- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 625
- Reaction score
- 25
- Gender
- Male
- Country
-
ok, that's not true.
Democrats have the worse record when it comes to those getting the USA involved in wars, and I'll list only the most significant:
- Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, World War I
- Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat, World War II
- Harry S. Truman, Democrat, World War II (he dropped Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
- Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat, Vietnam War (he got us into the war; JFK perhaps was about to, but he died before we got deeply involved in Vietnam so we will never know what he would have done...and he's a Democrat)
As you can see, Democrats already has two World Wars under their belt, and so far, Republicans have been for the most part, "isolationists"....
So when Democrats say they're against the war, do you really think they mean that? It's all politics.....the truth is, Obama said he will break international law and invade Pakistan, if there's intelligence that tells him Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan.......he said this.
Hillary Clinton, I don't know, I have a gut feeling she'll be more extreme than either Obama or President Bush. She says she wants out of Iraq, but does that mean she's anti-war? She voted in support of the invasion of Iraq, and then afterwards she claims that she changed her mind because she was deceived by President Bush.
So how can these two candidates be all that much different from Bush?
The truth is that there's a strong wave of pessimism as soon as rumors spread that we were going to invade Iraq. After 9/11, I was still in High School then, and I immediately heard on campus discussions from my teachers about how an invasion in Iraq will become the next Vietnam. Even before the war began, there's already a strong anti-war movement going on, and the experiences of Vietnam is difficult to forget.
But the problem with making this comparison is that Iraq and Vietnam are completely different. It is like comparing apples and oranges.
In Vietnam, we assumed under President Eisenhower (who's Republican, by the way), that Communism is infectious and if only a slight change is allowed to spread, it will create a so-called "domino effect", and so we adopted a foreing policy of "containment"-- that is, to stop the spread of "communism", which we thought at the time was an incompatible ideology and a threat to "Democracy".
We found out later on, that this was not the case. Communism and it's presumed domino effect was illusory, and as a result of our Cold War fears (between both USA and Soviet), we fought a proxy war at Vietnam's expense.
A huge anti-war movement was at it's height at this time.
But there's a fundamental difference between "Communism" and "Islamic Jihad".
Islamic Jihad is the idea that the spread of Islam is only achievable through war and conquest, purging the world of infedels and apostates and those who support the infidels. Moreover, Islamic Jihad aims at re-establishing the caliphate which was abolished under the Ottoman Turks during the early 20th Century. The overall goal of Islamic Jihad, and specifically, Osama's own views and intentions, is to conquer the entire world under Islamic rule. In other words, according to Bin Laden, there is no room for any secular Islam.....it must be converted to its purest form, at least, according to his views.
In addition, there is no room for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.....no room for communism, democracy, faschism, socialism, nationalism (which, believe it or not, is what Palestinians want.....they want their own nation-state, but in truth, Osama bin Laden is opposed to this, yet he pretends that he supports the Palestinian cause....this guy is the biggest hypocrite, if you try to analyze his overall goals coherently), and he's even opposed to pan-Arabism (which is why Osama is opposed to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and just about any Arab country that identify themselves as Arab even in the slightest way)...none of these ideologies are tolerable under Osama's view.
Either everyone he intends to conquer submit to Islamic rule and convert to pure Islam, or die under the sword. Believe me, if he had the means to do so, he would have nuked all his enemies....but all he has at his disposal at this time are airplanes.
There is real danger when comparing Iraq and Vietnam. Moreover, there is danger when comparing the "War on Terror" with Vietnam. It is a completely different scenario, and it's like comparing apples with oranges.
Domino effect, in this case, is very plausible.
And just one last time, if you really want to know why Islamic Terrorism and Vietnam's Communism is like comparing apples and oranges......this is why:
-Islam is the second most popular (in terms of population) religion in the world
-religious radicalism is easy to spread, especially radical Islam
- jihad suicide bombings are encouraged....it is considered a "martyrdom" act
In short, radical Islamic terrorists are not afraid to die, and unlike in Vietnam, they won't hesitate for a minute in dealing with their enemies. I am willing to bet that Osama bin Laden is not even the worse we've seen.....there are probably hundreds of others who are even more extreme than he is, and they'll only get more radical as long as we let them.
Democrats, I'm afraid, are unable to grasp the gravity of the situation....they tend to underestimate who and what we are dealing with......I've seen tons of videos of beheadings, burning alive, shooting in the head, massacres, etc....they're all over the internet. I've seen how horrific their tactics are. This evil is not Islam. This is a different kind of evil, and it must be stopped.
I think the Democrats are either oblivious to the dangers of Terrorism, or they are spreading lies just to make the people happy......because nobody really wants war, right?
I don't want war if I can help it. I want peace, and if you've paid any attention to any of my posts, I am not hard-line, warmongering maniac. Neither are some decent, rational thinking Republicans (although I admit, there are some Republicans who are actually very extreme; and the same applies with some Democrats).
Here is where I differ from some of the Republicans:
unlike Donald Rumsfeld, who is rather very selfish and a hard-line war-hawk, I want to combat terrorism under a combination of "hard-power" and "soft-power".
Hard-power is military force.
Soft-power is more like a diplomacy approach.....so in other words, if we can make more friends in the Middle East as much as we can possible, create an environment where extremism will not flourish, then we can achieve this.
This is why I think President Bush is probably less extreme than some of his Democratic rivals.....and here is why.
Did you know that out of the possible 21 Arab countries, none of these are Democracies? (except maybe Turkey, which is perhaps the most moderate and secular of them all).
All of these countries will either claim they have a democracy, but in truth, they rig their elections. Most are either under military rule, some are oligarchs, some under a despot rule (such as Saddam while he was in power), and some like Iran, which is a theocratic-parliamentary system.
Some may disagree with me on this.....but I staunchly believe in the principles of "democracy".
Under this system, everybody has a voice and say so in electing the leaders. There is equal opportunity to stake a claim in power. Nobody's voice is gagged.
That means women, the minority, everyone....will have a chance to say something about who they want as a leader.
This isn't the case with Iraq. But that is what we want to try to achieve, and we are assisting them in this process.
Just take a look at the women in this country, and their valuable contribution to democracy. In the Middle East, this isn't the case. More or less, they have less freedom than males.
So whenever we say, "let the Iraqi people decide what they want with their country"....what we are forgetting is that so many people's voices are not being heard....including women, those in prison as political exiles, and so many others. As in most of the Middle East, those who control power are doing so under a fragile system, which can easily be overtaken under a coup-de-tat...Some Middle Eastern leaders only get to maintain power by oppressing their people (i.e. Saddam), killing their political rivals, etc......under this system, isn't it making much more sense why terrorism flourishes under such conditions? Which is why spreading democracy is our best weapon. We need to pressure the Middle East to adopt this politcal ideology as soon as possible, before they become conquered under radical Islam.
If you want to do any research at all about this......try to pay attention to Middle East media starting from 1950's to present.
Instead of their leaders addressing the most urgent problems of poverty, opression, education, etc.....the leaders will try to change the topic and blame other people for all their problems....instead, they will say, "this is the fault of the American imperialists who oppress us, and the Zionists"........this is propoganda which has been for the most part, the modus operandi of Middle Eastern leaders for the past half-century. That is why there is so much hatred for American foreign policy, as well as growing anti-Semitism.....
It isn't surprising, then, that extremism grows in such environment, and we need to change this. We need to spread Democracy, eradicate poverty in the Middle East (look, the Middle East is super-rich in natural resource.....and believe it or not, Middle Easterners are very highly educated. They lack the tools, but for the most part, within less a generation, if only they are given the tools, they can become very highly competitive in the global market).
We can deter and combat Terrorism under hard-power (military force), and prevent it's further spread. Our biggest goal, in terms of military strategy, is to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons.
But this alone, cannot eradicate terrorism.
Terrorism is a concept, it is an ideology, much like Democracy. If we kill Osama bin Laden now, there will be thousands more like him.
In order to truly defeat terrorism will not be through military means alone. That by itself will prevent the spread (domino effect), but it will not be enough.
We need soft-power in the form of spreading Democracy, and by making as much friends in the Middle East as possible.
We need to convince the Middle Eastern people that our foreign policy isn't about oppression.
We aren't after Islam, the religion.
We are not after Arabs, this isn't about racism.
We need to persuade to them that Islam and Democracy are perfectly compatible (look at USA, we tolerate all religious faiths, including Islam).
We need to resolve the Israel and Palestinian conflict.....in the past, the One-State solution failed miserably.....and it will never work.
What we need is to recognize a Palestinian State, just as we recognize Israel. Bush is making this possible, yet you hardly hear about this in the media.
We need to "illegitimize" terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizballah, and make them adopt more tolerant policy, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
We need to strengthen our nuclear weapons disarmament treaties, and get rid of as many "loose nukes" as possible, before they fall into the hands of terrorists, or to an enemy, in general.
We need to eliminate poverty...........Poverty should be our top priority, before climate change. We can deal with climate change later, but right now, the most urgent is poverty, as well as HIV/AIDS, or all other fatal epidemics.
These are just a few of the examples of how to win the support and confidence of the world's people, and most importantly, the Middle East.
They've been deeply betrayed by so many foreign powers in the past, including USA, and the past colonial powers such as Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, it is not surprising that they have turned against us.
We need to win their support now, more than ever, because terrorism will be exponentially more difficult to deal with, once they've acquired nuclear weapons capability. This is the biggest threat to the human race.
So if you think about it, despite all the past failures in Iraq, you can see why Bush is not so evil and extremist for invading Iraq and trying to promote Democracy in the region. He has wisely chosen to use a combination of hard-power (military force) with soft-power (non-military approach; i.e. spreading Democracy), which is in my opinion the only real way to combat terrorism.
So tell me.....how is Bush, being a Republican, and given all of his tactics against Terrorism.....so extreme? how is it so evil? He has yet to demonize Islam, he has yet to say a racist comment against Arabs, he has yet to kill an innocent knowingly and deliberately.................the truth is, he has done none of the above, and if he did, I want to verify the evidence for myself.
He is the most hated, yet he has done everything possible to make the Middle East his ally.
Democrats has the worse record for getting USA involved in wars, so the claim that Republicans are the most extreme simply does not stand against evidence.
And if Democrats claim that they are anti-war, they are also probably very less interested in humanitarian problems plaguing the world......remember Bill Clinton and how he did not do anything when thousands and thousands of people died in Rwanda? Are we to do the same for the Iraqi people, and let them die because it isn't our problem?
and this is not to bash Democrats.......my favorite Presidents, believe it or not, are:
FDR
JFK
They are both democrats.
It isn't about the politcal party, it's about the specific issues, and in today's world, we tend to blindly follow the political party's stance on issues, and not the specific issues themselves.
Last edited:
