The South

[agcatter]

Let the French lead the way on world disarmament.  They're good at throwing down their weapons.

[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.

[agcatter]

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

[Beet]

GOPhound,

Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than any previous President, and took it more seriously every year of his presidency, over the previous year. In the late 1990s counterterrorism funding surged. Security was beefed up, and beefed up once again. The nation became aware of a host of new potential terror threats, such as bioterror, and began to develop defenses against them for the first time.

When Bush came in he was more concerned about missile defense systems than terrorism. He wasn't able to prevent 9/11 by catching the terrorists. After 9/11 of course he took it more seriously, but that was after 3,000 people had died. Even now, he's not taking terrorism completely seriously, letting the world's greatest nuclear proliferator off the hook and not really trying to find bin Laden until now.

[CTguy]

I think you guys are forgetting something...  In the last election it was Gore who could have won without carrying a single southern state.  But may I remind you that Bush couldn't have won without carrying a single northern state as he won New Hampshire.  If he lost New Hampshire he would have lost the election.

[minionofmidas]

Since when is Ohio not Northern? Or Indiana? Or North Dakota?
Of course nobody can win without Northern EVs, more than half the EVs are in the North.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

Eh... Worst idea ever.
If the South were to break off it would be ruled by conservative and/or populist Democrats... while the GOP would play the fiscal conservatives in the rest of the U.S

[CTguy]

By those standards wouldn't New Mexico be considered a Southern State or is it because those weren't states at the time.  I was referring to North/South in terms of the east coast, not including the midwest or great plains states.

[minionofmidas]

The traditional definition of the "North" is the Northeast and the Midwest. Thus, North Dakota is North, but Alaska is not...

[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?

[agcatter]

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.

[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.

[agcatter]

Our teenagers have absolutely no interest in politics or current events in general.  None.

[zachman]

Only the angry ones have an interest. They are mostly boys, and are anti-Bush. Teenage girls don't differ from their parents.

[© tweed]

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.

[GOPhound]

GOPhound,

Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than any previous President, and took it more seriously every year of his presidency, over the previous year. In the late 1990s counterterrorism funding surged. Security was beefed up, and beefed up once again. T

It's time for some facts here:
1. Clinton did nothing after the embassy bombings in Africa
2. Clinton did nothing after the WTC bombing in'93
3. Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole attack
4. Clinton did nothing to force Saddam to comply with the UN Sanctions he agreed to after the end of the Gulf War
5. Clinton did not want Osama captured and brought to the US because in his own words "It was a political hot potato" and he didn't think it was our legal right to bring him here.

You can throw all the numbers around that you want, the Clinton administration was a tremendous failure in dealing with terrorism.  He should have been killing these bastards after the first bombing in '93.  Now Bush has to deal with this mess.  

[zachman]

And what did Bush do before 9/11.

[agcatter]

He was in power 8 months.  Clinton had 8 years.  However, I see your point.  Frankly, I'd rather have Clinton in charge of the war on terror than a commited leftist like Kerry.  Not a lot of difference but definitely some.

[Beet]

GOPhound,

Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than any previous President, and took it more seriously every year of his presidency, over the previous year. In the late 1990s counterterrorism funding surged. Security was beefed up, and beefed up once again. T

It's time for some facts here:
1. Clinton did nothing after the embassy bombings in Africa
2. Clinton did nothing after the WTC bombing in'93
3. Clinton did nothing after the USS Cole attack
4. Clinton did nothing to force Saddam to comply with the UN Sanctions he agreed to after the end of the Gulf War
5. Clinton did not want Osama captured and brought to the US because in his own words "It was a political hot potato" and he didn't think it was our legal right to bring him here.

You can throw all the numbers around that you want, the Clinton administration was a tremendous failure in dealing with terrorism.  He should have been killing these bastards after the first bombing in '93.  Now Bush has to deal with this mess.  

1. In 1998, the Clinton Administration demonstrated an atypically aggressive response toward terrorism after the assault on two U.S. embassies in Africa. In response, the U.S. launched cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998, striking a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. Past U.S. foreign policy has opted for the use of sanctions or a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, but the UN's flaccid dealings with Iraq, the lack of support from Muslim allies (most notably the Saudis' indifference to the 1996 truck bomb explosion that killed 19 U.S. service members), and the necessity of deterring attacks on other American embassies led to the U.S.'s more hawkish policy.


2. After the 1993 WTC attack which killed 6 people, security forces under Clinton increased counterterrorism funding, increased security at the World Trade Center, identified the perpetrators, and launched a worldwide manhunt. In February 1995, little over two years after the attack, Ramzi Yousef was apprehended in Pakistan. The threat from Mr. Yousef's gang was neutralized. Unlike Mr. bin Laden, the whereabouts of Mr. Yousef were not known, and unlike Mr. bin Laden, he was not openly being harbored by any regime. In September 2003, little after two years following the 9/11 attacks which killed three thousand people, the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden remained unknown. The threat from Al Qaeda remains clear and present.

3. After the USS Cole attacks, which killed seventeen, the military instituted procedures to make sure such an attack would never happen again. They increased pressure on Yemeni security forces and launched a broad manhunt that yielded arrests of six perpetrators and suspected members of Al Qaeda within months. Since then there have been no further such attacks on US vessels in the Middle East or elsewhere. In January 2001 when President Bush took office, he took no different approach to the Cole investigation than his predecessor had taken.

4. United States in December 1998 opened a prolonged attack on Iraq, unleashing more than 200 cruise missiles onto military installations and suspected weapons sites as punishment for Baghdad's refusal to allow the destruction of its chemical and biological weapons.

Clinton, speaking to the nation about an hour after the 4 p.m. CST attacks, said the United States was "delivering a powerful message to Saddam: If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price."

Clinton decided to attack after chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler concluded that President Saddam Hussein had failed to live up to Iraq's November pledge to cooperate fully with inspections that began after a U.S.-led coalition defeated Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.

The Pentagon ordered a buildup that will soon place 40,000 U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf. And British fighters were poised to participate in the strikes.

5. The CIA under Clinton trained and armed about 60 Pakistani commandos in 1999 with plans for them to enter Afghanistan and capture or kill Osama bin Laden, U.S. officials confirmed to CNN Wednesday. The plan -- which was developed with then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif -- was scrapped on orders of Gen. Pervez Musharraf after he took over Pakistan in a coup. Under the deal the Clinton administration made with Sharif, economic sanctions against Pakistan would have been lifted in exchange for the operation.

6. I don't recall Bush making the administration's handling of terrorism a campaign issue. And I don't recall any BUSH plans to capture bin laden before 9/11.

Sure you can vote Republican.

You are ignore all the facts and say Clinton didn't care about defending his people. You can all anyone who doesn't agree with you "the enemy within" and consider them hostile foreigners.

But you can't say he did nothing.

[classical liberal]

I think it's bullsh**t to call anyone who would take all the sh**t we the people dish out to the President as well as in some cases up to a 90% pay cut and uncaring or undedicated.  If they're willing to do the job with all the sh**t that it brings then noone can honestly call them unpatirotic.  That goes for Republicans bashing Clinton and Democrats bashing Bush.

[agcatter]

I'm more concerned about what a President Kerry would do.  Given that he has said the terrorist threat has been "largely exagerated by the Bush administration" my guess is not much.  He seems much more concerned with playing kissy nice with the elitist "leaders" in Europe.  I want him to kill terrorists.  I'm not interested in UN resolutions or multi national agreements.  Is he going to kill the bastards or isn't he?  Like on most issues I'm sure he has one position for yes (I haven't seen that one yet) and one position for no.

[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'.

[classical liberal]

The problem with killing the terrorists overtly in a "War on Terror" is that they become martyrs and inspire more new recruits. For every terrorist we kill overtly, 10 more join up.  Its better to wage a covert operation on terrorists.  Make them fall off the face of the earth, make their meeting places mysteriously collapse, make their arms caches have mysterious gas explosions.  That kind of thing is the smart way to do it.  Of course, the President needs some sort of overt cause for PR, but using anti-terrorism as the cause is not a smart way to a more secure nation.

[angus]

The problem with killing the terrorists overtly in a "War on Terror" is that they become martyrs and inspire more new recruits. For every terrorist we kill overtly, 10 more join up.  Its better to wage a covert operation on terrorists.  Make them fall off the face of the earth, make their meeting places mysteriously collapse, make their arms caches have mysterious gas explosions.  That kind of thing is the smart way to do it.  Of course, the President needs some sort of overt cause for PR, but using anti-terrorism as the cause is not a smart way to a more secure nation.

I had been thinking along these lines.  But the architects of the current policy are Cheney and Wolfowitz.  And Wolfowitz is apparently not concerned with image (Remember the "Wolfowitz Indiscretion of 1992?)  So clearly there are some holes in that theory.  More likely they are waging the behind-the-scenes battles which have been going on since about 1992.  You're right about it making martyrs though.  Another real danger of playing politics with anti-terror is a rise in xenophobia here at home.

Supersoulty, Gore won the votes immediately south of Mason & Dixon's survey line that markes the border between your state and Maryland.  That's what Al way saying.  Doesn't matter, though.  Kerry will win MD, DC, and DE.  He'll not win anywhere else in the south.  Bush will NOT have himself embarassed in Florida again, no matter the cost.  In 2000, he had the luxury not to repeat his father's mistakes elsewhere.  Namely CDs in California.  He may have to divert resources to Florida, but he won't lose.  As statesrights is fond of saying:  Etch it.