What is more important, unity, or winning the war on terror?

Question

In your humble, honest naked opinion, which is more important for the sake of the U.S.A.?

1. Defeating terrorism worldwide and all of its associated regimes and constituents? In essence, putting an end to the existence of "rogue states" as well.

2. Defeating partisanship and chaotic divisory elements of our modern political and social climate and raising the bar of civility?

Which is more important to the general well being of our nation?

This is where I stand:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070228090833AAbE95G

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Great answer volleyballchick. It was meant to be a hypothetical question, with the assumption that we could have one without the other. Your answer probably best fits real life, however.

iraqisax, quick question, have you actually read the patriot act? I've read it twice through. I've also studied legal applications in a place of higher learning. Its written specifically and only to apply to terrorists, not the average american joe citizen.

If you don't believe me, that's completely fine, just go read it yourself.

Answerman notes an important trend.

The aftermath of 9-11. We were truly together for about 6 months. I don't think it would matter who was in charge, they would certainly be attacked and their approval ratings would drop.

I highly doubt that anyone on the left or the right would disagree with me when I state that politicians often have their character's assasinated.

Spooled, bush never eliminated habeus corpus. You're confusing him with Lincoln, and Lincoln only suspended it. There's a large difference.

My apologies spooled, but by that same logic you could say that police officers violate our rights by existing because,

"All they have to do is label you a criminal and off you go to jail!"

In fact. Both are applied law enforcement.

It is possible that a dictator/fascist would use a fake security threat to create a loophole to grant them powers like that. That's how hitler grabbed power. So let me make you a deal:

Show me a concrete example where Bush is actually grabbing random people off the streets and sending them to Cuba and I'll concede.

Thank you for discussing this civilly. That is a quality to be admired.

Spooly. Thank you for your honesty and understanding. And yes, you are quite right that people's passions do often get in the way.

The reason that I have trouble accepting your conclusion is because it is based entirely on hypotheticals. Second of all, the geneva concention doesn't apply to terrorists because they don't wear uniforms. (Sorry, I've read that one too.)

I'm a terribly skeptical person. I won't believe anything without concrete factual information or at least a ton of multifaceted circumstantial evidence.

If you'd like to demonstrate that Bush's use of special presidential powers is abusive, or demonstrating an ulterior motive, you will need to demonstrate a specific trend.

Lincoln, FDR and other wartime presidents used power in similar (in fact greater) ways than Bush has so far and all returned that power after the need dissapated.

Given historical trends and the lack of substantive evidence its a very hard case to make.........

.......That doesn't mean I don't think it's something best left unexplored. At the very least, the theory is entertaining. I would be more than happy to discuss it with you via email/im (both available in my profile).

Of greater importance, I'm feeling very encouraged by the result of my past two questions. I'd like to see how far I can take this "unity and civilty" concept. Would you be interested in helping me further that cause?

Answer 1

Of course, we must do both. But these two issues are different in that one is a short term threat and the other a long term.

Terrorists could blow up a building or even a city, which would be devastating in the short term. The US would recover.

The continued lowering of the bar from a political standpoint, the subsequent acquiescence of our individual freedoms to government dominance is a long term threat that can and will destroy this nation. Political correctness, speech codes, hate crimes legislation, environmentalism, criminalizing certain behaviors, the balkanization of the populace by race and socio-economic status are all political tools that are breaking down the Constitutional Republic that was once created here.

I could go on. I agree with you.

Answer 2

Unity
There will always be some sort of terrorists. It won't always be Islamic terrorism, it could be something completely different in 50 years. We can never defeat it, and to think so is arrogant and just stupid.
We need to remain united in our beliefs of our country and the ideals of freedom, which have been lost in the last 8 years. Democracy is only an illusion in this country. We live in a fascist state. Not kidding about that. I would never kid about something as horrifying as that. Bush eliminated habeas corpus, so be careful what you say about him, he can through you in Gitmo without a trial. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not. Freedom of speech does not exist, freedom of religion is on it's way out too. Freedom of the press, is out there with freedom of speech.

We need to unite and retake these Constitutional rights that have been tragically destroyed.
Republicans and Democrats don't have to unite into one party, all it takes is people to see what is going on and to stand together to defend our country from it's corrupt leaders. We have lost our most basic of rights. The terrorist have won, and you can thank Bush for that.

***Edit:
You are correct when you say Lincoln suspended it during reconstruction and the Civil war. However, Bush effectively eliminated it with the Military Commission’s Act of 2006. Basically all someone in his admin has to do is label you an enemy combatant, for whatever reason, large or small, true or false and you're off to Cuba.
True, he did not completely delete it from the Constitution, but he did eliminate it.

My favorite(or least favorite) Bush quote: In reference to the Constitution: "'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

***Edit:
Sorry stepped away from computer.

At the local level, our rights are pretty much unchanged, because a police officer does not have the authority to label you an enemy combatant. A police officer can label you as a criminal and take you to jail, however, he has to have probable cause to do so, whether it be an eyewitness, or some other evidence. Once you are in jail, you do still have the right to a fair and speedy trial by jury. These rights in particular were eliminated by the military commissions act. All Bush has to do is say you are an enemy combatant. I would fear secretly organizing a peaceful protest against him and his policies. If he got wind of it, that might be reason enough, and since it was in secret, no one would no what happened to me. I'm just gone.

As for concrete examples, I can't think of one yet, as the Military Provisions Act just recently went into effect, plus I've been trying to not worry about it, as there is not much I can do about it.
I just don't like one man having that kind of power. He might or might not be using yet, but he can. There is nothing to stop him either. Originally, there were fears over the Patriot Act, and some of these fears have been proven true. While for the most part not many people have been affected by it, The act has been used to investigate and prosecute criminals with absolutely no ties to terrorism. As for the Commissions Act, he is not grabbing random people off the streets, but he could.
As for a concrete example, can I give one to you, not at this moment. I'm a computer science guy, not a political science.guy ;) However, there could be several examples out there, and it has been used. My fear is that there is nothing to stop Bush from using this power, and there is no recourse once it is used on you.

PS. I just remembered, not only does the Military Commissions Act eliminate habeas corpus, it is also worded in a way to allow for torture, thus going against the Geneva Convention.

And thank you for discussing this civilly as well. Sometimes people's passions get in the way around here.
:)

Answer 3

Unity is vital to our survival.. As much some believe cut and run would somehow unite us is wishful thinking. What our leaders need to do is actually work together on the Iraq issue instead of coming up with plans when looked into are no more than an attempt to undermin what the military leaders in Iraq consider a good plan, I mean it is their plan.To throw the terrorism question in is kind of moot , we're there . If not given the opportunity to work , are we really helping the Iraqi people or are we selfishly hanging them out to dry. As a super power, can we afford to be seen as weak and easily controlled? I mean , according to Bin Laden and others, it was that reason they became emboldened enough to plan an attack on this country.. The "Black Hawk Down" incident showed the Americans outrage and discontent with the realization of what actually happens in battle... We got upset, Clinton pulled us out leaving Sommalia in the hands of rebel leaders.In order to survive, our country does need to unit. We need to decide that this country is worth salvageing. Do I think that means we try and control terrorist activity around the world... Deffinitley NOT.. Other countries need to stand up to the plate and ask for assistance if needed.Assistance in these situations need to come from more than just the US. Terrorism is a world problem, not just a US problem. But that said, we can't just pull out of Iraq and assume that we will all find common ground and start working on our own problems. Leaving terrorism to the UN to deal with , will do nothing but lead to more American deaths on American soil. We do need to be unified, we need to agree that the US is not an evil entity but a great nation and one worth protecting..

Answer 4

With unity the war on terror can be won, after the world trade center was crashed into George Bush had a 80% approval rating, we were unified, this approval rating for the most part was held up when he invaded Afghanistan, however when he invaded Iraq and it came out it was based on his lies many people left and it divided the country once again. Now he has an approval rating of about 28%. It will be very difficult to unify the people of this country under this president and has set America back many years. I have never seen America more divided in my 61 years.

Answer 5

Defeating the war on terror is most important. Of course, you can choose other topics that are more important, but if these terrorists aren't stopped = we're all going to come to a very tragic end.

It's already happening. Take a look at Europe - Muslim nation.

Answer 6

What is more important is freedom. Maintaining freedom means keeping government in check. Repealing the PATRIOT Act, and other legislation that is eroding our Bill of Rights is the most important thing for us.

Do you wont to win the "War on Terror", and live in a police state? Do you want to have to show your papers, just like in Nazi Germany? Do you want government agencies snooping in your personal affairs? Searching your house without a warrant?

Who are these people who are going to protect us? Shouldn't we know where they live? How much money they have in the bank? What books and videos that borrow? After all, they work for us.

The "rogue states" wouldn't be much of a problem if we were not engaged in foreign entanglements all over the globe. Terrorism is being cultivated by our politicians to justify the elimination of our rights. It's time to put a stop to it.

Answer 7

Unity. One is never going to "defeat terrorism"; there will always be a form of terrorism in existance. But I think that we aren't able to defeat anything unless we are truly united. So I think that we need to work on that before we look at anything outside our borders.

Answer 8

you would be unable to, a minimum of no longer by skill of militarily could on my own. i'm no longer a pacifist, yet you would be unable to win a conflict on what a guy or woman makes a decision to do at any any given 2d in time. The term "conflict on Terror" is basically undeniable stupid. i be responsive to approaches to have a conflict on a rustic, yet how are you able to've a conflict on an action? The "conflict on drugs" is yet another stupid term. The "conflict on XYZ" is basically a slogan that's undemanding to sell to simpletons who have not any serious thinking skills. it fairly is basically an excuse for GW to get the great budget $ he needs to maintain our militia and private contractors over there. by skill of how, I artwork with a woman who has a son there as a contractor that works alongside the warriors networking desktops. She stated he makes over 150K for doing the real comparable element because of the fact the warriors who make approximately 25K. plenty for that LIE that particular people make related to the internal maximum sector consistently being plenty greater effectual and occasional fee than the government. yet, I digress. yet, there's a thank you to get the better hand in this. yet, it should not be politically the appropriate option. and that's by skill of infiltarating the mosques with spies and insect the crap out of each and every of the places the place the inciters carry mutually. locate out who they are and then 86 'em. additionally, make it so the kinfolk of the guy who blew themselves up has to reimburse the sufferers. And in the event that they could't, they loose each and everything. Their domicile, vehicles, $, their toddlers are taken away to be "re-knowledgeable". additionally, they could desire to take the keeps to be of the bomber or terrorist and place them interior the sewer device, so as that they won't get a "suitable" burial. finally, they could desire to make it a death sentance crime to sell or glorify the terrorists interior the rustic of Iraq. do no longer you basically love the crap that GW placed us in. What a moron. I valuable desire the Republican social gathering can furnish us a greater advantageous candidate next time. I undergo in thoughts Hanity asserting how undesirable it could be to get Kerry. properly, i do no longer see how he could have performed any worse. Infact, I in all hazard could vote for him if I knew what I do now. All that $ spent could have bailed out social protection in all hazard many circumstances over.

Answer 9

Unity

Answer 10

I suppose we are hosed if you have to have the one to solve the other, because personally, I don't see either one happening.