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

I am told time and time again that we are no 'safer' than we were on 9-11. If Bill Klinton can ask for a definition of the word 'is', I would like a definition of the word 'safer'. 18 months ago, the capture/kill cound of Al-Oaeda was 3000. I don't know what it is now. For my simple mind, more dead enemies + fewer homeland attacks = safer. What about you? What is your definition? If your definition is 'Bush in prision, etc' you should just go back to sleep. This is a simple question, and you are not smart enough to answer it. Go to the 'entertainment' section to find questions in your purview.

2006-10-08 15:38:58 · 7 answers · asked by Raalnan5 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

In all honesty, I did not ask the question to be "self-righteous" or "intellectually superior". If you are not up to speed to keep with the topic, I apologise. perhaps you would be more at home doing a search for 'PeanutButterJellyTime'.

2006-10-08 15:58:55 · update #1

I did not ask what Bush thought the word 'safer' meant. I asked what YOU thought it would mean.

2006-10-08 15:59:52 · update #2

I also didn't ask about any of the associated questions. This is Answers.Yahoo.com, which means, if my question inspires you, you can answer it, and ask another, without looking like a moron. Good luck on your next try

2006-10-08 16:01:59 · update #3

7 answers

Safer means no terrorist attacks on American soil in 5 years of war against an enemy that has a sworn jihad against us. We ARE safer than on 911.

2006-10-08 15:41:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

We want to be in the Middle East to decrease terrorists. If we go in for the wrong reason, we will just create more terrorists. Also, civilian injuries are almost unavoidable. middle east families that werent mad at the US are now.

We are safer in terms of net gain but thats like saying getting a 61 on a test is passing the class. On the other side, we can never be 100% safe; that would require total government control in all aspects of life.

2006-10-08 15:45:23 · answer #2 · answered by leikevy 5 · 1 0

What he meant was that we still cant predict the unpredictable. 9/11 was an unpredictable and unstoppable(once it got started) event no matter what the finger pointers say. While we are killing and arresting lots of Terrorists and doing as much as we can to stop future attacks. We can never fully be assured that they wont be able to attack again. We as a people need to keep our eyes open so it wont happen again though.

2006-10-08 15:45:54 · answer #3 · answered by asylum31 6 · 0 0

It means we are no less likely to suffer an attack than we were before 9/11. As far as enemies goes we have MORE enemies now than we had before 9/11. The government report says so.

2006-10-08 15:45:07 · answer #4 · answered by October 7 · 1 0

i don't think Bush has a definition of safer.

i agree that more dead al-Qaeda is better for America..... but i don't necessarily think that alone makes us safer..... a bigger question would be how many more enemies have we made since 9-11????, or maybe since Afghanistan, or since Iraq???????..... have the policies we've implemented in fighting this war on terrorism made us safer..... or have we've become more of a target in the eyes of our enemies??????? i

i don't think that this administration is looking seriously at any of these factors!!!!

they shoot first and ask questions later

2006-10-08 15:56:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

For every dead enemy you have enraged 10 more and then for each of them 10 more. So, by continuing this God-awful series of perpetual wars soon we are going to run out of people to fight in them. They have already raised the maximum induction age to 42. The time will come when they will take any able bodied person, maybe even you. Are you ready to give your life for Bush's lies?

2006-10-08 15:43:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Well... aren't you so "self-righteous" and "intellectually superior" aren't you. Insulting the intelligence of yahoo users is a bit low of a person.

You obviously possess a mindframe of a typica patriotic dillusional "kill kill kill" imbacile. Funny how killing people overseas is justified to make yourself safer. Go after the real crims, go after the planners leaders and so forth.. ****.. you still haven't even caught Bin Laden. Shows how good your intelligence is, If anything the efforts by Bush have risen anger against US, and their relentless war on middle east.
Yeah, now you have Iraqui people to contend with as your excuse for destroying their way of living was "weapons of mass destruction" then it was "liberation from saddam" and now its "war on terrorism" eventhough Iraq was never a threat to USA, nor did it have links with Al-Quaeida. Great intelligence, great effort, great execution of a fog of war.

Let's all just start killing anyone that isn't white.. becuase you never know.. one day we might have a race war.. so we better make ourselves safe by ethnically cleansing all non-whites, non-blacks,non-asians. We see how far we get. * NOTE THE SARCASM *

2006-10-08 15:50:08 · answer #7 · answered by GhandiDahandi 3 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers