Are there any Bush supporters out here

[AcrobatMan]

I was just wondering.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am not an American but I support Bush's stance on quite a few issues because I genuinely believe that Kerry's policies would be a rehash of Clintons in terms of Global Security - I think that although simmilar to eachother (Bush / Kerry) the unilateral option is important when fighting against global terrorism. Placing stronger pressure onto these ME regimes to liberalise and cooperate is also important, I saw in a speech that Kerry was opposed to pressuring the Arabs because that would upset the balance of power in the region and that he would sacrifice human rights around the world in exchange for US National Security (but they both do that as would anybody who engages in such realpolitik, at least Bush will remove some truly nasty dicatorial regimes - Iraq - and place pressure on others - Sudan - while rewarding positive actions - the ongoing support ot Pervez Musharraf in exchange for assistance in NW Pakistan)


These are dangerous times and the type of strategy is critical in determining what threats will be faced, Bush was right in my opinion to go to war in Iraq and in many respects postwar that decision has been vindicated.

There is also the fact I think the US/AUS FTA is a good thing and that as it stands has a lot to do with Bush.

In the final analysis though it is what he is going to do that determines if he should be supported, taking such large scale action against Iraq in a first term is an impressive action, it will be interesting to see who is next on the enemies list to go. I would be optimistic about what types of sweeping changes Bush could make in the Middle East if he had a second term, this oddly enough is also why a lot of people are quite afraid of him getting a second term.

 

[Salome]

since I'm not american I can neither support or not support Bush

since america has a major global position his international policies do concern me
and I can't help but notice that as long as I can remember america has never met as much adversity in the rest of the world as it does now

and a major factor in this is that Bush isn't able to convince most people outside the US that the foreign policies as carried out by the US serve the interest of the world community

I don't think it's a healthy situation the way the US is regarded nowadays
there is a sort of "guilty until proven innocent" notion
and though you can't blame Bush for this entirely
he didn't help to prevent this situation to arise either

 

[nbcrusader]

Yes.

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

Definately, nope.

 

[stammer476]

Yes

 

[popacrobat]

You better believe it.

 

[tiny dancer]

Definately, nope.

What she said.

 

[BVS]

Absolutely


























































Just not me.

 

[swizzlestick]

Yes

 

[Popmartijn]

I am not an American but I support Bush's stance on quite a few issues because I genuinely believe that Kerry's policies would be a rehash of Clintons in terms of Global Security

And why is this a bad thing?

- I think that although simmilar to eachother (Bush / Kerry) the unilateral option is important when fighting against global terrorism.

Here is where I completely disagree. I think a multilateral option is more important than an unilateral one. You need other countries when fighting global terrorism. While the USA is the most powerful nation on earth, it cannot do all of it alone, it has to work together with other countries to win the terrorism war.

There is also the fact I think the US/AUS FTA is a good thing and that as it stands has a lot to do with Bush.

I don't know anything about this, so I can't really comment on it. But I thought that Republicans were never that happy with Free Trade Agreements. I could be wrong on this though...

C ya!

Marty (also not an US citizen)

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that although simmilar to eachother (Bush / Kerry) the unilateral option is important when fighting against global terrorism.

Here is where I completely disagree. I think a multilateral option is more important than an unilateral one. You need other countries when fighting global terrorism. While the USA is the most powerful nation on earth, it cannot do all of it alone, it has to work together with other countries to win the terrorism war.

Just to clarify here I am talking about retaining the unilateral action option, I support multilateralism especially when fighting terrorism, rogue states and nation building but you should have all cards on the table in this fights, including the first strike capacity. It is a useful tool if used properly and not abused.

About the Clinton thing, I think that a lot of the failures that allowed 9/11 were systemic ones that were created during Clinton's term, restructing the CIA for post cold war, integration of intelligence agencies to meet new threats etc.. This is not to say that he was responsible for the attacks, that is about as obscene as blaming Bush, but a lot of the failures that allowed it to occur were made before 2001 and the same mistakes may be made if America elected somebody who would be more inclined to support stability in the Middle East through negotiation and compromise rather than direct pressure and action.

I think that Iraq as it stands is an example of a how a unilateral action may be transformed into a multinational task. The main downside for doing this is that it looses you allies very quickly and it will not guarantee that you have support in the next war. If we had used agressive inspections we may have had some results but I doubt that it would have came to war if the UN had allowed full drawn out negotiations and I also think that that cost of such a peace would be tens of thousands of Iraqi's.

 

[Dreadsox]

After much deliberation......I am still undecided but leaning yes.

I do however, think Kerry has a very good plan for dealing with nuklear material and how to keep it from falling into the wrong hands. It is an issue that I think is one of the most pressing issues facing the world. The nuke powers have managed to keep the peace for many years, but I think we are looking at a scary future with terrorists seeking the same material.

I also agree with the NEA (Terrorist Organization) that we are indeed getting the shaft from the administration on funding. Most of the funding is going towards issuing the yearly tests, and not into education. That is a problem....when you are more willing to fund the test, than to put it into classrooms.

But, I have issues with Kerry as well.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Yes.

 

[BVS]

Welcome back, it's been awhile.

 

[U2Kitten]

After much deliberation......I am still undecided but leaning yes.

What he said.

In general I agree with Bush on more issues but I am still looking through things. I will not be voting for Kerry, but I'm still not sure if I'll vote Bush, Nader, or not at all.


However, I think going into Iraq was a bad thing and a waste of lives. Afghanistan, yes, Iraq, no. We should have gone all the way to Baghdad in '91. I remember the soldiers on TV going "if we don't do it now we'll be back in 10 years to do it, it's got to be done, might as well do it now" But old man Bush (a good man I do admire a lot more than his son) was wrongfully advised by the Saudis not to, and to stop encouraging uprisings among the Shiites and Kurds (which the US had been doing) because the Saudis felt they could deal better with a Sunni secularist than whatever Ayatollah type would come to power in Iraq. Never trust the Saudis!

 

[Liesje]

I'm not a huge fan of Bush, but if there's nothing significant about Kerry that impresses me (so far...nothing), I will vote for him as a Republican.

 

[senrab]

Yes.

 

[verte76]

However, I think going into Iraq was a bad thing and a waste of lives. Afghanistan, yes, Iraq, no. We should have gone all the way to Baghdad in '91. I remember the soldiers on TV going "if we don't do it now we'll be back in 10 years to do it, it's got to be done, might as well do it now" But old man Bush (a good man I do admire a lot more than his son) was wrongfully advised by the Saudis not to, and to stop encouraging uprisings among the Shiites and Kurds (which the US had been doing) because the Saudis felt they could deal better with a Sunni secularist than whatever Ayatollah type would come to power in Iraq. Never trust the Saudis!

Suppose the Iraqis do end up with an Ayatollah in charge? The new leader, Allawi (not sure I spelled that properly) is a Shia Muslim who has the support of Iraq's most powerful cleric, the Ayatollah Sistani. Now, Sistani is no Khoumini. He's alot more moderate. But I wouldn't be surprised if some Shia Muslims made a push for another Shia state (Iran is a Shia state, currently the only Shia Muslim state on the planet). That might not be so great.

 

[U2Kitten]

No it won't be good at all. And as bad as Saddam was, the one plus of his regime was he kept the radical fringe elements out power.

 

[verte76]

Saddam tolerated Wahhabists and Deobandis provided they stayed out of politics. Now they're free to come in and raise all sorts of political hell. If the new leaders don't get a handle on things quickly things could get ugly.

 

[nbcrusader]

Saddam tolerated Wahhabists and Deobandis provided they stayed out of politics. Now they're free to come in and raise all sorts of political hell. If the new leaders don't get a handle on things quickly things could get ugly.

Can this situation be handled in a democratic way? Saddam handled it with an iron fist. Is it possible for Wahhabist and/or Deobandis Muslims to peacefully exist in a democratic society?

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Not when they all consider each other 'infidels.' One thing that is forgotten in all this is that many of these people in many ways are not like people in, well let's just say, other cultures, so there is no way you can apply 'our' rules to them in making a country, or expect them to change overnight.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Look liberal democracy does not spring up overnight, Iraq is in a fight for its very existence and it will need to curb civil liberties for a few years to come.

Think about Turkey though, you had a nationalist leader who genuinely wanted to reform the nation, he disolved the Caliphate and embarked on a project of secularization and modenisation but Attaturk was still essentially dictator. Freedom and Liberty will flow to Iraq as peoples lives improve and the security situation is stable, when Iraqis have faith in their government (which is possible, there is a genuine will to be involved by most groups) then they will not stand for FOREIGN jihadists fighting their holy war on their soil and killing their civilians. The international community (USA + Coalition of the Willing) has invested too much for it to turn into another despotic regime, change will come slowly but it will come and then 5 years from now we will be able to look at a free and stable Iraq moving into the history books as the First Free Democratic Arab Nation, 20 years from now it may well be seen as the defining battle for hearts and minds in the middle east and the beginning of the end for Islamist terrorism.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

But how can you fight for something a large portion of the population doesn't really want? That spells civil war

 

[A_Wanderer]

Which large proportion, the vast majority do genuinely want to get involved and the rest are mostly undecided. They generally want to be part of a unified and stable Iraq, do not underestimate the importance that will have on the long term sucess of the new government.

You have the Shiites in the South who want to have a say in affairs, in all likelyhood they will want Islam to have a place in the New Iraq and that is understandable (however much regrettable) but it will not mean that it will become an Iranian style theocracy. The militias in the South are there because of the absense of a democratic process, the rival factions feel that if they control the neighbourhoods with gangs then they will get a bigger say, this is not going to be the case and I am certain that they will disband as soon as a political outlet can be established and they can get part of the action.

The Kurds in the North demand semi-Autonomy and I think that they will retain that, the problem with the Kurds is that external politics may play into their fate (as far as the US/Turkey relationship) they want a say in the governance of Iraq however I genuinely fear that they will either be overreprested and become seen as a burden by the Sunnis and Shiites or underrepresented and get forced to give up freedoms in the name of a centralized government. Both are real problems that will be overcome but currently the Kurdish region is a blueprint for what Iraq should look like in a decade.

The key problem group is the Sunnis, the vast majority of attacks occur in the Sunni Triangle and that is where you have the most entrenched resistance. There is very little we can do to win them over to our side, these areas are Baathist and they actively support terrorists because of a shared agenda (the removal of US forces). I think the only way to get a positive influence from here is to have a real show of force, prove to them that they lost the war fair and square and the only way to do this is to go into Falluja full strength with marines and clean to town out totally no matter what civilian casualites. If we can show them that the coalition will not capitulate because they are attacked, that the coalition will eliminate every terrorist and that they cannot hide behind civilians and expect to operate then I think it will remove the support that the insurgents and terrorists currently enjoy. This will be bloody and it will be tough but if it is done right then you may well get a unified Iraq.

 

[verte76]

Can this situation be handled in a democratic way? Saddam handled it with an iron fist. Is it possible for Wahhabist and/or Deobandis Muslims to peacefully exist in a democratic society?

I'm honestly not sure. Neither Wahhabists nor Deobandis believe in democracy as we know it, they believe in an Islamic state apparatus, complete with Sharia, or Islamic, law as the law of the land. That's why the Wahhabists blew up that Shia mosque. They don't think Shias are "really" Muslim. The Deobandi tradition gave us the Taliban. They're particularly insistent on women not having any rights whatsoever. I wish to hell we didn't have to fool with these people. But we do. Even worse, both these groups are militantly Sunni and have all sorts of bones to pick with Shia Muslims. They could create all sorts of problems in the Shia south. I hope everything is OK, but I'm a little nervous about the current chaotic state of affairs in that country.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But is it fair to say that the vast majority of people living within fundamentalist societies such as this are opressed by a leading minority of fanatics, if we kill the fanatics and drastically improve the lives of the masses while at the same time introducing very strong liberal democratic governments that can fight against the Islamists can't we defeat them?

I think that we do not see Islamist ideology take root in stable and open countries, it only has real strength in places where it is seen as a legitimate alternative to the status quo and the only places these are would be warzones or crumbling authoritarian regimes, I guess the point is that if the people are given the choice between the Religious Fanatics and an Elected Government I think that they will choose to elect a government, we must give them the choice.

 

[nbcrusader]

But is it fair to say that the vast majority of people living within fundamentalist societies such as this are opressed by a leading minority of fanatics,

Oppressed majority?
Capitulating majority?
Or fanatical majority?

 

[verte76]

But is it fair to say that the vast majority of people living within fundamentalist societies such as this are opressed by a leading minority of fanatics, if we kill the fanatics and drastically improve the lives of the masses while at the same time introducing very strong liberal democratic governments that can fight against the Islamists can't we defeat them?

I think that we do not see Islamist ideology take root in stable and open countries, it only has real strength in places where it is seen as a legitimate alternative to the status quo and the only places these are would be warzones or crumbling authoritarian regimes, I guess the point is that if the people are given the choice between the Religious Fanatics and an Elected Government I think that they will choose to elect a government, we must give them the choice.

The problem with Iraq is that it's not stable by any stretch of the imagination. Furthermore, the new leaders claim that they may have to postpone elections if the security situation doesn't improve. There is talk of martial law. They could postpone elections to the Greek kalends for all we know. That wouldn't be good. Also, there are disturbing signs in Iraq already that women's rights are being seriously curtailed. All over Iraq, girls are being taken out of school, and the clerics are starting to insist that all women be veiled. Then things could get very nasty if some Deobandis or Wahhabists grabbed power in a security vacuum, and forced an Islamic state on Iraq. A Deobandi government would be a Taliban government in Iraq. Yeah, it's a nightmare scenario. But with the situation as highly volatile and unstable as it is now, the future is very, very uncertain, and to me that's scary.