Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

After Kerry Wins . . .

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Having read the many philosophic reasons for voting for Kerry, I am left with this question:

What do the supporters of this position envision as the consequences of a Kerry presidency?

Kerry has already stated that he will shut down needed weapons programs. We know that he has many "plans" for economic expansion and job creation (his key points are raising taxes and putting a stop to out-sourcing), health care, social security, etc. Such plans depend on Congress, however, so I will put aside questions about these proposed programs.

I am most concerned here with the war, and the relationship between Kerry and the military (not the generals, especially -- though they are important, but the rank and file). How do you expect him to conduct the war in Iraq, specifically? How do you expect him to conduct the overall war? What consequences do you see from his conduct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kerry-Edwards on Iran (PNAC Article)

Kerry on Israel (News Article (Warning: Contains flip-flopping on fence issue). His stance on Israel seems similar to Bush, although Bush recently sold bunker busting bombs to Israel which impressed me.

Kerry seems to have a good plan on rounding up black market nukes as well. His main problem is with America's greatest enemy in the Middle East: Iran. All I've seen so far is evidence that he "will not hesitate to levy sanctions on Iran" if the Mullahs choose to ignore their idea for a "great bargain" which essentially an appeasing compromise. We can only hope that Kerry would employ full support to Israel if it choose to destroy the nuclear reactors.

This peice takes from WorldNetDaily offers harsh criticism of Kerry's Iranian policy:

Kerry on Iran

Summary of Kerry's Foreign Policy:

The Economist

Link to post
Share on other sites

ex-banana-eater: Thank you for the links. However, I am specifically interested in what those who plan on voting for Kerry expect to happen in the conduct of the war, and what the consequences will be. We've heard why we should not vote for Bush, but I want to hear what those who hold this position expect from Kerry. Being anti-Bush is only half of the equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having read the many philosophic reasons for voting for Kerry, I am left with this question:

What do the supporters of this position envision as the consequences of a Kerry presidency?

...

Oldsalt, this thread deserves to survive and flourish. You and I disagree about voting to re-elect President Bush. I probably will do as Ayn Rand did in 1980: vote for neither candidate (religious Reagan and religious Carter). That means I won't be voting for President Kerry.

However, I too would very much like to hear from Kerry supporters about what they think will happen if Senator Kerry is elected -- with or without Republican control of Congress.

Here is what I think will probably happen. Kerry supporters can consider these predictions to be a target:

1. Kerry will use every power of his office to directly move the federal government toward left-wing statism. Executive orders are the tool here. I do not know what their limits are. I think that he will have some success in this area, because conservatives are other-worldly altruists who share the premises of moderate leftists.

2. Kerry will initiate legislation, through the Democrats in Congress, and Republicans will "compromise" with his proposals. The center of compromise -- even in the best cases -- will be slightly more statist with Kerry than with Bush. The main difference will be in "flavor" -- egalitarian and multiculturalist versus faith-based and traditionalist with the empty rhetoric of "free enterprise."

3. Kerry will push his own pet religion -- Environmentalism -- into even more land-use controls than Bush would have.

4. Kerry will block any further advances by anti-abortionists, meanwhile advancing his own anti-choice agenda by pushing for increased tax support for abortion.

5. Kerry will reduce U. S. military efforts in Iraq, gradually shrinking back and eventually retreating. The result will be plunging morale in the military and an increase in "sensitive" recruits.

6. Kerry will do an even better job of protecting the U. S. domestically from terrorism -- for awhile. He does not dare allow another 9/11, because it would be the end of the Democratic Party. But eventually he will waver and the protections will weaken, especially in a -- gasp -- second term.

7. The Islamofascist enemies of Western Civilization will see his election as a victory and wll gain more recruits as a consequence.

8. Republican conservatives will awaken slighly from their torpor. They will slightly radicalize their debate. Objectivists will speak even more loudly -- and won't be heard because we have too little power at this point. We will need at least another generation to acquire that power.

