Political Differences

[SuperScout]

[The following is actual wording from the most recent issue of the VFW magazine, Oct. 2004, p. 10, regarding political party platforms.]

ISSUE:
Terrorism - Republican Party: Formulate a comprehensive strategy; consolidate gains; and halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Terrorism - Democrat Party: Enlist international cooperation; conduct public diplomacy; improve education; and extend hope.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I can certainly find fault with the 'formulate a comprehensive strategy' portion of the Republican plank as being
a bit late, or maybe simply restating the obvious, I am totally bewildered by the Democrat's wording as living in Never-Never Land. Haven't we already enlisted international cooperation, with the exception of the French, Germans and Russians, who by any standard of honesty, have sold us out in Iraq? With whom are we to conduct public diplomacy, that hasn't been done already? How does public diplomacy enhance the battle against the terrorists, by letting them see what we're planning? Improve education? For whom and why? To inform the terrorists that we are really peace loving people, and that they should leave us alone? Yessirbuddy, that tactic really works well in Israel, and every other place where appeasement has been tried! And finally, the real "touchy/feely" one I like: extend hope! Now, there's a genuine winning formula for success in combating the most severe form of evil to make it's ugly presence known in 50 years, just extend hope. God help us.

[SuperScout]

ISSUE:
Iraq War - Republican Party: The US must persevere in our mission there - not cut and run but finish the task. This message must be sent loud and clear, especially to the troops in the field. Sustain a consistent and unambiguous policy to assure Iraq's sovereignty.

Iraq War - Democrat Party: Internationalize efforts both politically and militarily; engage the world's major political powers in this mission; create an international high commissioner; and provide a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those of us of the Vietnam war generation, how we could have benefited by a consistent message, an unambiguous policy! It's a wonder we did as well as we did, considering the lack of focus, the ambiguity spawned by the liberals and leftists (am I being redundant here?). Now let's dissect the Democrat's milk-toast words:

Internationalize efforts? Are 30+ countries not international enough for you, or do you want to include the French, Germans and Russians, who were screwing us behind our backs with arms sales, and other transactions prohibited by the UN sanctions? And in case nobody has told Teddy Jane Kerry, the French have already stated that they're not sending any troops there period, irrespective of the groveling and suck-up that Kerry does, or has Monica do in his place.

And how to the Demos propose to 'engage the world's major political powers'? Didn't the world's major political powers have ample opportunity to engage in any process for the 10+ years of UN inaction, prior to our invasion? And what's holding them back now? Probably fear of exposure of being criminally involved in the Food for Oil scandal that has corrupted the UN beyond redemption.

Create in international high commissioner? To do what? If the Iraqis don't like us being there as temporary forces, why would they fall all over themselves to embrace an international high commissioner? And what's wrong with sovereignty, where the Iraqis govern themselves?

And finally, somebody get word over to those bozos at the DNC, and let them know that a massive training effort IS underway, and has been underway, for months. Psst: and a little hint here: NATO is also involved, you know, that international thingie you've been whining about?

[reconeil]

Unfortunately Sir, you just make to-damn-much-sense,...and The Dem/Lib/Socialists/Leftist Party and their greatly supportive and greatly validating Press/Media WILL HAVE NONE OF THAT.
Just to-damn-counterproductive,...FOR THEM.

Neil

[SuperScout]

You're too kind, and I'm too modest!! All I did was copy, verbatim, (that's word-for-word for you little liberals) the respective party positions as printed in the VFW magazine. Naturally, I claim ownership to the brilliant commentary written below the respective positions.

While I can understand the vast differences between the parties on these very critical issues, such as terrorism and the war in Iraq, the silence of response from the resident little liberals is also understandable, as they can't answer for their party without exposing themselves as handmaidens of the corrupt.

Stayed tuned for Part 3!!

