A clear choice.

[Mystic]

When it comes to fighting terrorism I think we now have a clear choice between John Kerry and President Bush.

The only things I have heard from the Kerry camp (Kerry himself and his spokespeople) is that they will try to defend the USA against terror attacks here in this country and react to terrorism attacks, and that they will seek close cooperation with our European allies and the UN. There is no mention of going after terrorists and terrorist organizations or military operations overseas.

So I have to assume that Kerry if elected will support homeland security, consult with European allies like France, Germany, etc., before taking any actions, and make stern speeches at the UN.

In the case of President Bush we know that he has decided to go after the terrorists where they live, go after their bases and countries that support the terrorists, work with allies, try to defend the USA, and present the viewpoints of the USA at the UN.

I think that there are clear differences in policy indicated which will allow people to make decisions about Kerry and Bush during the next election.

 

[buster]

I'll wait for the debates and more info. to come around. If Kerry is that much of a dove/liberal, then I'd feel a bit better with Bush. However, I think Kerry is the more "conservative" one here. You could say Bush is doing the right thing, but only time will tell. Bush could be on a reckless rampage for all we know and stirring the pot even more creating hate around the arab world that makes us even more unsafe now. One thing I heard today and I dont know if its true is that Kerry wasn't against Iraq, but wanted to exhaust all options and keep the pressure and U.N. going with their searches. I don't think that was such a bad idea honestly.

 

[Gary Allan]

No two ways about it ..a Dem will be far more passive in dealing with this issue.

..on the otherhand...

Do you want a never ending campain of our young men and women going into foreign lands and getting killed ...in spite of us killing tens of thousands in the battles? When you or your children are dead ..it's 100% for you. Terrorism will never go away as long as there are people with nothing to lose.

Not that I intend to vote for the Dems ..but don't think that you aren't going to pay for having the Rubs in there. To think that some other "ancillary" riders aren't attached to our "quest to rid the world of terrorism" ..would be naive.

Suppose less overt measures would be just as effective ..yet don't attain as much "gain" in our current adminstration's agenda? Would you support the loss of American lives if it boiled down to some lucritive oil contracts ..or was some stategic "leveraging" to shut out a future competitor? Would you want to reinforce the myth that the USA just does what it wants and has the muscle to back it up ..regardless of if it is "right"?

Just throwing in another point to ponder.... Don't think I didn't want to crush every "Crazy Camel Jockey" into the sand when terrorism reached our shores.

 

[Mystic]

I would not support American forces fighting in other countries if the real reason was just to obtain oil resources or something like that. Actually, we badly need to find a way to rid ourselves of our oil addiction.

But I don't think we can just try to defend the USA here in this country. That does nothing to rid the world of lethal terrorist organizations like al Qaeda who will continue to attack us if given the chance, and if we show the least bit of weakness.

The only way to rid the world of these organizations is military action overseas. However, in addition to military action there needs to be great change in the Middle East. There are many corrupt governments there, some supported by this country (such as Saudi Arabia).

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Gary, there must be something wrong with me as I understand each of the points you make in just about every one of your posts. Either my reading has improved or you write so as one may comprehend.

I was going to point out to another poster that the ability to debate means being be able to understand and defend either side of an argument. I don't think he could understand that concept so I'll just post it here. I think if he read your posts he might just get it.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

The only way to rid the world of these organizations is military action overseas.

---

I agree that the military will be needed for some of this "clean up".

quote:

---

There are many corrupt governments there, some supported by this country (such as Saudi Arabia).

---

It's cheaper since they're friendly. Normally, if needed, we would topple them and establish some trade/economic foundation in the country and install a democratic government. In these cases ..the fear is an Islamic revolt ..which would mean total chaos for the entire world. So ..just like the banana republics ..we find it easier to support those who serve the oil barons much like those who serve the sugar and banana barons.

quote:

---

However, in addition to military action there needs to be great change in the Middle East.

---

As you will note above ..this isn't easy. So far I think Israel has actually taken the focus of most of the region's displaced anxiety. Arabs hate Israel ..even if they don't have anything to do with "their despair". Much like in the height of the cold war none of us cared how much we spent on defense...we had a common enemy to unite us.

Our typical models for stabilization don't apply to the middle east. The resident population doesn't conform typical labor pools. They also are quite migratory. There is also much illiteracy. It's not like post WWII Japan, Germany ..or later Korea. Many of those in the middle east (not all of them) haven't changed their basic way of life much from a thousand years ago. In Iran you have the span of time "in place" that allows the thought of a nuclear program ..yet victims of an earthquake die because they live in earthen structures. They are like a vapor or a liquid entering a flow ...some of it gets sucked into a high velocity vortex ...and the rest lingers at rest. This is typical of much of that region. A core of advanced elite ..and a cascading falloff of resources as you leave the core.

