in the White House would be effective in this capacity. What justification can you give for this statement? Do you deny the existence of an ineffectual president like, say, Jim Carter, who got bullied around by Iran back in the 70's? I think it'd be a mistake to discount individual characteristics and political voting records in choosing a wartime president.
|
The siutation in Iran was a bit different than being in today's culture that surrounds itself in fear of another terrorist attack.
Unfortunately, it happens to be on top of everyone's mind (as opposed to domestic issues), so whoever takes office can't ignore the problem. They won't. I guarantee you if Kerry takes office that he won't just pull out of everything and call it quits only to let things go on as they did pre 9/11.
How do I know? Common sense, I guess.
Quote:
|
Who will do what better? I agree he's made some questionable decisions. I disagree he's made America less safe. I used to think he did, but I don't anymore. Fight Offensively, even when others may turn away, hesitate or give up.
|
What do you mean "who will do what better?" Exactly was was being discussed in the post I replied to: fighting terrorism.
Let's put it this way: America isn't THAT much more safe today than it was 4 years ago. Trust me, if a terrorist wanted to hit us today, they probably could. The thing is, these plans take years to put together. They couldn't do another 9/11 for the fact that things are monitored more closely (like who attends flight school), but while we focus all of our attention towards that, we have left another thing even more open.
I have a hard time believing they can actually monitor every square inch of activity around our borders and inside the cities. There's just no way it can happen.
It's an illusion when Bush claims that America is safer today. The only thing different is there's a war going on in Iraq with even more enemies and an international community that isn't exactly happy with the decisions we've made.
I know people have this thought that, "Well, maybe people just don't understand our need to make this decision. You won't understand now, but in a few years down the road." See, I have a strong feeling that 10-20 years down the road, we'll view this as, "Goddamn, what were we thinking?"
Vietnam's a good example of this. Not comparing the Iraq war to Vietnam or anything, but the feeling is the same. Vietnam was a bad idea back then, and still remains as such to this day. We haven't lived that down. It was a mistake for something we thought was a good idea at the time.
Quote:
|
I point to the obvious, and say, They attacked us. They killed more Americans (all civilians, to boot) in one day since World War 2. In my opinion, there is no excuse imaginable for such an attack. This was a Declaration of War against America. America should not look to psychopathic religious maniacs to tell them how to handle their foreign affairs. Ok. So, it was OK to invade Afghanistan, but not do anything about a dictator hostile to America, a sponsor of terrorism, a potential terrorist supplier of destructive doo-dads. You know the story. Saddam Hussein had the bad fortune of being alive 1.5 years after 9/11 and he paid the price.
|
Yes, but what's going on now is that the current administration has tried VERY hard to convince people that Saddam and Al Qaeda had a link. Believe it or not, most people to this day, despite all the reports stating otherwise, believe that Saddam has something to do w/ 9/11.
To me, I don't have any problems with going to war in Iraq, I have a problem with the way it happened and was handled. The right reasons or not, it was shady of Bush, knowing they didn't have any WMD, to purposely midlead people into supporting an attack on Iraq.
There've been reports that stated Bush intentionally wanted to target Iraq to make them look like they had something to do with it, but.. that's up for debate. I guess no one will know for sure.
They were already being closely monitored and weren't much of a threat.
I'm not saying let others handle our foreign affairs, I'm just saying maybe we should step back for a second and re-assess how exactly we go about doing things.
We have a very aggressive foreign policy. As a country who claims to support freedom and democracy, we should be the role model. I mean, we do things for the right reasons (supposedly), but we do them in the worst way possible, it seems. A lot of countries view us as imperialistic and oppressive.
Quote:
|
Is there anyone out there in America's position, acting as a role model?
|
The countries that do engage in foreign affairs that don't go off and make big names for themselves by going to war. Those that keep to themselves, yet at the same time pay attention to what's going on around them.
Why was Iraq such a threat to US and not someone else in their immediate area like France, Spain, Germany, etc? Why didn't they go to war before us? Surely if these countries thought Saddam was a great threat, they would've acted upon it as well.
We poke our nose into too much. Let's just give a what if here, but what if N. Korea, Iran, or Syria, decided to start some shit and we made the choice to go in and handle it? We'd be overwhelmed. There simply isn't enough money or manpower for us alone to be getting into this stuff when we have more important domestic issues to worry about.
Anyway, my position in this entire thread is ... if a country speaks up about something, it doesn't mean we have to follow through with it, but we should at least take it into consideration instead of the classic, "Who gives a shit what they think?" response... because, like I said, one day it will bite us in the ass.