Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Aug 1, 2004.
Doesn't Kerry know that the U.S. learned its lesson from WWI & II? We tried playing isolationist and stayed out of both of those until we were forced to take action. If we had taken action when we first had the chance, it wouldn't have been as hard for us to win. That's why we went to Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and now Iraq.
Likewise we have entered veitnam, korea, Somalia, yugoslavia (a couple times) grenada, Haiti (a couple times), lebanon, Iraq (a couple times), afghanistan, nicaraugua, etc... all with an interventionist policy. Yet bush continues on with an interventionist policy. Has he not learned his lesson?
We also have decades of experience that wars against things such as drugs, and poverty. It only makes the problem worse. it leaves the ogvernment with only 2 options, continuing the failed choice, or admitting it was wrong to begin with. the result has been more and more moeny thrown at the problems each year with worse and worse results. Did bush learn the lesson? no. He created a war on terrorism rather than just seek to punish the indiviuals responsible for 9/11.
What? the lesson that if we do take care of problems and put our whole effort to fixing those problems we will be better off than if we let some hitler like authoritarian figure get very strong before we fix the problem?
As I recall, most of those worked out pretty well, especially Korea and Iraq (more the second time than the first). If push came to shove, I'd rather have another Vietnam than another WWII
We tried just catching a prosecuting, but it didn't work. Judicial rules prevented us from holding known terrorists for very long unless they were brought to trial, where further judicial rules would have much of the evidence thrown out. Oh, and that's assuming they don't take asylum in some terrorist supportive state like Iraq or Afghanistan. We declared war on them, which gives us the power to go find them wherever they are and hold them as long as we want when we catch them.
Now, while the war on poverty and the war on drugs may be flops, the word 'war' is used to make a political impact. The War on Terror is actually a war, fought by soldiers with weapons and in the defense of our country and its citizens.
The war on terror is very similar to the war on drugs. In the war on drugs the more drugs you stop from entering the country the more profit there is to smuggle drugs into the country. With the war on terror, the more troops you send to capture the terrorists, the more enemies we will make which translates into more terrorists.
Neither war can be won by attacking it the way the Bush Administation is going about it. The war on drugs can be won by ending drug prohibition. The war on terror can be won by ending the occupation of over 100+ countries.
The war on drugs can be won by people refusing to take illegal drugs. The war on terror can be won by terrorists refusing to be violent and letting americans live their lives as we were doing well before they attacked my city.
Ball's in their court!
That's a fairy tale fed to you by cynicists and far leftists like George Carlin and Ted Kennedy (why is he still in office?). You can't take away drug prohibitions. The only reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is because they have the power of momentum and alcohol only kills people who abuse it (that and we tried prohibition and it didn't work). Marijuana is as bad as tobacco, though not as addictive. Cocaine and its derivatives can cause people to become violent, and with the strength boost it gives, that's very dangerous. Not only that, but Cocaine, when snorted, has been known to burn holes in people's noses and other respiratory canals. Heroine can kill in one dose. I've seen cases of people just "trying it out to see what it's like" and dying with the needle still in their arms. LSD hallucanations can be lethal, especially the most common one, belief that one can fly, and LSD remains in your system for the rest of your life, causing flashbacks at random times. Speed and downers both cause a variety of heart and metabolic problems. Even perscription pain killers, if abused, can cause endorphin imbalances. Drugs simply cannot be legalized, and remember that the war on drugs doesn't stop at attacking the dealers, it also goes into the many PSAs, mainly targeted at parents, that urge people against drugs. Also remember that if we find and kill enough drug lords, the rest will decide it isn't worth it. We've already got cooperation and extradition treaties with most drug exporting countries (like Colombia).
As for the War on Terror, taking the fight to them does two things. 1) It takes the fight away from American civilians...like you. 2) It puts them on the defensive so that they're less effective at launching effective strikes. Another theory out there is that it'll be harder to convince people to kill themselves for a cause if we clean up their country and give them a chance at a promising future.
I know. Yeah, the US really "had to" go to Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo.
That kind of strategy is what got us in trouble in the first place. Those people who carried it out did not act alone. There is a bigger problem and the US needs to go after them and destroy them before they can attack this country.
Hobbit says it best:
Why did you include Korea? At least there is a South Korea. The whole peninsula would have gone to the Commies otherwise. Why did you include Afghanistan? People may be right about the Taliban still controlling areas and opium production increasing (I find it odd when pro-legalization liberals mention that one. Besides, why should that be the job of the military to destroy all the opium poppies?) but many things are better than they were. I might agree with you about some of those others though.
Name these countries. I am having trouble coming up with 100+.
Well, if you count each of the 50 states as a seperate country...
Separate names with a comma.