Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & the War
With under a week to go, we're opening up discussions on the US Presidential Election. Yesterday we discussed
the economy. Today we take on one of the other major election topics: The War. From the actual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to foreign policy issues related to potential threats like North Korea, Russia, and Iran, how do the candidates stack up?
Does he still cling to the 1-2 brigades per month? I've heard him temper those figures as of late. Perhaps he's pandering for votes while appeasing the base.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is no harm talking to them...
There will be serious repercussions from talking with terrorist states without preconditions. The President of the United States of America is the single person recognized as the "leader" of the world. To give credence and authority to leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc by engaging in one-on-one talks is foolhardy. It sets apart the rest of the team of nations working to contain these rogue states as not worthy of inclusion. One-on-one talks set up the possibility of "end-runs" where these terrorist states can get around international agreements designed to force cooperation or at least claim the U.S. offered concessions when none were proffered. And lastly, these tete-a-tete talks trap the President in multiple meetings that would serve no purpose but that of Iran, Syria, and North Korea when the President should be leading a team of nations at any talks to ensure everyone's interest is protected.
This is precisely why President Bush was absolutely right in insisting that any talks with North Korea occur in a regional framework, where the interests of Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea were all represented, and the North Koreans could not turn the meeting into a monologue of grievances against the U.S. Despite years of stalling and wriggling, the North Koreans finally had to come to the table, deal with their neighbors, and work out an agreement that everyone could live with.
Mark my words, Obama is another JFK, whose inexperience at dealing with other nations will get the U.S. into another crisis comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis and will probably get us involved in another VietNam. And as Nixon had to clean up JFK/LBJ's mess in VietNam, and Bush '43 had to clean up Clinton's debacle in Iraq, it will take a Republican president to end the mess a President Obama will create.
Impetuous! Homeric!
Is it?
Certainly it is a bit embarassing that the most powerful military in the history of the planet cannot find one guy and his dialysis machine in a cave in Pakistan. However, I'm not sure it's a disgrace. What harm does he pose anyone in the United States going forward?
Sure, he has a global brand and the media is all too-willing to claim that any act of politically motivated violence is somehow linked to Al Queda, but those links are all too often imaginary.
If anything, Bin Laden is a useful bogeyman for those who use fear as a means of manipulating the population. Call me cynical, but if I were interested in doing that sort of thing, capturing the guy would be the LAST thing I would want my troops to do...
Leaving the cynicism aside for a moment, what purpose do you think his death would serve anyways? I doubt that it would deter anyone else with similar ambitions. Like James Dean and Marilyn Monroe, Osama Bin Laden's death at the hands of the americans would make him immortal...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
We never should have stayed in Iraq, we should have taken a left turn and over ran Iran. We would have been home by Christmas. Airdrop beer into key areas and the Marines will kill anyone between them and their suds.
Everyone still acts shocked about the war. If you had paid attention you would remember Bush referencing the Axis of Evil. He did exactly what he said he would do. It wasn't a con job. He told everyone from the start what he was gonna do. Iraq, having been under a previous cease fire agreement that they repeatedly violated, was just the easiest to start sumthin wit, after Afghanistan of course. Sadaam was one of if not the largest supporter of terrorism back when he ruled Iraq. Now it's Iran. If Bush had balls, he'd take on Iran before leaving office.
For the slashdot crowd, it's the money spent on the war that matters the most, then it's the reputation of the US in the world (haha), then maybe those poor Iraqi casualties (over-inflated, of course) and to top it off, it was all our fault to begin with. Sad, pathetic, basement dwellers.
Maybe not, but I can think of worse things to do..
"The United States also tested nerve agents in Canada and Britain in conjunction with those two countries, and biological and chemical weapons in at least two other states, Maryland and Florida."
....our economy's best interest, and our national security's best interest. WOW,WILL ALL THE SOCIALIST JUST GET THE F8*&K OUT OF MY COUNTRY BEFORE WE HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK BY FORCE. IF I WANTED TO LIVE IN A SOCIALISTIC SOCIETY ID MOVE TO ONE. WHAT HAPPENED TO MAKE IT WHERE AMERICANS WHERE INDORSING WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. You don't help the economy by taxing the people that actually pay tax MORE, $700 billion more over several years and than letting the %40 OF THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T PAY TAKE STAY LAZY. WHAT HAPPENED TO SELF RESPONSIBILITY?!?!?!