AcrobatMan
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I was just wondering.
A_Wanderer said: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.
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 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.
Dreadsox said:After much deliberation......I am still undecided but leaning yes.
U2Kitten said: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!
verte76 said: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 said: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?
A_Wanderer said: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,
A_Wanderer said: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.