Posted: 4/16/2008 6:27:43 PM EDT
|
Well, my wife and I watched the debate tonight, and while I'm sure many people would avoid it, I still think it's good to understand everyones stance on the issues, whether I'd vote for them or not. Also, it had the potential for a lot of good entertainment. With regards to Iraq, both candidates would support immediate withdrawl, regardless of the recommendations of the commanders on the ground. We're losing too many men and women in this fight, and the Iraqi's just don't seem to be committed. Let's forget of course that our national news never reports the total number of IP and ING that have died trying to establish order in their own country, and while the candidates say that the Republicans foreign policy is in shambles, they obviously have little experience dealing with arabs if they think anything will happen as fast as we'd like. But what REALLY pissed me off was when they brough up Iran. Both candidates stated they'd pound Iran if Iran attacked Israel, and that we must, forcibly if necessary, keep Iran from gaining nuclear devices. They went on to say we need to form partnerships with Iran's neighbors, and Clinton spoke of a "security umbrella", to deter Iran's possible aggression. So, we should bail on Iraq, who is Iran's closest neighbor, but we should make friends with everyone else? Who else is there? Syria? And then, to speak of withdrawing from Iraq to protect our armed servicemembers, but leave it out on the table that we might have to use them in Iran, but certainly free them up to use in Afghanistan? Afghanistan will always be a backwater, but Iraq has been and can be a regional powerhouse again. How well did it serve us in the Cold War to have bases in Germany? While the reconstruction of Germany didn't entail the loss of life as we've seen post V-Day, can we really tuck tail and say "enough" and leave Iraq disfunctional when we've spent so much treasure and blood there, and then say we need "partners" in the region against Iran??? The fun point of the debate was concerning gun control. I won't bore you with the details, as it's the same rhetoric, and I'm no less disappointed in the responses as I always am. Both seem to firmly believe that the police will protect us from criminals, although it's been documented in court judgements that neither the police or government have an obligation to secure your well being from crime, and that it's an individuals responsibility. Thomas Jefferson had this to say regarding that: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Incredible how relevant those words still are... So to the fun point of the debate, I had my wife watching, because I've told her I need to dip into our reserves to buy some toys this year, in case of a Democratic victory in November. I explain it as pre-panic buying, but she views it as me just bullshitting her to buy more guns. After listening to the debate, she asked me how much money I needed.  Anyways, please excuse the rant, I just don't think I could have slept tonight without venting this somehow. I'm sure we may not all agree on everything I've said, but damn it all, we're screwed in November if either of these folks win. |
Well, the Iraqi government rather isn't hauling freight, and even a internal Shia fight is possible; I'm disappointed with it. However, a regional war breaking out because of a pullout isn't desireable. I'm wondering if a partition doesn't lie ahead, even if it's a federal sort of thing instead of setting up 3 new countries.
Probably just air strikes for us; both probably figure that if Israel gets attacked by Iran, the IDF will respond. Syria is out, but neighboring countries do have a security interest: SA, Jordan and the Gulf States.
Same old ****. I'm hoping that "H" and "O" stay in until the convention, Hillary wins and Nader makes a big push to run with the support of the "O" disaffected. I'm wondering if a combo ticket will be unacceptable to both due to their thinking of a run in 2112 given a McCain victory in 2008. |
|
My point about Syria was they're the only country there that we really don't already have relations with, not that we're going to establish them. So as far as they're comments on partnering with neighbors in the region, we already are for the most part. I don't think action in Iran would end with airstrikes. We might believe that, but they wouldn't accept being attacked like the Serbs did. I think our best course of action in Iran is to aggressively back the anti-establishment movement; the Iranians are a proud people, and while many dislike their government, they are Iranians first and will fight against aggression. Add Hezbollah and Hamas, and the suicide squads, and I think we'd end up provoked into a ground war. |