EFT has commented on the Turnabout post below, but Blogger apparently is having issues ... so I'm just reprinting it as a new post. I'll probably have a response in the comments section. Thanks for the feedback!
from EFT:
That video is a partisan, one-sided case of fear-mongering. And its hypothetical pro-Republican/anti-Democrat counterpart would be as well. That's not to say that it doesn't leave us some points to ponder.
Looking at history, it's difficult to find a well-known president who isn't associated with a war or tough guy image: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt(s), Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, etc. Sometimes a president's military training is the source and sometimes it's circumstances, but either way it seems that strong, memorable presidents are linked to war and it certainly shaped their policies and politics. I don't know if that's necessarily good, but it's a fact that those are the leaders that stand out in the history books. BTW, those same history books usually fail to point out that even after a victory, the US maintains a military presence in the country-sort of an occupying force though that's not the term used. We have bases in Vietnam, Korea, Germany, and now Iraq. Apparently, it's easier to keep an eye on your former enemy if you're closer to them--and there's over 60 years of evidence to show that, despite changes in administration.
Being a Cold War kid, I have always been suspicious of Russia-regardless of how many times that country is classed as our friend or ally. As a nation, they have allowed their nuclear arsenal to be distributed to their former republics and rogue nations...seemingly without any concern for passing along the knowledge, restraint, and guidance needed to handle those weapons responsibly.
It's kind of like having a gun in the house. If the owner isn't responsible and fails to make sure that everyone with access has been properly trained, then it's just a tragedy waiting to happen.
But, to answer your last question, I do feel lucky. The election this fall pits a former POW against a candidate who is truly free of military influence. Either way we'll win. If McCain is in, then we'll have a president who understands deeply what can happen when things go awry in a war. If it's Obama, we'll have, for the very first time, a president untouched by war as a veteran or a draft dodger...a clean slate if you will. Both bring a fresh perspective to the questions surrounding the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Middle East situations.
4 comments:
Does the United States have a military base in Vietnam? That would surprise me. A quick Google search was inconclusive.
I think the future of American bases in Iraq should be entirely based on the will of the Iraqi people. (Wasn't GWBush talking about sovereign nations just recently? Something about invading other countries being a bad thing...?)
Past experience suggests I should not get into gun analogies on this blog...
But I will say that sometimes trouble comes to one's door, and sometimes one goes looking for trouble. I think I would prefer a president whose instincts were not to go looking for trouble.
I'm not sure about John McCain on that count.
The US does have at least one military base in Vietnam, though probably not what most would think of when the term "military base" is mentioned. There are US soldiers who do tours of duty in Vietnam for periods of 18 months - 3 years, but for obvious reasons they are not there with their families. The same is true for Korea, but families can go along to Japan and Germany. (Evidence: Discussions over the years with family members who had loved ones stationed in all of the above.)
Your comment about whether one goes looking for trouble or trouble comes to one's door is interesting. GW had trouble come to his door on 9/11 and had to deal with it, much like FDR did on 12/7/41, although he decided to declare war on Germany just because it was Japan's ally. GW does the same thing and catches flack. Hmm...
Given McCain's history with his captors, I doubt he'd go looking for trouble, but I'm confident he'd think carefully about putting soldiers in harm's way. Ditto for Obama. He doesn't seem like the roustabout type, but rather a thinker.
Well, I have to strongly disagree with you on GWB. In the case of WWII, Japan attacked us; Germany was at war with our allies. Germany was bombing England on a daily basis and invading countries right and left.
In the case of the 9/11, we were attacked by a group of men who were based in Afghanistan. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi, I believe one was an Egyptian. None of them were from Iraq or had ties to Iraq.
Iraq had invaded one neighboring country and been at war with another. Neither case had turned out well for Iraq, and at the time of 9/11, Iraq was militarily weak and not a threat to anyone, except in the cooked intelligence that our government was providing.
As far as I can see, there really is no comparison between post-9/11 Iraq and Germany and Japan in 1941.
I think GWB catches flak for the job he has done as President, and I think it's mostly deserved.
McCain has often seemed to be a reasonable and thoughtful guy. But the Neocons he's surrounded himself with trouble me.
buy tramadol for dogs order tramadol eu - can you buy ultram online
Post a Comment