Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The first presidential debate: foreign policy

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The first presidential debate: foreign policy
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kerry's taken foreign policy hits the last few days.

1) Kerry's sister, who is in charge of his campaign among americans abroad, told Australia that they are less safe because of being on the side of the US in Iraq.

Australia's election in on October 9. The opposition candidate has pledged to withdraw Australia as swiftly as possible if he wins.

Kerry says he wants to broaden the coalition and make it stronger. At the same time an official from his campaign is trying to sabotage the election of an ally and get them to withdraw from the coalition.

Win or lose in Australia, "join with the US and you will become less safe" isn't the right message to be sending if you are wanting countries to ally with us.

2) France and Germany both said flat out that Kerry getting elected would make no difference: they'd still be completely against sending troops to Iraq.

3) Kerry bad-mouthed Allawi, chief executive of Iraq, during his recent visit to the US and pretty much accused him of lying about the situation there. Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart said, "You can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips." Is that the correct way to speak of the head of state of one of our allies?


And of course there's all the old issues such as Kerry calling our allies the Coalition of the Coerced and Bribed.


If these issues come up in the debate as I expect them to, do you think Kerry can be credible in his claim that he can build a wider coalition?

Most of what he's doing seems designed to alienate our current allies and doesn't seem effective in bringing in the countries who aren't our current allies.

[ September 27, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: ATW ]

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How can Allawi be a "head of state" if he can't even, among other things, release prisoners held within his country?
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if the founding fathers hadn't included pardoning prisoners among the list of the president's powers, he couldn't be considered the head of state?

Get real. Most parlimentary systems don't let their head of state have pardoning powers like the US president has.

In any case, even if Allawi were only the highest official in his government rather than a head of state, does that mean Kerry and his people have free reign to say such things about him? Should we expect Kerry to similarly publically slam high governmental officials of our allies in the future?

How to win friends and influence people: watch how Kerry treats our allies then behave differently.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
towellman
Member
Member # 1462

 - posted      Profile for towellman   Email towellman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you say...Transitional Government?.

Give the guy a break and show some respect for a guy that signed up for a job that he is likely to get asassinated for doing well. Being a patriot means doing what you believe is best for your country. The Kerry camp whinge constantly about how "we're patriots too" but when they see a true patriot like Allawi they mock him and his office.

Honestly are any of you democrats proud of the "You can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips" line?

I find it embarassing that any American in a significant position would say that. Talk about low-class near-sightedness. If Kerry wants to have a chance he needs to drop the "what's bad for America is good for ME!!!" approach to the economy, Iraq, etc.

Posts: 220 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope Bush takes a hard stance on Kerry's flip flops in the actual debate. And really bad mouthing Allawai what the hell was Kerry thinking? He should also hammer on the fact that the coalition of the willing is NOT the coalition of the bribed and the coereced.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kerry should definetely hammer on Bush's flip-flops as well, also, the disaster that is Iraq which is not getting better. Needs to remind everyone that this is a candidate who likes seeing dead bodies ala "bring it on," and that, under Bush, we're the least popular we've ever been outside our borders.

If you want to talk foreign policy, Bush is a KNOWN disaster.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most Americans would disagree. They trust Bush to fight the war on terror better then they trust Kerry.

Anyway "bring it on" is a loser issue because Kerry has said it about a 100 times, I bet no one even remembers Bush saying it. Kerry should focus domestic issues, anything he says about Iraq is going to be another flip flop. I'd say "Its the economy stupid" might play well. The liberal media has managed to paint the economy as being gloom and doom, many people will still believe it.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev,

"the disaster that is Iraq which is not getting better."

Please go to this thread and read the linked article.

As for "who likes seeing dead bodies ala 'bring it on',"

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Snowden
Member
Member # 407

 - posted      Profile for Snowden   Email Snowden   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This debate is won or lost by the person who speaks to who we are as a state among the world. That's it. Kerry can score a few points on Bush's screw-ups, but in the end, the candidates are going to have draw distinctions between themselves, and put forth not a specific plan, but a compelling approach to foreign policy.

[ September 27, 2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]

Posts: 971 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma-
I've read that, and I've read the other "good news" and Iraq is going to be a disaster for a long time.

As far as the spin in terms of liking dead bodies... the bring it on comment is possibly the worst comment made by an american politician of my lifetime. Kerry needs to hammmer on the point that Bush is too aggressive to protect american troops. My spin was over the top, but then, using one liners to attack a politician is junk politics anyways, and thats what was advocated at the top of this thread.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anonymous24
Member
Member # 1468

 - posted      Profile for Anonymous24   Email Anonymous24   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those who think Iraq is getting better, I have one thing to say: wait till the Iraqi elections. We'll all see then, both those who support Bush and those who don't, what the future of Iraq is going to look like.

[ September 27, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Anonymous24 ]

Posts: 1226 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And if despite attacks that kill hundreds of people, Iraqis still turn out to vote all over the country, will we respect the courage they are showing, and the depth of their desire for and commitment to having a peaceful, democratic government of their own? Will we be willing to credit President Bush's theory that freedom is the ultimate solution in the war on terror?

The war that terrorists fight is not a military war, it is a psychological war. If they are defeated in the minds of the people, which they will be if the election takes place, then they will have lost their war.

[ September 28, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They may have lost the battle, but not the war. They won't give up that easily.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For those who think Iraq is getting better, I have one thing to say: wait till the Iraqi elections.
I agree. I like their old system of voting better, because it was so much easier to choose.

-- Saddam
-- Torture me, my brothers, my father, my cousins, my uncles and never be seen again.

Yep, this really is going to be a terrible terrible election, they had it better under Saddam.

Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Will we be willing to credit President Bush's theory that freedom is the ultimate solution in the war on terror?"

Really? Wow. And here I was thinking that that was everyone's solution to terrorism (or rather, every Americans).

I always thought the disagreement was over how to achieve that freedom.

Oh, wait, that's right.

It is.

Of course (being more serious now), what happens if the Iraqi's use that freedom to elect leaders who impose an Islamic fundamentalist state?

Hrm...

"Yep, this really is going to be a terrible terrible election, they had it better under Saddam."

Of course, no one has said they had it better under Saddam. The majority of people against the Iraqi war (like, for example, me) wholeheartedly agree that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing.

Furthermore, from where Iraq is supposed to be getting better could be anything (sorry, that was a pretty bad sentence just now *_*). It could be getting better TO something. In this case, "getting better" usually denotes "from all previous terrorist and insurgent difficulties" and to "a stable democratic state".

Of course, there's always another problem. Going to an Iraqi fundamentalist state that's just as bad as Saddams. And such a state could be elected into power. Because, you know, just elections alone doesn't make a democracy.

But hey, who cares about arguing RELEVANT details when both sides can just shoot down nonexistent (or nonmajority*) arguments?

Heaven forbid we actually have to (*gasp*) think through things...

*Yes, yes, yes, we all know that a few liberals and persons on the left have argued that Saddam was better. Has anyone here argued that? Do we determine an entire side's beliefs based on one or a few extremists?

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson
(Getting thoroughly sick and tired of stupid one-liners, loaded questions, and idiotic straw-man or subtle straw-man attacks from both sides)

Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But hey, who cares about arguing RELEVANT details when both sides can just shoot down nonexistent (or nonmajority*) arguments?

Heaven forbid we actually have to (*gasp*) think through things...

*Yes, yes, yes, we all know that a few liberals and persons on the left have argued that Saddam was better. Has anyone here argued that? Do we determine an entire side's beliefs based on one or a few extremists?

Indeed. I was out of line, im sorry. I just think that everyone is ignoring how bad it really was, and how much better it is now in comparision. Just because people are having trouble with democracy (as if democracy was ever easy) is not a valid point for me to point to failure in Iraq, especially since it has had so little time to develop.
Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tez, don't be so quick to apologize. People who argue that we should not have gone into Iraq (which today includes John Kerry, since he now says that if he were president we wouldn't be in Iraq, but that may change by Thursday) must be prepared to explain why it would have been preferable to leave Saddam in power. Opponents of the war can't waive the issue away by saying they "wholeheartedly agree that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing." If their view had prevailed, that good thing would not have happened.
Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was only apologizing for my sarcastic attitude. I still think they need to prove why the current situation is worse than before, as I pointed out in my previous post.
Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Just because people are having trouble with democracy (as if democracy was ever easy) is not a valid point for me to point to failure in Iraq, especially since it has had so little time to develop."

True enough in that democracy isn't easy. It took us 10 years to get it right (well, to get to work in some fashion ^_~).

However, the problem isn't really with democracy not taking hold, but with the inability to maintain some order in major portions of the country (esp. now, with problems in Baghdad looming) and the way in which the administration is trying to get democracy to take hold (appointing represenatives and whatnot). The first part is very bad; even if, say, 60-70% of the country is going relatively good and fine, there's still that 30% (these are arbitrary statistics, to give a more complete picture of what I'm saying here) that's a BIG problem.

All total, perhaps the most angering thing about this is that the problems could (and should) have been forseen and prevented by the administration, but weren't.

It seems to me that most of the people arguing that the Iraqi conflict is going poorly aren't doing so because they expect democracy to just *poof* into existence, but because no matter how good parts of the country are, other, more important parts (for the formation of a government) are becomming increasing problematic (to put it lightly).

To them, saying that everyone is "better off" than they were in Saddam may be true, but is entirely irrelevant. It's like saying "Hey, this guy's better off than before because now we've given him HALF a leg, whereas before he had none!" The Iraqi government isn't going to be able to function if A) It's military won't fight the insurgents, and B) It's major urban centers (and very, very soon it's capitol) are in chaos.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"People who argue that we should not have gone into Iraq (which today includes John Kerry, since he now says that if he were president we wouldn't be in Iraq, but that may change by Thursday) must be prepared to explain why it would have been preferable to leave Saddam in power. Opponents of the war can't waive the issue away by saying they "wholeheartedly agree that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing." If their view had prevailed, that good thing would not have happened."

1. We're not waving the issue away (okay, well, some of us are). We're being honest. Getting rid of Saddam is, in the end, better for the Iraqi people. I'm personally not going to deny that.

2. Yes, if our view had prevailed, that good thing wouldn't have happened. But would something better occur? Might we have been more effectively able to pursue the War on Terror, and defend our country, by not deploying troops to Iraq? Could we have used our near-Universal international support from 9/11 and Afganistan to build a strong coalition of people who actively contribute to fighting terror?

In the short term, getting rid of Saddam is a good thing for Iraq. Unless an intolerant fundamentalist state sets up power there. Then it's kindof a "equal" thing. It was good we did it, but we screwed up, and something just as bad replaced it.

In the long term, getting more international support on an international problem (terrorism) and then, with that international support, attacking terrorism however it is best (which might include invading rogue states and terrorist-harboring countries) will lesson the strain on the American taxpayer, and create an actually strong front against the terrorists. Not a front where they can scare countries into abadoning the war; those country's governments have to deal with negative opinions of the US due to the Iraqi war, and that combined with the threat of terrorism is a strong motivation for leaving. But if a country's populace supports the War on Terror, and is with the US (due to no Iraq mess), terrorists are going to face a much tougher opponent.

In summation, yes, getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, in that it helped the Iraqi people. However, it damaged our ability to create a strong international front against terror not only among the governments but among THEIR PEOPLE (who, after all, the governments are ultimately responsible too). In that sense, it's a bad thing, because it hurt our long-term goal of fighting terrorism (something that desperately needs to be done).

Believe it or not, an act or event can be both good and bad, depending on what you need or want. And while we're all happy the Iraqi people have, for the most part, freedom, we're not happy that the War on Terror has been screwed over. A War that, in the long run, could (not would, but could) have saved far more lives and brought much more freedom to many more people.

While I really hate to take such an approach (I hate the way it tends to dehumanize individual people), I think it's the best approach to take.

And as such, I both am happy that the Iraqi people are free, and sad and angry that it screwed up what I viewed to be an excellent opportunity to fight against something truely depraved. And in the long run, which is a view I believe we must take, leaving Sadam in power may very have been the wiser choice. A necessary evil, if you must.

Of course (providing I live long enough) if it turns out that removing Sadam helped our War on Terror, I'll gladly eat my words ^_~

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Van Aaron
Member
Member # 98

 - posted      Profile for Van Aaron   Email Van Aaron   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David, while I don't agree with you, I think the reasoning in your last post is logical and defensible. What I object to is opponents of the war who want to say that the argument has nothing to do with whether Saddam should still be in power, as if somehow he would no longer be in power even if we hadn't gone to war.
Posts: 997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regardless of the view about how the war was handled, I think Iraq would have to go MUCH more smoothly than it is for Bush to consider it his advantage. I don't think Americans are very patient with war, and certainly not with rebuilding in an area where people just don't like us. There is a lot of evidence that Iraq isn't going smoothly, and if Kerry keys on this during the debates I think it will resonate with people. Keep in mind that this has very little to do with being RIGHT. It has to do with saying what people want to hear. He only has to do a better job than Bush if he gets elected and wants to run for another term. For now, he only has to convince people that his PLAN, an organized set of ideas, or abstract concepts, is better than the one Bush has put into place. If Bush did a GREAT job this would not be possible. As it is, mistakes have been made, (some admitted by the administration, some not) so the door is open for a challenge on foreign policy.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David, perhaps you forget that it was when Saddam's regime was overthrown, and the world saw the most decisive ground invasion in history accomplished by a mere two divisions of U.S. troops, that Moamar Khadaffy of Libya publically renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and invited international inspectors to verify his dismantling of his WMD programs. This is also when Iran started making more conciliatory noises about allowing inspections of its nuclear program. Since then, as an insurgency in Iraq at least partly fostered by Iran has kept up its series of nuisance attacks, and liberals in the U.S. led by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have started talking about Iraq being a "quagmire" we should never have gotten involved with in the first place, Iran has become emboldened and defiant again.

None of these things are coincidences.

As was the case in Vietnam when we fought communist tyrants trying to take over South Vietnam by force, so also now when we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, the strongest allies our enemies have are the "useful idiots" (as they were referred to by the communists) of the American left, both in politics and in the media.

The same people who gave away the South Vietnamese to communist dictatorship after the communists had been driven out and forced to sign a peace treaty, now want to give away the people of Iraq to terrorists and ethnic insurgents and militias encouraged by Iran, after the war against the old regime has been won and a new democratic government has been established in Iraq that is struggling to survive.

[ September 28, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"David, perhaps you forget that it was when Saddam's regime was overthrown, and the world saw the most decisive ground invasion in history accomplished by a mere two divisions of U.S. troops..."

And that says wonders about our military prowess (or the lack of it on Saddam's part). But terrorism can't be fought by just marching troops in everywhere. You're just as liable to fight with common people as you are with terrorists, that way.

Impressive that they pulled such a thing off? Yes. Particularly relevant to this discussion? No.

"that Moamar Khadaffy of Libya publically renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and invited international inspectors to verify his dismantling of his WMD programs."

Was this after Afganistan, or Iraq? I only ask because I remember this happening, but not when.

If it's after Iraq, okay, I'd concede that that was *probably* another benefit of the invasion. Has he kept up with this promise?

"his is also when Iran started making more conciliatory noises about allowing inspections of its nuclear program."

Making more noises, and...

"Since then, as an insurgency in Iraq at least partly fostered by Iran has kept up its series of nuisance attacks, and liberals in the U.S. led by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have started talking about Iraq being a "quagmire" we should never have gotten involved with in the first place, Iran has become emboldened and defiant again."

So, while Iran has been making noises about allowing inspectors in...they've been funding Iraqi insurgence? No offense, Ron, but that's hardly a good point about Iraq ^_~ And those "nuisance attacks" are occuring, among other places, in Baghdad.

The capitol.

Now, I'm no military expert, but it seems that if you want to declare your work successful, you ought to have at least secured the enemy capitol. Especially if you want said enemy to become friends, and enjoy their lives, and liberate them.

Of course, Baghdad isn't the only place where insurgents are operating (as well as common citizens), but nonetheless, it's an important point. Perhaps Iraq isn't a quagmire, yet. But it could become one, very easily, and very quickly, if we don't work to fix it soon.

"As was the case in Vietnam when we fought communist tyrants trying to take over South Vietnam by force, so also now when we are fighting terrorists in Iraq, the strongest allies our enemies have are the "useful idiots" (as they were referred to by the communists) of the American left, both in politics and in the media."

So, people who voice opposition to an action the government wants to take are a problem? So, we should stop them, or scold them for doing so, yes?

Well, no, not really. We're a democracy (or, a democractic republic, if you must ^_~). We're supposed to LIKE opposition. It keeps us alert, on our toes, and forces us to consider our decisions more heavily. The communists/terrorists/whoever can call the left "useful idiots" all they want.

But to us democracies, they ARE useful. And it's one of the biggest flaws of terrorists/communists/whoever that they don't realize the usefulness of opposition.

Peaceful opposition, of course.

