Windows Forum·65,707 discussions

A change in prediction (or should I say support)

Locked

I still predict that Rudy Giuliani will be the Republican Presidential nominee (and I predicted Bill Richardson will be the Democrat — fat chance!), and that he will win the presidency. However, I just wrote Fred Thompson a letter urging him to run. He’s the perfect candidate for the Republicans, and if he does run, I’ll switch my support from Giuliani to Thompson, and will change my prediction to a Thompson win.

Topic

I was with you on Guliani

In reply to A change in prediction (or should I say support)

What is your rationale on a change to Fred Thompson?

A lot of things

In reply to I was with you on Guliani

I think the most important issue facing America today is the war against terrorists. A lot of people disagree, to be sure, but for me, that’s the issue; that’s the ONLY issue. I just don’t want to let-up, and I don’t want to give the impression that America will let-up.

(As a side note, Nancy Pelosi should be indicted for violating The Logan Act. Even if her actions aren’t illegal, they’re absolutely despicable.

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908 )

I still like Rudy Giuliani, and I believe he’d be diligent in the fight against Radical Islamic terrorists. He’s as dedicated as anyone to that cause, and he’s a very effective leader. He carries a LOT of baggage, however, that’s not only distasteful to a lot of conservatives, but would be ammunition for his political opponents with which to attack and discredit him. He’s not entirely consistent with conservative views, and if the voting “middle” wants a social liberal, they might as well vote for a Democrat. And “the middle” will, after all, elect the president.

Fred Thompson is just as dedicated in the fight against Radical Islamic terrorists. He’s more consistent with traditional conservative values. He doesn’t have the baggage that could be used to discredit him or his party. He has a strong presence about him. He’s extremely smart and articulate, and he’s very well spoken. He comes across as “down-home” and full of common sense. He has a disdain for politics as usual, and has a political record that would support such an image. In my view, at least at this stage, Fred Thompson is not only the perfect candidate, but he’s the best person available to sit in the White House and represent America on the world stage.

Ok- I see your points

In reply to A lot of things

I will be voting this year AGAINST someone. This is new to me. I generally feel that I am voting FOR someone or something.

I was cheered to know that Guliani was running. I believe that he has an understanding of Leadership and would apply it.

On a personal level, I am not sure how I feel about him. But I don’t want to elect someone because they appeal to me “personally”. I want to vote for the person who will espouse my ideals “severally”. (note) poor sentence construction and I will work on that.

To be very honest, I don’t know nearly enough about Fred Thompson. Your review of him at a high level tells me that I should learn more- much more.

Thanks for a good heads up. I will watch what happens with interest.

A question and an observation

In reply to A lot of things

Question: Do you think the current strategy for fighting the war on terrorism is correct? Why?

My feelings are thatthere is no strategy outside pure economic interest. Rationale: The initial mission, in response to 9/11, was to eliminate alQaida as a terrorist force and kill or capture its leadership. I have no problem with that mission and still support it. I do not support any mission into Iraq primarily because the Afghanistan mission is not complete. We should never have invaded Iraq until we were finished with the Taliban and alQaida in Afghanistan.

Additionally, I did not from the start believe administration assertions that WMD and alQaida were in Iraq. First, UN inspectors were unable to find WMD in over 10 years of searching, nor were they able to find traces of the [b]movement[/b] of WMD. Second, dictators (and Saddam was one) tend to be paranoid and don’t usually tolerate the presence of armed forces over which they have no control.

Observation: Our strategic vision may indeed be the correct one for us. But if nothing else, we need to change the tactics we are using to search for binLaden and other terrorists. Rational people don’t kill cockroaches by knocking down the walls with a sledgehammer.

Edit: Got sidetracked. I’ve been voting against both the major parties for the past 20 years. It would be nice to be able to vote FOR a candidate instead of against another. Of course, I’m just as likely to write in as not.

My answer

In reply to A question and an observation

You asked, [i]”Do you think the current strategy for fighting the war on terrorism is correct? Why?”[/i]

While I admit the strategy is not perfect (but will also concede that perfection is probably not possible), I believe that a STRONG OFFENSE is the best strategy, especially considering that the world’s been in a defensive mode for the past forty years — a proven failure. Yes, GO AFTER THEM. My position is, [i]I’m mad as hell and I won’t take any more.[/i] These people need to be found and eliminated — wherever they may reside.

The middle-east needs to do one of two things: Either become a member in the family of nations, as the rest of the world defines that to be. or isolate yourselves from it. They can’t have both. These people need to accommodate the rest of the world; it’s not the other way around.

They need to be defeated, pure and simple. They need to be “brought to their knees” defeatd, nothing less. Failure should not be an option.

Failure is not an option

In reply to My answer

These people want the United States Of America dead, They want to remove Israel from the earth, what do the people want????

This Is World War Three we cannot falter we must eliminate them..

If we do not act now we will have to act later, better now than later.

Agreed

In reply to My answer

We need to go after them, no question. I agree with the strategic vision (eliminate the terrorists), but disagree with the strategic implementation. Overwhelming military force works well when used against entire countries, but does not work well when trying to eliminate small groups hiding among the local population. This is a lesson presented by almost every insurgency since the American Revolution.

We have the capability to isolate a target and hit it without warning using either precision weapons or special operations forces. We need to improve our intelligence sources, use our existing intelligence more effectively, and use the results to identify and locate targets, then strike those targets.

As I said before, you don’t use a sledgehammer to kill cockroaches.

Is this a false argument or misunderstanding?

In reply to Agreed

Nick wrote, “We need to go after them, no question. I agree with the strategic vision (eliminate the terrorists),”

So far so good.

“but disagree with the strategic implementation. Overwhelming military force works well when used against entire countries, but does not work well when trying to eliminate small groups hiding among the local population.

Let us be careful about what we mean. Overwhelming military force is relative to the nature of the engagement. And whatever sized force we use the goal is overwhelming military force brought to bear against our enemies. American forces have always used overwhelming force, firepower, to prevent the loss of friendly lives. We probably always will.

Or do you prefer bringing a knife to a gun fight?

“This is a lesson presented by almost every insurgency since the American Revolution.”

It is a false lesson. Or at least a misunderstood lesson. The challenge in any war including insurgency is finding and fixing the enemy. Once that is achieved then overwhelming force works every time.

“We have the capability to isolate a target and hit it without warning using either precision weapons or special operations forces.”

Not to mention conventional forces who are also pretty darned good.

“We need to improve our intelligence sources, use our existing intelligence more effectively, and use the results to identify and locate targets, then strike those targets.”

Having spent a significant percentage of my adult life managing intelligence collection and analysis I can agree that this is always the crux of the problem. How do we gain combat information, available immediately for the commander to use to maneuver forces and bring firepower to bear at the right time and place, and intelligence that will enable our commanders to exploit enemy vulnerabilities at times and places of our own choosing?

“As I said before, you don’t use a sledgehammer to kill cockroaches.”

You do if it will save friendly lives.

Probably a misunderstanding on your part

In reply to Is this a false argument or misunderstanding?

My use of “overwhelming force” refers to the throwing of entire armies at a group of, at most (in the beginning, at least), less than a thousand active members. Having been there once, I’m all in favor of overwhelming force in individual engagements.

Your answer is as good as mine on the intelligence front. Some of the best methods for locating terrorists have been revealed and neutralized by idiots who have a radically different view of “freedom of the press” than I do, and I think we have yet to find suitable replacements.

And when the sledgehammer starts knocking down the house, friendly lives are in danger.

We agree! Now what?

In reply to Is this a false argument or misunderstanding?

nick wrote, “Probably a misunderstanding on your part”

Fair enough. Based on your comments I think we are close to agreement on the important points.

The best way to save lives

In reply to Is this a false argument or misunderstanding?

SN says he would use a sledgehanner to kill cockroaches, “if it would save friendly lives,” speaking of the dilemma of hunting down enemies in the midst of civilians.

Actually, preventing soldiers being injured is not the point of operations. If it were, the best way to protect their lives would be to keep them out of combat entirely, and busy painting rocks at Fort Ord.

We put soldiers on the line to provide military support for political missions. As a nation, we owe soldiers credible and achievable missions, that are aligned with American principles and interests, and we are duty-bound to not waste their lives. However, we will from time to time spend their lives, securing our objectives. A military career is no weekend at the spa.

In insurgency conflicts, mission includes building trust among the natives. We cannot casually toss the biggest bombs we’ve got, on the grounds that two dozen of their non-combatants are not worth a hair from one Indiana boy, and retain their respect. The job is the thing.

You make a wrong argument

In reply to Is this a false argument or misunderstanding?

delbert wrote, “The best way to save lives
SN says he would use a sledgehammer to kill cockroaches, “if it would save friendly lives,” speaking of the dilemma of hunting down enemies in the midst of civilians.”

You have overstepped what I wrote.

“Actually, preventing soldiers being injured is not the point of operations.”

True. I never said it was. Nor is allowing soldiers to be injured or killed when firepower is available. Ultimately the point is to defeat an enemy.

“If it were, the best way to protect their lives would be to keep them out of combat entirely, and busy painting rocks at Fort Ord.”

We agree. It is beside the point.

“We put soldiers on the line to provide military support for political missions. As a nation, we owe soldiers credible and achievable missions, that are aligned with American principles and interests, and we are duty-bound to not waste their lives.”

Well stated. We continue to agree.

“However, we will from time to time spend their lives, securing our objectives. A military career is no weekend at the spa.”

Yeah. I would not have guessed it. My twenty years of active duty seemed a lot like a weekend at a spa. I always had interesting things to do in exotic places. And it went by so quickly.

“In insurgency conflicts, mission includes building trust among the natives.”

Yeah. . . .

“We cannot casually toss the biggest bombs we’ve got, on the grounds that two dozen of their non-combatants are not worth a hair from one Indiana boy, and retain their respect. The job is the thing.”

Your misunderstanding is profound. Using firepower to kill combatants is the right answer more often than not. You make a wrong argument, I suspect, for the sake of making a wrong argument.

We have always had rules of engagement to lessen non-combatant deaths or injuries. We tend to be careful for lots of reasons. But you already know that don’t you?

Not so

In reply to Is this a false argument or misunderstanding?

[i]”We cannot casually toss the biggest bombs we’ve got, on the grounds that two dozen of their non-combatants are not worth a hair from one Indiana boy, and retain their respect. The job is the thing.”

Your misunderstanding is profound. Using firepower to kill combatants is the right answer more often than not. You make a wrong argument, I suspect, for the sake of making a wrong argument. [/i]

You avoided the issue completely. Delbert was speaking of [u]non-combatants[/u]. If we are involved in nation-building, such as we currently are in Iraq, the last thing we wish to do is kill [u]non-combatants[/u] indiscriminately.

Edit: speling

The good bomb

In reply to Is this a false argument or misunderstanding?

My point is that saving lives, friendly or otherwise, is rarely the reason one goes to war, and an overwhelming urge to be careful about lives (even your own soldiers’) is a distortion of strategic purpose.

There is a fair time for definitive killing, with collateral damage, such as dropping 500-pound bombs on a residential house where Zacharias Zarqawi (head of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq) was present. Having a whole family laid out dead is a useful example to other homeowners, who might think it a patriotic privilege to hide a high-value target in their homes. It was an appropriate time to drop a sledgehammer on a cockroach, in other words.

The essence of war is, after all, the systematic use of brutality to enforce one’s will over others. One needs to be judicious in his brutality, especially in counter-insurgency, since the goal is winning the people, and getting them to stomp out your enemy.

Careless talk about the importance of life and pretending your enemy is a reincarnated Nazi is not the way to achieve victory-think.

Killing cockroaches

In reply to Is this a false argument or misunderstanding?

We cannot casually toss the biggest bombs we’ve got, on the grounds that two dozen of their non-combatants are not worth a hair from one Indiana boy, and retain their respect. The job is the thing.”

Your misunderstanding is profound. Using firepower to kill combatants is the right answer more often than not. You make a wrong argument, I suspect, for the sake of making a wrong argument.

nick wrote, “You avoided the issue completely.”

It is the wrong issue. May I explain the analogy to you? The cockroach is the enemy. The sledgehammer is firepower. Hit the cockroach (the enemy) with a sledgehammer (firepower). Presumably this kills the cockroach (the enemy) but wastes the sledgehammer (firepower). Nowhere in our exchange did we discuss accidentally killing kittens (non-combatants) because we used a sledgehammer.

“Delbert was speaking of non-combatants.”

Yeah. That may be his favorite thing but it was not part of mine.

“If we are involved in nation-building, such as we currently are in Iraq, the last thing we wish to do is kill non-combatants…”

Great. We agree. But it was not under discussion. It was not the point.

“…indiscriminately.”

Really you don’t want to kill them at all. With our without discrimination.

Web search

In reply to A lot of things

Fred Thompson, not yet in the running. I have checked many links and he looks good as a candidate, but will he run???

Could not find an email address to tell him to run so I ask you Max, help us out here, more links…

Here ya’ go

In reply to Web search

Fred Dalton Thompson
Abrams Artists Agency N.Y.
275 Seventh Avenue
26th Floor
New York, NY 10001

I watched an interview with Rudy Giuliani

In reply to A change in prediction (or should I say support)

Where they asked him about his personal baggage with regard to his divorces and private life. They brought up where someone(can’t remember who) of the republican party asked how you could trust someone that has been divorced as many times as him. Called him a lier, with the divorces being evidence of that. Giuliani didn’t bat an eye and told them to look at his public service for the answer for that. I liked how he handled it, didn’t fluster him in the least.

Dan

He is a smart guy

In reply to I watched an interview with Rudy Giuliani

and personal problems should not be a part of the equation, everyone has problems.

No problem for me, I’m not going to vote for either

In reply to A change in prediction (or should I say support)

and I don’t really care who gets in, as there’s little they can do that worries me. But then, I’m half a world away in Australia so it’s a real case of “What me worry” as I have no valid input.

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

In reply to A change in prediction (or should I say support)

I think Rudy Giuliani will be the Republican Presidential nominee if people can see past his personal baggage, and he has alot. I hope that doesn’t hurt him because he is a strong leader with a proven track record and thats what this country needs. If he can do for this country what he did for New York City, I don’t care if he has 10 wives.

Fred Thompson looks like he could be the perfect conservative candidate, but he doesn’t have the impressive record that Giuliani has. He has the “look” though. Honestly, I really thought you would throw some support behind Tom Tancredo, Max. I’m sticking with Rudy.

On the Dems side, I think Barak Obama is going to come out on top. He has successfully been able to stand head to head with the Clinton machine and cast himself as a new-style politician. He never voted for the Iraq war and didn’t take lobbyist money. Impressive.

Its going to be a tough and interesting race.

AV

As you know. . . . .

In reply to Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

…..I’ve been a Rudy supporter for a while. Fred Thompson, however, brings an interesting dynamics into the race. I like Tom Tancredo (and he’s from my home state), but he can’t win, nor does he have any thoughts that he’ll win. He just wants to bring his issue, illegal immigration, into the debate.

Why not Mitt?

In reply to As you know. . . . .

Fred Thompson would bring interesting dynamics, because of how people perceive him, but I don’t think thats enough anymore. Look at Mitt Romney. He earned an impressive amount of money ($23mil) for his campaign, more than I thought possible. He has made it a point to emphasize his family values. Conservatives like that. Why not him?

Ok. Maybe not Tom Tancredo. I’m glad that he is bringing illegal immigration into the debate. It needs to be there and I am so happy that someone out there speaks for how I feel about. He could be a contender if he wanted to. I’m not sure he is really serious, but he has my thanks.

I’m still with Rudy. I saw first hand what he did for NY and it is awe inspiring. Not only 9/11, but he cleaned up NYC. No bums, no prostitutes, you can actually feel safe there. It was a Herculean task. I can’t judge him on his personal life, and I don’t think anyone should. We all have dysfunctional families even if some of us don’t like to believe that. That shouldn’t be a criteria for our next President.

AV

I have only two questions

In reply to Why not Mitt?

One: Who will keep the war against terrorists on the front burner?

Two: Who can beat anyone among the field of Democrats?

That’s my guy.

It might be Rudy. It might be Fred. But it’s not Mitt. (And it’s dang sure not Tom! Even though I like him a lot. I’ve met and talked with him on many occasions, when he was the president of the Independence Institute.)

I’m curious

In reply to I have only two questions

If anyone can do it, Rudy can. He’s not perfect, but he has the stuff. Why do you think Fred can? I think he has the persona, but does he have more than that to offer?

The thing I don’t like about Mitt is that he is willing to change his beliefs on abortion to try to appeal to conservative voters. I don’t think you can truthfully be pro-choice and then take it back. Thats dishonest. To me, he is trying a little too hard to be everything to everyone.

He still did raise $23mil.

AV

Tom Tancredo

In reply to A change in prediction (or should I say support)

The candidate who most closely articulates my position on the majority of issues is Tom Tancredo. While Rudi is fiscally conservative he is socially quite liberal. This sounds good to the average Republican and libertarian but not to me. Tom is an advocate of borders language and culture and if he were to run I would vote for him. I don?t think he would run though as unfortunately this country is rife with namby pamby fence riders who are more concerned about how they appear to their leftist brethren rather than what is right for our country.

Tom Tancredo could be a contender

In reply to Tom Tancredo

But, I don’t think he can garner the support. His stance on border control is right on.

AV

Neither Thompson nor Giuliani look too bad for now

In reply to A change in prediction (or should I say support)

However, Giuliani’s popularity is based on having a 9/11 to step into. You don’t get such opportunities every year, or even every decade. Rudy has a nasty temper that won’t look good to the country when it gets to see it, and his personal life is one long embarassing mistake. Americans care about that stuff in a president. They elected George Bush, I believe, because he seemed to be a man they could like, and they won’t trust someone they can’t like.

I never saw anything too bad about Thompson, at least not compared to most of the other Republican senators who were getting a lot of TV time back then. He was conservative, but careful; he didn’t seem like a polarizer. I have no idea what his policies would be as President; all I’ve seen him do is play Sunday talk show political tennis. I’m also a little wary of somebody who quits the Senate to go into TV drama.

The Republicans have a weak looking field, and Thompson may be the most credible for the time being. I think Giuliani will step wrong and blow his feet off pretty soon; I see Romney sinking steadily into his own weird comments, trying to frame himself as somebody he’s not.

[Author]

Replies