anonymouse wrote:robtronik wrote:
I support Bush's foreign policy direction. I also think he is a decent man despite what many think of him (as far as politicians go).
Secondly, all I ever hear as an alternative to countering terrorism in the middle east are exactly the things that helped create it over the last 30 to 40 years. So, frankly speaking, removing Saddam, the Taliban, calling out Iran, supporting Isreal, trying to put a democracy in place in Iraq and downplaying our support for Saudi Arabia are an acceptable alternative to me based on what has been attempted in the past.
Hamas, Hez, Al Q., despite support in the middle east, need to be fought like we fought other fascist dictators in past wars. They espouse an ideology that is not acceptable to me - and many others like me who support liberalism (not in the partisan sense), democracy, and freedom of religon, press, thought, and expression amongst other things.
There are things I disagree with Bush about of course. But with regard to our general direction, I want it to succeed. Do I wish it could be executed better? Of course, but that does nothing to waver my support for putting ourselves in the middle east in the manner we have to change the terms and the field over there.
so, there you have it.
.02 and all that,
rob.
What is this general direction you refer to?
The middle east has as much right to cultural, spiritual and administrative self-determination as any other part of the planet. The US has no mandate to impose its christian democratic doctrine there.
Controlled diplomacy, investment and oil buying was going fine until the current administration decided to "shock & awe" the rest of the world with such idiotic and naive policy, that was implemented through such needless butchery of Iraqi civilians and the destruction of law and order.
Oh yeah, i forgot about the WMD, or sorry, I meant the crusade of the liberators. The people who flew the planes into the WTC were personally trained by Saddam weren't they. His old buddy, the arms salesman Don Rumsfeld said so.
That you see just cause in fighting people because you find their ideaology unacceptable to your personal opinion smacks of the arrogance that has created the current US manufactured disaster in the Middle East.
couple of points:
1) No one said Saddam was responsible for 9/11. You aren't paying attention to why he was removed and this is a straw man argument and mistaken.
2) Per the bolded part above:
a) The middle east, as you refer to as a region, is controlled by fascist dictatorships. What right do these people have to determine their destiny in those types of governments? It is an interesting argument you make given the state of people that actually live there and how they are ruled.
b) secondly, christians, muslims, and jews all live in the middle east. You make a statement as though it is muslim only and somehow a western religious POV is incorrect. It actually fits quite well if you knew your religion framework a bit better. The real issue you seem to bring up is whether western influence is warranted. Too late, it is the western world that created the middle east as we now know it (Post world war gerrymandering). It is also not a regional problem with regard Iraq under Saddam (hence the unanimous United Nations Security Council resolutions against Saddam that he willingly defied, etc.), so you can't say that the western world should stay out of middle eastern affairs, as this is simply impossible in this day and age with Oil, WMDs, terrorism that has spread throughout the world, etc.
so the question remains: 1) leave the status quo and let the conditions that spawned 9/11 get worse (i.e. the isolationist view that most seem to hold here)
or 2) do something about the conditions in which terrorists are allowed to flourish freely under fascist dictatorships that want to use them as proxy warriors against enemies that they can't defeat conventionally, etc.
No one said it was going to be easy. This isn't cut and dried stuff.
rob.
