Tough on terror = stupid on terror. This discussion has gone down the tube

[inthebrain]

I'm gettin sick of it.

Everytime out politicians talk "tough on terror" or "tough on crime", people are jailed and killed over stupid bullshit. This "War on Terror" has lead to nothing but the death of innocense in Afganistan and Iraq. What's the ratio of civillians killed per terrorist?

I am waiting for a candidate to come forward that's really interested in the socio economic circumstances that lead to recruitment. As far as I can see are both parties trying to put across which one is that meaner son of a bitch. We can talk about the foray into Iraq as a stupid policy decision but that doesn't hit at the heart of the matter.

The question mark still exists as to why these people are willing to blow themselves up.

Our politics have become extremely fucking dumbed down.

[Ilsa]

1. On This Week With George Stephanopoulos yesterday,

one of the members of the round table was saying that the "Why?" question is the one to be addressed, and nothing will ever get any better until it is. It might have been Martha Radditz.

Oddly, on Meet the Press, David Gregory was filling in for Russert, and McKean and Lee Hamilton were on. Even Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, used that bogus line that the Islamic extremists hate us for our lifestyle. I wish someone would set him straight.

[BootinUp]

2. Until the news media helps get the discussion going

It will never go anywhere but down the tubes. We need in depth analysis of the WOT successes and failures, every night to force politicians in power to talk about it.

[inthebrain]

3. sadly

I think we are going to have to demand those answers. Unfortunatly many Republicans and Democrats are probably going to raise a stink about it until public opinion changes. Our leaders don't seem interested in trying to find answers and the media is out to lunch.

Not one media outlet has ever queestioned how oil friendly Karzai found himself as the new Afghanistan president.

[BootinUp]

4. Part of the problem, besides idiocy

is the Bush admin threatening to prosecute media sources. I think it has slowed down investigative stories significantly.

The stories that need air time are the ones that highlight lies, distortions, and lack of investment in terror policing and shoring up defenses at home.

[PaDem]

5. I think what's incredibly frustrating for me.........

is that while what you say is spot on, both Dems and Republicans in Washington will never get to the "why?". I think part of the reason the Dems won't address root causes is because they view that approach as political suicide, which it may well be. The American electorate must demand that our leaders address the root causes of terrorism, and I don't see that happening. I think we're too far gone now after six years of Bush's putrid leadership and six years of simple minded "reporting" from the cable news networks.

This so called War on Terror is never going to end. I don't have much confidence in the Democratic party to handle things much differently than the Republicans would. While there is room for improved diplomacy and the elimination of wars that literally have zero to do with terrorism (see Iraq), the odds of a vastly different strategy and rhetoric are almost zilch.

[rooney]

6. I don't have any confidence in the incumbants of

either party. I think the lobbyists have been given money and they have bought the votes that they want for their big companies to rack up the money. The politicians get their share, their spouses are often lobbyists, and they look forward to being one in a few years. IMO

[inthebrain]

7. That always surprises me on this board

as much as people get excited over candidates, corporate cash still remains a problem. It seems like that elephant in the room that gets ignored. It's very much a big part of this issue as well.

[PaDem]

8. yep. Pretty sobering assessment about our so called..........

democracy.