Political Playground

[ldsrmdude]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I know there is an entire forum for sociopolitical issues, but I am just starting this thread as a continuation of http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=568331 in the hopes that we can keep that thread on the topic of the best president for podiatry specifically.

I see your point. However, I won't type any other way. I'm not dumbing myself down to get a point across; especially when it has been a struggle to actually get my education. Mastery of the language is important to me.

What I meant in my previous post - using fallacies as a counter doesn't make me stop debating. It makes me stop debating with that one person.
I personally believe that that type of argument deserves no retort.

Now your arguments:
During the Cold War, analysts claimed that IF the United States were to pull out of Vietnam, the Domino Effect would occur, and ALL of the surrounding countries would turn red. Laos did turn as did Cambodia, which is not communist anymore. But I argue that they turned as a direct effect of American presence in the region. Pol Pot used scare tactics in his recruitment. The Cambodians listened because we were bombing them and using Agent Orange all over the place. So my point - 😀 The pullout in Vietnam didn't cause the Domino Effect. Americans in the region gave radical leaders opportunity to rally to their cause and implement extremist governments.
The same rhetoric is being used as a reason to stay in Iraq. Everyone will die in a massive nuclear war.
"The repercussions throughout the Middle East of the Sunni-Shiite clash in Iraq are potentially so large it's difficult to digest. Sunni Arabs in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will certainly view a hard-won and bloody Shiite triumph in Iraq as an enormous Iranian victory. The Egyptians or the Saudis or both will go for their own nukes. What little chance remains for the Americans and the Europeans to corral peacefully the clerical regime's nuclear-weapons aspirations will end with a Shiite-Sunni death struggle in Mesopotamia, which the Shia will inevitably win. The Israelis, who are increasingly likely to strike preemptively the major Iranian nuclear sites before the end of George Bush's presidency, will feel even more threatened, especially when the Iranian regime underscores its struggle against the Zionist enemy as a means of compensating for its support to the bloody Shiite conquest in Iraq. With America in full retreat from Iraq, the clerical regime, which has often viewed terrorism as a tool of statecraft, could well revert to the mentality and tactics that produced the bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996. If the Americans are retreating, hit them." - The Weekly Standardhttp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/147ltxge.asp?pg=2

However, I side with former CIA chief, John Deutch, "The US should cut its losses, pull out of Iraq promptly and never again use its military might to build a nation according to its own values."http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/07/15/afx2140520.html. Granted, the article is 3 years old, but how many lives (soldiers and Iraqi civilians) and how much money has been wasted in that time frame. Too much for me to stomach. Since the time of the article, Iraq has seen it's bloodiest months.
As for Biden's statement - No matter who would have been elected, they would face challenges. Iraq, Darfur, Afghanistan are all international crises that must be handled by our next president. To believe that McCain wouldn't have been "tested," in my opinion is unrealistic. But when pundits pull that one line from two speeches and slap it on a blank background, of course it sounds like Biden doesn't have faith. Because it is no longer in it's original context.

Sorry about the length. I look forward to reading your response.

I don't expect you to change how you type just so that I don't need my thesaurus. If that's how you type, that's how you type. Too often people act like that just to be condescending, and that was what I don't like. If you weren't doing that, then I apologize.

As to the virtues of the Vietnam War, I don't claim to be an expert. I wasn't alive then, and never lived through it. The "scholars" will undoubtedly argue points about what caused what and whether we should have stayed or left. You may indeed be right that our presence there caused more harm than good, I don't know enough to answer that. However, I do see what is going on today. Iraq and Vietnam are two widely different places. As you brought up in your post, there are nuclear weapons in the discussion now. If Iran goes nuclear (which I think they are well on their way), having Iraq as an unstable next-door neighbor as opposed to a strong US ally is a huge difference. I think it's great that Iraq wants us out by 2011. All that says to me is that we have done a good job, and they are feeling strong enough to take over again. Isn't that what we want? If they think they are ready, let's pull out as soon as is possible.

Of course, who ever gets elected President will no doubt face challenges and possibly a crisis very early on. I am just saying that I trust John McCain's judgement on those issues far more than I trust Barack Obama's. I think Obama's judgement is questionable at best, and he has shown it as long as he has been in the politcal spotlight (BTW, he hasn't been there very long). I appreciate your respectful reply to my last post and hope that we can keep this thread going.