| Subject: Time for less rhetoric from me... |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 5/04 2:25am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "Finishing up" on 10/ 4/04 7:14pm
OK - I'm gonna scale back the rhetoric a bit so we can have a good conversation about this...
I take back what I said about Kerry not understanding international politics.
What I actually meant to say was the following:
1) I disagree with the way Kerry wants to handle Iraq and North Korea - I think he'll make it worse.
2) I know that Democratic White Houses have mishandled every military engagement we've ever had in the last 50 years - they get our troops killed, and they allow horrible injustices to occur (or resume).
3) I know that Democrats' fundamental strategy of international relations is appeasement - that is, they'd rather give away the farm than go to war. Now, personally, I'd never want to see us go to war. Which is why I don't plan on running for president. Our Chief Executive has to make tough decisions, like whether to go to war or not, and I don't know if I could do that. But it has to be done sometimes, and Democrats seem to not be able to do it right.
That's what I wanted to say (but was too fired up to restrain myself).
The fundamental point is that Democrats, on average, seem to be bad at handling military actions and foreign affairs. Now, whether it's because they don't understand how the world works on the scale of nations, or if their ideology requires that they handle these things poorly, I don't know. But what *is* a fact is that they *do* handle them poorly. Again and again.
The most recent example was our fiasco in Somalia - the basis of the movie Black Hawk Down. The story goes:
"Farrah Adid gains enough power through violence to take control over much of Somalia. People die by the hundreds of thousands. Bush sees this, and sends in a Marine Expeditionary Unit (that's like 25,000 Marines). Adid backs down, and everything's OK.
Clinton gets elected. Almost immediately after taking office, he declares, "Job's finished!" and pulls out the Marines. IMMEDIATELY, Adid regains power and it's more of the same - mass murder, genocide, etc. Clinton's bright idea is to "send in the Special Forces to capture him!!!"
So he orders 75th Rangers and a SF detachment to Mogadishu (where Adid is based). The Army vehemently argues that the forces Clinton and his cabinet authorized are not enough - they want armor (as in tanks and APCs), more troops, and more air support. Clinton says no. They ask again. Clinton says no again. (This was like a constant fight during the whole engagement).
They then ask that the 10th Mountain Division's armor (a U.S. Army unit) and support units be given to them for this task. Clinton says no. Now, mind you - the 10th Mountain was IN MOGADISHU this WHOLE TIME, but they were attached to the U.N. peacekeeping force, under the command of a Pakistani general.
As you may or may not know from seeing the movie, or reading the book, badness occurs and some of the Rangers and SF guys are killed. Here's the real kicker:
During the events depicted in the movie, the commander on site of the Rangers and SF detachment constantly requested that the 10th Mountain be ordered to help them out. The Pakistani general said no. Clinton could have ordered the 10th mountain to act, but did not - in fact, he was the only one with the authority to do so, because HE had given the troops to the U.N. He did nothing.
American troops sat a twenty-minute drive away from other American troops who were being killed, and could not help them, because Clinton wouldn't release them.
And the events unfolded as you've probably seen in the movie...
That's the kind of horrible mismanagement Democrats have done in the past - the kind that gets American citizens killed.
(by the way, most of this story comes directly from the mouth of the Battalion Surgeon of the 75th Ranger Battalion - he was there at Mogadishu airport, and was highly-ranked enough to know what was going on. Met him when I went to OBC...)
Clinton is sort of an easy target for this argument, because he just totally *sucked* at his job of Commander-in-Chief. (For example, he also set up some asinine rules for the Navy and Air Force in Yugoslavia that prolonged that piece of business unnecessarily)
>And my real point is that the people who support Kerry
>(like me) aren’t necessarily doing so because they
>understand international politics… many (like me)
>support him because we feel confident that +he does+.
There's nothing wrong with basing your decisions on your opinions. But you've got to understand that there's really no point in arguing about something that we can't really examine, like: "Who understands international politics better, Bush or Kerry?"
There's no way to rigorously demonstrate that statement as true or false, and it's all based on our opinions.
>It isn’t even their plan for me as much as it is who
>they are. I don’t trust Bush to run my country.
>After seeing Kerry talk, I feel I could trust him.
Your subjective feeling of trust is completely valid - humans tend to reason fuzzily, because that's just the way our brains seem to work. In the same way, I just don't trust him. I trust that Bush won't make it worse.
>And when you really break it down, they
>are trying to reach the most people so that they can
>get into office and actually implement whatever it is
>they have in mind.
I don't think this is OK at all. I don't trust ANYBODY, regardless of party, enough to allow them to say something, then asssume they don't mean it and that they'll actually do something that I *do* agree with later, when I no longer have the power to affect their stay in office.
>I feel confident that Kerry is
>intelligent enough not to get in office and implement
>the “make friends and influence people” plan for Iraq.
> This is just a simple way of telling us the things
>that he values, one of which is obviously
>international relationships. Maybe he could be Jimmy
>Carter with balls.
If you trust him enough to hear one thing, but then think that he *really* means something else, I can't disagree emphatically enough with you. It sounds like you're basing your decision on your subjective assessment of the man. Which is perfectly legitimate, like I said before. But I think you'd have a hard time changing someone's mind this way. (not saying I'm doing a stellar job of it either, mind you...)
>Well, Bush has shown me how he will make it worse, so
>I’m at least open to giving someone else a chance.
>And after seeing Kerry in action, I feel he truly can
>do a better job.
"Action?" What action do you mean? The debate? Those were "words," not "action."
I hope we never get to see Kerry in action. I believe it'll be a detriment to this country, and to the world at large, if he's elected.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 