Bush vs Kerry

[dutchie]

Bush is a known quantity, he seems to believe (and I won't even get into rightly or wrongly right now) very strongly in what he is doing and it would take a very major policy shift for him not to continue to pursue 'terrorisits and the nations that harbour them'.
                                                   &
Kerry on the other hand is weak.....He talks about have a plan for Iraq, but no-one seems to be able to articulate it in a way that makes any sense. The problem I have with Kerry is that I have *NO IDEA* what he would do as President (and in the context of war, that scares the s**t out of me)!
                                             
This is why I am flabergasted that he got the nomination. Like I said earlier, in a nation of 350 million people, there has to be a more decisive, stronger, more capable condidate. The Democrats have missed a huge opportunity (again), as I believe Bush could be defeated based on the whole Iraq/WMD/911 fiasco (I think we should steer clear of discussing this issue specifically) as well as his domestic policy. In fact, even with a weak opponent, Bush might still lose, but I think he will probably pull it off. Kerry is also very left (for a US democrat that is - he'd basically be a Liberal in Canada), and Bush was not wrong when he said that Ted Kennedy is the conservative Senator from Mass.....

Bush has conviction, no doubt. If I were a US citizen, and my only concern was the war (it wouldn't be my only concern), I would NEED to know specifically what the candidate will do regarding the war before I will even consider him. Kerry has a lot of ideas, but not many plans. He wants to build International support for US interests, and fight the war on terror with broader Intl support. Great idea, but how exactly are you going to do that Senator? He wants to rebuild Iraq and withdraw with honour. What the hell does that entail Senator? This guy talks like Jack Layton - all ideas and lofty promises, no plans, no facts, no realistic promises.With Bush, I know what I get. If it wasn't for the war (ie-my last few posts), it would be a no-brainer. As it stands, I don't know who I would vote for. If I vote for Bush, I am re-electing a President who made some decisions that I have serious problems with. If I vote for Kerry, I would be electing a President who hasn't told me anything at all, who belongs to a party that I don't support, and who is considered a Liberal (in the US sense). It's a toss up for me. Thank God I don't have to decide.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

This is why I am flabergasted that he got the nomination. Like I said earlier, in a nation of 350 million people, there has to be a more decisive, stronger, more capable condidate. The Democrats have missed a huge opportunity (again)

On the other hand, at least they didn't pick Howard Dean!!!  And sadly, I think this is the best thing I can say about Kerry ...

 

[Brad Sallows]

Ah, yes, the good old days when the USSR counterbalanced the US.  Much of the world was divided into two armed camps, and all you had to do to get lawyers, guns, and money for your own revolution was appeal to the sugar daddy on the other side of the ideological divide from the swine currently running your country.  I can imagine instead of those nasty demonstrations and allegedly crooked referenda in oil-rich Venezuela they'd have a well-backed right- or left-wing police state engaged in an exciting no-holds barred struggle with insurgents supported by the other side, if not a full-blown civil war.  Who can imagine what sort of conflict Zimbabwe is being denied for lack of anyone's sponsorship?  Pity all the poor would-be dictators who now have to actually think about ruling their subjects, or scrimp to find the weapons, soldiers, and police to oppress them, instead of receiving massive injections of arms and cash to hold them in check.  Many countries were spending much more money on large standing armies rather than wasting it on social spending.  Terrorists didn't have to suffer the indignity of playing hide-and-seek with their lodgings and bank accounts; they could get lavish funding, equipment, and training in the USSR or one of its select clients.  We didn't have to worry we might be living in the one city that might be nuked while the rest of the world went on living; we had the satisfaction of knowing everyone lived under the same nuclear umbrella.

I can understand that it's much easier and entertaining to criticize the US government and people for failing to live up to their high-minded ideals than it is to have ideals of our own or to lift a finger to stop any one of the other ongoing human tragedies.  It is much more important to identify and scold the hypocrites than to actually do anything oneself.

The Iraqi attack on Kuwait was not unprovoked; the Kuwaitis were allegedly slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields.  The bastards.

The great irony of unknown and unknowable threats is that the only way to be certain is to force a decision.

 

[dutchie]

I can imagine instead of those nasty demonstrations and allegedly crooked referenda in oil-rich Venezuela they'd have a well-backed right- or left-wing police state engaged in an exciting no-holds barred struggle with insurgents supported by the other side, if not a full-blown civil war.   Who can imagine what sort of conflict Zimbabwe is being denied for lack of anyone's sponsorship?   Pity all the poor would-be dictators who now have to actually think about ruling their subjects.....

I think you could find examples of civil war/insurgencies either directly or indirectly attributable to the fall of the USSR that probably equal in number to the civil war/insurgencies that were prevented/ended by the fall of the USSR. Off the top of my head, Yugo, Chechnya, Georgia, various African states, etc. I realize, btw, that Yugo had more to do with the death of Tito, but with the USSR in place, perhaps the split wouldn't have happened.

I can understand that it's much easier and entertaining to criticize the US government and people for failing to live up to their high-minded ideals than it is to have ideals of our own or to lift a finger to stop any one of the other ongoing human tragedies.  

I do have ideals (and ideas) of my own. I have identified them in previous threads. However, I am not in a position to have a dramatic impact on these problems we've discussed, so I do what I can: express my opinions in the hopes that others will re-evaluate their position on the issue. I don't intend to change peoples mind, but merely to offer a dissenting voice to stimulate debate, and ideally, free thought on the topic. If that means that someone else re-evaluates their stance and decides that based on their beliefs and principles (moral, ethical, political, etc) they are still in support of the invasion/war, then so be it. We may disagree on our stance, but at least we can have a discussion based on common criteria.

The great irony of unknown and unknowable threats is that the only way to be certain is to force a decision.

Absolutely, but do it in a reasonable and ethical way.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you could find examples of civil war/insurgencies either directly or indirectly attributable to the fall of the USSR that probably equal in number to the civil war/insurgencies that were prevented/ended by the fall of the USSR. Off the top of my head, Yugo, Chechnya, Georgia, various African states, etc. I realize, btw, that Yugo had more to do with the death of Tito, but with the USSR in place, perhaps the split wouldn't have happened.

With respect Caesar, I am not sure that is a correct observation.  IIRC, Project Ploughshares, IISS out of Sweden I believe and was it SIPRI, anyway agencies that catalog wars and military spending, and in fact generally are not friends of military establishments anywhere, I believe that the last few reports they have issued have been documenting a downward trend in conflicts, both interstate and intrastate.

Perhaps somebody else with better memory/sources can fill us in here.

Cheers.

 

[dutchie]

I believe that the last few reports they have issued have been documenting a downward trend in conflicts, both interstate and intrastate.

I would be ecstatic to be wrong here. I admit that I don't have the data either. My impression of increasing, not decreasing, conflict is based on the increased activity of the CF post cold war. Obviously the rate of deployment of the CF should not be used as a barometer of world conflict, but that is where I suspect my assumptions come from.

Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Sieera Leone, Rwanda, Somalia, and so on......

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, I realize that without the iron boot of the Soviet Union holding them down or threatening them some peoples have found the wherewithal to make a bid for power.  That is always a risk even in the absence of superpowers.

My guess is that if the USSR and US were still at loggerheads when Tito died, NATO would have not dared to intervene.  Given Yugoslavia's relatively independent status, I'm doubtful the USSR would have intervened.  I think they would have been left alone to pursue their civil wars and genocide in unrestrained fury.  Forgive me if I don't see an upside to that.

We should of course not forget that part of the price of our peace and security was paid by some of the countries of eastern Europe and their millions of citizens.  Still, no price too small for our peace of mind, eh?

 

[Brad Sallows]

The increased activity of the CF is because we're not camped out in Germany anymore.  We have more freedom of action.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's SIPRI's 2003 report on Armed Conflict

http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/yb04/ch03.html

 

[dutchie]

We should of course not forget that part of the price of our peace and security was paid by some of the countries of eastern Europe and their millions of citizens.   Still, no price too small for our peace of mind, eh?

If you are referring to WW2, I agree. Not enough credit is given to our 'Allies' for our peace and security.

If you are referring to the struggle of these people under Soviet rule, I would also agree. They paid no small part in ending the Cold War, especially in the satelite states.

The increased activity of the CF is because we're not camped out in Germany anymore.   We have more freedom of action.

Granted, but freedom of action is nothing without a place to deploy to.

Here's SIPRI's 2003 report on Armed Conflict

Thanks Kirkhill, looks like an interesting read. I'll check it out this weekend.

Quick question:

Who will win the election?
By how much?
Why?

My answer:
Bush.
By a slim margin.
Due primarily to his obvious advantage of incumbency and his strong record of decisive action.

 

[Infanteer]

Geez, look what I missed.  I ignored this one because I thought it was about Larry and Curly...give me a bit to catch up on the thread....

 

[Tanner]

decisive ???

I would agree that the man has acted, but he is not decisive.  He has enraged the entire Muslim world and precipitated a clash of cultures. He has polarized Europe and demonstrated an utter disdain for key members of the UN Security Council. He has violated the Geneva conventions and other landmark accords while claiming to act on behalf of freedom (and other self-deprecating reasons).

Bush is engaged in a protracted conflict. The rationale for this war was based on flawed logic and inaccurate intelligence. Bush created an illusion of integrity that was shattered by the duplicity of word versus action.  He has created an extremist front where one, arguably, didn't exist before. Moreover, he has no credibility in which to negotiate a peace and is obstinate enough to try to fight his way out.

Kerry, though not perfect, offers a chance to bring together the key, European players. He maintains the credibility to enlist UN support and bring a multilateral flavour to this situation. I really don't care about Kerry's domestic policy because, like it or leave it, when the broad international coalition (including Canadians) is formed to bail the US from this mess ('cause we can't leave Iraq the way it is now) we will truly appreciate the lack of decisiveness of this act.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I find it interesting that continued outrages against Israel do not enrage the Jewish world; that attacks upon Christians do not automatically enrage the Christian world; ditto Hindus, Buddhists, etc, etc, and that in none of these religions is one likely to find hordes of young men travelling to a locus of conflict to kill noncombatants merely because co-religionists (or for that matter a secular fascist regime) have been attacked.  We are to believe that we should tread lightly lest we inflame the Muslim world.  Someone will have to explain for me in short, easy to understand sentences how to reconcile "Islam is a religion of peace" with "inflammation of the Muslim world" and "creating an extremist front where none existed before".

Who are the remaining key European and UN players that you think should and could be brought together?  Include in your answer a rationale for tolerating the self-serving corruption of Oil for Food and of the nations/diplomats willing to spare no human suffering to curb US power, if applicable.  Explain why the current coalition is not multilateral, and which nations have a special status which makes any gathering which includes them "multilateral".

I don't care if you are pro, con, or indifferent to the war, but I think it worthwhile to recognize that not just one small group of people is guilty of bad behaviour.

 

[Tanner]

Attacks against the Christian world have, without exception, produced a response (name one and I will respond accordingly). Though the nature of the response in not in the context you described. Your view demonstrates an ethnocentric bias which is at the heart of this conflict. We cannot judge Eastern or mid Eastern society against the values of Western culture. Iraqii, and by extension, Muslim society does not mirror Christian society. For instance, the notion of martyrdom does not exist in Christian faith. If we judge the Muslim "hordes of young men travelling to a locus of conflict to kill noncombatants merely because co-religionists" as irrational we do not, fundamentally, understand the culture.

