Very well put, kitsune.

melidasaur, your post cracked me up. I was going to say something snarky some time ago about Mitt's gray sideburns (when the rest of his hair is still brown) then noticed the other night he'd shaved them off. Now, I know how gray hair can do that, and am not implying it was fake (well, it could have been) but regardless it looked stupid and smarmy. ;) Which, I suppose, is fitting.

You are such a sideburn-ist.:p

Dude.

Because so many of the fuckers wanted to cut funding for it in April this year.

In the bigger picture, that will turn out to have been an attempt to end the game after the Third Quarter so that it would end on a loss. A worst-case scenario in which Iraq would be left to the divide and to terrorism, and we would take 100% of the blame.

Was it just political? Or did they lose their crystal fortune-telling ball? Either way, we should not be impressed.

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

US Casualties by month.

Apr-07: 104
May-07: 126
Jun-07: 101
Jul-07: 78
Aug-07: 84
Sep-07: 65
Oct-07: 38
Nov-07: 37
Dec-07: 23

I think Kitsune was pointing out intent.

Very few people see the fact that Guilani will benefit from a terrorist attack as anything but political gains. If Guliani was saying that because he actually thought the level of threat was real, it would be different.

In the War in Iraq, there is a split view on what is the "best" solution. Through your posts, it seems that you want to stay in Iraq because you think it is best for the Iraqi (and American (I don't know if that is what you believe so I'm separating it)) people. Other people think that pulling out of Iraq would be best for the Iraqi and American people. Others want to pull out of Iraq for political gain.

Both sides benefit from people dying but Kitsune is saying that those deaths in Iraq are not preventable and we have little control over them while Guilani's is based on a random event that can be prevented. The Dems want to prevent deaths by pulling out of the situation all together. Guilani wants to prevent deaths by giving him more control.

To put it differently, if the Dems purposely do not do what they say they are going to do, they will not benefit from it, but still remain neutral. If Guliani purposely does not do what he says he is going to do, he will benefit from it. If the Dems fail at doing their job, they remain neutral and Bush is still in the spotlight. If Guliani fails at his job, he benefits and is put in the spotlight.


To stray a bit, while I actually think that some, Hilary especially, are in the last category which is something I strongly disagree with, I still don't think it is as bad as what Guilani is doing in theory (I don't want numbers included in this). Looking at a pure American perspective, Guliani is using fear to gain political gain and get control while Hilary, assuming she was in the last category, is just riding public opinion. In other words, Guliani is trying to move America's perspective on terror so he can get support. Hilary is mostly just riding on public opinion even though she is trying to get people on the anti-war boat, it isn't nearly as close to what Guliani is doing.

I don't agree with either side but what Guliani is doing is much worse from my perspective.

:eek:

Bro. :p

I thought the intention was "we're not agreeing to let you throw more money at this problem in your attempt to fix it until you can show improvement, define an end game solution, and give us an estimate on when you're going to reach it", not "we're purposely withholding money so US troops can die in a sandy pit". The requirements seem pretty demanding, but remember that we are continually told that "this is for the people of Iraq" and the frustration comes when so many feel inclined to measure success not on the new structure of the Iraqi government being setup (hey, where'd all the Sunnis go?) or peace between the ethnic/religious groups that would prevent a future civil war (hey, where did all the Sunnis go?), but rather by the changing tally of US dead. It's 2008, how long has this shit been going on? Oh, right -- it will take as long as it takes. Can't rush it, can't ask for an end!

And yet, just like the "war on terrorism", of which I have been told Iraq is but an extension, no one can say when this is officially over or when we should leave, if ever, but you can bet we will continue throwing money and soldiers at the problem without asking questions because anyone that does wants us to lose the war, supports terrorists, and wants your children to be murdered by a suicide bomber. Which kind of gets back to the main topic at hand that I was trying to get at: both parties are assholes in that they gain from loss, but the "the other party wants us to lose and will let the enemy kill you -- only candidate x can save you from the imminent, Hollywood-style attacks coming from the dark, murderous shadows that originated in the middle east that are now swirling around your innocent home and family, 9/11" is really creepy, getting old, and does nothing but foster rifts in people and government.

[sar]Yeah, but one "dirty bomb" (whatever that really is) will ruin your whole day.[casm]

Has anyone actually used this line on you? Has anyone actually used this line on anyone?

I get your gist, but I think it's misplaced. In 2003 people were saying that it's tremendously unfair that Bush gets to create his image of a war-time President. I pointed out that it's all about the prosecution of that war. Now if Rudy wins and there is terrorist action -- he'd have approval ratings like Bush has now. Similarly, if Obama wins and doesn't produce change -- if Ron Paul wins and doesn't gut the Federal Government overnight -- deep, heartfelt campaign promises like these can be broken, but only if the general narrative changes.

As for the actual threat of foreign terrorism, it sounds as if it not a concern to you. This I would like to probe. Do you figure it's just not going to happen, that this was a one-off and simply unlikely to happen again, like a three-hundred-year volcano threat? Do you believe that the threat has actually been neutralized -- in which case, thank you George W Bush? Or do you come from the school of thought which says these things may become inevitable but that we can enter some sort of yoga calm where the national psyche just absorbs them and moves on about its day unfazed?

UG? I have heard terrorist sympathizer many times though.


It will be a threat for awhile, but how big of a threat? Is it something that we should be constantly worrying about and elect our president for the sole reason of defending ourselves against these "freedom hating" terrorists? I personally don't think so and I firmly believe, Al Qaeda backs me up on this, that the more we "fight terror" with irrational, obsessive, and greedy motives the more terrorists we will create.

Both the Washington Post and the WSJ have editorials this morning chiding the D field for being anti-surge.

WaPo
WSJ

Yea, then he had to turn around and eat his words. He even stated so...


Very few, and those that I have seen were by 527. No worse than the crap coming from Soro's shell orgainzations.

In all the round about ways of suggesting that questioning the way this war is run undermines it and helps the terrorists, yes. It has been a fairly common argument point over the years.

I think this is all true, to a degree. The democrats have a hard time, and will far into the future, of overcoming the perception that they would simply be inactive if the US experienced another terrorist attack on their watch while the GOP is seen as taking swift, immediate action. I think if Rudy were in office and something similar were to happen that his ratings would, in fact, go even higher. Stronger laws parallel to the PATRIOT Act would be on the books faster than you could snap your fingers, the people would take to the streets looking for blood, and the war drums would start beating all over again. Preventative measures are never held high in these instances -- we never hear about them, never care. Immediate, violent retribution? That's good TV. Rudy isn't promising to prevent anything in his ads -- he's saying he'll be ready to fight back when the next one happens. That's an interesting promise he's making: no prevention, just more war. That doesn't really appeal to my fears.

Its going to happen, no doubt. We will see more violence, both at home and abroad. What are you going to do about it? Live in constant fear every day and vote for every guy that promises knee-jerk, under-planned military responses to an organization that exists, thrives, and perpetuates entirely on the idea the the US is waging a holy war against their religion? The War on Terror is going to see the same conclusion as The War on Drugs in that, well, it isn't. There has been and will always be terror -- had the DHS threat meter existed before 9/11, the US would never have seen it any color below yellow. We cling to the idea and false hope that we'll see an end to this and our lives will return to the "normal", pre-9/11 days, and that it can be done by changing people's minds through war. It ain't going to happen.

So, how about we take a more balanced approach to this? Instead of more future Iraqs that cost (as of this post) $483,978,000,000, we spend some of that money on preventative measures at home (airport security, air marshals, bomb screening equipment, port security, law enforcement, etc) and, along the way, try to defeat the terrorists by, well, not being terrorized in our own homes and when we travel. We shouldn't try to enter some fictional yoga trance, but I don't think we should be wetting our pants every time we wake up to go to work. Do you really want to elect a candidate that is basing his platform on fear? Somehow, I don't think Rudy is going be effective at making people more relaxed. His commercials certainly don't appeal to that. I'm absolutely sick of it and I'm don't understand why those tactics still work on people all these years later. We are, as a society, burnt out on fear.

Jumpin Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Who is this asshole, and why are they having arguments with you in your head?

Is this coming from life with the retirees in FL (which may explain why you see the ad and I don't)?

Or is it a cartoon character of an ideological enemy you feel good ranting against?

So let me followup here, because I find contradictions. You believe that further terrorism is going to happen, no doubt, but people should not vote in fear, nor even in expectation of that fact?

It's going to happen no doubt, but Rudy's commercial is bad because it doesn't talk about prevention?

You want more spent on cops, airport security and air marshals, but not to feel more terrorized at home and in travel?

You don't like the things that got Bush a 90% approval rating because they were not oriented towards protection, but although you feel attacks are inevitable, there hasn't been another one yet?

To answer your question
Well there's only one who isn't, and I like him a lot, although I'll hold off any final decision until necessary.

But I think, in the long run, the only candidate who'll be effective at making people more relaxed, will be one more effective. If an empty suit (or, if you prefer, empty pant-suit) is in office, and there's an attack, followed by ham-handed moves that seem ineffective, the people will continue in fear.

I, think we should, uh-- wait, what?
Yes to spending more on domestic terror prevention.
No to, uh, spending money to feel more terrorized. (?)

I feel that, like achieving a zero crime rate in a city, that terrorism is impossible to completely stomp out, but that spending funds domestically has a higher chance of reducing it rather than, say, blowing half a trillion on invading a country and trying to force in a democracy. A lot of people say I don't see the larger plan in that, but that's a different discussion.

So with all the contradictions you see, I guess I'm not communicating my ideas effectively, be it the retirees that live in my state or the, um, asshole voice in my head. :yelsick:

I just find it unusual that some candidates would seem to prefer to use the issue of fear of terrorism in their platform and only seem to talk reactive measures in response to it and do not offer many suggestions on their plans for preventative efforts. Ads that show images of death, destruction, the smoking ruins of the world trade center, and war seem to counter what we should/want to be looking for right now, but I suppose that's the nature of appeal to raw emotion and, really, I guess it works. Plenty of people banded behind Rudy and donated a symbolic $9.11 to his campaign. Maybe his approach works.

We could also spend the money on education, social security, entertainment, and maybe even lowering taxes for the republicans too.