It really presents very new challenges for us ..but unless we have the will to take a shovel to the entire region (and that wouldn't truly solve our problem(s)) something has to be done to bridge the great divide between our cultures.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Gary, there must be something wrong with me as I understand each of the points you make in just about every one of your posts. Either my reading has improved or you write so as one may comprehend.

---

Well, first I'll thank you for your kind words.

quote:

---

I was going to point out to another poster that the ability to debate means being be able to understand and defend either side of an argument.

---

Although I truly want to view an issue in "totality" (both the pros and the cons) ..the first rule of winning a debate is to take the wind out of your opponents sails by pre-emptively granting concession to given facts. They've got nothing to "attack" with if you've already exploded their bomb.

It's very easy to neutralize someone who confronts you with "one dimensional" debates. They just don't have the ammo to deal with your apparent fairness.

I took the example from Socrates. He told the hierarchy, "You're all a$$holes" ..they said, "But you're a hen pecked husband!" ..He thought and then said, "Yes, you're right...but that doesn't alter the fact that you're still a$$holes". He granted concession where it was undeniable and managed to assert his view.

My main goal in these off topic discusssions (this one in particular) is for all of us to see the "flip side of the coin". For us all to employ a little critical thinking and not just follow the mob to the next execution. There has never been a front without a back ..a left without a right ..a top without a bottom ...nor a "good" without a "bad". It's easy to get caught up in hype and abandon you higher thought processes.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

That does nothing to rid the world of lethal terrorist organizations like al Qaeda who will continue to attack us if given the chance, and if we show the least bit of weakness.

---

The way you eliminate organizations like al-Qaeda is to eliminate the conditions that allow them to exist. The majority of the modern world is at peace ONLY because we GAVE them security, economy, education ..in short ..something to lose. It is far more difficult to amass an army with the will to fight ..if you have nothing to fight about.

al-Qaeda is about POWER ...and those who want it but can't earn it to be at par with the modern world. They have a majority of Muslims that are living in poverty and despair ...yet "Muslims" control the life blood that fuels the modern world that produces so much bounty that these fellow Muslims a unable to attain (for many reasons). If you wanted to "rule the world" ..what better audiance to preach to. The Muslim world is already fed a steady diet of a western dominated world ..with a jewish dominated media (or so they feel) ...a UN declared Jewish nation at one of its most holy sites and a superpower that assures that they will remain there and Muslims that suffer because of them (many conditions and restrictions apply here -both mitigating and aggravating). They also have an ideology that is not serving them as they see the world being served .. without it. Since their beliefs can not be flawed ..then the infidels must be diverting their share of prosparity and stealing it from them.

Not only the ignorant and poor hear and believe this evangel ..the learned and those of means see it this way as well (some anyway). This is some maladaptive form of patriotism to those who follow these evil beings.

In short ..we've got to eliminate despair and replace it with a better life ..a future. Then who will listen to "the plight of our oppressed and subjugated peoples". This is not going to be simple or easy.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Gary, as you've stated in a previous post, there are those who profit from instability.

Not only is that true, but there are some who want no peace at any cost. It's hard to remove the despair when there are leaders who wish the despair to remain, leaders whose only goal is complete and final annihilation. It's hard to reason with someone who does not want to reason.

The mid-east monarchs are propped up by the west, but, at this point, they are not outwardly asking for our destruction. They are far from perfect, but perhaps they can be swayed sometime in the future. Of course, this will be after the wells have run dry.

 

[JohnnyO]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
The majority of the modern world is at peace ONLY because we GAVE them security, economy, education ..in short ..something to lose. It is far more difficult to amass an army with the will to fight ..if you have nothing to fight about.

---

I read a study about a year ago where it was determined that nations with McDonald's were much more peaceful and less likely to go to war either internally or externally than nations without any McDonald's. Think about it.

 

[Tim]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyO:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
The majority of the modern world is at peace ONLY because we GAVE them security, economy, education ..in short ..something to lose. It is far more difficult to amass an army with the will to fight ..if you have nothing to fight about.

---

I read a study about a year ago where it was determined that nations with McDonald's were much more peaceful and less likely to go to war either internally or externally than nations without any McDonald's. Think about it.

---

The ultimate answer - A Wal-Mart Super Center with a McDonald's inside

We should be tireless in our work to spread peace and goodwill. We also must recognize that there will always be those among us who will greet us with a kiss as they stab us in the back. The difficult part is not growing weary in doing well....not becoming a skeptic and not counting success so much by results, as by just doing right.


Tim