zynyxx

Sometimes I wonder if it really matters who is President. Does the President of the US have enough power to completely stop terrorists? It just seems like there is so much hatred in the world today, I mean the muslims and jews have been going at it for centuries, how does one person change that? Just wondered what others thought...

Orpheus

I have always thought that wars are fought against proper nouns, like states or organizations. Waging war against concepts like "terrorism" can only lead to more frustration.

Rdr4evr

Terrorism cannot be won by any president. Terrorism will never cease to exist, but a president can make terrorism either better or worse, in our current situation, he is making it worse.

kutulu

Absolutely not. No matter how many terrorists we kill there will always be more who are willing to become martyrs. We can make it more difficult for the terrorists to have a sucessful attack, but eventually we will get hit again.

It really pisses me off when people want to look at the fact that we haven't had an attack since 9-11. You can count on one hand the amount of terroist attacks that have occured within the US (ie USS Cole and embassy attacks don't count) and they have been far apart. If we lived in Isreal, where terrorist attacks occur on a regular basis and then there is a sudden decline, then yes you could take credit for it but not in a country that has only had a couple such attacks.

summerkc

How is our president making it worse? By "making the terrorists mad" and promoting recruiting? If you catch a rapist that has been raping women in your neighborhood, is that just going to make other rapists angrier so you just let him off the hook and try to reason with him. Appeasment doesn't work.

We are killing and capturing terrorists everyday, and more important, killing and capturing their leaders and siezing thier funds. There is nothing else that Kerry or anyone else could do to more effectively stop terrorists before they reach our country.

powerclown

The question is, "Is civilization worth fighting for?"

Dark Assailant

Presidents, Ministers and leaders will always come and go.

Good and Evil is here to stay.

The world is a mathematical balance of Positives and Negatives in every possible form (physicaly, chemistry, state of mind...)

__________________
·´¯`·-> Ðark Åssailant<-·´¯`·

Randomly

I like how the war on terror is becoming more inclusive each day. Our war on terror started with Al Queda and related groups. It then spread to the groups attacking Isreal. Then it included ELF and the mob. Other nations are joining us in this war. Of course they add the rebels, the freedom fighters and the opposition party to the list. Russia adds the Chechans. China adds its Muslim groups. Mexico adds its Indian rebels.

Terrorists are everywhere. I read in the Tallahasee, Florida paper that three members of the track team were arrested under Terror laws for exploding a home made firework on the Track Coaches lawn. Ann Coulter even called John Kerry a traitor and accused him of helping Terrorists.

I wonder if I'm a terrorist?

ARTelevision

The concept is too general.

Threats can be dealt with effectively, yes.

__________________
create evolution

JumpinJesus

Can terrorism be stopped? I don't know if it can ever be completely stopped. As long as there is a group who feels sufficiently oppressed by a governmental entity, there will be terrorism.

As far as whether we as Americans - or our President - can ever eliminate the threat of terror, it depends on us. As fun and politically expedient as it is for us to say, "They hate us 'cause of our freedom," it is completely off the mark and ignores the real reason they hate us. We all know deep down the root of terrorist activity against the U.S. is based on two things: our support of Israel, and our hegemonic ways.

The problem, as I see it, is that we are unable to admit our often brutal role in overthrowing foreign governments, supporting tyrannical leaders in other countries, and demanding more of our allies than we are willing to give in return. We see the world as somehow owing us for the favors we do, even if those favors are unwanted and unhelpful. Watching one of the numerous Sunday morning talking head shows, I heard an administration official - which one escapes me - complaining that the Iraqis are not grateful enough to us for what we've done for them. He either failed to realize, or refuses to acknowedge, that possibly, just possibly, the Iraqis are not grateful because they do not see us as doing them any favors, even if they did hate Saddam Hussein.

We have deluded ourselves as a nation into believing that every action we take in foreign countries is somehow synonymous with our liberation of European cities during WW2, and we expect - if not demand - that the citizens of these countries genuflect at our benevolent actions. We kid ourselves into thinking that we know what is best for these people, even if they don't recognize it, and then we are shocked when they don't adorn their streets with rose petals at our arrival.

If we are serious about diminishing the threat of terror against us, we have to admit that just because we can enter any country we want and demand they adhere to our beliefs of freedom and business (WTO, for instance), doesn't mean that we should. And when we do, we better be ready to expect resistance.

If instead, we want to pretend that terrorists hate us because of our freedom, then we will never truly understand why they hate us. Tough talk might work great in Hollywood movies, but in reality it makes us look arrogant and ignorant, all at once. Simplifying and reducing deep-rooted hatred to an easy catchphrase will only serve to guarantee that we will always be a target.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

summerkc

It is the above thinking that you will get if you vote for Kerry: America is a ruthless, imperialistic country that is hell bent on world domination.

What makes this country great, along with christianity that you seem to be against, is that they want to make the world a better place, and there is a moral right and a moral wrong, good and evil. Killing 3000 innocent people only for the reason of to kill innocents is wrong. Killing children on buses and in malls in Israel is evil. They are not fighting against an oppressive government and its soldiers, they are fighting against freedom.

I know there have been civilian casualties that we have inflicted, but we have done everything to minimize them. They, on the other hand, celebrate when a Israeli child is dying in their mothers arms.

You say we demand more of our allies than we are willing to return? Look at the causuality rate and expense that the U.S. has had for wars going back 100 years, also all of the foriegn aid for food, drugs, AIDS relief, etc that we send every year. Ask Franch, Britain, Poland, etc if they would have rather us sit out WWII. Ask the Afgani women if they would rather have the Taliban still in power, or Russians if they would still like to be communist.

tecoyah

I would have to agree with the above. I simply wish we were a bit more capable in figuring out which to deal with, and how to do it.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

lostinlife

That a load of crap, we don't do stuff to make the world a better place. We do stuff to make our life easier. If we were to do what is right, we would of intervine in the WWI and WWII much earlier. If we do what is right, we would of send much of our resources to Africa to help those who are hungry and needy. If we do what is right, we wouldn't have so many groups hate us now wouldn't we?

The terrorist don't just hate us because of our idea and our so called freedom. They hate us cause our international policy prop piss them off in a way.

Long summary short. I don't give a flying fuck what religion they are. However, if someone trying to press there believe on me, then I would dislike them very much. (Those damn jahova witness, they just don't know when to leave you alone till you threaten them....) This little example you can use to the US international policy as well.

bigstarr

Good and evil are here to stay, true. It just seems to me a lot of the evil is focused on doing harm to Americans. We have to stop and think -- what is our government doing that attracts the attention of that evil?

Maybe we can help transform some of it. Maybe we can help diffuse some of it.

We definitely can't destroy all of it, though. The idea that such an approach can ever be successful is misguided.

JumpinJesus

I don't recall anywhere in my post taking a position on the candidates. If you chose to see the world in such black and white, us or them terms, then there is no use discussing this further.

Again, I don't recall mentioning Christianity or my stand on it. I didn't realize that trying to engage in meaningful discussion over the possible causes of terrorism was equated with being anti-christian. And regarding freedom, please read my post again regarding the meaninglessness of stating they hate us because of our freedom. That argument is simplistic and shallow, which was the exact point of my post.

Yes, terrorists celebrate the deaths of those they hate. What does this have to do with why they hate us?

If you think for a second that we are altruistic and give of ourselves only because we are so generous, then you are mistaken. Every dollar we spend in foreign aid is done so with strings attached. A favor given with a favor expected is no favor at all. We don't do these things out of the goodness of our hearts, regardless of what political ads may say. We do it only if it serves our best interests.

I appreciate your views, but you are missing the point of what I am saying. Simplifying extremely complex issues through the use of jingoistic language does not serve us in the long run. It might help sell Toby Keith CDs, but it does not make us any safer.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

gondath

Terrorism is such a broad category to begin with. If addressing the problem in the middle east, then no, an American President will not be able to stop the attacks without committing acts of heinous atrocity. I don't believe in a country as vast as the United States that attacks can all be prevented. Our borders are not secure, and the country is simple too big to keep an eye on.

Dwayne

The war on terrorism can be no more won than the war on drugs or the war on communism. Presidents can be differently abled at stoping the effect of terrorism but none can eliminate it by any non Machiavellian means. Also the term terrorist is ever changing and each person has a different view of what terrorism means. I believe George Bush is a terrorist because he keeps announcing of possible attacks against the US and making people afraid.

Amaras

Nope. Not a chance. To cut down on it, just alleviate the legitimate portions of their complaints.

__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

mattevil

Terrorism will never die however the world could be made safer.

powerclown

Would you have women walking around in burkhas? Would you give up intoxicants? Would you give up your worldly possesions and live like an ascetic? Would you give up your right to choose your leaders? Would you give up your right to bear arms? To Free speech? No cheap airfare? No IMAX theaters? No Corvettes? No Sushi? No Jessica Simpson? No LASIK? No Laz-Y-Boys? No Playboy Channel? No NBA? No Indianapolis 500? No Epcot Center? No Vegas? No Super Bowl? No Rolling Stones? No Telluride or Aspen? No iPods? No scuba diving lessons? No $1000 digital cameras? No cosmetic surgery?

Their complaint is that the infidels (and those who cooperate with them) are rich, free & prosperous and they're not. They have to figure out how to solve that one on their own.

Rekna

The only way to get rid of terrorism is to unite the world under a common cause where everyone is working for eachothers benifite. It can be done but it would probably take a very major disaster or threat to the whole world.

hannukah harry

while i wouldn't mind a world with no jessica simpson, that is a very narrow-minded simplistic veiw. they don't hate our freedom or our prosperity. the hate our intervention into their society. they hate our attempts to change them, to westernize them. they hate the encroachment of our culture into theirs. the hate the loss of power they have as people become more secular and women get more power. they don't hate us because we're rich and free, they hate us because we push our values on them. oh, and cause we support the jews. damn jews.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

summerkc

Take a look at your signature, and at your name for that matter, both trivialize Christianity.

Well of course we do it in our self interest, even though what we get back is not even close to what we gave. But what is the problem with doing things in the self interest of America if it help others in the process. Lets say that the war in Iraq was ONLY done for oil. Along the way to securing that oil we freed a oppressed nation and removed a dictator that had already killed millions of his own people and tried to take over another country. I don't see the problem.

I don't see it as a complex issue, and it is not. They want to kill us, so we instead of sitting on our asses and letting it happen are going to go after and kill or capture every last one of them we can find. People say this is not a war against Islam, but it is. When not one Muslim leader speaks out against the beheadings or the deaths of children we have to assume that Islam as a whole supports these actions and the militant Islamics. The Koran repeatedly calls for the death non believers, and they are just following their murdurous religion.

powerclown

Well, *I* would mind it if something were to happen to our poor Jessica and her gorgeous, bountiful golden breasts; I like to fantasize about them and look at them as often as possible!

And I hear you, but...I don't buy it. Everyone encroaches into everyone else's culture these days. They call it globalization: every country has immigrants, everybody is doing business with eachother. Jets, internet, cellphones, fax machines, satellites have removed the geographical distances between cultures. So now, people have to learn to play nice with eachother, no matter their cultural differences. They have to mind their manners. This intermingling has exposed the paranoia, insecurity and dysfunction of some countries, who have chosen instead to withdraw from civilized society and adopt counter-productive tactics for dealing with the outside world. One of the ways of coping would be with belligerence and aggression, foolishly branding whole societies as 'Infidels' and religiously unpure and unworthy. Its pure phobia based on fear, envy, powerlessness, confusion, ignorance and intolerance.

Excuse me, I have to google jessica simpsons breasts now.

hannukah harry

eh, i've seen (imo) better, but to each his own.


and i agree with you on this. but while they have to mind their manners, so do we. if you notice, it's not the entire arab world that's the problem, it's the fanatics. it's not as simple as one poster above said "they hate our freedom."

so i think a lot of good reasons for the causes of terrorism have been mentioned in this thread... and aside from some people who will be a problem no matter what (think of the southern baptist preacher to thinks everyone not southern baptist is going to hell, the kkk's ignorant racist views, etc), we can do a lot to keep those people who hate just to hate, who hate because we aren't like them, from gathering followers who are more moderate but feel pushed to extremes because their views aren't even being heard, let alone acted on.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Stompy

Giving someone an order to follow through with a mission or task doesn't really need that much effort.

Even the laziest drunk could stop terrorism.

__________________
I love lamp.

Mizizing

I believe what we are failing to realize is that the situation has gone beyond terrorism, on to guerilla warfare. Just because it isn't being fought in a jungle somewhere, doesn't take away from the fact that the tactics are the same. Terrorism is fought by trying to contain, and prevent the incidents of terror, guerilla warfare is fought like any other war...wipe the fuckers out. If innocents are injured or killed, tough shit; their main goal is to do the same to our civilians...

__________________
Connecting the dots...

Dark Assailant

Possibly the mass consuming habits we North Americans have (including Canada)... gimme gimme gimme !

__________________
·´¯`·-> Ðark Åssailant<-·´¯`·

Lebell

It is ironic of course that we did not intervene earlier precisely because of people who felt that what was happening in Europe was "none-of-our-business", much like those who have spoken out against the war here.

In other words, damn you, America for not acting sooner, and damn you, America for acting at all.

It grows wearisome.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

summerkc

This is the heart of the Iraq argument. How far do you let a cruel dictator go until you finally interviene and remove him. Obviously in WWII Europe waited too long until they were unable to handle the situation and seriously needed help.

How far should we have let Saddam go? Here is what we knew before we invaded (post war intelligence is usless and hindsight is always 20/20).

1. He had already attemped to take over Kuwait and probably would have continued to other countries in the middle east.

2. He had huge amounts of chemical weapons that he already used on Iraqi citizens killing hundreds of thousands.

3. 16 UN resolutions had already been in effect including the last one that said if he still neglected to comply force would be used.

4. Weapons inspectors had been repeatedly kicked out and were unable to go to many locations and interviews scientists was either denied or unfruitful because of the fear of retribution from the scientists by the Iraqi government.

5. Iraq continued to be hostile towards U.S forces in the area, frequently engaging U.S. war planes enforcing the no-fly zones put in place.

6. Saddam was "reimbursing" the families of suicide bombers in Israel.

7. Iraqis that fled to other countries acknowledges the human atrocities by Saddam, his sons, and other military figures to the Iraqi people like raping girls in front of their families, the killing or mutations of men, women, and children, etc.

8. After Afganistan was invaded, it was well known that Al Quida members took up refuge in Iraq, and the fear was them coming across or purchasing WMD from Saddam or other officials.

The U.S. saw a major growing threat and went to the U.N. to get a resolution to get approval for the use of force. The resolution was blocked by 3 coutries that we later find out was involved finacially with Iraq and was being bribed by means of the Oil for Food Program.

We saw the opportunity to remove the Saddam regime before he became an imminant threat and took the opportunity given all of the available information we had.

If France, Germany, and Russia had been involved do you really think that the outcome of the war would have been any differnt? There would still be the same situation with insurgents trying to prevent Iraq from becoming a democracy.

DJ Happy

In that case, seeing as no Jewish or Christian leaders have spoken out about it, I have to assume that all of Judaism and Christianity supports acts such as these (article entitled, "Schoolgirl Target of Israeli Hate"):

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&sect...category=World

filtherton

That would be a valid analogy, if saddam was hitler. Fortunately, saddam was no hitler, he didn't take over most of the middle east, and he wasn't a threat to the freedoms of the rest of the world.

neutone

What is terrorism?

Inflicting damage on innocent people? Who is innocent? Are you? Look at the clown that's running America. He has created an enemy of you, but you let him.

Terrorism is subjective. During the 70's Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. The ANC threw grenades into churches where the 'enemy' prayed, they threw grenades into 'bars' where the enemy drank, and put bombs outside the schools where the enemy learned. Well let's just look at these terrorists today. Mandela is a hero of the highest order. All that's changed is the point of view, which side you're looking from. If you attempt to dominate you are creating oppression, if you attempt to empathise you create harmony. I know great Americans, I know great Jews and I know great Arabs. Not all Americans are as thick as Bush, not all Jews are greedy and not all Muslims are terrorists. Most Americans, Arabs and Jews just want a nice place where they can bring their kids up in peace, pray to their gods and experience community. The real terrorists are those that consistently make decisions that are motivated by greed and self rightiousness, be they politicians, corporate shareholders or religious fanatics.

Rekna

isn't there some sort of internet law about mentioning hitler in online discussions?

Mojo_PeiPei

Saddam didn't have as many people to work with.

1 million killed in Iran-Iraq war.
1.5+ million killed because of sanctions.
Untold hundreds of thousands killed as dissenters or enemies of the regime.

The worst kind of evil in this world is complacence, too bad Saddam didn't meet the necessary criteria as a mass murderer.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

that would maybe be interesting, mojo, if the history of american foreign policy since world war 2 did not reveal, as self-evident, that the americans do not and have not cared about despots, about murderous regimes, so long as they were politically convenient. while this history is not pretty to investigate, it is easy enough to do--and maybe knowing about it would prevent you from being chumped so easily by this latest, most desperate justification for war floated from the bush people.

but no matter: to the question:
to the extent that an american president might be in a position to alter the nature of american-dominated capitalism around the world, maybe he or she would be in a position to reduce the threat of "terrorism" by reducing some of its causes. because to argue that "terrorists" act out of some essential quality that is coterminous with religion, say, is to argue for and about nothing. people are driven to desperate actions by the situations in which they find themselves---these situations have causes--the political options that might otherwise have channelled dissent/desperation would have to be largely inoperative as well--this too has causes.

"terrorism" is a political act.

so it stands to reason that the american president could do things that would reduce it. whether he or she would do these things is a different matter.

as for "protecting" the states from the consequences of its policies, direct and indirect, without addressing those policies--no....all this self-blinding way of thinking does is make the slide into a kind of fascism lite easier to rationalize. you are not safer for it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Mojo_PeiPei

Roachboy, I'm not being "chumped" by anybody. American foreign policy has been very fucked up in the past and to this day, I don't refute that at all. But I do believe that Saddam was a sociopath and the world is a better place with him gone. I have always said that, like I said complacence is the greatest form of evil. What is wrong with having Saddam gone? Sure there are others that should be taken out too, if I had my way Kim Jong Ill's head would be on a fucking stick, and African Warlord's along with Militant Islamic leaders and mullahs would be crucified at half time on monday night football games. But for the time being Saddam will have to do.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Glava

Godwin's Law. If you mention Hitler, the Nazis, or the Third Reich in an online discussion, you automatically invalidate your argument. However, if it's pertitnent to the discussion (say, like World War 2) then it is ok to mention those three entities.

neutone

I guess it's immediately clear which warmongering (edited out - due to loud thudding) you'll be voting for.

What is wrong with ridding the world of these other war mongers is that ultimately the US is enforcing it's own regime on the rest of the world, and it's unwelcome in most of Europe, most of Asia, most of Africa. Do the rest of the world a favour and keep your greedy high and mighty attitude at home. The foreign policy is doing terrible damage to the US reputation, it has turned 'neutrals' into 'anti's'. I recently went to a 9-11 party where the US was the butt of every joke. Personally I felt the theme was in terrible taste but there's a lot of aggression being stirred up by the 'Big Brother, Defender of the World' act. Luckily I've met many classic, brilliant Americans who restore my faith. and give me hope that things can change before Bush starts WW3.

KMA-628

Did you hear that loud thud????

That was the level of discourse in this thread.

There is a huge difference between hyperbole and this comment.