Politics
Edit: Wow, the discussion on the article have been AWESOME. Thanks guys for participating... PLEASE if you have something to say, post below! I love it when opposing viewpoints can come together for some discussion. I'm especially interested in hearing some viewpoints from some of my foreign readers ... if you want to speak up, do it now :)
Lately I've been very introspective regarding the presidential campaign.
I posted a political message in my AIM profile, and I thought I'd share it with you:
I don't understand all the hatred towards W. People make these generalizations about how he screwed up: no foreign policy.. screwed up our economy...
Must we forget that Iraq was a constant issue during Clinton's administration? The problem certainly did not solve itself. What about our economy? The economy was already sliding ... and I don't hear anybody speaking too poorly about govt overspending during the New Deal ... and we can all agree that the foreign policy is dictated by Bush's cabinet rather than W himself. And does it not mean a thing that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11?
I can understand if you disagree with his policies, but honestly I don't understand the outright animosity towards W and the blind acceptance of Kerry.
This has led to a few interesting discussions with people online. There are a few moderate liberals out there who haven't fully succumbed to the 'OMG BUSH IS AN IDIOT I HATE HIM' mentality that I so detest. But the more I talk to these people, the more affirmation I get in Bush's plan and what he's done so far in office.
I just finished reading up American Soldier, written by Tommy Franks who led CENTCOM ... he was largely responsible for the quick successes in Afghanistan as well as the smashing military victory in Iraq. It gives a lot of insight to the personalities of all the people within the Administration ... and there was just a lot of interesting information in there.
After reading this book, I am fully convinced that a lot of my fringe worries (did Bush rush into Iraq? What were the main reasons touted inside the Cabinet? What type of mentality did Bush have towards the whole ordeal?) were baseless. Bush is painted in this book as being a real compassionate who really does believe in what he's doing. There were tons of plans for the reconstruction of Iraq, but they fell through primarily because of unforeseen consequences ...
Let me make one thing clear: I am fully disgusted at the current obsession with "military service." I'm not sure why candidates think this matters, but I could give a rats ass about whether you served in the military. I could also gives a rats ass if you got Purple Hearts, or if you lied to get them. It simply doesn't matter. Bush's holes in his service records also do not bother me; we are all young and we make mistakes. I'm making mistakes in my life now ... and I sure would hate for all my life mistakes to be held against me in the future. It's what you learn from those mistakes that matter.
I am fully commited to the Bush cause; I see his plans and his vision for the future fully coinciding with mine. As I've stated before, I really don't like the domestic direction that he's taking the country, but I feel his foreign policy and his character are enough to offset his domestic policy. After all, isn't all politics about compromise?
Bush for '04.
Comment with Facebook
Want to comment with Tabulas?. Please login.
domes (guest)
roy
Given the situation he was given, he did very well in managing the economy. But I'm not advocated the idea of "spending the way out of a recession" as necessarily a sound economic principle. I'm still not entirely sold on supply-side economic theory (as vindicated as it may have been given Reagonomics).
roy
In any case, what other economic response could Bush have done in response to the recession? Interest rates were already too low; cutting them wouldn't do a damn thing... the tax cuts were the best solution to the problem given the situation.
MacDaddyTatsu (guest)
domes (guest)
MacDaddyTatsu (guest)
It makes a world of difference to me.
You can tell a lot about a man by how he handles himself under pressure. What they do in those moments defines what they will do with your country in peace time. I want to know this.
God bless the freedom of information act. Now I exsist again. Maybe I should run for president?
RoyKim (guest)
RoyKim (guest)
RoyKim (guest)
bert
Read this.
iraqthemodel.blogspot.com
Blogging was just not possible with saddam in power. There was no freedom of speech. Yes.. transition IS dangerous.. what? did you think they would be able to run a smooth government within the first year of transition?
the US took nearly 300 years before it wrote it's declaration of independance. 300 years. Give Iraq time.. It will get better.
roy
<a href="http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com">Iraqthemodel</a>.
bert
Another few points.
1.) I don't like Bush
2.) I don't like Kerry
3.) I REALLY don't like Nadar.
*thinks back to the Simpsons*
Kang (or was it Kodos) "HAHAHAHAHA. This is a two party system, You have to vote for one of us."
Random Bystander "Well, I believe i'll vote for a 3rd party candidate"
Kodos (or was it Kang) "Go ahead. Throw away your vote.
"Go Ahead! Throw away your vote!
umar
umar
umar
roy
The question we have to ask ourselves is, "Will Kerry actually get the Patriot Act revoke?" Does he have the power or influence to get rid of it in Congress?
I don't think Bush will do much better, but I still feel like we're learning from the overrestrictive Patriot Act, if anything, the recent admission by the Justice Dept. of their fault in the Detroit case should serve as a good lesson to follow..
But yeah. It sucks. A lot.
goDWin
it seems to me that bush has managed to make so much more enemies than friends in the global community. all the sympathy and good-will he acquired after 9/11 has been whittled away to nothing, pretty much replaced by anger, directly mostly at him. i think many countries would be a lot happier to see a different president in power. i'm not big on kerry either, but i do think that it's important to have strong international relations, and i think with bush in office for another 4 years it will get much worse. of course, this is from the perspective of someone who doesn't follow the news past what he sees on tv and on the internet.
roy
Although the world population as a whole seem to dislike Bush, I've never put much faith in the masses ... there's a reason why the world's best governments are not democracies but representative democracies ;).
I'm just curious though ... if you have any specific countries that have had a massive falling out from US ... (France and Germany seemed to have survive OK).
To anyone else who is reading this comment, note that Iraq and the Taliban do not count ;)
goDWin
after ww2, the US took control of japan for awhile didn't they? i think for awhile it didn't look like it was going to work out very well, but look at japan now. i think the problem with today's world is that people are always looking for the quickest and easiest solutions, when sometimes there just isn't one.
i guess i really just don't like bush then. maybe he rubs me the wrong way when he speaks or something. i'll still probably end up voting for him though, but even if i don't, it's not like he's going to lose anyways. too many conservative americans between california and new york for the liberals to sway.
jinshil
roy
jinshil
roy
I know where you're getting at with this question, but the crux of the matter is that people who join the military service do it fully knowing the risks involved. If there was a draft this would be a completely different story, but today's armed forces are a voluntary army, which change the composition of any argument that the war is wrong from the perspective of the soldier. Losses in the Iraq war have been minimal in a historical context, and the new primary objectives in this new type of warfare has been to minimize losses, both civilian and military. This much is clear in American Soldier.
jinshil
Just because a soilder understands the risks of war doesn't mean that their lives can be more easily sacrified for a certain cause. I guess my point is that I truly don't believe there is a just cause for this war, to sacrifice any soilder's life (whether they volunteered or not).
Most of the young soilders in Iraq would have probably much rather give a monetary contribution if they could than their lives.
I hope you don't mind me "debating" on your blog. Most people just get angry when someone from a different standpoint speaks up. =)
roy
<em>Just because a soilder understands the risks of war doesn't mean that their lives can be more easily sacrified for a certain cause. I guess my point is that I truly don't believe there is a just cause for this war, to sacrifice any soilder's life (whether they volunteered or not).</em>
That is absolutely true! That is the crux of the argument...
But the lives of the soldiers are not at unnecessary risk! Since the start of the war, there have been roughly 1000 fatal casualties at the benefit of "liberating" a whole country. By comparison, the American military lost somewhere around 30,000 through the Korean War and 45,000 in the Vietnam War, and both of those had these ended in far worse conditions than Iraq has.
Ultimately a military must be used. In a utopia, we wouldn't need to... but foreign policy forces us to use the military ... but it is ALWAYS a last resort. Although it totally matters on how you look at it, Saddam Hussein had close to 10 years to sort out his WMD system and chose instead to defy UN sanctions and attack airplanes patrolling the no-fly zones on a daily basis.
In the end, the costs of the war must be justified by the benefits ... and although the loss of 1000 soldiers is a tragedy, we must look at how millions were liberated in the process. Life without Saddam is better. Much better.
jinshil
MacDaddyTatsu (guest)
xkexe
however, i would just like to point out that i dont think the war on iraq was really that justified, although its too late to do anything now.
benwebber
Iraq was a problem--Saddam was a problem--but there was no tie-in with al-Qaeda. Bush lied to pump up a nation for war, and that's why I hate him. In my opinion, I think it would have been more effective to bring down the regime in a more covert manner. The UN would most likely have approved of assassination or tactful elimination of some sort.
