Holmes writes:
Personally I don't see how our foreign policy towards Iraq could have been affected by 911.
You don’t? Our entire outlook on terrorism including virtually all aspects of foreign policy were affected by the events of 911. To deny that 911 had an impact on foreign policy, including the Iraq situation, is to minimize the 911 tragedy and naively consider that event as some sort of criminal action.
Holmes writes:
What I believe might be a more accurate assessment (with regard to Iraq) is that security issues were raised by 911 in general.
Security issues were raised in general? You have a talent for understatement. So in your opinion, the murder of over 3000 civilians on US soil had no further impact than to raise some security issues.
We were exposed and moving into a time of having to deal with a major terrorist organization and in the process invade a nation (Afghanistan). Since WMDs or WMD tech could be useful to nations and terrorists of varying character, and they might want to take advantage of our being busy with other people, it made sense to review nations which had that capability.
Again, another understatement, but one that we agree on.
Holmes writes:
In any case, I wholly reject the stock dilemma posed by most Bush apologists that it was either keep the policy we had in place before hand or invasion. My predictions before the war based on intel at the time have already been proven correct and Bush's has been shown to be filled with errors he is now scrambling to lay blame for.
There you go again with your Monday morning quarterbacking. How’s the view with 20-20 hindsight? You believe the policies in place prior to the war were a failure. Those policies included weapons inspections, sanctions, no fly zones, UN resolutions, among a whole host of other measures attempted during the intervening 12 years in the run up to the Iraq war. Many nations and their diplomats have worked with the US and its diplomats to try and persuade Sadaam Hussein in a non violent way that he must comply with the mandates of the UN. All to no avail.
I agree with you that all of those varied attempts at reasoning with Hussein failed miserably over that period of time, but that does not diminish the effort. I have already stated that although those attempts failed, it was still necessary to try.
You also disagree with the decision to use military force. Since you had such exquisite intel before the war, and you would not have used military force, and you would not have used any of the failed techniques attempted by the world community during the intervening 12 years, you would have done something different. Then tell me O wise international diplomat, what would you have done differently that had not already been tried?
What is your Monday morning quarterbacking advice? No doubt you would naively support more appeasement. I suggest you try reviewing some of the strategies of Neville Chamberlain.
Monk writes:
I’m not sure what you are saying here. It may be that Dems were right about certain foreign policy issues, please expand your point.
Holmes writes:
It may not be worth expanding on. I was simply trying to say that 911 appeared to have made Reps embrace some stereotypical "bad" Dem policies (foreign and domestic). Thus after 911 many Reps suddenly realized the Dems had been right about many things, or conversely that Reps had been incorrectly bashing them for years.
Which stereotypical bad Dem policies did the Reps embrace? What are you talking about?
Monk writes:
I wouldn’t necessarily say that it was some sort of revelation, just that after 911, the neocon message struck a chord with a lot of conservatives.
Holmes writes:
I'll agree if we can change "conservatives" to "desparate conservatives who did not understand what happened themselves or had other ideas of how to deal with the problems we faced."
I’m glad we agree. The neocon message struck a chord with a lot of conservatives. As for the rest of your statement, people vote in various ways for a variety of reasons. Some conservatives may have been desparate as you suggest, but I’m confident there were a larger number of desparate Democrats who voted in the last election.
Holmes writes:
Before 911 Bush had wrapped himself in a bizarre black-white coccoon of advisors. They were hawks or doves, with little outside analytical opinion.
US presidents cannot function without a fairly large number of advisors. You should know that Holmes. Clinton had them, Carter had them, all US presidents have them. You can characterize this group of advisors as a bizarre black-white coccoon if you want to.
Monk writes:
You seem to be the quintessential swing voter.
Holmes writes:
that's terminology from the perspective of partisan politics. I've been right where I am all along, its the parties which have been swinging back and forth.
Ok, so you don’t like the term swing voter. You consider it partisan. I would describe you as an independent voter but that term raises images of freedom, liberty and patriotism. And the last thing I would want to do is falsely accuse you of being a US patriot.
So in any given US election, you will either vote for a Democrat, or a Republican, or any one of the third party candidates or you may not vote at all.
But you’re not a swing voter and you’re not an independent voter, you are a..... Holmes voter, what about that?
Holmes writes:
The sheer cowardice within even the small points mentioned are evident. What I find interesting is that you do not see it, or even notice that it must be there if one can call it "arrogant". If anyone else had stated this doctrine I am quite sure you could pick up exactly where the cowardice is showing.
I don’t see at all how the 5 main components of the Bush Doctrine are sheer cowardice. It’s not evident to me at all. Show me. I listed these 5 components in
Message 65. Where is the cowardice? That’s the second time I’ve asked you. Why are you running?
Holmes writes:
Let me put it this way, if a person really had faith in this nation and its future, and understood the fact that we are the only superpower left points 3-5 would not even occur to that person as necessary. Even point 2 is questionable.
But they are necessary Holmes. That is what a Doctrine is. It is a declaration of policies so that everyone can clearly see the stated position in this area.
It’s ludicrous for you to say that there is no need to state a doctrine of foreign policy especially since that doctrine represents a significant change from the previous foreign policy doctrine of deterrence and containment. It would be irresponsible if the US did not clearly elucidate its position.
The only people who feel they need the right to beat down anyone that might pose a challenge to their power, are called cowards.
Well you can call Bush a coward if you want to, that is your right. But nobody is talking about beating down anyone.
Brave people know that they can wait until challenged, taking a body blow before decimating their opponent.
You are wrong about this. Brave people took a body blow during 911. Only a coward continues to take the body blows without attempting to defend themselves. Only a coward blindly ignores the obvious and continues to accept the unacceptable. The Bush Doctrine was developed as an acknowledgement that terrorism cannot be adequately defended against.
That's a harsh reality that many people choose to ignore. The cold war doctrines of deterrence and containment are outdated when faced with the tactics of terrorist. That’s why Rumsfeld was correct when he said:
You cannot defend against terrorism because you can’t defend at every place at every time against every technique. You have to go after them. You have to take it to them, and that means you have to preempt them.
You agreed with this statement by Rumsfeld in
Message 56 when you said, I certainly agree that terrorism is so amorphous in its methods and organization that one cannot inherently set out to defend against a terrorist attack.
Holmes writes:
I don't buy that at all. I believe US citizens are basically good and would be appalled if they weren't so confused and taken advantage of by a select few who happened to be at the top when 911 occured.
More elitist intellectualism. You think you know what the good, but simple minded, US citizen would feel if they weren’t so terribly confused and taken advantage of. That’s the mentality that will cost the Democrats yet another presidential election.
I’m beginning to think Democrats enjoy being the losers in presidential elections. They seem to relish in whinning about everything.
They complain about issues by holding fast to their erroneous dogma about Republicans even when circumstances demand a re-evaluation. Keep it up and spread the word, that’s the surest path to Republican victory in ‘08.
I know, I know, you don’t consider yourself a Democrat. You’re a Holmes voter, we’ve been over this.
Reps were the party of Lincoln, and here are some quotes by Lincoln I've always liked and speak volumes on the Bush Doctrine:
Those are nice quotes. Fortunately, Lincoln never had to face the tactics of international terrorism. If he had, we might well see a Lincoln Doctrine similar to the Bush doctrine.
This message has been edited by Monk, Thu, 06-23-2005 11:36 AM
™ Version 4.2
