Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

After Kerry Wins . . .

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Check Mr.Swig's previous post with some quotes he cited.

They are all the examples one needs.

All of the posts Mr. Swig cited posts were ones criticizing liberals. Is all criticism of liberals a "blatantly conservative rant" ? The ARI op-eds and CapMag articles routinely criticize liberals, in no uncertain terms. Does that make them "blatantly conservative rants" ?

If you think so, then forgive me the question, but what are you doing on this forum??

In the realm of politics, Objectivism is all about free markets and an intransigent use of retaliatory force against enemies foreign and domestic. Liberalism insists on intervening in, restricting, regulating, "socializing," subsidizing, lawyerizing, multiculturizing, environmentalizing, and in whatever other sorts of ways politicizing markets, while it calls for leniency towards convicted criminals and it goes out of its way to appease, "reach out to," negotiate with, find "diplomatic solutions" for, "give another chance to," or even to human-shield and foreign-aid America's enemies abroad. Liberalism and Objectivism simply don't mix; they are diametrical opposites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All of the posts Mr. Swig cited posts were ones criticizing liberals. Is all criticism of liberals a "blatantly conservative rant" ? The ARI op-eds and CapMag articles routinely criticize liberals, in no uncertain terms. Does that make them "blatantly conservative rants" ?

Of course not.

Be aware, however, that the Right is utilizing similar critiques of the Left and infusing them with their own faith-based ethic.

Many of Mr. Swig's examples sound suspiciusly like the stuff you hear on Rush Limbaugh.

If you think so, then forgive me the question, but what are you doing on this forum??
I am a fan of Objectivism. I read virtually all of Rand's books, and constantly peruse the various sites. I am a strong adovcate of free-market capitalism and a staunch defender of the American Bill of Rights (something I recommend that you, from Hungary, really study).

I have been such an advocate for 36 years, that is,since my sophomore year in college, when I bore first-hand witness to the futility of the college campus student strikes that were prevalent in my day.

In the realm of politics, Objectivism is all about free markets and an intransigent use of retaliatory force against enemies foreign and domestic.

Objectivism makes serious distinctions as to when the use of force by government is appropriate. Your blanket statement shows that your understanding of such distinctions falls short.

For example, I have noticed much discussion regarding "pre-emptive strikes." And how they are "justified."

Objectivism specifically notes that the government's use of force is strictly for defense against those who use force against it. To the best of my knowledge, it makes no reference to the validity of "pre-emptive strikes."

Liberalism insists on intervening in, restricting, regulating, "socializing," subsidizing, lawyerizing, multiculturizing, environmentalizing, and in whatever other sorts of ways politicizing markets, while it calls for leniency towards convicted criminals and it goes out of its way to appease, "reach out to," negotiate with, find "diplomatic solutions" for, "give another chance to," or even to human-shield and foreign-aid America's enemies abroad. Liberalism and Objectivism simply don't mix; they are diametrical opposites.

Where liberalism insists on controlling and imposing upon others, I think we agree.

I note that conservatism also calls out for leniency towards criminals, indeed the Christian scriptures upon which conservatism is based specifically state to "love thine enemies."

I note that conservatism makes use of lawyerizing and politicizing markets for its own gains.

The real enemy is not so much liberalism or conservatism, but collectivism, which imposes upon the individual's right to his life and pursuit of happiness and wants to exercise an illicit control over such.

Now let me, if I may, take your statement and edit it to make this perfectly clear to you:

"Collectivism insists on intervening in, restricting, regulating, "socializing," subsidizing, lawyerizing, multiculturizing, environmentalizing, and in whatever other sorts of ways politicizing markets, while it calls for leniency towards convicted criminals and it goes out of its way to appease, "reach out to," negotiate with, find "diplomatic solutions" for, "give another chance to," or even to human-shield and foreign-aid America's enemies abroad. Collectivism and Objectivism simply don't mix; they are diametrical opposites."

If A is A and A equals B, then liberals and conservatives are both forms of collectivists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, I have noticed much discussion regarding "pre-emptive strikes."  And how they are "justified."

Objectivism specifically notes that the government's use of force is strictly for defense against those who use force against it.  To the best of my knowledge, it makes no  reference to the validity of "pre-emptive strikes."

It definitely does. Objectivism realizes that the THREAT of force is just as much a cause for military action as an actual attack.

When you deal with the threat of force, nothing can answer it but armed force. When a bloody aggressor is loose in the world, a threatened nation must subordinate all expenditures to the requirements of national defense, which is the first and foremost duty of its government; only when defense is secure, can one begin to live or breathe.

Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It definitely does.  Objectivism realizes that the THREAT of force is just as much a cause for military action as an actual attack.

So what constitutes a Threat of Force? And what is the appropriate way to respond to it?

I would offer the opinion that the Cuban Missile Crisis (Russia's missile buildup in Cuba) was an example of the threat of force. I would offer the opinion that Kennedy, using brinkmanship, offered an appropriate response to such threat of force. America built up its defenses in a ready to strike mode.

The Russians responded by withdrawing their missiles.

Pathetically, no such response is even offered by either candidate. The Bush administration has shown themselves reluctant to respond even to actual force against us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brinksmanship could only work in that situation because the real enemies in that situation, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, knew what the consequences to both would be, i.e. nuclear annihilation. When that was made clear to Krushchev he backed down. Despite how irrational the communist country was, its leaders knew they couldn't screw around beyond a certain point without risking war with the United States. This situation was created by both countries possessing the means to totally annihilate the other, therefore our options were limited, beyond stating we would take out the Cuban missiles and risk the nuclear war anyway.

This is not our current situation today. No enemy country has the ability to wipe out our country with the push of a button, and therefore we don't have to worry about that scenario when we preemptively take out our enemies before they can attack us. When a country declares the whole purpose of its foreign policy is to destroy the United States and our allies then it is perfectly within our right to take that threat seriously and not stand around and wait for them to kill our citizens before we believe them, that is immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In post #48, which I addressed specifically to MisterSwig, I ostensively asked him to please answer the question I posed at the beginning of this thread. I couched that post in language that I now regret and I apologize to MisterSwig for the tone of the post. That I was feeling frustrated with the fact that the discussion had turned to the same talking points being discussed on other threads is no excuse.

I don't like that tone in others, but I especially don't like that tone coming from me. It does nothing to advance my own arguments in particular, or the discussion in general.

So, I apologize to MisterSwig for my gratuitous swipe at him, and I apologize to those who have participated in the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberalism and Objectivism simply don't mix; they are diametrical opposites.

Modern Conservatism doesn't mix with Objectivism, either, because it is now very religious, as exemplified by the movement's chosen political and cultural leaders, like Bush and Rush.

Ayn Rand predicted that Conservatism would fall prey to religion, because it never had a moral base to support capitalism. Ultimately Conservatism has depended upon religious principles in order to survive the assaults from the Left.

Conservatives like free markets, but not at the expense of God or religion.

Unregulated capitalism will ultimately lead to the end of Conservatism, as we know it, because religion is not a very profitable adventure. Religion preys on the ignorant, and once fully exposed, it will fail.

If religion is to survive, then it must do so through force. It must gain government power and tax secular activities and sins, then it must give secular dollars to struggling churches and the faithful. It must shut down and abuse the voices of reason, in order to maintain its grip on the ignorant. That is the nature of religion.

Conservatives, now, are having to face a fundamental question: Religion or Freedom? And as a movement they are choosing religion. Bush's "Faith-based Initiatives" are a prime example of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We defeated your invasion at Plattsburgh, New Orleans, and Fort McHenry. That gives us three defensive victories to your one, so by that standard we won the war.

I may be mistaken but I beleive there was three attempted invasions of Canada, in the end all three failed.

I would call it a tie in this respect. However the victory at New Orleans effectivly forced the British out of what is today the continental United States, which allowed us to expand out into the west.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be mistaken but I beleive there was three attempted invasions of Canada, in the end all three failed.

I would call it a tie in this respect. However the victory at New Orleans effectivly forced the British out of what is today the continental United States, which allowed us to expand out into the west.

Yes but these "invasions," except for the first one, were small endeavors with no chance for success, even leaders of the country put nothing more than faint hope that somehow they would succeed. The three invasions embarked upon by the British after the first abdication of Napoleon were vast endeavors involving thousands of ground troops and hundreds of naval vessels. Nothing comparable was attempted in our invasions of Canada, except in 1812. Also, Perry's destruction of the British/Canadian fleet on the Great Lakes was another triumph that tipped the balance to the Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I apologize to MisterSwig for my gratuitous swipe at him, and I apologize to those who have participated in the thread.

I appreciate that. I, too, apologize for the tone in some of my replies to you. I think we should make a fresh start of it, but I will not have the motivation to repeat arguments that I've made several times before. So, I'll try to point you to previous threads when appropriate.

To briefly address a couple of your questions in this thread:

1. What would a Kerry presidency look like?

If Kerry is elected, I believe he will run the war in a similar vein as Bush is doing now. He clearly knows that a large portion of America, including decent Democrats, wants to continue fighting the war on terror, but not necessarily in Iraq and not necessarily the way Bush is doing it. Kerry will have to continue the war effort. However, he doesn't have a military plan of his own, so he will most likely depend heavily on the one he will inherit from Bush. This will piss off the hardcore America-haters to his left, but so what? Democrats in general will be happy enough to have Bush out of the White House.

If we get lucky, Kerry will slowly abandon the idea of a 'forward strategy of freedom' and let it die on the vine, because he won't be inspired to defend his inherited war strategy. If that happens, then we will have to develop a new strategy for conducting the war, if we want to stop the bloodshed. I don't think anyone can really know what Kerry and the Republicans would come up with. But I suspect it would look something like what Israel has been doing for years now: try to assassinate terrorist leaders; conduct minor raids or bombings on particularly hostile cities; and seal up our borders.

Kerry may actually attempt to rekindle a love affair with France and Germany and the United Nations, but I believe that endeavor will fail or lag, because America is nationalizing under the pressure of a domestic religious fundamentalist movement, which seems to be turning more and more antagonistic toward the secular internationalism seen in Europe.

On the domestic front, I think Kerry will try to raise the minimum wage and increase taxes on the rich, but, for the most part, his more radical agenda will be blocked by the Republican Congress. The Religious Right is mobilized under the "dittohead" banner, and as long as people like Rush Limbaugh are around, the Right will fight tooth-and-nail against Kerry's secular domestic agenda. And to the extent that they develop their own religious domestic agenda, they will begin to really set a new trend for wealth redistribution. And that trend will be one of taking from secularism and giving to religion. Kerry cannot stop this trend. He can only resist it.

I speculate that the Republican Congress and the New Conservative Media will never allow Kerry to severely disrupt the will of the Religious Right. Basically, the Right is becoming too strong, too passionate, too aggressive. Kerry will not have free reign as president. The religious conservative movement will grow under Kerry, as it grew under Clinton. And if Kerry doesn't want to be impeached, like his predecessor, he will appease the Right.

If Kerry wins this election, it will be because of disgust with Bush's failing war policy combined with a healthy, "sense of life" fear of religion. It won't be because Kerry wants to raise the minimum wage and tax the rich.

If Kerry is elected, he won't have a mandate, nor the votes in Congress, to bring about some socialistic nightmare.

The nightmare is coming from religion. And Kerry is the only human shield we have to hide behind.

2. How will the military respond to a President Kerry?

They will do their duty. Nobody in this country is going to love a President Kerry. Nobody really loves him now. I doubt whether his wife loves him.

So I don't expect the military to love or respect him either. But they will obey him. And they will continue to fight for America, when given the chance.

If Kerry is elected, the Republicans will have to live with it. The military will have to live with it. They will look like jerks if they whine about it.

But Kerry won't be the cause of any real military problems or defeats. That will be caused by this nation's general unwillingness to fight a self-interested war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article in capmag.com, it looks like the soldiers have already realized what we've been complaining of all along: their lives are less of a priority than Iraqi civilians and political correctness. They're frustrated and disillusioned about the policy in Iraq right now, and I've read an article about how some 19 soldiers refused to do some mission...looks like discipline is falling apart along with morale.

The question is, will Kerry be any different? Would he make the lives of Americans, and American soldiers in particular,his priority? Or will he continue Bush's policy? or worse...

Bush is already loosing the support of the troops. But I don't see how Kerry can gain theirs or boost their morale.

Oldsalt, I think your argument that Bush would have greater support from the troops than Kerry is loosing weight from reading some of the soldiers speak out against Bush's policy in this article.

-----

MisterSwig, your argument hinges on the assumption that the neoconservatives will retain control of Congress throughout Kerry's administration. What makes you think this will be so?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oldsalt, I think your argument that Bush would have greater support from the troops than Kerry is loosing weight from reading some of the soldiers speak out against Bush's policy in this article.

The article you cite is a second-hand report based on twelve soldiers interviewed by the ultra-liberal Washington Post. Were those soldiers representative of the thousands deployed? I doubt it.

Just about all the polls show that our soldiers support Bush over Kerry 4 to 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MisterSwig, your argument hinges on the assumption that the neoconservatives will retain control of Congress throughout Kerry's administration.  What makes you think this will be so?

Because I believe that religious conservatism is on the rise, and over time this will translate into more Republicans and Right-leaning Democrats in Congress.

I believe we have a chance of electing Kerry simply because, being at the top, Bush personally takes the hit for the failures in Iraq. That loses him votes that he would have received otherwise. But the religious conservatives below him, the senators, the representatives, the governors, they will still look good to their constituencies, because they aren't perceived to be in charge of the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for excepting my apology, MisterSwig. I'm happy to start over.

From an article by Ross MacKenzie on Oct. 14, 2004:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmac...m20041014.shtml

Oct. 11 editions of Military Times publications (Navy Times, Army Times, Marine Corps Times, Air Force Times) carried an astounding story not likely to get much coverge in the establishment press. [Which it hasn't. JB]

Staff writer Gordon Trowbride wrote as follows:

Bush leads Democratic Sen John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in a voluntary survey of 4,165 active duty, National Guard, and reserve subscribers.

<snip>

Officers and enlisted troops, active-duty members and reservists, those who have served in combat zones and those who haven't, all supported Bush by large margins. And the survey hints that Kerry's emphasis of his decorated service in Vietnam may have done more harm than good with those in uniform.

The article also sites Kerry's failure to sign Pentagon Form 180 authorizing the release of all his military records and the failure to authorize the republication of his "peacenik book," The New Soldier, that first appeared in the early 1970's (the book can now be found on the net). The attempt by CBS to smear President Bush's military record using fabricated documents didn't help Kerry with the military either. Their experience with journalists lumps the Dems and the MSM together.

To continue:

Finally, the Military Times survey may be telling Kerry and the Democates that a hefty military majority sees through the careful veneer of moderation to the deeply ingrained leftism that drives him.

Kerry has been hostile to the military;. . . [he] led peacenik demonstrations, decried the American military as reeking with war criminals. . . . His 20-year Senate record . . . is one of uninterrupted hostility to almost every military weapons system and almost every military enterprise proposed during that time.

When assessing whether the "enterprises" ought to have been voted against or not, do not substitute your premises for Kerry's. While Objectivists may also have been against certain actions for reasons specific to the situation, Sen. Kerry has been against the projection of American force on principle.

The money quote:

Those in the military resent the prospect of risking their lives ith him as their commander in chief in a war he terms "wrong" and "a grand diversion" -- with allies he terms "coerced and bribed."

This jibes with everything I've heard from the Marine and Naval personnel I've personally spoken with.

There are always breakdowns within a military command, such as is discribed in the CapMag article. I would also cite what happened at Abu Graib (I know that's not spelled right :)) prison. It happens when you have a weak leader. I don't discount the uncertainty engendered by what is happening at home, either, and what it does to morale. I would advise people, however, to be careful about assigning or projecting your thinking onto those in the military. If you've never served, it is impossible for you to understand the culture. Even those who serve short tours do not understand, or fit into, the culture. There is a certain "military bearing" that is required for a professional serviceman or woman.

A good example of the way most military people think, especially those serving "in country," is given in a comment to a VodkaPundit post dated Oct. 14: (The link I had doesn't seem to be working. :) )

"I'm an Army battalion commander currently serving in the heart of Baghdad. It's difficult for me to express how important this election is to those of us currently in harm's way. First let me say that my brigade combat team has been here 6 months. In this time, we have lost over 25 soldiers and had 300 seriously wounded. Yet, in my battalion alone I have reenlisted over 100 soldiers. I have less than 20 soldiers a day go on sick call out of 600. Amazing when you consider the oppressive heat during the summer. I tell you this because our soldiers know they are making a difference, and absolutely believe in this mission. We don't give a rat's ass about WMDs and know we are not fighting for oil. Truly, first and foremost we believe that we are defending America by attacking the enemy on his turf. [Emphasis mine.] For God's sake, what do people think the likes of Zarqawi/OBL would be doing if they were not on the run trying to prevent us from establishing modern states in the Islamist world? There is no safe haven! This is only true because the US Army and Marine Corps is in his back yard. . . . What an insult to tell those of us who know, and are doing the fighting and dying, that this is the "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." Imagine the effect on our military if we have a commander in chief who believes our brothers and sisters have died in vain. . . ."

Of course, one can never know who writes in the comments section of a blog, but this is exactly the kind of thing I hear all the time from people in the service -- especially the officers, so I'll trust it. You can find the same kind of thing in almost any milblog.

We may disagree that the Iraqi theater of war is a valid part of the WOT. If, however, you are expecting this country to maintain its superb fighting forces after electing Kerry -- forces required to fight the war you would support -- I suggest that these are facts that ought to be taken into consideration. What options would be left to us but a draft, and a greatly degraded military force as a consequence, if the professionals leave in droves. I wouldn't count on them "just taking it" as MisterSwig suggests. You've no idea how many career officers and non-coms left the service after Viet Nam. It took decades to recover and we don't have decades.

The military doesn't want a draft. (nor is it even legal at this point, a fact Kerry knows well, but ignores in order to scare young people). Today's forces take years to become the highly trained people they are. No one goes into the field anymore after a few weeks in boot camp. A draft army cannot fight the way we fight now; instead of a technically sophisticated, precision war, we'd have large numbers of bodies thrown at the enemy.

Please don't counter with the fact of our nuclear weapons. As I've said before, the culture is no where near the point where it would allow wide-spread use of nuclear weapons. To continue to use this as a point of debate, at this time, is to engage in constructing fantasy scenarios while America struggles for its continued existence.

To close, I want to address the idea that our forces don't like "dying for the Iraqis." Firstly, they don't see it that way, as the letter above indicates. Secondly, our forces are not killing robots. They actually like to do positive things that offset the killing they must do. They see the value of lifting the oppression from Iraqis', and they know that most Irais, while they don't like being occupied, know that the alternative is much worse. The majority of Iraqis -- contrary to what you'll hear from the MSM -- are afraid the Americans will leave too soon. You don't understand the effect of witnessing the opening of a mass grave, or seeing the torture chambers, etc., has on Americans. They see justice in what they are doing, because they see the injustice that has gone before. It is a very American reaction, born of the best of the American sense of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I speculate that the Republican Congress and the New Conservative Media will never allow Kerry to severely disrupt the will of the Religious Right. Basically, the Right is becoming too strong, too passionate, too aggressive. Kerry will not have free reign as president. The religious conservative movement will grow under Kerry, as it grew under Clinton. And if Kerry doesn't want to be impeached, like his predecessor, he will appease the Right.

In general, I think yours is an excellent observation.

But Kerry will do nothing to be impeached. Unlike Clinton, who is a known womanizer and a profoundly corrupt power broker, Kerry won't get into a scenario where he will be prone to charges of misconduct.

One thing that won't happen is that an anti-man, anti-mind faith-based right-wing conservative (like an Antonin Scalia) won't get into the Supreme Court because Kerry simply won't nominate him/her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I believe that religious conservatism is on the rise, and over time this will translate into more Republicans and Right-leaning Democrats in Congress.

I believe we have a chance of electing Kerry simply because, being at the top, Bush personally takes the hit for the failures in Iraq. That loses him votes that he would have received otherwise. But the religious conservatives below him, the senators, the representatives, the governors, they will still look good to their constituencies, because they aren't perceived to be in charge of the war.

Note also that Bush, whether he admits it or not, takes the hit for other failures, domestic and foreign.

He has lowered taxes but failed to reduce government. His apologists say this will take time, but we have not seen from Bush a tangible plan to reduce government. This has contributed mightily to the deficits we see today. Also, state and local governments have seen damage to their infrastructures due to the reduction in federal revenue sharing.

Where they have had the golden opportunity to gain the support of Americans, the Bush administration has yet to succeed in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are still threats there, thanks to the woeful manner that he pursued this war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brinksmanship could only work in that situation because the real enemies in that situation, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, knew what the consequences to both would be, i.e. nuclear annihilation. When that was made clear to Krushchev he backed down. Despite how irrational the communist country was, its leaders knew they couldn't screw around beyond a certain point without risking war with the United States. This situation was created by both countries possessing the means to totally annihilate the other, therefore our options were limited, beyond stating we would take out the Cuban missiles and risk the nuclear war anyway.

This is not our current situation today. No enemy country has the ability to wipe out our country with the push of a button, and therefore we don't have to worry about that scenario when we preemptively take out our enemies before they can attack us. When a country declares the whole purpose of its foreign policy is to destroy the United States and our allies then it is perfectly within our right to take that threat seriously and not stand around and wait for them to kill our citizens before we believe them, that is immoral.

Nonsense.

Brinkmanship can be applied to any enemy in any situation. Several states in the Middle East have declared their opposition to America and their desire to rid the world of America because it is considered an infidel. They don't possess nuclear weapons yet, but they possess the resources to sponsor terrorist factions who then hijack our planes and crash them into our buildings, killing thousands, or build truck bombs and drive them into embassies, killing hundreds. Taken one step further, a well-organized band of terrorists, well-sponsored by Middle East rogue states could amass such an attack which would be every bit as catastrophic as a nuclear attack.

While Bush is fighting his altruistic war in Iraq, Iran is constructing nuclear reactors capable of developing, in short time, a full-fledged nuclear arms program.

Since we have a profound presense in the Middle East, wouldn't it make sense to point our missiles and bombs at the nuke plants and coerce Iran to stop such deployment of nuclear reactors?

That's still brinkmanship.

Oh, and Betsy, attacking Iran in such a manner doesn't qualify as a "pre-emptive strike." it is a defense measure, justifiable as retailation for the numerous incidents of the current Iranian government sponsoring attacks against America and its interests here and abroad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense.

Brinkmanship can be applied to any enemy in any situation.  Several states in the Middle East have declared their opposition to America and their desire to rid the world of America because it is considered an infidel.  They don't possess nuclear weapons yet, but they possess the resources to sponsor terrorist factions who then hijack our planes and crash them into our buildings, killing thousands, or build truck bombs and drive them into embassies, killing hundreds.  Taken one step further, a well-organized band of terrorists, well-sponsored by Middle East rogue states could amass such an attack which would be every bit as catastrophic as a nuclear attack.

While Bush is fighting his altruistic war in Iraq, Iran is constructing nuclear reactors capable of developing, in short time, a full-fledged nuclear arms program.

Since we have a profound presense in the Middle East, wouldn't it make sense to point our missiles and bombs at the nuke plants and coerce Iran to stop such deployment of nuclear reactors?

That's still brinkmanship.

Oh, and Betsy, attacking Iran in such a manner doesn't qualify as a "pre-emptive strike."  it is a defense measure, justifiable as retailation for the numerous incidents of the current Iranian government sponsoring attacks against America and its interests here and abroad.

First of all, the word Brinksmanship is a Cold War word, you use it to avoid war, because the war itself is too costly. THis isn't the situation now, no enemy, save for North Korea (and maybe France, which has nuclear weapons), has the power to deter us from destroying them, at least not yet. As Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, the wars we fight against these people aren't very costly at all, in fact they cost relatively little.

We are, as you say, already under attack from Iran, there is no point in wasting time with threats to the Iranians, we should just attack them now. And a good case for preemption would be for us to invade and eliminate the regime in Syria, even though they haven't actually attacked us or event threatened us as far as I know. We have every right to destroy any and all of these regimes whenever we want to for no reason at all other than that they are slave states, not to mention engage in hostile activities towards us and our allies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for excepting my apology, MisterSwig.  I'm happy to start over.

From an article by Ross MacKenzie on Oct. 14, 2004:

[...]

To close, I want to address the idea that our forces don't like "dying for the Iraqis."  Firstly, they don't see it that way, as the letter above indicates.  Secondly, our forces are not killing robots.  They actually like to do positive things that offset the killing they must do.  They see the value of lifting the oppression from Iraqis', and they know that most Irais, while they don't like being occupied, know that the alternative is much worse.  The majority of Iraqis -- contrary to what you'll hear from the MSM -- are afraid the Americans will leave too soon.  You don't understand the effect of witnessing the opening of a mass grave, or seeing the torture chambers, etc., has on Americans.  They see justice in what they are doing, because they see the injustice that has gone before.  It is a very American reaction, born of the best of the American sense of life.

That was another very thorough and well-grounded defense of your argument, Oldsalt. Thank you. I'd like to add that you and the others who are going to vote for Bush are really swaying me more to your side; but it's also because my father is an American soldier, who had been in Iraq in the first year of the war (feb 2003 to March 2004) and is about to be deployed there again.

I'm VERY well aware of the overwhelming support the military has for Bush. I LIVE in a military post--so I can see it all the time. What I meant by your argument "loosing weight" was that Bush is gradually loosing the support. I didn't say an overwhelming majority oppose him, and I certainly did not intend to imply that the military would support Kerry more.

My father, unfortunately, seems to one of those few disillusioned soldier who think their lives are being wasted for oil. We discussed this about a month ago, but he wasn't entirely certain. Before being deployed he sincerely believed--as nearly all soldiers did--that there were WMD's in Iraq.

I'm not sure how widespread this growing distrust and disillionment is in the military, but I certainly know that my father is part of it--and it may be growing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My father, unfortunately, seems to one of those few disillusioned soldier who think their lives are being wasted for oil.  We discussed this about a month ago, but he wasn't entirely certain.  Before being deployed he sincerely believed--as nearly all soldiers did--that there were WMD's in Iraq. 

I'm not sure how widespread this growing distrust and disillionment is in the military, but I certainly know that my father is part of it--and it may be growing.

Sorry, but I find that whole quandry amusing. Everyone thought there were weapons there, even the U.N. and France believed this was so. If we fouhgt for the oil where the hell is it, gas keeeps going up, either this supply boon hasn't materialized or demand is increasing more than all the oil we're "stealing" from Iraq. Also, we have every right to use and take the oil, to pay for our efforts in the region, I wish we would do that, but I doubt that we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but I find that whole quandry amusing. Everyone thought there were weapons there, even the U.N. and France believed this was so. If we fouhgt for the oil where the hell is it, gas keeeps going up, either this supply boon hasn't materialized or demand is increasing more than all the oil we're "stealing" from Iraq. Also, we have every right to use and take the oil, to pay for our efforts in the region, I wish we would do that, but I doubt that we are.

I discussed similar points with my father--who by the way is NOT an Objectivist--but he seems to blank out to my arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What would a Kerry presidency look like?

If Kerry is elected, I believe he will run the war in a similar vein as Bush is doing now. He clearly knows that a large portion of America, including decent Democrats, wants to continue fighting the war on terror, but not necessarily in Iraq and not necessarily the way Bush is doing it. Kerry will have to continue the war effort. However, he doesn't have a military plan of his own, so he will most likely depend heavily on the one he will inherit from Bush. This will piss off the hardcore America-haters to his left, but so what? Democrats in general will be happy enough to have Bush out of the White House.

I must disagree. One good thing Bush has done with respect to running the war is to leave most decisions to the commanders on the scene. For example, there have been many complaints about insufficient troop levels in Iraq – but not from the local commanders. When interviewed, they have repeatedly stated that they do not need more troops.

But Kerry will never leave such things to the commanders. Kerry is extremely sensitive to criticism. Everything he does is with one eye on CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Hollywood and the United Nations. Kerry is also inherently distrustful of the military. As a result, he will attempt to micromanage the war – review every decision, run up trial balloons with leaks to the media, etc. This will have the same effect it had in Vietnam.

I cannot claim to know what will happen if Kerry wins, but I can see one plausible scenario. If Kerry is elected, the terrorists will stop all attacks in Iraq and wait for America to leave. Then, with full Iranian backing, they will unleash everything they’ve got on a militarily weakened Iraq and presto – another theocracy, because they know Kerry would never re-invade.

And Kerry cannot ignore the radical leftist portion of his base. He will be running for re-election from the very beginning.

On the domestic front, I think Kerry will try to raise the minimum wage and increase taxes on the rich, but, for the most part, his more radical agenda will be blocked by the Republican Congress. The Religious Right is mobilized under the "dittohead" banner, and as long as people like Rush Limbaugh are around, the Right will fight tooth-and-nail against Kerry's secular domestic agenda.

I also disagree with this. The "Religious Right and the dittoheads" were furiously opposed to the Medicare expansion, the steel tariffs, the farm subsidy bill, the education bill, the amnesty proposal and the increased spending on the arts, just to name a few things. Yet they were unable to stop any of them. If they couldn’t stop a president from their own party, how will they stop a Democrat who will have the entire main stream media in his pocket from day one?

I think Kerry can do a lot of harm. I can see the environmentalists rolling Kerry into signing some form of the Kyoto treaty. I can see U.N. rolling Kerry into agreeing to the global tax that is being discussed. I can see Kerry imposing tariffs and trade sanctions that will hurt international trade. These are all things Kerry advocates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure how widespread this growing distrust and disillionment is in the military, but I certainly know that my father is part of it--and it may be growing.

Tom,

My brother is also active duty and served in Iraq as well as Africa over this last year or so. The Marines and soldiers (as well as their families) that I have talked to support President Bush. I worry (and I wonder if this could be part of the concern of your father) that part of being disillusioned (to a remarkably small degree) is with our politicians and election year rhetoric over the war in Iraq - not just the war on terrorism. Just a quick thought...

-Elizabeth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...