Thank You Ralph Nader!

[prodigal]

Re: Re: Run Ralph run!

For example, we were attacked on 9/11. As a result, Mr Bush ordered our military into Afghanisan in pursuit of the perpetraors. That's good. Given the same circumstance, do you actually think that any sitting American President would not have done the same thing?
QUOTE]

Well, what did Clinton do after they hit the WTC the first time (plus all the other episodes mentioned above by Dubya)? So, it's not just that I SUSPECT a dem might not get serious about the war on terror; they have a track record to prove that. And aside from just one mans failures (Clinton) the dems have a decades old reputation as weak on defense.
Granted, Bush may not be perfect but it's my opinion that he is a man of principle and is willing to lead. Not to have taken the actions he has would have been far riskier to the country than the symbolic pin pricks taken by his predecessor. Isn't it better to be fighting the enemy over there than in our our own streets?
Thanks Dubya, well said, you beat me to it.

 

[rettofly]

There was a problem, in the view of the US Supreme Court, with a recount by "selected counties." However, that was not an error of the Florida Supreme Court, it was an error on the part of legal counsel for Gore. The Florida court did not come up with the "cherry pick" concept. It was the lawyer's idea to request a recount limited to specific counties as opposed to state wide, not the Florida courts. You can state the facts without attempts to mislead.

If the Gore forces couldn't overturn the election in the counties they cherry-picked for Democrat predominance, how would the result have been different if the entire state had been recounted?

I can't believe that this issue is still alive!

 

[Dubya]

For you libs......

who run at the first sign of a factual discussion rather than name calling.



BUMP

W

 

[surplus1]

If the Gore forces couldn't overturn the election in the counties they cherry-picked for Democrat predominance, how would the result have been different if the entire state had been recounted?

I can't believe that this issue is still alive!

The result may very well have been exactly the same. My problem is not that Bush was chosen as the winner. My problem is that I feel the final result, whatever it was, should have been determined by counting the votes and not by a directive of any court, Supreme or otherwise.

Unfortunately it will always be alive. Perhaps the most important "freedom" that we have as Americans is the right to chose our leaders by our individual votes. Anything that calls that choice into question, is, and should be a problem for all of us.

From my perspective this is not about "political party", it's about our right to vote and to have that vote counted regardless of who it's for. As I see it, this is not a partisan issue. I would not feel any different if Mr. Gore had emergerd the "appointed winner".

 

[surplus1]

Re: I'll take a crack at that.

Thanks for you candid reply. I appreciate and respect your point of view.

I agree that Mr. Bush started out with a gustified and adequate response to the 9/11 attacks. Our goverment did what it needed to do in Afghanistan and the entire world supported us. I find it somewhat unfortunate that we don't seem to have folled up on what we did. That country remains in total chaos and continues to harbor bands of terrorists. Unless we plan to occupy it indefinetly, there will be a resurgence of the bad guys, the instant that we leave. That bothers me. I believe we cannot win the war, if we cannot win the peace. Military power alone is only a temporary solution to any problem.

I do not question the performance of our military which has always been exemplary. I do question our political leaders. Sometimes we do have to drop bombs, but bomb dropping will not eliminate terrorism. There has to be something more.

I certainly don' have the answers, but I don't think Bush does either. This is no "simple" problem for any President, but in our system, that's where the buck stops.

A reminder....the previous administration was faced with terrorist attacks....and the response was?

After the USS Cole attack...Clinton quote "We will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes..."

That is interesting. To help me understand you thinking more, I ask this question.... Should the United States have invaded and occupied Yemen after the attack on the USS Cole? What should our response have been?

Each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack-the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,

All significant events. You seem to be dissatisfied with our response and I assume you list these events for comparison with the actions of Mr. Bush. That brings me to ask these questions.

1. What country do you believe the United States should have attacked and invaded in response to the first WTC bombing?

2. Should the United States have invaded Kenya and Tanzania after the attacks on our embassies there? If not, what country should we have attacked in response?

3. After the attack on the Kohabar Towers, should the United States have bombed, invaded or occupied the countriy's of the perpetrators? If you answer is yes, should it have been Saudi Arabia or Iran or both?

4. Going back a little further, when the terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon killing hundreds of our young Marines, should President Regan have order the invasion of Lebanon, Syria or the entire Middle East? Or was it enough to just lob a few shells from a battleship into the hillsides of Lebanon?

In my opinion, the issue is what should the foreign policy of he United States be? From my perspective this should not be about which President can drop more bombs, fire more missiles or invade more countries.

Whether we like it or not, the truth is that the United States cannot occupy the rest of the world and convert it to our style of democracy. Even our vastly superior military power cannot accomplish that.

I don't really care which individual sits in the White House, but I do care what the foreign policy of my country is. Rambo tactics by George Bush, preoccupation (our claim) by Bill Clinton, not going far enough by Bush the First, lackluster response by Ronald Regan, or military faux pas under Carter, are obviously not the answer. All have failed, terrorism is alive and growing in spite of our varied responses under different administrations.

Should we invade and occupy the entire Middle East? Should we attack and occupy North Korea? Sould we take over Pakistan to route out al Queda? Should we bomb Malaysia or Indonesia?

Who are we at "war" with? Is it Islam? Is it Buddhism? Is it both?

It seems to me like the foreign policy of the United States is flawed, regardless of who has occupied the Oval Office or his political party affiliation.

Maybe you're getting the answers that you want from this President, but I'm not. I didn't get them from his predecessors either. Something is wrong, very wrong, and the future of our way of life is in jeopardy. Who sits in the White House from time to time is obviously not the problem nor is it the solution. Photo ops of carrier landings and turkey dinners in the desert are no more effective than invasions of Grenada or Panama, aerial collisions in Iran, missile launches in Somalia, wars of "liberation" in Kuwait or Iraq, failed attempts to "get Kahdafi", burning helicopeters in Iran, support for Saddam Hussein, removal of Saddam Hussein or any of the other measures. None of them have removed the cause of terrorism or prevented it's recurrence.

As Americans, we need to recognize that this "problem" whatever it is, is much bigger than George W. Bush. There is something wrong with our foreign policy. Until we fix it, the problem will continue. I don't have a clue as to how that should be done, but that's ok. What worries me is that neither does our government, and that is their job, not mine.

So you say that any sitting president would have acted similarly....the facts prove you wrong. I wager that had GWB been in office the first time the WTC was attacked, the rest would never have happened. The difference is one is a leader...the other is not.

Yes, I did say that any sitting President would have acted similarly and history seems to confrim that. All have responded with different levels of military activity. Our government's response to problems appears to center around bigger and better military capability. We appear to be at a loss as to how we can make peace, so we embrace one form or another of war as the answer.

I'm not smart enough to understand how or what that has improved. The answer appears to be nothing. Maybe someone can come up with "Plan B". I sure hope so, for the sabre rattling ain't working.

 

[Dubya]

surplus...you stated that other pres. would take actions similar to Bushs' given similar circumstances....I gave you the similar circumstances....the facts show that similar actions were not taken. For you to turn it into invading every country is absurd. The war on terrorism has to be brought to the places they are hiding.

What "Plan B" do you propose? The only thing these people are smart enough to understand is force....period. How many times have we been attacked...on our soil...since 9/11? I'll give you a clue...it's between -1 and 1. So it IS working. You are safe...your family is safe...I am safe...due to the actions and diligence of this administration...like it or not.

The previous administration shot spitwads...this administration is cleaning house.

W

 

[flying4life]

Dubya,
I couldn't agree with you more about how pro-active our President is on the war on terror. I agree with everything you have pointed out about old Bill's failure to step up and show some U.S. might and that we won't take that from anyone. I originally wanted to jump right on your band wagon and tell Surpluss how much he was wrong about it not making a difference who was in office. However I think he brings up a good point about U.S. foreign policy. No matter how much we do, or how much force we use, they will still hate us and consider us the enemy. At least they know there are consequences for messing with us, but that won't stop them from trying to out do 9-11. All 9-11 has done is set a new bench mark. They took over 5 years to plan it and I'm sure they are planning already on how to surpass it. I don't really think we are safe from further attack, it's just a matter of when not if. These terrorists are claculated and patient and they will do something here again. It will be interesting to see who gets the blame then. Personally I'll blame the shmucks who commit the act.
Surpluss,
I don't have the answers either and maybe it's emotionally driven but I'm glad we are doing what we are doing. It may not be the perfect answer and we may pay for it later, but it feels good knowing our guys are on someone elses soil showing the world we won't just be a punching bag and shrivel up at the sign of cowardess acts. I want the world to know the U.S. will respond to aggression and that they might want to think twice before doing that nasty deed they have in mind for us.
I could go on with so much more about life in general and how everyone seems to have some bigger picture in mind or if life were perfect what would be "the solution", but the truth is people hate other people and they use religion to justify most of their causes. With so many nations and different backgrounds saying all they want is peace, it's incredible how hard it is to obtain.

 

[Dubya]

Yes, our foreign policy is not ideal, nor will it ever be. I agree that the terrorists will not stop, unless they are stopped. We are safer, how safe and how long I agree is anybody's guess.

The problem I have with those that criticize Bush is that they don't want to look at the facts...they only see with emotion and feelings. The world will always contain strife and conflict. Our place in the world is due to the defense of our sovereignty and freedoms and the freedoms and sovereignty of others around the world.

Those that would have us sit idle....isolate and allow the UN and other nations dictate our foreign policy just invite more actions against us. 9/11 aside, WMD aside....we have to be in that region of the world in force...Clinton said it and knew it and ignored it.....Bush knew it when he took office. Bush followed through. He made the tough decision. As long as we are engaging the terrorists on our terms...where we want...when we want...and how we want....we are safer. The people that believe if we just left them alone and isolated ourselves that they would stop and go away are blind.

I just try to look at the facts and not let the media and the politicians tell me how to think. Bush is by no means ideal...but we are lucky..in my opinion...to have a leader. I don't care how eloquent a speaker he may be.

W (The "G" Meister, Regulator, with the tilted brim)

 

[flying4life]

Here here Dubya, I'm right there with ya and am glad we have a leader in the office as well. He may not be as polished as Slick Willy but he gets the job done a lot better. I'm glad we have them on the run but I just don't know how long this forgetful nation will stay on target. There are too many feel gooders and when it doesn't feel good anymore they want to quit and not stay in it for the long haul. When we no longer stay the course and when we do start to tire, they will strike back. It's just a matter of time.

 

[surplus1]

TO: Dubya and flying4life

surplus...you stated that other pres. would take actions similar to Bushs' given similar circumstances....I gave you the similar circumstances....the facts show that similar actions were not taken. For you to turn it into invading every country is absurd. The war on terrorism has to be brought to the places they are hiding.

This is of course a highly complex issue and we are not going to solve it here. The basic difference between us seems to be that you have decided to focus on the individual in the White House as the solution to our problems. In contrast, I feel that the foreign policy of our nation as a whole, is the key to the problems we are encountering. Problems that I belive will continue and increase, regardless of who may be President, but especially because Bush is. He and his associates have the bravado, but they don't have the big picture.

You did give me your similar circumstances and I gave you a summary of ineffective military results, regadless of differing reactions. You chose to ignore those and respond by saying "The war on terroism has to be brought to the places where they are hiding."

I don't have a problem with that thought (better to fight on their soil than on ours), but let's try to apply it. According to our current government (the Bush Administration) and also the one that preceeded it (the Clinton Administration) just one of the many terriorist organizations (al Queda) has operating cells in more than 60 different nations.

I asked you which of them we should take this war to. You avoided a response.

What "Plan B" do you propose? The only thing these people are smart enough to understand is force....period.

Ive already told you that I don't pretend to have the answers so I do not have a Plan B. However, the Government of the United States had better develop one, and apparently it has not done so to date. Terrorism did not start on 9/11 and it certainly hasn't ended there. Our own country has been trying to deal with it throughout the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Ronal Reagan, George Bush I, Bill Clinton and now Geroge Bush II. None have prevented it.

Whenever there has been an "attack" on the intrests of the USA, its soldiers, its possessions or its territory, there has been a military response. So far, none of these military adventures has prevented the next attack. It is true that we have not had another spectacular attack like 9/11, but if you believe that our military response will prevent one from happening, I think you're in for a very rude awakening.

For the record, I fully support what we did in Afghanistan in direct pursuit of a known terrorist organization that was the source of the 9/11 attack. On the other hand, what we are currently doing in Afghanistan as a follow up is, in my opinion, a failure and will result in a resurgence of the same problem the day after our troops depart.

Again for the record, I do NOT support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I fully recognize that Sadam Hussein was and evil dictator and should not have been running any country. But, unfortunately, the world is full of evil dictators. I do not believe that we can invade and occupy them all. Therefore, I see that policy as wrong.

If we were to put every man, woman and child of our citizens in a military uniform, we simply do not have the population to occupy the "enemy" world. Given that reality, alienating the few friends we have does not strike me as prudent.

You did not answer my questions and you did not tell me who, in your opinion, we are fighting. Instead, you responded by saying "The only thing these people are smart enough to understand is force....period. Ok, I'll have to run with that for you offer no option.

Conveniently, you avoid identifying whom it is you see as "these people". I ask again, who are they? If you are refering to Islamics (which I think you are), then let me show you some statistics.

