Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Kerry can do things differently though, and at least have a goal of getting out at some point, and starting to try to get events headed in the right direction so we can work on getting out. Bush doesn't seem to have any plan other then to push forward exactly as we are now.

Hey Will,

You see, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Somalia, and Iraq are all different cases. Should we have kept fighting in Korea until the entire peninsula was unified--yeah, I think so. The goals were very clear, who the enemy was was very clear. Also, the Koreans wanted us there to help keep the communists out. They were and have been our strong allies Who the enemy was was very clear. Not so in the case of Vietnam, so no, I don't think we should have kept fighting in Vietnam, at least not by using the same tactics we were. Our motivations for fighting there were different than the the motivations the South Vietnamese had. They didn't fear and hate the communists like the Koreans did, who the enemy was was not always, they didn't really want us there clear, etc., etc. Basically, totally different time, totally different situation. As for Cuba, we've never fought a war there, so I'm not sure what you meant there. As for Somalia, I'll have to admit that I haven't done enough research to reply to that either. I think we did it right in Kosovo (overall) though. As for Iraq, I'm glad Hussein is no longer in power, but the way we've gone about things has created a huge mess that I think could've been avoided.

See, the issue is now is strategy...Bush's (if he even has a strategy) simply is not working, and I think it's time we pull our heads out the sand and acknowledge that. He and his administration really have made a colossal mess over there.

It's very fair of Kerry and his supporters to say the strategy is not working, that Iraq is in a mess, and that there needs to be a new administration who will right the wrongs of the past administration. We believe success is still possible in Iraq, but not with Bush.

Hi jtmccoy, I think the reason we didn't keep fighting in Korea until the entire peninsula was unified was because the Chinese entered the fight and we were unable to defeat them in an Asian ground war without a complete national military mobilization and perhaps the use of nuclear weapons.

I'm a life-long democrat, but I understand that Bush's policy in Iraq presents an enormous opportunity not only to advance US foreign policy interests, but one which could fundamentally change the character of Mid East political life. Now, the idea of introducing a democratic form of government into a Mid East country may be extremely difficult given the total absence of any democratic experience or institutions, but if successful, what a "lamp unto the nations" a democratic Iraq would present to its neighbors.

I don't think there's any doubt but that Iraq had WMD, after all, they used them frequently and enthusiastically. France, Russian and China would have undone the sanctions regime against Iraq and once the real oil money started to flow, is there any doubt but that Saddam Hussein would have acquired WMD?

If the sanctions regime and no-fly zone restrictions collapsed what would have been the fate of the Kurds in northern Iraq? I'd venture a guess based on Saddam's previous behavior, the Ba'athist Nazis would have irradicated them. Turkey would not have protested. Europe may have mumbled "isn't that terrible," but do you think the EU would have raised a shout against another systematic effort to murder Kurds?

Yes, the Ba'athist Nazis from Syria are doing their best to undermine a democratic state in Iraq, as are the mullahs of Iran and the Jihadists from all over the Uma, so Iraq has become the place of battle between civilization and Jihad.

I think Bush is a not terribly bright ass kicking cowboy who sees the world in black and white, good and evil. I think that is exactly what we need at this point in time.

'SC sucks (just kidding, I hope my Bruins don't get embarassed ).

By mentioning Cuba, I was referring to how JFK left the freedom fighters hangin' at the Bay of Pigs. We have no obligation to protect everybody, but in general it probably is a good idea to stick to your commitments.

I talked about this before, but that was many pages ago: From the moment Bush announced our plans to invade Afghanistan, the nattering naybobs of negativism - in the gov't and the media - have been forecasting disaster for the US. Remember the talk about how Afghanistan was the Russians' Vietnam? Remember the dire predictions that the same fate would befall us? Why should we be able to succeed in a guerilla war in difficult terrain where the Russians could not? But the overwhelming victory there didn't shut them up for long.
Invade Iraq!? "That's no pushover like Afghanistan," they shouted, "Bush is really going to get us clobbered." While 1050 casualties is sad, it is far less than the numbers originally predicted by the-sky-is-falling groups. Iraq collapsed like a house of cards because it was an illegitimate regime. The folks that are "fighting" there - minus the Sunni Saddam loyalists - will eventually be killed or lose their int'l funding. The suicide bomber that blew up 35 Iraqi children should give us plenty of indication that their cause is illegitimate and will not last.
What policy could there be but continue?

Oh god, a Republican AND a Bruin fan...why are we still even speaking?!?

I said I'M NOT A REPUBLICAN.

But I am a HUGE Bruins fan. My older brother played football there in the early '80s and my little brother played in the mid '90s, so I've seen them stomp the Trojans many times in person (but not lately, though ).

I have a lot of respect for Pete Carrol and Norm Chow, but it appears that team needs a little more discipline right now, a little more focus. They've only been able to put it all together once this year from what I've seen.

Will,

No kidding! Mind telling me who your bros were that played there. I understand if you want to remain anonymous, but I'd be really interested to find out. I attended SC from '94-'2000 for my Bachelor's and Master's and hardly ever missed a home game. Those were some rough years for us! 8 years in a row...ouch! It's time for some payback. And of course, just when I move out to Texas USC turns into annual BCS contenders.

Truth is, as much as I love the rivalry with UCLA, I've always kinda respected your guys and don't really hate them as much as I should (not saying I like them either). I hate Stanford MUCH more! UCLA's always been a pretty classy program, and I'm glad to see them turning things around a bit this season. It makes the rivalry that much sweeter.

-JT

Sent you a PM. Don't want ringmir getting pissed over us hi-jacking his thread! LOL

I hear a lot of this "Kerry has a chance to do thing differently" position. I also hear Kerry saying that this war in Iraq is a colossel mess and that he would have done things differently. Let's dig into that a bit....

If memory serves, Kerry's position is that he has always advocated that he would have created a broader coalition and given the UN weapon's inspectors more time. At the same time, he has historically stated that Iraq was a grave threat to the safety of America and that he supported the President's efforts.

Now, let's put aside any of Kerry's subsequent changes in position and take those above and try to reason something out.....

However scarey it may be, envision President John Kerry. He has just successfully rid Afghaninstan of the Taliban tyrany and he is now looking to continue with this "War on Terror" that he started following 9/11.

Using Kerry's own position that Iraq is a grave threat to the US, it is natural for him to shift his attention to Iraq. He may delay this and spend more time in Afghanistan (which he has said), but the issue has to come up, because they are a grave threat.

What does he do? Being the President and a supporter of the UN, he has to go to them. Given his two assertions that he would have created a broader coalition and let the UN weapon's inspectors have more time, it's fair to assume that he would pressure the UN to get the weapons inspectors back on the ground.

Now, since this has been going on for over ten years in a continual trend of defiance and deceit, it's fair to assume that this would not change. Hussein would continue to completely control the UNSCUM inspector actions and then frequently throw them out of the country in defiance.

So, what we have is another four years of control via appeasement. Hussein gets to continue to defy the UN, while maintaining unending prosperity with it's Oil For Food deals. The entire time, Al Qaida terrorists continue to train in camps in northern Iraq and maintain access to Iraqi WMDs, which are confirmed to have existed by UNSCUM at the end of the original Gulf war. By allowing Hussein to remain in power and continue his previous tactics, we have now allowed him to continue to harbor the same terrrorists responsible for 9/11....Even though we had proof that these terrorists were willing to do anything to harm US interests, we have now made a conscious decision to allow this situation to continue. So, the next 9/11 incident to follow is due in part to our decision to maintain the status quo.

Now, let's assume that there was too much political pressure on President Kerry to continue to allow Hussein to defy the UN. Though he's against war, he is forced to take action. Using his second assertion from above, he would again go the UN and make a concerted effort to build a "broad coalition", which basically means that he would seek to involve France, Germany, and Russia (the big guys). Given his statements to Congress from 2002 (I believe), Kerry was already aware that none of these powers had interest in pursuing this path. Given what we now know about the deals that were in place between those three countries and Iraq, it's a fair assumption that even the great powers of pursuasion of President Kerry were to prove ineffective at bringing them onboard.

So, as President of the United States, John Kerry now is faced with having to follow through with his threats and take action in what he believes to be a threat the safety of US.

So, he goes it alone. The US is successful in removing Hussein very rapidly. Then, as we have seen, the US now gets mired in a gorilla war w/ insurgents from Iraq and neighboring countries.

The moral of this story is that Kerry is again talking out of his A$$. He knows that our "allies", had no intention of taking part in any actions that would endanger their respective deals w/ Iraq. Unless he's an idiot, he's well aware that the UN was never going to gain the cooperation of Hussein and get successful inspections by UNSCUM. So, given that, the only conclusion that one can make is that the one thing that he could have done differently is to continue to bury his head in the sand like his predecessor and allow Hussein to defy the UN and continue to harbor terrorists.

Any other course of action on Kerry's part would have led him to the same place in which we find ourselves. The only difference is that Kerry would have long since caved to political pressure, pulled out our troops, and shown the world that US is all bark and no bite.

I'll state it again....John Kerry is nothing but a spineless used car salesman who lives only for the furtherance of his own political career. If that's the type of person that you want to be in charge of the safety of your children and/or loved ones, then go ahead and vote for him......After all, anybody but Bush, right?

I think you are making a lot of assumptions in the way things would turn out based on how you see things.

Things aren't going well over there now, but Bush wants to blindly push ahead anyway. He still thinks he is fighting a traditional war and not a guerrila one.