When the U.S. unjustly attacks another country that has no link to 9/11 and has done nothing to provoke it, other nations think, "gee, we could be next". As a result on the watch of this administration - the one that you'll recall rode into office promising to prevent "rogue nations" from acquiring "NUKE-U-LUR" weaponry, North Korea has entered the club and Iran is on their heels. Terrorism has increased and an assesment from the NIE places the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of our unjust war. Apparently when our President consulted the Prince of Peace, he told him to go straight to war. So again, I ask, are we safer?
2006-10-09 15:17:38 · 11 answers · asked by LR C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You forgot to mention that with most of our troops over there, our borders here are a little more vulnerable. The money we spend fighting this war is about 1 billion dollars a week, which leaves a hole in our defense budget. We have done nothing but make the terrorists more determined. So in answer to your question....NO we are not safer.
2006-10-09 15:22:16 · answer #1 · answered by MrsMike 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Although I don't agree with some of your statements, you make some valid points.
The NIE can place all the blame it wants on whatever it wants to - the fact is that terrorism was literally rampant before we ever invaded any country - these nut balls don't need a reason to kill innocent men, women and children. Their agenda is very clear: The world converts to Islam.....or we die.
We will not be safer until we have neutralized the Islamic terrorists. And, I doubt you believe this, but the battle is indeed better in Iraq and Afghanistan than in New York.
The terrorists have already defeated Spain for all intents and purposes, and France is damn close to being next.
As far as nuclear weapons, it is inevitable that nations with the technology will seek to build them. The biggest concern is will they export the products from this technology? And if they do, it could well be a middle man dealing with the terrorists through a legitimate looking buyer.
Islamic terrorists with nuclear devises is a very, very scary scenario.
2006-10-09 15:33:38 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Safely behind the Atlantic and Pacific it won't make any difference, most likely your biggest threat will come from w/in and London will take the heat for the Bush/Blair oil wars.
2006-10-09 15:24:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
confident, ultrasounds are risk-free..there are rather no area outcomes on the fetus..I had varied ultrasounds with my 2d being pregnant..infant became positive. I even have in no way heard of any problems with the infant from ultrasounds...it rather is unlike an xray so there is not any radiation or something.
2016-12-26 14:40:02 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question was asked several times before and the conclusion was "NO".
Personally, iI would love to have a nuke. See how far i get robbing a bank.. fu*k it.. make it a country.
2006-10-09 15:21:15 · answer #5 · answered by GhandiDahandi 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No join the Marines.
2006-10-09 15:19:22 · answer #6 · answered by animalmother 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and neither are our soldiers. Our soldiers are dying even faster in the last week.
2006-10-09 15:23:56 · answer #7 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No we aren't safer unless we fly.
2006-10-09 15:28:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO WAY. We will be safer as soon as Bush and his minon are gone.
2006-10-09 15:19:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
we are the most HATED nation in the world now
WE are definatly NOT SAFE
2006-10-09 15:20:11 · answer #10 · answered by Rhett B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