With respect to the Key UN Players, the UN Security Council has been plagued by partisan politics since its inception. This is central to the conflict in Iraq. The perceived injustice against Palestinians and the non-wavering US support of Israel (I am non-judgemental) has sensitized the non-Christian, mideastern cultures to unilateralist actions and policies. If you want to solve the inherent problems with the UN or Food for Oil program, "start from the top and work your way down".

The Bush administration would like you to think the UN is an irrelevant organization. In this climate, arguably, it has become the only relevant organization (despite inherent problems). Moreover, it is the only answer to the War in Iraq. A multi lateralist approach, incorporating a pan-Islamic contingent (as in the first Gulf War), would ease Muslim tensions and produce the desired effect.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Though the nature of the response in not in the context you described.

That was my point.

>We cannot judge Eastern or mid Eastern society against the values of Western culture.

Yes, we can.  It's very easy.  The important thing is to stick to easily recognized universal values.  For example, any rights a people enjoy should be enjoyed by all people equally (eg. women and children are not analogous to property).  Religious belief does not excuse infringing the rights of another (eg. killing in the name of religion) unnecessarily.  And so on.

 

[Kirkhill]

For instance, the notion of martyrdom does not exist in Christian faith

I am not sure those folks that attend Saint Martyrs Catholic church in Saskatoon would agree with you on that point Tanner.

 

[Infanteer]

:boring:

OK, I've caught up - what exactly are we arguing about here now?

 

[Kirkhill]

Hey Infanteer, stop trying to take the fun out of everything, this is serious business.....

 

[Tanner]

The important thing is to stick to easily recognized universal values.  For example, any rights a people enjoy should be enjoyed by all people equally


Sounds like the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A document invented by a Canadian. Canadian culture, though, is stained by our treatment of Native North Americans. The US infringement of civil liberties up to and including Git-mo and the disregard for the Geneva Conventions at Al Graib (? spelling) prison all violate your universal values. Should I go on to Africa?

We have no right pass judgement on another society. We talk a good game but we really need to be careful on how we are perceived by others. And I don't mean in the PC manner.

I am not sure those folks that attend Saint Martyrs Catholic church in Saskatoon would agree with you on that point Tanner.

I really don't want to get into a discussion on this topic. I'm in my happy spot now.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not sure those folks that attend Saint Martyrs Catholic church in Saskatoon would agree with you on that point Tanner.

I really don't want to get into a discussion on this topic. I'm in my happy spot now.

I think one of the maxims lawyers live by is "don't ask a question you don't know the answer to".  I cheerfully ignore that but.... if you are going to raise an example expect someone somewhere to offer a rebuttal, annoying as it is and doubly so if they turn out to have a point.

We have no right pass judgement on another society.

Certainly we do.  We have a responsibility to examine ourselves and pass judgement on our own actions, weigh them in the balance and decide whether we have done, are doing or will do the right thing.  That capability and responsibility is one of the things that defines humanity.  It goes under the head of "a life unexamined is not worth living".  I can't remember the source -  I'm sure somebody out there can remind me -  Augustine or Aristotle or somesuch come to mind.

In trying to define for ourselves whether our actions are "right" it is normal to review the actions of others and compare our actions to theirs.  Sameness doesn't mean rightness, nor does difference mean rightness.  Rightness means rightness and each individual comes to their own appreciation (military sense here) of rightness.

Having defined for our own purposes what is right, and having decided whether our own actions are right or wrong then I don't see any logical incongruity in applying the same criteria by which I judge my behaviour to judging the actions of others.  Strangely enough I generally prefer the company of, and prefer to be associated with, people that share my own sense of rightness.  That shared sense acts as a shorthand code that allows me to anticipate their actions in a given situation reducing the amount of effort I have to exert and the amount of worry I experience.  In other words I find my happy spot.

If people don't share my sense of rightness then my worry factor increases.  If their sense of rightness is at cross purposes with mine, or worse threatens the existence of me and mine then I will act to ensure the future of me and mine and to allow me to return to my happy spot.

Cheers Tanner.