[Seascamp]

Let?s see, this seems to be like the Liberal?s program running after the US pulled out of Vietnam. Consult ?International Powers? meant do exactly as the Soviet Bear/Moscow said, give them major oil concessions in Vietnam, a fully modern Naval base at Cam Rhan Bay plus unfettered access to anything their hearts desired, no matter what. "Public diplomicy", huh, this was the spitting contest, eh.
?Education? meant the black abyss reeducation/forced labor camps where many went but few ever left. ?Give hope? meant buy, beg, borrow, or steal passage on the next boat out of Vietnam and cast your fates to the winds, a reasonably solid hull and those who would help. Now where did I go wrong on this? Surely it can?t be all that simple, or can it?

Scamp

[SuperScout]

Once again, we are dazzled by your brilliant and historical viewpoint, showing the mirror image of how the Vietnamese were sold out, and how the liberals are planning to play that role in a deja vu moment in Iraq, should they get a chance. If they weren't so patently transparent and phony, it might be laughable, but since we are dealing with millions of human beings, the humor is lost amidst the potential suffering.

[Seascamp]

Moving on, memories must be short or conveniently inaccurate; now Scampishly dubbed PC as in ?politically convenient? amnesia. Must we be reminded that the US became the UN step n? fetch it-whipping boy in the aftermath of Vietnam? Every tin pot dictator looking for a big gob of corruption loot was smacking the US in the nuts, big time, and putting a high vacuum lip-lock on the Red Bear?s butt. The Red Star was in ascendancy and even hapless and hopeless Cuba was sending ?Liberation? forces to places like Angola wherein the South African forces served them their heads on a platter, but that?s another saga.
Then alas, the Bear gets their scrotums totally wrapped up in the Afghanistan belt sander and all the while the UN communicates via farting and tap dancing the Bear beat, and melody, but not lyrics. Contemporary ersatz wisdom says we should embrace the UN. Well, maybe some of it, maybe, but hopefully not any of those totally corrupt, money grubbing manifestations of weaker times.

Scamp

[SuperScout]

ISSUE
Afghanistan war - Republican Party: Ensure elections this year and stand with the Afghan people in their quest for peace, prosperity, stability and democracy. Pursue the war against al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden.

Afghanistan war - Democrat Party: Expand NATO forces outside of Kabul; accelerate training for the Afghan amry and police; and attack the exploding opium trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glaring in its absence in the Demo's plank is any mention of al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden, or even working to make Afghanistan a better place for its people. By implicit action, pursuing the al Qaeda terrorists aggressively will reduce if not wipe out the opium fields, since this area is also a stronghold of al Qaeda, for the time being. There is also a quiet program to be set in motion once the opium fields are eliminated; alternative crops will be introduced, supplementing the income formerly derived from the white dope.

[Seascamp]

Following which way the Afghanistan poppy tar ball bounces, we find that France is the A number one, big time processor of Afghanistan opium into derivative products such as heroin. Fat chance Kerry?s best pal ever, Jacques ( I calls him Jaques Mehoff), will stand still for an all out offensive against the Afghanistan poppy fields, so what we have is another nice sounding smoke screen, and not much more. Tough situation for sure and the best way in the world to get the Afghanistan Warlords howling down on Kabul with AK?s and RPG?s a blazing is to screw with the poppy tar crop. Being that these Warlords are every bit as well armed and every bit as nasty as Osama, I see them tolerating Al Qaeda in the neighborhood but not to the point of getting their poppy fields targeted for obliteration. In observing how the money flows, it?s obvious that the Warlords have a vested interest in a continuing stream of renewable live western customers with money, whereas Osama has a vested interest in killing all the Warlord?s customers. Not exactly compatable motives, but more like strange bedfellows for the moment. There are no good answers to this situation at this time beyond a status quo scenario, unfortunately, but that?s reality. During the VN War and in the subsequent SEA Communist land grab, I don?t think the poppy tar ball crop coming out of the ?Golden Triangle? slowed down much at all and the Afghanistan crop seems to have a similar status quo arrangement. Maybe it?s akin to how many wars can be fought at the same time type of question.

But TJ seems to have all the Afghanistan answers, eh, and now he?s the one calling anyone who doesn?t? vote for him insane? Otay now, where is that candy striper with the nice cocktail syringe full of nice French stuff? I seem to have been declared insane by the highest aspirants of the land now.

Scamp