If Kerry becomes Prez

[debeest]

SH, you keep asking for answers to questions that people have already answered. Here's one for you:

What would you recommend that a President do to prevent attacks on the US?

Please bear in mind that (1) it's terribly hard to know who's actually likely to commit terrorist acts, and (2) modern misusage of the word "terrorism" almost excludes governmental actions thus almost rules out international war as a direct and effective response to terrorists acts or threats.

Note that OBL is still on the loose, the Taliban is returning to substantial power in Afghanistan, and Iraq is now far more likely to produce anti-US terrorists than it ever was before. Note also that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other hotbeds of anti-US fervor are still on our "friends" list. North Korea continues its acknowledged nuclear weapons program and ICBM program,

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kennedy, sure as **** , would've acted.

What do you base this on? Bay of Pigs? Talk about a cluster****.

As for Somalia, that wasn't Clinton's fault. The first American soldier dragged through town and public support for the war went in the toilet. What would you want him do? Simply because the American public idiotically believes NO American soldier should ever die in a mission, Clinton is blamed?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by debeest
SH, you keep asking for answers to questions that people have already answered.

I dont see that they have. Look back through the thread, the closest answer is that he would defend the US if it was directly attacked by a foreign power, and that does not answer my question.

Here's one for you:

What would you recommend that a President do to prevent attacks on the US?

Its a topic for another thread, and I'm not willing to write a book here. I will say that I would recommend using military force against any target that is identified as a direct threat without regard for international opinion.

As an example, I would point to the Israeli destruction of the Baghdad reactor. They perceived it to be a threat to their security and they eliminated it. International opinion be damned. We did the same to the Taliban and Iraq.

Please bear in mind that (1) it's terribly hard to know who's actually likely to commit terrorist acts, and (2) modern misusage of the word "terrorism" almost excludes governmental actions thus almost rules out international war as a direct and effective response to terrorists acts or threats.

Thats exactly the type of grey-zone thinking that I'm questioning with respect to Kerry. We attacked Afghanistan, in an act of war. There's no point in pretending it was anything else. There are a number of obvious countries that support terrorists and we should be prepared to deal with them militarily as well. That doesnt mean we need to invade them all, but we have to be prepared to do so if necessary. Since I believe that willingness to act in such a fashion is an important characteristic for a president, I wonder what Kerry's position would be. More importantly for this thread, I wonder how other people preceive Kerrys position.

Note that OBL is still on the loose, the Taliban is returning to substantial power in Afghanistan, and

The Taliban will not return to any power so long as GWB is president. Clearly he is willing to commit troops if necessary.

Iraq is now far more likely to produce anti-US terrorists than it ever was before.

All actions and inactions have consequences, we can discuss them until the end of time.

Note also that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other hotbeds of anti-US fervor are still on our "friends" list.

So?

North Korea continues its acknowledged nuclear weapons program and ICBM program,

Yet it is now willing to talk again.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Kennedy, sure as **** , would've acted.

What do you base this on? Bay of Pigs? Talk about a cluster****.

As for Somalia, that wasn't Clinton's fault. The first American soldier dragged through town and public support for the war went in the toilet. What would you want him do? Simply because the American public idiotically believes NO American soldier should ever die in a mission, Clinton is blamed?

You may have heard of a little thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis. How about Vietnam?

Clinton was responsible precisely because he caved into public pressure after gutting the forces in Somalia. Do you see that happening with GWB?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You may have heard of a little thing called the Cuban Missile Crisis.

So a cluster**** which show how imcompetant the President was is your proof?

How about Vietnam?

Yes, sending a few thousand troops to Southeast Asia is really 'acting'. Johnson was the one who escalated it and 'acted'.

Clinton was responsible precisely because he caved into public pressure after gutting the forces in Somalia. Do you see that happening with GWB?

If public support drops below 40% then yes.

And ironic that you say Clinton 'caved' and then you blame him for 'nationbuilding'. Which one is it?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So a cluster**** which show how imcompetant the President was is your proof?

I'm not sure that successfully forcing the soviets to admit they were wrong and remove their missles was a cluster****.

Yes, sending a few thousand troops to Southeast Asia is really 'acting'. Johnson was the one who escalated it and 'acted'.

It was Kennedy who first sent the troops. Johnson merely inherited it and its likely he would never have committed troops.

If public support drops below 40% then yes.

I doubt it. It'll cost him the presidency though.

And ironic that you say Clinton 'caved' and then you blame him for 'nationbuilding'. Which one is it?

You must have read another thread. Clinton caved by not following through. I believe that the US should 'nationbuild'.

[debeest]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Look back through the thread, the closest answer is that he would defend the US if it was directly attacked by a foreign power, and that does not answer my question.

Well, it was half of your question, and GePap and I both answered that of course he would strike back against any identifiable attacker.

Its a topic for another thread, and I'm not willing to write a book here.

Well, then why were you raising the initial question, if you don't have any ideas yourself about how to prevent attacks against the US? If you think Kerry will make poor choices, you must be able to identify choices better than you think he'll make.

As an example, I would point to the Israeli destruction of the Baghdad reactor. They perceived it to be a threat to their security and they eliminated it. International opinion be damned. We did the same to the Taliban and Iraq.

Neither the Taliban nor Iraq threatened us. OBL is still in operation. Far more people in Afghanistan and Iraq now hates us then before. Both countries are anarchic and even more desperate than they were. How has our security been improved? These wars, as predicted, were not effective in reducing the risk of attack against Americans, so what was the point?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure that successfully forcing the soviets to admit they were wrong and remove their missles was a cluster****.

Bringing us to the brink of Armeggedon for something which could have been done through secret diplomatic discussions is a diplomacy failure.

It was Kennedy who first sent the troops.

I guess about the same amount that went in Somalia... that was enough for 'action'?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The Taliban will not return to any power so long as GWB is president. Clearly he is willing to commit troops if necessary.

NATO has just decided to commit more troops. Maybe because Dubya has finally understood it is much smarter to associate others to your military adventures?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Maybe because Dubya has finally understood it is much smarter to associate others to your military adventures?

Is NATO still pissed Bush rejected thier offer of help?

[Spiffor]

Where?

[DinoDoc]

We only have two "adventures" going on at the moment. Which one do you think I'm talking about?

[Spiffor]

Iraq, since NATO (or at least NATO countries) are engaged in Afghanistan peacekeeping forces.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Iraq, since NATO (or at least NATO countries) are engaged in Afghanistan peacekeeping forces.

I was talking about the copnflict itself. Not the aftermath.

[Spiffor]

I was talking about the whole operation. If the US need allies, it's because it has much more efficiency dealing with the "conflict" part than with the "aftermath" part.