The South

[Gustaf]

I would say that comparing Clinton to Bush is a little immature. You can't compare pre-9/11 stands to post-9/11 stands. Comparing Kerry to Bush is legitimate, but saying that one side is pro-terrorist is cheap. Everyone is against terrorism, and we should be able to discuss the best strategy against it without name-calling, even though I understand that people feel strongly about it.

And, on the subject, going by the MiamiU definition, the answer is an obvious yes, since the keyworrd here is CAN. Kerry won' t win any Southern state except FL anyway, imo.

[Gustaf]

Hold it Gustaf.  No one said ANYTHING about anyone being "PRO-TERRORIST"

I know, not here and now, but it's been said before on other threads by other people. Or at least implied.

[Gustaf]

Monolithic is maybe a stretch, but apart from exceptions such as WV and FL, voting patterns have been very similar all over the South for some time. Granted, it's on different levels, Upper South states being less 'Southern' than Deep SOuth states, etc.

To Ben: I suppose you're talking about 1980 when you say that Carter carried GA against Reagan? And for an incumbent president to carry his own home state where he used to be governor shouldn't be too impressive.

[Gustaf]

Because in it's Presidential voting patterns it is about as monolithic as it gets.  No non southern Democratic nominee has carried a single state from the old confederacy since 64.  Kerry won't either.  Too liberal.

Johnson was from the south...if you count Texas as a southern state rather than an automatons region unto its self …

Yeah your right Gustaff it wasn’t that important but I was trying to prove a point… I mean look at 1992 when two southerners (Well whether Bush 41 was a southerner is a matter for conjecture) faced off agasit one another the Democrat Clinton won…however there you had Perot but hen again Perot did not run very strong in the south…when it comes to Bush the man is very keen to accentuate is southerness which can also be seen to play well more generally as “folksy”… I think the reason the south can be considered such a lock for the republicans at the presidential level is to a large extent based on style and personality….it is Bush’s southerness and it was also Clinton’s southerness that allowed both to do very well in the region however Bush was working from a party heartland while in both 92 and 96 Clinton was not…

Bush beat Clinton in the South by a clear margin, if you count EVs and don't count WV, DE, D.C. and MD as Southern. Bush won TX, SC, AL, MS, FL, NC and VA for a total of 108 EVs (of his total 168), Clinton won LA, AR, KY, TN and GA for a total of 47 EVs (of his total, 370). Even if you add the above excluded states it doesn't change.  Dole won back GA but lost FL in 1996.

[Gustaf]

Kerry has stated  that he regards terrorism as more of a law enforcement issue than a military one.  It is an approach the country took prior to 9-11.  There should be a vigorous debate on that.  Some of us think that approach was flawed and we shouldn't go there again.  Let's have that debate in the 2004 campaign.

I would say that terrorism that isn't state sponsored is more of a law enforcement issue, since it doesn't involving going to war wih other nations.

[Gustaf]

Kerry has stated  that he regards terrorism as more of a law enforcement issue than a military one.  It is an approach the country took prior to 9-11.  There should be a vigorous debate on that.  Some of us think that approach was flawed and we shouldn't go there again.  Let's have that debate in the 2004 campaign.

I would say that terrorism that isn't state sponsored is more of a law enforcement issue, since it doesn't involving going to war wih other nations.

It seems to me that it is hard to know whether or not it is state sponsored.  Better to be safe and attack those that rejoice at your misfortune - there's at least a good chance they could be behind it.  

Besides, 'law enforcement' applies to minor things like crimes perpetrated by one citizen against another.  When someone attacks the State, it is called war, not crime.

Ehh...what would you use the military against then? 'Syria might be sponsoring this. Let's bomb them back to stone age!' Attacking countries randomly is NOT a good idea. And you don't use the armed forces against indivudal criminals, that's ridiculous.

[Gustaf]

I agree.  We had a trial and threw some terrorists in jail after the 93 WTC bombing.  A lot of good that did.  We let the terrorist camps in Afganistan continue to crank out their graduates including the 19 who went back and finished the job at the WTC.  I want a President who will take out the Taliban or any other regime that harbors terrorist.  Let's kill terrorists whoever they are whereever they are.  Prosecuting AFTER they kill hundreds or thousands is a joke.

Yeah, let's simply bomb all those weird Muslim countries, to put the worries to an end. With nukes, so they're gone for good. And, heck, why not throw Africa and Latin America into that as well. As long as they haven't got nukes themselves. Like Germany, they can't be trusted and have a high percentage of Turks. Which leads me to the Balkans, of course. Pakistan has nukes though, and you'd have to get them...so why not nuke all other oc**ntries with nukes too. Sure, it would be a little risky, but he world would be much safer afterwards. I mean, if we're being pre-emptive, why not take it all the way?

[Gustaf]

The answer is forcing cultural changes on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Those are the three danger spots, for terrorist friendly governments.

Yeah, forcing cultural changes is a good old strategy. First you forbid their religion, then you force them all to learn English, eat hamburgers and drink alcohol. Or jsut shoot them right away, I think that would be both simpler and cheaper.

[Gustaf]

The answer is forcing cultural changes on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Those are the three danger spots, for terrorist friendly governments.

Yeah, forcing cultural changes is a good old strategy. First you forbid their religion, then you force them all to learn English, eat hamburgers and drink alcohol. Or jsut shoot them right away, I think that would be both simpler and cheaper.

What about Zachman's initial statement implied that he would want to do any of those things?  If a culture oppresses women and minorities and promotes random violence then those aspects of the culture should be changed; this doesn't mean robbing a people of their entire culture.  

We can debate how much effort is appropriate on the part of the US to force those changes, but its pretty clear that some things about Middle Eastern culture are morally repugnant.  As are some things about almost every culture...that doesn't mean we need to get rid of culture altogether to create a more just world.

My point was rather that 'forcing cultural changes' is not a good idea. It's an extremely bad idea. Why do you think you're hated and viewed as arrogant imperialists? Of course large parts of the Muslim culture is morally repugnant. But I don't think that strategy is the right way. It will only make people hate you more, if that's even possible.

[Gustaf]

I'm for killing the terrorists whereever we find them and destroying the regimes that harbor them.  What the hell is wrong with that?  Nukes?  Who needs nukes?  We didn't need nukes in Afganistan or Iraq for that matter.  Now, if terrorists detonate a nuclear device in an American city, ALL BETS ARE OFF if any country has anything to do with that little plot.

I'm talking pre-emptive. And nukes are much more effective than ordinary bombing. Quick, and you don't risk any real lives that could hurt reelection chances, etc. And you still need it in Iraq and Afghanistan since both countries are filled with Muslims. And there are no innocents in wars. You have to break a few eggs you know...

[Gustaf]

Ok, we could do that.  Afterall, we've got this huge nuclear arsenal just lying around gathering dust....

Exactly. You're finally seeing the light. There's a slight risk in taking out other countries with nukes, but you have to take some risks in life.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, why build nukes if you can't use them.

That's the spirit! I say, let's nuke a country every week or so, randomly. Great fun, good for pre-emptiveness and shows strong leadership.

[Gustaf]

The types who say "lets nuke them: are always so childish.

Agreed.  I say lets rule them responsibly, as the British did.

BOOORING. And also expensive. Definitely not worth the effort.

-'Kill 'em! Kill 'em all!'

[Gustaf]

Now you're talking.  We could make a new reality series out of it - "Nuke That Country"  Sort of a twist on "Survivor."  Better yet, we could call it "No Survivor" Imagine the ratings.

That's a great idea! Fox News could do it. And we could ahve the media liberals go first, they might raise a fuss over all this.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,
Are you originally from Sweden and if not, how long have you lived there?

I am originally from Sweden and has spent my entire life there, not counting the occasional trip abroad, of which the longest was a 6 week one to the UK in 1999. Why?

[Gustaf]

Well, I think it's remarkable that you are only 16 years old, lived all your life in Sweden, and yet are so completely well versed on American as well as geopolitical politics.  Truly remarkable.  Your interest in the subjects are remarkable and your knowledge is truly amazing - not just for your age but for any age.

I teach middle school history in a suburban Houston school district and have for years -  Thirteen year olds primarily.  I give them a pretest the first day of school each year.  One of the first questions is to have them  label the 50 states on a map.  Half the kids can't label more than a handful of states correctly.  95% cannot label more than twenty.  One third can't identify their home state.  You get the picture.  Half can't name the President, almost none can name the VP, and zero can identify the governor.  

It isn't much better in high school.  I've taught summer school 17 and 18 year olds and the their ignorance of the political system is staggering.  

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there.  My adult neighbors don't vote and never have.  They couldn't care less.  Apathy and ignorance runs deep here in America from cradle to grave.  

You are quite a contrast.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment. I also recognize the pattern. I think most Sweded my age couldn't name our equivalent of states, etc. But I think it's cool that most people here are pretty young and still interested and well educated in a lot of areas.

[Gustaf]

I remember in fifth grade, the teacher gave us a map and told us to label the states.  I got everything except that I reversed Mississippi and Alabama.

I am reminded of a friends episode where Chandler comes up with a game of listing all the states. It produced such memorable quotes as 'Nobody cares about the Dakotas anyway', 'Utah?? You can't just make them up', 'New England isn't a state? They have a football team' and 'Does Southern Oregon have a football team'.

[Gustaf]

Huh?  Kill the terrorists, but we better keep it a secret or it will piss them off?  

I don't know how to take out terrorist regimes which harbor terrorists and keep it a secret.  And make no mistake, the terrorist supporting regimes are in the end going to have to be taken out.  Hopefully the Iranians themselves will get rid of their terrorist supporting govt, but don't bet on it.  I wouldn't care except that government is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and is doing it right in front of everyone.  When the marriage between terrorists and terrorist supporting regimes with nukes is complete, we are in deep sh**t.  Judging by how they flew those planes into the WTC does anyone doubt that terrorists would hesitate for one second to detonate a nuclear device in the middle of New York, Baltimore or for that matter Memphis, Tennessee.  I don't.  Not for a second.

Call me an alarmist if you'd like, but consider this.  What if I'm right?  

If Al Quida gets hold of a nuclear device, they will use it.  They can't produce one on their own.  There's only one place to get it - from a friendly nation state.  I wish it was just a law enforcement issue.  It would be such a more simple problem.

Of course they aren't morally inhibited, but it's a matter of resources. It's not easy to do terrorist attacks, like in the movies. I mean, there was nothing and then 9/11 and then nothing. Al-Qaeda is pretty shattered right now, I don't think they'll be able to pull off a large scale attack like the one against the WTC again, at elast not in the near future.

[Gustaf]

Huh?  Kill the terrorists, but we better keep it a secret or it will piss them off?  

I don't know how to take out terrorist regimes which harbor terrorists and keep it a secret.  And make no mistake, the terrorist supporting regimes are in the end going to have to be taken out.  Hopefully the Iranians themselves will get rid of their terrorist supporting govt, but don't bet on it.  I wouldn't care except that government is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and is doing it right in front of everyone.  When the marriage between terrorists and terrorist supporting regimes with nukes is complete, we are in deep sh**t.  Judging by how they flew those planes into the WTC does anyone doubt that terrorists would hesitate for one second to detonate a nuclear device in the middle of New York, Baltimore or for that matter Memphis, Tennessee.  I don't.  Not for a second.

Call me an alarmist if you'd like, but consider this.  What if I'm right?  

If Al Quida gets hold of a nuclear device, they will use it.  They can't produce one on their own.  There's only one place to get it - from a friendly nation state.  I wish it was just a law enforcement issue.  It would be such a more simple problem.

Of course they aren't morally inhibited, but it's a matter of resources. It's not easy to do terrorist attacks, like in the movies. I mean, there was nothing and then 9/11 and then nothing. Al-Qaeda is pretty shattered right now, I don't think they'll be able to pull off a large scale attack like the one against the WTC again, at elast not in the near future.

So you're allowing that the Bush Doctrine is actually working?  Good to hear it.  

In the short term, definitely. It's in fact a pretty good short term strategy. But I'm not sure whether Bush or other Republicans understand that it isn't a good LONG-TERM strategy.

[Gustaf]

agreed.  what goes up, must come down.  true for balloons and empires.

And dot-com companies...

[Gustaf]

The real dot-com companies never exploded. E-commerce is growing.

It depends on what you mean by 'real'. Fact remains, a lot of dot.com companies lost about 95% of their value.