national defense with Bush or Kerry

Originally Posted by davidmc

homeland defense will be just as good, if not better; w/ Kerry as it would be (is currently) w/ Bush. If Kerry wins the election, the Defense dept, Police forces, Intelligence services, ect... aren't just going to "drop thier guard". It'll be just the same as before. These are independent organizations who have a duty to fulfill irrespective of whether a president has a[n] "(R)" or a "(D)" after thier name. Case in point, I'm an american first & a progressive second.
My duty is to america first & my political leanings afterward because w/o america; my politacal beliefs don't matter.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

If this statement is true, why should I vote for Kerry?

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

If this statement is true, why should I vote for Kerry?

Originally Posted by lokstah

Fair question, I suppose.

I suppose if David's claim is true, and you're not particularly disappointed with Bush's brand of foreign policy, his handling of Iraq and his follow-through with Afghanistan, his economic policy, his social philosophy and his approach to environmental issues -- then there's no reason for you to select Kerry.

The average Kerry voter likely both subscribes to David's assesment, and feels that Bush is far enough off the mark on some or all of those areas to warrant a leadership change. I could never feel comfortable about a President who holds Bush's stance on social issues, for instance.

Many Kerry supporters feel that not only will Kerry be perfectly serious about homeland security, but that his greater inclination towards internationalism will make his global efforts more effective, less alienating. Us non-Bush folk have always feared that approaching the militant Islam problem the wrong way would make things worse.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

This response would be ok, but David wasn't talking about foreign policy, Iraq, philosophy, or economic policy. It was just about homeland defense. What will Kerry do any differently than Bush on homeland defense? Just how would you un-Bush folk approach militant Islam?

Originally Posted by lokstah

Well, I responded the way I did (citing the broad spectrum: economic policy, etc) because of the question you posed to David. Assuming they're both competent in terms of maintaining security, you asked, why vote for one over the other? I paraphrased, so let me know if your intent was different.

I took that as meaning: if both candidates satisfy column A, then what determines your vote? Clearly, the remaining columns do.

Back to the foreign policy question. Well, that's a tough one, because admittedly, no one can forsee exactly how a Kerry administration would handle the next four years as opposed to the current one. I can say that I have very few good feelings about the foreign policy of the past four years. The Iraq invasion, I feel, was ill-timed, ill-planned, and a massive detraction of resources. The battle -- deposing a dangerous human rights violator with anti-American aims and the desire to maintain a weapons arsenal -- may have been won, but I'm not sure how tactically sound a victory this is in the larger war.

I would have liked to see the administration focus more resources on obliterating al Qaeda buildups in South Asia, tracking down and dealing with Bin Laden, and fostering international cooperation with regards to neturalizing the militant Islam tide. Because the threat posed by Hussein was an ambivalent one, I feel the urgency expressed by the Bush administration was unnecessary, and it precluded the priorities I listed above.

I was dissappointed when Bush won the presidency in 2000, but purely outraged when it became clear that his administration had every intention of pursuing the foreign policy they did. It was a personal confirmation that Bush and his advisors saw the world and his role in it in a vastly different manner than I did.

I've got to put faith in the alternative.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

I think MC actually said Kerry would be as good or better than Bush on homeland defense. That is point I'm talking about. Just what is Kerry going to do any differently from Bush? Has Kerry stated anything he will differently on defense?

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

I think MC actually said Kerry would be as good or better than Bush on homeland defense. That is point I'm talking about. Just what is Kerry going to do any differently from Bush? Has Kerry stated anything he will differently on defense?

Originally Posted by lokstah

Well, it's hard to say, beyond what we get from the campaign rhetoric. Kerry has certainly promised a series of reforms, some of which he's offered more detail on, and some of which sounds fairly general.

He's got a fairly specific plan to increase the permanent size of the armed forces, for one. He also claims to be a few steps ahead of Bush on the question of intelligence reform, something he advocated pretty vocally while Bush was slowly mulling it over. He's got a bunch of proposed changes to the Patriot Act, designed to bolster some of the provisions (like those targeting laundering schemes) and revisit more questionable ones that seriously challenge civil liberties.

Are any of these promises clearer or more certain than campaign rhetoric often is? Not necessarily. But to someone looking for an alternative to the Bush administration, they count for something. Ultimately, what I ranted about earlier is an inevitable tie-in: the suggestion that a sound foreign policy, coupled with solid homeland defense, is the best recipe for keeping us safe.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

Foreign policy has been a problem since the cold war ended. Seems as though they didn't know what to do after the cold war. I know why we had the policy we did in the cold war, but its been close to 15 years since...

Originally Posted by lokstah

Clearly, we've still got adversaries, though we've entered a new era, and the paths are complex and unexplored.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

Plans and policies were meant to stop the perceived Soviet(communist) expansion. Many of these were designed to stop the Soviets from achieving dominance in strategically important areas. Examples would be Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Yemen. While some seem to be brutal, they were designed to prevent expansion. Unfortunately, they didn't foresee there ever being an end to the cold war and therefore didn't care about the citizens of these nations. This mentality has been going on since 1945. Both democrats and republicans have carried on this policy. So everyone gets to share in the blame equally.