As I indicated, I consider these to be talking points.

Oldsalt's question should be asked of the Bush supporters as well, but -- out of respect for Oldsalt -- that is another thread.

Fire away!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Burgesslau: Thank you for responding and attempting to keep this thread alive. I am not surprised, however, that this subject hasn't managed to get any traction. I expected it, but hoped I was wrong.

Out of all the discussions about this election, there has only been scant mention of the war. What has been expressed, generally speaking, is a frustration that we are not being aggressive enough. The cause is laid completely on Bush's religion and his pragmatism. That is true, but it is not the whole truth, and it leaves out the larger context of the culture as a whole. Bush is a product of that culture and to expect him to suddenly change into a rational Objectivist at the destruction of the towers is the same as expecting our entire culture to make a fundamental shift in its thinking. Such a shift is desparately needed, but to expect it is to indulge in an evasion of the reality of all of human history.

There isn't a single war in this country's history -- hell, in all of human history -- that we can point to and say that it was fought on proper philosophical grounds. They were all conducted with the messy, mixed premises of the culture that fought them. Why does anyone expect this one be any different? Just because a few of us have become Objectivists?

It is the rhetoric behind the war, especially in the Iraqi theater, that has turned off so many of us. It gets in the way of understanding the actual military strategy of that particular theater. There are solid reasons for being there, however bad the mistakes on the ground, or the lack of a proper propaganda champaign, have been. The biggest problem facing the entire war isn't the general strategy, nor is it the particular tactics involved. It is the people at home and the boiling cauldron of the cultural war now being fought between the Religionists and the Marxists. It is the rhetoric and the increasing violence of the pampered, over-educated, post-modern, anti-war nihilists that have emboldened the Islamists and has cost the lives of both Americans and our allies on the ground.

So far, we've managed to maintain our force level, despite the vehemence of the anti-war crowd. How long do you think this will remain true? There isn't a base in this country where there aren't ganges of protestors who harass our troops, verbally and physically. There are increasing physical attacks on people who let it be known that they are military. Our people in uniform hear the "news" programs that distort what is actually happening in theater; the distortion itself denigrates the efforts of these men and women, the vast majority of whom understand why they are there. They are still able to see the slaughter of their countrymen in those collapsing towers. They know they are fighting over there so that we won't have to fight here.

One of the most important reasons why they fight and remain loyal the way they do is because of their Commander in Chief. They believe in his dedication and staying power, and because of this they know that their efforts won't be abrogated by giving up. How long do you expect them to remain in the military when they hear that "no battle is better than half a battle?" How long before there is a major brain drain if Kerry, who holds them in utter contempt (no matter his rhetoric of the last five minutes has been), is elected? How long before we will be forced to reinstate the draft because the best in the officer corp and the best in the rank and file won't put their lives on the line for Mr. Kerry's airy-fairy ideas about diplomacy?

What are you counting on when you say that Kerry will be so bad that the citizenry will be forced into an epiphany? How can anyone say this without giving the first thought to the people you are counting on to be there to do your fighting for you? This, after you've shown such contempt for their lives by putting someone in charge of them who will think nothing of selling them down the river in the name of Kerry's magic peace by diplomacy?

My decision as to who to vote for is an easy one: I can either vote for Bush or not vote at all. There is nothing that could make me vote for Kerry. I come from a military family that goes back five generations. I'm a vet. Both of my brothers remained in the Navy even after Viet Nam -- and all that that history entailed for the military as a whole, and the individual in uniform in particular. They did so because they understood the importance of reconstituting our military after this country surrendered. Saying that we had no business in Viet Nam doesn't mean diddly-squat to those who fought, except to spit in their collective eye. Mr. Kerry was one of the sources for the spittle. He didn't stand up and accuse Westmoreland and his generals of wasting American lives. Instead he accused the entire military of being no better than the maurauding thieves of Genjis Khan, with the mongol tactics of terror, rape, pillage, and torture as their weapons.

