T Nation

Kerry Is In Trouble!

Getting back on topic, how “Kerry is in Trouble!” according to ZEB…

Over the weekend Kerry went up a point and Bush dropped a point, giving Kerry a three point advantage in the polls.

Kerry Opens Three-Point Lead on Bush -Poll
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041011/pl_nm/campaign_poll_dc

It’s a Zogby poll. Zogby was the most accurate pollster during the last election.

ZEB & Vegita:

I’ve never said anything in this thread about Bush being responsible for 9/11.

What I have said, however, is that if he is to get CREDIT for there not having been an attack since 9/11, then it follows LOGICALLY that he receive BLAME if there is or had been an attack since 9/11.

Is this so difficult?

Lumpy,

“Bush was told that Osama Bin Laden and terrorism was the primary national security issue, by the outgoing Clinton team, as well as the intelligence community.”

I believe it.

“All Team Bush needed to do was alert the airlines and airports that there was a hightened risk of hijackings, even privately. How many people might have been saved, if they could have prevented just one of the four planes from being hijacked?”

Many. How many lives could have been saved if our protocol was not to let the terrorists have the plane and negotiate with them after they land?

As for alerting airlines and airports - you would have screamed ‘fascism!’ if they had hauled Arabs off planes. I don’t think this is a bad idea - and I agree that they could have been much more aggressive with potential terrorists. But don’t try and pretend with a straight face that you would have been happier if they had adopted draconian measures to prevent the hijackings.

“During the 2000 election, Al Gore told America that Bin Laden and terrorism was our #1 security concern.”

Yes, and like his predecessor, he wasn’t going to do much - just throw out a few indictments when something got blown up. It wasn’t a huge priority for either candidate.

“And your list is cute, but only George Bush is up for re-election, so lets talk about him.”

My list isn’t so much cute as it is demonstrating that our problem with facing down Islamism has been systemic and doesn’t cleave down party lines.

Let’s do talk about George W. Bush - from your blathering, I conclude you want someone to the Right of him on national security - tougher, and willing to sacrifice even more liberty for order, which is the recipe you served up for pre 9/11.

Who knew? Lumpy is a neo-con.

O.K., lets cut the crap. The real reason we are in Iraq is because of the oil. Just follow the oil. The truth is W had a hard on for Iraq and thought he could breeze right in, win an easy war and get re-elected. The real pay off, however, is the oil. He wants US control over the second largest oil reserve in the world. If you think he had some noble reasons regarding bringing freedom to the Iraqi’s than you’re stupider than I thought. He could give a fuck about their freedom. If he is so concerned about freedom and human rights then why the fuck aren’t we in Africa, huh? I’ll tell you why…NO OIL. Why did’nt we launch a major invasion into Afganistan and occupy that country? NO OIL!!! That’s it, plain and simple. But no one dares to bring it up. Kerry just touched on it during the first debate but dared not go any further. No one wants to mention the eight foot gorilla in the corner. So get you heads out of your asses and cut the crap with this democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people garbage. We invaded their country and are in the process of putting a puppet government in place in order to maintain control over the oil supply. However, it’s taking longer than the Bush adminstration figured and therefore gas prices won’t drop as they had hoped before the election. Gee, too bad.
Yep, it’s all about the oil.

RSU - Yes it is difficult, it is illogical. That is like saying that if you are the boss of company X and you have a fleet of delivery vehicles, you are responsible for all of thier safety. This is fine, so RSU sends them to defensive driving, buys them the best delivery vehicles, makes them wear personal protective equipment. One day a drunk driver runs a red light while being chased by the police and kills one of your employees, are you therefore responsible for not providing a safe work environment for your employee?

Bush is responsible for making the country as safe as possible while preserving the constitution. If there is no attacks, then yes he is awarded achievement for making the country safe enough to not have an attack. If An attack does occur but Bush did everything possible or maybe “reasonable” is better than no he is not responsible. It would be a tragedy but bush should not be the scapegoat if it is proven that he did everything reasonably possible to make us safe. The same thing goes for kerry if elected. I am not one for criticising someone that does a good job in a specific area just because I disagree with them in another area.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Gonna try this again, don’t think it went through the first time.

Well, I have to correct myself. Found this little tidbit:
In February 1998, Unocal Corporation testified to the House Committee on Internal Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that the Taliban government in Afghanistan is an obstacle to having an oil pipeline from the Caspian region to the Indian Ocean, that is, through Afghanistan. In 1997, Unocal even tried to woo the Taliban with billions of dollars to support the proposed pipeline through their country. The unrecognized Taliban government, however, was a set back to their plans.

The more people see and hear of Kerry the less they like him.

If you are objective about it most of the polls are about 4% in favor of Bush. You can always find one that goes to either candidates favor.

As to the noise about the debates…it really doesn’t matter. Kerry could win all of them on points. He is just a hard guy to like and comes accross as a bitter negative individual. Bush doesn’t.

The Democrats this year chose to run against something rather then for something and that has become their undoing.

RE: what Gojira said.

If everyone is a fan of unilateral action now (OK, to be more fair, ‘not waiting for slow ass UN’ action), why isn’t the US acting in Africa, not with a couple million dollars and moral support, but a boatload of troops? Maybe Sudan hasn’t officially asked for troops to come in, but neither did Iraq. And I bet the rate of people dying in Sudan is much higher than the Iraqi rate. And not only would you be protecting the freedoms of millions of people, but you’d get some love from the world for doing it. So, why not go?

[quote]gojira wrote:
Gonna try this again, don’t think it went through the first time.

Well, I have to correct myself. Found this little tidbit:
In February 1998, Unocal Corporation testified to the House Committee on Internal Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that the Taliban government in Afghanistan is an obstacle to having an oil pipeline from the Caspian region to the Indian Ocean, that is, through Afghanistan. In 1997, Unocal even tried to woo the Taliban with billions of dollars to support the proposed pipeline through their country. The unrecognized Taliban government, however, was a set back to their plans.
[/quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1626889.stm

Monday, 29 October, 2001, 20:56 GMT
Afghanistan: the pipeline war?

By BBC Eurasia Analyst Malcolm Haslett

Some attractively original theories have been going the rounds about the real reasons for the Afghan war.

It is obviously much more, some columnists and political theorists suggest, than a simple effort to stamp out terrorism.

Apart from the popular theory (in some parts of Europe as well as the Middle East) that this is a war on Islam, there is also the theory that it is a war motivated mainly - or even purely - by long-term economic and political goals.

The importance of Central Asian oil and gas has suddenly been noticed.

The valuable deposits of fossil fuels in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, previously discussed only by regional experts and international energy companies, are now being mulled over on the opinion pages of popular dailies.

Economic imperatives

The Afghan war, it has been discovered, has an economic side to it.

Some writers, indeed, have gone further, suggesting that economic considerations provide the main, or at the very least a major, motivation for US and western involvement in Afghanistan.

If one discounts the more extreme and emotional versions of this theory, the argument boils down to this:

* Afghanistan has been proposed by more than one western oil company (the US-based Unocal is often mentioned, but it is not the only one) as the best route by which to export the Central Asian republics' important output of oil and gas
* Given the increasing importance of finding and exploiting new sources of fossil fuel, governments like those of the US and the UK are enormously keen to gain influence in the Central Asian region in order to secure those supplies for the West
* In order to achieve that, and get those energy supplies moving out of Central Asia, they need to set up a pro-western government in Afghanistan.

Flawed theory

This line of argument falls down on a number of points.

It is undeniably true that the Central Asian republics do have very significant reserves of gas and oil, and that they have been having difficulty in getting them on to the world market on conditions favourable to them.

Until recently Russia had an almost total monopoly of export pipelines, and was demanding a high price, in economic and political terms, for their use.

But it simply is not true that Afghanistan is the main alternative to Russia.

On the contrary, very few western politicians or oil companies have taken Afghanistan seriously as a major export route - for the simple reason that few believe Afghanistan will ever achieve the stability needed to ensure a regular and uninterrupted flow of oil and gas.

There have been exceptions, of course, like Unocal and the Argentine company Bridas.

The main proponents of the Afghan pipeline idea, however, apart from the Taleban regime itself and its backers in Pakistan, was the government of the eccentric Turkmen President Saparmyrat Niyazov, known as “Turkmenbashi”.

Caucasus route

The West, in contrast, and particularly the US, has put almost all its efforts into developing a major new route from the Caspian through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea.

This had the potential advantage (from a western point of view) of bypassing Russia and Iran, and breaking their monopoly of influence in the region - allowing the states of the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan and possibly Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) to develop a more balanced, independent foreign policy.

That, of course, worries many in Russia, and to a lesser degree in Iran.

They also now fear that the Central Asians’ willingness to entertain US forces on their territory could substantially increase US influence in the region.

Such a scenario, however, is far from certain.

The western powers have caused considerable annoyance among the authoritarian regimes of Central Asia by harping on human rights abuses - particularly, incidentally, against Muslims - and the need for greater democratisation.

It seems highly unlikely, moreover, that the US-led “Coalition against Terrorism” has any illusions about how “pro-western” any potential new Afghan Government would be.

The main prerequisite for the survival of a new administration in Kabul, is that it win wide acceptance among the various ethnic and political groupings in Afghanistan itself.

No US stooges

And very few of those groups are exactly pro-western.

Western influence in Afghanistan would, at best, remain shaky.

In addition, if peace and stability were to return to Afghanistan, and a new pipeline to Central Asia was to be built, the principal beneficiaries would undoubtedly be the Afghans, as well as Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the other Central Asians.

In brief, then, considerations of economic and political influence will undoubtedly play a part in western strategies in Afghanistan.

It would be strange if they did not. But the argument that these are the main motivations behind US actions, not the desire to stamp out international terrorism, will probably find support mainly among those who already have a fondness for conspiracy theories.

[quote]gojira wrote:
O.K., lets cut the crap. The real reason we are in Iraq is because of the oil. Just follow the oil. The truth is W had a hard on for Iraq and thought he could breeze right in, win an easy war and get re-elected. The real pay off, however, is the oil. He wants US control over the second largest oil reserve in the world. If you think he had some noble reasons regarding bringing freedom to the Iraqi’s than you’re stupider than I thought. He could give a fuck about their freedom. If he is so concerned about freedom and human rights then why the fuck aren’t we in Africa, huh? I’ll tell you why…NO OIL. Why did’nt we launch a major invasion into Afganistan and occupy that country? NO OIL!!! That’s it, plain and simple. But no one dares to bring it up. Kerry just touched on it during the first debate but dared not go any further. No one wants to mention the eight foot gorilla in the corner. So get you heads out of your asses and cut the crap with this democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people garbage. We invaded their country and are in the process of putting a puppet government in place in order to maintain control over the oil supply. However, it’s taking longer than the Bush adminstration figured and therefore gas prices won’t drop as they had hoped before the election. Gee, too bad.
Yep, it’s all about the oil.
[/quote]

If it were solely about the oil, why didn’t we just make a deal with Saddam to drop the sanctions in exchange for access to the oil. It would have been much better for him – he would have had to pay less in bribes to the Russians, French, U.N. et al, and he would have stayed in power. It would have been much more direct for Bush, and less of a political risk.

Now, I know this is hard for people to grasp, but there were actually several reasons for going into Iraq, all of which were enunciated at the time. WMD was one. The strategic importance of the area (read that as the economy of the world would immediately go into recession if the Middle East descended into chaos) was another. Humanitarian reasons were another. Promotion of democracy in an area in which the administration believed it could succeed was another.

If you really want to know about Africa, perhaps you should brush off that “Oil” argument again. Except you should apply it to France and China, who are worried about their oil contracts in that part of the world, and have been blocking resolutions for action in the U.N.

BTW, on a related point, if you really want lower gas and energy prices sometime in the next 30 years, we should be building more nuclear power plants, drilling in ANWR and offshore, and allowing the gas producers to open more refineries. Environmentalists have blocked all of these for the past 30 years.

Sorry for the hijack, but the combination of conspiracy theories and demogoguery on oil chaps my hide.

One more point concerning heating oil and natural gas prices lately – the hurricanes disruption of refineries in Louisiana has a lot to do with the price spikes we’re seeing now – natural gas supplies went down 10% and heating oil almost 20% from the combined hurricane damages.

BB:

Thanks for shedding light into the minds of those who desperately needed it!

When it comes to President Bush there so many ridiculous theories abound that it is simply difficult to believe that some people actually buy into them.

ARGH! Vegita, please listen:

Credit and Blame are the same on opposite ends of the spectrum. If Bush is to receive one – credit – based on some form of criteria (such as that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11), then he deserves the other – blame – based on the opposite of the said criteria (such as if we had been attacked since 9/11).

Understand? It’s simple and we don’t need to use other analogies to clarify the matter – it’s simple enough.

ZEB - do YOU understand?

RSU:

Calm down I agree with you pal! :slight_smile:

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
The most important factor in preventing terrorism and making Americans safe is how America is perceived overseas, specifically in the Islamic countries. Kerry will improve America’s relations with the world. Ergo, he will make America safer. [/quote]

The Muslim world will never view the US in a positive light, the radical fundamentalists in particular. To them, we are nothing more than indulgent infidels with far too much interest in their land. That will never change, and they won’t stop wanting to kill us until every American bows towards Mecca a million times a day and prays to Allah. If you honestly think that Kerry, or Bush for that matter, can change that, then you are naive at best.

The war against terror is one that we can’t win given the limitations of our society, but it is one that we can NOT afford to lose.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I agree. Terrorism will decrease when respect for the U.S. increases - particularly in the middle-east.
[/quote]

Remember, 9/11 happened before we ever entered Iraq and made the Muslim world hate us “all of a sudden.” Their hate for us is fundamental to their system of beliefs.

[quote]spartanpower wrote:
Remember, 9/11 happened before we ever entered Iraq and made the Muslim world hate us “all of a sudden.” Their hate for us is fundamental to their system of beliefs.[/quote]

The muslim world has hated us since 1949, when we supported Israel’s bid to become an independent state. Oil made it worse. But there is no ‘all of a sudden’ hate for the U.S.

By being preoccupied with the cold war, or just our own fat-and-laziness, we’ve allowed this hatred to proliferate to the point that we can no longer turn away.

Once we gain their respect - be it by brutal force, free elections, or both - they will stop their attacks, lest they incur our wrath.

Will it stop their hatred for us? Probably not. Will it prevent another 9/11? I’d bet money it would.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
RSU:

Calm down I agree with you pal! :)[/quote]

lol…sorry…I’ve never witnessed such an unexpected turn of events!(j/k)

RSU - No! he is credited for having a good security policy which in turn has prevented attacks. He personally doesn’t go out and prevent all attacks.

Therefore, he can still have a good security policy and yet have an attack. Why would you criticise someone in this instance, what would it accomplish? If he is doing the best job (hypothetically) then what would you criticise him about? not being Phsycic?

I agree if he drops the ball and we get attacked as a result of that then he should be removed from office, not just criticised.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

RSU? bump

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins