Kerry In Vietnam

[Steve Machol]

I think that if the record were reversed the reactions would be reversed irregardless of party. How is that a double standard?

Are you serious? Assuming you are and you aren't trying to pull my leg, if the Kerry had Bush's (lack of) military record and bashed him for it, then this would clearly be a double-standard if they do not do the same when Bush has the record. It is not a double-standard if you apply the same principles to everyone.

The same goes for the Democrats if they attacked Bush's transposed Kerry record, although I don't see that being very effective or even likely.

[Steve Machol]

I think that military service should not be a big prerequisite to CEO.

I think military service is a perfectly valid factor in determining the suitability of a Commander-in-Chief. Of course, it should not be the only or deciding factor - just one of many. However I think that people who have served their country and been in the line of fire themselves will understand better what is being asked of the young men and women they may potentially put in harm's way.

I am also absolutely positive that virtually every Bush supporter would love it if he had Kerry's record instead of the one he does have.

[mrba]

Yet you still somehow find the time to post one anti-Kerry message after another. In fact you are probably the most prolific poster on OptiBoard over that past couple of months. Yoiu can come up with a better excuse I'm sure. ;)

I think you understand little about the lab side then. We were twiddling our thumbs about a month ago, and then biz started to pick up. We are now officially slammed and loving it. Yes when we were slow I was prolific, but you should have noticed my posting volume go way down over the last weeks. It is 12.46am and here I am posting.

Furthurmore sometimes to refute some of the silly arguments I would have to do research to get good counterpoints, and I just don't have time. I have been called on for spellchecking and grammar etc... The quality of my arguments aren't good... Whatever

I am answering the challenges unscripted and on the fly (in between phonecalls). I would say given those circumstances I am doing pretty good against "The Shanbaum"!:)

[mrba]

=Steve Machol]Are you serious?

I used too many double negatives again. What I was trying to say is that I don't have a double standard here, in that I think If the records were reversed, the attacks would look the same. Irregardless of party.

I don't usually answer to "what ifs". Too often weak Rhetoric.

[mrba]

I think military service is a perfectly valid factor in determining the suitability of a Commander-in-Chief. Of course, it should not be the only or deciding factor - just one of many. However I think that people who have served their country and been in the line of fire themselves will understand better what is being asked of the young men and women they may potentially put in harm's way.

I am also absolutely positive that virtually every Bush supporter would love it if he had Kerry's record instead of the one he does have.

I concur, with the caveat that military service strikes me as something drummed up more by the press. In political discussions with others, issues like abortion and taxes, jobs and economy seem to be more important than past military service.

It is a resume point.

As far as my anti Kerry posting, I have said many times I think this election is between bad and worse. This forum is so highly liberal, I see no reason to bash W, even though in my mind he is a liberal moron. But I'm sure there are those that think he is an ultra right wing nut... Good for you.

Geroge Bush:

Blanket Amnesty
Lets our soldiers in Iraq be tried under the world court
Supports "new world order" (probably via tri lateral commission with daddy)
Spends like a drunken democrat
Virtual open border policy
Our lower taxes were a sham

and the list goes on... Bush is a terrible president. And Kerry will be an absolute disater. I intend to buy a gun while I still can! I am debating between a .45 and a .50 caliber Glock. Any thoughts from the optiboard?

Happy weekend.

[Judy Canty]

I concur, with the caveat that military service strikes me as something drummed up more by the press.

Sell that to Max Cleland.

[Steve Machol]

I think you understand little about the lab side then.

Your willingness to jump to erroneous conclusions never ceases to amaze me. ;)

I AM a lab guy. I started working in a wholesale lab in Phoenix in 1973. I've been a Lab Tech, Lab Supervisor, Lab Manager and Director of Lab Operations for 16 labs in 4 states. I do know a little bit about how labs work.

[Steve Machol]

I used too many double negatives again. What I was trying to say is that I don't have a double standard here, in that I think If the records were reversed, the attacks would look the same. Irregardless of party.

That I agree with and was the point I was trying to make from the beginning - with one exception. I think the Republicans would make a much bigger issue of this if Kerry had Bush's record. In my opinion the Democrats and media are letting Bush get away with this, pretty much the same way they let him off the hook with the cocaine use and drunk-driving conviction allegations during the 2000 election. The Republicans are far more savvy politically and know how to exploit these kind of potential weaknesses.

