Quote:
|
Now, I observe the response to an OP on this thread that offers no information, yet it prompts discussion. I've wondered what it will take to get it through my head that the "theme" on this forum seems much more aligned to the theme of the entire site. The priority seems to be to promote and engage in "chit chat". "Informed" and "discussion" don't seem to require any linkage, and this thread is a "poster child" as an example of why I don't feel like I fit in here, and maybe an indicator of why the country is led by such mediocre and abysmal folks.
|
First of all, perhaps the reason why this thread is a little more successful than your own is because I'm looking specifically for open discourse and would, at least, keep my thoughts on it specifically out for the moment. Regardless, I think it's a wonderful sign that just a short thought could spark so much debate.
Regarding the actual content of the thread, I think we see two sides pretty clearly: work with the world to achieve our goals or do so with strong military efforts.
I think that the seeming point of the war -- at least among those who wanted to go in the first place -- was to bring less death, less fear, and eliminate a specific threat. As we're all aware, terrorism is not a 'specific threat' (it's a methodology, an intelligent poster pointed out, rather than a clearly-delineated national body). Because of that, we've spent billions for troops, munitions, and equipment without an exit strategy.
What can Bush's administration do, I think? Not necessary to pull out of Iraq (although I'd prefer it to free up money for things like, I don't know, *education*) but most definitely necessary to get to Clinton-year diplomatic relation quality levels. Follow the money and stop it at the source.
Very broad, I know, so let's keep working on this (I kind of laughed a little, because it sounds as if this is our job). In any case, thanks for your comments