IMHO, Must read article: "Deterrence"

[patrick0brien]

-All

It is not my desire to start an argument here, or even a lengthy thread. In fact, it is my simple hope that you read this article and come to your own private conclusions.

This article was pointed out to me, and I can say, it swayed me. And is causing me to rethink my conviction of which candidate I wish to vote for.

I appreciate this article for the fact that it seems to be based in the issues and the facts, yes there is conjecture, but at least it seems to be spin-free. And honest opinion, especially well-informed ones such as these I find refreshing. And there is something to be said about a well-written piece as well...

Deterrance (http://www.ejectejecteject.com/)

Excerpt:

We can’t, alas, deport all the left wingers and they cannot, damn it, silence all the right wingers. We are stuck with each other. Each sees the press as biased toward the other, and each gapes in awe and amazement that the other side could possibly feel the same way.

And although we cannot run an experiment to look into the alternate futures to glean the best result, to determine the relative benefits of being nice or being mean – for those, ultimately, are the choices, believe it or not – we can at least look back to see which seems to have produced the best results in the laboratory of history.

It all comes down to carrots (liberals) or sticks (conservatives). By the way: if you’re in a rush and need to run, here’s the spoiler: You can offer a carrot. Not everybody likes carrots. Some people may hate your carrot. Your carrot may offend people who worship the rutabaga. But no one likes being poked in the eye with a stick. That’s universal.

[skunk]

Spin-free??? He's doing about 30,000 RPM.

[zimv20]

But no one likes being poked in the eye with a stick.
but many will put up with it, thinking one day they'll get to wield it.

[blackfox]

entirely too much to comment on...

I particularily enjoyed:
But it’s not. There are bad people who do bad things, and there are bad countries run by bad people who do bad things who eat the kind and gentle people for breakfast. There is no denying this. Therefore, liberals are insane. I speak from experience here.
existence of "bad" people=collapse of the validity of Liberal thought (to insanity)?

Yes, precisely: not desperately aggrieved parties, not freedom fighters, not anything more than thugs and murderers who want to impose their way of life on the world. Fascists. Ruthless, fanatical bastards sworn to our destruction.
I, for one found this a little ironic...

I chalk this up as a very well-argued piece of crap. A little fast-and-loose with the usage of and definition of "facts" for my tastes...

[Don't panic]

that was a long and hard read.
I guess my own private conclusion are quite different from yours.

especially regarding the factual-based and spin-free part.
the "facts" seems to have bush's own stump speech as a the sole source, and when one starts his dispassionate analysis saying that one of the contender speak the truth and the other one speak idiocy, you can imagine how balanced and fair the rest will be.
There are so many inaccuracies, mistakes, debatable opinions and flat out lies in this piece that that I don't even know where to start, so I won't because I don't have that kind of time. Some of the opinions are (in my own insane opinion, of course) borderline insane.

It appears (to me) to be written by and for hard-line republicans. I find the fact that anybody "sitting on the fence" could be swayed by this propaganda a bit disturbing and very saddening.

[diamond geezer]

His strategy is a loosing one. The only way to stop people killing is to stop them wanting to kill.

I only skipped through the text (resource management problems, as Zim might say), but he seems to neglect the fact that Bush's strategy so far has only created more people who hate America.

He seems under the illusion (one that was created by the famous post 911 Bush speech), that they hate the US because they hate Freedom.

It's a shame his obvious intelligence can't get past his own preconceptions an his quite natural love for his own country.

[zimv20]

He seems under the illusion [...] that they hate the US because they hate Freedom.

which has me thinking -- bush is saying the way to get rid of terrorism is to spread freedom around the world. to, apparently, the people who hate freedom.

hmmmm....

[Mike Teezie]

The main thing I just cannot wrap my head around is the fact that most of the people who tout Bush as a "great leader" think that terrorism can be erradicated through the use of superior firepower.

It can't, and it won't.

[diamond geezer]

which has me thinking -- bush is saying the way to get rid of terrorism is to spread freedom around the world. to, apparently, the people who hate freedom.

hmmmm....

"I think it's real simple to say [Bush] is a liar. But that would also suggest there was a reality that he understood," explained Hersh. "I'm serious. It is funny in sort of a sick, black humor sort of way, but the real serious problem is, he believes what he's doing." In effect, Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other neocons are "idealists, you can call them utopians." As Hersh understands them, they really believe that the solution to global terrorism began with invading Baghdad and will end only with the transformation of the last unfriendly government in the Middle East into a democracy.


"No amount of body bags is going to dissuade [Bush]," said Hersh, despite the fact that Hersh's sources say the war in Iraq is "not winnable. It's over." As for Kerry's war plans, Hersh said he wished he could tell him to stop talking as if the senator's plan for Iraq could somehow still eke out a victory there. "This is a disaster that's been going on. It's a civil war, the insurgency. There is no 'win' anymore in this war," he argued. "As somebody said, 'We're playing chess, they're playing Go.'"

berkley (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/11_hersh.shtml)

[solvs]

This article was pointed out to me, and I can say, it swayed me. And is causing me to rethink my conviction of which candidate I wish to vote for.
While the author does bring up some interesting points, he is factually wrong quite a lot. And his writing is riddled with unfounded opinion. I wouldn't really consider myself a liberal (especially what this guy seems to consider a liberal), but I have a hard time believing either of you were once bleeding heart, tree huggers turned neo-cons. I was with Bush when he retaliated against Al Qaida in Afganistan and Pakistan. Most of us were. But when he invaded Iraq, he lost my support. That's all there is to it.

No ties to those who attacked us, no WMDs, and anyone who disagrees is a traitor and unAmerican. Plus all of the failed promises for domestic issues like education and the enviroment. Thousands killed or injured, for what... we still don't know and the reasons keep changing... but lets stop homosexuals from getting married. Like that's important right now. And you want me to not vote for Kerry because he changed his mind when the President can't admit he made a single mistake? All while Osama runs free?

Sure, Kerry's probably a jerk. But I'm still voting for him because he isn't Bush. You lost me Bush, you lost me.

Edit: one more thing. You yourself mentioned Bush fighting the creation of a central intelligence agency. He also fought the creation of the 9/11 commision, and would not cooperate with them at first. Now he claims responsiblity for their existance. Look up the names Lila Lipscomb and the Family Steering Committee if you don't believe me. Ask them who they are voting for, despite being Republicans.

[Sayhey]

Pardon me, Patrick, but the article is warmed over neoconservative nonsense. The main premise of the article, that Kerry is for fighting the last war and Bush sees the need to fight the new threat of terrorism by fighting anyone who "isn't with us," is just plain stupid. It continues the constant drumbeat of confusion coming out of the White House that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are the same thing. They never have been, and, even with Bush's playing into al-Qaeda's fondest wish of having us invade an islamic nation, it still isn't.

Our war is against fundamentalists who distort Islam in an attempt to wage a war of attrition against anyone who stands in their way of creating a medieval regime for a religious "utopia." Is this a new type of war? You bet it is! And Bush is ignoring the new aspects of this conflict while fighting for old style gains in neocolonial ambitions. Translation - wtf does overthrowing Saddam have to do with eradicating al-Qaeda? Nothing! In fact we have helped them immeasurably. So kindly tell me what that has to do with "deterrence"? You want deterrence, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

What is necessary to fight terrorism is a new view of the world. One that sees the world as an integrated whole, not as a place to be divided up by who supports an illegal invasion and who does not. The saddest part of this situation is that we had the very real possibility of a new unity against terrorism, but George Bush blew it. He threw away the sentiments of the world that said after 9-11 that "we are all Americans" in order to settle a grudge against a tinpot dictator who was bottled up like never before.

What is necessary to fight terrorism are steps like Kerry is advocating around seizing loose nuclear materials, and developing very real and hard sanctions against any nation that begins to develop new WMDs. Of course, this also means we must talk about how the existing stockpiles are reduced and controlled. That means diplomacy, and yes, maybe military confrontation if it fails. It does not mean unilateral action and development of new WMDs on the part of the US.

What is necessary to fight terrorism are real actions against nations that masquerade as friends while denying fundamental human rights. It is no accident that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan are some of the most prolific breeding grounds for al-Qaeda. They are both close allies of the Bush administration and authoritarians without peer. So what does Bush offer for change other than some high sounding rhetoric? Nothing!

Patrick, this article was not worth your time. It may stir the blood and make some of us believe in Bush's cowboy view of the world, but it its fundamentally wrong and incapable of leading us away from a world where the al Qaedas and their clones are growing ever more dangerous.

P.S. read my signature then tell me Bush was right.

[patrick0brien]

-Gents

Well, all are good points. Yes, he's right of center, and that is obvious. But then not my point. We all here make jugements on Bush and on Kerry and, well, many things politically, but there is so much information and opinion out there.

Personally, I try to listen to as many points of view as I can, weighing them against the facts that I am aware of, them making decisions for myself if I feel I have enough information to make an informed one.

Anecdotally, solvs speaks my thoughts very well...
I was with Bush when he retaliated against Al Qaida in Afganistan and Pakistan. Most of us were. But when he invaded Iraq, he lost my support. That's all there is to it.
Through all of this invasion, I've been looking for a reason why he invaded - other than the face-value stupidity of it, hoping there was a secret, honest, purpose to it. I still am, because I simply cannot write off anyone - that would close my mind, and I don't like to do that.

I posted this because I thought it would be appreciated by others this point of view, nothing more. I am not trying to sway anyone - you are all smart people, you can make your own minds up. This caused thought in myself, and felt that it was better to share than sit on it.

PS read my sig, and that was my point to posting this. Ironically, Bush seems to have stopped listening years ago - if he ever did listen. And, well, stupidity started...

[aloofman]

While he makes some interesting observations, none of them are that original. And he makes some leaps of logic that I just can't comprehend. I appreciate his disgust with both parties and candidates, but not his conclusions.

[Don't panic]

just one note on afghanistan.
although alternative history is by definition unprovable, I would submit that GW didn't do anything "special" by attacking the taliban. ANY US president, would have used a military option in the immediate aftermaths of 9/11. Some of the details could have been different and they might or might not have included a direct invasion of afghanistan, but anyone thinking that Kerry or Gore or Clinton or anybody else would have not used all the military prowess needed to tackle Al Qaida doesn't know the history of this country or the sentiments of its people in the fall of 2001.
Worldwide support, the fact that Taliban were running one of the most obviously objectionable regimes on the planet, plus the clear strategic and economic advantages of a direct presence in the area just made the decision easier.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The main thing I just cannot wrap my head around is the fact that most of the people who tout Bush as a "great leader" think that terrorism can be erradicated through the use of superior firepower.

It can't, and it won't.

I was thinking of the same thing. Bush and his people have ridiculed Kerry for reducing terrorism to a "nuisance". There are many of us that have said a war on terrorism is not winnable. Unless one is to practice genocide. Or to have the guts to re-look at how we as a nation acts in different parts of the world. Sort of along the lines of what our parents taught us, that we are judged by the "friends" we keep.

And it is the same with the thread here about voter registration cards being trashed (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=92778). Since the Right seems to like looking to the Bible for inspiration, remember we are taught that you can not remove the splinter from your neighbors eye - with a log in your own.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I was with Bush when he retaliated against Al Qaida in Afganistan and Pakistan. Most of us were. But when he invaded Iraq, he lost my support. That's all there is to it.

So was I. And there were many of us that would have taken the opportunity to go after Al Qaida if we were given the chance (a little too old here for the military - unless of course I was already in the reserves with the recent news reports).

The issue I have with Iraq is that we as a government support dictators as bad or worse than Saddam. Yet we do nothing. Instead of acting early on in countries with ethnic cleansing wars, we wait till 100's of thousands have died before acting.

I was with Bush when he retaliated against Al Qaida in Afganistan and Pakistan. Most of us were. But when he invaded Iraq, he lost my support. That's all there is to it.

[Chip NoVaMac]

-Gents

Well, all are good points. Yes, he's right of center, and that is obvious.

This guy is so far Right that he is wrong!

For a better sense of reality you might want to look at http://www.factcheck.org. Not dot com as the "brain" Cheney had suggested.

[solvs]

Through all of this invasion, I've been looking for a reason why he invaded - other than the face-value stupidity of it, hoping there was a secret, honest, purpose to it...
We know why... oil (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1080615#post1080615).