Would an attack help McCain?
"Be honest and open," we demand! But when political people are, as here, we pounce.
I agree that a terrorist attack would be likely to help John McCain but with a proviso - one I have mentioned before - that this may well be the aim of the terrorists: they want a fight against an enemy with a bad worldwide image and Barack Obama would present them with a problem.
On the other hand, Mr Obama's anti-free trade rhetoric is beginning to dampen international enthusiasm for him - this australian commentary is dull to begin with, but gets interesting towards the end when the writer begins to address the free trade issue.
Still the Illinois senator motors on, and this is a fascinating assessment of the extent of his potential funding advantage (I almost said "going forward" but the term has been banned as a ghastly Americanism by the controller of Radio Four no less), with just a hint at the end that it might not be conclusive but a hint that seems to me to be more in hope than in expectation.
(Leslie, as well as being a friend of mine, is a Republican.)
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why are we having to Google Justin's site to get the Blog Network?
Just asking!
Complain about this comment
There's an old saying on this side of the pond, be careful what you wish for, you never know when your wish may come true. Europeans seem fooled into thinking that Barack Obama is somehow more like them and sympathetic to their views, their needs, their way of seeing the world. They are in for quite a surprise. Obama's goals are exactly the same as McCain's, and Clinton's, it's only the best route to getting there which is in dispute. Obama if elected will be President of the United States, not of the world. His bias is 100% American. Don't think he would give Europe or anyone else any more consideration than the others would. In fact, it may be just the opposite because he has something to prove to Americans who are suspicious of his loyalties. His constituency is entirely American and he knows it. He may also be far more ready to use military force against America's enemies than the others. The reason he wants to pull out of Iraq is to divert the military's focus to Afghanistan...and Pakistan. I don't think he'd have any qualms about attacking Pakistan if he felt there was no other way to get at al Qaeda.
Complain about this comment
Personally, I don't see how a terrorist
attack would help - how would McCain
blame it on the Democrats?
Or, to paraphrase Pogo of comic strip
fame, "We have met the enemy and
he is us."
Complain about this comment
re: #3 gunsandreligion
". . . I don't see how a terrorist
attack would help . . ."
Following an attack, the campaign message would be "You need a militarist Repub who is willing to kill and destroy enemies, rather than a peacenik Dem who wants to surrender to them in Iraq or to talk with them, in order to keep you safe."
And, chances are, many, many voters would hop aboard that bandwagon - - - much more than are currently aboard with that mindset.
Complain about this comment
re: #4
And I forgot to add the most important point:
Other issues such as the economy, price of gas, taxes, etc., etc. would be relegated to secondary status, and the election would hinge primarily on that single "keep me safe" issue.
Complain about this comment
All about Charlie Black
See the videoThey don't care who's paying, just as long as they're paying big!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Laurie Oaks' Australian commentary captures Obama's situation very well. He is popular for reasons having little to do with his actual policy positions, which are weak.
For many Americans, he represents salvation. They will be "liked" once again and be able to hold their head high. (Please don't tell them that the French didn't like them long before Bush.)
In fact, Obama's positions are questionable. I suppose when your only tool is the hammer of regulation, every problem becomes an opportunity-for-regulation nail.
Complain about this comment
"This proposed" attack that you are talking about, would probably hurt John McCain's chances very much.
Complain about this comment
I see what you are saying peterm99,
that fear needs a booster shot...
So the real issue, if the unthinkable
happens again is... Is the American
public stupid enough to be herded in
the wrong direction again by a loud
noise, or can reason be heard in
difficult times?
If we get attacked again, I think Obama,
with his emphasis on going after
terrorists in Pakistan would be in an
even stronger position, because he
can say, "You see, I was right, Bush
fought the wrong war."
Also, it doesn't make sense for Al'Qaeda
to attack us now, because they
seem to be regrouping, and fighting
a war of attrition against us in Afghanistan.
Why would they want to change that to
a situation where our attention is focused
on digging them out and destroying them?
Complain about this comment
Given that McCain's campaign advisor says that it would be helpful to McCain, much of America might look upon that as an invitation - a rather ghastly one. In the short term such a statement could only help Obama. Were there actually to be a terrorist attack, the cynical might think that it was arranged by the republicans for the sole the purpose of winning the election. So there might be a backlash and cries of treason.
I think that the McCain group has not yet entered the 21st century. Certainly they are naive about the benefits, and dangers, of the internet. One has only to breathe and the world knows instantly. The republicans thus inadvertantly show their hand.
Sometimes, however, they are a little less obvious. A few days ago there was aggressive talk about Iran on the part of the Israelis. Reading deeper into the news item one wonders if Bush is setting us up. Were Israel to attack Iran, would the United States go to war to aid their "ally"? Could this happen before election day? That is what we should watch out for, not a terrorist attack.
Complain about this comment
You can't go forward in the UK? Well, that certainly explains the Major years.
On the notion of a terror attack in the U.S. boosting McCain: It's just as likely that voters would see it as one more testimonial to Republican incompetence. Almost eight years after 9/11 and after all the crap we've endured in the name of security, and you guys let it happen again? Bozos.
While we're at it, and speaking of bozos, someone should figure our how much support the TSA has cost the GOP.
Complain about this comment
As an American business, we sell to Canada and Mexico. If we were located in Mexico, we could sell our product under "preferential tariff treatment" into Canada and the U.S. But because we are located in the U.S. we can sell nothing into Mexico under this classification, and only our low end(no bells and whistles) product into Canada. When Obama says he wants to re-negotiate NAFTA to make it fair, I am not convinced he is protectionest. I do not know what the situation might be if we were located in Canada, and quite frankly don't care. But I support Obama and believe he will do the right thing with regard to trade.
Complain about this comment
#11, that's right, the republicans lose either
way. If there is an attack they look incompetent,
and if there isn't one, the economy takes
precedence as an issue.
Complain about this comment
An attack surely helps no one. The GOP (McCain nee Bush) have built a strategy around defend overseas to save the homeland .... an attack in the US undermines that. Therefore, an attack inside the contiguous states is a violation of the method, and would show that certain measures (including the Patriot Act) are flawed.
An attack in the US is likely to prompt a military response.
Obama has said he would consider an attack against Pakistan if they did nothing ...
The inverse .... does it help Obama .... I do not think so. It will scare Americans for sure but I think that will break even. Bush's policies have not helped the US and one would hope that McCain would not get elected as he is endorsing key elements of the current administration, despite previously vocally dissenting against it.
Base point: I feel an attack in the US helps no one and posturing wise .... would lead to the US attacking whoever they felt harboured the source. Both McCain and Obama would do that.
Complain about this comment
Now we know that Justin doesn't take time to check all the links we provided - at #30, "Nunn in the Running" I made the same link as "this is a fascinating assessment" in the third paragraph.
I can't possibly see how another attack would help Mr McCain - it would demonstrate that a Republican administration could not keep America safe.
I don't hear Radio Four but perhaps the controller could rid us of that ghastly Anglicism "got". We've got to, they've got to, you've got to understand and on and on. Whatever happened to 'have' and 'must'? Perhaps Justin would pass it on.
Complain about this comment
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, a new and substantial terrorist attack (on the US, and preferably in the US) would secure a McCain victory.
Everyone knows this, and it's a bit odd to see McCain denouncing such a given as "not true".
The more interesting question might be: what would you do if you were a terrorist organisation?
Would you launch such an attack (assuming you could)? It would set up an all-out crusade/jihad quite nicely: conservative Republicans against conservative Islamists. It'd be McCain v. bin Laden; lapel pins v. burqas, cluster bombs v. beheadings.
Or would you refrain, perhaps because your ultimate goal is - wait for it - peace, albeit on your own terms? But that would lead to an Obama victory, and the potential loss of an enemy you so desperately need in order to have someone to fight against.
To be frank, I have no idea at all what "the terrorists" really want. What I do know, though, is that it's about time we find out.
Until we do, we're all in the dog house.
Complain about this comment
An Islamist attack would 'help' McCain. What the aide said might not have be all that tactful, it is the case that McCain is viewed as being much more militarily 'tough' (and sensible) than Obama.
In the same vein, you would have to stretch this British case pretty far for it to be considered racist. The poor guy shouldn't have been fired.
Neither of them should have.
Complain about this comment
#17: How would it help McQuain if Ammerica were attacked? He's a patriot, in he?
Complain about this comment
Furthermore, I don't think Americans would vote for someone who would be (subconconsciously, maybe) wishing harm done to them. Are people seriously going to get bored with 'hope'?
Complain about this comment
re: #16 Justianus
"The more interesting question might be: what would you do if you were a terrorist organisation?"
To answer that, one must look at objectives. Stripped of all flowery rhetoric, Bin Laden's fatwa indicates they want 3 things:
1. Removal of foreign troops from Muslim lands and cessation of foreign domination of Muslims in those lands.
2. Cessation of foreign support for Muslim autocrats who act against the interests of Muslims as a whole in exchange for foreign support to remain in power.
3. Cessation of Israeli subjugation of Palestinians and occupation of their lands.
I would expect that any cessation of hostilities would result in maintenance of the status quo prior to the Iraqi invasion of all three: the US would continue to prop up its puppets in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, most of the emirates, Jordan, Egypt, and several others; US military bases/depots would continue to exist in many of those countries; ME Muslims would still be unable to apply meaningful pressure on Israel to abandon their occupation and expansionism.
The only way to even begin to achieve any of those three objectives is to keep things churning. Even though the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in lots of damage to Al Qaeda and related organizations in terms of foot-soldiers lost, they have probably created many more actual opponents than have been eliminated, as well as increasing the levels of sympathy among the general population of the entire Muslim world for the overall objectives of the movement. Unless we eliminate virtually all of the actual combatants and a large fraction of the sympathizers, we can not win this struggle by military means unless we turn the non-Israeli occupied ME into fused glass. Other than some of the neocons and Likudists, I don't believe that most Americans, of either party, would be willing to go that far. (Although, if gas prices go much higher, who knows what the mood of the US population would support.)
Based on the above, I'd expect Bin Laden and/or his successors and adherents to want to keep things at a boil.
Complain about this comment
Agreed. Are the BBC trying to hide him from us?
Complain about this comment
A third term for Bush is not going to make us any safer, or make us forget about the struggling economy. If a firefighter starts a fire, is he a hero when he shows up to fight it? If 'going forward' is banned, I suppose 'brain storming' and 'blue sky thinking' are out of bounds. Makes having a pseudo-conversation at work rather difficult, unless we increase the density of acronyms as a stop-gap measure, sorry SGM.
Complain about this comment
Hi AnonymousCalifornian,
I take your point re: James McGrath and what seems like oversensitivity - or as they would say here "PC gone mad."
But as a political advisor to the Mayor of a truly multi-cultural melting pot of a city, it was a sloppy comment.
The Windrush generation, to which he was referring, has heard those very words "go home if you don't like it here" over and over again. It is the statament of British racism, whether McGrath meant is as such or not. As a senior political advisor, he should have known...
:)
Complain about this comment
I remember a brilliant scene in the US cartoon Family Guy which summed up the whole Republican Strategy perfectly. You have all these old white men debating in Congress on whether to attack Iraq, making sensible points such as whether it was worth the US lives that would be lost, whether it was America's role to police the world etc.
Then the main character, Peter, gets up and says "but the one thing that you're all forgetting is that any man who doesn't want to go to war is gay". All the Congressmen start shouting "Well I've always wanted to go to war", "I've wanted to go to war more than you!", and "Well I think we should go to war twice!" and so on. They then vote for war and thousands die.
Remember this isn't anti-americanism (though I did laugh) as it was written by Americans. It's often interesting how it takes a comedy to say what we're all thinking.
If the US were attacked again, the Republican fear machine would go into overdrive. They're all disheartened at the moment as McCain isn't barking enough to appeal to evangelicals and is too associated with the war to appeal to moderates. This kind of thing would energise them enough to really compete in the election. They would combine this with the usual lies about Obama being Muslim, Fox news would "accidentally" keep saying "Osama…sorry I meant Obama", and they might actually succeed in convincing people that more of the same is actually better than a fresh start.
The whole "war on terror" is made up anyway. We in Europe have been fighting terrorism for decades while America snoozed. What was the US doing while London and NI were being bombed by the IRA? Funding Sinn Fein and welcoming Gerry Adams to the White House, that's what. I hope no-one gets attacked and we can cast Bush and his horrendous legacy to history.
Complain about this comment
Charlie Black's tactic embodies the principle that 'the end justifies the means', and reminds me of US policy in the Pacific prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
On 7 October 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence wrote a memorandum to his superiors with the subject "Estimate of the Situation in the Pacific and Recommendations for Action by the United States". Here is an excerpt:
"It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following course of action is suggested:
…
[Eight steps are then set out, including the following, which is point six:]
Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
…
If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully prepared to accept the threat of war."
Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan on 7 December 1941.
In the light of Charlie Black's comments, a subsequent terrorist attack on the United States would not now necessarily help McCain so much as demonstrate that his campaign considers thousands of innocent lives to be a price worth paying for a McCain victory. But an audio recording released within the next few months - "confirmed" by the CIA to have been made by Bin Laden - endorsing Obama for President, would certainly assist.
Get to work, boys!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A terrorist attack before the election would remind America it is still in a war for its survival, something many Americans seem to have forgotten. If I were a terrorist group, I'd do nothing and hope that Obama won. Then I'd attack to see what he's made of. Most presidents get tested one way or another early on in their Presidency. Bush was tesed by China around April 2001 in the knockdown of the US reconnaissance plane over international waters by a Chinese fighter pilot who crashed into it playing a long standing game of chicken. The US plane was forced to make an emergency landing in China. The crew was held prisoner for awhile, the Chinese dismantled the plane to learn what they could about American technology from it and President Bush showed the world right off the bat how weak he really was. Don't forget it was a month before he struck back at the Taleban who gave sanctuary to al Qaeda. Had it been me, bombing would have begun around that clock that day starting with ToraBora and sealing every avenue of escape between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then I would have taken Afghanist apart.
