[Rhodes22-list] I Wish To Change My Vote

[brad haslett]

Paul,

You may find part of the answer you seek in this
article "Why Democracies Excel" by Siegle, Weinstein,
and Halperin in the Sept/Oct 04 issue of Foreign
Affairs.  

The counter argument to self-rule in the Middle East
is to assume that these people require authoritarian
rule and lack the capacity for modernization.  Proceed
with caution, there's racial police on this board!

At any rate, "talk amongst yourselves".  I have to go
fly and these discussions just prior to departure ruin
the zen-like state I like to launch with.

Brad Haslett
"CoraShen"


--- pdgrand at nospam.wmis.net wrote:

> Roger,
> 
> You mention, "The presence of stable democracies in
> Afganistan and Iraq 
> will go a long way towards stabilizing the situation
> in the Middle East."  
> I once read somewhere that the basic foundation of a
> working democracy is 
> the willingness of the defeated party to accept the
> leadership of the 
> winning party.  Theoretically, I love the sound of
> democracies in the 
> middle east.  Realistically, I don't see any hope of
> the defeated accepting 
> the leadership of the elected winners.  If that
> happens, you'll never have 
> a stable democracy.  Besides, a democracy has been
> in place in Turkey for 
> some time and hasn't done much to stabilize the
> middle east.
> 
> I hope you have a good answer on this because I
> really hope I'm wrong.
> 
> Paul 
> 
> > Well, after watching the presidential & vice
> presidential debates, I wish 
> to pull a flip flop & change my vote to Bush/Cheney.
>  Let me explain my 
> thinking.
> > 
> > As a draftable male college student in the early
> 1970's, I watched 
> developments in the Vietnam war & the protest
> movement here at home with 
> great interest.  John Kerry's presidential candidacy
> has made me reexamine 
> my own attitudes towards Vietnam.  There were a lot
> of mistakes made in the 
> way the United States conducted the Vietnam war -
> presidential 
> micromanagement of war strategy at the tactical
> level, overly restrictive 
> rules of engagement, "pin-prick" strikes vs. the use
> of overwhelming force, 
> allowing the enemy to reoccupy captured territory
> thus causing multiple 
> battles over the same sites, over reliance on
> airpower in a jungle gorilla 
> war, forced adoption of weapons like the M-16
> assault rifle that were not 
> yet ready for prime time, etc.  The US military shot
> its credibility in the 
> foot by publishing inflated enemy "body counts" that
> had no basis in 
> reality.  This was also the 1st war that played out
> on American television 
> screens on the news every evening.  The Tet
> offensive was really the 
> turning point.  You really have to give the VC a lot
> credit for the way 
> they pulled off Tet.  Seemingly under our very
> noses, the VC had 
> constructed extensive underground tunnel complexes
> within striking distance 
> of strategic targets all over South Vietnam.  They
> had spent years building 
> these tunnel complexes & stocking them with weapons
> and ammunition.  We 
> were completely surprised when the VC seemingly came
> out of nowhere in a 
> massive coordinated assault on something like 23
> targets all over South 
> Vietnam.  Yet, within a month, we had recaptured all
> these targets.  We 
> took something like 4000 casualties, the largest US
> body count of any 
> battle in the Vietnam war.  But, reliable North
> Vietnamese casualty data 
> indicates we slaughtered them something like 4:1. 
> Some VC units were 
> completely wiped out & were never again an effective
> fighting force.  The 
> Tet offensive was pretty much an all out, one time
> attempt for North 
> Vietnam.  Tactically, the VC got decisively defeated
> & it set their ability 
> to wage war back by years.  But, by then, the US
> military had lost nearly 
> all of its credibility.  No one believed the US
> military published body 
> counts, or accounts of recaptured cities, and the US
> casualties were all 
> over the nightly news.  The American public was
> horrified at the carnage on 
> display on their televisions & it changed
> everything.  Before Tet, most of 
> the American public believed the Vietnam war was
> winnable.  After Tet, the 
> antiwar movement grew exponentially, the talk
> changed to "peace with honor" 
> & getting the troops home.  So, even though the Tet
> offensive was a 
> decisive tactical defeat for North Vietnam, their
> all or nothing gamble 
> paid off and eventually resulted in total victory.
> > 
> > The lesson the world took away from Vietnam was
> the United States is a 
> military superpower with no staying power.  We'll
> spend a fortune on weapon 
> systems and training to enable our military to
> efficiently kill from a 
> distance.  Our military has learned from the
> mistakes made in Vietnam & has 
> fixed most of them.  We go into a conflict with
> overwhelming force and just 
> simply roll over our enemy.  But, anyone that can
> reduce a conflict to a 
> bloody, protracted battle of attrition, especially
> when it is played out on 
> the nightly news, will eventually win over American
> public opinion & defeat 
> us.
> > 
> > So, what kind of a president will John Kerry make?
>  With Bush, we have 4 
> years of actual presidential record to examine. 
> With Kerry, we must look 
> at his life experiences that have prepared him to be
> president.  As I 
> examine John Kerry's resume, I see a rich,
> privileged kid that went off to 
> war in Vietnam in what might be called "patriotic
> fervor".  In Vietnam, he 
> looked the horrible face of war square in the eyes &
> it scared & sickened 
> him.  Kerry's record since Vietnam indicates he has
> turned into an 
> appeaser.  His voting record in the US Senate is
> especially revealing in 
> this regard.  Just like the United State's
> reputation in the world, Kerry 
> makes a lot of blustering tough statements about
> fighting terrorism & 
> finishing what we started in Iraq during the
> campaign.  But, when the 
> rubber hits the road & the body count starts
> climbing, Kerry wants to 
> fold.  After listening to the debates and
> considering Kerry's record, there 
> is no doubt in my mind; that, if Kerry is elected,
> the US will make a 
> speedy withdrawal from Iraq, no matter the side
> effects.
> > 
> > Some of you may be saying, "So what, we shouldn't
> have gotten into Iraq 
> in the 1st place!"  Well, that depends upon what you
> believe the war on 
> terrorism is.  Is it merely a "law enforcement"
> issue against groups of 
> isolated radical Muslims?  Or, has it become a life
> & death struggle 
> between ideologies?  I would argue it has become the
> later.  The presence 
> of stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq will go
> a long way towards 
> stabilizing the situation in the Middle East.  Yes,
> the war is not going 
> well at the moment; but, to quit now will only
> confirm the world's view of 
> us.  The damage to our credibility with our allies
> might be irrepairable.  
> The terrorists realize how big a defeat it would be
> to have stable 
> democracies in Afganistan and Iraq.  That's why they
> are fighting so hard.
> > 
> > Originally, I thought a Kerry election would
> permit other nations to join 
> our coalition in Iraq without losing face.  Since
> the debate, both France & 
> Germany have been asked that question & both said,
> "Huh, no way?"  No one 
> will follow Kerry's leadership when his conviction
> regarding the mission in 
> Iraq is so weak.
> > 
> > I do not expect the Republicans to lose control of
> congress in this 
> election.  Therefore, Kerry's chances of passing his
> domestic agenda are 
> slim to none.  So, as much as I dislike the Bush
> administration's domestic 
> policies, it is a vain hope to think a Kerry
> administration would have any 
> significant impact.  More likely, nothing would
> happen.
> > 
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com