I'm a 21 year veteran who's angry, frustrated, and saddened by our current foreign policy. Sure, I've got the pro-Kerry stickers, etc., but it's the valuable lessons my sons (12 & 9) learn from this that can really make the difference. I talk to them most everyday about the what our government is doing and how it affects the world. I try and put it in terms they can understand and that are real to them. Here's just a few of them...Bush take note. 1. Don't be so arrogant as to assume everyone else should think the way you do. 2. Admit when you're wrong and take actions to correct your mistake. 3. Kill them with kindness, if that doesn't work, walk away. 4. Life isn't fair, so don't go through it trying to even the score. 5. People just want to be heard, so take time and listen. Thanks, Chris
Chris, I respect your opinion and have a nine month old son who I hope will see the world in a better place, but how does any of your 5 deal with terrorists and terrorism? They don't play by anyones rules.
I only wish that this would work all the time. If we followed this advise in WWII we would all be speaking German. Unfortunately sometimes you have to fight. The muslim extremists don't want to be heard, they only want to kill americans and our way of life. We can listen to them and try to convince them otherwise but they will never change. In a perfect world your advise is sound.
Hey, Ricky r****do, Sadam was not Hitler. The pitiful third world army of Iraq was not Germany's. What is it about many folks who always want to equate two bit third world despots with Hitler or Stalin? I agree, Hitler, Stalin and Sadam were all bad men, all had armies and ruled countries, but it is silly not to distinguish between the level of threat posed.
The level of the terrorist threat isn't on a lower level than the threat posed by Hitler (esp. the threat posed to America). *That* is what ricky and others are comparing. The problem is that there is one faction that sees Saddam as completely separate from the terrorist threat and there is another faction that sees Saddam as a central component of terrorism. How hard is it to see that? Why do people keep arguing around each other?
I never mentioned anything about Iraq or Sadam. If that was your inference then you did so incorrectly or I failed to clarify my point. I was simply pointing out the flaw in his post. My arguement was that sometimes you have to fight.
We? I hope you mean the rest of the world as well. Absolutely. I ment "we" in the personal sense of the word as an individual, I should have been more clear in my initial reply.
While I agree that sometimes you have to fight, do you think it was neccessary to fight in Iraq and could we have done more to gain international support?
But the point is that WE SHOULD play by those rules, ESPECIALLY since they don't. We are supposed to be the shining beacon of hope, not just as bad as the rest of the world.
So, when dealing with terrorists we should "kill them with kindness"? And if that doesn't work just "walk away"?
No, we should kill the TERRORISTS with covert action rather than invading and occupying countries that are not a threat to us. When dealing with terrorists, we take them out, when dealing with countries, we "kill them with kindness" because that is the only way to win the hearts and minds of the people of those countries.
The Iraq war and it's false pretenses aside.... How would you suggest we "kill Iraq with Kindness?" Would that really work with Saddam or North Korea or the current government in Suddan? Aren't we trying to "kill Iran with Kindness" currently (by offering aid when they had those terrible earthquakes. We also aren't threatening to invade Iran even though there are clear ties to Al Queda.) It doesn't seem to be working. Also, in the news today (North Korea rejects US "sham offer" ) there is a headline that says that North Korea is refusing to de-nuke in exchange for aid. Clearly "killing NKwith kindness" isn't working. Also, why do people complain about Bush when he tries to work things out diplomatically. Isn't that what most of you want?
The policy of containment was working marvelously in Iraq as Zinni so eloquently wrote about in his book (though, to be fair, much of that eloquence came from co-writing with Tom Clancy). We WERE convincing the people of Iraq that they would be better off without Saddam, we had stopped his WMD development cold, and we had stopped him from massacring more Kurds. We were doing the right thing in Iraq until Bush and his cronies decided that containment wasn't good enough and took us into this mess. How do we deal with NK? Contain them. Embargo them. Put international pressure on them. There is not enough of a threat from them to even come close to justifying an invasion. No, it seems that the neo-cons have started talking about invading Iran next, mostly because of the tenuous "ties" to AQ. We have helped them with some humanitarian aid, but we have started rattling our saber at both Iran and Syria, which will not win over the people of these countries, it will create MORE negative sentiment which will lead to more terrorist recruitment. If you were faced with a country that seems willing to invade countries anytime it pleases, would YOU disarm??? That is the thing. He ISN'T trying diplomacy, only more talk of war.
The "policy of containment" was causing a lot of suffering as many children weren't getting the food they were supposed to under the corrupt oil-for-food program. There were a TON of people complaining about the sanctions before the war started. So, if you do economic sanctions people complain and children die. If you go to war people complain and children die. Who says we are going to invade them? Name a quote by Bush that even implies we're going to invade NK. Please show me a Bush or Cheny or Powel or Rice quote that talks about invading ANYONE else. All I've heard is people talking about solving these problems diplomaticallly. I've never heard the administration talk about invading anyone else. And don't say some mysterious "neo-cons" are talking about this or that. That would be the same thing as saying Greenpeace was threatening to blow something up. While Greenpeace may actually be planning an attack, they don't reflect the opinions of the Democratic party.
Hey glynch, Germans never had the sheer numbers that the Arab world has. The miniscule population is exactly that when compared to the potential united Arab front. What it is about so many folks that never look at the big picture and realize that the entire Arab world is known as Muslim, and that we are considered "Christian" and "indfidels?'" I too agree that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam were/are all bad men, all had armies and ruled countries. But it is silly to deny the one phrase taught in Islam that unites them in Jihad, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," and thus leave yourself as the preverbial ostrich with his head in the sand only to one day face a greater terroristic force should you fail to squelch it out in its relative infancy. Hello?
United Arab front? LOL. Most Arab countries hated Saddam Hussein. There was never a danger there. The enemy of my enemy is my friend could be applied to Saddam and Al - Qaeda or the U.S. and Al-Qaeda against Saddam, or the U.S. and Saddam against Al-Qaeda, since they were all enemies. To think that all muslims would unit against all anything shows a lack of understanding of the Arab world, Islam, and Muslims in general. Al-Qaeda and their brand of Wahabiism has killed more Muslims than Christians, and Jews combined, even factoring in the 9/11 tragedy. Moderate Arabs have been speaking aout against that extremist brand of Islam for a long time. It's ridiculous to think they would all of a sudden all join up. However what does push them together more than anything they do on their own, is when people who don't want to understand the complexities lump them all together and take on an antagonistic attitude toward them. When that's the case all the differing groups are being attacked by a single enemy. Jihad in no way unites all Muslims. Jihad has been declared time and time again by various sects of Islam, and the whole Muslim world has not united to fight against every non-muslim. Your post is without fact or knowledge of the subject matter you are talking about.
