Lunatic Goofballs
13-10-2004, 04:31
Want to know the biggest difference between Bush's security plan and Kerry's?
Bush wants to fight a War on Terrorists.
Kerry wants to fight a War on Terrorism.
Are either or them right, or are each of them missing a piece of the puzzle?
What was Iraq really? A diversion? If you think of Bush as the strategic mastermind his is, *choke laugh wheeze*, then maybe. But He isn't the one doing the deep thinking here. THe deep thinking is this: How do you fight a scattered group of fanatics with no common homeland? What do you do when they are scattered through a dozen or more countries, some of which are your allies and/or provide you with too much oil to send in the marines to?
Simple: You get them to come to your army. You attack Iraq, eliminate the corrupt leader there(who is respected by terrorists because they saw him as a thorn in America's side) and you let the terrorists 'sneak' into Iraq to conduct a geurilla war against your soldiers. In Iraq. Instead of New York City.
Practical? Getting the terrorists to come to the battlefield of your choice? Definitely. Very brutally pragmatic. Clever. Pity if you're an Iraqi though, huh?
It's a clever plan with one flaw: Terrorists are breeding faster than ever. We are as a nation generating more than we are eliminating. Sooner or later, they will realize that bombing soldiers and iraqis isn't as much fun as bombing schools and skyscrapers and we'll be right back to square 1. Worse, we'll be even further behind. We're shoveling shit against the tide.
Well, two flaws. It's the most cold-hearted thing we can do to people like the Iraqis who have suffered enough in the last couple decades.
Where does Kerry's plan fit in? Kerry has a plan for fighting a War on Terrorism. A war that has to be fought not just with intel and surgical strikes, but with diplomacy and international public opinion. Perhaps Kerry's plan seems wishy-washy. But it's probably equally clever. The best people to fight terrorists are the people they hide behind. If we diplomatically paint them as the radicals they are, and they blow up a few dozen bystanders to get a couple americans, these terrorists might just find themselves surrounded by people who are suddenly very angry at them! Eliminate the climate that breeds and harbors terrorists and the terrorists will die out. Best of all, we won't be seen by the world as the merciless wounded beast we are right now.
It's a pity we can't combine these strategies. We don't need Bush or Kerry. We need a hybrid. Elect Berry. :)
Bush wants to fight a War on Terrorists.
Kerry wants to fight a War on Terrorism.
Are either or them right, or are each of them missing a piece of the puzzle?
What was Iraq really? A diversion? If you think of Bush as the strategic mastermind his is, *choke laugh wheeze*, then maybe. But He isn't the one doing the deep thinking here. THe deep thinking is this: How do you fight a scattered group of fanatics with no common homeland? What do you do when they are scattered through a dozen or more countries, some of which are your allies and/or provide you with too much oil to send in the marines to?
Simple: You get them to come to your army. You attack Iraq, eliminate the corrupt leader there(who is respected by terrorists because they saw him as a thorn in America's side) and you let the terrorists 'sneak' into Iraq to conduct a geurilla war against your soldiers. In Iraq. Instead of New York City.
Practical? Getting the terrorists to come to the battlefield of your choice? Definitely. Very brutally pragmatic. Clever. Pity if you're an Iraqi though, huh?
It's a clever plan with one flaw: Terrorists are breeding faster than ever. We are as a nation generating more than we are eliminating. Sooner or later, they will realize that bombing soldiers and iraqis isn't as much fun as bombing schools and skyscrapers and we'll be right back to square 1. Worse, we'll be even further behind. We're shoveling shit against the tide.
Well, two flaws. It's the most cold-hearted thing we can do to people like the Iraqis who have suffered enough in the last couple decades.
Where does Kerry's plan fit in? Kerry has a plan for fighting a War on Terrorism. A war that has to be fought not just with intel and surgical strikes, but with diplomacy and international public opinion. Perhaps Kerry's plan seems wishy-washy. But it's probably equally clever. The best people to fight terrorists are the people they hide behind. If we diplomatically paint them as the radicals they are, and they blow up a few dozen bystanders to get a couple americans, these terrorists might just find themselves surrounded by people who are suddenly very angry at them! Eliminate the climate that breeds and harbors terrorists and the terrorists will die out. Best of all, we won't be seen by the world as the merciless wounded beast we are right now.
It's a pity we can't combine these strategies. We don't need Bush or Kerry. We need a hybrid. Elect Berry. :)