Bush Learns Big Word: Resolve
And keeps using it over, and over, and over. It seems like all of Bush's quotes can be constructed (fridge poetry-like) from a handful of words he's fallen in love with, and in most cases, taken liberties of redefining and twisting.
The problem is that Bush wants to fight terrorism -- a tactic, not a tangible enemy -- using conventional warfare (e.g. one country's military fighting against another country's military). I'm glad Bush wasn't in charge of our armed forces when guerilla warfare was becoming the new way conventional wars were being fought, otherwise our boys would have still been out in a field somewhere with bayonnets drawn while the enemy was easily picking them off from behind trees.
Bottom line is that terrorists reside in every country on this planet (you'll recall that the 9/11 terrorists were living in this country for a while) and focusing on Iraq is not solving the problem. Terrorists and those who support them are but a tiny, tiny fraction of a country's population (I'll concede that this fraction is higher in a lot of middle-eastern countries). How is occupying the whole country effective? That's why I'm nonplussed as to why we're not fighting the war on terrorism by covert operations, infiltrating these organizations, assasinations of key personnel, etc. That's how we fight the "war on drugs", the mafia, etc., not by dropping bombs on every country that has druglords living in them or every neighborhood that has a drug dealer in them.
If you still believe the current country-invading strategy works, how do you think Bush will be able to get the personnel required when he wants to attack another country (Iran or North Korea would be good "axis of evil" candidates)? We don't have the resources to do so without raising taxes and reinstating the draft. Even then, it won't be enough to invade every country that has terrorists in their borders.
So you might say, fine, we're not effectively fighting terrorism in Iraq; but we're liberating the people and bringing democracy. That's nice, but there are many, many others in this world that are oppressed and were oppressed long before 9/11 happened. Why weren't we liberating them then? And why are we focusing our efforts on this now, when terrorism threatens Americans. I'm all for helping people out, but let's look out for our own citizens first, OK? I'm paying taxes to America, not the World Bank.
It's time to find another strategy. Does Kerry currently have the answer? I doubt it, but at least he's not as stubborn as Bush when something's obviously not working (some people think this is always a bad thing and call it "flip-flopping"). If I was under the knife to have my appendix out and I started bleeding out, I'd hope that my surgeon tried to stop the bleeding rather than "staying the course" and continuing with the operation as planned. Wouldn't you? Changing one's mind based on new information is something we all do routinely, whether it's deciding which stocks to buy and sell, or something as simple as picking the best route home from the office based on changing traffic conditions.
The problem is that Bush wants to fight terrorism -- a tactic, not a tangible enemy -- using conventional warfare (e.g. one country's military fighting against another country's military). I'm glad Bush wasn't in charge of our armed forces when guerilla warfare was becoming the new way conventional wars were being fought, otherwise our boys would have still been out in a field somewhere with bayonnets drawn while the enemy was easily picking them off from behind trees.
Bottom line is that terrorists reside in every country on this planet (you'll recall that the 9/11 terrorists were living in this country for a while) and focusing on Iraq is not solving the problem. Terrorists and those who support them are but a tiny, tiny fraction of a country's population (I'll concede that this fraction is higher in a lot of middle-eastern countries). How is occupying the whole country effective? That's why I'm nonplussed as to why we're not fighting the war on terrorism by covert operations, infiltrating these organizations, assasinations of key personnel, etc. That's how we fight the "war on drugs", the mafia, etc., not by dropping bombs on every country that has druglords living in them or every neighborhood that has a drug dealer in them.
If you still believe the current country-invading strategy works, how do you think Bush will be able to get the personnel required when he wants to attack another country (Iran or North Korea would be good "axis of evil" candidates)? We don't have the resources to do so without raising taxes and reinstating the draft. Even then, it won't be enough to invade every country that has terrorists in their borders.
So you might say, fine, we're not effectively fighting terrorism in Iraq; but we're liberating the people and bringing democracy. That's nice, but there are many, many others in this world that are oppressed and were oppressed long before 9/11 happened. Why weren't we liberating them then? And why are we focusing our efforts on this now, when terrorism threatens Americans. I'm all for helping people out, but let's look out for our own citizens first, OK? I'm paying taxes to America, not the World Bank.
It's time to find another strategy. Does Kerry currently have the answer? I doubt it, but at least he's not as stubborn as Bush when something's obviously not working (some people think this is always a bad thing and call it "flip-flopping"). If I was under the knife to have my appendix out and I started bleeding out, I'd hope that my surgeon tried to stop the bleeding rather than "staying the course" and continuing with the operation as planned. Wouldn't you? Changing one's mind based on new information is something we all do routinely, whether it's deciding which stocks to buy and sell, or something as simple as picking the best route home from the office based on changing traffic conditions.
posted by Gary at 11:25 PM
<< Home