War war or Jaw Jaw?

raid517

Hi, I haven't been around for a while. But regulars around here will remember me well enough.

I've been kind of staying away deliberately, mainly because participating in these threads can be a hugely time consuming and pointless pursuit - but also because of the attitudes of many of the American members of this board I have encountered in the two years that I was/have been active. In the end this board was becomming nothing more than a meeting place for the worst of the worst of what American society is and is capable of being... It seemed like not much more than a good old boys meeting place, stocked with only red knecks, racists, homophobes and general biggots of all descriptions. It is sad to note that this has now become even more so the case since I left.

In any case I just wanted to say that I have been very depressed and concerned by recent events. Particularly the events in Russia with all those innocent school chidren now dead.

It has solidified something in my mind I have been thinking for a long time now. And that is that in the world in which we now live, this is not the time or the place for weak men to exist. I am undoubtedly a socialist and an admirer of the American Democratic party (not that these two are always mutually compatible). However I think that John Kerry has made a drastic mistake by making it sound as though somehow talking with the terrorists now, or by striving to understand their motives, or that offering to enter into group hugs with them in any kind of metaphorical or real sense, will somehow solve any of the problems with which we are all now confronted. Like it or not, whatever the causes - and who ever is responsible, we are at war.

What dissapoints me about Kerry (among other things) is that he has set out to affirm a myth that Left Wing politics by definition means a pursuit of a weak military and defense policy.

But History does not demonstrate this to be the case.

Who could fail to admire Kennedy and his balls when he stood up against Khrushchev in the Cuban missile crisis? Or who can deny Roosevelt showed what was the ultimate display of courage and leadership as he led America and the world to freedom and stood up to Hitler and Japan in WWII? Indeed history is littered with great leaders from the left who have been anything but 'weak on defense.'

Nor do I believe that Kerry necessarily would be either - he is just trying to play popular politics by appealing to a certain dissatisfied section of society who he thinks might have a big enough influence to carry him through to the Whitehouse.

I don't think this is true. I think people are prepared to stand and fight if that is what we must do. But I do think that he may have lost more than he could have gained if he had never taken this line.

I am simply not convinced by him - on anything very much really. Beyond his war record (which I think was scandalously defamed by the nastiest political campaign in living memory) I am not sure what he stands for, what his deepenst convictions are (no to war in Vietnam might have been right for the 70's. But it may not be right for now), or what he would really do in a crisis if push came to shove.

Basically what I want is a Tony Blair in the Whitehouse. A guy who has a left leaning outlook, who is capable of uniting people and the world behind a common cause (instead of dividing them as has Bush) who has the balls to fight, even when the going gets really rough - and who will not stint in their conviction that showing weakness of any kind at this time may potentially prove disasterous for us all.

Sadly, I am not at all certain Kerry is that guy.

I know Blair has his critics within his/my own country, but that is simply down to the fact that few of these people understand the scope or extent of his vision. He most certainly sees the danger ahead and is prepared to do what it needed to act on it.

Not perhaps a good example to the many self professed Republicans here who wish to believe that left wing politics always means weak on defence.

Sitll I would much rather people didn't vote for anyone rather than vote for Bush.

I just want to correct this misconception that the left have always traditionally been weak on defense. There are as I said many historical examples that clearly show that this is just not the case.

Remember it was a Democrat who led America into the war in Vietnam - and another Democrat who massivly increased American commitment to it. It was also a Republican who came to power on the promise that he would end the war - and who in the process negotiated away any prospect that America could still win it.

If anyone has been weak on defense, it sure has not been the left.

GJ

digerati

We missed you!

ToshiroOC

Excellent post, and while I disagree with you on a gut level, I have no good arguments against what you've said

ronnn

I disagree on the Tony Blair part. He has divided his own country and showed no ability to work with the UN, or the European Union on his make war on prefix policies. Now I would take Jean Cretian. He stood firm with his belief in the UN, and had been able to present a presence in Afganistan and many other places. Still he refused to go to war on a lie,as we all knew those weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Mind you Canada has oil, so we really had nothing to protect over there. But Canada and the rest of the world must now live with the terrorism spawned in these blasted out areas. Tony Blair lied to the British people and maybe worst of all to his own loyal party members. I don't vote in Britain or the US, so elect who you want, but please quit blowing up our world.

raid517

Well I might be overplaying the Tony Blair part. He was simply the only modern example of a leader on the left who has showed no qualms about acting in the face of danger. In any case I think Bush has done more to split opinion in this country - and world opinion as a whole, than Blair or anyone else ever possibly could.

Don't forget Blair did play a significant role in uniting the world behind taking action in Iraq in the UN. (If it hadn't been for Blair it is doubtful that Bush would ever have gone to the UN at all). He also did a lot to swing public opinion in this country behind a war, so that when the war started, a majority of people expressed support for it.

It is subsquent events - and the realities on the ground that have since served to undo much of this good reputation, both here at home and abroad. He paid a price for supporting a misguided and ill founded policy, for supporting an action based on good faith, old alliances - and a mistaken ideological belief that perhaps America might at last be pursuaded to fight the good fight - and that maybe this was the beginning of a period in history where dictators and repressive regimes everywhere could count their days as numbered. Clearly that degree of ideology has proved to be severely misplaced.

If Bush had wanted he could have opted to try to build bridges too. but he showed from the start that he had little interest in doing so. It simply didn't take long for the world to realise that this guy was only really interested in going it alone. He had an agenda already laid out - and he was going to follow it no matter what.

I still believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that we dropped the ball by allowing Bush to go through with it - that this had little (and now seems to have had even less) to do with the war on terrorism - and that it is this war, a war without borders, without conventional forces, without even often what can be described as a reconsiable command structure, that provides the biggest threat to the safety and security of the world.

Don't get me wrong - even this is a little over played. I mean if you were to believe Bush,Ossama Bin Laden and his crew are currently enconsed in some hi tech James Bond style cave in the deepest darkest reaches of Afganistan, with an aresenal of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons at their disposal, while they sit and plot on a daily basis on ways to bring about the downfall of America and all Western society.

However in reality, what we are dealing with is still little more than a few primitive Arabs living in at what is possibly described as at best, filthy squalid pre-stone age conditions - and with little more than than a small but significant pot of money and a set of religeous and political connvictions that seems often to lead them to act in the most horrific, brutal and sickeningly vilolent ways towards other people that could possibly be imagined.

Nonetheless while they have shown that they are capable of inflicting horrific injury or death on a large scale - lets not get over excited about exactly what kind of danger it is that we face. These guys are not the Russians, they do not have access to infinite resources, they do not have an army of technicians, engineers or scientists beavering away to come up with new and ever deadlier means of delivering advanced WMD weapons systems, they do not in short pose a threat in that they are in any sense capable of taking over the free world any time either now or for any of the forseeable future.

Which is why the need for any kind of whole sale supension of civil or political liberties is still highly overplayed. Undoubtedly we can fight wars, but for now they must be wars that allow us to protect and enhance our freedoms - not to surrender them to control of some central government, who's agenda appears to be to do little more than limit the extent of the democratic process.

Sure we need to fight them - and indeed we may need to take the fight to them - but things like Iraq - and to an extent the war in Afganistan are/were not much more than theatre for the benefit of the world and for the American people. A demonstration if you will that America could still 'kick some ass' even after appearng for a time to have have had her ass somewhat badly kicked.

The real war should and always has been a covert and intelligence war - and this it seems is the war we have been loosing until now. Everything else we have going on around us, in Iraq and elsewhere has been little more than a distraction. (Although Iraq is proving a much larger distraction than it ever possibly could in the past).

But nonetheless we do need a tough approach, from people who won't flnich from making the hard choices when those choices confront us, we need too people who will be prepared to take the fight to the terrorists and fight them on equal terms - whatever those terms may be.

I don't think it's possible to 'talk with these guys', or to enaged in some kind of phoney soul searching group therapy with them. The war I would like to see would be no less total, no less vigourous, no less well executed than any other war - although very few of us might be aware of the actual individual battles or any of their respective outcomes. It may not seem as exciting as sending a thousand cruise missiles against a mud hut in in Afganistan, but the outcome is likely to be no less decisive. In short what I'm saying is that we need another cold war - and we need to quickly relearn all of the lessons we learned - and now seem to have forgotten - when the last cold war ended. It won't be like the last cold war - it certainly should still be cheaper (star wars programs to fight a few camel riding Arabs may not in every instance be seen as an appropriate response) particularly given who we are fighting - but it should still be a cold war none the less.

