Socreges said:
I mean, why do you support him?
Do you feel that unilaterally invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea?
It wasn't unilateral. Really, it was basically France. Even if you say Europe opposed us, it was basically France. And it's probably for the better that countries benefiting from Saddam's Oil-For-Food corruption and selling weapons to Iraq weren't part of the coalition.
Really, Britain, Japan, and Australia are heavyweight enough in terms of stature. I would have like Russia as well, but France wouldn't have gone along as long as their officials were part of the Oil-For-Food scandal. Even if Clinton or Kerry had been President, France wasn't going to help, and Joe Lieberman and John McCain pretty much laid out how disappointing it was that they would choose to move against the US.
That removing Saddam and potentially establishing a democratic regime in the region was worth thousands of lives (US soldiers and many more Iraqi civilians) and international/domestic outrage?
It was definitely worth it. I'm not about the US lives though. I would have preferred a less polite war if it meant saving more US soldiers. Also, Bush f*cked up by asking for another resolution and delaying the start of the invasion. He should have gone in the winter to make it easier on our forces and finish things up sooner.
I'm not concerned at all about outrage from the UN. They made money off Saddam's "Oil-For-Food" program and haven't allowed for a public, transparent investigation of where all the funds ended up.
Even RIGHT NOW with current situations you can see the absolute turtle-speed of the UN. While Annan is offering condolences for what happened in Russia, NOTHING is happening. They may have good intentions, but their record on human rights is outrageous. They do so much talking and conferences, but rarely act or back up their threats or concerns. It's just sad. Not to mention they fail to denounce human rights violations by some member countries.
Things that occured after the Iraq invastion:
-China sealed off oil supplies for 3 days to North Korea and reminded them or where their lifeline is.
-Palestinian suicide attacks have subsided greatly from where they were back in 2000-2001.
-Libya is wanting to become an international player and allowed for disclosure on it's former weapons programs.
Has his decisive response to 9/11 been above and beyond what you'd expect of an administration after such an attack?
Yes. He event went into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam may have not being a threat to the US, but installing a pseudo-democracy is going to give us leverage, stop Hussien payment to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and at least serves to show some countries that the US keeps it word.
Also, I'd rather Al-Qaida and this so-called "War on Terror" move the sphere of fighting to the streets of Iraq and not more planning for here on the US.
I mean, sure it's cute to think of the possibilities that could be without the invasion, with Saddam declaring victory over the US on the moral front, France and Russia opening up more business (and some of their corrupt officals getting Saddam money for covering up Oil-For-Food corruption), and Tony Blair a little weirded out that now both Clinton and Bush had ignored his calls for doing something about the decade-old UN-defiance situation.
But I'd rather have aggression than cuteness.
Do you feel that he will continue to fight this "war on terror" better than Kerry could?
Yes.
Because like it or not, Bush is pretty stern. He's a "hawk" and so is his cabinet.
Kerry has pretty much made notions that basically law enforcement and diplomatic relations have gone wrong and that is where his focus would be. If that means he'd put more effort into convincing France (which would have never come along anyway), then I'd rather have Bush that isn't going to pussyfoot around. I liked his line "people gotta show their hand" or whatever. I mean, better to move on and take some action than deal with a government with officials dealing with Saddam.
Also, it may be a stereo-type, but I honestly don't know what he'd do in office. He hasn't laid out any exact plans. His whole case that he would be better for fighting terror than Bush is that he'd do better with allies (which may be true, but not to the extent it would make a difference, like getting France to go along with Iraq) and the fact that he served in Vietnam.
I mean, I'd seriously consider supporting him if he were to come out and say that Syria and Iran need to stop their terrorist support and than a Kerry administration would move to make sure terrorist-sponsoring countries are held to account. Also, if he would annouce a plan to push for reform to root corruption in the UN would help. Even Bush hasn't gone this far. If Kerry would, I might consider him viable (probably not considering how most of what he says/voted on Iraq has been politically motivated). I mean, I wouldn't mind the "politicaly motivated" part if he was still supporting Bush on this and just focusing on domestic policy (like Joe Lieberman), but he's really been all over the map on this.
Do you honestly think that the administration's unusually aggressive tactics have deterred terrorism? Or maybe encouraged it?
I think our invasion of Afaganistan has encouraged a great response by Al-Qaida. The fact that our partners/supporters in that effort haven't been safe from attacks by Muslim extremists (Bali, Spain, Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc...) shows Al-Qaida was ready to respond after 9/11. That said, a soft response would have led to greater build-up anyway, so better to go strong now and have reaction that go soft and wait for a more powerful and astute enemy in the far future.
BTW, this idea that there are still terrorist attacks going on (and that they've gone up since 9/11) so it must mean the US/Allies aren't doing a good job is the biggest piece of crap I keep hearing. That's like saying attacks from Japan on our military went up after Pearl Harbor, well no sh*t, we're also going after them.
Even if you were to take out the attacks going on in Iraq, an increase in attacks only makes sense. Our military/intelligence (plus foreign allies and their governments) are actually attempting to penetrate networks and bring them down, it's not like they're going to stop relenting.
I would expect that if Clinton, Gore or Bush (pre-9/11) had gone after hard on Al-Qaida and other such groups, that we'd see an increase in attacks. You can't look at Bali, Morocco, or Saudi Arabia and start applying the perception and statistics you use in local law enforcement.
Islamic terrorist groups (while they do have cells in the US) originate outside and are basically foreign attacks on America and it's allies. During any war, attacking your enemy will probably lead to an increase in defensive/offensive responses from them. It's not the newest concept when fighting a war.
What about domestic issues? Where does he have your interest?
honestly, I agree on some and disagree on some, pretty much all over the map, but I do support a flat-tax and I'm pro-life.
Still, terror trumps everything. Yes I want our allies to like us, but not at the expense of our security (especially if their "not liking" us is due to money-related things)
Does his average demeanour appeal to you?
Not really
Do you find him easy to relate to? ie, would you like it more if he were to say "y'all" versus "you all"?
sometimes it's amusing and sometimes it's weird. It's cool sometimes, and akward sometimes.
