Isn't it a HUGE mistake for America to wait until we're attacked B4 eliminating the threat!?!?

Answer 1

Of course, should that happen, Bush will be blamed for not being vigilant enough...by the exact same people who want him to stop wiretapping, stop interrogating, stop 'harrassing' potential terrorists.
The left in this country seem to want nothing less than our complete capitulation to the enemy...all the while telling us how much they 'support' America.

Answer 2

There is more than one way to skin a cat. We are being attacked. Politician are listening to their foreign counterparts and immoral corporations. Slowly but surely we are losing our freedoms, and rights.
Then we have to put up with attacks on our religion, culture, and economy, not to mention our moral beliefs (not necessarily religious beliefs).
I believe "attacking America" has become the agenda of those who have power, and greed.

More, directly......Yes a big mistake.

Answer 3

Attacked by whom and when? Are you talking about a radical group which intelligence agencies tell us are plotting an attack, or a country whose leader spews anti-American rhetoric? You see, the thing is, you don't go to war over harsh words. You just hope the guy saying the words loses support. Whereas, when you have evidence that someone is planning to attack you, then a pre-emptive attack is de facto defensive - and thus permissable under international law (and common sense rules).

Answer 4

I assume that you are refering to terrorism.

In that case terror does not eminate from a single nation-state as did the threat under the cold war. It comes from cells around the world, probably even within the US. We cannot and should not go around invading countries that harbor terrorists. For example, 35 Syracuse University students and 100 other Americans were killed aboard Pan Am 103 as well as many others and was considered the largest terrorist attack against Americans until Sept 11th. We didn't invade Libya (who harbored the terrorists) but levied sanctions.

If we are such a a hegemonic state to constantly invade other countries causing a life of terror for its civilians, women and children who are not part of the groups then we are just as bad.

Answer 5

Yes Indeed The "threat" must be slowed and eventualy nuetralized.. Hate to tell ya folks This Zionist Supporting Regime , through Rigged Elections has been in power for WAY TOO LONG ! http://www.freedomdomaim.com/secretsocieties/skull01.html http://georgewalkerbush.net/ --------- http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm

Answer 6

Remember the old adage: the best offense is a good defense.

By running around trying to put out this fire or that fire, and expending our resources doing so, doesn't make us safer at all. It exposes us by weakening our military, weakening our economy, reducing our global opinion, etc.

The next attack on us (and there will be, make no mistake about that), the global community won't sympathize with us like after 9-11. Instead, we will be greeted with the attitude of..."well, you asked for it".

Answer 7

Yes, that is why preemption is needed. The stakes are so high today. No longer is an attack just taking a city. It now will involve a nuke and kill millions.

The hippie tree huggers care about none of this.

Answer 8

Absolutely!

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Answer 9

Yes... but if we follow the liberals "Global Test" we will first have to wait to see the Iranian/N Korean nuclear mushroom clouds over New York city before we can take any military action. They will want us to first go to the Global Village (UN) and hurl worthless UN resolutions at them for years.

Answer 10

Uh, Pimplesap or whatever your name is, are you the only person in the United States who STILL believes that Saddam was a threat?

I mean, c'mon, not even Last Throes Cheney spouts that kind of crap anymore.