Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Republican National Convention	Chouxxx	08/10/04
The Republican Convention is coming up in New York City in a couple of weeks. I want your opinions. If Bush doesn't address the War on Terrorism and Iraq, GOING FORWARD, I will be forced to vote for Kerry. [I am a one issue voter this time around]How can the Republicans score a home run? Is it possible? Thanks,
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 08/11/04 12:06 pm: yeah I was all happy about it this morning ,and then I read this in the N.Y. Times and now I'm pissed again . I know we have approval from the Ayatolla Sistani to finish this punk off . How you ask ? Well he convieniently skipped town on Sunday for medical tests in London . The only thing that can stop us is our own lack of resolve;which we will be criticized for . If we go through with it we will be criticized anyway so lets get it over with already!
Answered By		Answered On
tomder55		08/11/04
Home run ? I’m pretty sure Bush is not capable of that kind of rhetoric. I compare his situation to Harry Truman’s at the onset of the Cold War . He needed to address immediate security concerns and make long term plans to contain and eventually defeat the enemy. Truman forged NEW alliances with nations of common interest. He made new security arrangements at home and abroad. He set up a long term plan to financially stabilize nations that were under the threat of Soviet expansion ;and he and subsequent administrations made plans to promote democracy ;especially in the nations that were already under the yoke of Soviet control. He correctly defined the conflict in terms of freedom vs. slavery . Truman was not considered to be smart . He was a yokel the "Senator from Pendergast"a derisive reference to the party machine in Missouri he came from.As you recall he also won his election in a close call. Bush ;like Truman is charged with confronting an enemy that we were slow to recognize. Unlike Truman Bush realizes that a policy of containment has been tried already with Islamo-fascism and it is time to roll back their progress. He said in 2002; "We seek to create a balance of power that favors human freedom. We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants. ... We will extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent." [U.S. National Security Strategy" speech September 20, 2002(www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf ) ]. Bush recognized that the U.S. in a unipolar world did not have the luxury of trying to maintain the status quo. ‘Bin Ladanism’ would replace national sovereignty as the organizing structure of the world with subservience to his interpretation of Islam . Bin Laden and the Islamo-nazis did not care how or whom they attacked to achieve their goal.They are for now the biggest threat to American sovereignty and global security . Bush calls it the way he sees it . He has identified the struggle in what many call simplistic terms ;good and evil .He is mocked as being evangelical when he does so. He is not a new comer to shaping our conflicts in those terms. FDR said of the struggle against the Nazis: "We are fighting to cleanse the world of ancient evils, ancient ills," "There never has been--there never can be--successful compromise between good and evil."( Jan. 6, 1942). Eisenhower said in 1953 : "We sense with all our faculties that forces of good and evil are massed and armed and opposed as rarely before in history," "Destiny has laid upon our country the responsibility of the free world's leadership."Neither man would ever be mistaken for religious zealotry . He does not believe as some would argue that democracy is beyond the reach of the world dominated by Islam.He quoted Islamic scholars who lament the lag of democratic development in the Middle East : "This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development."( November 07, 2003).He went on to say : “The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead.”( Text of Bush speech to the National Endowment for Democracy). He concluded the speech by saying : “Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.” His policy has already been laid out . Roll back the advance of the Islamo-nazis wherever they are . Secure the domestic front to prevent attacks when possible. Promote freedom as an alternative to the hopelessness that Bin Laden and his ilk exploit. Bush will argue that he proposes to stay this course . It is then only an issue to debate if this is the right course ,and how has he done so far . As you know ,I have consistently supported this policy as the only alternative .Making accommodations and inaction delayed us by 20 years in our taking the fight to the enemy. Those nations like the Philippines and France who are deluded into thinking that they can bargain with the enemy are facing internal pressures they may not survive from . So ,if he says that he will stay the course with this policy ,then I support him for it . How has it gone so far ? The main focus of the war right now is in Iraq . In a short time we have defeated Saddam Hussein . Have handed over the governing of the country to an interim government that seems committed to democratic principles ,and we have battled the internal and external opposition to this experiment to a point that they are on the verge of failure . We have surrounded the thugs of the Iranian backed al-Sadr in Najaf .Hopefully we will not succumb to political correctness and this time finish him off. Speaking of Iran ;we are building a solid case for intervention in that nation at some future date (don’t be surprised if the first salvos are fired before November .The clerics are counting on us being paralyzed because of our national elections and are trying to exploit it with this latest insurgency ,and the accelerated pace of their nuclear weapon development). Bush has to tie the war in Iraq in the context of the wider war on terror. It is a phony argument that has gained some acceptance that Iraq was a distraction to the war on terror as I will now address. 1.Recent arrests of Al Qaeda leadership have hurt it and I believe may have disrupted its planned attack on America before the election (just a guess ;I think they could still do a low level attack but I think we have thwarted a major 9-11 type attack ). The intelligence leads are developing quickly. 2. Afghanistan : democracy is slowly taking root there . National elections are coming in spite of repeated attempts to stop them. U.S. forces have continued their dogged pursuit of al Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban . It would be useful if Bin Laden and Mullah Omar were killed or captured but they are but 2 heads of the hydra at this point. Al-Qaeda was never a centralized entity as the 9-11 Report explained . Zarqawi in Iraq ,and other members have assumed operational control and are a greater threat to the U.S. then bin Laden is . His capture would be a symbolic blow,but the fight would not end there. It is doubtful that progress would have gone faster had the U.S. not put Iraq in the cross hairs. 3.Al qaeda is on the run around the world ;in the Middle East , North Africa, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe and North America .We have mustered the forces of homeland security ,diplomatic pressure ,alliance building , covert operations, security force training , special operations and conventional combat against the enemy . Anyone who says that we are going it alone is not looking at the total picture . After WWII new alliances needed to be formed to deal with new threats . For reasons of their own national interests (I think) ,some of the nations who allied themselves with us against the Soviet threat have chosen to not do so in certain areas of this war.In other areas of the war they have been very helpful (.Intelligence sharing did not suffer as a result of the Iraq war . ) We have forged new alliances with nations who share the threat. -Pakistan was once a nation that harbored and supported terror . Now they actively pursue terrorist and battle them on their Afghan border . They are making for the first time gestures of peace with their fellow nuclear neighbor India . They were once proliferators of nuclear technology ;now they are fighting to stop it’s spread. - Saudia Arabia has been forced to deal for the first time with the extremist inside their country . Perhaps they now realize that the monster they have created will not hesistate to turn on them . -Libya is another example of a nation that has changed sides . For how long? I don’t know,but useful information about the proliferation of WMD has come from Kadaffi’s recent conversion (including I might add Saddam’s role in the development of the so called ‘Islamic Bomb’) In all these cases Bush can point to real accomplishments :In fighting international terrorism ,and preventing nations from giving them safe haven ; In the prevention of WMD proliferation ;In planting the seeds of democracy in a region where it has not flourished . I have been waiting for Kerry to suggest a better alternative but all he proposes is to do it in a ‘gentler ‘ way. It is too bad . A national debate on the best way to combat the threat would be a good thing. This war will last well past the President and the next President. . I’m not sure it can happen with the present political climate in America but it would really be useful if we started off with a national consensus on how to deal with possibly the greatest threat of our age .

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!