Dlur wrote:Kifle wrote:I actually agree with virtually every thing you said here. It is just bad judgment to pull out the troops at this point. My main concern is that Bush can't admit when he made a mistake, and that could really cost us in the future. Having a man like that in the highest office in the world is just a bad idea. I voted for kerry because he at least has the intelligence to run the country and the ability to handle foriegn countries in a diplomatic manner. I don't like being hated by virtually every country in the world. I also don't like other country's citizen's assuming that we are all little G.W. Bush's. He is a disgrace to the nation and It is just a shame he was re-elected.
Actually, from a military standpoint it is doctrine that a commanding officer does not admit a mistake. Commanding officers do not make mistakes, just ask any of them. Militarily speaking, making a mistake is a show of weakness, and no commanding officer can afford to have his troops wavering under his/her command. Any soldier that thinks their commanding officer may have made a mistake might hesitate, and soldiers that hesitate die.
And now, of course, you will say "Aha!" and you'd be partly right in doing so, but you must also remember that whether you like the reasons or not, as we discussed earlier we are at war. And the entire population of the US realizes that we are at war. The troops certainly realize this. Now, consider that the president of the United States IS the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Our troops, trained in military doctrine, expect the Commander in Chief to be strong, show no weakness, and certainly make no mistakes. The people of the US(the majority anyways) want a Commander in Chief who is strong, shows no weakness, and makes no mistakes.[/quote]
As true as that is, the soldiers don't take commands from the president. I can understand how a general would follow this principle, or a platoon leader, or even a squad leader. They all have direct command and are directly responsible for the lives of the soldiers while in the battle field. The president is different in this case. Commander in Chief is little more than a title like the queen of england. Yes, he can wage war if he deems it worthy, he can order nukes, etc... but to your average soldier on the battlefield, he means little...or should anyway.
Dlur wrote:War is not a diplomatic matter. War is won through strength, character, commitment, hardship, and pain. War is not won by talking, being diplomatic, or working it out over a couple of pints. While diplomacy is great in times of "peace" it is only a showing of weakness in times of war. Considering the adversaries we now face, whether in Afghanistan, Iraqi insurgents, or other terrorists abroad we can afford to show no weakness, especially since the vast majority of the enemies we fight do not adhere to the "rules" of war, nor do they hail from any specific country where we may come to the table in talks anyways. The adversary we fight is a loosely knight organization with very few ties to any formal country or home, and surely is not any government-sponsored army or fighting force.
Anybody who has read the Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", which includes virtually ever commanding officer in the United States, knows that your last paragraph is complete rubbish, no offense. It is one of the most repeated and highlighted principles in that book. Diplomacy is better than war. A great general wins a war without ever having to step on the battlefield.
Dlur wrote:Also, I find it hard to believe that the alienation of the US with other countries happened suddenly in the past 4 years of GWB. Our alienation with the world happened as far back as World War I, the first time we stuck our nose in other people's business and was solidified during the post-WWI era when we sponsored an Israeli state and saw the rise of comunism and thusly a build-up of armarments and saw a rise to Super-Power status in the world. Islamic militants have been trying to kill and terrorize Americans for many, many years. Look back 25 years to the Iran hostage crisis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3978523.stm, or remember the US embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, the First World Trade Center bombing back in 1993. Hell, even your beloved Bill Clinton got us involved in the Somolian quagmire in Mogadishu and subsequently didn't have the balls to finish the job.
You're absolutely right. But to continue this sort of behavior is ignoring the mistakes of the past. I was angry with Bill Clinton because a lot of things he did during his 8yrs in office. I think war should be the last resort possible. To sacrifice the lives and safty of your countrymen is a decision that should never be rushed no matter what your agenda is. There is never one solution to a problem. I am angry and Bush, and thus disbelieve he has the credentials to run our country, because of his ignoring this fact.
Dlur wrote:Now then, if the US hadn't risen to super-power status during the WWII era during the subsequent rise of comunism in the world then I would gather that a lot less people in the world would hate the US. Hell, if it weren't for Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, with the diplomatic and somewhat isolationist stance we were taking at the time most of the world would be speaking either German or Japanese by now most likely. But, we stepped up to the plate, grabbed our sack of balls and got the job done, and due to the actions we had to take during the aftermath of the most bloody war we've ever fought in order to protect our interests and the interests of our allies we are now despised by the rest of the world. To place that blame souly on the shoulders of George W Bush is not only assinine, but also uneducated.
Again, I wont argue that fact. I'm not blaming Bush for all of our problems, I'm blaming him for not fixing them. I'm blaming his blatent disregard of our past mistakes. Speaking of WWII. Why do American's get so upset that France has not helped us with troops and the such? If I recall correctly, we did nothing to stop Germany from invading France. It wasn't until after France was widely occupied that we stepped in. And we might not have even stepped in unless Japan did not attack us. Until France gets attacked by Iraq directly and brought into this war against their own will, I will continue to call those who knock France because of their stance on the war complete idiots. We weren't there to help them, we where there to help ourselves...they are just doing the same. The French government has an obligation first to it's countrymen and the world second and this should never change.
