<p>Republicans: </p>
<p>I guess I’m also curious about that issue of national security then. What is it about the current Republican party that allows you to believe they will be stronger on this issue than the current Democrat party? </p>
<p>What’s in their recent (yet lengthy) track record that indicates to you that they are reducing the overall threat of terrorism in the world?</p>
<p>
Ignoring the obvious fact that now many more do because you have invaded their country and killed their family.</p>
<p>drb. Yeah. That’s what I was thinking. Aren’t we killing a lot more of them now than they killed of us?</p>
<p>I still think of America as one of the safest countries in the world, except for when our poor people kill eachother I guess. And besides wasn’t it a Republican in charge on 9/11?</p>
<p>I guess I am just politically naive.</p>
<p>“Ignoring the obvious fact that now many more do because you have invaded their country and killed their family.”</p>
<p>And murdered half a million of thier children BEFORE you invaded.</p>
<p>You know, I live near two major ports, plus chemical and oil refineries. I would much, much rather see some more security right here, guarding them. Wasn’t that what the National Guard used to be for, guarding the nation?</p>
<p>I feel much less secure now than I did pre-Bush.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, lets say we put 500 troops at every port in the nation to “guard” it. What is it that they are guarding against? A nuclear bomb hidden in a shipping container? If that’s the case, you personally would be in far more danger if we did guard the ports since presumably the possibility of delivering the bomb inland would be reduced. </p>
<p>So what is a clever bomb-rich terrorist going to do? Well, why not just blow the bomb once it gets into port but before the ship is inspected and take out all of the people living near the port and make the port inoperable? That’s the “beauty” of nuclear terrorism - you only have to get close to inflict tremendous damage. It makes no difference to a terrorist if they take out Essex County in NJ (and Manhattan) or Pittsburgh - actually blowing up a bomb in the ports of New Jersey is probably preferable to blowing up Pittsburgh since taking out Manhattan has a lot more impact than a lesser-known city</p>
<p>You can come up with all the defensive strategies and build all your modern day Maginot Lines that you want but there will always be ways for a semi-smart terrorist to defeat it. The only way to defeat their plots is to keep the terrorists from getting the weapons and using whatever intelligence methods are available to detect the plots before they have a chance to succeed. This is why it is hard to take any Democrat seriously with respect to national security - they are doing their utmost to undermine both of these strategies and have sold the kool-aid that the secret to national security is more guards at the ports.</p>
<p>BTW, some Republicans have also fallen into this trap by preaching that “securing the borders” will keep terrorists out of the country. We could build a wall 20 feet high across the entire Mexican border and terrorists will be able to defeat it … can you say “Canada”? There may be other reasons to secure the border, but stopping terrorism isn’t one of them.</p>
<p>Rather than mass production of terrorists in Iraq, which is what we’re doing now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which requires two things:</p>
<p>a) Applying maximum pressure on the command and control center of Al Quaeda, which is not in Iraq</p>
<p>b) Maximizing the degree of cooperation with countries around the globe including our Western European allies, countries of the middle east, Russia, China, etc.</p>
<p>Both of these elements have been seriously compromised by the current Republican administration and there is no way that the “blame the Democrats” dog will hunt.</p>
<p>
Another Democratic deception - they would have us believe that if we weren’t in Iraq that al Qaeda would just close up shop and go back home to grow flowers. If we weren’t in Iraq, the center of jihad would be Afghanistan. Democrats also fail to acknowledge the terrorists attacks against all of the other countries which have no linkage with Iraq. What did Indonesia have to do with Iraq? What about Morroco or Egypt? How about Germany? Time to face the music folks - they want to kill us and will rationalize their killing with whatever “injustice” that is handy for the gullible public (and Ron Paul) to consume.</p>
<p>
Including kicking those gay Arabic-speaking intelligence agents out of the military because they are insufficiently manly for Ann Coulter.</p>
<p>The strength of the not-Right wing is that you can say all of this crap with a perfectly straight face. It would make a normal person’s head explode.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, that would be a good strategy - go after Osama in Pakistan and end up toppling the government in favor of the jihadists. The perfect recipe for giving OBL what he wants.</p>
<p>See what I mean?</p>
<p>
Actually, they have not been compromised a bit. Only in the Democratic fantasy has our cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies been compromised. The reality is that the level of cooperation is stronger than ever.</p>
<p>fundingfather: So, let me get this right. You actually believe that the Republicans are doing a good job eliminating terrorism? OK, although I can’t imagine why you would think that. </p>
<p>But, wait – what if terrorism is not the largest threat to our existence as a country? </p>
<p>What if, say, our diminishing manufacturing base is? What if we no longer have the ability to defend ourselves because we no longer have the infrastructure in place to gear up to a world wide war, a la WWII? </p>
<p>What if it turns out that our real demise is the hundreds of thousands of illiterate, uneducated, and incapable people that many of our very urban and very rural public schools are producing, people unable to carry us into a prosperous future? </p>
<p>What if it turns out that we give away all our hard won freedoms and civil rights to fight the terrorists? Have we won a battle, but lost the war?</p>
<p>What if we end up a paralyzed nation because our enormous oil needs are no longer being met on the global market and we haven’t bothered to invest in any other energy sources?</p>
<p>What if it turns out that global warming causes such havoc that we can no longer feed our nation?</p>
<p>What if we end up an isolated, debtor nation filled with a pompous, and ignorant citizenry? </p>
<p>Let’s see, what other threats are out there that might be larger than terrorism??? I’m sure I forgot some.</p>
<p>“Let’s see, what other threats are out there that might be larger than terrorism??? I’m sure I forgot some.”</p>
<p>Do you understand that intelligent people of good will can disagree with you, and people as sincere, educated and moral as you can hold the belief that terrorism really is the largest threat that we face?</p>
<p>But those of you who feel that terrorism is the biggest threat we face are bleeding all of OUR tax dollars in this misbegotten war. So, your main fear is the focus of our complete (lack of) foreign policy…decisions which have grossly and negatively impacted our domestic policy.</p>
<p>So, it isn’t just a matter of polite disagreement. My opinions are all I have, and they don’t change anything. Stinks to have the opinion of the majority, with policy ruled by the opinion of the minority. Gotta love democracy.</p>
<p>
OK, here’s a partial list of what has been accomplished:</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_re_us/fort_dix_other_plots_1[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070508/ap_on_re_us/fort_dix_other_plots_1</a></p>
<p>Meanwhile the Democrats want to take away the tools that are being used to thwart terrorists.</p>
<p>“So, it isn’t just a matter of polite disagreement. My opinions are all I have, and they don’t change anything. Your opinions dictate policy. Quite a difference there.”</p>
<p>In the context of this mesage board, it should be a polite disagreement. What is the real need for the name calling (“not-right wing” not “normal people”)? Seriously. Why is the hostility and downright nastiness acceptable in this context? As far as policy, that’s all about winning elections, right?</p>
<p>OK. I’m on board for not getting killed by terrorists. I just don’t get how the Republicans are so good at making that less likely?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Check the vote for war - the majority of the Democrats in the Senate also voted for war. (A little fact that the Dems are quick to sweep under the rug.) Also, note that your “majority opinion” fluctuates all over the map depending upon when the opinion poll was taken. At most points of the Iraq war the majority WAS in favor of it. Was it a good idea then but now suddenly it is not a good idea? So, what are we supposed to do - commission a Harris Poll to determine how we should conduct foreign policy? Democracy and elected leaders are put in place to shield us from such lunacy.</p>