Complain about this comment
Go Rambo!Complain about this comment
After 7.5 years of large "defense" expenditures, claims of victory, and assurances that the actions taken by the Bush Administration have made America safer it seems logical to assume that a new terrorist attack on US soil would hurt the Republicans. Unfortunately, the Democrats act like Boy Scouts when it comes to fighting the GOP propaganda machine. Elections are not won on facts; the trump cards are personal charisma, perceived character, and the effectiveness of the misinformation fed to the electorate.
Complain about this comment
@ marcusAurelius #27:
Many nations have 'tried to take afghanistan apart' in the past 300 years; every single one has come off worse. And your attempt would break the pattern how? (apart, that is, from turning every single afghan into a jihadist?)
Complain about this comment
I caught a clip of McCain singing Bomb Bomb Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys Barbara Ann the other day.
Is there anyone here who knows what that was all about?
Personally I'd be uncomfortable about letting someone with such a gung-ho attitude loose as an enlisted man let alone Commander in Chief.
Obama might be a bit vague, but it's gotta be better than that sort of insanity?
Complain about this comment
#20, peterm99:
"Even though the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in lots of damage to Al Qaeda and related organizations in terms of foot-soldiers lost, they have probably created many more actual opponents than have been eliminated, as well as increasing the levels of sympathy among the general population of the entire Muslim world for the overall objectives of the movement. "
In fact, the level of sympathy for AQ has decreased. In Iraq, it is AQ's violence and brutality that caused the Sunni Awakening. And Middle Eastern countries are awakening to their own in-house problems with extremism. Even Saudi Arabia has been quietly cleaning house. Over the years it has changed its education system, and, recently, it fired approx. 1,000 imams. These changes were never greatly publicized.
Extremists will always be recruitable. What will change is whether their recruiters will be able to set up shop, train them and retain strong command and control over their operations. In these respects, we have been rather successful in fighting them.
Complain about this comment
From #27: >>"A terrorist attack before the election would remind America it is still in a war for its survival, something many Americans seem to have forgotten."
That is completely untrue. Terrorism is a potential threat to individual Americans. It is not, and never has been, a threat to America. Arguing that terrorism threatens the existence of the U.S. as a state is simply hyperbolic noise, often coming from people who'd readily tear up the Constitution to "save" the country. They pose the greater threat.
Complain about this comment
This does bring back memories of Nixon, and as one old enough to remember what the moral cesspool created CREEP(Committee to Re-elect the President) in 1972, it is a matter of real concern. It was not a happy experience, as a senior in high school, to watch the Senate Watergate hearings play out as my young adulthood was about to begin. I would spare my own son a similar experience, if possible.
I believe there were two types of people in US political life in the immediate aftermath of Watergate, not defined by party affiliation. One group asked: 'How did this terrible thing happen, and how do we ensure it not happen again?' Thus the public finance scheme for Presidential elections was born. The other group asked: 'How do we do learn the lessons of Watergate, and not get caught doing the same thing in the future?'
I always thought it significant that two young attorneys served on the Senate Watergate Committee--Fred Thompson for the GOP side, and Hilary Clinton on the Democrat side. Fred's inherent decency and sense of reserve, as a member of the first group, ended up hurting his efforts to run for President--there were just too many things he wasn't willing to do. HRC's ambition, as a member of the second group, her willingness to do or say anything to anyone, caught up with her in the end.
BHO was too young to learn first-hand, but from a distance, it appears he took copious notes!
We need not look behind the veil to see who this man is. The public record is sobering enough.
Complain about this comment
aeconomos,
Keep drinking the Kool Ade.Justcorbly,A Citizen's Response to the National Security Strategy:
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
I am not suprised nor are many American's!!
This is the true face of the republican's and their strategies and that truth sliped out of one of the top advisors to the would be president.
Sure it will boost McCains position, since he would be claming he is the so called the right person to defend his country as he is a 'war vateren' with less regards for the effected families and people.
Complain about this comment
wait my friend says GW did the trade towers.
now I am starting to think maybe some are sick enough to do things like that.
Complain about this comment
His bias is 100% American.
but not a racist xenophobic american.
Complain about this comment
The biggest problem we have in the USA is that a large segment of the population does not differentiate between a government sponsored attack and one carried out by a terrorist organization. The problem is further complicated by the fact that many people still don't know that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and there was not a single Iraqi involved in that tragedy, and either don't know or don't understand that Osama bin Laden and the main Al Qaeda financiers are Saudi Wahhabists. Ironically, we declared Saudi Arabia a Most Favored Nation in exchange for lucrative oil contracts, and we attacked Iraq and removed its secular government from power, replacing them with Shiites aligned spiritually to Iran! We certainly don't have to read the Bible to find Judas!
Complain about this comment
MAII
Liked the middle bit # 27 but the beginning and end left me with questions
"America is still in a war for its survival? I will allow you war in the "war against terrorism" context, but survival ?
Survival A nice all encompassing word that means both death and failure.
The theory of survival assumes that death or failure happens just once for each subject. Recurring events or repeated events relax that assumption.The survival function is a property of any random variable that maps a set of events, usually associated with mortality or failure of some system, onto time. It captures the probability that the system will survive beyond a specified time
So seeing as the whole civilised world is threatened by any "terrorist" and the man in the street can lose life or limb, how will one single attack jeppardise big old US of Americas survival? I feel you use the word in one of its loosest connotations and you must have been thinking along other lines of thought, but were too shy to mention them.
Americas survival against Kyoto summit minds that hope you will ratify and help our ecology? Survival from Mexican immigrants coming over the fence? From Canadians swimming / skating the lakes? Surviving job losses after jobs are sent overseas. Survival to maintain a gluttenous lifestyle? Survival without satisfactory health care. Surviving these elections? You must surely mean survival of the fit enough, and not survival of America.
I see others have picked you up on your Afghanistan decisions, so I will give you a raincheck on that one.
Complain about this comment
Moderator:
I understand why you removed my posting (#26) and take no issue with your decision. I wish to state, however, that the word I used was not intended to be racist, although your sensitivity is to be applauded. I also used the same word in a posting some weeks ago to refer, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion, to the moral character of a certain late despotic leader in the Middle East.
Thank you for reading this. Have a nice day!
Complain about this comment
aeconomos (32),
"in fact"? Have you ANY basis for such a statement? I suggest you have a look which T-shirts are selling best in the Middle-east.A statement of hopeful opinion dressed up as "fact".
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
#35 (Ed): The truth of the matter is that, pretty much by definition, terrorism is a strategy resorted to by groups that lack the capability of threatening a state's existence. Al-Qaeda uses terror to pursue specific goals, none of which it has been sy about declaring. The IRA did not want to destroy Great Britain. ETA uses terror to pursue it's objective, which is not the destruction of Spain.
Russia retains the capability to destroy the American state. China certainly has the capability to do a lot of damage, but it's arguable if they could end the nation's existence. That's about all I can think of.
Terror is a threat to Americans and we need to respond to it appropriately. Hyperbolic rhetoric intended to motivate the destruction of American freedoms from within is, to say the least, not an appropriate response.
Complain about this comment
If "Fast Eddie Obama" (DB, NYTs) becomes president, he'll have to continually shore up his support in the Mid West rust belt. He will be relentlessly protectionist, which, along with tax hikes on business and more regulation, will have a negative effect on the world economy. As DB said, Obama only knows one kind of politicals, and as a resident of Illinois, I know up close how ugly Chicago machine politics can be. Obama is the US version of Blair. He will come in on a wave of glory, every utterance worshipped and applauded. He will leave office a fallen star, widely reviled, having been totally incapable of delivering on his promises. The trajectory of this story is set, regardless of who spends what where. The only question now is timeline--will it end 4 years from now, or 8?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So, just follow the link ;-(
$20 Billion Later, Iraq Security Only Operating At 10 Percent
Basically a story of good money after bad, but it's only taxpayers' money and our corporate cronies are coining it!
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
Will this help McCain?
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
And the return of the politics of fear
(if they ever went away!)
Peace to all
ed
Complain about this comment
More on the "unfortunate remarks" of Charlie Black
"Unfortunately" telling the truth.
xx
ed
Complain about this comment
@ anonymous Californian #17:
reasons why racist and unacceptable;
1) echoes of worst powellesque ranting of the 60s
2) he'd NEVER say that about white incomers, of whom we havve plenty (he should know, he's one himself, and london has no shortage of Aussie's)
3) as he surely knew, London is too much of a multicultural hybrid sorta city for such comments to be tolerable.
@ marcusAurelius II;
the last person i ever read about proclaiming his nation's very survival to be at stake as it happily beat seven shades of it ourt of certain smaller neighbours....was adolf Hitler. Your nation is NOT at risk of annihilation
@ DominickVilla #39:
do you REALLy have THAT many people who haven't a clue?
Please don't get offended, as I'm genuinely shocked, which is why I ask.
Complain about this comment
re: #32 aeconomos
Please re-read the sentence you quoted. Here is the critical part you seem to have missed:
". . . increasing the levels of sympathy among the general population of the entire Muslim world for the overall objectives of the movement. "
The popularity of the objectives of the movement has little or no relationship to the popularity of the destructive acts of the adherents of the movement. (Example: while a large majority of the population on both sides felt that the bombings perpetrated by the IRA were brutal, etc., sympathy for the _objectives_ (i.e., independence and/or union with RofI, etc.) did not diminish, but were generally enhanced by the often brutal responses from the other side.)
Had there been no opposition at all to the US and the Quisling Iraqi government, it is likely that a relatively benign occupation would have resulted. Given the resistance, the US is now seen as a brutal occupier by more and more people, shown as able and willing to obliterate entire neighborhoods including innocent populations thereof, round up and detain (often torture) people en masse including innocent civilians, impose collective punishments on families and villages of "suspected" militants, displaying callous disregard for the indigenous population through repeated innocent deaths through "collateral damage", and many other acts the locals see as reprehensible. This serves to increase support for at least one of the objectives.
Since Al Qaeda is not vying to govern Iraq, it matters little to them that they are also seen as brutal, etc. by the population. By exposing the US as brutal occupiers, they _have_ succeeded in increasing levels of ill will towards the US, which furthers their primary objectives.
Complain about this comment
Streathamite (#50), don't worry about #39. The author is no more able to say with authority what is "the biggest problem we have in the USA" than any other anonymous person who posts on blogs.
I don't know what our biggest problem is; there are so many from which to choose.
Complain about this comment
#17, #50. Suggesting that immigrants might care to return home cannot, in a reasonable society, possibly be considered racist. The UK has become hypersensitive to every perceived slight and I'm saddened that David Cameron has fallen into the trap of giving it legitimacy. It's no wonder that the BNP has its adherents since incidents like this only serve to inflame the situation. As it was persons of colour that were referred to in the first place, the response was appropriate. Had a number of, say, New Zealanders or Chinese immigrants made the same 'threat', I have no doubt the response would have been the same - 'if you don't like it, you know what you can do.' There's nothing inherently racist about it.
Perhaps Streathamite was never in the US when bumper stickers proclaimed "Love It or Leave It" - one might not agree with the sentiment, but it could not be considered "offensive". To say London is "too much of a multicultural hybrid " is a poor excuse to deny saying the obvious; if newcomers don't like something, they have the option of leaving - it's a two way street. Just like radio or television, if you don't like the content, there's an off switch that can be used.
Complain about this comment
@ david cunard: you REALLY don't understand the current state of play in the UK - because yes I have travelled (and worked) a fair bit in the US and it, culturally and multiculturally, bears NO context relation to how it hangs in London, right now.
Firstly - INCOMERS??? HUH? the clear majority of UK blacks were born and bred here - it IS their home, the only opne they know. THOSE were the people the priginal online questioner referred to, ditto our anglo-indian community. Ast he adviser could only have known, unless he was 100% dim.
Everyone knows there's a contextual undercurrent there harking back to Woverhampton/Powell days - and again, that phrase evokes ugly folk memories. Equally we all know that he'd NEVER have said that of his fellow Oz incomers, or any white immigrant group. In fact, the question would never be put, becuase johnson hasd only offended black and Asian racial groups.
I don't think the bloke's necessarily a racist - he's an immigrant himself - i do think he is a cynical, reactionary gallery-player, and got caught out, badly. context is all - ours means, there's certain statements that are simply utterly, totally unacceptable (sez Streatham and Brixton).
Complain about this comment
To # 53 as the London born daughter of Jamaican and St. Lucian parents, I've often wondered why it is that so many people in England - often not even English themselves! - can be so overly fond of telling us to "return home".
What's really ironic is that many of these clearly historically ignorant sorts would probably have a fit if they were educated about the fact that many of us - self included - have white English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and other bloodlines since - to take Jamaica as an example - all of these groups and more migrated to the West Indies several centuries ago.
I've recently thought that maybe it would be good to start a Black People Take Their White People To Work day, in which we leave prominently displayed on our desks in the office, precious family mementoes, photographs, home cooked examples from "handed down" Back Home recipes and the like. It would certainly be worth it if nothing else, just to see certain clueless people's lunchtime sandwich go down the wrong throat hole....!!
In addition, London and many other English cities including Liverpool and Bristol owe much of their historic economic wealth to the enterprise of the ancestors of Those That Should Apparently Return Home, and a recent Time Out article focussing on Africans in London didn't surprise me in the slightest when it "admitted" that the 10,000 black owned businesses in the capital were contributing over £4 bn to the economy. Not the sort of fact that the media bent as it is on accentuating the negative and eliminating the positive when it comes to Black people usually chooses to highlight.....
The BNP and its adherents would most likely consider this pretty unpalatable since it isn't the sort of truth they'd care to acknowledge. Ah, well!
Complain about this comment
#50:
>>"@ marcusAurelius II;
the last person i ever read about proclaiming his nation's very survival to be at stake as it happily beat seven shades of it ourt of certain smaller neighbours....was adolf Hitler. Your nation is NOT at risk of annihilation"
Very true. To be precise, Hitler's Germany wasn't facing annihilation, either. He was just very, very good at lieing.
Complain about this comment
It's hard to say how a terror attack would play with the voters. Logic suggests that it should help McCain rather like the Bin Laden video helped Bush in 2004.
However, it's also true that an assassination attempt on Obama would be a huge boost for him (as long as he survives of course!)
Complain about this comment
Hewanorra (55),
Well said, Sister!
Peace to all,
ed
Complain about this comment
"McCain, by contrast, is an unapologetic free trader, and not afraid to say so, even though it could cost him votes in crucial industrial states at a time when unemployment in the US is rising."
Of course McCain is an "unapologetic free trader" but with this flood in the Midwest where most of the crops are destroyed, what will America have to trade. Sure we do a brisk trade in WMD with the Third World, but with food riots, they may turn these weapons on US!
Seriously, there is more to than free trade at stake in the Election of 2008. There are questions that regard more than money and weapons because these were the things that Bush-Cheney concentrated too much on and have almost bankrupt the US banking system and pulled the Western global system along with US.
We have been the engine of famine and shortages all over the world weather it is food or fuel, or food used for fuel. And I am sure that McCain as Bush III will stay the course.
But he can avoid this becoming public by spreading the rumor that he is not McBush, just Johnny Spot.
Complain about this comment
#54. Streathamite: "you REALLY don't understand the current state of play in the UK" You're wrong; until last year I maintained homes in Reading and Los Angeles. I know very well the conditions in my native land - and have chosen to live elsewhere.
"Firstly - INCOMERS???" I've never used the word - check your post at #50. As I understand it, the remark was about older immigrants, not those who had been settled for a generation or more or, as you put it, those "born and bred" in the UK. I refer you to The Times and the comments following the article. You'll see that quite ordinary folk think that the comment was at the most, insensitive, but not racist . When one adopts a new country, the supposition is that you will embrace the language and customs of that country, not the reverse. I am happy to celebrate Independence Day here, but I would not try to foist British Bank Holidays on the USA - although I do think adding Boxing Day to the American calendar would be a good idea.
Complain about this comment
Referring to #60's comments, many of the "older immigrants" - which would encompass my married for 40 years parents - can well remember being educated in the West Indies about the customs, culture and history of the UK. Many of that generation could happily quote from Shakespeare and were shocked on arriving here in England to find that many an English person could not!
"Back Home" in the West Indies, they were taught and taught well about England, the "Motherland", and when many of our elders were called upon to do their duty and fight for the "Motherland" as proud and protective "children" they were ready and willing to do so....
...not a whole lot prepared many of them then, for the absolute shock of being rejected by their "Mother".
You see they weren't quite, well, White....
There is an exhibition at The Cuming Museum, which is local to me here South of the River, about the little known contributions made between 1939-45, of many of our wonderful "older immigrants" called "Keep Smiling Through". It made my heart glad to see it, for acknowledgement of their efforts and many sacrifices is long overdue. Perhaps the departing Mr. McGrath might find the time to pop along and view it.....
Complain about this comment
justcorbly #33
One nuclear attack and the democratic republic we have known for over 200 years will probably come to an end forever to be replaced by a military dictatorship. The United States as we know it will end. This is because it will be instantly clear that a nation as open as the one we have cannot survive in an era of WMDs where terrorists have access to nucelear weapons and can enter our country to use them. This is the government's biggest fear but they seem almost resigned to its inevitability. Many Americans just don't get it. We either give up some of our constitutional freedoms and guarantees temporarily now or we risk losing them all later. BTW, this is one of the things that happened in WWII and in the Civil War. Parts of the Constitution were suspended in a time of grave national threat. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Streathamite in Milano
You really underestimate the destructive power of the US. I'm not talking about using nuclear weapons. If you don't care who you kill or how many innocents become what we euphemistically call "collateral damage" it would be relatively simple to make organized society in a place like Afghanistan or anywhere else impossible very quickly. That was made clear to the Lebanese by the Israelis only a couple of years ago when they could have brought all life in Lebanon to an end. Simply by destroying a nation's infrastructure, its roads, electric power, water supply, all energy stores, the ability of most people to survive can be made virtually impossible. Imagine trying to carry on life with no access to food, medicine or the outside world. It could be reverted to the stone age in a matter of weeks. Clearly that is not what the US wanted to do.
Complain about this comment
re: #62 MarcusAurelius
"We either give up some of our constitutional freedoms and guarantees temporarily now or we risk losing them all later. . . The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
That is, of course, one point of view, and held most often by authoritarians of all stripes throughout history, often as a justification for maintaining their hold on despotic power, and, in the US, as a defense for egregious violations of the principles of upon which this nation is based. It is at heart a variation on the premise of "If we lock you up in jail and control everything you say and do, we can protect you from the bad guys". It also reflects a belief that the survival of a central government is of greater importance than the survival of the nation. History has also shown that any freedom taken from a populace by a government is not likely to be temporary.
The other point of view, which is consistent with the history of the establishment of the US, is that the Constiturion really is an inviolable contract between the people and the government, and cannot be amended without due process as defined therein. In other words, yes, it is a suicide pact, if it comes to that.
The people and states of the US had just fought against the oppression of the British crown, and were loath to surrender any of their hard-won freedoms to yet another strong, potentially despotic, central government. The Constitution was adopted on the basis of an understanding that the states and people were willing to allow a central government to govern them if and only if its powers were limited to what was explicitly allowed by the Constitution and that the rights of the states and people defined therein could not be abridged by the central government. There was also explicit provision that any powers that were not listed as allowed to the central government could not be assumed by it, and, further, any rights not explicitly listed could also not be abridged by the government.
No formal amendments to the constitution to date have changed those fundamental premises. It is only the spinelessness of various legislatures and courts that have allowed some of these "contractual" principles to be watered down.
While many Americans would accept a dictatorship, military or not, in the event of nuclear attack due to a feeling that such would provide better protection, I firmly expect that such a dictatorship would be virtually powerless within the country and would not survive very long, not due to any external attack, but due to internal resistance. This resistance would not be exclusively armed resistance, but would consist primarily of people refusing to obey the dictates of such a government. In the final analysis, such a government would be forced to relinquish its power, as I expect that an overwhelming majority of the forces at its disposal, military and civilian, would refuse to conduct what amounted to coercive military operations against the population in order to try to enforce its dictates. Remember, military and government law enforcement personnel took an oath to defend the Constitution, not to enforce the dictates of a self-proclaimed authoritarian leader. Even US military law requires all personnel to refuse to carry out orders that are unconstitutional.
Complain about this comment
Marcus erroneous at it again are we?
America WILL DESTROY YOU IF YOU DO NOT LOVE US
Good appeal I'm sure that will work.
Lebanon faced Israel alone .If the World had put in place a blockade of Israel then things would have been different.
MA stop being so pompous about the great military wealth of the states.
If your sort got into power the struggle you would face would be behind you front lines.
THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA WOULD DRIVE YOU FROM YOUR LAND.
You are ALONE very alone.
Complain about this comment
MA we have also seen on other blogs you are a homophobic racist war mongering chickenhawk.
Complain about this comment
A terrorist attack would probably help McCain with a certain voting block...
The fraction of the population who mistake a blustering blowhard for a real Commander in Chief.
FDR was a lefty liberal cripple in a wheelchair who sounded wimpy and used a cigarette holder but he was, in fact, a real Commander in Chief. He understood the role and the responsibility.
He chose military leaders (George Marshall, Eisenhower) not because they agreed with his or his cabinet's fantasies but because they were effective leaders themselves.
[Note: Marshall and Eisenhower were Republicans... Just a wee bit different from the kind of Republicans we have in office now.]
And FDR did not have a war profiteer for a VP.
It has been nearly 7 years since 9/11 and Osama is still out there in some cave laughing at us.
I really believe that 70% or more of the US electorate has "got" the fact that cheap talk ("bring 'em on", "dead or alive", "mission accomplished") doesn't cut it.
We need real leadership, not corrupt incompetence. And McCain's problem is that, over the course of 7 years, he didn't use his military credentials and clout to force the Bush administration to "get it right" in Iraq... Or Afghanistan.
As for whether McCain's guy should get trashed for saying that a terrorist attack would help McC's chances? Yeah, probably...
For same reason the Hillary got trashed for saying that having Obama assassinated would have helped her chances of winning the primary. You may be speaking the truth but if you are a member of the campaign, it comes across as wishful thinking. And that looks a bit ugly.
Complain about this comment
Salem,
I reckon Osama's got a reasonably comfortable 'cave', and "McCain's guy", Mr Black should get trashed simply because he's totally amoral and probably corrupt as well, like almost all the robo-lobbyists McCain has allowed to surround him, starting with Mr & Mrs Gramm.
Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS