[aberdeenwriter]

I think we're losing sight of the BIG PICTURE.

For a better understanding of this thread see http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/index.php

(Lots of good reading on this page!)

Then scroll down to Baghdad and Beyond.
Do you think the Bush Administration, which can be characterized as:

-having a significant number of cabinet members and advisors affiliated with neo-conservative think tanks such as (but not limited to) The Project for a New American Century (PNAC)...

-following a plan drawn up by neo-conservatives, first advocated by PNAC in the late 1990's and implemented by the Administration after 9/11, which calls for America to spark a process of creative destruction that will transform the region through a process of regime change, preventive war, and global democratic revolution" first in Iraq, then to Iran, Syria and others...

-advocating greater U.S. support for the Likud government of Ariel Sharon in Israel--all as part of an overall strategy to restructure the Middle East in line with U.S. and Israeli interests...

Has a chance to succeed in making America and the world a safer place to live?

Do you support the idea of the New American Century or do you think it's too risky and might bring about greater problems for America?

If you think the Bush neo-con plan is too risky, do you favor a Kerry presidency which essentially would seek to maintain the geo-political status quo by having America return to a position more in line with our traditional national values?

Will a Kerry victory in Novemeber spell the end of America as we know it?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I think we're losing sight of the BIG PICTURE.

For a better understanding of this thread see http://rightweb.irc-online.org/anal...4/0403anniv.php

Do you think the Bush Administration, which can be characterized as:

-having a significant number of cabinet members and advisors affiliated with neo-conservative think tanks such as (but not limited to) The Project for a New American Century (PNAC)...

-following a plan drawn up by neo-conservatives, first advocated by PNAC in the late 1990's and implemented by the Administration after 9/11, which calls for America to spark a process of creative destruction that will transform the region through a process of regime change, preventive war, and global democratic revolution" first in Iraq, then to Iran, Syria and others...

-advocating greater U.S. support for the Likud government of Ariel Sharon in Israel--all as part of an overall strategy to restructure the Middle East in line with U.S. and Israeli interests...

Has a chance to succeed in making America and the world a safer place to live?

Do you support the idea of the New American Century or do you think it's too risky and might bring about greater problems for America?

If you think the Bush neo-con plan is too risky, do you favor a Kerry presidency which essentially would seek to maintain the geo-political status quo by having America return to a position more in line with our traditional national values?

Will a Kerry victory in Novemeber spell the end of America as we know it?

Maybe on foreign policy, but here it's socialism-lite.
Kerry won't be as bad as people say…but that's still pretty terrible. What traditional national values? A sealed off country? 1820-era Monroe Doctrine?

I don't know. Our biggest threats outside of Al Qaeda are Iran and North Korea. None is too good for Kerry—very weak.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I think we're losing sight of the BIG PICTURE.

For a better understanding of this thread see http://rightweb.irc-online.org/anal...4/0403anniv.php

Do you think the Bush Administration, which can be characterized as:

-having a significant number of cabinet members and advisors affiliated with neo-conservative think tanks such as (but not limited to) The Project for a New American Century (PNAC)...

-following a plan drawn up by neo-conservatives, first advocated by PNAC in the late 1990's and implemented by the Administration after 9/11, which calls for America to spark a process of creative destruction that will transform the region through a process of regime change, preventive war, and global democratic revolution" first in Iraq, then to Iran, Syria and others...

-advocating greater U.S. support for the Likud government of Ariel Sharon in Israel--all as part of an overall strategy to restructure the Middle East in line with U.S. and Israeli interests...

Has a chance to succeed in making America and the world a safer place to live?

Do you support the idea of the New American Century or do you think it's too risky and might bring about greater problems for America?

If you think the Bush neo-con plan is too risky, do you favor a Kerry presidency which essentially would seek to maintain the geo-political status quo by having America return to a position more in line with our traditional national values?

Will a Kerry victory in Novemeber spell the end of America as we know it?

Nah, PNAC could have worked if it had been enforced right after WWII but then there was this matter of the pesky commies in Soviet Russia. Now the idea just wouldn't work. It relies on the US being the only superpower. The US can't afford that position much longer so the wise thing would be to secure what you already have and stop right there. Take what you can and go. Which is basically what the neocons in the Bush administration are trying to do.

Well, good luck anyway - if that's what you want.

[Troll]

I don't profess to know that much about American politics but this thread's topic encapsualates what I think the problem in US politics right now is.

For whatever reason, Americans are becoming more and more conservative and religious. Traditionally the Republicans have represented those values but the Repblicans themselves are becoming more liberal in certain aspects of their thinking under the influence of the neo-cons. So, at a time when Americans are moving right, the Republicans are moving left. And the Democrats don't really know what to do. US foreign policy as espoused by the current batch of Republicans is neo-conservative. It espouses the idea that the US should go out and actively consolidate its power. That foreign policy is particularly vulnerable because the crown jewel in the plan, Iraq, is a bit of a dog.

The Democrats are not able to cast themselves as traditional conservatives though so on domestic issue they're a bit stuck. They won't propose protecting marriage from homosexual attack. They won't propose a greater role for religion in state life. I think that if there was a real conservative with conservative, as opposed to neoconservative foreign policy ideas out there, he'd take this election without any trouble at all. All he'd have to do is expound traditional domestic values, plug the gay danger, push the military and on foreign policy say, "WTF are we doing in Iraq. We should concentrate on America and screw the world." If you had someone like that, basically someone that was a true conservative, I think he'd take it. It's going to be close purely because American politics is in a weird state of flux.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Troll:
I think that if there was a real conservative with conservative, as opposed to neoconservative foreign policy ideas out there, he'd take this election without any trouble at all. All he'd have to do is expound traditional domestic values, plug the gay danger, push the military and on foreign policy say, "WTF are we doing in Iraq. We should concentrate on America and screw the world." If you had someone like that, basically someone that was a true conservative, I think he'd take it. It's going to be close purely because American politics is in a weird state of flux.

u bet

[aberdeenwriter]

Whether the Administration was being disingenuous or not about it's belief that Iraq had and was about to use WMD's, the story below evokes feelings of deja vu. Especially when you know the New American Century plan.

The question then becomes: Is this a real threat and what should we do about it if so?

On the other hand, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea all know they are on the neo-con 'hit list.' Do you think, in light of the reports of NK's possible nuclear test a few days ago, Syria's test of chemical weapons in the Sudan, and now the discovery of the Iranian nuke site, that these countries are gearing up to 'defend' themselves against US attack?

Did the Administration's obvious implementation of the neo-con blueprint actually CAUSE N.K, Syria and Iran to step up their WMD plans?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6256446


U.S. Says New Images Show Iran Plans Nuke Bomb
Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:19 AM ET
By Louis Charbonneau

VIENNA (Reuters) - A senior U.S. official said on Thursday that satellite photographs of a suspected nuclear industrial site in Iran demonstrated its intention to develop atomic weapons, an allegation Tehran dismissed as "a new lie."

[aberdeenwriter]

I just envisioned a scenario of how the election will go...

BUSH WINS!

Why?

The rogue nations (Iran, Syria, N. Korea), have seen the writing on the wall and are gearing up their WMD plans in order to:

-up the ante, making any US attack a costly one...

OR

- seek to deter an attack (the US negotiates with countries with nukes, it attacks countries that don't have nukes)...

But, either way, the Administration will point out the looming danger posed by these new threats (without mentioning the part the neo-con blueprint played in prompting these WMD build ups)

And the country will HAVE to vote for the President.

But, for the most part, the country will be going along with the Administration's plan for the New American Century without any meaningful public debate on the plan.

Brilliant.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
I just envisioned a scenario of how the election will go...
.

They will play the fear card. Sounds reasonable but it counts on impeccable timing between Bush and the rogue leaders. Anything's possible I suppose.

[Zimphire]

The thing about this country is, most of it IS based on Traditional moral values.

The media and "Hollyweird" however are not. And they control pretty much what you see on TV.

Say, If you were to watch TV and see all the gay shows on you'd think that most of American accepted such lifestyle. When this is far from the truth.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The thing about this country is, most of it IS based on Traditional moral values.

The values that America was based on where anything BUT traditional and conservative at the time.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
The values that America was based on where anything BUT traditional and conservative at the time.

That isn't what I said now is it?

RE-READ WHAT I SAID.

The thing about this country is, most of it IS based on Traditional moral values

We are talking about THE PRESENT. NOW. TODAY.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Troll:
The values that America was based on where anything BUT traditional and conservative at the time.

Constitution
Bill of Rights

The founding fathers were very moral, patriotic, and very conservative in government size. I don't see anything about socialist programs' 19th century equivalent. No welfare, no nothing. I hear alot about the Navy, and Army, but not social programs.
You think these people are Marxists or something? They weren't in the business of government control, radical at the time, and, ironically, fairly radical now.

While it was different at the time of monarchies, by modern standards these guy would be right wing zealots. Could you say the same thing by today's standards?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:

are you trying to tell us you are tired?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by voodoo:
are you trying to tell us you are tired?

Found a sight with smilies, but didn't want one that looked exactly like Zimph's.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:


Constitution
Bill of Rights

I wouldn't have even took the bait.

That wasn't what I was arguing. Troll either had comprehension problem or he was trying to spin the argument into something else.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Found a sight with smilies, but didn't want one that looked exactly like Zimph's.

I'd keep looking

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I'd keep looking

Naah. There are some pretty decent ones, but some are too…uh…animated.
Took the bait. My bad. Couldn't help it. The comment was so full of crap. It sounded like his point was that the founding fathers were radical and draw a modern comparison.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
[BThe founding fathers were very moral, patriotic, and very conservative in government size. I don't see anything about socialist programs' 19th century equivalent. No welfare, no nothing. I hear alot about the Navy, and Army, but not social programs.
You think these people are Marxists or something? They weren't in the business of government control, radical at the time, and, ironically, fairly radical now.

While it was different at the time of monarchies, by modern standards these guy would be right wing zealots. Could you say the same thing by today's standards? [/B]

You're trying to apply static lables like "liberal" or "conservative" to dynamic political movements. It doesn't work like that.

"conservative" doesn't imply a specifc set of ahistorical ideologies. What was "conservative" in 1780 is not what is "conservative" now. Same for "liberalism".

The Founding Fathers were complete Radicals. In fact, they were the original Liberals.

Be careful of taking terms out of historical context.

[Zimphire]

And this thread is about MODERN America. Not American centuries ago. Which was MUCH more traditional in values than now.

But I think there is a movement going back to those values.

The US citizens from what I have heard, are sick of seeing society slipping into the gutter.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You're trying to apply static lables like "liberal" or "conservative" to dynamic political movements. It doesn't work like that.

"conservative" doesn't imply a specifc set of ahistorical ideologies. What was "conservative" in 1780 is not what is "conservative" now. Same for "liberalism".

The Founding Fathers were complete Radicals. In fact, they were the original Liberals.

Be careful of taking terms out of historical context.

Right, but his point seemed to be that the founders were liberals too, which applied to modern discussion is totally false. The conservatives at the time were in favor of monarchy, and the liberals were in favor of a republic. How time changes…

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That isn't what I said now is it?

RE-READ WHAT I SAID.

The thing about this country is, most of it IS based on Traditional moral values

We are talking about THE PRESENT. NOW. TODAY.

If it's BASED on moral values, then you're not just talking about the present are you? Those values weren't put in put in place now today. Most Americans HOLD traditional moral values. That what I said earlier.

All I'm saying is that there has been a change in the US. Americans used to be at the forefront of societal development. American ideas on marriage, women's rights, pornography, democracy, used to be way more liberal than contemporary ideas in other countries. I remember my parents going to the States and my Dad buying porno mags at a time when the South African Police still raided homes looking for pornographic books of text!! Now South Africa recognises way more rights than the US does.

Other democracies are further down the track when it comes to human rights, ideas on homosexuality, drugs, sexuality in general, marriage and all kinds of moral and social issues. I agree with you statement that the country largely holds conservative moral values. I don't know why America is becoming more puritanical but it certainly seems to be the case.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
If it's BASED on moral values, then you're not just talking about the present are you?

Uh yeah..

base

"The fundamental principle or underlying concept of a system or theory; a basis"

Anyhow I might have knee-jerked a bit there when I took a jab at your "comprehension "

I can see were one might get confused here. I apologize.

Those values weren't put in put in place now today. Most Americans HOLD traditional moral values. That what I said earlier.

And what I am saying is, There has been a trend LATELY that people have been basing their values on traditional moral ones.

All I'm saying is that there has been a change in the US. Americans used to be at the forefront of societal development. American ideas on marriage, women's rights, pornography, democracy, used to be way more liberal than contemporary ideas in other countries. I remember my parents going to the States and my Dad buying porno mags ata time when the Police still raided homes looking for pornographic books of text!!

Actually that is about freedom..
Try to open one of those places in a city that that is full of people that base their values on traditional ones and see what happens though.

That's no longer the case. Other democracies are further down the track when it comes to human rights, ideas on homosexuality, drugs, sexuality in general, marriage and all kinds of moral and social issues. I agree with you statement that the country largely holds conservative moral values. I don't know why America is becoming more puritanical but it certainly seems to be the case.

I know why. Americans are sick of seeing society heading to the gutter.

Since "progressive morals" which basically means none at all took over our society has no gotten better that is for sure.

People are now realizing this.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I know why. Americans are sick of seeing society heading to the gutter.

Since "progressive morals" which basically means none at all took over our society has no gotten better that is for sure.

People are now realizing this.

Yeah, well you'd know better than I do. I thought your morals had always been progressive but it doesn't really matter either way. What I observe is a society shifting right, a Republican Party shifting left and a Democratic Party standing still like the only person at a Line Dancing Club that doesn't know the Macarena.

[Zimphire]

The Democratic party is hardly standing still. They are shifting more and more leftist and days go by.

And I don't see the right shifting and more left. More to the middle maybe.

The problem is, the left like to scream that they have strong values, while supporting causes that go against such ideals.

They want to play BOTH ends of the spectrum and hope no one notices.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And I don't see the right shifting and more left. More to the middle maybe.

Erm... if you're on the right, then moving toward the middle would imply you're moving in a leftward direction, yes?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The thing about this country is, most of it IS based on Traditional moral values.

I suppose my statement/question wasn't as clear as it might have been.

What I meant was traditional (AFTER Teddy Roosevelt) in seeking to achieve our goals of advancing the cause of freedom and promoting our economic interests using force only in the last resort.

The pre-emptive war policy makes sense in light of the 21st Century WMD/terroist threats, however Kerry proposes we do more to seek constructive ENGAGEMENT to achieve our goals (and to defuse disagreements and misunderstandings BEFORE they lead to terrorist acts) rather than constructive DESTRUCTION.

Kerry says he wants America to "extend a hand, not a fist." To be respected (not just feared). To exercise leadership by standing by our principles and leading those who are inspired by our concern for their freedoms, their hopes for democracy and our efforts to promote peace and security throughout the world.

This strategy sounds great, but it's like a football team (US) going into the halftime locker room and a Kerry coach points out how we made mistakes with our running game.

The Kerry coach says, if we make a few changes in the second half we're sure to get our running game back on track.

A Neo-Con coach points out the weakness of the opponent's secondary and insists that the weakness can be exploited and make this a blowout win for US!

A third coach wonders if they are being set up by the opponent's defensive backs, who are playing off our team's receivers to INVITE our attempts to go for the quick strike.

The opponents know our game plan. They know our QB's tendencies and weaknesses, having studied films of our past games. They could be playing off our receivers, hoping the QB will make an errant pass (he doesn't have the highest passer ratings) which they can intercept.

This could result in a quick score for the opponent (terrorists & rogue nations) and change the momentum of the game.

Do we fix the ground game and go slow but sure or gamble on a higher risk passing game in hopes of a blow out win?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The Democratic party is hardly standing still. They are shifting more and more leftist and days go by.

And I don't see the right shifting and more left. More to the middle maybe.

The problem is, the left like to scream that they have strong values, while supporting causes that go against such ideals.

They want to play BOTH ends of the spectrum and hope no one notices.

If you go from the right towards the middle, what direction are you moving in?

The Republican Party's foreign policy is anything but conservative. The Democrats used to be criticised for favouring humanitarian interventions by the US Army. Now the Republicans talk about interventions to effect regime change and using the Army to further strategic interests. That's way more liberal than Democratic foreign policy has ever been.

That said, I agree with you that the left simply doesn't know where it's going. The two party system might have a lot to do with it actually. If any one of 5 parties had a chance of getting in each year, politics might be a bit more honest - that is an indictment of most modern democracies unfortunately.

[Zimphire]

I think there is a difference between the LEFT, and the middle.

Funny thing is with the right, no matter what they do, the left complains.

"You aren't very compassionate"

And when the right is

"You are losing your site, you aren't conservative, go back"

I think there are good things about BOTH sides.

I think what the Right is doing now is trying to take the GOOD ideals of the left for example "Compassion" and adopt them.

And I am all for that.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And this thread is about MODERN America. Not American centuries ago. Which was MUCH more traditional in values than now.

But I think there is a movement going back to those values.

The US citizens from what I have heard, are sick of seeing society slipping into the gutter.

Just what ARE these traditional values?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I think there is a difference between the LEFT, and the middle.

Funny thing is with the right, no matter what they do, the left complains.

"You aren't very compassionate"

And when the right is

"You are losing your site, you aren't conservative, go back"

I think there are good things about BOTH sides.

I think what the Right is doing now is trying to take the GOOD ideals of the left for example "Compassion" and adopt them.

And I am all for that.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Just what ARE these traditional values?

To use a sort of shorthand, it's the American values you grew up with or heard about (if you weren't raised here) and admired:

We were a fair and just, benevolent, big strong daddy. We would listen to the world, not talk at them and tell them what to do. We showed concern and respect for THEIR hopes, dreams and desires for freedom and liberty and only when pushed to the limit would we unleash our mighty force on those who deserved it.

However, the Bush plan can work, too!

We can pull out our belt and whip em and make em sit down, shut up and behave.

Once order is achieved, we can deal with everyone (hopefully) in a fair and benevolent manner.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Our biggest threats outside of Al Qaeda are Iran and North Korea. None is too good for Kerry—very weak.

Actually, I think the single biggest threat to America is Americans. Compare the number of Americans killed be terrorists in the last 10 years to the number of Americans killed by Americans in the same time period.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Actually, I think the single biggest threat to America is Americans. Compare the number of Americans killed be terrorists in the last 10 years to the number of Americans killed by Americans in the same time period.

True but these people aren't killing each other simply because they are Americans.

That being said, I'd like to see the numbers for just 2001.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Actually, I think the single biggest threat to America is Americans. Compare the number of Americans killed be terrorists in the last 10 years to the number of Americans killed by Americans in the same time period.

Uhh, that's a bit off topic.

What do you think about the Kerry plan vs the neo-con plan of the Bush Administration?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The thing about this country is, most of it IS based on Traditional moral values

Perhaps from your perspective. How many people have you surveyed to develop that conclusion?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Perhaps from your perspective. How many people have you surveyed to develop that conclusion?

I've talked to people ALL over this great country. Most DID have such values.

And I've talked to ALL kinds.

Not just that. Look at America's stance against homosexual marriages. That says a lot.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
That being said, I'd like to see the numbers for just 2001.

13,372. Does not include those killed as a result of the events of September 11, 2001.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/xl/01tbl2-13.xls

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
What do you think about the Kerry plan vs the neo-con plan of the Bush Administration?

I think neither has any real plan beyond saying whatever it takes to get elected.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think neither has any real plan beyond saying whatever it takes to get elected.

You might be right. The neo-conservative plan the President has
adopted since 9/11 is explained on the site available in the first post of this thread.

It is QUITE exciting! Have you seen it?

[aberdeenwriter]

Prayer is not asking for what you think you want, but asking to be changed in ways you can't imagine.
- _Kathleen Norris

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I've talked to people ALL over this great country. Most DID have such values.

And I've talked to ALL kinds.

Not just that. Look at America's stance against homosexual marriages. That says a lot.

I consider myself a very moral person, I don't steal, lie or harm other people for personal gain. I would never cheat on my wife. My word is as good as gold, yet -

I'm not religious, I do not believe in god, gays should be able to marry, pornography is ok, there should be an absolute separation of church and state, I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and believe that sound scientific principles should drive our environmental policy.

How does that fit with your values?

[Zimphire]

Some does. Some doesn't.

I don't steal, lie or harm other people for personal gain. I would never cheat on my girlfriend. My word is as good as gold.

I'm am religious, I do believe in god, gays should have the same rights as married people, pornography should be legal, but can seriously degrade the sexual experience, The church and state law should go back to how the forefathers originally intended it. , I'm pro-life, anti-death penalty,(at least I am consistent) and believe that sound scientific principles should drive our environmental policy and not FUD that has been driving it the past decade or so.

That should tell you pretty much.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
and believe that sound scientific principles should drive our environmental policy and not FUD that has been driving it the past decade or so.

Describe the FUD. As an environmental scientist, I can absolutely assure you that FUD has not been drving environmental policy for the last 10 years or so. What are your qualifications in the area?

[Zimphire]

Kyoto IS FUD.

But hey, that is a different thread. Feel free to make a new one if you want to discuss it.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Kyoto IS FUD.

But hey, that is a different thread. Feel free to make a new one if you want to discuss it.

You're a real piece of work, aren't ya?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
You're a real piece of work, aren't ya?

Because I asked to not derail?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Because I asked to not derail?

Actually the responses are kinda interesting, Zimphire.

Maybe the thread starter could have made the thread headline a bit clearer to attract the interest of those who might be interested in the subject.

But, that said, we have discovered plans for a TREMENDOUSLY HUGE, AWESOME change in our country and our country's immediate and long term future which will affect the way we deal with the world. It will EXTREMELY affect our way of life...

And it seems no one has much to say about it.

It's puzzling to me. Maybe it's because neither the candidates nor the media have spoken to it in a direct way.

If that's the case I find it REALLY interesting.

Do they believe if the candidates aren't talking about it, then there must be nothing to this whole neo-con thing?

Do our posters only believe something it if they see it on TV?

It might say the posters here aren't interested in reading the rightweb site or they find it kinda dry, like in school.

Or, the posters don't believe any of the stuff on that site.

But do they recognize that many of the things that are said on the site about the neo-con blueprint have already played out before their very eyes and if THOSE assertions were/are accurate, then maybe the remainder of the info can be trusted as well?

Or, do the posters feel that there's nothing any of us can do about it so we may as well just enjoy the build up to a Bush victory and wherever he takes us after that is too far in the future to worry about?

Or, are we really more concerned with memos and medals and "strawberries?"

Once again, I don't get it.

Someone please help me understand WHY so few posters seem interested in discussing the Neo-Con blueprint for the New American Century and how it will affect us?

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Because I asked to not derail?

No.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
No.

Then why fanboy?

[aberdeenwriter]

Posted on : 09-18-2004 07:10 AM __by ebuddy @ 'Could Sharon be killed?' thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeenwriter; The way OUR forefathers forged this system of gummint with checks and balances, I suppose it would be impossible to install similar safeguards but still give Bush & Co. the power they need to clean out the world's cancerous regimes and pockets of evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's kind of happening now. Bush is enduring much scrutiny and his actions have attempted to appease the nay-sayers. This can be a good thing, but can also be a bad thing. Case and point, many suggest we should've sent many more troops over in the initial action making a stronger presence. However, you had many "cultural experts" saying this would stir the Muslim community en masse and we'd have much bigger problems now. Again, I say this is going to occur slowly killing people or quickly, killing people. I don't think the "tactic" will save lives-the intent overall is to save lives and insurgents will continue being insurgents. Terrorists will continue being terrorists. The difference is we are stirring them up on our time as opposed to allowing them more cunningly planned attacks abroad in their own time.

As far as checks and balances go; in many respects Bush is really pissing off his fiscally conservative base. Passing initiatives that spend government money in the interest of helping those less able to help themselves. (i.e. Medicaid/Medicare initiatives and prescription drug benefits) He is passing ideals Dems have been fighting for, for a long time; immigration benefits policy, legalising immigrants, etc...while these piss the Reps off, it seems now the Dems have jumped on the "we're spending too much!" bandwagon. I guess that's a good thing in that now Dems will be more accountable when a tax & spend Dem is in the White House the next time. In other words, Bush has found some peace in the middle and the division you hear about in the media is not necessarily the case in reality. He should be celebrated for reaching across the aisle, but he's not because he still has that dreaded (R) after his name. Truth be told, I'm not happy with several of his policies, but I think his faith-based initiatives will prove themselves in the long-term. It was gutsy to stand up for this. He did and some great things will happen if the administration stays the course in domestic policy. That said, Dems have smelled blood in Bush's foreign policy and have found it lacking. Noteably, his exit strategy in Iraq. What he needs to express is that our exit strategy is solely dependant upon the Iraqi desire to be free and sovereign. Bush did in fact over-estimate the Iraqi determination to design their own fate. What bothers me again is the media coverage of Iraq. They make it sound as if it's an absolute quagmire. I talk to my friends in the military (many of which are serving in Iraq as we write) and their story is much different. Building schools, rebuilding Mosques, and libraries, and hospitals, and homes. This is all good stuff and where is the good ol' fashioned American propaganda when you need it?!


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(By the way, how would you decide who was a threat needing to be cleaned out once the obvious ones were handled??? And Mr. President, I don't want to hear you say, "I'll know it when I see it!")
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very good question. The fact of the matter is our foreign policy has always only addressed the obvious, historically. In other words, we've only addressed the squeeky wheels. The reason for this is the checks/balances example we spoke of above. When one speaks of pre-emptive measures, others speak of them as being hawkish and reckless. When one sees the need to strike, another sees the need to not strike. This design of foreign policy is what put Saddam in the power seat he had. We did in fact help him because we were trying to squelch a bigger threat at the time; Iran. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Attack both and remove the extremist regimes was not an option we were willing to undertake as a people at the time. Now we have what we have today. To answer your question; "we'll know it when we see it." Even if 60% of the American people deemed someone a threat to our national security, we'd still have the other 40% to contend with plus the International Community who is about as concerned about American sovereignty and peace as we are about ants crawling on the ground. The result is neither action nor inaction. It's the kind of "half-action" that we're conducting in Iraq right now similar to how we've conducted almost every other action in history including Vietnam. Why? Because of checks and balances. Iraq is a bold step in that it is preemptive, but you see what Bush has to put up with in trying to sell this. Had he been completely forthright on all counts, Saddam would be sitting there in Tikrit today planning his next move.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not as well versed on the mechanics of gummint to know how or if our present system would easily accomodate a New World Order scenario.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New World Order scenario cannot be easily accomodated. Of one thing I am sure, all are serving it. They just have differing ideals as to what that Global Community should look like and how to attain it.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grrrr, I DO understand why Bush can't talk about it, but enquiring minds want to know this stuff. He's just giving (most of) us all we need to know to decide on Nov. 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much unfortunately. The one good thing that could come of this is hearty debate. At least, Kerry will attempt to take Bush to task on his foreign and domestic policy and Bush will be forced to address the issues in public. While I believe Kerry will get lambasted, I'm going to be VERY interested in the banter.




__________________
ebuddy
Thanked personally by MacNN for every post!