| Subject: One aspect |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/23/04 9:48am
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "And an even quicker response from me... huh. Turned out not to be." on 09/23/04 12:12am
I think we went to war with Iraq because the weapons inspections were not happening, and the UN agreed to hop on board and take "serious actions" if those inspections didn't happen.
Well, they didn't happen, and the UN sat there with their arms up-in-air. It's as though the UN didn't really have any stake in Iraq since they didn't have a war with them where they emerged the victor.
I always compare this to winning WWII and leaving Hitler in power. Hitler impudently refuses to let you inspect for weapons. What do you do? Do you sit back and assume he has none, or do you bend him over on your knee and spank his ass until he lets you inspect?
Saddam didn't have any weapons it seems, but I'm not sure how we could have known that since inspections were always interferred with. It created paranoia among the victor country, and I think justifiably so.
If you throw in the fact that Saddam was a ruthless dictator, and that there is oil over there, and that Iraq is right next to Iran who is doing naughty things with nuclear weapons, AND that Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad, there seemed to be little reason not to go to war.
Korea is trickier. I think we should kick their asses, but we should do so very, very carefully. Korea has a huge land based army, and if we hit them in some way that isn't extremely over-powering, they'd march their troops right into South Korea and a massacre would result. Whoever ordered a rather wreckless attack on North Korea would be blamed for making a huge tactical error. It's going to take time I suspect before the trap is woven sufficiently over there to go after them.
Having said all of that, what do I think of Bush? Well, economically I think he walked into a shit storm. The economy was in a check phase before he got into office. Everyone knew it was trending downward, and everyone who knew that knew Bush was about to get the blame for it if he became president. I think the enconomics that the party has run given what it had to work with aren't bad. They even managed a little rebound.
On the topic of the war, I think Bush did what should have been done in Iraq years ago when it was fresher in everyone's minds what Iraq and Saddam were capable of.
As for abortion, the environment, and a number of religious based things, I think Bush has done a terrible job. Stem cell research being halted was a horrible idea. Faith based iniatives are a horrible idea. The environmental policies take a "fuck the environment" kind of approach which is a horrible idea. (hate the environment and it might hate you back)
Kerry, while doing better on the topics in the aforementioned paragraph seems to lack any definite plan to make what is better. He keeps saying nifty things like healthcare better, but he doesn't really say how he'd do that.
Unfortunately for Kerry, I think the burden rests on him as a newcomer to show that he can make the U.S. a better place if he becomes president. I don't think he's done that, and I don't think he's going to win the election by omission of the details of his plan.
Course then again, as I said before, I'm not voting, because I don't like either of my options, and like the riddle about the liar and truth-teller at the fork in the road which is solveable, we have a case where we have a fork in the road and two liars. I refuse to ask either one of them any questions, and I refuse to vote for either of them for the same reason.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 