Indonesia - population 201 millions - 90% Islamic; Pakistan - population 140 millions - Islamic; Egypt - population - 69 millions - Islamic; Iran - population 66 millions - Islamic; Malaysia - population 22 millions - 50% Islamic; Saudia - population 20 millions - Islamic; Syria - population 17 millions - Islamic; Lybia - population 7 millions - Islamic; Algeria - population 32 millions - Islamic; Lebanon - population 4 millions - Islamic; Somalia - population 7 millions - Islamic; Nigeria - population 124 millions - 50% Islamic. The total of Muslims is roughly 650 million people, nearly 3 times the size of the US population. Notice I left out Iraq, the Emiraes, Yemen, the Islamic states of the former Soviet Union and of course Iraq and Afghanistan, which we already occupy. Now, that doesn't even consider other "friends" like North Korea, which is not Islamic.

If "these" people are only smart enough to understand force, how do you propose that the United States exercise force against them? I don't want to offend you but candidly, your presumption is absurd. We could not possibly invade and occupy their countries. What shoud we do then, nuike them?

If our government and current President share your concept that we must use force against "these people" because that is all they understand, then I have serious questions about GWB. Serious enough to be certain that we would be better off if he was in Crawford, TX than Washington, DC.

How many times have we been attacked...on our soil...since 9/11? I'll give you a clue...it's between -1 and 1. So it IS working. You are safe...your family is safe...I am safe...due to the actions and diligence of this administration...like it or not.

The previous administration shot spitwads...this administration is cleaning house.
W

Cleaning house you say? How I wish it were that simple. I'm happy that we have not been attacked again. I am also certain that we are not "safe" by a long shot. The military operations are necessary in some cases, but if you believe that our country can survive in today's world by a foreign policy based on militarism and devoid of anything else you're dreaming.

Either we identify the cause of the hatred and do what it takes to correct it (and it is not envy of our money) or you and I will be living in a fortress and in constant fear of terror for the rest of our lives. Dropping bombs solves nothing.

 

[Dubya]

Surplus.....

I think we agree on more than it may seem. I think you are right on when you speak of military action with no identified purpose. I am not offended by your insinuation that my comments about "those people" were absurd. I may not have presented it eloquently or convicingly. I am referring to the extreme faction of the religion. Religious fanatics. They will not respond to moral persuasions. Only force. It is not a coincidence that Libya and Iran are falling in line after the US displayed that it meant business when Iraq was invaded.

I didn't intentionally avoid the question of where to take the fight. Currrently we are in Iraq and Afganistan...publicly. I'm sure that we are in others covertly...and justifiably so. Preemption is the reason for invading Iraq and Afganistan. The world is not full of evil dictators...there are a select few.

Charles Krauthammer:

"In a world of terrorists, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction, the option of preemption is especially necessary. In the bipolar world of the Cold War, with a stable nonsuicidal adversary, deterrence could work. Deterrence does not work against people who ache for heaven. It does not work against undeterrables. And it does not work against undetectables: nonsuicidal enemy regimes that might attack through clandestine means--a suitcase nuke or anonymously delivered anthrax. Against both undeterrables and undetectables, preemption is the only possible strategy.

Moreover, the doctrine of preemption against openly hostile states pursuing weapons of mass destruction is an improvement on classical deterrence. Traditionally, we deterred the use of WMDs by the threat of retaliation after we’d been attacked--and that’s too late; the point of preemption is to deter the very acquisition of WMDs in the first place.

Whether or not Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the very fact that the United States overthrew a hostile regime that repeatedly refused to come clean on its weapons has had precisely this deterrent effect. We are safer today not just because Saddam is gone, but because Libya and any others contemplating trafficking with WMDs, have--for the first time--seen that it carries a cost, a very high cost."

My references to Clinton's actions..or lack of appropriate actions...was simply to point out that an engaged response to these terrorists was absolutely necessary. GWB sees that and is pursuing a foreign policy that will promote democracy and nation building. We absolutely have to be where we are...and where we are going in this fight to preempt furthur attacks.

I have an INCREDIBLE speech from Charles Krauthammer on foreign policy and the different schools of thought on it....truly an amazing speech from last month. It is a long read...but well worth it.

If you are interested......or anyone else for that matter...it is a MUST READ for anyone who follows the issues. I'll be glad to PM it, or maybe start a post with it....it is great.

W

 

[surplus1]

Yes, I would like to see that speech. If you do not think it would have enough interest for a thread, then go ahead an PM it.

The concept of preemptive war is not one that I currently agree with but that doesn't mean that I couldn't change my mind. Such a distinguished writer as CK is certainly worth reading.

One of the reasons that I believe preemptive war is a flawed policy is because I see its application as extremely limited. There are many other reasons as well.

As an example, let us presume that instead of Iraq, it was Indonesia that we believed possessed WMD that could either be used directly against us or funneled to the terrorist factions. How would we launch a premptive war against a nation of 200 million people?

It is thousands of miles away and much too large to be successfully occupied if its population does not particularly want to be "liberated" by he United States, which I can reasonably assure you it does not. Would that not narrow our only premptive option to a nuclear strike?

Considering that terrorists presumably amount to a relatively small percentage of a total population, would a nuclear strike that kills millions of innocent people not itself make our nation the greatest terrorist of all?

It is one thing for a nation with the military power of the United States to invade and occupy a small and relatively defensless nation like Iraq, the picture changes somewhat when we decide to preemptively invade a Pakistan which already has nuclear capability, though not at all like our own. What do you suppose we will do when the Pakistanis build a long range ICBM (which the have the science to do) and target the United States? Do you think we will launch a preemptive ICBM at them?

Although we choose today to call Pakistan an "ally" of the USA, the truth is it has an unstable government run by a dictator who could be asassinated or overthrown at any time, and I would venture a guess that there are far more fanatically militant and anti-American Islamics in that counry than the entire population of Iraq. Pakistan's schools are run by religious fanatics and it is no secret what they teach or how they teach it. They are not sowing the seeds of tolerance and love for America, they are teaching hatred and indoctrinating the young into blind fanaticism. Deterrence would appear to be the only viable option in dealing with them as a country, but that certainly will not change how they think or what they teach the young.

I could site several other references of countries where preemptive invasions appear to be less than prudent. Certainly we could bomb them, but we could not invade and occupy them as we have Iraq. Bombardment does not stop terrorism.

We have won the battle in Iraq, but we have yet to win the war. The terrorist attacks are continuing against our military every day. Granted they aren't killing 3000 people at a wack, but it certainly isn't over. The British occupied that country for a great many years. They even used posion gas (on WMD) against the Iraqi's killing thousands of innocent people, much as Hussein did to the Kurds. It did not quell the revolts and eventually they gave up and left.

If we were to remove the invading force tomorrow or a year from now, the Sunni, Shiites and Kurds will be at each others throats overnight. That may keep them occupied and reduce any threat to us for a while, but since we never found any of the supposed WMD they possessed, what will prevent if from going to the terrorists that we fear? Perhaps it has already done just that (if it ever existed), If that is the case, what did we accomplish? How did we reduce the threat of terrorists gaining access to the WMD that we have yet to uncover?

As for nation building, Iraq is not Bosnia. The people may have the same religion, but they have a decidedly different culture. If the Iraqi people wanted our style of democracy they would have adopted it themselves. Hussein wouldn't be the first dictator overthrown by his own people. Note also that while Donald Rumsfeld plays well to Americans and Dick Cheney is a brilliant man, I have yet to see the video of streets lined with Iraqis throwing flowers before the "liberators". The likelyhood that we will establish an American style democratic republic in Iraq is, in my opinion, about as remote as regular snow in Miami. What we are far more likely to get, when we leave, will probably be much closer to the Islamic Republic of Iran run by extremist Ayatullahs and harboring more terrorists than before.

Sadamm was a brutal and evil man, but he also ran a secular State and as long as he was there the religious fanatics were not about to take over the country. He would never have allowed an Usama bin Laden in his midst and risk the same fate for himself that the Taliban imposed on Afghanistan. He may very well prove, as time goes by, to have been the lesser of two evils.

Of course we do have the option of perpetual military occupation. If we think that stops terrorism, we might do well to take a second look at the Israelis who, despite their own use of constant military terror have been unable to quell or stop the relatively unarmed Palestinians for 50 years. Will that be our future in Iraq? If so, I wonder again how many countries we think we can occupy at the same time.

I look forward to reading the CK speech, but for now I am not convinced that this premptive strategy is the answer. War does kill many of the terrorists, but it does not eliminate or stop terrorism. As you yourself point out, those who embrace the weapon of terror are fanatics and they have no fear at all of sacrificing their lives for their cause. We should know that by now.

For the present I think we must do our best to protect ourselves, but we had better also seek to identify the root cause of their motivation and remove that cause. Otherwise, this will be a war without end whether or not the preemptive concept prevails.

 

[Dubya]

I'll start a post

I really think it's worth a post....hell compared to some of the other posts I see here....this is a billion more times informative. Oooooh...i sound like Carl Sagan.

I look forward to the responses. It is an amazing speech.

W