[mrba]

Your willingness to jump to erroneous conclusions never ceases to amaze me. ;)

I AM a lab guy. I started working in a wholesale lab in Phoenix in 1973. I've been a Lab Tech, Lab Supervisor, Lab Manager and Director of Lab Operations for 16 labs in 4 states. I do know a little bit about how labs work.

I knew you were a lab guy when I said that. One of the things that has defined the business post 911 is that you can no longer predict work. It's boom or bust. This has traditionally not been the case. If you were a lab guy 10 years ago, you would not know this.

People who have been in the business for over 40 years have confirmed this to me, so I know it isn't just me. The net effect is that it makes it very hard to plan for the future. Overall the biz is flat, however you may have a bang up month and do it all in the last week of the month. It's not an even nice flow anymore.

[rinselberg]

Geroge Bush ...Lets our soldiers in Iraq be tried under the world court

Really? Doesn't sound very W-like to me. But I don't stay on top of all the political developments as closely as so many of our other posters. Is this a change that was made recently to conform with the handover of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government? The U.S. may have to move closer to the international community on other similar issues in the effort to bring more partners into the Coalition. Like allowing soldiers from certain countries to serve in Iraq under U.N. instead of U.S. command.

[mrba]

The U.S. may have to move closer to the international community on other similar issues in the effort to bring more partners into the Coalition.

I'm sorry, but those US soldiers are our citizens that deserve to be tried under our laws. Don't you think thats the least we could afford them given their service to our country (or attempted service)?

If I knew I would be subject to a world court in the US military, that would trump it for me. Can you imagine being tried in a court with laws that are totally alien to anything you have ever been exposed to?

To sacrifice a soldier's rights in the name of being friends with someother country is just wrong.

[Spexvet]

Rinselberg,

Today, you say:

Really? Doesn't sound very W-like to me. But I don't stay on top of all the political developments as closely as so many of our other posters. Is this a change that was made recently to conform with the handover of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government? The U.S. may have to move closer to the international community on other similar issues in the effort to bring more partners into the Coalition. Like allowing soldiers from certain countries to serve in Iraq under U.N. instead of U.S. command.

So, alienating the international community was damaging to us, after all?

In another thread, you said:

"Our DoD mission in Iraq is definitely in our own self-interest, but a secondary objective is to protect the common people of Iraq from your esteemed United Nations. There would be a great deal of additional suffering in Iraq's future if we were to have simply left the people of Iraq "on hold" until we reform the UN into something less criminal. From what I have seen of the UN in my own lifetime and the occasional reports that have bubbled up recently in the mainstream media, I would guess that if a more complete accounting ever comes out publicly, it will not be good.

Since I already accept the validity of our DoD mission without further justification, I am not going to search for the reports that I remember hearing recently: I will just wait on it.

One of the reasons I like "W" is that he did not jeopardize our national interests for the sake of more pointless charades at the United Nations"

I'm glad you see that it may be our best interest to work with the rest of the world, rather than acting unilaterally.

[Steve Machol]

Geroge Bush:

Lets our soldiers in Iraq be tried under the world court

With all due respect, I don't believe that Bush ever condoned such a thing. Where did you get this information from?

[rinselberg]

Hello Spexvet. There is no advantage for the U.S. in alienating (some) of the international community when there is no overriding reason for the U.S. to do that. But national security always trumps every other consideration. My point is that the DoD missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical to our national security. The U.S. may need to cooperate with the U.N. on certain issues (like a U.N. military command element in Iraq) and oppose the U.N. on other issues. I do not see any internal conflict or contradiction between any of my recent posts.

[shanbaum]

My point is that the DoD missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are critical to our national security. The U.S. may need to cooperate with the U.N. on certain issues (like a U.N. military command element in Iraq) and oppose the U.N. on other issues. I do not see any internal conflict or contradiction between any of my recent posts.

On the one hand, you assert that because the U.S. mission in Iraq is "critical to our national security", we should feel free to ignore the U.N., but at the same time, we might need them for "a U.N. military command element in Iraq," for reasons so obvious you do not enumerate them.

It's a grand thing, isn't it, that the other nations of the world are so accommodating; we can ignore them when we see fit, and call on them when we think it appropriate.

All without fear of "internal conflict" or "contradiction".

We are really something!

[rinselberg]

The U.S., according to French president Jacques "Iraq", is a HYPER-POWER. One up on a mere Super Power. That's the reality of our times. I advocate what the Germans were recently calling Real Politik. (If my memory serves me.)

[shanbaum]

The U.S., according to French president Jacque "Iraq", is a HYPER-POWER.

Well, that makes it all OK, then.

[shanbaum]

I advocate what the Germans were recently calling Real Politik.

Well, Realpolitik is German for "the politics of reality", which was most famously applied in recent times to Henry Kissinger back when he was Nixon's Secretary of State (which is "recent" when you're me).

Realpolitik describes an approach to politics that is primarily practical, as opposed to ideological, with a dash of cynicism thrown in. Kissinger, for example, advocated the pursuit of more normal relations with China, despite the fact that a rapprochement with the Red Chinese was viewed as criminal by the ideological right; the idea was to drive a wedge between the two major Communist powers. Constrast this with Carter, who insisted on linking foreign relations to the (ideological) goal of improving human rights (except for Iranians, who didn't count, for reasons that might be Realpolitik).

It's hard for me to see how our invasion of Iraq was Realpolitik. There was nothing practical, (nor pointful, as it turns out), in the invasion of Iraq; neither the suggestion (after the fact) that it was done for humanitarian reasons, nor the idea that it will become a beacon of liberty and lead to a transformation of the entire region, may be described as particularly "practical", or non-ideological, notions. I suppose one might argue that the original rationale - the invasion as a response to the threat of immanent harm - was a "practical" response, shorn of any high-falutin' ideological fluff about maintaining respect amongst our fellow Earthlings, etc. Of course, to be truly practical, one must consider the full array of possible ramifications of one's acts. The simplest or most direct move may not be the most practical, and almost certainly won't be realpolitikische, which requires a degree of slyness.

For instance, manipulating Saddam (as opposed to just removing him) - using him to maintain order in the area, while getting him to work against our common enemy (al-Qaeda), without regard for his people - now, that would have been Realpolitik - which wouldn't have been so different from getting into bed with the Saudis, and the Pakistanis, as we have done, which is definitely realpolitikische, a least, a little.

'Course, that's reminiscent of what we did in the late 80's, helping both sides in the Iran/Iraq war. That was Realpoltik - would you say that worked out well for us in the long term?

I wonder - showing a modicum of respect to other countries might have some practical application, don't you think? Why, there might be circumstances under which doing so might augment our security... how sly would that be?

[rinselberg]

Hello Shanbaum & co. I am not going to try to respond to your (Shanbaum) entire post (immediately above), but I will respond to part of it. I am certainly no scholar of the Middle East or of U.S. foreign policy. Aside from an occasional glance at the San Francisco Chronicle (major newspaper), I get most of my news and opinions from the cable TV channel MSNBC. Not as radically anti-American as CNN; not as single mindedly red, white and blue as FOX. I think that MSNBC is fairly representative of the entire spectrum of the major media outlets in the U.S. I try to refine the opinions that I take in with my own analyses. If nothing else, I hope to improve the general political conversation that goes on every day on OptiBoard. I have seen so many posts recently that start with an idea that would make some sense, if put forward with some consideration (moderation). But these posts go all the way out to the limit and beyond. They are over the top. Or over the edge. I am not referring specifically to your post (above), but I think that your post is somewhat off the mark.

The Bush presidency improved in my estimation after the nine-eleven attack. (An aside: Michael Moore depicted W as going on vacation AFTER nine-eleven, but that was a misconception. W was on vacation from Day One UNTIL nine-eleven.) I would say that the Bush administration has arrived at a pragmatic foreign policy that could be described as realpolitik-lite. Not as callously cynical as your description of realpolitik and not so impractical, naive and even utopian as to consider subordinating our most important national and economic security policies to the prevailing sentiment of the UN Security Council or UN General Assembly. (I am bringing up the UN because that is the way that I interpret your comment "a modicum of respect to other countries.") It is one thing to consider the direction in which a UN vote is moving and whether to line up with the UN vote or try to change it; another thing entirely (and totally indefensible) to subordinate our most basic national security policies to any UN vote or concensus. I think that Senator Kerry's views on this are not very different from W. I cannot imagine Senator Kerry saying that we are going to go all the way down the line with the prevailing views at the UN on our entire national security program.

As to how our policy during the Iran/Iraq war has worked out in the long run: Without going into detail about my views on exactly what our policy was, I would say it has worked out "at least some good" in the long run. Saddam Hussein is gone. Iraq is moving on a course (a troubled course, but a course nonetheless) towards a government that will be at least measureably more to our liking. Iran is still problematic, but not out of control. As I said in one of my recent posts, Iran is cooperating openly with the interim Iraqi government on mutual security issues. (Or at least, so reported the San Francisco Chronicle a few weeks ago.) The probability of another big war between Iran and Iraq in the foreseeable future is (IMO) just about zero. The probability of a major military conflict between the U.S. and Iran is also (IMO) very low. I have been minding the reports about Iran's nuclear program and the links that Iran most certainly has to AlQaeda and the nine-eleven attack, but I really doubt that you will see us going into Iran with military force. I don't think the leadership in Iran is as single mindedly self-destructive as was Saddam Hussein.

I may expand on my views even more in the coming days, but this is all that I have time for at the moment. A good day to all. Thanks for reading me.

[mrba]

Of course, to be truly practical, one must consider the full array of possible ramifications of one's acts.

Not by your original definition of Realpolitik.... And how does one consider all of the ramifications all of the time?

I wonder - showing a modicum of respect to other countries might have some practical application, don't you think? Why, there might be circumstances under which doing so might augment our security... how sly would that be?

There is a difference between showing respect and kissing butuski for no apparent reason other than to force us to be the world charity, which may feel good, until you have to keep your own roof from leaking.

[mrba]

I have seen so many posts recently that start with an idea that would make some sense, if put forward with some consideration (moderation).

My M.D. (Dr. Payne) told me once, anything worth doing is worth doing in excess. I'll take the 2 years of refills!

[rinselberg]

This is the first war of the 21st century.

George W. Bush, shortly after the nine-eleven attack.

[rinselberg]

It's hard for me to see how our invasion of Iraq was Realpolitik. There was nothing practical, (nor pointful, as it turns out), in the invasion of Iraq; neither the suggestion (after the fact) that it was done for humanitarian reasons, nor the idea that it will become a beacon of liberty and lead to a transformation of the entire region, may be described as particularly "practical", or non-ideological, notions.

I think we were going to have to go into Iraq sooner or later to head off some very dangerous chaos (worse than anything we have seen over there to date) and I think it would have become even more costly for us overall if we had delayed instead of acting when we did. Just IMO of course. But I think that you are getting off track when you criticize "the idea that [Iraq] will become a beacon of liberty and lead to a transformation of the entire region." That is just W-speak for an Iraq that will mind more of its own business, export oil in general accord with the rest of OPEC, try to give all of its citizens something more to look forward to in their time on earth than becoming AlQaeda martyrs and not try to brew up extra trouble for us - U.S. Uncle Sam. If it turns out to be notably democratic, well all the better! Saddam had some of the drill down pat (exporting oil) but he did not fill the whole bill. As for "transforming the entire region": When our U.S. policy achieves its objectives -- and they could be almost any objectives we choose -- it automatically knocks AlQaeda down a notch. Because they could not stop us. A mild mannered government in Iraq will also encourage Syria and Iran to become more "tractable". And if we get governments that we like going in both Iraq AND Afghanistan, Iran should become even more "tractable". Iran will be right in the middle.

For instance, manipulating Saddam (as opposed to just removing him) - using him to maintain order in the area, while getting him to work against our common enemy (al-Qaeda), without regard for his people - now, that would have been Realpolitik ...

Great theory. But how could we possibly manipulate Saddam? Back in 1991 he did not seem to be very impressed when "George the First" said "Back out of Kuwait or I will blow your stupid head off." I don't think anything we ever did made much of an impression on him; not the No-Fly Zones, not the economic sanctions, not the times that Clinton launched cruise missiles at him or the time that Clinton bombed him for a couple of days. I think he was just living more and more in his own head as time went by. Manipulate (or more likely, recruit) Saddam Junior? (Qusay Hussein, the heir apparent.) I would guess the CIA considered it but did not find it workable.

I wonder - showing a modicum of respect to other countries might have some practical application, don't you think? Why, there might be circumstances under which doing so might augment our security... how sly would that be?

I agree that there might be circumstances. But Iraq not such a circumstance. So you are saying that W did not decide to subordinate our national security to the vote of the UN Security Council. It will probably take a long time (if ever) before future historians sort out whether W was "right" or "wrong" about Iraq Vs. U.S. national security. But it was going to be W's call, not the UN Security Council's call. It's the only way to run a HYPERPOWER.

[rinselberg]

This may sound a little "fat headed", but if anyone really liked any of my posts, you may find it agreeable to go back and review them. I often go back and edit my posts to add new content, clarify a point -- anything that I think would be an improvement. For the other 99.9 percent (100 percent?), well, like I said: This may sound a little ...

Fewer but better posts.

[shanbaum]

But I think that you are getting off track when you criticize "the idea that [Iraq] will become a beacon of liberty and lead to a transformation of the entire region." That is just W-speak...

If you want to believe that W doesn't mean what he says, well, I suppose that's understandable, since so much of what he says is gibberish. Given that he has repeated this "vision" so many times, I choose to believe he really means it - and I haven't seen so much as a single rational explanation of why we shouldn't believe that he really means it - your personal vision notwithstanding. Yours is a nice enough vision, but why should I think that that's what W really thinks (as opposed to what he acutally says, over, and over, and over again)?

When our U.S. policy achieves its objectives -- and they could be almost any objectives we choose -- it automatically knocks AlQaeda down a notch.

I see - so, our objectives (say, removing Saddam Hussein) can't possibly coincide with their objectives (for instance, getting the U.S. to invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab country, confirming a significant component of their message, and consequently, enhancing their appeal to their targeted audience).

I think we were going to have to go into Iraq sooner or later to head off some very dangerous chaos (worse than anything we have seen over there to date) and I think it would have become even more costly for us overall if we had delayed instead of acting when we did.

Really - why? What, exactly, was the rush? What was so pressing in early 2003, that it couldn't have waited long enough to continue to try to convince the recalcitrants at the U.N. to participate? That clearly could have made a difference in the war's aftermath - even W is now saying that the internationalization of the effort is important. There is a fundamental difference between the U.S., and the U.N., invading and occupying this or any other country: the perception of legitimacy.

Or, for that matter, what was so important that we had to leave off finishing the job we started in Afghanistan, which by all accounts has been reduced to anarchy outside of Greater Kabul?

Oh, wait - now I remember.

Fact is, I always thought that leaving Saddam in power after the Gulf War was a mistake, although the catastrophe that the occupation has been has certainly made me wonder if George I wasn't more clever than he sounded (actually, I always believed that). Richard Clarke had the best analysis I've seen - the mistake in the earlier war was leaving the Republican Guard intact. Without it, Saddam would have been toasted by his own (he asserts). Of course, the outcome might have been every bit as chaotic as what we see now, but it would have been their chaos.

And, while you're explaining why we had to invade Iraq - what was so unique about Iraq? We defeated the Soviet Union, no? With hardly a shot fired? Granted, it took a while. Granted, liberation (as opposed to containment) would have been unimaginably costly by any measures. Is that the difference? We were right to use our heads to defeat the Soviets, but should invade Iraq, because we can?

Great theory. But how could we possibly manipulate Saddam?

Uh... sorry if it wasn't absolutely clear, but I was writing about Realpolitik, since you had used the term in a fashion I thought questionable. I wasn't recommending "manipulating Saddam", etc.; I was offering an example of a course of action that could be characterized as Realpolitik, as opposed to what was done.

It's the only way to run a HYPERPOWER.

Of course it's not; given the singular status of the U.S. here on Earth, if there's anything that is particularly called for in the exercise of power, it's prudence, judgment, and forbearance. Whatever we do is likely to be perceived as arrogant, belligerent, and unjust, simply because the rest of the world can't do some of the things we can do. For that matter, I think that recent events should give everyone pause as to exactly what our capabilities are. We clearly don't know beans about occupation, not to mention (dare I use the term?) nation-building; and while Don Rumsfeld is calling the shots, there's always the danger that we'll under-resource any military effort to the point that we'll lose.

It is hard for me to believe that there are so many people who think that it's a really good idea for us to be dismissive of the opinions of the rest of humanity. Yeah, that's the way to improve the planet.