The Debates: Foreign Policy

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

That's the difference between democracies and monarchies: in democracies, the leaders are accountable to their people. I don't think Bush is all that keen on that idea. It makes for all sorts of trouble when you have to answer all those irritating questions.

Heh. If Dubya had been a contestant on Donald Trump's reality series, he would have been bounced even before the show aired!

Miulang

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Linkmeister, sure I can!

You and I don't have the real opportunity, the viability to be president, as we have only 2 real choices, and we all know that. It remains a very easy call, to vote for Bush over Kerry, to even pray so. I've already made part of my case here, either you see it, or you don't.

I'll make more of my case, as it comes to mind, and hope you don't miss it. Consider this!

“When he laid out the Kerry Doctrine, he said that America has to pass a 'global
test' before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. Think about this:
Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto
power over our national security decisions.

“I have a different view. When our country is in danger, the president's job is
not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America.
I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of
freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval
Office, not in foreign capitals.”

- President Bush, 10/2/04

As I said, Kerry would put us in more danger than we are in, with his mindset. Either you see this, or deny what is before you because of your stubborness to be rid of Bush. "ABB" anything but Bush is very dangerous, given what you are desperately about to vote for.

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Linkmeister, watch the current unrest in Iran in the news. Just this morning, on the Perry and Price show, KSSK talked about this and wondered aloud why the mainstream media is largely ignoring what is happening in Iran, then look the other way and admit recent Kerry quotes about the fact he is ready to give Iran fuel for nuclear ability as long as they "promise to use it for only good, safe things." LOL...I will say it again and maybe you will realize the truth of it,

Kerry thinks you can TALK, have summits with our most dangerous enemies, negotiating with terrorists!! Is he THAT stupid? or just wanting to be loved by all, win a popularity contest as some sweet peace maker?! this mindset is VERY dangerous. It is psyche 101 that the mugger salivates at the very appearance of WEAKNESS and attacks the one that looks vulnerable. So it is with any bully mentality, and terrorists are bullies. Now consider THIS quote....Bush vs. Kerry!

"I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant or bring a terrorist to
justice.”

- President Bush mocking John Kerry's promise in the debate Thursday that if
elected he would call a summit to seek more international help for Iraq, 10/1/04

There ya have it, quote after quote, as some of you enjoy mocking our president for style, vocabulary, etc...the SUBSTANCE of how he leads and will continue to do so is biting Kerry in the butt, showing him a much more dangerous leader. and you want to vote this man in!!!

Boggles the mind~

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Terrorism is a huge threat, I intuitively expect more on our soil, and I do not feel safe when I think of Kerry at the helm, plus so many that served with him in the military said he was a loose cannon.
Kerry can talk real good. (G) How nice! That is one of the few things I can say about him that are good. I suspect Kerry can talk real good like the proverbial snake in the grass, oh yeah, he can talk, deceive, and is mostly all talk, not substance or action.

Ya know, if we were still in the Cold War era and if terrorism had a face (i.e., a country) to it, we actually were not invaded by Iraq. I would willingly go to war in this country if we had been invaded by Iraq here on our shores.

We were invaded, but not by Saddam or any of his henchmen. We were invaded by bin Laden and his transnational band of terrorists. If you are logical, you can say then that we should be waging war against bin Laden and al Qaeda, right? Were they not the ones who invaded the US? If you can agree to that, then how can you say that we should be in Iraq? The real reason we're there is because of what Iraq has: oil.

This is a different war, waged at a different time, with different weapons; the enemy is no longer one country, it is every country that harbors terrorists.

Miulang

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Miulang,

at this very moment, in considering Kerry vs. Bush, Iraq doesn't even matter. why? because you are apparently ignoring Kerry's substance, and he will make us all more unsafe by his very mindset, his substance, when you can get him to admit what his beliefs are.

We have enemies in tons of countries, we don't even know where all terrorists are trained, financed and sheltered. You and I can go to the thread that debates Iraq and do it again and again, and probably never agree. Even our troops in Iraq now, thankfully most of them feel unlike you, they feel confident and right about what they are there doing, say that saddam WAS a threat to us all. How can a madman NOT be a threat to the whole world? I read that if our country tapped all of our suspected underground oil, we could only last a certain number of years, so like it or not, WE ARE dependent on the oil that is across the globe from us, and saddam threatened not only his own country, but neighboring countries, and if he ever could have choked off the oil supply to us, he would have, and you are as dependent as we all are, on that oil. That part of the world truly does have us by the bowling balls, and there's nuttin (G) we can do to change this.

Our troops echo rumors that Saddam also DID have WMDs being made, if not already made, again. remember, or do you choose to ignore that saddam had USED them before, on his own people that were found in mass graves?! Well, rumor is he simply moved, in between inspections, them into Syria.

