What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
I suggest we pull in our horns and use out tremendous resources to establish a homeland security that makes us virtually impenetrable [..]

Would you be shocked to learn that I absolutely agree with every point of that post? I am sick and tired of the US being the international "nanny". Let other countries wet nurse themselves.

OK, Phoenix, but again, why in heavens name then are you leaning to Giuliani? I mean, please, bear with me for a moment.

Even among the Republican candidates, most seem to have learned some lessons from the way the Iraq war has gone. Last night in the debate, most came up with some kind of, "we have to make sure to get as soon as possible to the kind of minimal stability and security that would allow us to leave."

Not Rudy. Of all the candidates in both parties, he's the one left who still wants to have the US do expansive nation-building in Iraq.

Not just: get the Iraq army trained so they can defend themselves. No, his plan sounds like a ten or twenty-year plan. He still wants to recreate the whole country!

Do me a favour and read what he said last night in the debate:

Quote:

GIULIANI: And I believe that [..] part of what we have to do and we haven't done right is take on that responsibility of nation-building. [..]

It was one of the greatest military actions in American history, overthrowing Saddam Hussein. But we didn't accomplish the second step. People can only embrace democracy when they have an orderly existence. And we have to help provide that. [..]

We should [..] measure how many people are going to school, how many factories are open, how many people are going back to work. We had to get into the nitty-gritty of putting an orderly society together in Iraq. It is not too late to do it.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

The "JFK GUYS" have USED our military presence in the ME as one of the reason/excuses for their "actions".

Well, yes. That's one of the results of the war in Iraq. As nimh said, this war creates anger, it creates resentment, it is perceived as a war of the West against Islam, it is used as a recruitment tool by extremists....

It can be discussed if the attacks in London or on JFK would not even have been planned if the US hadn't invaded Iraq. However, that whole issue of the war in Iraq frequently seems to be the motive that drives people over the edge. At least it is given as a justification to attack Western countries.

Knowing this, I find the claims that terrorist attacks have been prevented because America is "keeping terrorists busy" by fighting a long and bloody war in the Middle East quite ridiculous.

0 Replies

I thought I was pretty specific in saying the enemy isn't a single organization, but many who share the same ideology. That ideology is to conduct a Holy War against the infidel Western world cumulating in an Islamic victory. They wish to destroy what they regard as degenerate and irreligious materialism. It is more important, so they believe, to maintain a repressive theocracy based on antiquated dogma, than to participate in the world peacefully.

They haven't any "new" military doctrine, or technological tools for achieving their aim. What they do have is a conviction that the United States is rotten to the core, and is unwilling to any struggle if it involves cost and sacrifice. They understand how to manipulate propaganda to divide public opinion. They despise us as weak and unable to sustain any conflict to its conclusion. They use radical Mullahs and the internet to recruit and inspire terrorist acts, and I believe we'll see many more "homegrown" terrorists in both Europe and the U.S.

I didn't say that there have been no major terrorist operations in the U.S. because Al Queda is totally focused on Iraq. What I did say is that we have the Administration's policies to thank for this hiatus. Internal security is much better today than it was at the beginning of the 21st century, but we can probably never be 100% secure. The Administration has been criticized because the plots so far made public all concerned pretty low-levels of expertise. It doesn't take great sophistication to deal heavy blows onto the citizenry or the national welfare. We have too many targets, vulnerabilities for every attempt to stopped ahead of time. We have to be 100% effective, and the enemy terrorist only has to succeed once. Should we wait until a terrorist operation is completed, or at least until they've done everything but "push the button"? These terrorists once unmasked may not serve much time in prison, but their potential for murdering a lot of our citizens is reduced to near zero.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

They haven't any "new" military doctrine, or technological tools for achieving their aim. What they do have is a conviction that the United States is rotten to the core, and is unwilling to any struggle if it involves cost and sacrifice. They understand how to manipulate propaganda to divide public opinion. They despise us as weak and unable to sustain any conflict to its conclusion. They use radical Mullahs and the internet to recruit and inspire terrorist acts,

They also love their camels.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
The President isn't a great intellect, but so what? The Nation has benefited many time is in the past by having President's whose personal faults were much greater than this one ... who isn't even running in the next election.

Like when?

Both Harrison's. The first was too old and infirm, but he only lasted a few months. Ben, was a disaster almost anyway you care to view him.