Dlur wrote:Nearly every single president since the times of WWII has only succeeded in further alienating some other country or faction in one way or another. And even though some presidents have done great work in repairing ties with one country or another, it only serves to piss off someone else. There is simply no way to make everyone happy, especially since the simple act of making everyone happy will show weakness, and it is that weakness that feeds some of our enemy's hatred of us.
It isn't the weakness that feeds our enemies, it is our arrogance and our "cowboy" attitude. It is often times our mercy that angers them. It is our set of morals that causes us to help one side of a fight. The latter I can't blame on any president. Again, what I am angered at is the complete lack of diplomacy being shown by this administration. They have broken ties that where mended previously. They have continued to lose the support of the rest of the world. This is not the smart way of building a safe country. This is how you create an unsafe country. Of course we will always have enemies that are jealous of our status in the world, but it is best to minimize our enemies with diplomacy than to give up because you can't please everybody. This is what the current administration has failed to do and only shows signs of continuing this failure.
Dlur wrote:So, you say you voted Kerry because of his intelligence and his diplomacy. You have said that to you and to many of the people that voted for Kerry his plans, doctrines, and ideas were crystal clear and made perfect sense. I say Kerry did a horrible job of conveying his thoughts, ideas, and doctrines to the American people as a whole, for surely if his ideas were so good, and he is so diplomatic in conveying those ideas then surely more people would have voted for him?
No, most of this is an assumption. Yes, I voted for Kerry. I voted for him because he is more intelligent than Bush, but I know there are better choices out there...unfortunately none of them had a chance in hell to contend -- so my hands where tied. If you listened, he did convey his plans as well as he could given the complexity of most of them and the alloted time during the debates and commercial spots. You can't explain a complex economic solution in 2 minutes...most people will have a hard time grasping most of the concepts within a semester in college. Even still, he did a way better job at this than Bush. From Bush I saw a lot of question dodging, name calling, label manipulation, and studdering. So, even if Kerry didn't do all he could, he was just that much better than Bush. As for that last question. No. Unfortunately good ideas are not a prerequisite for winning an election. Propaganda and fear have been shown throughout the ages to play a much bigger part in elections and opinions than good ideas. Kerry lost because his marketing team wasn't as good and he was under the impression that the American people could see past the propaganda and other underhanded tactics the Bush administration used.
Dlur wrote:But, alas, they did not vote for him and 51% of the people and some change voted for who they thought was strong, showed no weakness, had a clear plan, and who they thought would stay the course and finish the job. Hell, this time around more people in the popular vote voted for Bush than back when Regan was first elected and that in and of itself is an absolutely amazing show of support.
This is not a good logical assumption. You are clearly ignoring the power of fear. The American people have been lead to believe we are in a very great danger...exponentially worse than years before. The fact of the matter is, we really aren't. They voted for a man that conned thim into voting for him. They voted for a man based on this, propaganda and moral issues. It is not Kerry's fault that 51% of American's are scared or uncomfortable of homosexuals. It is not Kerry's fault that 51% of the American people don't mind giving up portions of their 1st and 4th amendment rights. It is also not Kerry's fault that 51% of American's would rather have Christian religious doctrine become law rather than be exactly what it is...opinion. None of this is Kerry's fault, and this is a much better assumption of why the vote turned out the way it did rather than to say Bush is a good leader.
Dlur wrote:Now me personally, I think they're both idiots and that both mainstream political parties, with all their members should have been able to find someone better to put on the ballot other than these two f*#$tards, but hey, what do I know I'm just a Centrist leaning towards libritarian that voted like a retard to "throw my vote away" along with the other less than 1% of the population that voted my way. I'm just trying to make you die-hard Kerry fans understand why he sucks a little bit worse than GWB sucks.
Me, I am a moderate...even if my opinions in this thread do not show it, that is what I am. I am not one of the liberals that does not understand the need for some form of capitalism, or the need for some pollution, etc... You sometimes have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, and I'm sure most of the people who voted for Kerry think much the same. We have been labeled wrongly because we would rather strive towards a better world than be content with what we have been given. As far as being die-hard Kerry...I doubt many people who voted for him are -- on these boards and across the country. He wasn't a good candidate. He has just as many flaws as Bush. Namely the outsourcing of the Heinz corperation. What we understand, though, is that Bush, in every venture he has ever been a part of, has failed. This is what he does. He had is education bought, he has had life given to him on a silver platter, and can only communicate with the average american public because he is an idiot...that is his charisma. He's one of those dogs you feel sorry for because they continually run into walls because they think there's a door there...it's a sad form of cute. It's just a shame that so many people can connect with that rather than an intelligent candidate.
Dlur, my views and your views are not very far apart. Sure, we disagree on quite a few things, but given the actual opportunity to talk, I'm sure we would easily see each other's side of things and come to some sort of compromise.