2006-06-20 12:57:09 · 6 answers · asked by someDumbAmerican 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Both the Cold War and the War on Terror are open-ended wars with no clear enemy. This allows the U.S. Government to use it to go against elements it deems dangerous...all it had to do back in the 50s was label those elements "communists"...now it labels them "terrorists"
2006-06-20 13:00:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Should it be? This is the only way to get things done in a democracy. Sad but true. We should be sheep lead by whoever the "current Shepard" is. If a democrat was in power we would be in the same quandary as we are now. Look, if democracy isn't spread now, 30 years from now our economy will be in ruin. We will be the country searching for aid and at the same time we will be calling the Chinese "The Evil Empire " stomping around the globe. We must defeat Terrorism and countries who harbor and support them financially. The only way to do this is to spread freedom and democracy. A free Iraq is a Muslim extremist worst nightmare. They're barbaric way of life is an impossibility and that's why they're streaming into Iraq from all over the world to fight us so vigorously. Currently Iran is a nuclear proliferating sandwich. Courting terrorist organizations by calling for the destruction of Israel and in the Iranians presidents own words,"I am here to facilitate the return of Allah by starting the true Jihad ending the world as we know it.".Meanwhile we are surrounding them Iraq on they're eastern border and Afghanistan along they're western border. This will make it far easier for the UN to get involved and apply heavy sanctions.
2006-06-20 21:03:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
A suicide bomber is not as scary as a multi-warhead thermonuclear missile.
It would take an army of suicide bombers to take out New York City. The city could be repaired and habitable in a couple of years.
It would take one 30 megaton warhead to obliterate all of New York and leave it uninhabitable for centuries. Secondly, there were enough (and still are enough) missiles to literally wipe out off of human life on earth.
Terrorists can be beaten, stopped, and contained much easier than nuclear proliferation was.
Under terrorism, most people aren't afraid of never growing up and growing old. Under the Cold War, many thought they'd never see 30.
As for keeping people in line because of fear, that's been going on for a long time. Terrorism is not as scary as the Soviets were. Not by a long shot.
2006-06-20 20:06:17 · answer #3 · answered by dgrhm 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it's different from the cold war, but yes, americans are so easily tricked by the republicans into obedience by fear. They always need to create a war so people can rally around patriotism, and then they acuse dissenters as unpatriotic. It's a great political formula.
1984 by Orwell frames this strategy very well. Hitler did too.
2006-06-20 20:25:37 · answer #4 · answered by lip11 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um...look up the definition of Cold War...there is all talk and no action in that type of situation...I don't know about you, but I think there is plenty of action going on in Iraq.
2006-06-20 20:00:08 · answer #5 · answered by loubean 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only real difference is the number of people being killed
2006-06-20 20:00:52 · answer #6 · answered by bisquedog 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