Also why do some people think that confronting extremism in the middle east after 911 was a bad idea?
Why do some people here in the USA think we are safe from terrorism and extremists and that if we pull our troops out of countries, who want to harm the USA, that we won't greatly increase our risk of suffering the consequences of more serious terrorist attacks?
Are these the same people who think engaging extremism in one country will be sufficient enough to have a lasting effect on an entire region of countries?
Why do they not know that the war on terrorism is a global issue and that terrorists and extremists are spread across many many countries and can not be effectively dealt with if we only fight them in one country?
What do the people here who are against fighting terrorism think about the fact that technology is progressing to the point that anyone with little money can aquire the tools and info necessary to build weapons that can kill and hurt millions?
2007-03-11
17:08:31
·
15 answers
·
asked by
World Expert
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Also, do the people who are against fighting terrorism on a global scale to ensure the safety of the USA think that all this hatred and plotting against the USA is something that is new and just cropped up after the USA invaded Iraq? If we didn't fight terrorism in multiple countries now, wouldn't we have to fight it in the future anyways? Since terrorists are always plotting against the USA, why don't some people think it's a good idea to deal with terrorism now rather than later when terrorists will have had more time to plot and recruit and more money to aquire deadlier weapons?
2007-03-11
17:18:41 ·
update #1
It seems there are people from both political sides democrat, republican, liberal and some conservative, who feel dealing with terrorism on a global scale is not an urgent priority of the USA. No political sides are being taken as of now, but i'm wondering if the people who are against the war on terrorism have ever been in the military? Are they against the war for political reasons, whether dem or repub, do they really feel that the chances of another 911 or worse is not a real threat to america? Is the media to blame for the average american not seeing the seriousness of international extremism? Who else is to blame for many americans not wanting to deal with terrorism?
2007-03-11
17:30:33 ·
update #2
It is not safe. China and Mexico are America's biggest threat.
The most attacks against Americans are coming from foreigners entering the U.S. illegally. Each year, thousands of Americans are killed by illegal aliens. That figure goes unreported by our liberal media.
In 2005, there were over 125 attack on U.S. border patrol. Also, the Mexican army has crossed the U.S. border over 200 times. Mexican officials have said Mexico is invading the U.S. .
NUMBER ONE LESSON: People around the world don't have western style thinking. Many people in many countries want you dead. They are bound to attack again on U.S. soil. People need to take a class in Middle East cultural anthropology at a top university or read a book.
2007-03-11 17:10:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by a bush family member 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
My answer will take the form of an question evaluation form.
1) When you go to your local pizza joint, do you worry every time that you are about to get your keister blown off?
Of course you don't.
2) When you go to the store to buy your groceries, do you worry the same thing?
Of course not.
3) How about when you're dancing at a nightclub?
No?
4) How about when you are driving on the highway?
Still no?
I think you see where this is going.
Terrorism in the US is so RARE, that it is quite noteworthy and makes headlines. In other countries, terrorism is a day to day occurance, bad, definitely and not a desired state of affairs, but I can guarantee you that you are in no imminent danger. Once you have established that fact for yourself, you will be able to make political ecisions free of fear-mongering with a clear head.
2007-03-11 17:26:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I have no problem with going after terrorists. How is the hunt for Osama going? Oh that's right, we are too busy dealing with a civil war that we have allowed to happen to actually fight with terrorists.
In addition, the best way to deal with terrorists is through covert means. Direct military action only breeds more terrorists.
So when we actually start fighting the real terrorists, you know the people that actually want to harm USA, let me know and I will be behind those actions 100%. Until then, we are just wasting resources and putting our kids in dangerous situation and getting them killed for nothing.
2007-03-11 17:26:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by beren 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Our own government is the biggest threat to America, we will not fall to some foreign government or terrorist organization, America will fall from within. The Constitution is attacked by this Presidential Admiistration on a daily basis, the Patriot Act has nullified the 4th amendment, the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended at will. The first amendment is being supressed at the very present. Illegal spying and information gathering is at the forefront of the news. I agree totally with this quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790) You are seeing the demise of America with your own eyes.
2007-03-11 17:18:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by a Historian 2
·
4⤊
0⤋
Retribution for the terrorist attacks is fine and dandy--Why did we not bomb Saudi Arabia?
"Money trumps peace"--George W. Bush
Do you recall what Iraq was like prior to the Bombing of Iraq under Bush 1? A functioning Middle-Class Society.
Flatten a country, break it's social infastructure to bits, then poise them under 10 years of Sanctions, and then really kickem in the teeth by invading them, set up a puppet Government that used to be the minority and allow them to form death squads and retalliate against their former rulers.
Would that not be enough to piss you off?
Sanctions against Iraq were to be lifted shortly before W's decision to go to war. Saddam was about to change state policy and allow oil infrastructure privitization to companies, none of which were U.S. or British. Right after that came the famous secret energy meetings.
Of all the ways Bush could have used the overwhelming support we had after 9/11. He's used it as a platform to crush the progressive agenda, cut taxes for the top 5%, propogate the Military Industrial Complex, privatize services in the form of No-Bid/Cost plus contracts to his V.P.'s business associates and on and on.
2008 days and Osama is still out there---What your explanation for that "ultimate goal" of the War on Terror?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
Bush wouldn't even sign the Bill instituting the 9/11 Anti-terror recommendations from the 9/11 Commission---And you wanna tell me that this Administration GAF about terrorism!!
2007-03-11 17:48:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by scottyurb 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Short answer.... Americans have a very very very short attention span, and an even shorter memory. The President said when we began this "crusade" it would likely take many many years, not like 3.
Those who wish to extract our troops from harms way actually believe it is the best course of action. It is incredibly short sighted as you pint out to think if we leave things will get better. Quite to the contrary. Our image on the world stage which is already damaged would suffer irreperable harm if we left without restoring some sense of order to the middle east. Leaving this undone telegraphs our inablility to finish what we start and we will cut bait and run at the first signs of difficulty. This all sends the completely wrong message not just to our enemies but to those who would reluctantly support us.
The sad truth to this entire mess is that our elected officials, and a great majority of the public don't have the stomach to do what is necessary to succeed in this current endeavor. No one is actually serious about victory or a solution. If the fat asses in Washington were really concerned, they would order the President to send 250,000 more troops not fight over 20,000. We could actually get results in 90 days or less with sufficient force on the ground. Oh, and here's a thought, how about disarming the entire civilian population in Iraq, duh!!!!
2007-03-11 17:21:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jeff A 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
Exactly ..What if nobody stopped Hitler ? Every American should listen to what the Far Left Democrat is saying..here and abroad .. and know they are as big a threat to democracy as terrorism . Not since Vietnam has there been such a campaign - by American Democrats - to help Americans loose a war . I can not believe every Democrat in office is not being picketed daily until they stop interfering with our military at war .I thought giving aid & comfort to the enemy during war was treason ? What happened ? In WWII nobody ever said killing Nazis would make more Nazis , did they ? The Nazis lost that war , didn't they .
2007-03-11 17:34:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by missmayzie 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
I think that America is pretty safe, but there is always that possible chance for a terrorist attack and i know that something bad can happen to America. Also i think that if we pull our troops out of war we will be at a greater risk of a terrorist attack because this war is keeping most of the terrorist pretty busy. Most of the terrorist are not attacking the US or other countries because they know that they can control that country and want to keep in control so they are trying to win the war.
2007-03-11 17:15:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by bee bee boo 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Because they don't look at the facts.
The US has been directly hit by terrorist attacks roughly every 7-8 years since the 1960s. It doesn't matter whose been in office.
There have always been terrorists. They used to be called barbarians, vandals, or pirates. And there will always be terrorists. Our only choice is whether we choose to live in constant fear or whether we're going to live up to our name.
The land of the free and the home of the brave? Or the land of constantly watched and the home of the deeply concerned?
2007-03-11 17:13:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
I don't think we are safe from terrorism. the goal of terrorists is not mass destruction but creating and maintaining an atmosphere of fear in order to further their agenda by either influencing the masses to assist or to cripple them to the point that they will not rise up against them.
Virtually every speech GWB has given since 9/11 has included a message that we are not safe, we are working on it but we are not safe yet.
GWB is our terrorist.
2007-03-11 17:22:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by Alan S 7
·
2⤊
0⤋