You know what if a new president withdraws our troops and then they come over here? What are your views?
2006-09-12 05:24:54 · 32 answers · asked by fluff_ball 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
That's what Bush wants you to believe. Republican leaders want people to be too scared to vote in the country's best interest.
I don't believe we'll be any less safe after the Democrats take over than we are right now. And given how Bush's foreign policy serves only to create new terrorists, I don't see how we can afford NOT to make the change.
2006-09-12 05:30:32 · answer #1 · answered by ratboy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The CIA have been bored stupid since the cold war ended, but 11/9 gave them something to focus on, like many Intelligence agencies around the world.
With the FBI and other agencies on the ball, as well, it will make the lives of terrorists that much harder. Don't forget, as well, that the greatest surveillance tool is the general public, who after 11/9, will be that more suspicious of peoples activities.
That doesn't mean that something might not happen, but i believe the only reason Bush wants to keep troops in Iraq is because he can never admit that going into Iraq was the biggest strategic error the US has made, by removing the counter balance to Iran, which was Saddam Husain's Iraq.
So, no, i don't believe that bringing troops out of Iraq will make America less safe.
2006-09-12 05:55:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, since terrorists have attacked during several different Presidencies, I don't see it as real relevent. However, I think that by emboldening the enemy through endless huffing and puffing and cowboy bloviating, we are less safe than we've ever been. There will be attacks in the USA no matter who is president, but keeping our troops in Iraq has no bearing on if they will "come over here". Iraq never attacked us. Iraqis never attacked us.
Recruitment for Al Queda is at an all time high. Recruitment in the USA is hurting. It's time for a change, because what we are doing isn't working.
Our first line of defense against a group of extremists attacking our home soil is not continued occupation of Iraq, but improving our border security, port security and funding homeland security operations. Our National Guard needs to be here, defending the USA, rebuilding and improving our own nation, not over in Iraq shooting Iraqis. Iraqis have national health care which we pay for, yet we are told that we cannot afford that for our own citizens, who pay those taxes. Makes zero sense.
2006-09-12 06:00:19 · answer #3 · answered by hgheartland 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hellllllooooo!!!! Wake up people, the terrorists are here already. 30,000+++ persons of middle eastern descent entered this country ILLEGALLY through Mexico in the past three years. If they were honest people just seeking the American dream, wouldn't they have tried to enter through legal channels? They are here among us, just biding their time and waiting for an order to follow out the next series of attacks. This is not conspiracy theory or republican propaganda, this is fact. Check with the US border patrol and see how many Afghan, Iraqi, and Syrian detainees they have in holding in Nogales, AZ, Douglas, NM, and other border stations. They are using Mexico as a stepping stone to enter our country and no one seems to want this stopped. It's time to close the border, find the ones that are here and send them packing, and stop letting more of them in every day. And yes, I do believe that if we elect a woman president or a weak liberal president, it will only be a matter of time before we see the likes of the London and Spain train bombings here on US soil.
2006-09-12 05:45:15 · answer #4 · answered by Don't shop, adopt! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fluff, you are more clever than smart. Do you think the Terrorist would not attack us right now if they could? Because we have troops in the Middle East Fighting, the terrorist are to busy to try and hurt the USA if they could do it? Of course they would, so what are saying?
I guess you think that all the terrorists have to do is charter an aircraft and load it with terrorists and land at Kennedy Airport in New York area and then polish their swords and attack.
Your propaganda is sour.
2006-09-12 05:38:14 · answer #5 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We already have terrorists here. All of the terrorist attacks on America up until Sep 11 have been by US citizens. Therefore, just because we are are fighting against outside terrorism, we can still have terrorism. ex. Oklahoma City Bombing. Also, not all terrorists come from the Middle East. Terrorist organizations exist all over the world, including the U.S. maybe we should wage war on the whole world, including ourselves?
2006-09-12 05:33:08 · answer #6 · answered by J-Rod 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
according to the current administration and everybody else, there already *are* terrorists here.
I gotta say this question feels like the result of that bizarre bit of rhetoric from the pundits of the rightwing, concocted once it became clear that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
I envision a monologue like this from our current president:
"Uh, erhm, well...we went to Iraq, so that, so that, we could take the fight to the terrorists instead of waiting for them to come here, yeah, that's the ticket!
See, see?!...look at all them terrorists there now in Iraq! It worked, see?! It's like a terrorist convention over there now. Boy, good thing they're not all coming over here yeah. We can, we can, blow em all up while they're plotting over there, yeah!
Uh, wait, they're hiding among the populace, hmm. And lots of collateral damage to the innocent civilians we said we were coming over there to free would look kinda bad, hmm. And maybe get a lot of people even madder at us than before, hmm. Karl, Karl? Where are ya man? Don't tell me you're busy with that Fitzgerald guy again about that whole outting a CIA agent cuz her husband was badmouthing us about our saddam's-got-uranium story! I need some new angles on why we needed to invade Iraq! What?! Just give up on that now? Okay, yeah, that sounds good...admit the CIA told us the wrong thing...damn, do you think people remember that I gave Tenet the congressional medal of freedom?...but that if we leave now it will just embolden the terrorists and send them over here? Gotcha!"
Does anyone really believe that there are significant numbers of would-be terrorists who otherwise would be recruited to try and blow up planes in the US but are getting 'sent' to Iraq? Our Iraq adventure, mishandled in the extreme as it has been, has just opened up another venue for the growing legions of people willing to blow themselves and/or others up to achieve glory or protect their own interests in the face of new challenges from competing groups--I don't think it diverted some preset population of registered terrorists away from our shores.
2006-09-12 05:58:51 · answer #7 · answered by Michelle H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we should write in Osama, then he will be president. When he is president he can tell the terrorists to leave us alone and there will be peace. He will live in the White House and he won't want terrorists to blow it up or dust it with anthrax. It makes perfect sense. Contact your Senators and ask then to repael the law that says the president must be a citizen born in the US.
-Arnold S.
2006-09-12 05:33:05 · answer #8 · answered by Steve P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We NEED another president one that will close the borders. You know the Coyotes, the people smugglers from Mexico, what would make anyone think that they will only smuggle Mexicans into this country. A terrorist can pay more than a illegal coming over here to pick corn.
2006-09-12 05:28:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are giving too much power to the President. He is but one man of an entire staff/ administration of people. Congress and the House still run this country and a lot of other people and powers that be. There is a whole picture to consider here. So no, I do not fear that a new President determines our whole future or well-being.
2006-09-12 05:28:21 · answer #10 · answered by Cub6265 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