| 21 June 2004 at 02.58.43 ZuluTime
|
Posted by Baron Greenback [4.153.41.30 - dialup-4.153.41.30.Dial1.Atlanta1.Level3.net] on 21 June 2004 at 02.58.43 ZuluTime:
In Reply to: I thought this might provoke debate posted by MondoHebe on 17 June 2004 at 23.51.51 ZuluTime:
Took a while to find something I disagreed with, but here goes.
"I am not a rubberstamp supporter of Bush, or his policies. I think little of his domestic policies, but I ardently supported this war. When menaces like Saddam Hussein CAN be eradicated, they should be. The cost in lives (sounds callous, but that’s what war is) has been shockingly low. I find the claims that we had no cause to do this NOW to be analogous to people saying we should not hunt down or prosecute murderers if their crimes are 20 years old. He did horrible things in the past, and nobody can doubt he would have again if allowed to. I expect that after some years of internecine fighting, Iraq will calm down, and no longer be a destabilizing force in the world. We’ve tried doing nothing, and we’ve tried standing up militarily for Democracy. Which one worked? I don’t know why people keep counseling appeasement and ignoring tyranny, when our history clearly demonstrates the futility of that course. Additionally, the costs are always lower NOW than they will be in the future."
First and foremost, let me say this, because third party dipshits who read my response are going to strawman the shit out of me if I don't. I am NOT against the war. We had good, sound political reasons, to say nothing of the ethical ones. And I'm actually going to say nothing about the ethical ones. What I am against, is the fact that, in my opinion, this president has done nothing about the underlying problem (not that I expect Kerry to either, but). The underlying problem, as I see it, is this:
The middle east is populated with, among a scattered few other things, Muslim nations. Muslim nations happened to, up to (not making this up) World War I, rule the entire area and parts of Europe. From the Seljuks to the Ottomans, they had power. And they don't anymore. And we put people their religion designates as lessers up and helped them run their own countries, with their "lesser interpretations" of whatever religion they might practice. Hell, if you head a little bit east, there's even polytheists.
None of this, of course, is our problem really. It could be, sure, if you want to pretend that Christianity is the only religion available to us, making this some sort of personal vendetta against an oppressive former rulers yadda yadda self rightousness. Even if that's currently close to true, though, in an area of the map that's so dynamic it's been governed by just about everyone on the globe, it can't be the underlying issue.
And it isn't.
The underlying issue is energy. It's the only thing worthwhile that comes from that part of the globe. I checked>.
The US has 104 nuclear reactors, eight less operable ones than we had in '92. A full half of our Hydroelectric power is still being generated in the west coast. And I'm not even going to bring up the other renewables.
Why bring all this up? Because every president since Carter has promised we'd be less dependant on Petrol products. I realise no one wants to repeat what happened to Carter, as far as image goes. But until someone actually does that, we can't cut our ties to that backwoods waste we call the middle east. And as long as the Democrats keep their Captain fucking Planet mentality going, killing all the dams and saving all the cows and chickens so they can unite with the fish to form their own democracies and establish the Republic of Candyland or whatever rationalization there is, and the Republicans keep pretending the religous ties that defined every civilization on the globe for a few millenia and a half still mattered, and no one wants to even use the technologies we've already developed, let alone develop more (I'll dig through the USC if it matters, but let's just say there's a shitload of legislation that could get in the way of microwave and tethered satelite power), the Middle East is still going to think they have a foot in the door of their former power, and they'll keep trying.
I dunno. That's just my two cents; I realise it smacks heavily of my being 23 years old and too idealistic for my own good. Just figured that thread needed a response. As to what I'm disagreeing with, it's the image of Bush as a "decision maker". He reacted to 9-11. Fine. But the mess in Iraq is coming to a close, and it's my opinion that even if he did his job, even a good one, during his term, there are going to be new problems in the following four years I don't think he can deal with; at best, he'll turn out to be a lame duck, and at worst, he'll keep hostilities going for the history books, and won't take stept to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. And no, telling people to report their neighbors for wiping their ass sideways instead of front to back or vice versa isn't preventing a damn thing except, of course, for the various branches of police from being well rested and able to distinguish an emergency from mass paranoia.