It always strikes me as odd that extremely pro-War persons almost always blame those who are "pro-Peace", or even those who simply question, when those who simply question are the ones who have helped this nation progress (and even founded it, mind you), and are so very essential to a working democracy.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps these "peacemongers" methods will hurt us. Personally, I think we should stick it out in Iraq as long as we're needed. We started something, now we have to finish it, or we WILL hurt our efforts in the War on Terror.

So maybe you're right.

But you know what? I don't think it really matters. Let the enemy think the questioners and "Leftists" are aiding them. We know differently; we know that it's the very fact that we have people who openly question our motives and desires that makes us great.

Forgive my preachiness there ^_~

One other point:

"What I object to is opponents of the war who want to say that the argument has nothing to do with whether Saddam should still be in power, as if somehow he would no longer be in power even if we hadn't gone to war."

Agreed. It is kindof silly to think that he would have simply gone away anytime soon, or that if he had, someone else would have taken his spot.

Again, I don't like taking the long view, because it IS a good thing that the Iraqi people have a chance at freedom, but we also have to consider the War on Terror, and at least seriously subduing the threat of terrorism.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Sidenote: Obviously, there are somethings that a "leftist" could do--as well as a "rightist", "warmonger", "peacemonger" or any other American--that are genuinely treasonous and warrant trial. But speaking out peacefully in protest isn't one of them.

Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
imkokk? aupton? most Americans of voting age remember no war before Viet Nam...first hand. Every war is a long mess to clean up...years.

President Bush accepted the long hard road to liberty for Iraquis...BEFORE HE MADE THE DECISION TO GO IN.

See, he understood there are no magic 2 hour movies with a happy ending in the real world.
He beleived Iraq was a very important part of the war on terrorists...and he still does.

So we switch horses in mid stream now? Some people just hate Bush and everything he represents...because my goodness...if he is speaking the truth...and making decisions to the best of his ability...then these haters have to be deeply ashamed and defensive. They have to be. read the posts. it is so obvious.

They want a leader to lead them in retreat from our world wide responsibilities...then they can play pretend they feel good about themselves again.
Bean

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ken, if you truly believe that people want to vote for Kerry because "[t]ey want a leader to lead them in retreat from our world wide responsibilities," then you need to read the posts more carefully.

I am under the impression that people want to vote for Kerry because they believe he will be a better leader to face our world wide responsibilities.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Wayward Son:

I am under the impression that people want to vote for Kerry because they believe he will be a better leader to face our world wide responsibilities.

In what way?
Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KenBean
Member
Member # 603

 - posted      Profile for KenBean   Email KenBean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know wayward, I know.
many do want to be lead in the retreat though. Sadly they do.
The only people I take time to speak to are the ones who have been mislead thinking Kerry has any plan other than retreat.
It is his whole adult history. He will have the coolest most reasonable escape from the hard things...
Like wee willy and jimmy before him...he will just want to talk...and waffle...and piddle.
...But now 9-11 has happened. We can't doze any longer.
We can't afford a Presidency based on the whimsical fads and daily fickle opinion polls, at least in my opinion.
(added in edit 2 minutes later)
I studied Family Counseling (applied Psycology)
I really do have a solid understanding of the fibs moral cowards tell themselves.
Best regards
Bean

[ September 28, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: KenBean ]

Posts: 1539 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I studied Family Counseling (applied Psycology)
I really do have a solid understanding of the fibs moral cowards tell themselves."

I'm not sure if I want clarification or not...I may just be very deeply offended for a moment and then move on.

As far as your previous post, I think your portrayal of Bush's position may be exactly right. He may have decided that war was necessary, even as he knew it would take time. But the question, as I pointed out before, is not of rightness but of appeal. Long drawn out wars do not appeal to people. And in this generation, a long drawn out war is one that lasts more than 6 months. I'm not calling it fair, I'm calling it as I see it. If people perceived the war in Iraq as running more smoothly, I don't think Kerry would get a word in with voters. But since the perception (and at least a bit of the reality) is that there are issues in Iraq that have been mishandled due to "miscalculations" by this administration, Kerry is getting an audience. I'm not writing all this because I think it's the way it should be...I just think that's the way it is. Feel free to give a different perspective if you think this is off somehow.

(After all this, I'm still a little curious about the problems you have with applied psychology...but it might require another thread.)

Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1