The Debates: Foreign Policy

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

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.

You mean, the left leaning tree huggers who've been pushing for higher auto mileage standards and trying to promote renewable energy sources, so that the USA reduces its overall consumption of petroleum? Those left leaning tree huggers?

[edit] And really, considering the amount of foreign oil that we use, and the global CO2 contributions that we make, oil consumption does qualify as a foreign policy issue.

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

You mean, the left leaning tree huggers who've been pushing for higher auto mileage standards and trying to promote renewable energy sources, so that the USA reduces its overall consumption of petroleum? Those left leaning tree huggers?

The ones the current Administration would like to put into that space shuttle and blast into the stratosphere...If the Administration had its way and there were no left leaning tree huggers, the Alaskan wilderness will be covered with oil derricks, and the beaches in Santa Barbara would be covered in black sand (and not because it was naturally colored black, either). Or we'd have to annex Iraq as the 51st State (that would be better than Puerto Rico, because all we get from Puerto Rico is welfare cases).

Miulang

[pzarquon]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

We are a sovereign nation, but Kerry sounds like world governing of us is best.

We are a sovereign nation, but we don't operate in a vacuum, and that's a point of view I agree with. And again, what Kerry said in the debates was: "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." The ridiculous assertion that Kerry would "outsource" national security is a dicey one for the administration, anyway, considering how we handed off the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

You, Pzarquon, make "national security" some issue that I focus on too much?!!

Actually, my primary point was, of course we're focusing on "national security." That was the substance of the debate, and the debate was the launching pad for this thread. I was only noting that pigeonholing Miulang as a "single-issue voter" might've been premature.

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.

The "foreign oil" versus "domestic oil" debate strikes me more as a "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" excercise, actually. It's dependence on oil, period, that I think needs to be changed.

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.

As strongly as you assert that your vote for Bush is in line with your political and deeply held moral beliefs, Karen, I hope there can be room in your worldview to acknowledge that there are different political and moral perspectives, and that people voting for Kerry might very well be doing so for valid reasons, and might very well be voting their conscience... and not because they're devil-worshipping demons who want the world to go to hell in a handbasket.

Heck, I've made clear that Kerry is not my perfect candidate. But he's closer to it than Bush is... even though that's like saying Neptune is a little closer to the sun than Pluto. Although pro-choice politically, Kerry is actually pro-life personally, whereas I'd prefer a non-conflicted, firmly pro-choice candidate. Kerry is against gay marriage, but against a constitutional amendment, whereas I'd prefer someone more open to gay rights. That candidate may arrive someday, but Kerry's all I've got for 2004.

Kerry's beliefs may be the furthest thing from yours, but that makes them wrong for you and those who share your beliefs, not wrong for everyone.

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

For those who support the current administration and who would like to lump all the "rest of us" into the "niggling nabobs of negativity" camp (gawd! That was my all time favorite Spiro Agnew saying!), I did come up with one positive thing about the President. I am truly grateful (and I'm not being facetious about this, either) that the Prez has been healthy and hale enough to survive his term in office. I am grateful because Cheney was therefore unable to exert even more influence on the policies of this country. If, heaven forfend, Dubya was struck down by illness or worse, that means Dick Cheney would have all that power. In which case, be afraid, be verrrry afraid.

Miulang

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

True. I thought for sure he'd choke on another pretzel by now.

[Linkmeister]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

If we left-leaning tree huggers folded our tents tomorrow and said, fine, George, drill everything, "though the United States is the second largest producer, and by far the largest consumer of oil, it holds only 2.2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. The majority of the US reserves are located in Alaska, California, and Texas."

Source: The Physics Factbook

That's as of 2000. Somehow I don't think we've gotten new oil reserves since then.

So we'd still run out of oil within several years if we only could tap all those reserves immediately, which we can't since it takes time to build wells in those sites. Thus conservation, new energy sources, and new forms of powering automobiles will be required soon.

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Will this report change minds about the war in Iraq? Making Bush look mighty right, as usual.

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

If we left-leaning tree huggers folded our tents tomorrow and said, fine, George, drill everything, "though the United States is the second largest producer, and by far the largest consumer of oil, it holds only 2.2 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. The majority of the US reserves are located in Alaska, California, and Texas."

Source: The Physics Factbook

Thanks for this info! Very clearly we needed to halt saddam's manical regime, before he could deter the flow of oil to the rest of us, in his region. We truly are dependent on that part of the world's oil.

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Kerry's beliefs may be the furthest thing from yours, but that makes them wrong for you and those who share your beliefs, not wrong for everyone.

Hi Pzarquon,

You need to rethink your closing statement to me! Kerry's beliefs can harm you a lot, and you need to see it. It isn't just my opinion, but FACT that kerry says he will give Iran nuclear fuel "if they promise" to not use it in bad ways. (gagging as I type this, I can't believe this guy is this STUPID, or...worse...loose cannon was said about him by those that served with him)
Kerry clearly thinks he can TALK his way into more safety for us, vs. bullies/terrorists and I can't make you see it, while it remains true, that it is impossible to negotiate with terorrists.

It isn't just an opinion thing about me not liking Kerry, it is a huge SAFETY issue, and an issue of our being a sovereign nation, where Kerry will want to pass an international test, before he acts, as president.

Oh how I wish I only disagreed with the buffoon over abortion, gay rights, and moral issues. If he was strong, and wise....I could rest peacefully if he gets the office of prez, but he clearly is not, and I will not be able to.

You mean, the left leaning tree huggers who've been pushing for higher auto mileage standards and trying to promote renewable energy sources, so that the USA reduces its overall consumption of petroleum? Those left leaning tree huggers?

[edit] And really, considering the amount of foreign oil that we use, and the global CO2 contributions that we make, oil consumption does qualify as a foreign policy issue.

I agree, it is a foreign policy issue, and was a darn good reason for invading Iraq, but alas, the issue of saddam being a direct threat to us in another way is making news just today. (per the news item I posted before seeing your post to me, here.)

Oh if what you listed was ALL tree huggers have done! (rolling my eyes & exaggeratedly opening them same time)

I mean tree huggers that put animals and environment before the rights of humans. Tree huggers that prevented a man from building a housing development in Morgan Hill, CA. in the eighties, because a couple of salamanders were found in a tiny creek or ditch on the land, and the salmanders weren't to be moved, it was THEIR habitat!! to hell with the man, his family and their right to benefit from their own land.

Tree huggers that destroyed the lumber industry in Oregon over the spotted owl, the owl that flies, and can change home locations and still has TONS of trees to live in there, to hell with the families making a living in the lumber industry, the owl was more important, and nevah mind that the lumber people planted several trees for the one, giving back MORE than they were taking from Mother Earth.

Tree huggers that scare people off from drilling for oil in more places, yes, keeping us most dependent on foreign oil.

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Will this report change minds about the war in Iraq? Making Bush look mighty right, as usual.

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

Hey Karen, unfortunately you're not going to sway too many people by flinging the above little news snippet at them. Who is CNS.com? It's the Catholic news service. What is interesting is that they are sending this stuff out now, especially since Kerry is one of their own. Notice how everything is written is the past tense and that what was cited is from 2000? As a journalist and under the Freedom of Information Act, I have to ask them to cite their sources, please.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Sticks and stones may break our bones, but calling Kerry silly names is a sign of being backed into a corner with no way out except by hurling invectives. I don't think any of the niggling nabobs of negativity have ever once ridiculed the President in the way the anti-Kerry people have been flinging around the muck.

Miulang

[pzarquon]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

You need to rethink your closing statement to me! Kerry's beliefs can harm you a lot, and you need to see it.

I admire your convictions, Karen, honestly, and maybe I'm just not expressing myself clearly... but to me, as a participant in this conversation, there's a big difference between "I think you are wrong and here is why" and "you are dead wrong and you just can't/won't see it." The former leaves room for further debate, the latter gives me the impression that there's no point.

No I don't think either of us will change each other's minds. But I think we can spar and play without completely dismissing the other's point of view. I honestly am interested in what you have to say, as I know you're a smart woman. I'd just like to think you're giving me the same consideration.

You might believe "Kerry is wrong for everyone." Yet, frankly, even if Kerry's international outlook worried me, I feel that it's Bush's beliefs and the policies of his administration that pose the greatest threat of long-term harm to this country. I don't think I'm alone.

It isn't just an opinion thing about me not liking Kerry, it is a huge SAFETY issue, and an issue of our being a sovereign nation, where Kerry will want to pass an international test, before he acts, as president.

You've repeated this a few times already, and I know it's number one on the Republican "talking points" this week. Yet both the actual statement in the debate (which we both watched) and Kerry's subsequent statements directly disprove this assertion. Between what Bush supporters or the Bush campaign says Kerry said, and what Kerry says he said, which is more credible?

If you're going to put so much emphasis on what Kerry said, wouldn't it make sense to be certain of what he said?

If he was strong, and wise....I could rest peacefully if he gets the office of prez, but he clearly is not, and I will not be able to.

The most reasonable thing I've heard a Christian say about this election came from a born-again believer interviewed on the radio this afternoon. The man said, as a child of god, he believes Bush - a fellow born-again - is in the right, prays that Bush hears God's word and is doing God's work, and hopes that Bush wins the election.

The man also said, however, that he knows he is just a man, and he doesn't see all the cards... and that if Kerry wins the election, it can't be a surprise to God, and he will then devote his prayers to hoping Kerry hears God's word and does what is right. He saw the President for what he is, just one person at the head of one nation... and if one has faith in one's God, it's pointless to rage and protest and claim righteousness over easily half one's countrymen.

"God's will will be done, either way," he said.

I don't believe in God (or a god), but if I did, I'd find this an admirable, humble, enlightened perspective.

Tree huggers that scare people off from drilling for oil in more places, yes, keeping us most dependent on foreign oil.

I think Link posted a pretty good explanation as to how little tapping all our oil resources would help, stretching things out at best a few years at the expense of environments and species we could lose forever. On this front, it is the tree huggers that advocate pollution controls and energy efficiency who I believe are on the right track.

[Linkmeister]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

I think Link posted a pretty good explanation as to how little tapping all our oil resources would help, stretching things out at best a few years at the expense of environments and species we could lose forever. On this front, it is the tree huggers that advocate pollution controls and energy efficiency who I believe are on the right track.

Did you not see Karen's response?

Very clearly we needed to halt saddam's manical regime, before he could deter the flow of oil to the rest of us, in his region. We truly are dependent on that part of the world's oil.

That just reinforced her belief that we had to take out Saddam, so he wouldn't reroute his oil to people other than us.

So it was "all about oil," then, despite all those protestations otherwise by Administration apologists?

[Karen]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

Hey Karen, unfortunately you're not going to sway too many people by flinging the above little news snippet at them. Who is CNS.com? It's the Catholic news service. What is interesting is that they are sending this stuff out now, especially since Kerry is one of their own. Notice how everything is written is the past tense and that what was cited is from 2000? As a journalist and under the Freedom of Information Act, I have to ask them to cite their sources, please.

That's okay, Miulang, about not swaying anyone with this. If people were able to be swayed, they'd be simply by hearing Kerry's plans for Iran, and for fighting terrorism. I doubt at this late hour in an election year, that anyone will be swayed by anything, even more terrorism on our soil, God forbid. I've heard people say the terrorists want to strike, as they did in Spain just before the election, thinking they can help elect Kerry. (hmmmm) but as I see it, with our safety being a huge plus with Bush, I think if the evil of terrorism hits our shores again, it will only swing more voters to Kerry, if anyone is swayed at all.

On this front, it is the tree huggers that advocate pollution controls and energy efficiency who I believe are on the right track.

It doesn't make a bit of sense to let the tree huggers have their way, and staying so dependent on foreign oil. We are blessed with oil, we should be tapping it. No one that wants to drill for oil on their own land is suggesting we ignore energy efficiency. You seem to imply we have the tree huggers to thank for that. Not so.

Pzarquon, I also feel a tad of, "why bother" with this debate. I agree that we won't change each others' minds, so why continue speaking about it? In hopes the lurkers that read and do not post may be touched, or swayed? Perhaps, but even that is a stretch.

It is not a personal insult to you, my tone you allude to. It is indeed my convictions, and I don't know how to state what I truly feel, any other way. I've never known how to sugar coat what I need to say. I mean I know how to do it, but it feels fake and dishonest, even. I know people that are very crafty and can do this, but I can't. I type as I think, brainstorming from a sincere heart, without malice. I do know we are all in a land mine, when debating at forums, because it is the written word, so very void of conveying the way a person says something. I never worry about offending anyone in person because they read me, from tone of voice, expressions to body language, etc.

You aren't concerned about Kerry giving nuclear fuel to Iran, and Iran is chaotic right now, and you aren't concerned that he actually thinks summits with terrorists are THE way to handle them! I am NOTTT insulting you, I am not sure how to say how amazed I am that you are NOT concerned. I can only suspect it is that "ABB" mindset, anything BUT Bush, and damned the torpedoes ahead, you cannot vote for Bush, so Kerry is what you will vote for. No insult intended, it boggles my mind.