Franklin Pierce. His sole claim to fame was that he played a larger role in the conquest of Mexico than other, and better men. Pierce, not Buchanan, was probably the last President who had any chance at all of averting the Civil War, and he failed.

Milard Filmore. Not a bad man, but wholly unsuited to fill the Presidencey after General Taylor died. President Taylor should also be on the list. He knew he wasn't Presidential material, but ran in anger against Polk's policies (Polk honored his pledge and didn't run), so there wasn't a really good alternative to the War Hero aurora that Taylor was clocked in.

Andrew Johnson. An illiterate until he was a married young man. Stubborn and so unlikable that he escaped successful impeachment by one vote.

Rutherford Hayes. Little to recommend him beyond his service a volunteer general during the Civil War.

Chester A. Arthur. A creature of Tamany Hall with a long, long record of political chicanery. It turned out that as President, Arthur became a reformer and got the civil service system started.

Grover Cleveland. A lovable mayor with a reputation for honest and not much else. Cleveland loved his women, and the women loved him ... as did most of the electorate. No one else has ever been elected twice while out of office.

Taft never wanted to be President, and the experiment was the worst experience of his life. Teddy and his wife forced him into the job, and though he tried hard, he ended up grossly overweight and friendless.

Wilson was a racist whose promises of peace were in every case wrong. Wilson remained in office after his stroke when any responsible person would have turned the government over to the V.P.

Harding was another man who famously said, "I'm not qualified to be President". The Great Bloviator could mangle even the simplest ideas. Though perfectly honest, Harding kept friends in office who stole big time from the taxpayer and nation.

Coolidge knew how to keep his mouth shut and was one of the first to really understand how to use the media for political power.

Hoover; wrong man for the job. As President earlier, or even later, Hoover might have been one of the greats. However, he just didn't have what the nation needed during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl.

Gerald Ford, a good man and the right man for the job at a time when the nation needed to be reassured after the fall of Nixon. Ford was never noted for his keen intellect, but he was steady in a time of turmoil.

Jimmy Carter. I love the guy, but he was one of the worst Presidents to serve in the 20th century. Almost everything he did had terrible repercussions.

This isn't an exhaustive list, and I'm sure that more could be said about each of the Presidents I've listed. Some, like Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, etc. have become icons, yet everyone of them had their own failings and large numbers of people living in their eras hated them just as much as you lot seem to hate The Shrub.

0 Replies

And how did the Nation benefit from these men? How exactly is it benefiting now.

Bush is hated for very simple, obvious reasons. For me at least, they are not partisan reasons.

0 Replies

Not a one on that list got the US into a 5 year war of choice...

I find it hard to make a comparison at all.

0 Replies

Those were a partial list of minimally (?) qualified Presidents.

Rather than a long listing, here are a few:

Andrew Johnson helped to keep Tennessee in the Union during the Civil War, and thereafter played a major role in trying to get the nation back together. If his personality had been better and the radical Republicans less powerful the Reconstruction Era might have been much less difficult for all.

Hayes, was a great proponent of expansion westward and his policies, weak though they were, helped build a transcontinental nation. BTW, Polk who was the youngest President elected for the first hundred years of the nation, was a dark-horse President. He was almost certainly the hardest working man to ever hold the Office, and it was his efforts that resulted in joining Texas, Oregon, California and New Mexico to the Union. Polk was another of those people reviled while in office for starting an unjustified war. However, he won it and a large part of what is today the U.S. was acquired to everyone's benefit.

I've already remarked on Chester's reforms.

Taft was a moderating influence on the expansionist policies of Teddy Roosevelt.

Wilson's getting the U.S. involved in The Great War was the beginning of modernization in the U.S. Military. His dream of a world organization to work for and maintain the peace was a failure, but the idea lived on in the United Nations ... and its still a largely useless exercise.

Coolidge was fortunate to have served during the zenith of the inter-war period. He was the first of the new style Presidents, and the last of the old style executives.

Without Ford's steadiness civil and political instability might have thrown the nation into decades of worse turmoil than it did.

How is the nation currently benefiting from the President's policies? We are actively fighting the best of the RIM veteran terrorists, and killing them at a very nice clip. Iran and the DPRK are straining at the leash, but for now they're constrained and limited in their ability to cause trouble. The President has fended off an attempt by the Democratic Congress to usurp the Executive Branch. The national security has been improved both against foreign and home grown RIM terrorists. His has not been an administration of unqualified success, and we shouldn't expect that there wouldn't be failures, mistakes and un-intended consequences.

0 Replies

Well, how about:

Madison's War of 1812.

Polk's Mexican War.

Pierce's stumbling that helped get the Civil War ablaze.

McKinley and Roosevelt's Spanish American War that resulted in the Philippines becoming a U.S. Protectorate. As a result of Aguinaldo's Revolt to free the Philippines the U.S. fought a REALLY brutal war of occupation. During the 19th century, American Presidents regularly sent troops to South American countries to insure stability and profits for American business.

Wilson sent General Pershing into Mexico in the forlorn hope of punishing Pancho Villa for his attack on Columbus, NM. Why did Wilson feel it necessary to join the effort to defeat Kaiser Bill? Under Wilson civil liberties were REALLY under assault.

Eisenhower and JFK got us involved in Vietnam.

So, this conflict has taken longer, but it isn't as destructive nor has there been casualties equivalent to those taken in previous "Presidential" wars. BTW, it isn't the length of a war that is important, it is instead the resolve and willingness to see it to a successful end. Sometimes that can take a hundred years, or more. I think the American People have the stuff to fight oppression, from whatever source, for far longer than 100 years. Well, maybe not some left-wing Democrats who'd rather quit to gain a bit of political ground.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Both Harrison's. The first was too old and infirm, but he only lasted a few months. Ben, was a disaster almost anyway you care to view him.

Franklin Pierce. His sole claim to fame was that he played a larger role in the conquest of Mexico than other, and better men. Pierce, not Buchanan, was probably the last President who had any chance at all of averting the Civil War, and he failed.

Milard Filmore. Not a bad man, but wholly unsuited to fill the Presidencey after General Taylor died. President Taylor should also be on the list. He knew he wasn't Presidential material, but ran in anger against Polk's policies (Polk honored his pledge and didn't run), so there wasn't a really good alternative to the War Hero aurora that Taylor was clocked in.

Andrew Johnson. An illiterate until he was a married young man. Stubborn and so unlikable that he escaped successful impeachment by one vote.

Rutherford Hayes. Little to recommend him beyond his service a volunteer general during the Civil War.

Chester A. Arthur. A creature of Tamany Hall with a long, long record of political chicanery. It turned out that as President, Arthur became a reformer and got the civil service system started.

Grover Cleveland. A lovable mayor with a reputation for honest and not much else. Cleveland loved his women, and the women loved him ... as did most of the electorate. No one else has ever been elected twice while out of office.

Taft never wanted to be President, and the experiment was the worst experience of his life. Teddy and his wife forced him into the job, and though he tried hard, he ended up grossly overweight and friendless.

Wilson was a racist whose promises of peace were in every case wrong. Wilson remained in office after his stroke when any responsible person would have turned the government over to the V.P.

Harding was another man who famously said, "I'm not qualified to be President". The Great Bloviator could mangle even the simplest ideas. Though perfectly honest, Harding kept friends in office who stole big time from the taxpayer and nation.

Coolidge knew how to keep his mouth shut and was one of the first to really understand how to use the media for political power.

Hoover; wrong man for the job. As President earlier, or even later, Hoover might have been one of the greats. However, he just didn't have what the nation needed during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl.

Gerald Ford, a good man and the right man for the job at a time when the nation needed to be reassured after the fall of Nixon. Ford was never noted for his keen intellect, but he was steady in a time of turmoil.

Jimmy Carter. I love the guy, but he was one of the worst Presidents to serve in the 20th century. Almost everything he did had terrible repercussions.

Uhm.

So your point is that GWB is better than Milard Filmore, William Taft, Warren Harding and Jimmy Carter?

High praise..

0 Replies

Re: What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Elect

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Is there one issue, that for you, would be overriding in determining your choice for president? Is there a constellation of issues? What are they?

Two issues: Ending the war on Iraq and restoring basic civil rights. If you'll excuse my audacious selfishness, it would be really nice if habeas corpus applied to me again soon after I move to America.

0 Replies

No, my point is that President Bush is arguably not the worst President the nation has ever had, but that virtually every President has both good and bad points. Many were hated and reviled during their own lives, but thereafter their policies were found to be correct. Brilliant isn't a qualification for office, nor is popular a reason to value one over another.

