Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - How should the Democrats address Islamic Terrorism?

Willravel · 01-04-2005, 10:14 AM

Hmm. There is a way to act in order to win, and there is a way to act in order to be right.

In order to win (i.e. Kerry would have won if...), the dems should have promised to catch OBL and end the war on terror - which is improbable and impossible to promise, but america doesn't see to care about possibilities. Kerry should have said something to the effect, "We will bring our troops home, AND we will catch OBL, AND we will rebuild Iraq. And it won't cost us one red cent." All of his campaign money should have gone to bribing CEOs and executives of the major news companies, with the promise of tax breaks to them if he is elected. CNN and MSNBC would probalby cave, and FOX would follow in suit. After a great smear campaign on all the news networks, Bush would be impeached before the election even happened. After winning every state, Kerry would pull our troops out of Iraq and it would colapse from lack of structure. Then we would see terrorist activity lessen (why? becuase we are leaving the middle east, i.e. what the terrorists want). We might see other countries being attacked though, becuase the terrorist actions would have been percieved as successful in removing us from their home.

The right way to address terrorism (not islamic, in general) is to set up talks with the terrorists. I know this sounds crazy, but you'd be surprised what they might do in the face of possible ending to the "war". We meet via satelite and we don't tack them or anything. We state our intentions, and they state theirs. We want oil and a stop to terrorism, they want us to stop lending them money they can't repay, and trying to westerize them (and of course there is the bombing of innocent civilians). We quickly discover that it is possible for the oil companies to build there, and hire middle eastern workers (thus both economies are supported). They stop attacking because they are being left alone for the most part. We stop bombing because they aren't a threat anymore. We sign a treaty of non agression or something (that guarentees them a repsectable percentage of the oil money and no attacks, and guarentees us safety from terrorists).

Of course this is impossible. Oh well.

01-04-2005, 10:14 AM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Hmm. There is a way to act in order to win, and there is a way to act in order to be right. In order to win (i.e. Kerry would have won if...), the dems should have promised to catch OBL and end the war on terror - which is improbable and impossible to promise, but america doesn't see to care about possibilities. Kerry should have said something to the effect, "We will bring our troops home, AND we will catch OBL, AND we will rebuild Iraq. And it won't cost us one red cent." All of his campaign money should have gone to bribing CEOs and executives of the major news companies, with the promise of tax breaks to them if he is elected. CNN and MSNBC would probalby cave, and FOX would follow in suit. After a great smear campaign on all the news networks, Bush would be impeached before the election even happened. After winning every state, Kerry would pull our troops out of Iraq and it would colapse from lack of structure. Then we would see terrorist activity lessen (why? becuase we are leaving the middle east, i.e. what the terrorists want). We might see other countries being attacked though, becuase the terrorist actions would have been percieved as successful in removing us from their home. The right way to address terrorism (not islamic, in general) is to set up talks with the terrorists. I know this sounds crazy, but you'd be surprised what they might do in the face of possible ending to the "war". We meet via satelite and we don't tack them or anything. We state our intentions, and they state theirs. We want oil and a stop to terrorism, they want us to stop lending them money they can't repay, and trying to westerize them (and of course there is the bombing of innocent civilians). We quickly discover that it is possible for the oil companies to build there, and hire middle eastern workers (thus both economies are supported). They stop attacking because they are being left alone for the most part. We stop bombing because they aren't a threat anymore. We sign a treaty of non agression or something (that guarentees them a repsectable percentage of the oil money and no attacks, and guarentees us safety from terrorists). Of course this is impossible. Oh well.