Here is what Kerry said:
"Hezbollah needs to be stopped, but there are different ways of doing it,” the senator said. "I’m all for special forces and special operations, but we also need to be pursuing an alternative track that provides alternatives for people and there has been an absence of that.”
Kerry offered no alternative ideas.
Kerry continues the "It's Bush's fault" but doesn't say how it should be done...
How should we get rid of Hezbollah...
or should we at all?
Again, we get the "we need to talk" "we need to be nicer"
Thursday, August 03, 2006
What are the alternative methods?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I'm not exactly certain how one is supposed to negotiate with terrorist organizations like al Queda and the Hezb'Allah.
Perhaps other Democrats like Warner and Bayh will make more sense on terrorism-related issues in 2008. I'm embarrassed that I voted for Kerry in 2004, but hey, what he was saying in 2003 was not the same as what he is saying today.
Kerry has many times offered alternatives. It' just that his alternatives have not been to invade or bomb them out of existence so you don't consider then real alternatives.
And don't worry about what Kerry was saying in 2003, Jason. That was 2 and a half years ago. Back then Bush was saying "mission accomplished" and we'll get Bin Laden "dead or alive" and "bring it on." Today he's saying, uh, not much.
Jim--
What are the real alternatives with organizations like al Queda and the Hezb'Allah? Diplomacy? Therapy, perhaps?
Kerry was criticizing Bush on grounds that the administration wanted to cut and run for political purposes in 2004, and now Kerry is advocating the same thing. The man does not have a principled position.
It is NEVER unpricipled to change position in the face of overwhelming information that wasn't made available earlier or based on the observation that the previous policy has become a disaster.
That's why we are "Waist deep in the Big Muddy And the big fool says to push on [or stay the course]."
Jason and game keep throwing out these silly "touch-feely" and "therapy" approaches supposedly advocated by liberals. This is bullshit stuff that nobody in the world is advocating.
But Game and Jason, please tell us exactly, I mean, exactly what you keep implying here. Not "we've got to get tough, take them out, get rid of them." Tell us exactly what your "alternative" is. How do you propose to get tough? How do you propose to get rid of them? And if you do whatever it is you think will accomplish this, what happens next?
I know Jason wants to take out their nuclear sites, and he even knows were ALL of them are apparently. How will this happen? B-52s? Tomahawks? Collateral damage is just too bad?
Again, assuming you "get tough", what happens next? And after that?
Jim--
Can you specify what principle Kerry uses to justify his change of position?
Here are a few awful candidates:
1) Smacking down dictators and creating democracies is good, but we should retreat when casualities reach over the 2000 limit.
2) We should give military aid to democracies struggling to fight radical elements, but we should retreat when sectarian violence becomes intense.
3) We should start wars when the public is behind us, but when the public mood changes, military strategy should change too.
I think all of these principles are bad, but at least any of the principles gives the change in policy some intelligibility. Without a principle, the *change* in Kerry's position is completely opportunist.
Now with respect to terrorist organizations like the Hezbollah and al Queda, you can't negotiate with them because they are not nation states. That would be like having Bill Clinton trying to sign a peace agreement with the Branch Davidians when the BDs should have be respecting the sovereignty of the laws fwhere they reside.
How about this:
I supported the president when he wanted to remove Hussein. I supported the concept that without Hussein Iraq could become a democracy friendly to the United States.
However, now I've realized that Rumsfeld's poor decisions have fucked up Iraq beyond all recognition. I realize that when the most respected military leaders said our plan was bad, they were right. I realize that what every experienced diplomat and strategist in the State Department had said prior to the war about Iraqi history and Middle East politics was true. I watch Bush and Rumsfeld tell Americans how great everything is in Iraq and how the press is misrepresenting the situation as it becomes obvious that Iraq has devolved into a bloody civil war.
And I realize that after over a quarter trillion dollars of taxpayer money, 2,500 US deaths and 10s of thousands maimed, there's not a chance in hell that George Bush and his band of incompetents is going to improve the situation and he has 2 and a half more years as president, a change in position is very justified.
One of staunchest supporters of the invasion and war in Iraq, Tom Friedman, has now changed his position:
"[T]hree years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means "staying the course" is pointless, and it's time to start thinking about Plan B -- how we might disengage with the least damage possible.
"...But the administration now has to admit what anyone -- including myself -- who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can't throw more good lives after good lives.
"Finally, the war in Iraq has so divided us at home and abroad that leaving, while bringing other problems, might also make it easier to build coalitions to deal with post-U.S. Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. All these problems are connected. We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength -- and that requires a broad coalition.
"The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become."
By the way the seek to destroy you is a leap of faith so to speak. With few exceptions(which I am sure you can list and have memorized)the vast majority of these people have fought people in arab lands not in the US or Australia or such. I believe we would fight for our country with all the ferver and more that they could juice up. They would lose and they know it.
Jim--
To be concise, based on your evidence and conjecture, Kerry changed his position for reasons one and two I specified above. Friedman even believes number three.
ron--
With terrorists and dictators, that is precisely what I want to do. Bomb, bomb, bomb.
All of the left's ideas have been tried before. We gave Hitler land for peace-- the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia. We talked with Hitler, had negotiation and diplomacy, and we even had an peace agreement the left told us would bring "peace in our time" in 1938. Hitler, stronger than ever because of the cycle of nonviolence, then invaded Poland. How did the French react? They tried to work out diplomacy and a peace agreement when they could have preemptively entered Germany and crushed them while Nazi divisions were in Poland. But for the French, war was a last resort, and their efforts for more diplomacy only gave Hitler time to respond with his full might in the spring, crushing the French in four weeks.
With respect to Iran, you need to understand the theology of Khomeini. I'm using a lot of words here, but this is a subject of the highest importance.
Khomeini taught that life is worthless, and death is the beginning of genuine existence. The natural world for them is the lowest element, the scum of creation. Martyrdom in contrast provides access to the divine world and what is eternal. This explains the insane Iranian human wave attacks during the Iran-Iraq war, why they tied up children in bundles of 20 and had them walk through Saddam's minefields, why Ahmadinejad thinks he can bring the return of the 12th Imam at the end of times by leading a final jihad against the infidels, and why Rafsanjani has stated that nuclear war with the west will have "acceptable losses" for Islam, but not for Israel which he described as a "one bomb state."
We need to get our heads out of our asses.
See Jason, this war is different than any in the past. In the past, pacifists would let evil leaders get really strong so that when we did have to take them out, millions would die. This time, Bush has been half smart enough to get rid of the problem while it is easier.
The problem is he needs to get Iran as well, and really, really attack the terrorists left in Iraq...stop worrying about the PC war, no one will care when you win.
There have been wars to end all wars and we still have wars..does that mean war doesn't work? Your line of reasoning is full of holes. Especially when we aid the terrorist when we kill innocents. We bomb they give them food and shelter..who do you think they are going to side up with..you know not of which you speak.
Just to let everyone here know something -- negotiation doesn't necessarily mean "get nicer" to anyone. It could mean the opposite side takes a very hard loss. If you knew anything about the art of negotiation, you'd know this.
Negotiation is what the dems are talking about. I believe in it, but I also think that it can only go so far, and after that, it's time to rumble. Negotiation should be tried and used exhaustively first, though.
Jason said:
I'm embarrassed that I voted for Kerry in 2004, but hey, what he was saying in 2003 was not the same as what he is saying today.
This is why I deliberately did not vote for him -- too much of a flip-flopper, and wasn't saying anything different from GWB in my own view.
Nope, I didn't vote for GWB either, so you can take that idea and shuv it. I would never vote for anyone so provenly incompetent.
It's also why I'm neither Dem or Repug -- there's no difference any more, seems like. They all suck.
Jason said:
Khomeini taught that life is worthless, and death is the beginning of genuine existence.
So does Buddha. So do a lot of religions/fanatics. They don't go off the wall with it like you say Khomeini does because of it. This to me is what disputes the fact that you've laid out here. If it were a cause of terrorism, then every, or most, "holy war" groups would use it as an excuse. For the most part, they are peace-loving.
Post a Comment