is the US govt evolving into something good, or something terrifying?

Question

this is the question i was trying to ask in the other question ....... sorry if i offended people. please answer this one

i think anyone with a brain can see americans wont be having much freedom to make their own choices in the future......but is it necessarily a bad thing? what if it becomes a peaceful utopia, after all the violent people kill themselves with wars..........

well there i kinda got the problem with that.....lol

Answer 1

The founding fathers of our country KNEW the government would eventually need to be overthrown, the Right for citizens to bear arms is not about hunting, or protecting themselves from individual criminal acts, its about having guns enough to overthrown the government.
Forming a citizen militia to overthrow the government when it becomes something terrifying is what supposed to happen, but it’s not going to.

Answer 2

In the last three years, the United States of America suffered the two worst intelligence failures in its history. The Iraq War and the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon cost thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and fundamentally changed US relations with the rest of the world. The two reports from the US Senate Committee on Intelligence and the 9/11 Commission show that both were preventable. Wiser policies, wiser leaders and wiser choices would have shown the war in Iraq to be unnecessary and could likely have blocked al Qaeda's airplane hijackings.

Neither report reaches these conclusions. Both lack the courage of their own deliberations. Despite the great contributions to our understanding of these issues, both share the same two critical errors. First, by limiting the scope of their investigations to the narrow issues of intelligence policy and procedures, the commission and the committee fail to examine the larger policy failure. It was failure at the strategic level, not the operational or tactical, that caused US officials to underestimate the terrorist threat in the first instance, and then target the wrong country for attack in the second instance.

Second, in the name of political unity, they both stop short of the logical completion of their investigations: they pull their punches, and find no one is to blame. Or rather, they blame everyone, and thus no one. The 9/11 Commission report says so explicitly in its opening section: "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned."1 The result is a report long on organisational diagrams and short on accountability.

In this respect, both reports fit in with the current climate in Washington. Failure is not punished, leading inevitably to additional failures. Investigations, when they occur at all, end without conclusion, leaving different publics to draw their own various lessons. Neither the commission nor the committee fault any individual, nor demand any resignations. One can view this as noble or as simply politically expedient, but there is clearly a double standard operating. In August, the governor of the state of New Jersey announced his resignation because he had an adulterous gay affair with one of his employees. The previous American president was impeached for having sex with an intern. No administration official, senior or junior has offered their resignation over Iraq or 9/11, nor have they been asked to do so. Picking the wrong time and place for an affair is apparently more of a sin than choosing the wrong time and place for a war in which thousands have been killed - or picking the wrong priorities for national security policy.

In order not to blame current office holders or find fault with existing national security strategy, the reports keep their aim lower, finding more amorphous targets. The Commission notes, for example, that it is not individuals, but institutions that failed: "We learned that the institutions charged with protecting our borders, civil aviation, and national security did not understand how grave this threat could be, and did not adjust their policies, plans, and practices to deter or defeat it."2 Similarly, in a seemingly devastating finding, the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that there was no credible evidence to support Bush administration officials' claims that Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and was close to having a nuclear weapon. Yet the fault is laid to poor organisation of the intelligence agencies, not administration policy or pressure to bend the intelligence to support that policy.

Answer 3

I don't like the way the government is moving. They're too involved.

I'm preaty sure no one can stop it, but the government is becoming more opressive. One of the main problems is over-censorship.

Answer 4

The US Government was (and is) something good. I (like Ronald Reagan) believe that our best days are always ahead of us.

Answer 5

something terrifying. good luck.