Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

I am concerned with Kerry's apparent attitude, as I perceive it, as a peacenik. I fear that the terrorists would use this as a means to gain more ground, and cause more disruption in the world, especially in the US.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Can you imagine the catastrophic results of a world under the control of peaceniks? why it could mean........peace. We must avoid this at any cost.

I suspect you would find quite the opposite would be true. Imagine a Middle East where Saddam Hussein's neighbors were peaceniks. I suppose you could argue that having the entire Middle East under Saddam's control would have meant it was all at "peace", but what kind of peace?

Take a look at a book called "The Treaty Trap". Reagan used to refer to it often. It is a scholarly study of the use of treaties and agreements with other nations as the primary method of national defense. What you will find if you look at the facts (rather than "feeling" what is right :wink: ) is that of all nations who put their faith in treaties rather than maintaining a strong military and the plausible threat of retaliation to keep their neighbors at bay, NOT ONE SUCH NATION still exists. In EVERY case, these nations were wiped off the face of the planet by other nations who desired their land, their resources, their "stuff".

I don't have a lock on my front door for people like me who respect the rights of others; it's there for those who don't. Likewise, we don't need our military to protect us from nations who are happy to coexist peacefully with us, it's the others that make maintaining our military superiority critical to our continued survival as a nation.

It is my humble suspicion that Georgie is not really in charge of his government. That behind him are a group of militarists (not professional soldiers) who hold real power but are quiescent unless there is a crises. There was a plan in the first Bush administration that in case of the death of the president and vice president in time of crises, to circumvent the constitution and place the government in the hands of a select number of non elected individuals to deal with the "emergency". This plan had several practice runs and was not a theoretical proposal. There is a book on this issue "The Rise of the Vulcans" that was reviewed in last Sunday's NYT Book Review. The Clinton administration did away with this but most of the people involved are back in power and I suspect it has been reactivated. I think we saw it in operation on 9/11 when GWB found himself shunted around the country and ultimately ended up in a bunker in Nebraska. Somebody wanted him out of the way. This IMHO is a very dangerous administration.

It is my humble suspicion that Georgie is not really in charge of his government. That behind him are a group of militarists (not professional soldiers) who hold real power but are quiescent unless there is a crises. There was a plan in the first Bush administration that in case of the death of the president and vice president in time of crises, to circumvent the constitution and place the government in the hands of a select number of non elected individuals to deal with the "emergency". This plan had several practice runs and was not a theoretical proposal. There is a book on this issue "The Rise of the Vulcans" that was reviewed in last Sunday's NYT Book Review. The Clinton administration did away with this but most of the people involved are back in power and I suspect it has been reactivated. I think we saw it in operation on 9/11 when GWB found himself shunted around the country and ultimately ended up in a bunker in Nebraska. Somebody wanted him out of the way. This IMHO is a very dangerous administration.

Scrat I think we're going to have to define peacenik here for the sake of the discussion. I believe desiring peace is an admirable trait.

That doesn't mean I don't think peaceniks ever have to go to war. It means I don't think peaceniks are so damn gung ho for it and I don't believe war defines decent people.

bush inc. are not, IMO decent people, and no amount of smoke and mirrors will change my mind.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Scrat I think we're going to have to define peacenik here for the sake of the discussion. I believe desiring peace is an admirable trait.

That doesn't mean I don't think peaceniks ever have to go to war. It means I don't think peaceniks are so damn gung ho for it and I don't believe war defines decent people.

bush inc. are not, IMO decent people, and no amount of smoke and mirrors will change my mind.

Using your definition, I think most people are "peaceniks", including Bush and Co.. As was true of Bush 39 and Clinton, Bush 41 is using our military as he thinks necessary. I may disagree with Clinton's choices, but I don't assume they were nefarious, or that he lacked decency for using the military as he did and when he did.

If you are truly that concerned, then why not, in one day, in one sweeping operation, nuke every last one of the bastards? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, let's shitcan Saudi Arabia while we're at it, and any pesky African nations we don't like as well.

There is absoulutely no doubt that we are capable of it.

Peacenik is a phrase coined to discredit those who supported peace during the US war against Vietnamn. It was a suggestion that those who desired peace were communist sympathisers and inclined to treason. The american right denigrated the desire for peace as subversive. What has changed?

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

If you are truly that concerned, then why not, in one day, in one sweeping operation, nuke every last one of the bastards? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, let's shitcan Saudi Arabia while we're at it, and any pesky African nations we don't like as well.

There is absoulutely no doubt that we are capable of it.

Why not, indeed? Given that we are capable of it, is it possible that the administration would prefer to bring about desired change by using the military as little as possible and killing as few people as possible? Could it be that they believe that many of these other nations will change their tune at seeing that we really mean business? (This is of course happening as we speak.)

I would submit that if Bush and Co. were really just blood-thirsty thugs they would act as you suggest, and the fact that they have not indicates that they do in fact prefer to limit the use of combat and the deaths involved in changing the face of the world for the better.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
And I will submit to you my good friend and fellow rocker that their reasoning is much less altruistic. First rule of war, don't destroy the real estate you want to make a profit from after you kill all the people on it. This is an administration that wants to throw out the babies while keeping the bathwater. :wink: