I was thinking about this today while driving down to a machining factory to pick up a part.
Are there any differences that we will even really see with a Democrat? Back in 2004 the most we got out of Kerry was, "I can do it better"...REALLY? HOW SO? And the HOW SO was one that we simply didn't get....reminded me of Ahhhnold's "I'll make Kahlifornyaah better...once we OPEN THE BOOKS" campaign ~ but being the terminator lets you win with vague goals
Now it seems the only thing to do is
a) Admit we screwed up - take a radically different goal in dealing with the country in terms of rooting out corruption and carpet bagging, beefing up security to the levels that they were always stated to be in both urban areas and desert borders, providing a clear and cut timeline of WHAT will be accomplished and WHEN, providing incentives and jobs to work...and ultimately making Iraqis feel they have a PARTNER in their future...
b) Admit we screwed up and slowly pull out while the people continue to fight, bicker and kill themselves
c) Admit we screwed up but do nothing as we maintain current levels and watch our men slowly be picked off, while iraqis die at an alarming rate which will no doubt increase.
From what I've seen from the Democrats as a whole....is something along the lines of (b), MAYBE (c).
But is that really a smart choice? Haven't we seen how bad choices bite us back later? Some, like Zebo, argue in FAVOR of (b) because we can keep them fighting and wasting their resources while sucking their oil and having a few bases. But often we have heard the mantra that stable democratic governments are less likely to go to war, and more likely to simply want to trade.
Predicting 30-40 years in the future is a near impossible task and extrapolation is an evil that statistics abhores...but looking at this on a global level (and taking things on a big enough level does allow us to ignore the little random variations that statistics usually notes) it makes more SENSE to put forth a REAL effort to help stabalize Iraq and help a democracy grow (regretfully it should have come naturally, but we can't bitch about it anymore. This is why the power to commit troops to battle should not belong to a sole person because it can put us in permanent situations that we cannot espece very quickly) rather than to milk the region, and expect it not to become a massive pain in the @$$ 40-50 years from now.
But what have we, or atleast I, seen from the general view of democrats? "Its broken, but we won't fix it because it takes too much risk to do so and we don't want to risk our seats in congress"
Then again this is coming from both parties where both are gungho for war when their party has the presidency, and when both act more dovish when the other party is at the helms of the presidency.
So in all seriousness~ especially to those who are extremely pro democrat and feel that they are a better choice (and given what we have of the republicans...that isn't saying much) to help turn around this Iraq policy....WHY and WHAT has given you that impression?
Are there any differences that we will even really see with a Democrat? Back in 2004 the most we got out of Kerry was, "I can do it better"...REALLY? HOW SO? And the HOW SO was one that we simply didn't get....reminded me of Ahhhnold's "I'll make Kahlifornyaah better...once we OPEN THE BOOKS" campaign ~ but being the terminator lets you win with vague goals
Now it seems the only thing to do is
a) Admit we screwed up - take a radically different goal in dealing with the country in terms of rooting out corruption and carpet bagging, beefing up security to the levels that they were always stated to be in both urban areas and desert borders, providing a clear and cut timeline of WHAT will be accomplished and WHEN, providing incentives and jobs to work...and ultimately making Iraqis feel they have a PARTNER in their future...
b) Admit we screwed up and slowly pull out while the people continue to fight, bicker and kill themselves
c) Admit we screwed up but do nothing as we maintain current levels and watch our men slowly be picked off, while iraqis die at an alarming rate which will no doubt increase.
From what I've seen from the Democrats as a whole....is something along the lines of (b), MAYBE (c).
But is that really a smart choice? Haven't we seen how bad choices bite us back later? Some, like Zebo, argue in FAVOR of (b) because we can keep them fighting and wasting their resources while sucking their oil and having a few bases. But often we have heard the mantra that stable democratic governments are less likely to go to war, and more likely to simply want to trade.
Predicting 30-40 years in the future is a near impossible task and extrapolation is an evil that statistics abhores...but looking at this on a global level (and taking things on a big enough level does allow us to ignore the little random variations that statistics usually notes) it makes more SENSE to put forth a REAL effort to help stabalize Iraq and help a democracy grow (regretfully it should have come naturally, but we can't bitch about it anymore. This is why the power to commit troops to battle should not belong to a sole person because it can put us in permanent situations that we cannot espece very quickly) rather than to milk the region, and expect it not to become a massive pain in the @$$ 40-50 years from now.
But what have we, or atleast I, seen from the general view of democrats? "Its broken, but we won't fix it because it takes too much risk to do so and we don't want to risk our seats in congress"
Then again this is coming from both parties where both are gungho for war when their party has the presidency, and when both act more dovish when the other party is at the helms of the presidency.
So in all seriousness~ especially to those who are extremely pro democrat and feel that they are a better choice (and given what we have of the republicans...that isn't saying much) to help turn around this Iraq policy....WHY and WHAT has given you that impression?
Facebook
Twitter