English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

20 answers

Of course NOT.
Safety means no blood bleedings...no fire...no attacks.. no infrastructures' destroying....
But we all can see that we have continious blood bleeding...and...

2006-09-10 21:03:43 · answer #1 · answered by Eve 5 · 0 0

Probably not. World opinion has largely turned against the US due to Bush's poor understanding of diplomacy and losing friends is never a good thing. However, the US has made great progress in securing oil supplies and establishing a dominant position in the middle east, which will strengthen it for inevitable future resource wars.

Muslim fundamentalist aggression is remaining quite high, and for good or evil, terrorists have largely aggregated in Iraq. On the bright side this reduces their ability to attack on the home front by giving them a single focal point, on the downside overall terrorist activity has risen.

Overall, I would say that for the USA personally, wars against fundamentalist islamic groups was a good idea since it's in a large position of strength comparatively at this point in time, and a clash was pretty much inevitable, however actually carrying out the conflicts could have been handled much better.

Also, keep in mind that despite greater terrorist activity there has not been a major terrorist operation on US soil despite their vocal intents to do so, and that the USA is well below average in successful terrorist activity than most other 1st world nations.

2006-09-11 04:00:16 · answer #2 · answered by Sinai 3 · 0 0

Most definitely not.
The escalation of war mongering is very likely to lead to a nuclear (or nucular as Bush would say) holocaust.
There is already radioactive material in the form of Depleted Uranium (DU) lying around Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq which equates to 400,000 Hiroshimas, How can that be called safe when it will cause harm to all forms of live for 2 billion years.

The only chance we have of stopping this lunatic fringe of Zionists and neocons is for people to wake up to the real truth of what is happening, and get them impeached and behind bars.

While ever the Bushes and Blairs are still in office, then there is serious danger of further attacks like 9/11 and 7/7, because they have their own private agenda which includes permanent and ever escalating war.

2006-09-11 06:59:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A lot of damage is done which is beyond repair. Even if Bush is replaced, a new generation of fanatics will rise against the US, for years to come. So, no, the world is not safer, not by a long shot.

2006-09-11 03:59:19 · answer #4 · answered by Avatar13 4 · 1 0

ABSOLUTELY NOT----THE MIDDLE-EAST NOW IS IN MORE OF A STATE OF CHAOS, THEN EVER BEFORE, IT IS A CONFLICT THAT HAS BEEN RAGING FOR A THOUSAND YEARS-----LONG BEFORE WE [USA] EVER EXISTED AND WILL CONTINUE LONG AFTER WE ARE GONE ---BUT NOW SINCE WE HAVE TO PUT OUR BIG MOUTH IN IT, PEOPLE ARE DYING AND BLOOD OF OUR OWN YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IS BEING SHED FOR A CAUSE THAT WILL NEVER BE RESOLVED---AT LEAST WITH CLINTON'S TERM IN OFFICE AND MANY PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM, WE WERE NOT HAPPY WITH THE ATROCITIES GOING ON BUT WE DIDN'T GO OVER THERE AND CAUSE ALOT OF "COLLATERAL DAMAGE" [which means: as James Blunt so eloquently put "wives and mothers have been cut and raped--there is no bravery any more only sadness, tracers are flying through the sky--it's another family's' time to die"] WE HAVE ALREADY SHED TOO MUCH BLOOD!!!! WE NEED OUTTA THERE!!

2006-09-11 04:11:09 · answer #5 · answered by FRANCIE B 2 · 0 0

no it is not.....clash of civilizations and religions has unfortunately been promoted by world leaders who have carelessly used words like 'crusade' etc which makes the world a lesser safer place than it was before.....

2006-09-11 04:18:31 · answer #6 · answered by uknownotlove 3 · 0 0

Why not after five years nothing had happen.
Just living with Fear is the key with the Mummy from the graveyards keep on popping up infront of us scaring the hell and living daylights out of little children on planet earth.
When it is not Halloween's day on planet earth.

2006-09-11 03:59:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It is only a yes if you consider Bush has the military tied up there and can not do damage elsewhere

2006-09-11 04:00:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 0 0

no its not!!!-ever since america started sticking its nose into middle eastern policies nobody in the western world is safe (including me and you). i have no argument with messrs bin laden and hussein. how they run their countries is no affair of mine. but ever since blair told bush "don't worry george we will be in it with you" (which incidentally he never bothered asking us!!!) people have been coming into our country illegally and trying to kill us-how long before bush upsets a country with nuclear capabilities. he forgets that iran (another country he has it in for) isn't far off having its own nukes!!!.

2006-09-11 04:50:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Safe is already vanished and we are expecting the war and don't know when it will start

2006-09-11 04:01:27 · answer #10 · answered by king 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers