Should I stay or should I go? - Afraid of n/ four years of Bush term?

[Industry]

That was interesting. But I disagree with the premise. I don't think the actions of George Bush or John Kerry will create more or less terrorists. Unless one of them has secret plans to:
a) Let Israel be wiped from the earth.
b) End the world's dependence of MidEast Oil, and therefore our interests in that region (they'd also have to find a way to make the world forget how to make a nuclear weapon).
However, I disagree with the article's subtle indictment of John Kerry and lauding of George W. Bush. I'll take it on point by point.

* It claims that, "Prior to George W. Bush, American policy towards Islamic extremism was basically one of malign neglect." This should actually read "prior to September 11th, 2001..." since George W. Bush was following the exact same policy towards Islamic extremism prior to September 11th. Read some of Richard Clark, the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush anti-terrorism czar.

* "America's war on terrorism is helping recruit many new terrorists. Maybe, maybe not. There's no proof either way." I agree with this 100%. How do we know whether it is or isn't? We don't. I also agree that America's previous policy of being soft on terrorists was helping them recruit. But I would like to point out the Bush policy on Somalia is IDENTICAL if not worse than Clinton's. He is ignoring Somalia completely. But the salient point here is correct--being soft on terrorism, probably helps them recruit.

* "Under Ehud Barak--the Israeli Bill Clinton / John Kerry." This is just propaganda. John Kerry is not Bill Clinton. No more than George W. Bush is Ronald Reagan. But yes, since Ariel Sharon began open war against Palestinians the terrorist attacks have dropped, but that's more because Terrorism is a peacetime activity. During wartime, attacks on civilians is called war. This line I particularly like: "It seems possible--maybe even obvious!--that terrorist recruiting also suffered." This is a claim that the piece itself is trying to refute.

I agree with his conclusion that there is no way to know whether our current policy is creating more or less terrorists.

He is failing to recognize the obvious though when he refutes that "there is something about Islamism that causes its adherents to be less-than-rational actors." Suicide Bombers. Suicide Bombers! How more "less-than-rational" do they need to be.

I think you have my opinion confused with someone else's. We should absolutely be in Iraq. I don't care if he ever had Weapons of Mass Destruction, although I believe Saddam certainly would have built a nuke if we ignored/let him. Being in Iraq puts the men and women the United States trains, pays and equips to kill within fighting reach of the folks that want to kill Americans. That's why the September the 11th happened. They wanted to fight Americans but had no way to get here. So as they asked, and as so many others have asked in the past, we brought the fight to them. I just think that John Kerry: as a man who has lead men in combat under fire, as a smarter man, as a more effective leader would be better at fighting it. I think the domestic "costs" that the nation is paying to have Pres. Bush run the war is too high. His domestic policy even Nixon would be embarassed to push. I mean come on, letting coal plants create more pollution? Who the hell would advocate that for the public good?

[Grignard]

[mauglir]

On the topic of suicide bombers: their rationality is a matter of perspective. The people performing those acts see nothing irrational. They believe in an after-life. They believe that after-life will be better if they do certain things in their earthly life. They see nothing strange or dishonorable in their actions. It may all seem very irrational to us, but that's because we have different beliefs. And because such beliefs are based on faith, not fact, they are unlikely to change. This is where tolerance comes in. Some people can tolerate the existence of beliefs that contradict their own, other people cannot. If you are faced with a situation you feel you cannot tolerate, your choices are to either escape the situation, or try to change it through conflict. Of course conflict doesn't have to mean violence, but it usually does.

[Unkfolt]

I am a republican and supported George W. Bush through both elections, but I must say that I respect John Kerry very much for dropping out when it was fair to say that Bush would win. Had anyone else been in his shoes, including Bush, I'm sure they would have been like Gore in 2000, demanding recounts and taking this to the supreme court. I think it was very noble to just admit defeat rather than dragging a dead horse around for a long time and annoying the American public. I think that by surrendering the election, he prevented mass chaos of people arguing five years from now about who won this election. Instead of worrying about dangling chads and dingleberries, he allowed us as citizens and a nation to move on. That was the best move made by a politician concerning voters' interests that I had ever seen.

On a side note, I heard in the news that Ralph Nader was demanding a recount in some East-coast states. This was a while ago though.

[Eddaweaver]

I think John Kerry's wife may've made him lose the election.

[ChrisP]

We should absolutely be in Iraq.

I have less issue with why we're in Iraq than HOW we are there. As evidenced by the ever growing American and civilian body count, the Bush administration FUBARed the subsequent occupation of Iraq. Considering they were warned by their own military and Secretary of State that exactly what is happening would happen (unless there were 500,000 soldiers on the ground to keep the peace after the invasion), Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have no excuse for the mess they created except their own blatant stupidity.

I fear the fruit of Iraq for a long time to come will be many more Americans getting killed than would have died from terrorism had we not invaded Iraq, a population that hates us for creating such chaos in their country, and a new breeding ground for the Islamic terrorist ideology.

[Eddaweaver]

it doesn't really get through to the media that much of the resistance to US rule there is economical... the US government thought they could walk in there with minimal troop numbers, fire the civilian and military infrastructures' personal, disenfranchise those who were forced to join the Baath party, privatise and neoliberalise the enconomy to the control of US companies, and depart the country with a puppet government within a year.

[carlinho]

guys you are really scary...
maybe you play too many video games about world domination and killing foes and enemies , etc
The world is going to hell, and you talk about world domination, and how USA should dominate the world and how it fucked up not to do it?
it's really scary ...that north americans think themselves as saviours of the world.
Hitler too in case you don't know said he was promising a 1000 year peace....
You are not saving but your pockets by placing a boot over somebody's head.
The world has always been fucked up, since the first man on earth war has been around, but don't gimme that thought that because the world is fucked up you have the right to keep fucking it even more...
that's not evolution, or civilization, it's chaos and destruction...
I understand that militarism and imperialism are the flags of the deep USA, but then you are not making the world a better place to live, violence generates violence, and sadly but true, the more people you opress and kill the more some crazy fanatics are going to be born and terrorize us all.

[Eddaweaver]

the lessons of history so quickly forgotten