More from Iraq: the other side of the coin.

[Tebonas]

Its easy Daeven, but you have to remove your head from your ass to get it.

It is for you to decide only what is desirable in your own country, other countries are not your business as long as they don't make you their business. That is the one thing you are failing to grasp.

[Daeven]

Its easy Daeven, but you have to remove your head from your ass to get it.

It is for you to decide only what is desirable in your own country, other countries are not your business as long as they don't make you their business. That is the one thing you are failing to grasp.

And of course, one could argue that it has been our business for quite some time now, which was kind of my point.

*shrug*

Ah, but I am but a poor pupil of rhetoric, and must retreat before the great and benevolent wisdom of the ad homenim.

*PLONK*

[Paelos]

Bizarre, your defense has become "let the criminals be criminals because doing anything else will be admitting defeat?"  Seriously, that's the sickest answer you could possibly give.

What do I want to happen?  I want the guilty people to suffer the consequences of their actions.  If that's 7 random military guys who acted bad, then those guys go to jail.  If it's the upper ranks at the pentagon, then those guys go to jail.  If it's Bush then he goes to jail.  It's not partisan, it's reality, if you break the law you pay for it.  I want the administration to finally take responsibility for their actions, instead of constantly pushing it off on someone else.

Only someone so biased towards their party as yourself could possibly think this has anything to do with party alignments.  This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, this is about giving illegal orders then trying to hang the good men and women who serve our country out to dry when the heat comes down.  This isn't about elections, well it's not to those of us in the Real World, it's about breaking the law.  The only people who are being overtly partisan about this whole mess are people like you who are willing to say and do anything before admitting they are wrong.  It's just sick that you want to give a free pass to criminals who are ordering the torture of people simply because you hate to see your political party in disarray. It's sick.

Are you out of your mind? How many times do I need to spell it out for you, I DON'T LIKE BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY. Hell, when you get down to it, I don't really even like Bush in power even though I'm conservative. I know he's fucked up, I'm not blind to that. If there was a way to get rid of him and put somebody else competant in there with a legit plan I'd jump on the train in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that man doesn't exist on the other side of the fence, and he actually scares me more in power than Bush does in a foreign policy sense. I personally think, if Bush were tossed out of the office and the Republicans scrambled to find a new candidate, the Democrats would be screwed. Suddenly, their strategy of being the anti-Bush would be useless since he was already gone. I don't give two fucks about the whole party, but what you are suggesting is a hang em high attitude to the whole deal.

I think it's interesting that you can look at political scandals in black and white and look down at others while telling us its the way the real world works. I could only wish you were correct. I could only wish that even at the highest office, if you commit crimes you are held to the same standard as the crackhead on the corner. But I'm hoping that you've seen before how special treatment and power dodges the system. I hope you've seen how innocent people on both party sides have been antagonized for pure political reasons. It's the basic reason that liberals and conservatives can't agree. The liberals look at the way they think is should be, and the conservatives say that's not reality.

You are putting words in my mouth by trying to put what I said into one sentence. It's as if you think that the last point I made is a summation of my entire argument. It's not. It's a long line of things that you have either ignored, or kept talking about my partisanship. My suggestion is not let the criminals walk if they are guilty. It's to point out that if you try your hang em high approach, the whole Iraq situation, American goodwill, and foreign policy stability go out the window. My suggestion is if you want them gone, do it in the election without the scandal fallout. The scandal with Clinton didn't just hurt the Democrats, it hurt the nation. We don't need to make it part of the Presidential term that each must have a scandal associated with it. If he's guilty I want him held accountable as well, but I don't want to do at the expense of the greater good for our country.

We will certainly disagree over that last part. Even if true, I see it as a utilitarian thing and you don't. I don't see the abuses as bad as the media has blown them up to be, and you do. I don't believe this has reached the highest offices, while others claim they have evidence that it has. We shall see about that, I'm not so firmly entrenched that I believe it's impossible. Surely it is, but it takes a healthy amount of damning evidence to make me question the highest officials in our government. You won't believe this, but I didn't jump all over Clinton either when the first scandal started there. I'm more skeptical of the media than I am of our government. It's a POV argument at this point, which is essentially moot.

And as a side note, calling me sick? Come on, get off the moral high horse.

[Dark Vengeance]

It's a POV argument at this point, which is essentially moot.

Again, very well said Paelos.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[HaemishM]

We don't need to make it part of the Presidential term that each must have a scandal associated with it.

This would be great if we could manage to elect a President who didn't appoint bull-headed stupid motherfuckers into office that create the scandals in the first place. We haven't had a non-scandal President since... well, shit, how long has it been? Truman had McArthyism, Kennedy had lots of shit going on behind the scenes that didn't show up until long after his death, Lyndon Johnson had Vietnam, Nixon was Nixon, Ford wasn't in long enough to do much more than trip over Air Force One, Carter pissed away the Panama Canal, Reagan had Iran-Contra as well as any number of smaller fuckups, Bush Sr. was still tainted by Iran-Contra, Clinton got his dick sucked and now Bush Jr. is trying to set the record. When exactly will we get a President who doesn't surround himself with complete fuckups?

[Shockeye]

I want presidential scandals. I want to be distracted from just how bad things really are.

[DarkDryad]

Your life must suck cause I have seen no meaningful change in my lifestyle one way or the other since Bush became Pres. Patriot act? No change. Unemployment rates?(which are as low as they were wioth clinton atm) No change. Market? About the same as it was this time last year.  Gas Prices? Yerah they go up in the summer. Always have and things tend to cost more and more every year. Hasnt effected me yet and I travel over 2400 miles a month by car.

So exactly how bad is it?

[HaemishM]

You do not want to talk about gas prices.

Six years ago, I was paying .80 cents a gallon for gas in Mississippi. At the worst, I was able to find gas for less than a dollar. Since that time, gas prices have risen and have not stopped rising. I paid over $2 for gasonline yesterday for the first time in my fucking life. That's NOT the normal cost of inflation, that's fucking piracy. And unfortunately, the oil companies can justify it because the Middle East has gone batshit insane over the exploding of a shitload of bombs on one of the biggest producers of oil. Who can we blame that one on? No, Bush, Jr. is not the sole source of blame, but I do know that even after 9-11, gas was much fucking cheaper than it has been since the Iraq invasion. These prices cannot be explained away as normal inflation, because I haven't noticed my groceries suddenly doubling in price in the last six years, nor anything else for that matter. I'm just lucky I live in the south where we get heat by electricity, or I'd be fucked.

Unemployment? Yes, I can safely say it's much worse since the Bush got put into office. Part of it I will blame on the dot.bombs, part of it on the corporate scandals; the rest falls on Bush. His tax cuts have not stimulated the economy in anywhere near the promised levels, and what's worse is those same tax cuts were not accompanied by spending reductions. So as a result, we will soon have a record-high budget deficit with no end to it in sight.

The Patriot Act has had a subtle effect on Free Speech. I daresay the FCC's recent cracking down on anything that might hint at not being "for the children" is indirectly related to the whole Ashcroft mentality, but I can't of course support that with direct evidence. More a gut feeling.

[DarkDryad]

Actually if you look at it were bitching about a 5.6-5.8% average yearly unemployment rate last year. Take a gander at this shart of everywhere else. Hell our unemplyment rate is better that Canadas. Britain's is only marginaly better. In the scope of things I'd say it aint that awful bad and it has been improving albeit slowly.
I cant lay the blame for IT jobs moving overseas solely on him either as that started happening well before he took office. Yeah I'll hive you he has some responsibility for the situation but his tax cuts are working slowly. You dint expect this to happen like overnight or even within a year did you?

Edit: I could care less about the Ashcroft effect. As a parent I monitor what my kid watches and put my V-Chip to good use. I see them clamping down on shitty trash tv  simply making my job easier so color me unphased by TPA as of this day.

[Paelos]

The only people I've heard bitching about the FCC crackdown vehemently are the radio shock jocks who suddenly found themselves out of a job because they were lewd for the sake of being lewd. They should have been fired earlier for being no-talent assclowns. I can get on the radio and piss people off while making fart jokes and sexual innuendo. Hell, if it makes the radion stations play ACTUAL MUSIC on my ride to work I'll be happy.

[Margalis]

I'm bitching about the FCC crackdown. We have better shit to worry about than 1/2 second of boobs on TV, Howard Stern interviewing strippers, gay marriage and all that garbage. Lack of priorities is a problem. As a country we have better things to worry about, and the FCC has better things to worry about.

[DarkDryad]

I'm bitching about the FCC crackdown. We have better shit to worry about than 1/2 second of boobs on TV, Howard Stern interviewing strippers, gay marriage and all that garbage. Lack of priorities is a problem. As a country we have better things to worry about, and the FCC has better things to worry about.

Acctually maybe YOU have better things to worry about. See I have a problem bringing up my kid in a age where sexualy explicit material , scenes of pure violence, and a drug culture are glorified on fucking network television. Shitty shows such as Springer and the like along with E!, MTV, and numerous other channels contain such trashy TV they are permanetly locked on my set as no view. Hell I would rather have my kids exposed to the horrors of Nazi Germany (as its history and all) than this shit.
Them doing WHAT THEY WERE FUCKING ESTABLISHED TO DO isn't high up on my bitch and moan meter.

Edit: Please expound on what you think the FCC is for btw.

[HaemishM]

While I applaud your efforts to shelter your children from material you find objectionable, I can't help but remind you and the FCC that I AM NOT YOUR CHILD.

I am adult with my own mind, and my own decision-making process, and I like to have television that tittilates, infuriates, shocks and stretches my way of thinking. Same goes with radio. It's all well and good to restrict entertainment to "suitable for children" until all entertainment is only suitable for children. At this point, art gets stifled because it might be objectionable to children.

I'm in favor of rating the material along a standard, then letting parents decide whether or not they should allow their children to watch or listen to it, because that's their fucking job. If parents can't or won't, it isn't up to a government body to be a surrogate nanny.

I've also never quite grasped why seeing a bit of titty or hearing the word "fuck" was supposed to cause so much irreperable harm to minors.

[DarkDryad]

While I applaud your efforts to shelter your children from material you find objectionable, I can't help but remind you and the FCC that I AM NOT YOUR CHILD.

I am adult with my own mind, and my own decision-making process, and I like to have television that tittilates, infuriates, shocks and stretches my way of thinking. Same goes with radio. It's all well and good to restrict entertainment to "suitable for children" until all entertainment is only suitable for children. At this point, art gets stifled because it might be objectionable to children.

I'm in favor of rating the material along a standard, then letting parents decide whether or not they should allow their children to watch or listen to it, because that's their fucking job. If parents can't or won't, it isn't up to a government body to be a surrogate nanny.

I've also never quite grasped why seeing a bit of titty or hearing the word "fuck" was supposed to cause so much irreperable harm to minors.

I see your point but lets be honest. When I grew up and you as well probably they had warnings before shows and or movies that  had graphic violence and or sexual situations that allowed the parents to make those choices and that was fine. These days you have the superbowl cashing in on the sexual aspects. Lets be honest CBS knew exacly what was gonna happen(as it was rehearsed) and it would have taken all of what 2 - 4 seconds to place a warning on the screen?  It wasnt the tit being shown I object to. My daughter has 2 of her own to look at if she would like to see them. It was the way it was presented with a fucktard of a guy ripping off the clothing. I see this as MTV/CBS saying hey its ok to do this as aint shit happened to either of them. I enjoy violent titilating TV as much as the next guy but some warnings would be a welcome sight and honestly while I love howard's show I really dont want my kid tuning it in and there aint ways , short of ripping out the car radio, from her being able to tune it in. Howard is funny to some extent but he gives the distint impression that all women should be sexual objects and whore themselves out for the highest price. You fail to see where this might be a problem?
Does it need to be censored? Hell no but it needs to air at an appropriate time and have some form of warning beforehand. Prime Time and in your face aint it.

[Dark Vengeance]

I've also never quite grasped why seeing a bit of titty or hearing the word "fuck" was supposed to cause so much irreperable harm to minors.

If Junior is going to get caught masturbating, he can get caught masturbating to dad's pornography stash or HBO, just like we had to, dammit.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[HaemishM]

I've also never quite grasped why seeing a bit of titty or hearing the word "fuck" was supposed to cause so much irreperable harm to minors.

If Junior is going to get caught masturbating, he can get caught masturbating to dad's pornography stash or HBO, just like we had to, dammit.

Damn right. Why talk frankly about the joys and the danger of sex, when we can relegate it to a dusty pile of paper in the back of the closet? Teach those kids the right way... hide everything you don't want to deal with openly away from prying eyes so you never have to discuss it with the kids.

As for Stern, I personally think he's an ass, myself. BUT, and this is the important point, he's much more entertaining and thought-provoking than an normal hour of ClearChannel programming. His ability to say crazy shit is the American way; that freedom is what makes this country special. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee you the right to not be offended. It recognized that unpopular speech is what this country was founded on.

As for the Super Bowl, I continue to be left speechless by the moral indignation that people like my sister and her husband display over this thing. She has 2 kids, both under the age of 3. Beautiful kids, innocent little angels that I would never want to be hurt. Both parents were absolutely aghast at the idea that a 2-pixel wide nipple was shown on television for a total of 2 seconds. They apparently weren't offended by the sheer assclownitude of the entire production, which seemed to revel in its own retarded language of the slack-jawed illiterate. No, they were worried that the bird's eye view of a floppy mammory might have somehow wormed its way into the consciousness of their children. Was it the appropriate place for it? Considering the number of ads for male impotence remedies littered throughout the advertisements that bookended the brain-jarring violent spectacle that is football, it appears to be right in line with the target audience. Or maybe it was a cleverly disguised "Make Love Not War" protest to the violence-charged audience too concerned with horse flatulence and alcohol to understand?

Or maybe it was just fucking stupid, and worth about as much attention as the nipple got airtime?

It was a completly inappropriate place for the display, but I can't see it as being something so goddamn offended by when commercials are plugging me to "pick the right moment" by taking a pill that can apparently cause my erection to last so long as to require immediate medical attention should I not be able to slake its lustful thirst.

In other words, there are a helluva lot more important things for the FCC to be looking at than a titty spotted from the 75th row. Like, ohhhhh, constant plastering of the dead bodies of Iraqi prisoners all over the television as moronic servicemen hold the thumbs up sign in front of it.

[Righ]

There ought to be limits to freedom.

- Dubya.

[cevik]

This isnt a systemic thing is highly isolated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/">Sure it's not systemic.

[DarkDryad]

So your saying the whole frwakin military is corrup prisoners abusers? If not then its not systemic. That means the whole system is involved.

[DarkDryad]

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it guarantee you the right to not be offended. It recognized that unpopular speech is what this country was founded on.

And no where does it say there are to be no repercussions for what you say. Only that you are allowed to say it.

[Margalis]

Acctually maybe YOU have better things to worry about. See I have a problem bringing up my kid in a age where sexualy explicit material , scenes of pure violence, and a drug culture are glorified on fucking network television. Shitty shows such as Springer and the like along with E!, MTV, and numerous other channels contain such trashy TV they are permanetly locked on my set as no view.
...
Edit: Please expound on what you think the FCC is for btw.

The shows you are talking about are NOT the ones the FCC is going after. How many kids listen to Stern on the RADIO in the morning?

None of the shit on network television is in trouble, or on MTV or E!. It's mostly radio stuff, awards shows, and other things that really do not have a large impact on kids. If you were going to start cleaning up the airwaves, radio as a whole is a stupid place to start. Nor was the superbowl "controversy" damaging to ANYONE.

There IS a lot of shit on TV, and a lot of glorification of things that shouldn't be glorified. In my mind though, a show like Friends (which normalizes promiscuity and irresponsibility) is a last more impacting than Janet at halftime.

What do I think the FCC should do? How about ensure a diversity of owernership across TV and radio for starters? They are supposed to be a regulatory group, but they are only regulating content rather than businesses. A fundamental tenet of working democracy is that different voices are represented in the media. The FCC has worked tirelessly to make it possible for fewer and fewer companies to own larger stakes of TV/radio. (And publishing)

Typically the attitude you want in a regulatory group is hard-ass. Ideally they are pro-regulation and the negotiation is between them and others who want to deregulate. Instead in the Bush admin, a number of regulatory agencies actively crusade AGAINST regulation. (The EPA is another obvious example) The foxes guard the henhouse, there is no balance.

[Romp]

 Bizarre, your defense has become "let the criminals be criminals because doing anything else will be admitting defeat?"  Seriously, that's the sickest answer you could possibly give.

What do I want to happen?  I want the guilty people to suffer the consequences of their actions.  If that's 7 random military guys who acted bad, then those guys go to jail.  If it's the upper ranks at the pentagon, then those guys go to jail.  If it's Bush then he goes to jail.  It's not partisan, it's reality, if you break the law you pay for it.  I want the administration to finally take responsibility for their actions, instead of constantly pushing it off on someone else.

Only someone so biased towards their party as yourself could possibly think this has anything to do with party alignments.  This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, this is about giving illegal orders then trying to hang the good men and women who serve our country out to dry when Are you out of your mind? How many times do I need to spell it out for you, I DON'T LIKE BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY. Hell, when you get down to it, I don't really even like Bush in power even though I'm conservative. I know he's fucked up, I'm not blind to that. If there was a way to get rid of him and put somebody else competant in there with a legit plan I'd jump on the train in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that man doesn't exist on the other side of the fence, and he actually scares me more in power than Bush does in a foreign policy sense.

How could Kerry's foreign policy scare you more than Bush??  Bush is the one who is breaking wholesale with American foreign policy traditions.  Bush has a radical foreign policy and there is nothing radical or scary about Kerry's foreign policy.

[Paelos]

Romp, you want to know why Kerry's foreign policy scares me? Read his intended actions in the War on Terror from his own website.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

After going through the expected motions of pointing out how Bush is entirely wrong in his approach, here's a few excerpts that make me a little uneasy.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done.  As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.  But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs.

But today, far too often troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely.  National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems.  Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.

Mind you that one mostly scares me because of Kerry's voting record against spending on defense budgets.

Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act...We must do what George Bush has refused to do – reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets.

Great more CIA domestic goons, that's awesome.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money.  If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it.  We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror.  And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

A "Name and Shame" campaign? I'm sure that will be super popular.

We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions.  And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

Here's my deal after all that. Most of those quotes speak to the fact that we will listen to our allies so long as it's convenient, then we do our own thing. Hmmm, remarkably familiar to the status quo under Bush, except he goes farther to say that Bush Hasn't done enough on the war on terror, AND he wants more CIA intelligence with less restrictions and more power. I'm sorry but the Patriot act scares me enough.

On top of that, going after the Saudis? Great in theory, poor in practice. Kerry's policies don't seem to give two damns about the fact that a lot of this stuff will lead to an international jihad. Instead of just looking at one nation, suddenly we are on top of all Islamic nations pushing them around. If you look at the history books that kind of shit doesn't fly with those people, and they are quick to use whatever God-based doctrine to back up killing you en masse.

Lastly, giving it all back to the UN? What? The people who basically ignored their own policies until we acted on them. Granted our actions were overstepping our bounds but I'm not entirely comfortable with the UN as an organization of rebuilding a country with its best interests in mind. Lest we forget exactly how many countries in the UN were caught with their hands in the trading cookie jar when we invaded (cough) France (cough).

I don't like my choices here, but you can see where the objections would stand with Kerry's proposals.

[cevik]

Mind you that one mostly scares me because of Kerry's voting record against spending on defense budgets.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/">Kerry has an excellent voting record for defense budgets.

Lest we forget exactly how many countries in the UN were caught with their hands in the trading cookie jar when we invaded (cough) France (cough).

It turns out that all of the "evidence" in the Oil for Food investigations was supplied by http://www.forbes.com/energy/2004/05/20/cz_ms_0520iraq.html">Chalabi.  You know, the same guy that made up the http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/wmd-j29.shtml">45 minute claim as well as the http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/">Saddam/Atta Link to dupe the United States into invading Iraq.  Funny enough, the Oil for Food stuff all started flowing from Chalabi right after Brahimi announced Chalabi will not be running Iraq.  So the only "evidence" that supposedly exists about the Oil for Food "violations" has come from the one source of information that has a motive to lie, and has been proven to be lying about two other extremely significant facts.  I don't think I'd put much money on the Oil for Food allegations ever panning out.

[Margalis]

Unlike the conservative chicken-hawks, Kerry has fought in wars. I am sure he is *disgusted* by the WAY we spend our money and the state of troop equipment.

In the name of a faster, more mobile force we have guys running around in vehicles that can't withstand even small arms fire, being told to put sandbags on the floor so they don't all die if they hit a mine. The problem with the faster, more mobile force is that it arrives and the destination quicker, then gets beat up.

We read about shit like full body supercomputers or some other wackiness, when the reality is our troops ride around in unarmored vehicles.

It isn't a matter of money, it's a matter of priorities, and placing pragmatism above some dumb grand vision.

It really sickens me when I read about guys in the field writing back home about how they feel unsafe in their shitty unarmored Hummers. There just is no excuse.

[Romp]

Romp, you want to know why Kerry's foreign policy scares me? Read his intended actions in the War on Terror from his own website.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

After going through the expected motions of pointing out how Bush is entirely wrong in his approach, here's a few excerpts that make me a little uneasy.

I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror; I believe he’s done too little.

Allies give us more hands in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and prevent us from doing what must be done.  As President, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake.  But I will not push away those who can and should share the burden.

Working with other countries in the War on Terror is something we do for our sake – not theirs.

But today, far too often troops are going into harm’s way without the weapons and equipment they depend on to do their jobs safely.  National Guard helicopters are flying missions in dangerous territory without the best available ground-fire protection systems.  Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire.

Mind you that one mostly scares me because of Kerry's voting record against spending on defense budgets.

Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act...We must do what George Bush has refused to do – reform our intelligence system by making the next Director of the CIA a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets.

Great more CIA domestic goons, that's awesome.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money.  If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it.  We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror.  And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

A "Name and Shame" campaign? I'm sure that will be super popular.

We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions.  And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

Here's my deal after all that. Most of those quotes speak to the fact that we will listen to our allies so long as it's convenient, then we do our own thing. Hmmm, remarkably familiar to the status quo under Bush, except he goes farther to say that Bush Hasn't done enough on the war on terror, AND he wants more CIA intelligence with less restrictions and more power. I'm sorry but the Patriot act scares me enough.

On top of that, going after the Saudis? Great in theory, poor in practice. Kerry's policies don't seem to give two damns about the fact that a lot of this stuff will lead to an international jihad. Instead of just looking at one nation, suddenly we are on top of all Islamic nations pushing them around. If you look at the history books that kind of shit doesn't fly with those people, and they are quick to use whatever God-based doctrine to back up killing you en masse.

Lastly, giving it all back to the UN? What? The people who basically ignored their own policies until we acted on them. Granted our actions were overstepping our bounds but I'm not entirely comfortable with the UN as an organization of rebuilding a country with its best interests in mind. Lest we forget exactly how many countries in the UN were caught with their hands in the trading cookie jar when we invaded (cough) France (cough).

I don't like my choices here, but you can see where the objections would stand with Kerry's proposals.

Well Kerry's foreign policy has more emphasis on multilateralism, the UN, rejection of neocon agenda, less or no intervention in countries which do not pose a threat to the US.

He plans to invest in alternative energy sources to try and stop American pandering to countries like Saudi Arabia because of oil.

Fact is Bush's policies have pretty much been disastrous, America's international reputation has gone down the toilet because of Iraq and since 9/11 militant islam has only gotten stronger and gained more recruits to its cause.

Kerry also talks about winning the war of ideas, something which Bush has completely ignored but is more important than any military war.  The US needs to convince the rest of the world and the middle east particularly that it is a benevolent power.

IMO Kerry's foreign policy is more of a return to normalcy, its a shift to the moderate center and is more in line with the views of the State department and people like Colin Powell.   Its more in keeping with US foreign policy over the last 50 years from which Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz et al have broken from.

[DarkDryad]

Y ou are correct Kerry would love to let the the rest of the world see us as spineless pussies.  Tell me what you want its the baddest son of a bitch on the playground that doesnt get fucked with.

[Paelos]

Kerry also talks about winning the war of ideas, something which Bush has completely ignored but is more important than any military war.  The US needs to convince the rest of the world and the middle east particularly that it is a benevolent power.

Damn, you're right, that new "Name and Shame" Campaign of his and hitting up the Saudis with charges of laundering terrorist money, that should show them we're the open-minded guy next door.

Tell you what lets just hand the keys to the UN and let them do all our foreign policy. That would probably lead to the best way to do things for our American interests, right?

And you didn't really address his responses to giving the CIA more influence. Hell, the CIA was at the core of a lot of these prison abuses that first began the debate. Everyone knows they are shady, and I'm not really excited about pumping up their sayso in our foreign and domestic affairs.

[Righ]

And you didn't really address his responses to giving the CIA more influence. Hell, the CIA was at the core of a lot of these prison abuses that first began the debate. Everyone knows they are shady, and I'm not really excited about pumping up their sayso in our foreign and domestic affairs.

That's an odd thing to say, because I always thought that the CIA was part of the government of this country. Now that you put it that way though, I'm inclined to take your lead and consider them some isolated conspiratorial secret society.

[HaemishM]

Y ou are correct Kerry would love to let the the rest of the world see us as spineless pussies.  Tell me what you want its the baddest son of a bitch on the playground that doesnt get fucked with.

No, actually, that's not what I want in foreign policy. That kind of cowboy bullshit got us involved in Vietnam and Korea, and has us fucking up policy every chance we get in Iraq. Neither Korea or Vietnam ended up solving any of the problems they were meant to solve, nor did the loss of Vietnam lead to the "Domino Effect" that was one of our main reasons for insinuating ourselves into certain countries (like Afghanistan in the 80's).

As for the CIA, I think Kerry is saying what I'm saying about the CIA. It's totally fucked right now. For all the abuses and stupidity that the CIA has committed over the last 5 years or so (prison abuses in Iraq, allowing foreign terrorists into the country to get flight training), the director has not been fired, nor has he even been in jeapordy. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT POSSIBLE? How can someone who runs an organization that is fucking up on a regular basis not be fired?

The CIA needs a new director, and with that new director a new culture. It also needs to start working with and putting the thumbscrews to IMMIGRATION, the bunch of incompetent yokels who allowed the 9/11 terrorists into the fucking country in the first place. And the CIA needs to work with the FBI better on domestic terrorism and foreign terrorists who make it into the country.

None of these things are going to happen under Bush, who has shown that he won't fire any of his appointees even if they fuck up so badly they should be shot. Nor will he fire those who weren't his appointees (think he inherited Louis Freeh).