[Rhodes22-list] I Wish To Change My Vote

[Roger Pihlaja]

Paul,

I think you are looking for a level of assurance that no mere mortal is
prepared to give.  This is the real world and the answers are not in the
back of the textbook.  I said in my previous post that the outcome in Iraq
is by no means certain.  Frankly, I don't particularly care if we end up
with a single united Iraq, a "loose confederation" of Kurdistan, Sunistan, &
Shiitistan, or three fully independant countries.  As far as the how, we
will have to stick around and help them write a constitution, have
elections, & get their democratic institutions up & running.  Their new
constitutions will have to have the same sort of checks and balances in them
that the US constitution does.   You have to have a little faith in the
universal human need for liberty.

Don't you think that adding another two democracies alongside of Turkey &
Israel will help stabilize the Middle East?  It's sort of a critical mass
issue.

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

----- Original Message -----
From: <pdgrand at nospam.wmis.net>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I Wish To Change My Vote


> Roger,
>
> You mention, "The presence of stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq
> will go a long way towards stabilizing the situation in the Middle East."
> I once read somewhere that the basic foundation of a working democracy is
> the willingness of the defeated party to accept the leadership of the
> winning party.  Theoretically, I love the sound of democracies in the
> middle east.  Realistically, I don't see any hope of the defeated
accepting
> the leadership of the elected winners.  If that happens, you'll never have
> a stable democracy.  Besides, a democracy has been in place in Turkey for
> some time and hasn't done much to stabilize the middle east.
>
> I hope you have a good answer on this because I really hope I'm wrong.
>
> Paul
>
> > Well, after watching the presidential & vice presidential debates, I
wish
> to pull a flip flop & change my vote to Bush/Cheney.  Let me explain my
> thinking.
> >
> > As a draftable male college student in the early 1970's, I watched
> developments in the Vietnam war & the protest movement here at home with
> great interest.  John Kerry's presidential candidacy has made me reexamine
> my own attitudes towards Vietnam.  There were a lot of mistakes made in
the
> way the United States conducted the Vietnam war - presidential
> micromanagement of war strategy at the tactical level, overly restrictive
> rules of engagement, "pin-prick" strikes vs. the use of overwhelming
force,
> allowing the enemy to reoccupy captured territory thus causing multiple
> battles over the same sites, over reliance on airpower in a jungle gorilla
> war, forced adoption of weapons like the M-16 assault rifle that were not
> yet ready for prime time, etc.  The US military shot its credibility in
the
> foot by publishing inflated enemy "body counts" that had no basis in
> reality.  This was also the 1st war that played out on American television
> screens on the news every evening.  The Tet offensive was really the
> turning point.  You really have to give the VC a lot credit for the way
> they pulled off Tet.  Seemingly under our very noses, the VC had
> constructed extensive underground tunnel complexes within striking
distance
> of strategic targets all over South Vietnam.  They had spent years
building
> these tunnel complexes & stocking them with weapons and ammunition.  We
> were completely surprised when the VC seemingly came out of nowhere in a
> massive coordinated assault on something like 23 targets all over South
> Vietnam.  Yet, within a month, we had recaptured all these targets.  We
> took something like 4000 casualties, the largest US body count of any
> battle in the Vietnam war.  But, reliable North Vietnamese casualty data
> indicates we slaughtered them something like 4:1.  Some VC units were
> completely wiped out & were never again an effective fighting force.  The
> Tet offensive was pretty much an all out, one time attempt for North
> Vietnam.  Tactically, the VC got decisively defeated & it set their
ability
> to wage war back by years.  But, by then, the US military had lost nearly
> all of its credibility.  No one believed the US military published body
> counts, or accounts of recaptured cities, and the US casualties were all
> over the nightly news.  The American public was horrified at the carnage
on
> display on their televisions & it changed everything.  Before Tet, most of
> the American public believed the Vietnam war was winnable.  After Tet, the
> antiwar movement grew exponentially, the talk changed to "peace with
honor"
> & getting the troops home.  So, even though the Tet offensive was a
> decisive tactical defeat for North Vietnam, their all or nothing gamble
> paid off and eventually resulted in total victory.
> >
> > The lesson the world took away from Vietnam was the United States is a
> military superpower with no staying power.  We'll spend a fortune on
weapon
> systems and training to enable our military to efficiently kill from a
> distance.  Our military has learned from the mistakes made in Vietnam &
has
> fixed most of them.  We go into a conflict with overwhelming force and
just
> simply roll over our enemy.  But, anyone that can reduce a conflict to a
> bloody, protracted battle of attrition, especially when it is played out
on
> the nightly news, will eventually win over American public opinion &
defeat
> us.
> >
> > So, what kind of a president will John Kerry make?  With Bush, we have 4
> years of actual presidential record to examine.  With Kerry, we must look
> at his life experiences that have prepared him to be president.  As I
> examine John Kerry's resume, I see a rich, privileged kid that went off to
> war in Vietnam in what might be called "patriotic fervor".  In Vietnam, he
> looked the horrible face of war square in the eyes & it scared & sickened
> him.  Kerry's record since Vietnam indicates he has turned into an
> appeaser.  His voting record in the US Senate is especially revealing in
> this regard.  Just like the United State's reputation in the world, Kerry
> makes a lot of blustering tough statements about fighting terrorism &
> finishing what we started in Iraq during the campaign.  But, when the
> rubber hits the road & the body count starts climbing, Kerry wants to
> fold.  After listening to the debates and considering Kerry's record,
there
> is no doubt in my mind; that, if Kerry is elected, the US will make a
> speedy withdrawal from Iraq, no matter the side effects.
> >
> > Some of you may be saying, "So what, we shouldn't have gotten into Iraq
> in the 1st place!"  Well, that depends upon what you believe the war on
> terrorism is.  Is it merely a "law enforcement" issue against groups of
> isolated radical Muslims?  Or, has it become a life & death struggle
> between ideologies?  I would argue it has become the later.  The presence
> of stable democracies in Afganistan and Iraq will go a long way towards
> stabilizing the situation in the Middle East.  Yes, the war is not going
> well at the moment; but, to quit now will only confirm the world's view of
> us.  The damage to our credibility with our allies might be irrepairable.
> The terrorists realize how big a defeat it would be to have stable
> democracies in Afganistan and Iraq.  That's why they are fighting so hard.
> >
> > Originally, I thought a Kerry election would permit other nations to
join
> our coalition in Iraq without losing face.  Since the debate, both France
&
> Germany have been asked that question & both said, "Huh, no way?"  No one
> will follow Kerry's leadership when his conviction regarding the mission
in
> Iraq is so weak.
> >
> > I do not expect the Republicans to lose control of congress in this
> election.  Therefore, Kerry's chances of passing his domestic agenda are
> slim to none.  So, as much as I dislike the Bush administration's domestic
> policies, it is a vain hope to think a Kerry administration would have any
> significant impact.  More likely, nothing would happen.
> >
> > So what is it that I expect or want from a Federal government?  Well, I
> guess 1st & foremost I want the country to be as safe as possible from
> attack.  Terrorists exploding a nuclear weapon or biological weapon in the
> midst of a large city is a truly frightening proposition.  Bush is clearly
> a better choice on this issue.
> >
> > The 2nd thing I want is a stable supply of critical resources.  Keep in
> mind the United States uses about 50 million barrels of crude oil per day
&
> about 50% of that is imported.  This is a staggering amount of crude oil,
a
> number so big it's hard to come to grips with.  Modern civilization has
> become so interconnected that interuption of this resource would be simply
> devastating.  Think about what happened in New York City in July, 2003
> during the power outage.  That was from just one day of power interruption
> to a major metropolitan area!  A few years ago, James Burke did a series
of
> shows that aired on PBS and The Learning Channel.  I think the television
> series was called "Connections" and he also published a companion book
with
> the same title.  In this series, Mr. Burke documents how interconnected &
> intrinsically fragile modern civilization has become.  Basically, our
> civilization has become so specialized and interconnected that we need to
> start thinking of critical resources like crude oil in the same category
as
> air, water, & food.  Those of you that live in big cities, just remember
> your entire lifestyle is enabled by a nearly invisible technological life
> support system that is massively interconnected, intrinsically vulnerable,
> and totally dependant upon a stable global flow of goods and services.
You
> should be very nervous.  At the very least, stop saying things like, "No
> oil for blood!"  Get real people, in modern civilization, oil is blood!
> We're in a global competition for scarce resources.  If we lose this
> competition; then, our population is much too large to be supported
without
> these resources & the consequences will be real bad.  I would argue this
is
> a really good reason to go to war.
> >
> > Although the outcome is by no means certain with Bush's vision for Iraq,
> at least there is a chance of a good outcome with this president.  I see
> little or no chance for a good outcome in Iraq with Kerry.  If we lose the
> country to a terrorist attack or can't get the resources to sustain our
> civilization, the domestic issues have to take a lessor priority.
Besides,
> I don't think Kerry would be able to get his domestic agenda passed anyway
> because of congress.
> >
> > That's why I've changed my mind & I'm voting for Bush/Cheney.
> >
> > Roger Pihlaja
> > S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>