Is Bush going to delay the election day because of his fears?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/071204Y.shtml

Quote:

---

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
Reuters

Sunday 11 July 2004

Washington - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."

---

Click the link above for the rest of the story.

It's preparatory...and required. After what we saw in Spain, I think it is prudent that we be prepared for anything...I am sure that Kerry would agree...some of his voters could be killed in an attack too...

So the terrorist are still winning the "war" then, I see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

So the terrorist are still winning the "war" then, I see

---

Sadly, yes they are, in their own way. You see TERROR is a new brand of warfare, unseen before in history. And, they are really good at it!!! They make almost everyone give up without a fight!
You must admit, the tactics are admirable, if anything. Why? Because they work, at least for now, and if it wasn't for the USA an the UK!! After all, who knows better about "terror" and throwing around their weight?
Terror has no "weight", sort of speak. Sort of like guerilla warfare of olden days. How do you fight it? Especially with SO many believers?? Well, that is the question.
Why are there so many "believers" ?? Becuase we made them? How: our mistakes!! Does that make us wrong?
NOOO!!
Sometimes people, you really have to dig deep and try to see what is right and what is wrong for the world!! There have been many who have reminded us about the sins of the past for America. And, they are RIGHT!! Does that mean they are right now? Or, that WE are wrong now??? Of coiurse not!
Who has NOT made mistakes? Who is so lily white clean?
NOONE!! Check your own closets before you start!!!
That does NOT mean we, the US and UK are wrong about what has been happening for the last 25 years!! THEY are at war with us!! So, what should we do now???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

Sadly, yes they are, in their own way. You see TERROR is a new brand of warfare, unseen before in history.

---

You dropped out of high school history, didn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

You dropped out of high school history, didn't you?

---

No ****, my god, and he gets on to me about little historical things I say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

You dropped out of high school history, didn't you?

---

No, I have a History degree! You, obviouisly never took any history. Sad, that.
So, what are you really saying? Now you are sounding like teh Ya_k. You know: you're really good at this, BUT, do you really have ANYTHING to say?
To tell the truth Clam, now I am disappointed. I thought you were good for about a minute.https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
Sorry: My bad!https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2006/04/1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

No, I have a History degree! You, obviouisly never took any history. Sad, that.
So, what are you really saying? Now you are sounding like teh Ya_k. You know: you're really good at this, BUT, do you really have ANYTHING to say?
To tell the truth Clam, now I am disappointed. I thought you were good for about a minute.https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
Sorry: My bad!https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2006/04/1.gif

---

So you are really going to stand by that whole no terror thing?

You have a history degree and you think that terrorism is a new development in the world???

Okay boys, we're gonna need to invent a new smiley to cover this one...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

You have a history degree and you think that terrorism is a new development in the world???

Okay boys, we're gonna need to invent a new smiley to cover this one...

---

Alright, granted, perhaps I should not have said a "brand new type of warfare", but, instead a brand ORGANISED brand of warfare, with a leader who knows what he is doing!! And, who knows, how to do it for the best results!! THAT is something the world has yet to see, to this point, or to this scale!! YES: SCALE is important here! Never before has a terror campaign been waged against whole countries with such affect!! Check Spain, btw! Check you, too!
Care to argue? Or, would you care to contemplate?
Yeah...think about it: (you to Cleetus the historianhttps://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif)
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/asymmetric.cfm#form

I admire your zeal RRR. However I sadly believe that many people will not truly get it until another 9/11 hits. Then we might see some sort of action from them other than pi$$ing and moaning. Then maybe their attempts at rationalizing the deeds of those terrorists might subside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

Alright, granted, perhaps I should not have said a "brand new type of warfare", but, instead a brand ORGANISED brand of warfare, with a leader who knows what he is doing!! And, who knows, how to do it for the best results!! THAT is something the world has yet to see, to this point, or to this scale!! YES: SCALE is important here! Never before has a terror campaign been waged against whole countries with such affect!! Check Spain, btw! Check you, too!
Care to argue? Or, would you care to contemplate?
Yeah...think about it: (you to Cleetus the historianhttps://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif)
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/asymmetric.cfm#form

---

Some good points made in your link:
Extracts from the report, Reforging the Sword: U.S. Forces for a 21st Century Security Strategy,

Quote:

---

Understand that military force is not the only, or necessarily the best, means of achieving national goals — excessive or inappropriate use of force breeds resentment and plants the seeds of future conflict.

Attract allies to one's own side, and subtract them from an opponent's side.

---

Quote:

---

Understand that success in conflict depends most upon people, then ideas, and least upon hardware.

---

Quote:

---

End a fixation on complex hardware, which is not only unreliable and expensive, but also creates complex bureaucracies to build, deploy, operate, supply, and fix it — bureaucracies that are unsuited to exercising the most important components of third- and fourth-generation warfare strategy: agility, quickness,

---

Quote:

---

Focus on two major and complementary elements: create "harmony" and cohesion on one's own side, and foster chaos and paralysis on the other side

---

This exactly what we are NOT doing.

Okay, I know where you're going with this and I still disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but maybe we can agree on the following:

The terror attacks on 9/11 were possibly the most spectacularly successful ones in recent history, for some of the following reasons:

-ancient people didn't have access to airliners full of jet feul, or targets like the World Trade Center
-the modern media multiplied the effect of the terror attack by putting graphic images of it in every home with a TV in the world
-the US population had, prior to 9/11, a VERY strong sense of security within their national borders... a terror attack on US soil was unthinkable

Therefore, the perpetrators have succeeded far beyond what most other terrorists in history could have hoped to accomplish.

Of course, then we get into the argument as to what precisely the terrorists were attempting to accomplish. If it was a simple hate attack, one can assume it was more or less successful--they killed a lot of Americans and blew up a symbol of the western world. But terror is usually used as a vehicle to achieve some other political, military, or economic goal, not as an end unto itself. If the terrorists were trying to manipulate the world politically, militarily, and/or economically... then what have they accomplished?

-They crushed the Taliban (who are politically, militarily, and economically unimportant.)
-They removed Saddam Hussein from power and replaced him with people friendlier to the western world politically, militarily, and economically.
-They frightened the population of the Western world and made them want to be stronger militarily.

Anything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

Okay, I know where you're going with this and I still disagree with a lot of what you are saying, but maybe we can agree on the following:

The terror attacks on 9/11 were possibly the most spectacularly successful ones in recent history, for some of the following reasons:

-ancient people didn't have access to airliners full of jet feul, or targets like the World Trade Center
-the modern media multiplied the effect of the terror attack by putting graphic images of it in every home with a TV in the world
-the US population had, prior to 9/11, a VERY strong sense of security within their national borders... a terror attack on US soil was unthinkable

Therefore, the perpetrators have succeeded far beyond what most other terrorists in history could have hoped to accomplish.

Of course, then we get into the argument as to what precisely the terrorists were attempting to accomplish. If it was a simple hate attack, one can assume it was more or less successful--they killed a lot of Americans and blew up a symbol of the western world. But terror is usually used as a vehicle to achieve some other political, military, or economic goal, not as an end unto itself. If the terrorists were trying to manipulate the world politically, militarily, and/or economically... then what have they accomplished?

-They crushed the Taliban (who are politically, militarily, and economically unimportant.)
-They removed Saddam Hussein from power and replaced him with people friendlier to the western world politically, militarily, and economically.
-They frightened the population of the Western world and made them want to be stronger militarily.

Anything else?

---

The terror attacks on 9/11 were possibly the most spectacularly successful ones in recent history
the US population had, prior to 9/11, a VERY strong sense of security within their national borders... a terror attack on US soil was unthinkable
Which is why the capture of killing of Bin Laden should have been our number one goal. Not counting the tactical and strategic value, it would have been a psychological boost for Americans and blow to the terrorists psyche. By focusing on Iraq we have allowed fear to continue and grow.

But terror is usually used as a vehicle to achieve some other political, military, or economic goal, not as an end unto itself. If the terrorists were trying to manipulate the world politically, militarily, and/or economically... then what have they accomplished?

-They crushed the Taliban (who are politically, militarily, and economically unimportant.)
-They removed Saddam Hussein from power and replaced him with people friendlier to the western world politically, militarily, and economically.
-They frightened the population of the Western world and made them want to be stronger militarily.
If you read the post above it says that governments are not the enemy and changing them is should not be the goals of anti-terrorism. It is an ideological battle. Defeating the Taliban was good because it did take away a place where terrorists could work easily. But more importantly we did it with limited troops. We helped the native population defeat the Taliban. THAT fits into a successful strategy as explained in the other post. We didn't go in and conquer which, once again, the post explains as self-defeating. Like we are doing in Iraq.
We removed Saddam Hussein, yes. But what did we replace him with? Iraq is a nation under seige from within. The best hope is that whatever government they end up with can keep some sort of lid on the civil war. It has already become a symbol of "success" for the terrorists. Saddams army was defeated in days. Yet the terrorists are expanding and thriving and winning the psychological battle. They are nearly to the point where they control the country in the sense that NO ONE FEELS SAFE. Which as you said is what terrorists did to the US.
The islamic terrorist goals are to make it politically and economically difficult for the US to support Israel and their Arab allies. They want to gain more members who feel the US is attacking Islam. That we are trying to impose our society on theirs. That we are trying to control their oil. That Islam is not only a religion but a weapon. And its the only weapon that works. And our Iraq attack is doing exactly that.

They frightened the population of the Western world and made them want to be stronger militarily.
But as we have seen this is not a military conflict. To repeat from above:

Understand that military force is not the only, or necessarily the best, means of achieving national goals — excessive or inappropriate use of force breeds resentment and plants the seeds of future conflict.
Understand that success in conflict depends most upon people, then ideas, and least upon hardware.
End a fixation on complex hardware, which is not only unreliable and expensive, but also creates complex bureaucracies to build, deploy, operate, supply, and fix it — bureaucracies that are unsuited to exercising the most important components of third- and fourth-generation warfare strategy: agility, quickness,

Dude, you're completely diverging from my point. I was trying to enumerate and analyze the results of the TERRORISTS' actions... NOT the Americans' responses. Everything is connected. Bin Laden may be insane, but he isn't stupid, or he could never have arranged a serious threat in the first place.

So he must have had SOME idea of what the fallout to his actions would be.

Therefore, if you list and analyze what the fallout WAS, you can get some idea what his TRUE goals were.

If you know what his TRUE goal is, it is much easier to defeat him.

What does Bin Laden want? To bring down the US government entirely? It's not a realistic goal, unless he has more moves in his strategy that we haven't seen yet.

He has accomplished some other things along those lines though:

-Much more, and much more violent, internal dissension in the United States
-Less democracy, free speech, and civil rights in the United States
-Political wedges driven between the United States and many former strong allies
-Political disruption in Great Britain
-More hatred for America in the Middle East

It's too hard to list all of the repercussions of 9/11 and the American response to it... but just looking at some of them provides interesting information IMNSHO.

Is it possible that the news we see every day was more or less planned by Bin Laden? That he expected the Western world to be divided over war, and to spend half a trillion bucks stomping on Iraq because Al Qaeda couldn't be found?

Is it possible right now that everything is STILL GOING EXACTLY ACCORDING TO PLAN for Osama Bin Laden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

Is it possible right now that everything is STILL GOING EXACTLY ACCORDING TO PLAN for Osama Bin Laden?

---

Well except for the fricking sharks with fricking laser beams on their heads, there's no shark pool in his cave y'see, so he's had to use camels with rocket launchers on their humps.

Erm, getting swiftly back on point. I thought this news had since been denied by the Administration? Although, if an election postponement is being mulled over, I find it interesting that elections are to be held in Iraq as soon as possible even though insurgents/terrorists are bombing the sh!t out of the place. Is it "Democracy Whatever the Cost" in Iraq, while the democratic process is eroded in the US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

Dude, you're completely diverging from my point. I was trying to enumerate and analyze the results of the TERRORISTS' actions... NOT the Americans' responses. Everything is connected. Bin Laden may be insane, but he isn't stupid, or he could never have arranged a serious threat in the first place.

So he must have had SOME idea of what the fallout to his actions would be.

Therefore, if you list and analyze what the fallout WAS, you can get some idea what his TRUE goals were.

If you know what his TRUE goal is, it is much easier to defeat him.

What does Bin Laden want? To bring down the US government entirely? It's not a realistic goal, unless he has more moves in his strategy that we haven't seen yet.

He has accomplished some other things along those lines though:

-Much more, and much more violent, internal dissension in the United States
-Less democracy, free speech, and civil rights in the United States
-Political wedges driven between the United States and many former strong allies
-Political disruption in Great Britain
-More hatred for America in the Middle East

It's too hard to list all of the repercussions of 9/11 and the American response to it... but just looking at some of them provides interesting information IMNSHO.

Is it possible that the news we see every day was more or less planned by Bin Laden? That he expected the Western world to be divided over war, and to spend half a trillion bucks stomping on Iraq because Al Qaeda couldn't be found?

Is it possible right now that everything is STILL GOING EXACTLY ACCORDING TO PLAN for Osama Bin Laden?

---

Ah, you're right. I re-read it.
My points still stand, and in fact generally support yours.

And as for you Titchski-really cute. Actually posting a reply on thread. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Ah, you're right. I re-read it.
My points still stand, and in fact generally support yours.

And as for you Titchski-really cute. Actually posting a reply on thread. :)

---

Are you trying to say I'm not taking this politicos forum seriously? If so I take complete offense at that, after all I'm the one who's trying to inspire Webby to dance with Miss Piggy. I don't see YOU doing anything except posting political threads that just clutter the place up, can't you try and get Kermit to do an interview with RRR or something? :mad:

So how would you explain Mongol warfare, Hun warfare, Goth warfare of pure terror? How the Vikings were so feared through terror? Or maybe this?

Don't know about all the different terms of revolution, freedom fighter, guerilla???

Yeah, terror and fear used by a smaller group to get across their point, agenda, whatever to a larger group very modern indeed.

Oh Cleetus, here we go again with you disagreeing with my slant on history no matter what you say to begin with. It is as if you feel insecure in your knowledge. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif
You said back on page one:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cleete

So the terrorists are winning the war?

---

I responded to that quote and now you want to talk semantics?
This type of warfare is known as fourth generation warfare and it is a recent development. The examples you cite were full out frontal assaults by armed men: first gen warfare. You only cite terror as fear. Well fear is a result of terror. Even your own link talks about the changing meaning of terrorism. Using your example of guerrilla warfare was good though, as that is fourth gen warfare.
So, the heck with semantics, I am talking about a new form of warfare whatever you choose to name it.

Quote:

---

...what some call fourth-generation warfare. This primarily involves land forces (although targets can be naval vessels and air assets) — irregular or guerilla warfare carried out by groups motivated by ideology, revenge, lust for power, ethnicity, religion or some other unifying bond. Such irregulars often are associated with or supported by regular military forces, but in the late 20th century this was less often the case. In fact there are countervailing trends. There are more small groups or very loosely knit organizations which employ terror by threatening to or actually attacking civilian populations and infrastructure — the so-called asymmetric style of warfare. Some receive support, safe harbor, or encouragement from nations while others seem to operate with little support.

---

By the way there is a real good book out which contains a perspective on war you may like:
"The History of Warfare"
You may like it, although it is highly opinionated. But hey, aren't all historians? ;-)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...78443?v=glance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

So the terrorist are still winning the "war" then, I see

---

Yes, they are. We need to totally change our tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

By the way there is a real good book out which contains a perspective on war you may like:
"The History of Warfare"
You may like it, although it is highly opinionated. But hey, aren't all historians? ;-)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...78443?v=glance

---

John Keegan, read it, thank you very much

Don't agree with this reasoning at all, terror, fear, attacking the populace, small groups against might of empires, long standing theme if you look for it in more then just the simple name of "terrorism"

Nah, it is a univerasal theme, we are not going to irradicate it as it has existed for as long as there have been more powerful nations

Oh yeah, by the way, the quote was sarcasm, as I don't even believe we are at "war" on "terrorism"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Oh yeah, by the way, the quote was sarcasm, as I don't even believe we are at "war" on "terrorism"

---

We are not? Enlighten me, would you? Why not?
And I don't mean the fear element: that has truly changed the way we live:
see "The Patriot Act".
BTW, you have cited that many times here!!
YOU don't want to live in fear, and you don't agree with the steps that the government has taken. The alerts and whatnot. So, they, in their way, HAVE succeeded, in a way, right? You are one who has noticed, right? Now you choose to say we are NOT at war??? Come on now cleete: make up your freaking mind!!!

PS
Clam:
yeah, I agree, It IS possible things are going according to the plan of the "so_called" """Terrorists""""

Terrorism no, the elements who hate us yes

Might be symantecs to you, but a world of difference to me. Those who attacked us must be eradicated. But a blanket all out free reign war on "terrorism" is a losing battle. We can in no way be in all places to stop all terrorism all over the world. Unless though, we took over the world and ruled it with an iron fist.