What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

Quote:

I suggest we pull in our horns and use out tremendous resources to establish a homeland security that makes us virtually impenetrable without violating the basic rights of our citizens. No profit in that though huh? etc............................................................

Would you be shocked to learn that I absolutely agree with every point of that post? I am sick and tired of the US being the international "nanny". Let other countries wet nurse themselves.

The first thing that we need to do is make sure EXACTLY who is coming into our country. Amnesty for illegals? Bullshit! Anyone who wants to live and work in this country needs to be put under a microscope before he is allowed to come in.

0 Replies

The reason that Al Queda and similar organizations have failed to provide an encore to 9/11, is that we are pressing them. The Taliban would like to reestablish their Islamic dictatorship, but can not so long as U.S. forces are on the ground and Pakistan continues to do its bit. In Iraq the Radical Islamic Movement (RIM) continues its efforts to reclaim turf they regard as their own. Iran wants to be the regional leader of the Radical Islamic Movement, and continues to whip up militants to destroy first Israel. Iran sees its opportunity in complete control of the regions oil supplies, and is arming itself with nuclear weapons for that purpose. The Radical Islamic Movements in Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Africa, and Southeastern Asia remain strong, and they export terrorists around the world. Terrorists and logistical support are diverted from other targets to Iraq, the geo-political center of mass for the region.

These folks don't conduct war according to the rules that have governed conflicts in the Western world for the last 200 years. They are incapable of meeting ANY Western army on the battlefield, but they have a sound grasp of propaganda and the unwillingness of the Western world to spill blood ... even when their opponents openly preach mass murder. The Radical Islamic Movement prefers terror and has no compunction about killing civilians, even their own civilians, to achieve their ends.

It is a mistake to believe that Al Queda is an Islamic anomaly; it is only one of a number of organizations sharing the idealogical goal of destroying the infidel West and extending their own dictatorship over all peoples. They implant that ideal wherever they can, and the radicalized young then form their own little Jihad terrorist groups for the purpose of destroying and murdering those they regard as decadent, materialistic, opponents of their version of religion.

There hasn't been a major terrorist attack within CONUS since 9/11; not because the danger doesn't exist, but because of this administration's policies. These are unusual times and this is a most unusual war because the old rules no longer apply. Our enemies aren't generally soldiers in the traditional sense, they wear no uniform and belong to no formal military formation openly representing any particular government. Those terrorist actions are almost always criminal, they aren't committed for the same purposes as organized crime. They murder for an ideal, not for profit, and they are willing to die for that ideal. Being unbound by law or convention, they lie and dissemble so that no "bargain" with them can ever be trusted.

This is going to be a long, long conflict and many more people will die or be destroyed before it is concluded. So far the U.S. has lost over 5 years fewer soldiers than were lost in a few hours on D-Day. Each year the number of murders in the U.S. are three times the number lost in Iraq. The numbers we've lost, while steadily reducing the number of RIM veteran zealots, is hardly even a fraction of the number of people killed and maimed in traffic accidents. Ultimately, the Allied casualties numbers are small given the stakes being played for.

To leave this vital effort unfinished will almost certainly result in far larger casualties later. Both Iraq and Afghanistan would be overrun, and there would be no one to protect those who don't wholeheartedly support Islamic Law as interpreted by a few power-mad Mullahs. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would at the very least subject the rest of the world to blackmail, and at worst it could set off the first nuclear war. The government of Pakistan could be swept away by RIM commanders with both the capability and will to launch a deadly war with India. Home grown terrorists in the U.S. and every European country would be encouraged to press their perceived advantage. Terrorist attacks, I believe would increase around the world and the range of alternative responses would narrow.

A Democratic victory at this time, and given the avowed stance of all of the Democratic Presidential candidates could very well set off a chain of events that would seriously increase the dangers to Americans and all those others who live outside the control of RIM governments. In my opinion, this issue is the central problem of our times. We all want to create a world where humanistic values and economic stability reign over the face of the Earth. Not only is health care a problem for Americans, it is an even greater problem in South America, Africa, India and even China. Climate change has to be dealt with, but there is little that can be done to prevent it from happening. For most of human history, slavery remained entrenched because muscle power was virtually the only energy source available. Oil is a finite resource, and fundamental to the world's transportation system and generation of electricity. We need a "new" source of energy that is less limited than what we humans have used in the past. It is important, but the RIM solution of returning society to a theocracy based on 7th century despotic laws would be even worse.

A Republican President and Congress is a much more promising approach to take in the present circumstances. BTW, I'm certainly not in favor of the long-term dominance of ANY Party. However, the alternatives offered by the current crop of Democratic candidates is dangerous to the future of the United States, and the world at large.

0 Replies

horseshit.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

horseshit.

You just don't understand Bear, some people have a direct pipeline to the REAL info (they are just not at liberty to disclose their sources). We, the people, get to make the election happen and the others will most likely have to suicide (kill their egos) when the dems take over both the white house and congress in the next will of the people (who are sick and tired of all the neocon scams (I do think it would be nice if an actual republican ran for office, it would be a welcome change)

0 Replies

thank you dys for explaining to me what an idiot I am without making me feel patronized. I actually feel 3 times smarter than my dog now.

0 Replies

Typical left-wing response. High idealism, but impracticable. Unswerving dedication to Ideals fueled the Reformation, Inquisition, Fascism and Communism, and radical religion around the world. Idealists can't stand compromise, and far too often close their eyes to the possible results of their ideation. Political zealots are dangerous folks, even when they profess the highest concern for human betterment. To most of the A2K political posters, it is an article of faith that the President is a monster bent on wholesale destruction for some murky personal purpose. The President isn't a great intellect, but so what? The Nation has benefited many time is in the past by having President's whose personal faults were much greater than this one ... who isn't even running in the next election. Get over it.

The Industrial Revolution happened. Human lives have been enriched and suffering reduced because of science and technology. It would be the greatest of catastrophes for the U.S. to retreat within its borders leaving the world to shift for itself. I think costs have to be prioritized, and there is never as great a priority for the Federal government than to fight those who are actively seeking our destruction.

0 Replies

Asherman you are such a pompous know it all that it's impossible to dislike you.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

The reason that Al Queda and similar organizations have failed to provide an encore to 9/11, is that we are pressing them.

Oh, really? That's a lovely claim, and it essentially echoes the neocon agenda: "We have to fight them there, or else they will be following us home." However, no evidence for the truth of that claim has ever been provided. Ever.

If anything, the recent foiled plot to attack JFK airport, planned by four men who happened to be Caribbean natives, shows that the premise of the claim is completely faulted. It is not one large terrorist network that is out to destroy the United States. It is not located in the Middle East.

Asherman wrote:

Terrorists and logistical support are diverted from other targets to Iraq, the geo-political center of mass for the region.

Same thing, same theory, equally flawed. You're just repeating the PNAC theory over and over again. Has the "diversion" of Iraq stopped the terrorist attacks in London? In Madrid? In Bali? In Istanbul?

Obviously not. The terrorists don't have a reason to "defend" a country. Iraq, to them, means nothing. They don't need it as a "base of operations". For them, it's just a convenient way to kill Americans.

Asherman wrote:

These folks don't conduct war according to the rules that have governed conflicts in the Western world for the last 200 years. They are incapable of meeting ANY Western army on the battlefield, but they have a sound grasp of propaganda and the unwillingness of the Western world to spill blood ...

Right. And nevertheless, you propagate a war that mostly follows, on the side of the United States, traditional patterns. You propagate the deployment of an army to a hostile country.

None of that would have stopped the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. I wonder why you seem to think that this strategy will be able to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil in the future.

Asherman wrote:

There hasn't been a major terrorist attack within CONUS since 9/11; not because the danger doesn't exist, but because of this administration's policies. These are unusual times and this is a most unusual war because the old rules no longer apply.

Two things here: that there have been no attacks in the US for five years now doesn't mean a thing. The first bombing of the World Trade Center took place in February 1993. Between that and 9/11 are 8 1/2 years.

And: the claim that now, all of a sudden, the "old rules no longer apply" just because (sorry, but it's the truth) a terrorist attack has happened within the United States doesn't make any sense at all. The threat of terrorist attacks has existed since before the Cold War.

You make it sound as if one evil terrorist network was up against the United States, using astonishing new methods to bring down Western civilisation. Well, many Western countries have experience with terrorism. All of those countries still exist. And in most cases, they were facing organized networks (like the IRA, or ETA, or the Red Army Fraction).

But now that the United States have been the target of an (admittedly devastating) attack, all of a sudden people go around proclaiming that "the old rules no longer apply."

Sounds like fear-mongering. Doesn't make any sense.

Asherman wrote:

A Democratic victory at this time, and given the avowed stance of all of the Democratic Presidential candidates could very well set off a chain of events that would seriously increase the dangers to Americans and all those others who live outside the control of RIM governments. In my opinion, this issue is the central problem of our times.

Sure. "Vote for the Democrats, and the terrorists will attack us again." Fear-mongering. You could have brought up valid reasons, but you didn't. It's all just vague, but as soon as the Democrats were to be in power, the end would be near.

You have delivered nothing of substance, Asherman. Nothing.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

High idealism, but impracticable. Unswerving dedication to Ideals fueled the Reformation, Inquisition, Fascism and Communism, and radical religion around the world. Idealists can't stand compromise, and far too often close their eyes to the possible results of their ideation. Political zealots are dangerous folks, even when they profess the highest concern for human betterment.

Political zealots, certainly. Well, idealism was also the driving force behind the French Revolution, or humanism, or the Declaration of Independence, for that matter.....

0 Replies

terrorists threaten to place 1 litre bottle of pepsi lite with 2 mentos under the brooklyn bridge if republicans keep the white house in 08. I can't reveal my sources but they're well placed.

0 Replies

Here is an image, obtained at great personal risk, of a pepsi bomb terrorist training exercise taking place in a suburb just outside of Albequerque New Mexico

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/stevetheq/pepsibomb.jpg

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I think costs have to be prioritized, and there is never as great a priority for the Federal government than to fight those who are actively seeking our destruction.

The idealistic insanity called "the war on drugs" counters your pretext, as does the idealistic influences of religion on US politics. Your use of the word "destruction" is suspect in the context of the underlying inference that nationalism is an admirable idealization.

0 Replies

bearly literate wrote:

Albequerque

*****ing liberals can't even spell Albuquerque!

0 Replies

Iput my life on the line to help you expose this group of terrorists and this is the thanks I get.... well that hurts...

0 Replies

from asherman's post :

Quote:

Reformation, Inquisition, Fascism and Communism

so "reformation" is thrown into the same bag as "Inquisition, Fascism and Communism" ?
i suppose the pope might - privately - say that . not many "other" christians would agree with that - not that i belong to any of aforementioned groups .
hbg

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Asherman wrote:
The reason that Al Queda and similar organizations have failed to provide an encore to 9/11, is that we are pressing them.

Oh, really? That's a lovely claim, and it essentially echoes the neocon agenda: "We have to fight them there, or else they will be following us home." However, no evidence for the truth of that claim has ever been provided. Ever.

If anything, the recent foiled plot to attack JFK airport, planned by four men who happened to be Caribbean natives, shows that the premise of the claim is completely faulted. It is not one large terrorist network that is out to destroy the United States. It is not located in the Middle East."

"Asherman wrote:
Terrorists and logistical support are diverted from other targets to Iraq, the geo-political center of mass for the region.

Same thing, same theory, equally flawed. You're just repeating the PNAC theory over and over again. Has the "diversion" of Iraq stopped the terrorist attacks in London? In Madrid? In Bali? In Istanbul?

Obviously not. The terrorists don't have a reason to "defend" a country. Iraq, to them, means nothing. They don't need it as a "base of operations". For them, it's just a convenient way to kill Americans. "

You are the one in denial Old Europe. You even contradict yourself in your post.

First you suggest there is no terrorist group, then in the next quote you state the terrorists were responsible for bombing in Europe.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

You are the one in denial Old Europe. You even contradict yourself in your post.

First you suggest there is no terrorist group, then in the next quote you state the terrorists were responsible for bombing in Europe.

Errrr.... no.

Try to bear with me: there is no one global terrorist network. The London bombers had nothing to do with the JFK guys. The Bali bomber had nothing to do with Istanbul or Madrid. It's not even one common goal, or set of beliefs, or background. Much less one global terror network.

And the second part: Asherman claims that there have been no attacks in the US because all the terrorists in the world are drawn to Iraq like moths to the light. That ignores three things:

- there have been numerous terrorist attacks outside of the Middle East, even while the US army was fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- the five years that have passed since 9/11 are in no way an indication that the policy of this administration has been successful
- the JFK guys had no connection at all to anything happening in Iraq, and the success of foiling their plot can in no way be ascribed to the military action in Iraq

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

woiyo wrote:
You are the one in denial Old Europe. You even contradict yourself in your post.

First you suggest there is no terrorist group, then in the next quote you state the terrorists were responsible for bombing in Europe.

Errrr.... no.

Try to bear with me: there is no one global terrorist network. The London bombers had nothing to do with the JFK guys. The Bali bomber had nothing to do with Istanbul or Madrid. It's not even one common goal, or set of beliefs, or background. Much less one global terror network.

And the second part: Asherman claims that there have been no attacks in the US because all the terrorists in the world are drawn to Iraq like moths to the light. That ignores three things:

- there have been numerous terrorist attacks outside of the Middle East, even while the US army was fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
- the five years that have passed since 9/11 are in no way an indication that the policy of this administration has been successful
- the JFK guys had no connection at all to anything happening in Iraq, and the success of foiling their plot can in no way be ascribed to the military action in Iraq

Yet they all praise Osama and his pals, they are all muslim, and they all want to inflict injury to innocents.

There have been numerous terrorist attacks BEFORE this nonsense in Iraq begn.

The 5 years that past since 9-11 tell me either the terrorists WON"T attack here or CAN NOT attack.

The "JFK GUYS" have USED our military presence in the ME as one of the reason/excuses for their "actions".

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

old europe wrote:
If anything, the recent foiled plot to attack JFK airport, planned by four men who happened to be Caribbean natives, shows that the premise of the claim is completely faulted. It is not one large terrorist network that is out to destroy the United States. It is not located in the Middle East."

Same thing, same theory, equally flawed. You're just repeating the PNAC theory over and over again. Has the "diversion" of Iraq stopped the terrorist attacks in London? In Madrid? In Bali? In Istanbul?

You are the one in denial Old Europe. You even contradict yourself in your post.

First you suggest there is no terrorist group, then in the next quote you state the terrorists were responsible for bombing in Europe.

Uhm.

There have been terrorist attacks, in London, Madrid, Bali, Istanbul.

There is not one, large terrorist network, located in the Middle East.

What's the contradiction that you are imagining to be here, exactly?

Because there isnt any. Yes, there are terrorists; no, there is not one, large organisation, directed from the Middle East.

There are terrorists. There have always been terrorists. They used to be PLO, or IRA, or ETA, or PKK. They used to be the Red Army Faction, or the Red Brigades. Now there are again different terrorist groups, some substantial, some marginal, including a generation of extremist Islamist groups and grouplets.

Like the various radical communist terror groups of the 70s, the Muslim fundamentalist ones share an ideology of sorts, though in often incoherent ways. But, as research in European extremist Muslim groups showed for example, they overwhelmingly operate individually, with little if any organisational ties or even much of communication between them, and rarely directed centrally from some Al-Qaeda HQ. Moreover, most of the terrorist attacks that did take place were planned as well as executed by local people - not by some kind of globe-trotting Islamist revolutionaries whom we can distract in Iraq so they wont come to DC or London.

The war in Iraq does not "keep the terrorists busy", because its not the same people, its not the same groups, who are fighting there and who were planning the Madrid, London, Istanbul bomb attacks. The people who pose a national security threat to the US or to Europe are here, right now, already - the war in Iraq does not "keep them busy" in any way. Much like it didnt keep those who committed the various bomb attacks across the world since 2003 busy or distracted.

What the war in Iraq does do, is create much anger and resentment, not just there but globally, which the various terrorist groups all too eagerly capitalise on. The Iraq War is a great recruitment tool for the Islamists, both there and globally.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

Typical left-wing response. High idealism, but impracticable. Unswerving dedication to Ideals fueled the Reformation, Inquisition, Fascism and Communism, and radical religion around the world. Idealists can't stand compromise, and far too often close their eyes to the possible results of their ideation. Political zealots are dangerous folks, even when they profess the highest concern for human betterment.

I am stunned to see you write this and still contend that the Republicans, infested with neocons who are the epitome of impracticable idealists who launched a bloody invasion based on those ideals, will be better for our country than Democrats, who are wimps to be sure but have practically perfected the art of compromise.

Quote:

The President isn't a great intellect, but so what? The Nation has benefited many time is in the past by having President's whose personal faults were much greater than this one ... who isn't even running in the next election.

Like when?

0 Replies

What's YOUR Overriding Political Issue in the Next Election?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know