I admit I was so settled on voting for Bush per his moral convictions that I didn't give any attention to what Kerry said most of the year. The more I play catchup and listen to him, the worse the vibes from him get. Of course, I admit my believing the bible plays into everything I do. Bush doesn't violate what my bible does nearly as kerry, but soon as I say that, I admit that Kerry seems so fake, like a plastic person I would've met at some cocktail party, not real and not sincere.

I will hush, it is late, and as we both agree, we aren't going to change each others' minds. I thank you for every post, and that goes for others on this thread.

[pzarquon]

Re: The Debates: Foreign Policy

I thank you for every post, and that goes for others on this thread.

Karen, I thank you for being here, for sticking to your convictions, and especially for sharing them despite being all but overrun by Kerry supporters. (Actually, I'd have to say "Bush detractors," as you've reasonably observed that Kerry gets lots of votes simply by virtue of not being the incumbent.) Yes, we won't change each others' minds, but we can still learn, or at the very least, stretch out our brains in this rhetorical exercise.

Like I said, I admire how strongly you feel about this, and any, issue. I admit, I'm perhaps a bit hypersensitive, as well. I'm more than used to being told I'm wrong (in real life, I'm surrounded by people of a generally opposite political and moral persuasion), it's just when the weight of a god or absolute power is thrown behind it that rubs me the wrong way. I do understand, however, that that's often the nature of faith.

I do know we are all in a land mine, when debating at forums, because it is the written word, so very void of conveying the way a person says something. I never worry about offending anyone in person because they read me, from tone of voice, expressions to body language, etc.

I know what you mean. I'm active in half a dozen message boards, and it's amazing how wacky things can get sometimes, often just because of one ill-chosen word, or one missing emoticon. Fortunately, I have to say, our debates don't hold a candle to what goes on elsewhere. Even if we disagree on morals or politics, I know I'd still love to chat with you about Hawaiian music, or meet you for lunch. I can't say that for some of the more aggressive folks in other online communities.

You aren't concerned about Kerry giving nuclear fuel to Iran, and Iran is chaotic right now, and you aren't concerned that he actually thinks summits with terrorists are THE way to handle them!

Well, this may be a moot point, as Iran has essentially told Kerry he's on crack. I'll readily agree that the whole proposal is somewhat bizzare. On the other hand, the battle against nuclear proliferation makes for some pretty bizzare maneuvering in general. The U.S. is in a tough position, sitting on nuclear weapons and nuclear power and trying to tell other nations, "You can't play with this stuff." The "babysitting" role is tough to avoid (remember the cameras we had inside North Korea's facilities).

Basically, Kerry was calling Iran on its assertion that they want nuclear technology for purely peaceful purposes. "Oh yeah? Then we'll happily handle the stuff for you... we want you to have nuclear power, sure!" Big surprise, Iran said no.

I can only suspect it is that "ABB" mindset, anything BUT Bush, and damned the torpedoes ahead, you cannot vote for Bush, so Kerry is what you will vote for. No insult intended, it boggles my mind.

As I've mentioned before, my voting for Kerry is certainly no wholehearted endorsement of the man. But I do want to cast a vote, for whatever it's worth, and I also strongly feel that Bush has been bad for our country and our family and will therefore seek to replace him. Would a blank vote be better? Even if the "lesser evil" was even less appealing to me, I guess I find not participating to still be worse.

Think, in your mind, of one person in elected office now that you can't stand. A politician already in power who, for whatever reasons, you feel is absolutely unacceptible. Now imagine he or she has a challenger, someone toward whom you might only feel ambivalence, but a challenger nonetheless. If you got to cast a vote in that election, given the opportunity to remove the objectionable incumbent, wouldn't you give the challenger a chance?

I just don't think it's so unbelievable that someone might feel strongly about Bush, and therefore vote with his or her genuine convictions for Kerry.

And you do mention that personal aesthetics play a part in your support for Bush. That he just feels more like you in spiritual outlook, and that Kerry looks fake and plastic. I hope you can acknowledge, then, that such surface traits can equally be seized on by those who dislike the president as one reason for their vote. Kerry might look like a horse and sound like a lawyer, but I think Bush comes across as a guy who's guided entirely by advisers, is stubbornly singleminded to the exclusion of alternatives, and wouldn't know "hard work" if it bit him in the butt.

I've enjoyed the conversation to date, Karen, and hope we can continue the contest. I promise I won't say you're blinded by your faith if you don't say I'm going to hell.