Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He has gotten Saudi Arabia to do next to nothing. I'm not saying that Kerry could have done better, but don't kid yourself. What happened with Libya started under Bush's father and continued under Clinton. Renouncing Arafat has done nothing to curb terrorism against us -- the Palestinians don't gun for us -- but it may make other Arabs resent us more. Not that I'm an Arafat fan. And when you talk about increasing intelligence capabilities, there was bipartisan agreement about that after 9/11.
|
Saudi Arabia, partly true (they drew up a list and then put their best people on removing names from the list);
Libya, no freakin way. These guys didn't even settle for Lockerbie until this year.
Arafat, a lot of Americans have been killed in Israel over the years. American victims of terrorism are down in Israel (I think) since 9/11.
Further, I could care less if renouncing Arafat makes anyone resent us more. There is no purpose in coddling those who tolerate terror, particularly in order to appease other non-democratic nations.
As described below, there are numerous other actions that Bush also took. The idea is, he views this war comprehensively, and not reactively.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unclear that Syria supports terrorism against us. Against Israel, sure, but Syria was actually helping us against Al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq. And then we "isolated" them.
|
Unclear? Unclear that they tolerate and provide umbrella coverage for Hizbollah in Lebanon?
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Like the Bushies, you see the war on terror as one of confronting rogue states. But some of these states (Syria, North Korea) have nothing to do with the Islamists. And other states (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq) now are a haven for terrorists, not because the central government supports them but because the state's authority is limited. Failed states are a problem for us.
Our allies are with us in Afghanistan, which is a war Democrats were fully with. Gore or Kerry would have done something similar there after 9/11, but might have invested more in the rebuilding to get a government whose writ extends beyond Kabul.
|
Syria: Simply not true. See above regarding Hizbollah. Saying they have nothing to do with Islamists is about as true as saying the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11/
North Korea: Not that its necessarily germane to addressing the North Korea issue, but the A.Q. Khan network, right? In any case, North Korea is a completely independent set of circumstances.
And yes, failed states are a problem for us. The trick is, I think the only people saying Afghanistan is a failed state (haven for terrorists) are occasional leftist mouthpieces. See the LA Times article today for contrary evidence.
As for our allies, my best guess is that the same people who are with us in Iraq are the ones who provided immediate military support (special ops forces) in Afghanistan in 9/01 and 10/01. Namely, Australia and Britain. The question for me is not who will come in with the UN later. The question is who will go in the first place when justified, with or without the UN, the US NATO or any other outside support. The UN is simply irrelevant when it comes to this war.
And I have no idea whether there is any basis to the suggestion that Gore or Kerry would have done the same thing post-9/11. THere is no indication in their political histories that either would show any military leadership.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Iraq is a different story, but many of us think it was a wrong turn in the war on terror.
...
I have no idea what you see in Kerry's record that seems germane to you to the war on terror.
|
1.) Fair enough.
2.) I have no idea what you see in Kerry's record that indicates he is willing and able to lead a war on terror.
ef clarification