Oh well, I didn't mean to start debating Iraq here, again. We are there, and with a president Kerry, GOD FORBID I hope...we will be in more danger there, but thankfully, one madman is in chains and his sicko sons are dead, no thanks to Kerry, and once out of Iraq...Kerry wants summits to chat with our other maniacal enemies!!! You vote for him to your own peril, and mine, too.

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

.

We have enemies in tons of countries, we don't even know where all terrorists are trained, financed and sheltered. You and I can go to the thread that debates Iraq and do it again and again, and probably never agree. Even our troops in Iraq now, thankfully most of them feel unlike you, they feel confident and right about what they are there doing, say that saddam WAS a threat to us all. How can a madman NOT be a threat to the whole world? I read that if our country tapped all of our suspected underground oil, we could only last a certain number of years, so like it or not, WE ARE dependent on the oil that is across the globe from us, and saddam threatened not only his own country, but neighboring countries, and if he ever could have choked off the oil supply to us, he would have, and you are as dependent as we all are, on that oil. That part of the world truly does have us by the bowling balls, and there's nuttin (G) we can do to change this.

You vote for him to your own peril, and mine, too.

You know what, Karen? I'm neither a died in the wool Republican NOR Democrat. I am a pragmatic realist. Do you realize that during the Cold War, we had the power (yes power) to bring the Cold War to a screeching halt just by refusing to sell wheat to the USSR and the other communist block countries (we used to control that commodity)? What ended the Cold War?

Is the Prez being considered the laughing stock of the world an inconsequential thing? Hell, even Dubya's own father said that the reason he didn't invade Iraq when he was president was because he couldn't see how we would ever be able to pull out once we were there!

You will vote your conscience, as will every other American (I hope). The important thing is for each voting individual to make up his or her own mind by looking at both candidates. We are at a critical juncture in this country: either the nation wakes up from its slumber of sheep counting and moves in a different direction or I fear that we will go the way of the Romans and Greeks as their societies disintegrated after being held as "golden" for centuries.

BTW: NIGERIA produces more oil than Iraq does, and Saudi Arabia is in bed with us, so if we never got another drop of oil out of Iraq, the current administration would allow more oil drilling in the Alaskan tundra and off California and keep all our gas guzzling vehicles happy and well fed---at $5 a gallon. Can we be in Nigeria and Venezuela helping to quell the unrest there at the same time that we're trying to keep Iraqi oil safe for us?

Miulang

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

BTW: NIGERIA produces more oil than Iraq does, and Saudi Arabia is in bed with us, so if we never got another drop of oil out of Iraq, the current administration would allow more oil drilling in the Alaskan tundra and off California and keep all our gas guzzling vehicles happy and well fed---at $5 a gallon. Can we be in Nigeria and Venezuela helping to quell the unrest there at the same time that we're trying to keep Iraqi oil safe for us?

Miulang,

it isn't just Iraq oil that we need! That was my point, we "need" oil from several sources, and most of them were very much in danger from Saddam. Even when we first moved in, he had some of his OWN oil fields torched, that is how freakin crazy he is, and should he have had the chance, he would have threatened our entire flow of oil from more than one of his neighboring countries. He couldn't beat us militarily and surely would've beaten us with oil, had he and his sons been left unchecked. It wasn't a question of IF he would, but when. It wasn't a question of IF he would use WMDs...HE HAD! it was when....again?! He can't now, thanks to Bush and clearly no thanks to Kerry.

You are a one-issue voter, it appears. That's like gagging at a gnat, while being about to swallow a camel, with voting for John Kerry. The only thing I dread about him right now is when will the next time be that he actually is open enough to admit his next opinion of substance, and what the heck it will be. That man is a danger, and it is sad you do not, apparently, see it. Political offiliation, nor the lack of, helps you right now, since you seem to be so stuck on Iraq, and your disagreement of it, that you will apparently vote against Bush, and for the likes of Kerry, because of Iraq. I am not a one issue voter, far from it, and Bush passes muster on several issues with me. Bush, the more he talks, and I can freeze frame quotes of substance of the man, earns more of my respect, while Kerry sends up red flags.

Sadly, I think you are also wrong on people voting their conscience. I wish all people did, then the party of gay rights, baby killers, no fault divorce, sexual promiscuity encouraged....would never have a chance, but too many people are partisan, and in Kerry's case, are voting against Bush, not "for" Kerry. Some people that hate Bush a lot almost seem to have contempt for Kerry, so they just curse the entire system, while admitting they will vote for Kerry. We are in much danger because of terrorists that hate every free thing we stand for, but more, literally, if Kerry becomes president, oh yes, the bullies will salivate all the way to and from every summit with him, knowing he is mostly hot air.

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

No need to resort to name calling. I told you: I am a pragmatic realist. You are a Republican. Nuff said.