But my main point as I said was to disprove the popular right wing fallacy that the left has always been weak on defense. There are countless examples in history where this can be shown to not be the case.

It saddens me too to say it, but I genuinely don't like Kerry. I am just not sure he is the right man for the job. (Nor though do I think Bush is in any sense better. He is to divisive, too nationalistic to be in any way a great leader). In Kerry's case though, it is his apparent indecisiveness that may prove his downfall, his seeming concession that the US might be forced to waver when faced with a tough choice, his attempts to appeal to all sides of the argument simultatiously, his flim flaming on important issues that are in danger of making him appear weak.

John Kerry is a one issue politician. His single message appears to be "No to the war!" When asked which war, his answer seems to be "any war!" It is the same wave he has ridden thoughout his political carreer since the early 70's. He appears to be too inflexible to respond to the realities of what is now a rapidly changing world.

Can a 70's peacenik really be President of the United states? Is saying 'no to the war!' still enough in the 21'st centuary to justify his election to the highest office in the land?

I personally am not completely convinced that it is.

I am simply sorry that there is no better alternative.

GJ

Nacht

wow...

raid517

You have a problem with that?

I'm not any kind of socialist that you would be able to grasp - and that's for sure.

GJ

digerati

Fine, I didn't miss you! *cry*

Nacht

Try me.

raid517

Lol, well I'm not sticking around. I wish I could buy you guys a drink some time. But this at best seems an imperfect way to make new friends.

Just letting some folks around here know I'm still alive and kicking.

I hope everything is good for all of you.

Best regards,

GJ

ronnn

Ok, as usual I misread your first post. Still I think if Americans want to vote for Bush, fine with me (he is not the issue). The guy gets about 10% approval ratings in Canada, but luckily we have our own government. I think the American people must change their fighting ways and government actions are just a reflection of a xeonphobic populace. If the US people expressed a strong wish to join the world community in a positive spirit, George Bush would have to follow. The sad part of this is that the US has weapons of mass destruction and is eager to use them. This making war on the middle east to get cheap oil is turning out to be expensive and will ruin the environment and the ecconomy.

digerati

I disagree with you all the time. Hell you should be locked up in a camp for being a slant.

lol Remember when you were here and that Asian lady drove by and gave us the WEIRDEST LOOK AND KEPT LOOKING!? Ahahahaa

digerati

Why not stick around? Zero's gone! All you have to worry about is Neon Cowboy that pornoriffic bastard lol

raid517

Well it's nice to feel welcome. But hum... life sort of catches up with you you know... It does take an awfully long time to argue with the world two fingers at a time - and my wife and kids have kind of all threatend to divorce me if I didn't quit.

So I don't really have much choice.

Besides which I became a kind of Linux nut for a while too and began spending even more tiime at my PC.

That was kind of the last straw I guess - it quickly became clear that I needed to rearrange my priorities. Now all I do is use my PC to read my email - and 'test' various games for my kids.

It ain't so bad, lol.

GJ

digerati

Of course someone like you would put his family before me, psshhh.
lol

raid517

Well some things you just have to live with I guess.

Maybe one day I will get a chance to buy that drink after all who knows...

GJ

raid517

Anyway where were we, ahh yes politics. Well seeing as my wife has set a screenshot of her solicitors letter threatening divorce as my default screensaver, I think I'd better leave you to it.

Good Luck!

GJ

digerati

You could buy me chocolate milk and have it delivered to my house....mmmm....chocolate milk...

raid517

Lol, well maybe, but I still prefer beer.

GJ

digerati

It's so unhealthy for you! I think you just mentioned the real reason your wife wants to divorce you lol

ToshiroOC

Great.

raid517

This may be the longest goodby ever. I'm sure someone will break out a violin in a minute.

How about if I promise to pop back from time to time during events of particular world sigbificance?

I wonder if you would perk up then?

That was always in my plans anyway.

Like I said before, there's no one here who has chased me away yet!

Best regards,

GJ

raid517

Never mind the pointy eyes, it was the pointy ears she was looking at.

Some people can be just so insensitive!

GJ

raid517

Erm... sorry TC... I guess my SOH must really suck.

No offense intended.

GJ

wtfux

He wasn't offended. (This is ^_^, I'm on my girlfriends screename here.) and if he was, then I'll castrate him for you!!!!

ToshiroOC