| Subject: A far better leader than Bush |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 1/04 9:38pm
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "Tall? Handsome? Certainly not a potential world leader..." on 10/ 1/04 12:32am
>I don't know. While Bush isn't a good public speaker,
>he did a great job making a case for the war in Iraq.
>It seemed that Kerry's "plan" for Iraq is to "make
>friends and have meetings," which isn't too
>inspiring...
Well, this is part of the problem, in my opinion. Often, the best solution isn't the most "inspiring." I think Bush comes from a line of thinking which encourages big, bold movements that the common man can really get behind. In reality, I think politics are much more subtle and intricate than a typical American can understand. It’s the difference in watching PBS and the Fox network. Most people prefer to watch Fox because it’s more accessible, but that doesn’t make it more accurate or true-to-life. People want to be inspired, but I want an intelligent leader who understands the often boring, but real, world of diplomacy and unity with other nations.
>Notice that, when asked, "Specifically, what would you
>do about our situation in Iraq," he didn't answer, and
>instead went on a 2 minute tirade about what Bush was
>doing wrong.
Maybe we were watching different debates. In the one I saw, he briefly outlined a four-point plan of action that he would take in Iraq. I’m not sure what you expect in two-minute segments, but Bush certainly didn’t do any better, simply uttering the same phrases over and over about Kerry changing his mind on the war in Iraq. He sounded like a bird that only knows one song. We’ve all seen what Bush did with Iraq… he has effectively gotten us into another Vietnam. Don’t you find it odd that Bush has extended our armed forces to their very outer limits for this thing? And doesn’t it bother you that we’re spending a billion dollars a day in a war that the majority of Americans weren’t certain about? I thought Kerry hit the nail on the head when he said that George Bush, Sr. knew better than to go into the heart of Iraq. His son apparently didn’t.
>Kerry is completely naive about international
>relations. People don't seem to understand that
>nations don't have relationships like people do - Bush
>hit the nail right on the head when he said he'd ally
>with other nations, "if it was in our interests." In
>fact, when he sort of chuckled, shook his head, and
>said, "Well, *I* know how the world works," he was
>right - what he DIDN'T say (but could have) is that
>Kerry doesn't.
Yeah, I heard him say how much he knows and what “hard work” it is being President. I think it’s a complete misrepresentation to think that Kerry is naïve about international relations. If anyone is, it’s the spoiled oil tycoon who became governor for a little while, then entered the complex world of Washington politics without a clue as to how it really works.
This brings me to the primary reason why I trust Kerry over Bush: he has been a Senator for so many years. He understands how the system works. It’s like the difference in a principal of a school who has never taught and one who has. The one who has been a teacher is usually a much better principal. Likewise, I think Kerry would be much better at working with Congress after spending so much time there.
Even though he is obviously much smarter than Bush, and I trust intelligent people more, the main reason I like him is that he seems to really understand how to do things. He knows you can’t simply bomb something every time foreign relations doesn’t go your way. Of course every country does what is in its own interest, but Bush doesn’t seem to understand the incredible benefit of having good relationships with other nations. He’s a loose cannon, and I trust someone more who sets a greater value on diplomacy than infantry.
>The debate tonight did 2 things: Reconfirmed that Bush
>is a terrible public speaker, and exposed Kerry for
>the danger he is - a wannabe-world-leader naif who
>would get more troops killed in Iraq, would end up
>messing things up with North Korea, and would weaken
>our country by trying to appease and placate everyone.
I completely disagree. In fact, most of what Kerry said about Iraq is exactly what I think is right. Yes, we’re in a bad situation, but now we have to do the best we can with it and get our troops out of there. We don’t belong there. If we want to oust every evil dictator, there are plenty more out there. I’d like to see Bush get more involved with countries that have dictators but no oil. I’d like to see him post guards on the nuclear plants in the countries rather than only the oil refineries.
>Notice his slogan: "Respected in the world." That
>right there is an admission he doesn't "get it." The
>reason we get the idea that we're not "respected" in
>the world is because we're told by the Democrats, "How
>much the rest of the world hates us."
>
>And it's all a big scam-job. Nations don't "like" or
>"dislike" each other like people do. They don't
>"respect" or "disrespect" like people do. They
>interact, and they each do what's in their own best
>interests. And sometimes, those interests don't match
>- but it doesn't mean they "hate" us.
I’m not so sure I agree with this. Nations are nothing more than people, and people form opinions. Much like France is “hated” by many in the United States now, we too are “hated” in some sense by many nations who see what we’re doing and don’t like it.
>But here's the thing: If tbey do, it's simply because
>they don't agree with what we've done. And if Kerry
>thinks it's more important to "please" Germany and
>France than to look our for our own interests, he's
>the last person we need right now.
I didn’t hear him say anything about trying to make everyone like us. The way I see it, of course there might be times when we have to do things that other countries don’t like. But the best course of action is to find a balance wherein we can make moves that benefit us and those we want to help, while at the same time creating as much international support as possible. If we can do both, all the better, right? Bush doesn’t even seem to try, which is my problem. I’m sure Kerry would not base everything he did on what other nations thought, but he would do his best to find a proper balance to keep us from losing any more international support than necessary.
>Kerry and the rest of the Democrats have made great
>efforts to convince us that Bush is somehow
>"disreputable" as a world leader. And they're hoping
>that we'll confuse international politics with a soap
>opera.
>
>We don't need respect. We need consistency and
>determination. It's the mistake of someone who
>doesn't have the know-how and stomach to run a country
>(ANY country, let alone ours) to think that our
>international politics have ANYthing to do with a
>concept that only has any real meaning in
>interpersonal relationships.
Like Kerry said, you can be consistent and be wrong. I think that very nicely sums up George Bush. He isn’t far from the fundamentalist Christian mentality, which scares me a lot. He thinks his way is the right way, and he won’t listen to anyone tell him different. That’s all fine and good as long as he’s right about everything he thinks. Sadly, though, I think he is wrong about many things. Although he is consistent about the way he acts based on these beliefs, I think the beliefs themselves are completely wrong, and therefore the actions are consistent, but wrong.
It’s worth noting that Hitler was consistent and determined, and he had the stomach to run a country.
>I'm definitely voting for Bush after tonight.
Then we’ll definitely cancel each other’s votes out.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 