Kerry continued his assault on the military as a senator by voting against every major weapons program and every raise in pay and benefits for military personnel in the last 20 years. He topped off this aspect of his senate career by covering up vital information regarding the MIA/POW's when he headed the Senate Committee charged with dealing with the Vietnamese about the fact they've never accounted for over 2,000 men. He did this because he advocates "normalizing" relations with Viet Nam and such questions are inconvenient. In the 70's, Kerry backed the plans of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong because, he said, he was concerned about the MIA/POW's. Of course, those who did finally come home had a much worse time of it because of Kerry, a fact for which he has never seen fit to apologize. He has no regrets in the matter of his anti-war protests or the consequences to the men for whom he professed such concern.

The most dangerous aspect of Mr. Kerry's world view, however, is his naive attitude towards nuclear weapons. This is the only issue that Kerry is actually passionate about, by the way. He made clear, in an interview last Thursday, that he intends to deal diplomatically with the Iranians and the North Koreans. He lumps them into the same category as America, Russia and China. In his eyes, none of us ought to have nuclear capabilities and we cannot legitimately be against any country's ambitions for nuclear weapons as long as we have them.

Kerry makes Jimmy Carter look positively Jacksonian.

Domestically, I don't see Bush being all that different than Kerry. In this election, I am a one issue voter and that issue is the war. If we lose momentum now, we won't get it back. (As an aside, regardless of the diplomatic games being played right now, there are plans for both Iran and Syria. We are only now beginning to see the heat turn up.) We're barely maintaining support at home right now. If you think Falujah emboldened our enemies, consider what it will mean when we bug out of Iraq. Osama bin Laden determined to make war against the infidels when he and his bunch succeeded in pushing the Soviets out of Afghanistan -- after ten years. Everything he saw about Americans told him that we have no staying power, that we run from a fight as soon as things get rough. This is a victory we cannot afford to give to Islam.

The same people who gave us the history of the '60's and '70's are replaying their glory days. They want this war to be Viet Nam. They yearn for the destruction of this evil country. (Witness how they about peed their pants in a barely concealed glee when the casualties hit the 1000 mark.) I'm not going to conceed this country to their likes because I'm worryied over the Christians. I can deal with the Christians intellectually. I know that I can no longer deal with the open violence of the "peace" people intellectually; in the intellectual arena, they are finished and they know it, which is why they are resorting more and more to violence.

When dealing with all of this, I'd like to know that we still have a strong military protecting us. I fear that with a Kerry presidency, that will no longer be the case. Some consideration must be given to our warriors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Revolution and the War of 1812 were fought for totally proper reasons and were fought successfully. The rhetoric sometimes associated with the Mexican-American War, that of manifest destiny, was wrong, but we were attacked by the Mexican army and responded properly. To say that no war in all history was fought for a proper reason is just wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Revolution and the War of 1812 were fought for totally proper reasons and were fought successfully.

The War of 1812 ended up basically as a stalemate. The United States' big victory (New Orleans) came after the war had ended. But you are right in that it was fought for proper reasons, and since we didn't lose I guess it could be considered succesful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for those who caught my overstatement. My exasperation got the better of me. :D

There are other wars that were justified, of course. The specific problem is always with the particular rhetoric that attends the fighting. The best modern example is WWII. That war is also an example of a war that was justified, but frought with mistake after mistake, and with huge casualties. If this population were fighting that war, we'd never have gotten past Operation Torch.

And you are right, CapFor. The silence from the Kerry supporters is deafening. Even MisterSwig hasn't shown up to sniff at me! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
And you are right, CapFor.  The silence from the Kerry supporters is deafening.  Even MisterSwig hasn't shown up to sniff at me!  :D

I hope they do reply Janet. You have some good points, again.

I have to admit I was thinking of doing a thread just such as this. Actually I was planning a reply to John Lewis who has the opening article on Capitalism Magazine.

I won't hijack this thread but will put my arguments on a new thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope they do reply Janet.  You have some good points, again.

I have to admit I was thinking of doing a thread just such as this.  Actually I was planning a reply to John Lewis who has the opening article on Capitalism Magazine.

I won't hijack this thread but will put my arguments on a new thread.

You could very well use the "Here Come The Christians" thread. John Lewis's article is referred to there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having read the many philosophic reasons for voting for Kerry, I am left with this question:

What do the supporters of this position envision as the consequences of a Kerry presidency?

Kerry has already stated that he will shut down needed weapons programs.

Where has he recently said this?

I am most concerned here with the war, and the relationship between Kerry and the military (not the generals, especially -- though they are important, but the rank and file).  How do you expect him to conduct the war in Iraq, specifically?  How do you expect him to conduct the overall war?  What consequences do you see from his conduct?

“A half-battle is worse than none: it does not end in mere defeat—it helps and hastens the victory of your enemies.”    Ayn Rand

I expect Kerry to view the war for what it is- and he appears to be heading in that direction.

Kerry has stated numerous times that he is committed to winning the war on terrorism.

To date, Bush has fought the Iraq war on unbelievably false pretenses. Why? Because every deicision by Bush is driven by his unerring faith in God, that's why.

His administration blocks soldiers from entering mosques to flush out terrorists. His delay in responding to 9-11 is proof positive of his indecisive administrative skills.

Enemy soldiers and terrorists have been easily able to go into exile. In addition, nations like Iran and the PLO are left unscathed even though they are every bit a threat to our national security as Iraq was.

Bush fighting for the freedom of Iraq is an altruistic cause that has little to do with terrorism. His administration has sacrificed thousands of our soldiers and those of our allies as a result of his administration's inablility to fight a war properly.

Bush has shown himself to be incompetent at defending America's interests. As a result our enemies are emboldened by his incompetence.

Bush must be removed from power in the next election so that his administration may not be able to cause any further catastrophic loss to America.

:dough:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgesslau:  Thank you for responding and attempting to keep this thread alive.  I am not surprised, however, that this subject hasn't managed to get any traction.  I expected it, but hoped I was wrong.

Out of all the discussions about this election, there has only been scant mention of the war.  What has been expressed, generally speaking, is a frustration that we are not being aggressive enough.  The cause is laid completely on Bush's religion and his pragmatism.  That is true, but it is not the whole truth, and it leaves out the larger context of the culture as a whole.  Bush is a product of that culture and to expect him to suddenly change into a rational Objectivist at the destruction of the towers is the same as expecting our entire culture to make a fundamental shift in its thinking.  Such a shift is desparately needed, but to expect it is to indulge in an evasion of the reality of all of human history.

There isn't a single war in this country's history -- hell, in all of human history -- that we can point to and say that it was fought on proper philosophical grounds.  They were all conducted with the messy, mixed premises of the culture that fought them.  Why does anyone expect this one be any different?  Just because a few of us have become Objectivists?

I haven't read such bull in quite a while.

How is it you expect America to react to a vicious attack against it? Like what happened at Pearl Harbor or 9-11?

America had no choice but to react with force against the Japanese in WWII. There was little hesitation on FDR's part.

America had no choice but to immediately confront the enemy after we were viciously attacked by the Islamic Fundies on September 11th.

But Bush thought we had a choice.

He went to the UN to plead his case.

Then he issued a wimpy "ultimatum," which he extended.

A country like us can either choose to defend itself against a brutal attack by retaliating with full force and the commitment to crush its enemy, or it can look forward to perishing.

It is the rhetoric behind the war, especially in the Iraqi theater, that has turned off so many of us. It gets in the way of understanding the actual military strategy of that particular theater.  There are solid reasons for being there, however bad the mistakes on the ground, or the lack of a proper propaganda champaign, have been.  The biggest problem facing the entire war isn't the general strategy, nor is it the particular tactics involved.  It is the people at home and the boiling cauldron of the cultural war now being fought between the Religionists and the Marxists.  It is the rhetoric and the increasing violence of the pampered, over-educated, post-modern, anti-war nihilists that have emboldened the Islamists and has cost the lives of both Americans and our allies on the ground.
If you browse www.capmag.com you will find that there are many commentators who believe, as I do, that Bush had NO PLAN for winning this war.

None.

Between our clueless President and the "anti-war nihilists" one can see how our enemies have been greatly emboldened by our ineptitudes.

So far, we've managed to maintain our force level, despite the vehemence of the anti-war crowd.  How long do you think this will remain true?  There isn't a base in this country where there aren't ganges of protestors who harass our troops, verbally and physically.  There are increasing physical attacks on people who let it be known that they are military.  Our people in uniform hear the "news" programs that distort what is actually happening in theater; the distortion itself denigrates the efforts of these men and women, the vast majority of whom understand why they are there.  They are still able to see the slaughter of their countrymen in those collapsing towers.  They know they are fighting over there so that we won't have to fight here.

I do think the anti-war voices are beyond reproach.

I do fully support our troops in Iraq.

Give them the RIGHT REASON for their fight over there and watch their morale get turbocharged!

One of the most important reasons why they fight and remain loyal the way they do is because of their Commander in Chief.  They believe in his dedication and staying power, and because of this they know that their efforts won't be abrogated by giving up.  How long do you expect them to remain in the military when they hear that "no battle is better than half a battle?"  How long before there is a major brain drain if Kerry, who holds them in utter contempt (no matter his rhetoric of the last five minutes has been), is elected?  How long before we will be forced to reinstate the draft because the best in the officer corp and the best in the rank and file won't put their lives on the line for Mr. Kerry's airy-fairy ideas about diplomacy?
Dedication? What dedication? Bush is fighting a phony war. he has yet to quell the increasing insurgency over in iraq. Give him time? Bull! He needed a plan. That plan should have been to crush his adversaries. Beat them into submission. Force them into surrender. I figured this out because I was properly educated, not brainwashed in a maelstrom of multiculturalism, diversity, and Whole Language read/write.

My decision as to who to vote for is an easy one:  I can either vote for Bush or not vote at all.  There is nothing that could make me vote for Kerry.  I come from a military family that goes back five generations.  I'm a vet.  Both of my brothers remained in the Navy even after Viet Nam -- and all that that history entailed for the military as a whole, and the individual in uniform in particular.  They did so because they understood the importance of reconstituting our military after this country surrendered.  Saying that we had no business in Viet Nam doesn't mean diddly-squat to those who fought, except to spit in their collective eye.  Mr. Kerry was one of the sources for the spittle.  He didn't stand up and accuse Westmoreland and his generals of wasting American lives.  Instead he accused the entire military of being no better than the maurauding thieves of Genjis Khan, with the mongol tactics of terror, rape, pillage, and torture as their weapons. 

So how does Bush totally concur with your points above?

I'll answer that for you.

He hasn't.

Prove me wrong.

Kerry continued his assault on the military as a senator by voting against every major...........When dealing with all of this, I'd like to know that we still have a strong military protecting us.  I fear that with a Kerry presidency, that will no longer be the case.  Some consideration must be given to our warriors.

Bush is sacrificing your warriors in much the same manner that Johnson did.

In addition, let me say this:

When it comes to seeing America defend itself from the brutality of terrorism, I am no pacifist. I wanted to see America, with its advanced weaponry and its quick response time, annihilate the Talibani and annihilate the caves that harbored Al Qaeda and their allied tribes. Immediately! The evidence that they were behind 9-11 was very compelling.

What we did was quite different. We'd have been better off tiptoeing through the tulips.

As a result Afghanistan struggles for its survival as a free republic because its enemies are emboldened. The recent debacle in the elections bears witness to this.

Regarding Iraq, neither generation of Bush handled this powder keg appropriately.

Saddam should have been overthrown in 1991. It didn't happen. We showed mercy rather than justice. That's the faith-based approach to war.

Bush is beyond being despicable. He has shown he cannot defend his country against terrorism. Has he shown a willingness? That's what all the conservatives argue.

I want him the hell out of there.

I dislike Kerry, but if voting for him is what it takes to get this moron out, so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of all the discussions about this election, there has only been scant mention of the war. 

It's because of patently false statements like this that you get little or no reply from Kerry supporters. We have already responded to you numerous times. It's almost as if you haven't been reading the threads here. Give me a break!

Try doing a search or something. "Scant mention of the war?" :dough:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The War of 1812 ended up basically as a stalemate. The United States' big victory (New Orleans) came after the war had ended. But you are right in that it was fought for proper reasons, and since we didn't lose I guess it could be considered succesful.

On a side note, you're wrong about how the war turned out and what the big battles were.

The Battle of New Orleans is remembered so well because it gave us our seventh President, and it was fought by both sides both thinking the war was hot. A treaty is no good until people know about it and it is ratified, which wasn't true when the battle was fought.

Also, the important battle in the war was Plattsburgh fought on and around Lake Champlain near the Canadian Border. The victory achieved here was more impressive and more important strategically. But it was overshadowed by New Orleans. People like land battles more, plus the one-sidedness of New Orleans was incredible even to this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where has he recently said this?

“A half-battle is worse than none: it does not end in mere defeat—it helps and hastens the victory of your enemies.”    Ayn Rand

I expect Kerry to view the war for what it is- and he appears to be heading in that direction.

Kerry has stated numerous times that he is committed to winning the war on terrorism.

To date, Bush has fought the Iraq war on unbelievably false pretenses. Why? Because every deicision by Bush is driven by his unerring faith in God, that's why.

[...] [blah blah blah, Bush is bad, blah blah blah] [...]

Bush must be removed from power in the next election so that his administration may not be able to cause any further catastrophic loss to America.

B)

This, and all the other previous posts still DO NOT ANSWER Oldsalt's question. :dough: They keep critizing Bush's policies, but they STILL do not explicate what they expect from a Kerry administration--only a general "it won't be the theocracy-inclined Bush administration".

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this half-battle stuff is referring to arguments, if you compromise in ideas you hasten the victory of your enemy. This is what happened in Germany, the liberals compromised in fighting the parties opposed to the Weimar Republic, most notably the Nazis.

In war however, the situation is somewhat different in that even though you are compromising you are still engaged in the deployment of deadly force, which can't be compromised (i.e. you can't half kill someone). A half-battle is preferrable to no battle at all in a war, in fact it may prove strategically brilliant. I'm not saying the war up to now has been strategically brilliant, the point is merely to say that half measures in war still accomplish death and destruction whereas half-measures in politics (Bush's domestic agenda for instance) accomplish nothing and merely emboldens the enemy (which has been and always will be the Democratic Party). This was what Ayn Rand was talking about, political half-measures, compromising with your ideological enemies will hasten their victory because you will have ceded the opposition away.

I fail to see how this can be applied to a war. Even if Bush refuses to firebomb Fallujah, or level it with atomic weapons, he is still killing hundreds of people and leveling buildings all over the place with targeted strikes. Try telling the dead terrorists that we are fighting a half battle.

Remember that Bush's mode of fighting is inherited from liberal democrats fighting in Vietnam. It was Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, and Lyndon Johnson who came up with the brilliant tactic of endangering your own troops to avoid civilian casualties by flying our fighter jets and bombers nearer SAM sites so as to not risk hurting civilians. The compromising Bush makes on the war is with the Democrats, so how will electing the Democrats effect anything for the good?

If there were no war, and we were just talking Bush's domestic programs I would be very tempted to agree with those supporting Kerry, at least so long as I am confident of the congress staying Republican. But there is a war and Kerry's position is very clearly to go back to how it was before Bush and he'll view his victory as a mandate to do just that.

Kerry is the product of a generation that views American power and the use of it as an evil on par with any other country using force, including our enemies. Why do you think he was so indignant about America having the nerve to ask other countries to stop developing nuclear weapons when we are developing a new nuclear bunker buster? All force is equally heinous to men like Kerry, as it was to Jimmy Carter (who got to speak at a Democratic Convention this year for the first time since 1980).

If Bush were running against an Objectivist or a rational politician like the Barry Goldwater of 1964, then I would say goodbye to him in a flash, but he's not running against either of these. He's running against a man who once called Ho Chi Minh the George Washington of Vietnam. He's running against that which he has been so criticized in these forums for compromising with.

Some will say, but if Kerry gets in there and does nothing for four years, someone good may get nominated to challenge him, like Giuliani or someone similar. This may be, but how can we waste four years of valuable time in doing nothing when something needs to be done and sone.

Fortunately for all of us, no matter who is elected, if the American president does nothing about Iran we can at least thank George W. Bush for selling the Israelis long range fuel tankers and bunker busters with which to attack the Iranians, even though we could not muster the will to do so ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All this half-battle stuff is referring to arguments, if you compromise in ideas you hasten the victory of your enemy. This is what happened in Germany, the liberals compromised in fighting the parties opposed to the Weimar Republic, most notably the Nazis.

In war however, the situation is somewhat different in that even though you are compromising you are still engaged in the deployment of deadly force, which can't be compromised (i.e. you can't half kill someone). A half-battle is preferrable to no battle at all in a war, in fact it may prove strategically brilliant. I'm not saying the war up to now has been strategically brilliant, the point is merely to say that half measures in war still accomplish death and destruction whereas half-measures in politics (Bush's domestic agenda for instance) accomplish nothing and merely emboldens the enemy (which has been and always will be the Democratic Party). This was what Ayn Rand was talking about, political half-measures, compromising with your ideological enemies will hasten their victory because you will have ceded the opposition away.

I fail to see how this can be applied to a war. Even if Bush refuses to firebomb Fallujah, or level it with atomic weapons, he is still killing hundreds of people and leveling buildings all over the place with targeted strikes. Try telling the dead terrorists that we are fighting a half battle.

Remember that Bush's mode of fighting is inherited from liberal democrats fighting in Vietnam. It was Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, and Lyndon Johnson who came up with the brilliant tactic of endangering your own troops to avoid civilian casualties by flying our fighter jets and bombers nearer SAM sites so as to not risk hurting civilians. The compromising Bush makes on the war is with the Democrats, so how will electing the Democrats effect anything for the good?

If there were no war, and we were just talking Bush's domestic programs I would be very tempted to agree with those supporting Kerry, at least so long as I am confident of the congress staying Republican. But there is a war and Kerry's position is very clearly to go back to how it was before Bush and he'll view his victory as a mandate to do just that.

Kerry is the product of a generation that views American power and the use of it as an evil on par with any other country using force, including our enemies. Why do you think he was so indignant about America having the nerve to ask other countries to stop developing nuclear weapons when we are developing a new nuclear bunker buster? All force is equally heinous to men like Kerry, as it was to Jimmy Carter (who got to speak at a Democratic Convention this year for the first time since 1980).

If Bush were running against an Objectivist or a rational politician like the Barry Goldwater of 1964, then I would say goodbye to him in a flash, but he's not running against either of these. He's running against a man who once called Ho Chi Minh the George Washington of Vietnam. He's running against that which he has been so criticized in these forums for compromising with.

Some will say, but if Kerry gets in there and does nothing for four years, someone good may get nominated to challenge him, like Giuliani or someone similar. This may be, but how can we waste four years of valuable time in doing nothing when something needs to be done and sone.

Fortunately for all of us, no matter who is elected, if the American president does nothing about Iran we can at least thank George W. Bush for selling the Israelis long range fuel tankers and bunker busters with which to attack the Iranians, even though we could not muster the will to do so ourselves.

Here, here!

For those who can manage to get by the usual self-serving fantasies that constitute Kerry's vision of himself, I suggest that you read his interview with Bai in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine. (I'm sorry I can't provide a link. Damn webtv won't give me the whole address. :dough: )

He says he wants to go back to the time when we didn't make terrorism the focus of our lives. He thinks it ought to be considered just a nusance, like prostitution and gambling. Something that law enforcement keeps under control so that it doesn't grow.

He will handle Iran and North Korea by diplomacy. As stated above, he doesn't believe that we can legitimately keep WMD from such states while we have them. You see? If we get rid of our WMD, no one else will feel the need to have them.

He won't deal with Misharaf, because he isn't the legitamate ruler of Pakistan.

He wants to make Arab countries our allies -- the very people who have spawned exploding murderers. It is no coincedence that Mubarak came out today and suggested a summit; Kerry says in the article that he knows Mubarak and knows that he can work with him.

Kerry isn't just against the war. He is on the other side. But you certainly won't get half a battle with him, because he doesn't really think that we are at war, or that we need to be at any time in the future, regardless of whatever rhetoric to the contrary that the latest focus group has told his handlers he ought to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The War of 1812 ended up basically as a stalemate. The United States' big victory (New Orleans) came after the war had ended. But you are right in that it was fought for proper reasons, and since we didn't lose I guess it could be considered succesful.

In history books this side of the border we (GB/Canada) won the war of 1812. If the US invaded with the intent of conquering and didn't we think that counts as a win for the defending team?

Whether Canada would have been better off had they lost is another debate entirely.

But I do agree with oldsalt that no war in history is a clean war, nomatter what the philosophical basis, they all end up dirty messy affairs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Bush were running against an Objectivist or a rational politician like the Barry Goldwater of 1964, then I would say goodbye to him in a flash, but he's not running against either of these. He's running against a man who once called Ho Chi Minh the George Washington of Vietnam. He's running against that which he has been so criticized in these forums for compromising with.

I agree entirely. I will always vote for a man of mixed premises who has vices but SOME virtues over someone who is totally evil. When my choices are limited to those two alternatives, as they are in this election, voting for Bush is not a compromise, but voting for Kerry is total surrender.

Some will say, but if Kerry gets in there and does nothing for four years, someone good may get nominated to challenge him, like Giuliani or someone similar.

Some Objectivists -- NOT Ayn Rand -- have suggested this strategy in the past. Some advocated voting for Clinton against Bush 41 to "send a message" to the Republican Party that they should run better candidates. The result? They nominated Bob Dole the next time. Some improvement!

If you want to "send a message" try philosophical arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In history books this side of the border we (GB/Canada) won the war of 1812. If the US invaded with the intent of conquering and didn't we think that counts as a win for the defending team?

Whether Canada would have been better off had they lost is another debate entirely.

But I do agree with oldsalt that no war in history is a clean war, nomatter what the philosophical basis, they all end up dirty messy affairs.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Defeat at New Orleans was also one of the worst defeats of British military history especially at the time. Ironically it was after the treaty had been signed. :dough:

Once Kerry is elected....

1. Dept of Justice will try to break up Microsoft again. Laws will be passed to prevent "outsourcing".

2. Minimum wage will go up

3. Summits will be held all over the world while people die and the terrorists laugh

4. A Kyoto-like treaty if not Kyoto will be signed wrecking the economy worse than #1

5. The USA will join the international criminal court, people who interrogate terrorists will be brought up on charges against humanity

6. Taxes go up!

7. Socialized medicine

8. USA pulls out of Iraq in 6 months. Terrorist sponsored theocracy takes over.

9. Europe likes us more. Yeah!

10. Kerry appoints another liberal judge to the Supreme Court

and on the 2nd day...........

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Defeat at New Orleans was also one of the worst defeats of British military history especially at the time. Ironically it was after the treaty had been signed.

Neither side knew a treaty was signed and the treaty wasn't ratified by congress yet, which makes it not legally binding in the first place.

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...