The major geopolitical event factor
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:53:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  The major geopolitical event factor
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The major geopolitical event factor  (Read 3936 times)
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 27, 2003, 02:53:03 PM »

Alright, there is a general consensus that the most potentially damaging event to Bush's chances of reelection would probably be some kind of international disaster. What sort of events would fit this category? Foreign aggression, ie N. Korea crosses the DMZ and sets of the 2nd Korean war, would be more likely to rally support to the president. Possibly the violent overthrow of a government many Americans see as an ally, like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Any other suggestion?

Also, how much do you think such an event would affect reelection chances? Which regions would it have the most effect in?
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2003, 03:31:55 PM »

I'd say its not the event itself (considering the events you mention) but Bush's reaction to them that would influence the 2000 race.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2003, 11:25:26 PM »

If we are attacked again by hi-jackers on flights of domestic origin, then I think that could sink Bush.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2003, 02:28:01 PM »

If we are attacked again by hi-jackers on flights of domestic origin, then I think that could sink Bush.

Well I wont say that it's good for him but I dont think ANY such attack will hurt that bad. After all the logistics of preventing that, if the plot is done well with professionals, are truly formidable.

The damage caused however could be pivotal.

Damn, I'm coolly discussing political ramifications of such an attack and I'm on planes all the time right now. It could well get a whole lot more personal than that Sad
Logged
M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2003, 02:34:04 PM »

I think N. Korea is bluffing about at least the scope of there IBM and nuke capabilities. But they claim to have IBMs that could reach Alaska or Hawaii. Zul gott apitten, but what if we somehow miss a missile launch, it gets past our early warning, and destroys Anchorage or Honolulu? The likelihood of this is quite low- even the most pessimistic analyst recognizes that DPRK's missiles are relatively primitive, but what if?

My bet? Approval ratings back up to 95%. And N. Korea ceases to exist. G-d forbid this should ever happen.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2003, 03:17:29 PM »

A thought too horrible to contemplate!!!

I dont believe it will happen but maybe its just trying to reassure myself. Still, I dont believe the North Korean leaders are suicidal.

Unlike Saddam who according to reliable reports thought that an attack on Israel or America with millions dead would rally the Arab people around him and no one would dare touch him. The North Koreans are under no such illusions. They know what the only possible US response to such an attack would be and they know no one would defend them.

I believe their missile program is intended as a deterrent against invasion and an incentive to be nice to them (with lots of aid to be stolen by the leadership)
Logged
Paul
Rookie
**
Posts: 32


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2003, 12:34:07 AM »

As I see it, the greatest threat (in a purely political sense) is posed not by N. Korea, but instead by Al Qaeda operating out of Iran.  If we were to have an attack similar in scale to 9-11 occur, and then discovered that terrorists who had taken refuge in eastern Iran were behind it, there could be serious trouble for the current administration.
The political problem is obvious.  Bush's opponents would eventually begin to point out that we "attacked the wrong country."  They would use this as evidence to support their theory that by invading Iraq, valuable resources for fighting the war on terror were misappropriated.  
And that could resonate with the American public.
Logged
NHPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2004, 04:05:56 PM »

Alright, there is a general consensus that the most potentially damaging event to Bush's chances of reelection would probably be some kind of international disaster. What sort of events would fit this category? Foreign aggression, ie N. Korea crosses the DMZ and sets of the 2nd Korean war, would be more likely to rally support to the president. Possibly the violent overthrow of a government many Americans see as an ally, like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Any other suggestion?

Also, how much do you think such an event would affect reelection chances? Which regions would it have the most effect in?

You forgot unveiled singing ladies in Afghanistan (a Top 10er on the international crisis list for 2004 to be sure)...

Female Afghan Singers Return to the Tube
Tuesday January 13 3:33 PM ET


The video was old and the song well-known, but the sight of an Afghan woman clad in a shiny red dress and simple headscarf singing on Afghan television sparked a wave of excitement and a backlash of conservatism.

The four-minute track by pop idol Salma was broadcast Monday, the first time Afghan state television has aired a female singer in over a decade.

Only Kabulis wealthy enough to own a TV and lucky enough to have electricity at the crucial moment could see the broadcast, but it provoked the first cultural struggle since a new constitution declared Afghanistan an Islamic republic nine days ago.

Parwais Nasari, a 25-year-old cooking potato waffles at a Kabul market stall, said he was sipping green tea after dinner with his family when Salma appeared, singing a Pashto-language ode to the beauty of the Afghan mountains.

"We sprang up, gathered around the screen and turned up the volume," he said. "We were very happy. I hadn't seen anything like it since communist days."

But one of Afghanistan's deputy supreme court justices was not amused.

"This mistake should not be repeated," Fazel Ahmed Manawi told The Associated Press. "In the constitution there is an article that says things that go against Islam are not allowed."

Female singers, some in short skirts, were a common sight on Afghan television in the 1980s, the decade of Soviet occupation.

Moscow's withdrawal in 1989 and the triumph of Islamic fighters three years later put an end to that. And the Taliban who captured Kabul in 1996 went further, banning television and all non-religious music.

Now, two years after the Taliban were swept from power by U.S. military might for sheltering Osama bin Laden, music again blares from Kabul's buses, taxis and stores.

Bootleg compact discs of Salma and other favorites such as Farhad Darya another singer based in Germany are available for a dollar at booths across the capital.

Indian movies, heavily romantic and dotted with songs by unveiled young women, are a must-see on state TV for many urban families. But the sight of an Afghan woman was still a shock.

Conservatives have not let the changes pass without a fight.

Until recently the national broadcaster was controlled by the Northern Alliance, the faction that defied U.S. orders by marching into Kabul after the Taliban fled.

Conservative-minded television station managers sparred repeatedly with the more liberal Information and Culture Ministry until a new state TV director was installed last month.

Abdul Rahman Panjshiri, the TV station's foreign relations director, said the channel the only one available without cable or satellite in Kabul wanted to show more female singers.

"It's normal man without woman is incomplete. How could we keep them off television?" he said. "We'll have to see how people respond, but hopefully it will become regular."

But that could also depend on a brewing struggle between the government and the Supreme Court.

Manawi said the court has sent a letter of protest to the information and culture minister, invoking the country's new charter.

But the minister, Makhdom Raheen, said he hadn't received it, and the judges had no right to intervene.

"These things are up to the minister to decide," he said.

Religious conservatives at the grand council that ended Jan. 4 granted President Hamid Karzai the strong presidential system he sought. But the accord includes a stipulation that no law can go against the "provisions" of Islam wording Western rights groups say could provide a way for the supreme court to impose a hard-line interpretation of the law.

Nasari, the stall owner, said the judges should stay out of the music debate. But other Afghans oppose female singers.

One Kabul woman said she hadn't seen the disputed video because of a power outage, but thought it was wrong. "My husband is very religious," she added by way of explanation, refusing to give her name.

A group of Northern Alliance commanders covered a whole spectrum of opinion: one saw no problem with women singing on TV; another said women should only appear veiled; a third insisted Afghanistan needs strict Islamic law.

"If you're talking about a Western society, it's fine. But we spent 20 years fighting a holy war for Islam," said the third commander, who also refused to give his name. "God and the Prophet said women should not sing."
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2004, 04:20:05 PM »

What would be the most crushing event that could happen to Bush would be a corruption crisis or a scandal.

If suddenly it were to come to like that Bush was having an affair, had fathered children out of wedlock, or was a pedophile he certainly would be sunk.

If Dick Cheney were to suddenly die of a heart attack and Bush were to select a contraversial figure (such as Helms or Santorum) he could be sunk.

If a Nixon-esque scandal were to come to light it could sink him.

But in terms of foreign policy ... it would require a real disaster or a major blunder.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2004, 04:42:25 PM »

What would be the most crushing event that could happen to Bush would be a corruption crisis or a scandal.

If suddenly it were to come to like that Bush was having an affair, had fathered children out of wedlock, or was a pedophile he certainly would be sunk.

If Dick Cheney were to suddenly die of a heart attack and Bush were to select a contraversial figure (such as Helms or Santorum) he could be sunk.

If a Nixon-esque scandal were to come to light it could sink him.

But in terms of foreign policy ... it would require a real disaster or a major blunder.

I have said this before, but I think most foreign policy events would probably help Bush, b/c Dean and many other Democrats lack credibility on foreign policy and national security. With Clark being the exception, of course. I think the only way such an event could harm Bush is that it might knock out Dean, or if ti was revealed that the White House messed up and caused a terrorist attack.
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2004, 11:02:43 PM »

There's been rumors of a major terrorist attack by al Qaeda in Iraq on the US troops and civilians.  This would be hard to deal with politically.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2004, 11:38:59 PM »

yes fox has that story and put it in my terrorist forum above elections section.

They caught one guy in a truck with a war head but rumors of 27 more and with Chemical weapons on them from Iran.


There's been rumors of a major terrorist attack by al Qaeda in Iraq on the US troops and civilians.  This would be hard to deal with politically.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 13 queries.