Huckabee and Obama Triumph in Iowa

[Undertoad]

because anyone that does wants us to lose the war, supports terrorists, and wants your children to be murdered by a suicide bomber

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?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

UG? I have heard terrorist sympathizer many times though.

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?

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.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Has anyone actually used this line on you?

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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

As for the actual threat of foreign terrorism, it sounds as if it not a concern to you.

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.