Miulang

P.S and, if --heaven forfend-- the Prez is defeated, will you move to another country, or will you continue to be the loyal opposition?

As to the war, I will tell you that Iraq is not really my war. I am a child of the 60s. I was against Vietnam. I saw what it did to the troops to be over there in an unpopular war. I know what continues to happen to the survivors of that war...alcoholism, suicides, unemployment, PTSS...Been there, bought the t-shirt, don't need another one. This war is for the Gen x-ers. And they really need to start getting involved in their government or they may find themselves headed out to some godforsaken place halfway around the world.

[Linkmeister]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Bzzt! Counselor, that's not responsive!

Karen, if you can make a case for Bush as an employee (CEO) of the shareholders (we the people) not being fired, please do.

That doesn't mean making the case for why Kerry shouldn't be hired.

You have merely repeated why you don't like Kerry. Fine. I know you don't like Kerry. Please explain why George Bush is competent to be rehired.

From my perspective, he has needlessly declared war on Iraq, on the American environment, on the middle class with his tax cuts for the wealthy, and on the truth. He's declared war on science by repeatedly using ideology rather than fact to make policy. He's destroyed all the international goodwill this country has built up over the past 60 years, to the point where countries don't trust us at all. He's created more terrorism by alienating the entire Islamic world with an unnecessary invasion of an Islamic country and with his absolute devotion to Ariel Sharon and Israel's right-wing, making no effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem (widely believed in the Middle East to be of far more importance than Saddam Hussein was).

He hasn't earned anywhere close to a good performance evaluation from me; he doesn't deserve to be rehired.

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Sadly, I think you are also wrong on people voting their conscience. I wish all people did, then the party of gay rights, baby killers, no fault divorce, sexual promiscuity encouraged....would never have a chance, but too many people are partisan, and in Kerry's case, are voting against Bush, not "for" Kerry. Some people that hate Bush a lot almost seem to have contempt for Kerry, so they just curse the entire system, while admitting they will vote for Kerry. We are in much danger because of terrorists that hate every free thing we stand for, but more, literally, if Kerry becomes president, oh yes, the bullies will salivate all the way to and from every summit with him, knowing he is mostly hot air.

Heh. You mention partisanism? Um, is that not what you also are? You have not answered da Linkmeister's question about what attributes you believe that Mr. Bush has that would, if he were the CEO of a publicly held company, keep him in that big leather chair? Moderates don't necessarily want Kerry to win, but they most certainly don't want Bush to win, either. The CEO of Peoplesoft was just fired by that Board for "overexaggerating claims" made to shareholders over the proposed Oracle takeover of the company. Is there not some similarity to what Mr. Bush has done to his "Board" members (the American electorate)?

Miulang

Actually, your line of reasoning reminds me of my mother-in-law, I love her dearly, but whenever we talk about the election and bring up the Prez (and it happens to be a point less flattering to him), she figuratively puts a finger in both ears and starts singing, "lalalalalalalala" to drown us out!

Or put it another way: it's not Bush who's the dangerous one. It's CHENEY. When 9/11 happened, the Prez was in a classroom in FL with kids. The Secret Service let him stay with the kids for quite awhile. Cheney, on the other hand, as soon as word came that we had been hit by terrorists, was whisked into the underground bunker by hoards of SS. Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, which, as we now know, has received millions--if not billions-- of dollars for services in Iraq...some of it obtained while he was still at Halliburton. Can you say "conflict of interest"? I really think Cheney is the one running the country. The Prez cannot be the one who's hatched some of the harebrained, vindictive things that have happened recently. Only a man like Cheney, who's used to fighting dirty and carrying grudges, could have masterminded some of those things.

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

No need to resort to name calling. I told you: I am a pragmatic realist. You are a Republican. Nuff said.

"Name calling?!" I did not call you a name, what are you talking about?! Oh, do you mean what I called an entire political party? That is more than fair game, and it is the truth, and it wasn't towards you, for as you said, you are NON-partisan.

Move to another country? LOL nope, I am not one of those Hollyweird freaks, I'll stay right here, and if I move, it will be home to South Central Texas. You?

All you say now about Iraq is that it "isn't your war." You then speak of Viet Nam. had I been older at that time, I like you, would NOT have supported it! it is hard to even trust history at times, but I don't see how we were threatened by Viet Nam, and I do not believe we are supposed to police, or save the world. I am against the draft for just this reason. We don't have a draft now, and the majority of our troops in Iraq SUPPORT this war. War, as you said, is hell. yet we have, right now, I think almost a total, combined-branch military force of about two million, or almost that, and this surely includes even the Coast Guard that stays stateside. We have this huge a volunteer force and they all know what their job is training for, while they signed up surely hoping to never have to use it, and go to war.

We clearly were threatened by Saddam and those that deny it are either uninformed, slow, or dishonest. He was/is crazy, pure evil and he has been defeated, and the oil that we all NEED, is flowing, not just from Iraq, but from all of his neighboring countries.

Yes, I will sincerely continue to pray for Bush to be re-elected, and cringe and probably pray a lot more for my own butt, if Kerry gets in, clearly a MUCH worse choice. What a plastic piece of.......he is.

[pzarquon]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

"When he laid out the Kerry Doctrine, he said that America has to pass a 'global test' before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. Think about this: Senator Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions."

I knew the moment Kerry said it that the Republicans would make hay with that statement, and sure enough, they did. I pretty much agree with Kerry that that singleminded post-debate focus is "pathetic." Then again, the Dems didn't help their cause any with juvenile "smirking Bush" music videos (when Bush's appearance alone made a pretty good case), so...

Anyway, I thought Kerry was fairly clear on the issue (emphasis added):

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

What's more, while Bush tries to get a giggle out of all this, Condi Rice has meanwhile validated Kerry's sentiment this weekend, when, reacting to Kerry's criticism, she said the administration did make its case -- offering "explanation after explanation" -- to the world. Whether or not the world drank the Kool-Aid was another matter, I guess.

The point is, acting unilaterally is not something any president should rule out. But the ramifications of that decision on the global stage shouldn't be entirely disregarded, either.

You are a one-issue voter, it appears. That's like gagging at a gnat, while being about to swallow a camel, with voting for John Kerry.

To be fair, I think you've also focused primarily around foreign policy and national security, and as the topic of the debate being discussed, it seems to be a reasonable tendency.

That said, I think Link and I and some of Bush's critics here have made clear that we would flunk Bush across the board for his performance - on fiscal issues, on environmental issues, on humanitarian issues, on labor and trade issues... If anything, the "single-issue" label could more easily be applied to the President's supporters, who'd much rather debate Kerry's fitness to lead the War on Terror (which I'll gladly concede is unproven) than a whole heap of domestic policies.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

That said, I think Link and I and some of Bush's critics here have made clear that we would flunk Bush across the board for his performance - on fiscal issues, on environmental issues, on humanitarian issues, on labor and trade issues... If anything, the "single-issue" label could more easily be applied to the President's supporters, who'd much rather debate Kerry's fitness to lead the War on Terror (which I'll gladly concede is unproven) than a whole heap of domestic policies.

Well, just wait till the domestic policy debate. Stem cells, abortion, gay marriage, gun control. (Budget balancing? What's that? )

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

I knew the moment Kerry said it that the Republicans would make hay with that statement, and sure enough, they did.

Of course you did! it is insanity...it is dumb, dangerous and it wreaks of world govt. Kerry said it and he meant it. It wasn't just some brain fart that you 'knew" would be fodder for its convenience, this man is a DANGER to us, and nothing less. We are a sovereign nation, but Kerry sounds like world governing of us is best.

To be fair, I think you've also focused primarily around foreign policy and national security, and as the topic of the debate being discussed, it seems to be a reasonable tendency.

You want me to focus on domestic issues? Bush has the same moral stands as I do, he earns a high score here, too. He earns a high score on taxes, education, and oh so many things. You, Pzarquon, make "national security" some issue that I focus on too much?!! Ahem...hang on, this world's about to get rougher, and even on our soil. We as a country have been very blessed by God, the same God we mock, & dare Him to not correct us for not obeying conscience. Forget religious doctrine, I don't attend ANY church....we all, of every color, race and creed have consciences, and we all basically know right from wrong, while not doing it. This country has rough times ahead, and National security is a top issue, below economy and education for the first time in many years, if ever.

That said, I think Link and I and some of Bush's critics here have made clear that we would flunk Bush across the board for his performance - on fiscal issues, on environmental issues, on humanitarian issues, on labor and trade issues... If anything, the "single-issue" label could more easily be applied to the President's supporters, who'd much rather debate Kerry's fitness to lead the War on Terror (which I'll gladly concede is unproven) than a whole heap of domestic policies.

It is the left leaning tree huggers that keep us as dependent on foreign oil as we are, even though reports are that if we tapped all of ours, we wouldnt' last forever. No, I am not a single issue voter, but the opposite. Kerry loses in oh so many categories. At the moment, you guys on here haven't stated good PRO Kerry stuff, just anti Bush. I can vote conscience, I have posted pro-Bush stuff with anti-Kerry stuff, and thank goodness, we will be voting soon. We can then get along with the business of blaming whomever gets into office, instead of debating them. (G)

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Isn't that what the term "loyal opposition" means?

If we can turn all that into something constructive that will move this country forward in a direction that keeps us a world power, that I think should be the goal of all this discussion. The devil is in getting everybody to decide what that direction is!

Miulang