I believe he handled everything well up until the War in Iraq. The War in Afghanistan was justified, and not nearly as intrusive as Iraq. But, he seems to have forgotten about Afghanistan.
It looks like he'll win anyway, though I wish Kerry would for the economy's interests. There's no way to recover from the deficit now, and Iraq will only worsen.
roy
In regards to the deficit: Bush had stated from day one that the 'deficit' are the taxpayers money and that it should be returned. Part of that deficit came back to us in terms of tax returns.
Secondly, the 'surplus' was a result of the boom of the '90s. As I've stated time and time again, the deficit was directly tied to the overheating US economy; the recession and contraction of the US markets led directly to the evaporation of this surplus (which is similar to when millions of Americans lost 'paper money' when the stock market dried up).
Bush has increased the size of the US government, but that really couldn't be helped post 9/11 with the forced creation of Homeland Security as well as both wars. This also adversely affected the status of our 'surplus.' It's easy to gain a government surplus when all you do is fire off a few cruise missiles against a bunch of objectives whenever the terrorists bomb something (Kenya, USS Cole, etc.). It is much costlier to send in a full invasion...
Furthermore, I resent any generalized statement that Iraq is "getting worse." People are no longer being murdered by an oppressive tyrant. The people are actually free now. A new representative government is being formed, and people are starting to taste the benefits of a free market.
All post-war periods are characterized by chaos and uncertainty ... there has never been a war that didn't follow wit this. If you view the progress of Iraq within that historical context, the US and its allies have done an excellent job in minimizing the problems.
HK1997
Unemployment/underemployment , miseducation, and misinformation are the most oppressive tyrants. No amount of bombs and guns can effectively handle this problem.
roy
In my asshole manner, I'm going to say: "F' what the world thinks." I've been in Korea and seen the senseless and idiocy of anti-US demonstrations. The real balance-minded people do not go around flounting it, and my experiences is that there are tons of people in the war who are wise enough to realize what the US is doing and are not as "anti-US" as the media would have you think.
HK1997
Currently, people overseas are sensible enough to say, "we like the people of America, we just don't like the current government". It's only a matter of time before they go to the next level and start hating us all.
Korea is Korea. Japan is Japan. Demonstrators in every region have their own gripes. Plus, some of them seem to demonstrate about everything.
All I'm saying is, nobody wants to play with the village asshole.
I understand that when you become the POTUS, you're gonna learn things that the rest of us aren't allowed to know. So if the POTUS says that we're under attack by Martians, I'll believe him. And if the POTUS says -- through the FBI, CIA, etc. -- that Saddam has WMD and he's gonna use them on the rest of the world, we need to take him out, I'm going to say, "by all means necessary". I'm also going to expect to know that my Commander in Chief has a solid plan for just about every situation and that he at least knows his enemy before going in.
And now no WMD's (so far). Nobody's saying, "Oh, it's the CIA/MI5's fault. They thought there were WMD's but it turns out they're wrong. Dont' blame Bush & Blair." The buck stops at the POTUS. If the intelligence screwed up, W screwed up. No matter what happens, however the tides turn, good or bad, in the end, W is responsible as long as he holds the office. Especially when he was the one who campaigned for accountability in 2000.
So now, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. What's the next move?
MacDaddyTatsu (guest)
MacDaddyTatsu (guest)
It is an akward situation, but many of the people appreciate it. Dont forget that 80% of the public there (until recently) had nothing but government run propaganda radio to tell them what to believe.
A good example of this is that during some of the time I spent there the government would play TV and radio announcement about how US soliders would come into your home at night, steal your children and COOK THEM AND EAT THEM. This was supposed to whip the people into a furious outrage and make them want to attack American soliders on sight. This backfired because people would come out of their homes crying, slapping their chest and begging us not to eat their children. They tell the people what to believe and they believe it...like anywhere else. You want an anti-American protest? Fire off a few PSAs on the radio bashing Americans and wait a few days.
Now Bush...I bet he eats babies.