The policies of this President aren't unique, nor are they clearly the wrong approach to the challenges before us. No one can tell at this time what the consequences of this President's policies will be. President Bush has taken the same paths that previous President's have taken, and in the end the nation benefited in those instances. No President has ever hesitated to embark upon a long and costly war in defense of the nation. Do we want to start now choosing leadership that would rather switch than fight? Is the Radical Islamic Movement correct in believing that Americans are decadent, selfish materialists so self-absorbed that they will find any excuse to avoid bloodshed? If so, we are indeed facing perilous times.

It is certainly possible that Hillary or Obama will become President, and if they do and fulfill their "promises" what do you believe the result will be? Will there be the dawning of a new age of prosperity and peace around the world? Will the economy soar as government imposes constraints on industrial growth? Will the price of gas go down, and harmony will exist between the RIM and Western civilization? Maybe, but to me that's dream time and doesn't conform to the way humans have historically behaved. Personally, and I'm sure it will come as no surprise here, I think the odds of limiting conflict and successfully dealing with the world's problems is more likely with almost any GOP candidate in the race. Personally, I still like McCain. Ron Paul is ideologically a purer sort'a cat, but the electorate is unlikely to vote for him. Guiliani may have the best chance of attracting middle of the road voters from the more likely and radical Democratic ticket.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see ... won't we?

0 Replies

Habeas Corpus has not been suspended, nor is it likely to be.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Habeas Corpus has not been suspended, nor is it likely to be.

I'm not saying habeas corpus is summarily suspended. I'm saying I don't currently have full full habeas corpus rights, and I'd like them restored.

Under the detainee treatment act, a combatant status review tribunal can determine any alien to be an unlawful enemy combatant. They can make their determination without me knowing the evidence against me, presenting my case, or employ a lawyer to do it for me. They can use hearsay and testimony obtained under torture, both of which are known to be worthless as evidence. Having reached its verdict, the military can detain me wherever they want and deny me access to a lawyer again. Courts will be forbidden to hear any habeas corpus petition I might manage to file.

I concede that in practice this is unlikely to happen. If I didn't, I wouldn't be preparing to move. But the fact is that American law now contains a loophole through which a kangaroo court -- the combatant status review tribunal -- can let me vanish in limbo without habeas corpus rights. Changing this is an overriding issue for me.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

What would you suggest? Just ignore it, and hope it goes away? Pandora's box has been opened, and we must deal with it, or we will be destroyed.[/color][/b]

Peel off the `war on terror' bumper sticker, and let criminal law exclusively deal with terrorism again. That's what other nations have been doing with their terrorists. (IRA, ETA, Red Brigades, RAF, ...). It hasn't worked perfectly, but our results have been less bad than yours.

0 Replies

I have to say personally for me it's immigration. Now this new Amnesty bill they want to pass is the most heinous thing I have ever heard pertaining to this topic.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Asherman wrote:
Habeas Corpus has not been suspended, nor is it likely to be.

I'm not saying habeas corpus is summarily suspended. I'm saying I don't currently have full full habeas corpus rights, and I'd like them restored.

Under the detainee treatment act, a combatant status review tribunal can determine any alien to be an unlawful enemy combatant. They can make their determination without me knowing the evidence against me, presenting my case, or employ a lawyer to do it for me. They can use hearsay and testimony obtained under torture, both of which are known to be worthless as evidence. Having reached its verdict, the military can detain me wherever they want and deny me access to a lawyer again. Courts will be forbidden to hear any habeas corpus petition I might manage to file.

I concede that in practice this is unlikely to happen. If I didn't, I wouldn't be preparing to move. But the fact is that American law now contains a loophole through which a kangaroo court -- the combatant status review tribunal -- can let me vanish in limbo without habeas corpus rights. Changing this is an overriding issue for me.

Yep. I'd like it restored for my husband as well, and any of our family members who might choose to visit from a foreign country.

0 Replies

I voted as other as well. My main issue is restoring civil liberties and getting back to diplomacy with other nations and restoring the rule of law to our whole 'war on terror' practices both at home and abroad. Second is health care. Third is environment.

0 Replies

http://homepage.mac.com/amstanbury/RedefeatCommunism/RedefeatCommunism.gif

0 Replies

It never ceases to amaze me how threatened the left is by opposing viewpoints.

0 Replies

What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know