Debate tonight
Find a Conversation
Debate tonight
| Thu, 09-30-2004 - 10:54pm |
So, what did everybody think? This debate was my first (missed last yr's) and I enjoyed it. I liked how they were both respectful to each other and professional. No sighing, making facial expressions, slouching etc. I can't wait for the vp debates. :) XOXO.

Pages
Elaine
The question is not whether France COULD help, it's whether they WOULD. Even when the whole world is behind us it has generally been the US who has provided the bulk of the military might. In any case France and Germany have already stated they have no intention of sending troops to Iraq no matter who is president, so Kerry's just making empty promises.
"Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President." -- Theodore Roosevelt.
<<..the contribution they make is relevant (number of soldiers and dollars).>>
Shouldn't the fact that these countries make contributions at all, be relevant and good enough?
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Allow me to digress for a moment. The current debate in the US (or lack of same) seems to assess merit to never changing ones mind about anything. It's "flip-flop this" and "flip-flop that" as though holding to an idea through thick and thin, no matter how daft an idea, was somehow a sign of wisdom. No, it's not. It is stupid. Some ideas belong on the trash heap of life. Anyone who can recognize they have made a mistake and change their course is wise, IMHO.
To be sure, no one likes a person who can't hold true to a decision, who shifts as though standing on sand, but this is where decernment comes in. I hated Nixon and his policies but he changed his own (and the world's) stance on "red" China by deft manoeuvring and politics. That was the true enigma of the man, an insecure idiot in national politics with flashes of brilliance in foreign politics.
But back to the subject. I am not a republican (well, of course not, I don't live in the US) and I could never be. I dispise the politics of greed, the ideas of me first and damn those left behind. So it is no wonder I don't appreciate Bush and his tax breaks for the rich. But I do appreciate a good argument (I'll call it a debate to heighten the atmosphere).
I believe you when you say it that you have never backed anything without question. I have, however, backed things without question. And I got burnt. So now I question everything. It drives those around me to distraction but it is true, I question everything.
Whether or not the UN agreed with Bush that Saddam was an imminent threat is neither here nor there. With 20/20 vision we know his threats to be the ramblings of a greedy, vicious lunatic. While he proclaimed threats to the world he built castles for himself. He robbed and murdered his people with abandon.
In a simplistic world one would wish to rid existence of such evil doers. It would be wonderful if we could surgically remove such cancers from humanity. However, as history has shown us and now it repeats itself, remove one bad guy and ten more spring up in his place.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Idiocy is not the domain of a few. Saddam was removed and now a dozen others want what was once his.
The American lunacy was to think that by merely removing a tyranny that good would flow, like pulling a cork from a bottle of wine. I'm not surprised that Bush could accept such a simplistic view of the world or human endeavors, the man hardly got passing grades in history or world geography.
And yes, the UN is toothless. It was designed that way. Talk big and carry a twig. It's a monstrous organization composed of 190 desparately scrapping nations, all putting self interest first, that stumbles its way from crisis to crisis. But occassionally its health, aid and education wings succeed in lessening human suffering, and therefore I support it. As a military tool it is often useless. (Hans Blix only acquired precision in his speech and purpose to his goals once he could take a look at the cheat sheet and proclaim he knew the answer all along)
I humbly agree with you, that no country should mistreat its citizens. The problem I have is how to rectify miscreant behaviour. Force is truly a double edged sword. Violence does beget violence.
I also agree with you that my original post about the 30 member alliance was inflammatory. You will have to accept my word that it was not meant as disrespectful of the human efforts given by the pawns of power, but only to the politicians who move the pawns with abondon while claiming heroics for themselves.
You ask a good question. How many Arab nations are involved in cleaning up Afghanistan? Maybe Bush's weight should have been thrown behind solving that problem instead of attacking the domain of a madman. Saddam is dealt with but Iraq is no closer to tranquility and Afgahanistan still stands as a sore spot, itself no closer to peace than three years ago.
I've babbled on too long.
You have my admiration because you listen. I hope I haven't damaged your willingness to listen by tiring you with my tirades.
Respectfully,
Ric
<<Sounds like a cut to me.
< In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that -- because the increase in funds couldn't meet the rising demand -- it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits. > >>
Perhaps I shouled have explained: a spending cut is when the amount of money spent on a partiuclar item is reduced. The VA has decided not to give NEW benefits to MIDDLE-income vets so they can spend their INCREASED funds on the people who are the most NEEDY.
"In Bush’s first three years
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
In Iraq, it is true, they did not help. In Afghanistan France was the largest contributor after the US (and Germany is there as well).
In the first Gulf War again, France sent the largest force (after the US). In cases where there is absolutely no question they were there to help. How short are people's memories? Right now Germany is helping to train police and security forces in Afghanistan in anticipation of the upcoming elections.
<>
They did state that they would not send troops. They also stated that they may, under a new administration be willing to help in other ways. Kerry never specifically said that he would get other allies to send more TROOPS.....just to help out more.
What is it with many Americans where they thnk the answer to everything is conventional warfare? Every problem can be answered with bigger bombs. As we can see with Iraq, bombs do not solve very many problems. Bombs cannot fundamentally change people's minds. The aftermath, death and destruction caused by said bombs CAN and DO have an influence on the hearts and minds of people...and it aint pretty.
<<..no matter what you want to say about those other countries that provide very little in terms of soldiers or dollars.>>
I have no intention to belittle those countries who are helping (be it from coersion or for whatever reason), but the fact remains as I stated above. And if Bush had not been in such a rush to go to war we could have got the help from those larger countries who could have lessened our burden in troops and dollars. That is just plain fact.
"Patriotism means to stand by the Country. It does not mean to stand by the President." -- Theodore Roosevelt.
Pages