>>Someone should maybe ask candidates to explain how did US reach this point of being so voulnerable/prone to boggeyman attacks of all sorts, (now even nuclear!) from generally improving security situation back in 90ties and end of cold war, and do they have any plans/solutions for restoring that calm and optimistic outlook of nineties.
>>Or things are already shifted to the next level & beyond repair :(

>
>Sometimes when you say stuff like this I have trouble believing you are serious. The "general improving security situation" of the 90s included the first attack on the World Trade center, the embassy bombings in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole and Al Quaeda planning the second attack on the WTC. And these were just the attempts that to one degree or another succeeded.

I was talking in general/global terms. There was clear ease of tension after
cold war was over troughout the world. Now all the rest you are mentioning were isolated incidents in relatively long span of time which were not directly/clearly related. Second time you called me 'naive' (which to the point I am) but I take it as compliment in this case :)

On the other side I find your standings (aldough sometime very informed/educated) to be (confusingly to me) very biased and in line with current administration talk. The fact that you spent time in some of the agencies does not mean that your glasses are more clear.
You know very well how it goes ;
If you are (ex)soldier standing in the woods, then every sound/motion you hear could be an enemy sneaking behind trying to get you. Even if You are on on leave/discharged and - camping in Connecticut!

Sorry if this sounds naive to you, but I do believe that this
Administration clearly inflated Al-Qaeda threat way out of proportions creating 'case' for two completely unjustified wars. Morover I believe that (if not recognised/stopped) this trend will continue, dangerously destabilising world.

>As to a "nuclear bogeyman" ... until somebody accounts for the suitcase nukes and all the rest of the stuff that is unaccounted for after the collapse of the USSR I think you would have to be very naive to believe this isn't a threat. More of a threat than the Soviet arsenal as in those days an attack would have a very obvious source and would mean retaliation. If a bomb suddenly goes off on US soil now you will be telling us the CIA or Israel did it so Bush could declare martial law.

I don't know what to tell you.
You are talking about unaccounted 'russian arsenal' while in Iraq alone US military cannot account for 190000 peaces of guns and thousands of helmets and body armour which is enough to equip entire army.
Can we really believe that US military know exactly what is in which of their suitcases and where is every and each of them ??

Now in the same time everybody else (Iran,Syria) is blamed for arming Al-Qaeda in Iraq (maybe they found those missing guns and gave them to OBL?), while if some of those suitcases blows up in US, (by mistake or otherwise) my wild guess is that (who else) Iran will be blamed and consecutively attacked.

Fact that the suitcase lands on some boggeyman lynatic lap, does not clear
responsability from 'donor'. So if that suitcase blows up in US who do *you* believe would be responsible ?

>
>The Turkish military has been the greatest protector of Turkish democracy since the beginning of the republic. Democracy in Turkey is not perfect, but compared to those parts of the former Ottoman Empire that did not have an Ataturk, they are doing very well and have a lot to be proud of.

I agree to the point on this. Not all societies are really ready to sustain democracy naturally and right away. I wish some general with guts4glory took power Serbia and arrested Milosevic back in 1991. Meny people would probably hate him, but fate of Serbia (and Bolkens) would hv been much better. I believe that Turkish generals will gradually delegate more power to
'Civilians' provided that populist movements does not come close to jeopardising secular nature of the state. But they still hold most of it, and I can't really blame them.

Democracy is as you know very distinct and delicate proccess, (something like wineyard/wine growing/making). You can't just drop all the grapes inside barrel, shake it hard enough and have wine.

You can witness this today in Afganistan and Iraq, so why do YOU believe
neocons that Iran's 'wine' (or any other wineyard in that walley) would be any better ?
What do they really want outthere ?