The fate of the Republican party?

[Undertoad]

The Bali nightclub bombing was as serious to Australia (and of course, Bali and Indonesia) as 911 was to the US; it killed a proportionate number of Aussies as 911 did Americans.

The Madrid train bombings were as serious to Spaniards as 911 was to the US. It led to a change in the election there that the terrorists felt was a victory. Spain then announced that it would withdraw from Iraq. And then it DID. There's your pacification strategy. What was the terrorists response?

Seven months later, Radical Islamists are plotting attacks on Spain.

(The suspects had been in contact with other individuals in Europe, the United States and Australia, the statement said.)

Pacification is not possible. This feel-good take on terrorism and how the terrorists think is at the root of the fundamental failure of half of the D party on foreign relations. Luckily John Kerry doesn't agree with it, and that's why I'll be voting for him in two weeks.

[Kitsune]

This feel-good take on terrorism and how the terrorists think is at the root of the fundamental failure of half of the D party on foreign relations.

Which "feel-good" take do you refer to?

[iamthewalrus109]

In regards to comments made about the Bali bombings, Madrid, etc.
these bomings, although terribly tragic in their own right, are not the level of impact psychologically on the world that the 9/11 attacks had, nor were they to the scale and size! Furthermore, with the exception of the Madrid bombings, none had any long lasting effects. Accordinly the Madrid bombings were not as successful as hoped, in that other European countries didn't fold on the coalition deal. The only true effect it had was on Spain in the end. Aside from confirming France and Germany's stance on involvement in Iraq, it really only impacted the country of Spain and it's involvement in Iraq, not to mention the fact they wouldn't have been there in the first place if the US hadn't gone in. Apart form the US and Britain, the coalition is really just a dummie coalition anyway.

Now, as far as Al-Quieda, Jihad, and any other organized terror group, their members need to be destroyed obviously, but to discount pacification of potential areas of recruitment is ubsurd, that is if you value life as we know it. I mean you can't kill every Arab family in the middle east and make sure to wipe out every Shitite Muslim from London to Manilla, just to make sure there's no more terrorists. Pacification of the population is an integral element of the equation, either that or non-stop war and security checks, which are only postponing the inveitable anyway, ultimate destruction. America needs to rethink its trade policies and its stance in these hot bed areas. Maintain a firm hand, but not be so intrusive and aggresive in its global trade policies. While were playing around in the sand in Iraq, the Euro is pounding us, the Chinese are screwing with Eastern currencies and not accepting US goods as heavily in their markets as we accept their's in ours.

The US needs to become more self-sufficent, period. A global economy and global free trade attitude further attaches us to situations in other areas of the world that we wouldn't need to be involved with, especially in the case of our energy needs, which in the end has spurned the issue of global terrorism. They see us as much of a threat as we see them. Pacification of other populations is depedent on a scaling back of global efforts and serious efforts to maintain our country's needs through internal methods. America has so many other natrual resources, most of all food production. With all the knowledge and know how in this country I find it hard to believe that there can't be a way to inovate and arrive at alternatives to foriegn energy products, namely oil. When you think about it this lies at the heart of the issue. America's fight against the Soviet Union and it's intercession in Iraq in the early 90's has been two of the main reasons why Osama Bin Laden chose to attack. Implicit military support to a country is one thing, but having a standing army on the soil of Saudi Arabia was another. Of course it was another Bush in all this. Reagan would have never done anything like that, nor would Dick Nixon, it was inconcievable. Granted the UN had lost much of its ability to resolve such conflicts, but tradionally that's how it was done: Military support and Security counsel action . Forget this business about the "permission slip" or the Bush Doctrine, the bottom line is: our meddling looked capricious to most due the oil issue. I mean give me a break, risk thousands of US troops to save the soverignty of tiny Kuwait from Saddam, but yet then do nothing about Saddam in the end for what: to keep the status quo. Keep Kuwait and the Saudis safe to produce oil and keep Saddam at bay with sactions and limited Military force. All we needed to do was go once, and keep acting arrogantly about what we want from these regions and kaboom! rationale for attack, and further attacks, and our reaction, grounds for even more, until every impoversihed Arab, Muslim and extremeist member of the third world wants all Americans dead.

-Walrus

[Kitsune]

I always thought that prevention of such an event could be better controlled by proper border secruity measures coupled with international intelligence that should see to monitoring the terrorist groups and their activities as well as potential hazards, such as the Russian nuclear weapon stockpile.

And, in the event that such intelligence warrants, I'm also all for pre-emptive action. That would depend on the type of action you speak of, though, but we've been doing it for decades whether it be striking at terrorist camps or arresting people throughout the world that were suspected of plotting against the US. I imagine we've done quite a lot through special operations throughout the world to help keep the US safe.

Everybody keeps acting like politicians on the national level are somehow going to attempt to work for the best interests of this country, even though they may be mis-guided in their actions. As far as I'm concerned, that's just some nice fairy tale we the people all tell one another so we don't have to recognize what a mess our democracy has become.

Walrus's comments on the international trade situation are but one example. The US stance on trade and outsourcing has hurt the economy of this country, no two ways about it. People speak glibly of "globalization." Well and good - for the big, international corporations. For the rest of us globilization means pulling the US standard of living down toward that of the third world. In my town I have seen good paying job after good paying job being sent overseas. Even MCI has outsourced its call center to Mexico. I have a friend who worked for them and recently got laid off because MCI moved its operations out of the country. I have another friend who worked in the electronics manufacturing industry. He, too, lost his job when the company moved its operations to somewhere in east Asia. He is now working another job that pays about 2/3's of his old salary. The politicians who fostered a climate allowing corporations to do this were not acting for the good of the country, but rather the good of the company.

The real wage of the average American worker has steadily gone down while expenses for things like medical care and insurance have increased. More and more Americans are now without health insurance which means without medical care. Education was once the great equalizer in this country. Each child had access to the same quality of education, and, thus, each child had the same ability to make something of himself if he put forth enough effort. Now the disparity in our public schools is astounding. In poor neighborhoods children are crammed into classroms with 40 kids or more for each teacher. Libraries in these schools lack books and computers. The well-to-do send their kids to private schools with low student to teacher ratios and excellent learning facilities. With all the best effort in the world, which child will score higher on his SAT's? The one from the inner city school or the one from the elite private school? Don't all raise your hands at once.

If Bush is re-elected 600,000 families, consisting of about one million low income elderly and disabled people will be put out on the streets or in homeless shelters or institutionalized by 2009 thanks to cuts in the housing voucher program. That figure sounds like extremist polemic. It is so high as to be unbelievable, yet it is true. These figures come form the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Here:

http://www.cbpp.org/housingvoucher.htm#Appropriations

and here:

http://www.centeronbudget.org/2-12-04hous.htm

The savings in 2005 through 2009 from all of the domestic discretionary cuts combined would be substantially less than the cost in those years of the income tax cuts just for the one percent of households with the highest incomes. In other words, these cuts are NOT about fiscal responsibility - we are spending 25 BILLION on Homeland Security alone and 200 BILLION on the war in Iraq. These cuts in housing assistance are about social policy, plain and simple. They are aimed at that portion of the population least able to fight back - the permanently disabled and the elderly living on fixed incomes.
Welcome to the America of George W. Bush Jr.

If he is re-elected I will become a person with utterly nothing left to loose.

OK, now it's jump all over Marichiko time. Go ahead, I'm used to it.

[Kitsune]

I'm still not sure that any of this will be the death of the Republican party. Hell, every registered Republican I know continues to insist that all of the problems that plague any Republican administration are, obviously, always because the Democratic president before him caused them. In fact, our economic woes are entirely due to the mistakes of Bill Clinton. Even four years of corrective action by Bush hasn't been enough to pull us out of it!