Terrorism

[© tweed]

SAME

[agcatter]

I think if Kerry wins the terrorists will throw a ticker tape parade.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Same

[Mort from NewYawk]

I don't trust a man who built his career on an anti-war movement to be the Commander in Chief.

[MODU]

Well put, Mort.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Bush sure hasn't helped in the so-called "war on terrorism", so I had to pick Kerry.

[zachman]

Bush has many connections to the House of Saud so I will say that John Kerry is the only one who is willing to crack down on Saudi Arabia.

[opebo]

The most hawkish = the best at fighting any war.  Kerry is strikingly defeatist.

[angus]

I don't trust a man who built his career on an anti-war movement to be the Commander in Chief.

I think that nails it.  You pointed out in another thread that the secrecy of the GOP and the pushing of wedge-issues are their most unattractive qualities, but at this time all that is trumped by terrorism and its effect on the national mood.  

[lidaker]

Depends on your definition of 'terrorism'. If you go by the Bush definition, which includes pretty much everyone hostile to the US, I definitely trust Kerry more. When it comes to battling groups like al-Qaeda I trust both of them.

[The Duke]

Bush would do better than Kerry.

That said, Bush has been a near total failure.  I don't even want to think what the world will look like if someone who doesn't even try gets in there.  At least the Idiot in Chief is trying to win.

[elcorazon]

Bush would do better than Kerry.

That said, Bush has been a near total failure.  I don't even want to think what the world will look like if someone who doesn't even try gets in there.  At least the Idiot in Chief is trying to win.

That is one of the most ignorant comments I've heard. And you're not the only one to say it.  If you REALLY believe Kerry would NOT TRY to "WIN", then frankly, you are fooling yourself.  You may disagree with his politics, but to say somehow Kerry would not want to slow/stop terrorism is inane.  The truth is that Bush's "trying" is often counterproductive.  His "war on terror" (read Iraq) has created a hotbed for terrorists, while taking away our capabilities of dealing properly with other areas of the world, especially given that he managed to keep most of our allies from helping us out.  Kerry would avoid such boondoggles, thereby making him a more effective anti-terrorist president.

As far as dealing with specific plots, etc. the two would be similar, but I think Kerry would be a better leader, more aware of what's happening and basically do a better job.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Kerry disdains the unilateral, pre-emptive approach that is driving this war.

He's starting to make speeches that make multilateralism sound good, but what would he do when France, Germany, Russia and China battle him to a standstill on some future controversial intervention to prevent terror?

"Trying" to win the war on terror in the 21st century means leading the US in the face of opposition from our erstwhile "allies".

Interestingly, Kerry has a lot of foreign policy advisers from the Clinton Administration, who would likely wind up in his Cabinet. I don't know if that would appeal to swing voters or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/politics/campaign/28advise.html

[Nym90]

Yes, but alienating our key allies will hurt us more than help in the long run in the war on terror. In order for the war to be effective, we must have the support of our allies. If Bush had made a more effective humanitarian case for the war rather than trying to use WMDs, I feel we could have gotten that support. Our allies don't entirely trust our motives...that's not all our fault, to be sure, but I also think it's wrong to place all of the blame on them for that perception.

I know this because I feel the same way myself in many respects...I probably would have supported the war for humanitarian reasons...but there was always something about the whole WMD argument that didn't seem quite right to me. Now, I don't trust Bush to act in the best interests of America.

If US interests are directly threatened, then we do have the right to go in unilaterally, but I don't see that that was the case in Iraq.

[12th Doctor]

I don't trust a man who built his career on an anti-war movement to be the Commander in Chief.

Have I ever told you how much I love you Mort?  

[12th Doctor]

Yes, but alienating our key allies will hurt us more than help in the long run in the war on terror.

Maybe it's about time we start reavaluating who our allies really are.  Truth is, these countries didn't like us anymore while Clinton was President, they just found us less offensive, because Clinton went so far out of his way not to do anything to offend them.

[Mort from NewYawk]

If US interests are directly threatened, then we do have the right to go in unilaterally, but I don't see that that was the case in Iraq.

US interests ARE directly threatened by the rise of militant suicidal Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East.

The Middle East, by and large, is a collection of countries with corrupt, tyrannical governments (whether secular or theocratic) in which educational, religious, and media organizations spew out anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda, covering the leaders of these governments from accountability for their corruption, and failure to use natural resources for the advancement of the people.

In order to counter, we must undertake a long, difficult struggle to bring about leadership in these countries that will liberate their own people with regard to freedom of speech, freedom of markets, and separation of mosque and state.

That is the only solution to militant suicidal Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East - liberation of the Arab peoples from state and ideological tyrannies.

That's why this war is being waged. It's critically in our interests. We have every right, and responsibility, to act unilaterally.

"We did not seek this war on terror. But this is the world as we find it. We must keep our focus. We must do our duty. History is moving and it will tend toward hope or tend toward tragedy." - GWB

[Nym90]

Well, my personal view is that they aren't all the same. I think they may look that way to us here from the US (and I'll admit I can't tell the difference from one nation to the other in the Middle East any better than anyone else can, I haven't really studied it that much) but I don't believe that they are all posing a direct threat to the US. I just don't see any proof that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States.

I don't think that we can view all of those countries as being the same just because they share the same religious beliefs or governmental structure. Personally, I need harder evidence than that if we are going to stage a unilateral war without direct provocation or much allied support.

If those countries are presenting a problem, it is the world's responsibility to take them out, as they threaten the entire world. We have plenty of problems in this country that we would be better off spending the money (and people) on, rather than losing lives and spending hundreds of billions in Iraq. It shouldn't be our responsibility to go in without a UN coalition to back us up.

I realize leaders lead, and don't follow...but at the same time, if the rest of the world knows they can count on us to do the dirty work, why should they? Not saying that's their mindset, but it's something to consider.

At the very minimum, Bush should have been willing to roll back the tax cuts to pay for the cost of the war. In the long run, by running ourselves further and further in debt, we will hurt our long-term capacity to fight any future war much more than we will help it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much glad Saddam is gone, and if we can put in a stable democracy (still a huge if) then the world will be a better place, definitely. I support the humanitarian aspects of the war, and I do believe we should promote democracy wherever possible. I just don't think that it's worth what it is costing us, in either lives or dollars.

[12th Doctor]

I'll just give the same talk I always give on this subject.

First, a question, what do all these terrorist leaders have in common.  Answer, they all come from wealthy families and they have all spent a significant amount of time in the West, before many of them joined these radical sects.  Mostly to attend colleges.

So these people go home to a country that is oppresive and has a run down economy where they have no real opportunity to do anything with their lives.  This makes them turn to other means of making something of their lives.  They join these radical sects.

Because of the harsh conditions in these countries, these educated men have an easy time converting the lower class to these terror groups.  You'll notice that terrorist never seem to come from what little middle class there is in the Arab world.  they are either recruited from the upper or lower classes.

There is a cycle:

1) these people are taught by their oppresive governments to resent U.S. power.

2) As they grow older, they resent thier own governments because of lack of opportunity, so they flake of and join these terrorist groups that oppose both the U.S. and thier governments in favor of this favored Islamic Fundametalist prosperity.

So, what should be out primary concern?  How do we stop the problem?

Why, by attacking the root of the problem of course.  

What is the root of the problem?

These Islamo-facist government that keep thier people poor and ignorant.  If you take care of these governments and put in Democratic governments that provide opportunity for thier people and who educate thier people then you'll have cut off terrorism by it's heals because their will be no reason for these people to become terrorists.

The middle-class (the group least inclined to go terrorist) will grow and, there you go, problem solved.

Going after Al Qaida is important, but you can't solve the problem by going after Al Qaida because Al Qaida is the result, not the cause.  If we simply destroy Al Qaida and then declare victory, in 20 years another terrorist group is going to come along that is just a bad, if not worse, because the problems that spawn terrorism have only festered.

[The Duke]

I believe it was elcorazon who said this, that Kerry does want to win the war on terror, and to say otherwise is ignorant.  It is most certainly not ignorant and here is why.

To actively try and win the war on terror, one must first believe that we are fighting a war.  John Kerry's position for years has been that fighting terrorism is a law enforcement matter, not a military one.  By extension, we cannot defeat terrorism any more than we can defeat murder or rape.  We just have to try and punish it when it happens.  This is the core of Kerry's obsession (and the obsession of many Democrats) with first responders.  You have to be attacked for first responders to matter, and to focus on such a thing as first responders and not on military action against state sponsors of terror demonstrates a thinking about terrorism that seems to exclude victory as an objective.  You can fight crime, but you won't defeat it.  John Kerry will not seek victory because he does not believe it is possible, nor does he accept the thesis that this is an actual war.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't trust a man who built his career on an anti-war movement to be the Commander in Chief.

yes, unless someone supports every single military action the US gets into they should never be President :eyesroll:

I vote Kerry.

[angus]

I'll just give the same talk I always give on this subject.

First, a question, what do all these terrorist leaders have in common.  Answer, they all come from wealthy families and they have all spent a significant amount of time in the West, before many of them joined these radical sects.  Mostly to attend colleges.

So these people go home to a country that is oppresive and has a run down economy where they have no real opportunity to do anything with their lives.  This makes them turn to other means of making something of their lives.  They join these radical sects.

Because of the harsh conditions in these countries, these educated men have an easy time converting the lower class to these terror groups.  You'll notice that terrorist never seem to come from what little middle class there is in the Arab world.  they are either recruited from the upper or lower classes.

There is a cycle:

1) these people are taught by their oppresive governments to resent U.S. power.

2) As they grow older, they resent thier own governments because of lack of opportunity, so they flake of and join these terrorist groups that oppose both the U.S. and thier governments in favor of this favored Islamic Fundametalist prosperity.

So, what should be out primary concern?  How do we stop the problem?

Why, by attacking the root of the problem of course.  

What is the root of the problem?

These Islamo-facist government that keep thier people poor and ignorant.  If you take care of these governments and put in Democratic governments that provide opportunity for thier people and who educate thier people then you'll have cut off terrorism by it's heals because their will be no reason for these people to become terrorists.

The middle-class (the group least inclined to go terrorist) will grow and, there you go, problem solved.

Going after Al Qaida is important, but you can't solve the problem by going after Al Qaida because Al Qaida is the result, not the cause.  If we simply destroy Al Qaida and then declare victory, in 20 years another terrorist group is going to come along that is just a bad, if not worse, because the problems that spawn terrorism have only festered.

That was interesting.  I'd add that I've read a little about the growing alarm among many yemini, omani, saudi, etc, elders that many of the younger grads are the idle rich who disproportionately major in philosophical and religious studies rather than technical fields which might wean their economies off the oil, which has been a mixed blessing for those societies.  Many of these young people recognize the widespread poverty and might be the sort to generously employ and train others.  We should work more with, rather than against, those elements in society who write about these problems.  What the major complaint from the left boils down to is that many more were willing to try to work with the americans in the late 80s than now.  Many thought Bush would run a program more like his father, I think (but without bailing out on the southern Iraqis after encouraging their rebellion.)  But it has been relatively easy, fairly or unfairly, for arabic news dailies to portray this President Bush as less friendly, more greedy, and generally stubborn and aggressive.  I don't advocate a shakeup at defense, but there's more the state department could do if they were given freer reign occassionally.

[pieman]

I just don't see any proof that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States.

Saddam was harboring terrorists and has now been linked to al-queda and 911.
 
The Connection

If those countries are presenting a problem, it is the world's responsibility to take them out, as they threaten the entire world. We have plenty of problems in this country that we would be better off spending the money (and people) on, rather than losing lives and spending hundreds of billions in Iraq. It shouldn't be our responsibility to go in without a UN coalition to back us up.

You're right it shouldn't be our responsibility alone to be the world's policeman. Great Britian, Australia, Poland, and many others are doing their part in Iraq.

What happens if the UN and members of the Security Counsel are being bribed by Saddam and refuse to take action? Whose responsibility is it then?

Is it cost effective in lives and money to have another terrorist attack? We lost 3000 civilians and almost brought the economy to a standstill the last time.
 

At the very minimum, Bush should have been willing to roll back the tax cuts to pay for the cost of the war. In the long run, by running ourselves further and further in debt, we will hurt our long-term capacity to fight any future war much more than we will help it.

In order to fight the war, the economy must be on a solid footing. Cutting taxes helped stimulate the economy to provide the growth necessary to pull us out of recession. Raising taxes would put the recovery in peril and the war on terrorism right with it. I believe the tax cuts and increased spending in the short term is the right thing to do.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much glad Saddam is gone, and if we can put in a stable democracy (still a huge if) then the world will be a better place, definitely. I support the humanitarian aspects of the war, and I do believe we should promote democracy wherever possible. I just don't think that it's worth what it is costing us, in either lives or dollars.

You support the war, but not the cost?
What would be a reasonable cost?

[Mort from NewYawk]

I don't trust a man who built his career on an anti-war movement to be the Commander in Chief.

yes, unless someone supports every single military action the US gets into they should never be President :eyesroll:

I vote Kerry.

You miss the point. Plenty of people did not support the war in Vietnam, but John Kerry had the motivation to found an anti-war organization. As an organizer of protest actions, he collaborated with similar leaders on the left who were reflexively, ideologically, opposed to American military and political leadership, many of whom were pacifists and socialists (like yourself!). Isn't it reasonable to assume that those ideals, those collaborations and friendships, are at the core of his political beliefs?

That's fine for a Senator, but not for a President at this time, when unpopular decisions about military intervention may need to be made in order to win this war that we're in. There is a time for war, and a time for peace. I don't trust John Kerry's judgement in discerning between the two.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I just don't see any proof that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States.

Saddam was harboring terrorists and has now been linked to al-queda and 911.
 
The Connection

Weekly Standard! There's a fine and unbiased source!