Terrorism is a violent act upon a person, people, governement etc.
Is it possible to stop terrorism completely?
What would we have to sacrifice to stop it completely?
-The right to bear arms?
-Free speach?
-Freedom of the press?
Isn't it impossible/not worth it to stop terrorism?
Didn't the writers of the constitution/declareation of independance expect a coup of the government every 200 years or so ?
Could the American people overthrow the Bush Administration for infrindgements on their rights, crimes against humainty, and treason?
If it is impossible for the American people to overthrow the Bush Administration isnt it a dictatorship?
2007-03-05
03:53:01
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
I believe there is a great Ben Franklin quote that goes something like "Those that would give up essential liberty for potential saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey"
2007-03-05
04:15:03 ·
update #1
It isn't possible. But it doesn't have to be. All we have to do is stop being so lax with our domestic security measures. It isn't our sole responsibility to protect the people of the world. It is our sole responsibility to protect OUR people, though, and I still haven't heard anyone talking about tightening security here at home to keep the crazies off the planes.
2007-03-05 03:58:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bush Invented the Google 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Terrorism doesn't even have to be violent. It only has to be threatening to someone. So the war against terrorism can only be won if: A) We all stop being afraid of anything and everything.
B) We all become so sheepish that there is no way that anyone could possibly consider anyone else to be threatening.
2007-03-05 12:00:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Thank you for your nice tirade upon several topics of which you evidently know very little. I'll try to answer all of your questions RATIONALLY and LOGICALLY.
It is not possible to stop terrorism as long as people with a desire to take away the rights of others walk the planet. Such people naturally delight in tormenting and harming others; until everyone on the planet gains some sort of a moral center and understands what it means and how to use it, terrorism will exist. Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, lying down and letting them walk all over us will solve no problems; rather, that is precisely what they would like us to do. Terrorists very often have no sense of mercy or compassion, and do what they do to obtain power over others. They will not stop killing us just because we ask them nicely, they will stop killing us when there are no more of us to be killed or when we have allowed ourselves to be beaten into submission. The only way to keep terrorists at bay is to show them that we will not be subdued regardless of how much they hurt us; maybe then they'll figure out that it isn't worth trying anymore, and they'll seek new targets.
We wouldn't have to sacrifice any of those fundamental rights. In fact, it would be bad if we did. It would show the terrorists that they managed to scare us and we're frantically doing everything we can in a vain effort to stop them while they continue to attack on different and entirely unrelated fronts. Besides that, to remove any or all of those rights from its people would demonstrate a government's willingness to do anything that appears necessary to protect itself, rather than its constituents' rights. Depending on the severity of the infringement, it may or may not be worth continuing to support the government. That wouldn't mean a stop in opposing the terrorists, just finding different venues to do so.
I'm reasonably certain that the Founders expected the American people to have the wits and morals to not overthrow their government every two centuries just for kicks and giggles. They did consider it necessary to throw off an oppressive government, though, and encouraged retaliation in the event that fundamental rights were being taken away by said government. They also likely expected better of the government they established in the Constitution than it would perform such heinous deeds -- which, of course, boils down to the people who elect the oppressors to office. This in no way absolves the powerholders from responsibility for their actions, though.
It is entirely possible that the country could "overthrow" President Bush for infringements on rights, crimes against humanity, and treason, through a carefully measured process that maintains order in the government so as not to tear the country apart as it proceeds. This is a possibility for any President. However, it will not happen to this administration, as they have not committed any acions that would cause such a thing to be necessary. If you want to go by the Constitution, the only grounds for removal from office are "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." This President has done some rather interesting things, but I don't recall him personally going out and murdering Iraqi civilians or American troops; similarly, he has not betrayed the nation to any enemies or accepted or given bribes to any officers, except insofar as the irrational thought processes of many would lead one to believe. (Then again, if you were to impeach President Bush on charges of bribery, you'd have to carry out similar proceedings for just about every other government official, and we'd be left without an executive and legislature; the Supreme Court would likely be hit pretty badly, too.
Being impossible to overthrow a presiding administration does not make it a dictatorship if the impossibility is prescribed by law -- as it is in the case of the current President. If the administration were forcibly preventing an overthrow or refused to relinquish power upon its expiration, THAT would be closer to a dictatorship than anything. A dictatorship is not merely a label one applies to a person he does not like for political reasons; a dictatorship is a regime that maintains its hold on power far longer than is safe for the country and removes its peoples' rights on a whim in order to secure greater power for itself. It's one of those tricky little words like fascism, which has a true definition that no one wishes to learn because they enjoy using it far too much against their political opponents.
I trust this response is satisfactory? Or need I go into greater detail?
2007-03-05 15:57:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Richard S 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The British managed it in Northern Ireland by getting around the table with them, and treating them as human beings - with genuine gripes - oh - and dropping the label "Terrorist".
2007-03-05 12:06:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Never . It will never end until people learn to respect life which is impossible as long as religion exists .
2007-03-05 12:00:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by -----JAFO---- 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure, terrorists can be stopped, seven nukes in well placed countries and the terrorists will be looking for water instead of people to kill. Hey what a great idea. Nukes
2007-03-05 11:58:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by sapphire 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
No, that's just a nasty rumor.
2007-03-05 11:57:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by professionaleccentric 5
·
0⤊
0⤋