US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

The less informed (EDIT: and, apparently, Aldeth ), which sadly includes our sitting president would say that they hate our freedom. A more intellectually honest approach would acknowledge the fact that most Arabs really couldn't give a damn whether or not we choose to hold free elections and allow free practice of religion within our borders an ocean and 10,000 kilometers away. No, they don't hate our freedom. Our freedom has no effect on them. What they hate is our foreign policy.

 

Drew, few foreign policy agreements will convince people to kill themselves. The masses hate us because they think we are the Devil, because they are told we are the Devil by their leaders. The leaders have hated us for a long, long time, some for messing in their business, yes, but more for leaving them on their own when we were done messing in their business. I don't think even Bin Ladin begrudges the US for training him and his people to really drive out the Russians, or for equipping them, or for organizing them, or any of that stuff. I think what he really hates us for is for then not training them to build water purification plants and better irrigation systems, for not providing them with better medical facilities and manufacturing plants.

 

Where did you get that idea? I know recent history (i.e., both Iraq wars and the war on terrorism) occurred during a republican presidency -- Desert Storm and the war on terrorism would have happened no matter which party had the White House. President Clinton ordered missile strikes and President Carter authorized significant force to be used against Iran. The US entered both the Korean War and Vietnam War under democrat presidents. The US entered WWI and WWII under democrat presidents as well but party did not matter as much as circumstance in those wars.

Have you ever read "The Ugly American"? It is very eye opening into the basics of understanding the different cultures and the ignorance many Americans have. It should be required reading in American schools.

 

Yes, but they think you are the Devil because of your foreign policy. They hate you (ie. the U.S.) because you want to force your ideas of how a country should operate down everyone else's throats, and they hate you because you don't understarnd why they don't jump at the opportunity to be just like you. Basically, they hate you because they see you as a threat to their way of life.

Edit: I've never read "The Ugly American", but my understanding is that it basically says the same thing as I've said above.

 

True, but with only 50,000 more words.

 

It's also important to note that - especially in the case of Islamic Jihadists and the like - one of the big kickers is the fact that we have military bases in their holy land. This is a VERY big deal to them, far moreso than the problems they have with our culture. There are European countries who's way of life they would find more objectionable than the American way, but we're the only ones who exert so much of our influence and brute might in the only part of the world they consider sacred. They see our business dealings in the area (specifically: our oil relationships) as the major aggravative force of this problem.

It's hard to blame them, really. Would we accept the same from them?

 

What Splunge said, more or less. The leaders of Arab nations don't give one whit about how we choose to govern ourselves, therefore they do not hate us for our freedom. They hate us not for what we choose to do (or not do) to ourselves, but for what we do to them.

 

The Taliban have essentially invaded Pakistan. It seems an odd thing to me that Pakistan doesn't want our help in throwing them back out, until you consider what that might mean for them. The idea of American bases in Pakistan, I'm sure that's what GWB would want, would be a tipping point for many Pakistanis:

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/30/1469342.aspx

 

I would like nothing better than for Osama Bin Laden to be caught and executed for his crimes.

That said, to enter (with a military force) a foreign country without consulting the government of that country is, IMHO, an act of war. Let's use the "turnabout is fair play" model of reasoning:

A vicious criminal with US citizenship (born and bred in Wichita) named, (hmm, I'll call him OJS just to be a jerk) goes to Pakistan. While there, he blows up a government building and kills 70 people. He then returns to the US. The Americans make a half hearted attempt to find him, but many Americans are somewhat sympathetic to the guy and so little to any progress is made.

A Pakistani admiral gets word that OJS is hiding in a small town in Texas. From an aircraft carrier* he orders in a group of fighter-bombers to go and take out the town. They fly right into American airspace without so much as a by your leave and level the town, killing OJS.

How do the Americans respond? I don't even need to continue, do I?

*Yes, I know that the Pakistani's don't have any aircraft carriers off the US coast. Nevertheless, I think I made my point. I don't agree with Pakistan sheltering Taliban insurgents, but I hardly blame them for getting upset when the US bulldozes in with a "might makes right" policy that they would never for one picosecond tolerate being used against them.

 

The only thing I disagree with about your scenario, is that OBL is probably not hiding out in a small Afghani town. He's likely in the badlands, in the mountainous areas of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and none of the US actions to this point suggested they brought in B52s and leveled towns. So while I agree in priniciple to what you are saying, these strikes seem to involve little to no loss of innocent lives.

 

@T2 which is why I said slightly and mostly in recent years the Dems seems to be a little less trigger happy than the Republicans but historically speaking there is very little difference and you might easily argue that the Dems have been more trigger happy.

 

OK, lets change the scenario to the Badlands of New Mexico or some remote, uninhabited little spot on the coast of Alaska. ANY military incursion into the sovereign land of the US, for ANY reason, would be met with howls of indignation and very likely military action.

 

joacqin: I can see where most people would feel that way -- and I believe it true of Bush (but then I have often referred to Iraq as his own personal vendetta). There is always the inference that wanting a strong military means wanting to use the military. It is interesting, one of the first lessons I was taught in boot camp was 'when the first shot is fired, the military has failed in its primary mission.' The primary mission of the military is to deter aggression, not seek it out.

LDK: For that matter, a death squad hunting down some members of our military (or Blackwater) who have gotten away with rape or murder on technicalities. I think the US would not respond kindly.

 

This is turning interesting, but it feels like we're drifting OT a little...been a while since a post here mentioned McCain or Obama, no?

 

David Brooks on Palin and Obama - surprising praise for Obama from a conservative.

Well not quite. The Taliban are predominantly Pashtun. The US-Pakistani assault on the Taliban or, as one frequently reads, Taliban-types (note the subtle shift - if they aren't Taliban but Taliban-types, who exactly are they?) is in fact directed against the Pashtun tribes. The Pashtuns however, have lived in the tribal areas of Pakistan and in Afghanistan - on both sides of that arbitrary Durand line between then British and Russian spheres of influence - for two millennia or longer. One does not 'invade' the own homeland when criss-crossing it.

 

Ragusa - I think I'm hearing something different in the link I posted. It could be that the journalist is an alarmist regarding the Taliban in Pakistan, but he has some first-hand experience in the country:

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.mccain10oct10,0,7557571.story

About time someone said it.

 

So by telling the truth he is unleashing the monster of hatred & prejudice? Please

 

Martaug, of course. Don't you know that truth isn't allowed in politics? Certainly not coming from a Republican presidential candidate.

 

Are calling Obama a terrorist? That's the "truth" to you? If you believe that Obama is a "terrorsit" - and he should be "killed," then you would not KNOW the truth if it fell from the ceiling and landed on top of you. If you believe that - and you certainly may not, but your rhetoric reflects that notion - then in that case, I guess you should know a "terrorist" when you see one....