<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The guy that supported the war in Iraq was going to win on the march 14 election. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And we know this... how? Pre-election Polls have been wrong before.
And frankly I think that a terror attack on the US prior to the election would have the exact opposite effect. Remeber that bush was a pretty unpopular president until just after 9/11, when his approval rating usddenly skyrocketed. I think annother attack would push more poeple towards the Bush camp.
For your convienence, something presented to me in an e-mail from political science class:
<a href='http://www.electoral-vote.com/' target='_blank'>The current state standings in polls for who will win electoral college votes</a>...and some assorted other US politcal things. (edit: <a href='http://www.electionprojection.com/' target='_blank'>There is apparently also this republican biased electoral map site.</a> )
If an attack happens before November 2nd, Bush will probably call some executive order like, "it's not safe for an election and we will need to postpone it." Then there will be intense rioting (probably by people who don't vote in the first place) and it will be interesting.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
I have to agree with Skulkbait; the Bush campaign has been flogging the idea that you "shouldn't change horses in mid-stream" - that electing someone new to the presidency when we're in the middle of multiple wars is a dangerous idea. Bush's claim is that he is the *only* one who can protect our country from terror.
Were an attack to happen before the election (knock on wood), the Kerry campaign would use it as evidence that we are no safer than we were 3 years ago. The Bush campaign, however, would use it to show just how much we need *him* and no one else to keep the US safe and destroy the terrorist threat.
And I think Americans are uninformed and easily scared enough to believe Bush.
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Oct 23 2004, 02:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Oct 23 2004, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have to agree with Skulkbait; the Bush campaign has been flogging the idea that you "shouldn't change horses in mid-stream" - that electing someone new to the presidency when we're in the middle of multiple wars is a dangerous idea. Bush's claim is that he is the *only* one who can protect our country from terror.
Were an attack to happen before the election (knock on wood), the Kerry campaign would use it as evidence that we are no safer than we were 3 years ago. The Bush campaign, however, would use it to show just how much we need *him* and no one else to keep the US safe and destroy the terrorist threat.
<b>And I think Americans are uninformed and easily scared enough to believe Bush.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sydney Smith+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sydney Smith)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think people don't take in as many opinions about the issue as they can. Most of the people around here that aren't politically inclined would just say how much one candidate sucks and the other one doesn't follow their views. Then they'll end up not voting anyway.
[warning, speculative statistics ahead:]Then the people that do vote are 35+ year old, devout Republican/Democrats who don't really vote for the candidates based on their ideals, but just because they're little human lemmings that thing, "I'm part of this party, and I might as well follow everyone else."
That, and the world seems to be more conservative than everyone on this board would hope it to be...even the dedicated Bush supporters.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr_133t+Oct 22 2004, 11:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr_133t @ Oct 22 2004, 11:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets look at the Election in Spain before we start here... <b>The guy that was running to be re-elected had similar views to Bush, and the opponent held views similar to Kerry.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Forget everything else, I'd like to see this one explained in detail.
The assumption here is that Bush will stay in Iraq and Kerry will immediately pull out. I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Kerry FOUGHT in the biggest screwup of a war since France decided it needed an army. I think he'd know much better then to rip everyone out right away. It's like kicking a guy in the back who is getting rehabbed for a slipped disk.
Besides , Aznar hasn't been elected because of his own error - to claim that the ETA organized the train station bombing while it was clear that islamist terrorists were behind that. The spanish people didn't like being lied to and voted him out.
And their behavior is nowhere near the american's. They can't tolerate manipulation.
Trying to stay on topic here rather than fall into a Bush vs Kerry issue on the war. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And their behavior is nowhere near the american's. They can't tolerate manipulation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is a pretty strong statement. Are you suggesting that US citizens support manipulation?
Back on topic:
While I cannot get into specifics,*edit*.
I doubt that there will be an attack before the election. Al Queda fears that such an attack would galvanize support for Bush.
I will comment on this:
Iraq-AlQueda link: You can take this any number of ways. It determines on how strong of a link you believe 'ties to AlQueda' should be.
This is in the 9/11 report and is backed up by my information. Iraq did not overtly support AQ. There was no active helping of the terrorist organization. The idea of a safe haven is a bit of an overstatement. *edit: statement retracted* . Think of it as Argentina and Nazi war criminals. Argentina didn't exactly help them, but they didn't do anything to hinder them either. In that way, there were ties.
However, I really wish I could explain some more as to why we are in Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 23 2004, 07:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 23 2004, 07:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Iraq did not overtly support AQ. There was no active helping of the terrorist organization. The idea of a safe haven is a bit of an overstatement. *edit: statement retracted* . Think of it as Argentina and Nazi war criminals. Argentina didn't exactly help them, but they didn't do anything to hinder them either. In that way, there were ties. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I suppose you understand why that is a Very Risky Argument. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 23 2004, 03:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 23 2004, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Trying to stay on topic here rather than fall into a Bush vs Kerry issue on the war. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And their behavior is nowhere near the american's. They can't tolerate manipulation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is a pretty strong statement. Are you suggesting that US citizens support manipulation?
Back on topic:
While I cannot get into specifics,*edit*.
I doubt that there will be an attack before the election. Al Queda fears that such an attack would galvanize support for Bush.
I will comment on this:
Iraq-AlQueda link: You can take this any number of ways. It determines on how strong of a link you believe 'ties to AlQueda' should be.
This is in the 9/11 report and is backed up by my information. Iraq did not overtly support AQ. There was no active helping of the terrorist organization. The idea of a safe haven is a bit of an overstatement. *edit: statement retracted* . Think of it as Argentina and Nazi war criminals. Argentina didn't exactly help them, but they didn't do anything to hinder them either. In that way, there were ties.
However, I really wish I could explain some more as to why we are in Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Think of it as Argentina and Nazi war criminals. Argentina didn't exactly help them, but they didn't do anything to hinder them either. In that way, there were ties. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've seen it best described as a non-aggression pact, but a shaky one at that.
With Bin Laden, every secular leader has to realize that it's just a matter of time, and you're not so much an <i>ally</i> as you are a person <i>further down his list</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I doubt that there will be an attack before the election. Al Queda fears that such an attack would galvanize support for Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this is assuming that Bush is bad for business. As <a href='http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html' target='_blank'>Time</a> noted several months ago: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If, indeed, there is a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, it may not be the kind the Bush campaign is likely to dwell on. The same day the President spoke, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies released its annual survey that found, among other things, that far from dealing a blow to al-Qaeda and making the U.S. and its allies safer, the Iraq invasion has in fact substantially strengthened bin Laden's network and increased the danger of attacks in the West. And the London-based IISS is not some Bush-bashing antiwar think tank; it hosted the president's keynote address during his embattled visit to the British late last year.
The IISS reported that al-Qaeda's recruitment and fundraising efforts had been given a major boost by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It estimated that bin Laden's network today commands some 18,000 men, of which about 1,000 are currently inside Iraq. After almost three years of President Bush's war on terror, the IISS offered the following assessment of the movement's prospects: "Although half of al-Qaeda's 30 senior leaders and perhaps 2,000 rank-and-file members have been killed or captured, a rump leadership is still intact and more than 18,000 potential terrorists are still at large, with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq." The continuing danger of an al-Qaeda strike inside the U.S. as it moves into election season was underscored Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who warned that intelligence tips suggest that the movement plans to attack inside the U.S. some time in the coming months. It was a non-specific warning, of course, and the color-coded terror alert level was not raised as a result. But the announcement affirmed for Americans the fact that they remain vulnerable to al-Qaeda attack, if better prepared and forewarned than three years ago.
So why is al-Qaeda continuing to grow and prosper despite the loss of its Afghan sanctuaries and so many of its personnel, and the fact that it has been relentlessly hounded by security services across Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia? The consensus among security analysts is that the key to eliminating al-Qaeda as a threat is to transform the permissive political environment in which it operates in the Muslim world. Instead, the opposite has occurred — Muslim anger at the U.S. has reached an all-time high and continues to grow, driven by outrage at U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by Israel's actions against the Palestinians. The precipitous decline in support or sympathy for the U.S. in the Muslim world after 9/11 has meant fertile ground for al-Qaeda recruiters. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now there's also the reverse psychology angle-- if they feel that Bush's presence is much better for recruitment, do they attack knowing that the outcome will be what Wizard suggests (especially since the attacks in Spain will be instantly referenced ad nauseum by our media)?
If a strike happens before the elections, BUSH, not Kerry, will win. The reason being that they know Bush would retaliate from such a reaction, whereas they aren't certain that Kerry would (and he probably wouldn't for that matter).
Why people seem to think that electing a president that won't go to war is beneficial for destroying terrorism is beyond me. People seem to think, in their own naive little minds, that if we don't attack terrorists, terrorists won't attack us. Hello? Since when have terrorists made deals? All they know how to do is attack.
Apparently, rain is a big deterrant against democratic voters. Polls have shown that democrats are far less likely than republicans to go to the polls in bad weather. So a little joke my dad and I share is that we hope it will rain on election day.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 23 2004, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 23 2004, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If a strike happens before the elections, BUSH, not Kerry, will win. The reason being that they know Bush would retaliate from such a reaction, whereas they aren't certain that Kerry would (and he probably wouldn't for that matter).
Why people seem to think that electing a president that won't go to war is beneficial for destroying terrorism is beyond me. People seem to think, in their own naive little minds, that if we don't attack terrorists, terrorists won't attack us. Hello? Since when have terrorists made deals? All they know how to do is attack.
Apparently, rain is a big deterrant against democratic voters. Polls have shown that democrats are far less likely than republicans to go to the polls in bad weather. So a little joke my dad and I share is that we hope it will rain on election day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You honestly think Kerry wouldn't retaliate? Maybe not by attacking, oh, I don't know-- IRAQ-- but I think there would be some repurcussions. Even removing all issues of character from the equation, it would be political suicide to sit idly by following an attack.
And again, yes, we know that Bush will retaliate, but against whom? <a href='http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm' target='_blank'>According to the Harris Poll</a>, a majority (55% to 36%) of Americans feel that they were misled over Al Queda connections to Iraq. In the wake of another attack-- especially a significant one-- I don't think people will be satisfied by <i>any</i> attack-- in fact, unless it resulted in Bin Laden's head on a stick, I doubt you'd find many satisfied people at all.
And you seem to be constructing straw men here-- I don't know how many people have the attitudes you're assaulting-- especially in our government.
The reason that AQ has not attacked the US in the 3 years since Sept 11th is because they cannot afford an attack of a lesser magnitude. A smaller attack would suggest that they have been thwarted by the US and that we are winning.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've seen it best described as a non-aggression pact, but a shaky one at that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a bit more than non-aggression but I really can't mention specifics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, this is assuming that Bush is bad for business.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because Bush is bad for the terrorism business. Again, no specifics, but the real problem for AQ is that its leadership cells are being scattered. They reform and attempt to regroup, but every time this happens they must start their plans over again. It really doesn't matter how much of an apparent boost in recruitment occurs (because the type of recruitment happening is not what AQ needs) because w/o the leadership they will not be able to coordinate the attacks they wish to pull off.
Even if AQ were recruiting more it could only help the US. We have had terrible luck in infiltrating AQ's leadership. They know each other and are terribly paranoid. (Ever wonder why they don't even bother with video announcements?) A boost in 'recruitment' would give us a better chance at getting a mole in or at least finding someone to give us better information. The bigger they get the harder time they will have.
The 'recruitment' seen in the middle east is not AQ. These are the same individuals that have been seen in Gaza and Israel. In effect, these are not the terrorists we are looking for. The goals of al-Zarqawi have not been in supporting AQ but rather starting a civil war between the Shi'ites and Suuni muslims. These are the recruits that are being attributed to AQ.
The biggest problem with the media today is attributing every terrorist to AQ.
<!--QuoteBegin-(e)kent+Oct 23 2004, 12:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ((e)kent @ Oct 23 2004, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 23 2004, 07:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 23 2004, 07:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Iraq did not overtly support AQ. There was no active helping of the terrorist organization. The idea of a safe haven is a bit of an overstatement. *edit: statement retracted* . Think of it as Argentina and Nazi war criminals. Argentina didn't exactly help them, but they didn't do anything to hinder them either. In that way, there were ties. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I suppose you understand why that is a Very Risky Argument. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why is it very risky?
Comments
And we know this... how? Pre-election Polls have been wrong before.
And frankly I think that a terror attack on the US prior to the election would have the exact opposite effect. Remeber that bush was a pretty unpopular president until just after 9/11, when his approval rating usddenly skyrocketed. I think annother attack would push more poeple towards the Bush camp.
<a href='http://www.electoral-vote.com/' target='_blank'>The current state standings in polls for who will win electoral college votes</a>...and some assorted other US politcal things.
(edit: <a href='http://www.electionprojection.com/' target='_blank'>There is apparently also this republican biased electoral map site.</a> )
If an attack happens before November 2nd, Bush will probably call some executive order like, "it's not safe for an election and we will need to postpone it." Then there will be intense rioting (probably by people who don't vote in the first place) and it will be interesting.
...well, I think that's what would happen anyway.
Were an attack to happen before the election (knock on wood), the Kerry campaign would use it as evidence that we are no safer than we were 3 years ago. The Bush campaign, however, would use it to show just how much we need *him* and no one else to keep the US safe and destroy the terrorist threat.
And I think Americans are uninformed and easily scared enough to believe Bush.
Were an attack to happen before the election (knock on wood), the Kerry campaign would use it as evidence that we are no safer than we were 3 years ago. The Bush campaign, however, would use it to show just how much we need *him* and no one else to keep the US safe and destroy the terrorist threat.
<b>And I think Americans are uninformed and easily scared enough to believe Bush.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sydney Smith+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sydney Smith)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Have the courage to be ignorant of a great number of things, in order to avoid the calamity of being ignorant of everything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think people don't take in as many opinions about the issue as they can. Most of the people around here that aren't politically inclined would just say how much one candidate sucks and the other one doesn't follow their views. Then they'll end up not voting anyway.
[warning, speculative statistics ahead:]Then the people that do vote are 35+ year old, devout Republican/Democrats who don't really vote for the candidates based on their ideals, but just because they're little human lemmings that thing, "I'm part of this party, and I might as well follow everyone else."
That, and the world seems to be more conservative than everyone on this board would hope it to be...even the dedicated Bush supporters.
Forget everything else, I'd like to see this one explained in detail.
The assumption here is that Bush will stay in Iraq and Kerry will immediately pull out. I'd like to see some evidence of that.
And their behavior is nowhere near the american's. They can't tolerate manipulation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And their behavior is nowhere near the american's. They can't tolerate manipulation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is a pretty strong statement. Are you suggesting that US citizens support manipulation?
Back on topic:
While I cannot get into specifics,*edit*.
I doubt that there will be an attack before the election. Al Queda fears that such an attack would galvanize support for Bush.
I will comment on this:
Iraq-AlQueda link: You can take this any number of ways. It determines on how strong of a link you believe 'ties to AlQueda' should be.
This is in the 9/11 report and is backed up by my information.
Iraq did not overtly support AQ. There was no active helping of the terrorist organization. The idea of a safe haven is a bit of an overstatement. *edit: statement retracted* . Think of it as Argentina and Nazi war criminals. Argentina didn't exactly help them, but they didn't do anything to hinder them either.
In that way, there were ties.
However, I really wish I could explain some more as to why we are in Iraq.
In that way, there were ties. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose you understand why that is a Very Risky Argument. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And their behavior is nowhere near the american's. They can't tolerate manipulation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is a pretty strong statement. Are you suggesting that US citizens support manipulation?
Back on topic:
While I cannot get into specifics,*edit*.
I doubt that there will be an attack before the election. Al Queda fears that such an attack would galvanize support for Bush.
I will comment on this:
Iraq-AlQueda link: You can take this any number of ways. It determines on how strong of a link you believe 'ties to AlQueda' should be.
This is in the 9/11 report and is backed up by my information.
Iraq did not overtly support AQ. There was no active helping of the terrorist organization. The idea of a safe haven is a bit of an overstatement. *edit: statement retracted* . Think of it as Argentina and Nazi war criminals. Argentina didn't exactly help them, but they didn't do anything to hinder them either.
In that way, there were ties.
However, I really wish I could explain some more as to why we are in Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Think of it as Argentina and Nazi war criminals. Argentina didn't exactly help them, but they didn't do anything to hinder them either.
In that way, there were ties.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've seen it best described as a non-aggression pact, but a shaky one at that.
With Bin Laden, every secular leader has to realize that it's just a matter of time, and you're not so much an <i>ally</i> as you are a person <i>further down his list</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I doubt that there will be an attack before the election. Al Queda fears that such an attack would galvanize support for Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this is assuming that Bush is bad for business. As <a href='http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html' target='_blank'>Time</a> noted several months ago:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If, indeed, there is a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, it may not be the kind the Bush campaign is likely to dwell on. The same day the President spoke, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies released its annual survey that found, among other things, that far from dealing a blow to al-Qaeda and making the U.S. and its allies safer, the Iraq invasion has in fact substantially strengthened bin Laden's network and increased the danger of attacks in the West. And the London-based IISS is not some Bush-bashing antiwar think tank; it hosted the president's keynote address during his embattled visit to the British late last year.
The IISS reported that al-Qaeda's recruitment and fundraising efforts had been given a major boost by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It estimated that bin Laden's network today commands some 18,000 men, of which about 1,000 are currently inside Iraq. After almost three years of President Bush's war on terror, the IISS offered the following assessment of the movement's prospects: "Although half of al-Qaeda's 30 senior leaders and perhaps 2,000 rank-and-file members have been killed or captured, a rump leadership is still intact and more than 18,000 potential terrorists are still at large, with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq." The continuing danger of an al-Qaeda strike inside the U.S. as it moves into election season was underscored Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who warned that intelligence tips suggest that the movement plans to attack inside the U.S. some time in the coming months. It was a non-specific warning, of course, and the color-coded terror alert level was not raised as a result. But the announcement affirmed for Americans the fact that they remain vulnerable to al-Qaeda attack, if better prepared and forewarned than three years ago.
So why is al-Qaeda continuing to grow and prosper despite the loss of its Afghan sanctuaries and so many of its personnel, and the fact that it has been relentlessly hounded by security services across Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia? The consensus among security analysts is that the key to eliminating al-Qaeda as a threat is to transform the permissive political environment in which it operates in the Muslim world. Instead, the opposite has occurred — Muslim anger at the U.S. has reached an all-time high and continues to grow, driven by outrage at U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by Israel's actions against the Palestinians. The precipitous decline in support or sympathy for the U.S. in the Muslim world after 9/11 has meant fertile ground for al-Qaeda recruiters.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So now there's also the reverse psychology angle-- if they feel that Bush's presence is much better for recruitment, do they attack knowing that the outcome will be what Wizard suggests (especially since the attacks in Spain will be instantly referenced ad nauseum by our media)?
Why people seem to think that electing a president that won't go to war is beneficial for destroying terrorism is beyond me. People seem to think, in their own naive little minds, that if we don't attack terrorists, terrorists won't attack us. Hello? Since when have terrorists made deals? All they know how to do is attack.
Apparently, rain is a big deterrant against democratic voters. Polls have shown that democrats are far less likely than republicans to go to the polls in bad weather. So a little joke my dad and I share is that we hope it will rain on election day.
Why people seem to think that electing a president that won't go to war is beneficial for destroying terrorism is beyond me. People seem to think, in their own naive little minds, that if we don't attack terrorists, terrorists won't attack us. Hello? Since when have terrorists made deals? All they know how to do is attack.
Apparently, rain is a big deterrant against democratic voters. Polls have shown that democrats are far less likely than republicans to go to the polls in bad weather. So a little joke my dad and I share is that we hope it will rain on election day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You honestly think Kerry wouldn't retaliate? Maybe not by attacking, oh, I don't know-- IRAQ-- but I think there would be some repurcussions. Even removing all issues of character from the equation, it would be political suicide to sit idly by following an attack.
And again, yes, we know that Bush will retaliate, but against whom? <a href='http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm' target='_blank'>According to the Harris Poll</a>, a majority (55% to 36%) of Americans feel that they were misled over Al Queda connections to Iraq. In the wake of another attack-- especially a significant one-- I don't think people will be satisfied by <i>any</i> attack-- in fact, unless it resulted in Bin Laden's head on a stick, I doubt you'd find many satisfied people at all.
And you seem to be constructing straw men here-- I don't know how many people have the attitudes you're assaulting-- especially in our government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've seen it best described as a non-aggression pact, but a shaky one at that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a bit more than non-aggression but I really can't mention specifics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, this is assuming that Bush is bad for business.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because Bush is bad for the terrorism business. Again, no specifics, but the real problem for AQ is that its leadership cells are being scattered. They reform and attempt to regroup, but every time this happens they must start their plans over again. It really doesn't matter how much of an apparent boost in recruitment occurs (because the type of recruitment happening is not what AQ needs) because w/o the leadership they will not be able to coordinate the attacks they wish to pull off.
Even if AQ were recruiting more it could only help the US. We have had terrible luck in infiltrating AQ's leadership. They know each other and are terribly paranoid. (Ever wonder why they don't even bother with video announcements?) A boost in 'recruitment' would give us a better chance at getting a mole in or at least finding someone to give us better information. The bigger they get the harder time they will have.
The 'recruitment' seen in the middle east is not AQ. These are the same individuals that have been seen in Gaza and Israel. In effect, these are not the terrorists we are looking for. The goals of al-Zarqawi have not been in supporting AQ but rather starting a civil war between the Shi'ites and Suuni muslims. These are the recruits that are being attributed to AQ.
The biggest problem with the media today is attributing every terrorist to AQ.
In that way, there were ties. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose you understand why that is a Very Risky Argument. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is it very risky?