So are you saying politicians aren't being calculative bastards or are you just dismissing my argument out of hand because I like video games?
I'm saying there are (or should be) limits imposed on international governmental actions based upon the values of the citizenry. That is, the arguments against torture should not be limited to "it's shitty PR," and there are many more textures to global politics than blase acceptance that everyone schemes.
Also because, seriously, fuck Sirlin. He's trotted out more often by internet dorks than fucking Machiavelli or Ladder Theory, and ultimately has nothing to say other than "lol loserz".
The new microwave weapons they're developing would cause people to feel as if they're on fire, but (reportedly) would most likely not cause permanent physical damage.
Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death.
I'm just thinking back to when I mentioned the white phosphorous incendiaries that burn targets in addition to causing a toxic effect. While this one in particular's caught a lot of trouble for being considered a chemical weapon, it does have me thinking about alternative applications for the technologies we have developed/are developing in a military perspective.
I'm just thinking back to when I mentioned the white phosphorous incendiaries that burn targets in addition to causing a toxic effect. While this one in particular's caught a lot of trouble for being considered a chemical weapon, it does have me thinking about alternative applications for the technologies we have developed/are developing in a military perspective.
WP is not considered a chemical weapon.
That depends on who is doing the considering.
While this is true, it's pretty much in the same class as flashbangs, napalm and chemical explosives.
Neutron Bombs will kill all the people, but leave the infrastructure intact and radiation-free. The new microwave weapons they're developing would cause people to feel as if they're on fire, but (reportedly) would most likely not cause permanent physical damage.
If by "not cause any permanent physical damage" you mean "melt/boil their innards" then yes, it wont cause any permanent physical damage.
Also because, seriously, fuck Sirlin. He's trotted out more often by internet dorks than fucking Machiavelli or Ladder Theory, and ultimately has nothing to say other than "lol loserz".
I suppose we'd need to start a new thread to resolve that. I dunno if I have the inclination to outright argue it right now, tho.
The question is would the US even consider using biological weapons, chemical weapons or WMDs for the war on terror? I don't think the US ever would because they are wrong to use and then we would become as bad as the terroists we are trying to stop.
If we can establish a democracy in Iraq, I think we will be seen in a better light.
If we were afraid of becoming as bad as the terrorists, we should be worried about things like torturing people, habeas corpus, the killing of innocent civilians, etc. Clearly, we're not worried about those things, so why would we be afraid to use WMDs against them?
Political fallout.
Becoming an international pariah.
The US has many reasons not to use WMDs and none of them have anything to do with morals or 'higher ground'.
I don't mean to sound like the typical "omg everyone already hates america lol" type, but I'm not even sure how much using chemical weapons would effect our image.
On one hand, our image isn't that grand to begin with. We're fighting a "war" that no one thinks we're winning, in a lot of respects showing that we learned nothing from Vietnam when it comes to a large army trying to fight a small group.
On the other hand, as Thanatos put quite clearly, we're already killing thousands of civilians, torturing people, ignoring our legal system, and making little to no effort to hide any of that. The public's reaction? Minimal. Similar to the apathy expressed towards the Jews in the earlier part of WW2, our country as a whole doesn't seem to care about what happens to Arabic-looking-people, as if they weren't fully human or something. So if the US Government starts using some form of chemical warfare and thousands more civilians die, I believe that a brief speech about the "necessary actions performed in order to preserve our freedoms" would bring the public back to its mildly-unhappy-at-the-situation-but-inactive position.
Sgt_BillDoor on
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
On the other hand, as Thanatos put quite clearly, we're already killing thousands of civilians, torturing people, ignoring our legal system, and making little to no effort to hide any of that. The public's reaction? Minimal. Similar to the apathy expressed towards the Jews in the earlier part of WW2, our country as a whole doesn't seem to care about what happens to Arabic-looking-people, as if they weren't fully human or something. So if the US Government starts using some form of chemical warfare and thousands more civilians die, I believe that a brief speech about the "necessary actions performed in order to preserve our freedoms" would bring the public back to its mildly-unhappy-at-the-situation-but-inactive position.
America got away with slavery for a long time as well, and only the crazy moonbats were really active in opposing it. In any case, I think the recent elections have indicated that callously disregarding ethical conventions or popular sentiment in warmaking at least has a chance of being electoral poison.
The power sturcture in Washington at the moment is such that no one really has the authority to actively challenge, or fuck, even oversee, anything the executive does. Surem the New Yorker can keep running pieces talking about horrible things we do, and us left types can be perpetually outraged, but we can't really do anything about it. Possibly the Dem control of congress will change this, at least as regards oversight.
On the other hand, as Thanatos put quite clearly, we're already killing thousands of civilians, torturing people, ignoring our legal system, and making little to no effort to hide any of that. The public's reaction? Minimal. Similar to the apathy expressed towards the Jews in the earlier part of WW2, our country as a whole doesn't seem to care about what happens to Arabic-looking-people, as if
they weren't fully human or something. So if the US Government starts using some form of chemical warfare and thousands more civilians die, I believe that a brief speech about the "necessary actions performed in order to preserve our freedoms" would bring the public back to its mildly-unhappy-at-the-situation-but-inactive position.
America got away with slavery for a long time as well, and only the crazy moonbats were really active in opposing it. In any case, I think the recent elections have indicated that callously disregarding ethical conventions or popular sentiment in warmaking at least has a chance of being electoral poison.
The power sturcture in Washington at the moment is such that no one really has the authority to actively challenge, or fuck, even oversee, anything the executive does. Surem the New Yorker can keep running pieces talking about horrible things we do, and us left types can be perpetually outraged, but we can't really do anything about it. Possibly the Dem control of congress will change this, at least as regards oversight.
I don't view these election results as having resulted from our present administration's actions. The approval ratings are very low, that goes without saying. However, there has been a long history of the president's party losing a lot of Legislative seats during the "6 year curse", that is, during the legislative elections that fall on the president's 6th year.
"In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office. "
In fact, on average, the party loses 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats during the "6 year curse". So this year's election results are essentially... average.
I'm not arguing that the national opinion of Bush is high, only that the election results are not a valid indicator one way or the other.[/b]
Sgt_BillDoor on
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited November 2006
Did the Dems lose seats in '98? Alsom, it's worth noting that there was pretty heavy shit going on in each of the examples you cited, far and away more important than the sixth year of a sitting president. WWII/ court packing, Vietnam, Watergate, the assorted scandals, deficits and quagmires in Reagan's second term.
It's clear that your source is pretty much a GOP apologist ("America's greatest president? wtf?") I mean - I know that a lot of GOP ideologues would vastly prefer an interpretation of the election that places the fault somewhere besides the GOP fucking up in a thousand different ways.
I'd be a lot more convinced that 6th-year losses were inevitable if there weren't so very many more direct and palpable causations for the anti-republican backlash. I don't remember "6 years is just too long" being on the short (or long) list of voter motivation polls.
A lot of people were outraged by the war conduct and coverups - yes, even conservatives.
Using chemical weapons or nukes in the War on Terror makes as much sense as using these weapons in the War on Drugs, the War on Pauverty or the War on AIDS.
The best analogy for the War on Terror I heard was, unsurprisingly, on the Daily Show, when someone (can't remember who, but given the number of Daily Show fans around here I'm sure someone will fill it in) said that "The War on Terror is a PR war, and we're losing to a bunch of guys in caves." That's because the US has no PR strategy in the Mid-East, unless you count the messages some soldiers write on bombs before launching them. On the other hand, terrorist leaders have been using a two-fold strategy, relying on people's hatred for the US and Israel on one hand, and on a misinterpretation of the Qu'ran on the other. If you're to fight back, there are the two fronts you need to attack on.
1) As moniker said, you need to build good will in the Mid-East. Peace Corps, humanitarian programs, that sort of thing. Then you need for it to be known, without making it look like you're only doing it for bragging rights. My first guess would be to get Al Jazeera to report on your projects, but that's just me. I'm not a PR guy.
2) You need to debate their reading of the Qu'ran. That's trickier, because you can't do it directly. All you can do is help push it out in the open. Encourange televised debates between Ahmed Terrorist and some moderate, intelligent Imams. These debates will help contrast the terrorist's reading and the real Qu'ran, and undermine one of their key recruting tools. Of course, once again, you need to make sure people see it. Once again, I'd guess going with Al Jazeera for maximum coverage and credibility.
And see, this is half my problem with whole aftermath of 9/11. We played right into thier fucking hands.
Seriously, our biggest mistake was announcing to the world that we were going to conduct a "War on Terror". To extract big, public vengence on the people who wronged us. To show off our gigantic military power and stomp around "eradicating terror" in order to please voters. Which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted.
However, now it's painfully obvious that we are failing, since this isn't a "War" that can be ended with big guns. Which gives insurgents more of a reason to fight. In which we respond by sending in bigger guns. Which, gives insurgents more of a reason to fight.
If we continue with this bullshittery, this war will NEVER, EVER end. Since the way we are approaching it FUELS it.
Amen.
Lets look at the aftermath of Sept-11
1) Bush calls Iran part of "axis of evil". Right when Iran was in its most democratic phase ever, under the moderate president Khatami, who-
-outlawed sicide bombings, group that supported the bomber could be imprisioned. (His most famous quote- "Those who put others through hell will never go to heaven")
-recognized Israel, and the holoucast
-pushed for lessening the Ayatollah's powers and gave them to the parliament
-also started the UN dialogue of civilazations program (UN named an entire year after him)
Anti-US sentiments rises, and a dickeed holoucast denier becomes president.
2) Guatamano and torture. US, the country that has pushed for human rights and is almost always th head of any such agreement, looses face. China enjoys this, with a full page editorial from the governmnt saying that US has no longer the right to raise the issues of Hman rights wth them. The world no longer will listen to US, and with the EU too divided, theres no superpower with the moral high ground anymore.
3) Afghanistan. Next poorest country in the world, (only after Serra Leone), now in shambles and in the hands of warlords. Im still hoping that the situaton will get bttr.
4) Iraq. Saddam deseves to be hanged and all, but damn, he kept the Sunnis quiet (or thyd be tortured), and the Shiite majority in ceck (through murder). And didnt allow any organized group in his country, incluiding terrorist factons. I dont agree with hs methods, but damn, GWB shouldve thought of that before chopping th head of Iraqi authority off. Now we're having a civil war and terrorist camps.
I hope you guys pull through, and you guys did survive Nixon and Reagan and recoverd some prestige, Im sure post-GWB Bsh US can once again gain its rightful place as the example to be followed.
The Dems held exactly steady in the Senate and actually picked up some seats in the house. Though at the end of the election the Republicans still held a narrow majority, the Republicans had big expectations for 98 and so their poor performance was widely viewed as a referendum on voter unhappiness with the Republican attempts to impeach Bill Clinton. Immediately after the election Newt Gingrich resigned.
The Dems held exactly steady in the Senate and actually picked up some seats in the house. Though at the end of the election the Republicans still held a narrow majority, the Republicans had big expectations for 98 and so their poor performance was widely viewed as a referendum on voter unhappiness with the Republican attempts to impeach Bill Clinton. Immediately after the election Newt Gingrich resigned.
What? Are you implying that there's more to election results than simple analysis of how many years the sitting president has served?
If you're going to use military force against terrorism the only viable option is clandestine special-operations forces and tactics like we saw and are seeing in Afghanistan with minimal, if necessary, conventional military support.
Unfortunately, like the war on drugs, it's not even a true war. Whoever said it's a police action was exactly right. Uniformed boots on the ground in organized public operations is not how you fight terrorism.
Public military operations in foreign nations and states is counter-productive toward hampering terrorism against the United States of America.
EDIT: I also want to add that, militarily, we are not "losing." U.S. forces are going a completely stand-up job considering how difficult it is to maintain security, suppress insurgency that will never end, and avoiding casualties of non-combatant forces -- all of which is completely impossible to accomplish 100% no matter how well trained and equipped you are. Politically.. there's no doubt in my mind that we've already failed.
It strikes me that the idea of a "war" against this is flawed. And I'm ignoring the fact that, by definition, its a war on a technique...
Generally, anti-western sentiment is based on how these countries conduct themselves internationally. A great many things have been done in the name of "securing our interests" that are at the expense of the less advantaged.
The acts of terrorism stem from the inability of these people to fight a traditional war. They have neither the people, or the resources - so they strke intermittantly at civilian targets.
The nature of this action stems from their frustration at acts perceived against them. The difficulty here is that - lets assume for the sake of argument the "war" wins. These people are bombed into submission and decide that its not worth fighting. For them now, the retribution outweighs the statement. But that initial perception remains.
So what now? Who thinks that these people would find it possible to accept this outcome. Any people suppressed by force will come back - maybe a generation or two down the line. But it cannot be that anyone will completely quell anti-western sentiment across the ENTIRE WORLD.
So it strikes me that the idea of "winning the war" is flawed. Best case scenario is a temporary win.
I'd love to be able to suggest a real strategy. But I cant. But I fail to see any way that military action will work. Lets say that you magically kill everyone who is a terrorist [sic]. Anytime there is colateral damage - you recruit another enemy...
You know. If you want to really shock your class, the next time your professor asks about what our weapons in the war on terror are.
Be prepared and have a copy of the Quaran on hand, hold it in the air, yell "this is our weapon" and then slam it on the desk.
Go into a long triad about the ineffectiveness of military methods in convincing civilian populations that they should submit and elaborate on how it is only with strong grassroots religious and social efforts can you hope to quell the tide of discontent with the U.S. mid eastern policy.
You know. If you want to really shock your class, the next time your professor asks about what our weapons in the war on terror are.
Be prepared and have a copy of the Quaran on hand, hold it in the air, yell "this is our weapon" and then slam it on the desk.
Go into a long triad about the ineffectiveness of military methods in convincing civilian populations that they should submit and elaborate on how it is only with strong grassroots religious and social efforts can you hope to quell the tide of discontent with the U.S. mid eastern policy.
Seriously, our biggest mistake was announcing to the world that we were going to conduct a "War on Terror". To extract big, public vengence on the people who wronged us. To show off our gigantic military power and stomp around "eradicating terror" in order to please voters. Which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted.
The only thing Bin Laden really wanted was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Seriously, our biggest mistake was announcing to the world that we were going to conduct a "War on Terror". To extract big, public vengence on the people who wronged us. To show off our gigantic military power and stomp around "eradicating terror" in order to please voters. Which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted.
The only thing Bin Laden really wanted was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
Seriously, our biggest mistake was announcing to the world that we were going to conduct a "War on Terror". To extract big, public vengence on the people who wronged us. To show off our gigantic military power and stomp around "eradicating terror" in order to please voters. Which is exactly what Bin Laden wanted.
The only thing Bin Laden really wanted was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
and we did just that
way to lose the war guys.....
Well, you did much more than that actually.
I agree though, I think Bin Laden won, much to his surprise, assumably. I mean, he certainly didn't expect the USA's knee-jerk, premature reactions to 9/11 would result in such a favorable outcome for him (Hell, he says he didn't even plan for the buildings to collapse completely).
Six years into this... this "war on terror" bullshit, and what do you have? Majority of world opinion is anti-American, or at least more skeptical than ever of American motives. USA has lost a lot of respect and leverage power in the international political arena as well. And let's not forget the domestic issues, like loss of liberties and the overall theme of fear (as well as lack of trust in the government) that's prevalent.
When you think about it, the guy accomplished so much with just two planes and a handful of terrorist buddies.
It strikes me that the idea of a "war" against this is flawed. And I'm ignoring the fact that, by definition, its a war on a technique...
Generally, anti-western sentiment is based on how these countries conduct themselves internationally. A great many things have been done in the name of "securing our interests" that are at the expense of the less advantaged.
The acts of terrorism stem from the inability of these people to fight a traditional war. They have neither the people, or the resources - so they strke intermittantly at civilian targets.
The nature of this action stems from their frustration at acts perceived against them. The difficulty here is that - lets assume for the sake of argument the "war" wins. These people are bombed into submission and decide that its not worth fighting. For them now, the retribution outweighs the statement. But that initial perception remains.
So what now? Who thinks that these people would find it possible to accept this outcome. Any people suppressed by force will come back - maybe a generation or two down the line. But it cannot be that anyone will completely quell anti-western sentiment across the ENTIRE WORLD.
So it strikes me that the idea of "winning the war" is flawed. Best case scenario is a temporary win.
I'd love to be able to suggest a real strategy. But I cant. But I fail to see any way that military action will work. Lets say that you magically kill everyone who is a terrorist [sic]. Anytime there is colateral damage - you recruit another enemy...
Another reason that you can't win against this technique is that it is so utterly cost effective. For the lives of 19 people, they killed nearly 3000 people and caused millions of dollars in direct damage, conflicts initiated by us have cost us hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of additional soldier deaths to date as well as serving as an extremely effective terrorist recruiting tool, billions more is being wasted on ineffective "security" measures and our politicians have pissed all over our constitutional rights in the name of "safety" and destroyed any international good will we might have had and the costs are still rising. Utterly effective...and utterly sad that most of this damage is being done by our own hands. If the results weren't so horrific, I would call it the most successful combat plan in history.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
We can beat terrorism the same way we beat the Soviets in the Cold War. By using patience and selling Coca-Cola! No seriously, we all know its not plain old terrorism (Tim McVeigh?) we're fighting but really Islamo-Facism that originates in the Mid-East. We need to get off their oil pronto and move our troops out soon. When we're off their oil we have no reason to keep our troops there.
LondonBridge on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
We can beat terrorism the same way we beat the Soviets in the Cold War. By using patience and selling Coca-Cola! No seriously, we all know its not plain old terrorism (Tim McVeigh?) we're fighting but really Islamo-Facism that originates in the Mid-East. We need to get off their oil pronto and move our troops out soon. When we're off their oil we have no reason to keep our troops there.
What?
Irond Will on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
On the other hand, as Thanatos put quite clearly, we're already killing thousands of civilians, torturing people, ignoring our legal system, and making little to no effort to hide any of that. The public's reaction? Minimal. Similar to the apathy expressed towards the Jews in the earlier part of WW2, our country as a whole doesn't seem to care about what happens to Arabic-looking-people, as if
they weren't fully human or something. So if the US Government starts using some form of chemical warfare and thousands more civilians die, I believe that a brief speech about the "necessary actions performed in order to preserve our freedoms" would bring the public back to its mildly-unhappy-at-the-situation-but-inactive position.
America got away with slavery for a long time as well, and only the crazy moonbats were really active in opposing it. In any case, I think the recent elections have indicated that callously disregarding ethical conventions or popular sentiment in warmaking at least has a chance of being electoral poison.
The power sturcture in Washington at the moment is such that no one really has the authority to actively challenge, or fuck, even oversee, anything the executive does. Surem the New Yorker can keep running pieces talking about horrible things we do, and us left types can be perpetually outraged, but we can't really do anything about it. Possibly the Dem control of congress will change this, at least as regards oversight.
I don't view these election results as having resulted from our present administration's actions. The approval ratings are very low, that goes without saying. However, there has been a long history of the president's party losing a lot of Legislative seats during the "6 year curse", that is, during the legislative elections that fall on the president's 6th year.
"In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office. "
In fact, on average, the party loses 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats during the "6 year curse". So this year's election results are essentially... average.
I'm not arguing that the national opinion of Bush is high, only that the election results are not a valid indicator one way or the other.[/b]
Oh, how very convenient that I just finished reading this article:
But Republicans spent most of the year boasting about how the redistricting of the past decade had made them all but bulletproof. Absent those new district lines, says the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein, "it could easily have been 45 or more."
Redistricting is the only thing that saved the Republicans from an ass-rape of epic proportions.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
We can beat terrorism the same way we beat the Soviets in the Cold War. By using patience and selling Coca-Cola! No seriously, we all know its not plain old terrorism (Tim McVeigh?) we're fighting but really Islamo-Facism that originates in the Mid-East. We need to get off their oil pronto and move our troops out soon. When we're off their oil we have no reason to keep our troops there.
When people say "x number of civilians have been killed in/by/because of the war on terror," is that in reference to collateral damage, or factoring in suicide bombings? Or some combination therebetween?
We can beat terrorism the same way we beat the Soviets in the Cold War. By using patience and selling Coca-Cola! No seriously, we all know its not plain old terrorism (Tim McVeigh?) we're fighting but really Islamo-Facism that originates in the Mid-East. We need to get off their oil pronto and move our troops out soon. When we're off their oil we have no reason to keep our troops there.
We'll beat the pants off those terrorists by selling them Levi's!
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
We can beat terrorism the same way we beat the Soviets in the Cold War. By using patience and selling Coca-Cola! No seriously, we all know its not plain old terrorism (Tim McVeigh?) we're fighting but really Islamo-Facism that originates in the Mid-East. We need to get off their oil pronto and move our troops out soon. When we're off their oil we have no reason to keep our troops there.
We'll beat the pants off those terrorists by selling them Levi's!
Plain old terrorism?
Actually I really don't see the difference. Both were political acts of violence.
Posts
I'm saying there are (or should be) limits imposed on international governmental actions based upon the values of the citizenry. That is, the arguments against torture should not be limited to "it's shitty PR," and there are many more textures to global politics than blase acceptance that everyone schemes.
Also because, seriously, fuck Sirlin. He's trotted out more often by internet dorks than fucking Machiavelli or Ladder Theory, and ultimately has nothing to say other than "lol loserz".
If by "not cause any permanent physical damage" you mean "melt/boil their innards" then yes, it wont cause any permanent physical damage.
I suppose we'd need to start a new thread to resolve that. I dunno if I have the inclination to outright argue it right now, tho.
I don't mean to sound like the typical "omg everyone already hates america lol" type, but I'm not even sure how much using chemical weapons would effect our image.
On one hand, our image isn't that grand to begin with. We're fighting a "war" that no one thinks we're winning, in a lot of respects showing that we learned nothing from Vietnam when it comes to a large army trying to fight a small group.
On the other hand, as Thanatos put quite clearly, we're already killing thousands of civilians, torturing people, ignoring our legal system, and making little to no effort to hide any of that. The public's reaction? Minimal. Similar to the apathy expressed towards the Jews in the earlier part of WW2, our country as a whole doesn't seem to care about what happens to Arabic-looking-people, as if they weren't fully human or something. So if the US Government starts using some form of chemical warfare and thousands more civilians die, I believe that a brief speech about the "necessary actions performed in order to preserve our freedoms" would bring the public back to its mildly-unhappy-at-the-situation-but-inactive position.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
America got away with slavery for a long time as well, and only the crazy moonbats were really active in opposing it. In any case, I think the recent elections have indicated that callously disregarding ethical conventions or popular sentiment in warmaking at least has a chance of being electoral poison.
The power sturcture in Washington at the moment is such that no one really has the authority to actively challenge, or fuck, even oversee, anything the executive does. Surem the New Yorker can keep running pieces talking about horrible things we do, and us left types can be perpetually outraged, but we can't really do anything about it. Possibly the Dem control of congress will change this, at least as regards oversight.
I don't view these election results as having resulted from our present administration's actions. The approval ratings are very low, that goes without saying. However, there has been a long history of the president's party losing a lot of Legislative seats during the "6 year curse", that is, during the legislative elections that fall on the president's 6th year.
A quote from http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_4648107:
"In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office. "
In fact, on average, the party loses 6 Senate seats and 39 House seats during the "6 year curse". So this year's election results are essentially... average.
I'm not arguing that the national opinion of Bush is high, only that the election results are not a valid indicator one way or the other.[/b]
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
It's clear that your source is pretty much a GOP apologist ("America's greatest president? wtf?") I mean - I know that a lot of GOP ideologues would vastly prefer an interpretation of the election that places the fault somewhere besides the GOP fucking up in a thousand different ways.
I'd be a lot more convinced that 6th-year losses were inevitable if there weren't so very many more direct and palpable causations for the anti-republican backlash. I don't remember "6 years is just too long" being on the short (or long) list of voter motivation polls.
A lot of people were outraged by the war conduct and coverups - yes, even conservatives.
Amen.
Lets look at the aftermath of Sept-11
1) Bush calls Iran part of "axis of evil". Right when Iran was in its most democratic phase ever, under the moderate president Khatami, who-
-outlawed sicide bombings, group that supported the bomber could be imprisioned. (His most famous quote- "Those who put others through hell will never go to heaven")
-recognized Israel, and the holoucast
-pushed for lessening the Ayatollah's powers and gave them to the parliament
-also started the UN dialogue of civilazations program (UN named an entire year after him)
Anti-US sentiments rises, and a dickeed holoucast denier becomes president.
2) Guatamano and torture. US, the country that has pushed for human rights and is almost always th head of any such agreement, looses face. China enjoys this, with a full page editorial from the governmnt saying that US has no longer the right to raise the issues of Hman rights wth them. The world no longer will listen to US, and with the EU too divided, theres no superpower with the moral high ground anymore.
3) Afghanistan. Next poorest country in the world, (only after Serra Leone), now in shambles and in the hands of warlords. Im still hoping that the situaton will get bttr.
4) Iraq. Saddam deseves to be hanged and all, but damn, he kept the Sunnis quiet (or thyd be tortured), and the Shiite majority in ceck (through murder). And didnt allow any organized group in his country, incluiding terrorist factons. I dont agree with hs methods, but damn, GWB shouldve thought of that before chopping th head of Iraqi authority off. Now we're having a civil war and terrorist camps.
I hope you guys pull through, and you guys did survive Nixon and Reagan and recoverd some prestige, Im sure post-GWB Bsh US can once again gain its rightful place as the example to be followed.
Till then? Good luck.
My digital art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=8168
My pen and paper art! http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=7462
What? Are you implying that there's more to election results than simple analysis of how many years the sitting president has served?
Unfortunately, like the war on drugs, it's not even a true war. Whoever said it's a police action was exactly right. Uniformed boots on the ground in organized public operations is not how you fight terrorism.
Public military operations in foreign nations and states is counter-productive toward hampering terrorism against the United States of America.
EDIT: I also want to add that, militarily, we are not "losing." U.S. forces are going a completely stand-up job considering how difficult it is to maintain security, suppress insurgency that will never end, and avoiding casualties of non-combatant forces -- all of which is completely impossible to accomplish 100% no matter how well trained and equipped you are. Politically.. there's no doubt in my mind that we've already failed.
Generally, anti-western sentiment is based on how these countries conduct themselves internationally. A great many things have been done in the name of "securing our interests" that are at the expense of the less advantaged.
The acts of terrorism stem from the inability of these people to fight a traditional war. They have neither the people, or the resources - so they strke intermittantly at civilian targets.
The nature of this action stems from their frustration at acts perceived against them. The difficulty here is that - lets assume for the sake of argument the "war" wins. These people are bombed into submission and decide that its not worth fighting. For them now, the retribution outweighs the statement. But that initial perception remains.
So what now? Who thinks that these people would find it possible to accept this outcome. Any people suppressed by force will come back - maybe a generation or two down the line. But it cannot be that anyone will completely quell anti-western sentiment across the ENTIRE WORLD.
So it strikes me that the idea of "winning the war" is flawed. Best case scenario is a temporary win.
I'd love to be able to suggest a real strategy. But I cant. But I fail to see any way that military action will work. Lets say that you magically kill everyone who is a terrorist [sic]. Anytime there is colateral damage - you recruit another enemy...
Be prepared and have a copy of the Quaran on hand, hold it in the air, yell "this is our weapon" and then slam it on the desk.
Go into a long triad about the ineffectiveness of military methods in convincing civilian populations that they should submit and elaborate on how it is only with strong grassroots religious and social efforts can you hope to quell the tide of discontent with the U.S. mid eastern policy.
to sum it up : stop acting like dicks
The only thing Bin Laden really wanted was to get US troops out of Saudi Arabia.
and we did just that
way to lose the war guys.....
Well, you did much more than that actually.
I agree though, I think Bin Laden won, much to his surprise, assumably. I mean, he certainly didn't expect the USA's knee-jerk, premature reactions to 9/11 would result in such a favorable outcome for him (Hell, he says he didn't even plan for the buildings to collapse completely).
Six years into this... this "war on terror" bullshit, and what do you have? Majority of world opinion is anti-American, or at least more skeptical than ever of American motives. USA has lost a lot of respect and leverage power in the international political arena as well. And let's not forget the domestic issues, like loss of liberties and the overall theme of fear (as well as lack of trust in the government) that's prevalent.
When you think about it, the guy accomplished so much with just two planes and a handful of terrorist buddies.
What?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1560212,00.html
See Myth #3.
Redistricting is the only thing that saved the Republicans from an ass-rape of epic proportions.
Just play dead and he'll go away
When people say "x number of civilians have been killed in/by/because of the war on terror," is that in reference to collateral damage, or factoring in suicide bombings? Or some combination therebetween?
Plain old terrorism?
Actually I really don't see the difference. Both were political acts of violence.
No, they won five seats in the house. The balance in the senate remained the same.