Current Money Numbers in 2006 Election

[motivez]

Too bad

If it was as easy to waltz over here with explosives as it is in a port city like Yemen or something, we'd see many more attacks.

This is one reason I fully support protecting our borders and ports, something the Administration has failed to do and one of the reasons I think they've ultimately failed on security.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by motivez

Too bad

If it was as easy to waltz over here with explosives as it is in a port city like Yemen or something, we'd see many more attacks.

This is one reason I fully support protecting our borders and ports, something the Administration has failed to do and one of the reasons I think they've ultimately failed on security.

Can you answer a few pointed questions?

Do you believe that when Al Quedae made the decision to carry out the 9/11 attacks and when it declared war/jihad on the US that it was a commitment to carry out a sustained war against the US, a departure from their previous isolated attacks seperated by long periods of time?

Do you believe that our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and in the international community have resulted in the death or capute of the vast majority of Al quedae's logistical and tactical leadership (failing only to kill a religious figurehead), the seizing of their assets, the destruction of their fixed assets like training camps, the dismantling of the main regime supporting them, and a reduction in their sphere of influence.?

Finally, do you believe that the issue presented in the second question had a negative impact on carrying out their desire presented in the first question?

[motivez]

I think it was pretty much rhetoric to boost how they were viewed by other people they would be able to recruit more easily after a substaintial victory.

I think the fact is that they don't have a hard time getting people to carry out attacks in other parts of the world, but it's already relatively difficult to do so here.. so things take time, planning, etc.. and I'm sure they want something spectacular and unexpected like 9/11 was.

I think our operations in Afghanistan have been good so far. I think Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda and posed no direct danger to the United States. I think it's made us take our focus off of Afghanistan, however, which is why we're seeing a resurgency of Taliban and other in the country that was actually harboring those who were responsible for harboring Al Qaeda and likely being complicit in the attacks.

I believe that our operations in Afghanistan have surely had a negative impact on Al Qaeda's ability to operate in the same manner in which they were previously, however, I don't believe it's crippled them to the point where they're unable to do anything.

Our actions in Iraq have acted as a recruitment tool for many groups across the world, including being able to recruit people with no direct contact with those groups (see: home grown groups in miami/canada - even if they were largely unorganized)

[Thorgrim]

not only has our iraq actions taken our eyes off afghanistan, but we've helped Iran rid itself of an old enemy and enbolded them

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

not only has our iraq actions taken our eyes off afghanistan, but we've helped Iran rid itself of an old enemy and enbolded them

short term yes
long term no
The governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan will be a catalyst for regime change in Iran

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

short term yes
long term no
The governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan will be a catalyst for regime change in Iran

Absolutely.

Iran has a large segment of its population that is interested in a democratic reform, and Iran's government isn't on the same authortarian level as Iraq's was. Allowing democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq is NOT something that will bode well for Iran.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Absolutely.

Iran has a large segment of its population that is interested in a democratic reform, and Iran's government isn't on the same authortarian level as Iraq's was. Allowing democratic elections in Afghanistan and Iraq is NOT something that will bode well for Iran.

Myth:

The poll revealed a country divided on many issues, although united on the role that Iran should play in the region. Iranians said they believe their country should lead the region “diplomatically and militarily” – 56% supported this view, and only 12% said their country should not be the dominant regional power. Nearly equal percentages of respondents want Iran to become more secular and liberal (31%) as want the country to become more religious and conservative (36%).

On one question, Iranians showed almost total agreement, regardless of age or gender. When asked if the state of Israel is illegitimate and should not exist, 67% agreed and only 9% disagreed.

Despite tensions between the United States and Iran, most Iranians – nearly two thirds – said they don’t believe that the two countries will go to war in the next decade.


Iranian men were more interested than women in making the economy work better. Among men, 47% said the economy should be a top government priority, while just 33% of women agreed. The older the respondent, the less important they considered development of a nuclear arsenal.


A majority said they would be willing to suffer through a bad economy if that were the price the country had to pay to develop its nuclear program. Also, 25% said they would blame the United States if the United Nations imposed nuclear-related sanctions, although nearly 40% said they were not sure whom to blame. Only one in six would blame Iran’s own government. If their country were to develop nuclear weapons, 25% said it would make the Middle East a safer place, but 35% disagreed with that statement.


When it came to their view of the United States, there was a split between the generations. Older Iranians were much more likely to admire the American people and society than younger Iranians. John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International, hypothesized that this generational split may be due in part to the lack of exposure to Americans over the past two decades.


Younger and older Iranians would favor a more conservative, religious society, while those aged 30–49 said they would favor a more liberal, secular culture. What is striking is that just 15% said Iranian culture should stay just the way it is right now. Women were more likely than men to say they wanted a more liberal, secular society. Among those Iranians with Internet access, 41% said they wanted a more religious culture, compared to 33% who said they wanted a more secular society.


“The poll illustrates the impact of 25 years of separation,” said Zogby. “The attitudes of younger Iranians toward the government, people and policies of the United States have been shaped by years of isolation, largely conservative religious leadership, and anti-U.S. rhetoric. This group is consistently more negative in its attitudes towards Americans and the American government than are older Iranians. However, new technology, including satellite television and the Internet, could be used as tools that connect young Iranians with other nations in the region, and the West.”

http://www.zogbyworldwide.com/news/readnews1.cfm?ID=763

This is just like the myth of Iraqs "secular middle class" that was supposed to run things...now Islam runs everything and the final election was "more of a census than an actual election"