The South

[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.

[opebo]

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.

[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.

[opebo]

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.

Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are the main remaining candidates for takeover, in my opinion.

[agcatter]

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.

[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?

[zachman]

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

[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.

[opebo]

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

This is also known as Colonialism.  We need to bring it back.

By the way, glad to hear some Hawkishness from a Democrat.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If Kerry can't get elected, all because he loses every Southern state, then maybe it's time to resume Reconstruction.

If that's what it takes in order for a halfway decent President to be elected, then I'm all for it.

[zachman]

Amen.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

[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.

[agcatter]

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.

[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...

[agcatter]

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

[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.

[angus]

In the next 10 or so years I think differences between North and South will continue to melt away... there's a chance the "new division" might be east-west.

Finally!  I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to say something original and intelligent.  Thank you.

[agcatter]

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

[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.

[agcatter]

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.

[zachman]

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

[opebo]

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

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

[zachman]

I think we should figure out a way to disarm the world.

[opebo]

I think we should figure out a way to disarm the world.

I want to bring back the British Empire, you want to disarm the world - there's a lot of common ground there.