Geez it is amazing how as soon as any question is asked it becomes a battle field for cons and libs
Yes the statement is very relevant. In fact maybe more so. The idea behind terrorism is to make us afraid. To make us afraid to fly, afraid to go into crowds, afraid to go into the city afraid to do anything. After 9-11 I thought it was so silly of people to be taping their windows. This was given into fear. The way to beat terrorist (at least on some level the real way to beat terrorist is a combination of Political, Military, Diplomatic and Cultural Outreaches that we are sadly not capable of doing because we want to play bash the Cons and bash the Libs) anyway the way to beat terrorism is to not let them get under your skin. To go about our lives.
That is why i have airport checks and all this other stuff. it is making us change our way of life. The Patriot Act whatever else it is, is also given into fear and changing our way of life. We need to stop living in fear and take the whole "war on Terrorism" To them (and I do not mean Iraq) We need a full frontal Diplomatic and Political and Cultural and well as Military attack on terrorism and in the mean time we need to stop allowing our civil liberties to be curtailed by our own fear
2007-06-02 13:43:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by Thomas G 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
NO, and I don't think that it was relevant when he said it. He was trying to tell Americans not to panic after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor which made sense. However, we were at war with the great powers Nazi Germany and Japan, so there was a lot to be fearful about.
President Bush took the opposite tack to his Pearl Harbor, the 9/11 attacks; he reminds us all the time that we should be fearful of an attack on our Homeland. Well, the politics of fear got him re-elected! But Roosevelt is still correct in that our chances of being killed by a terrorist is very small, you are more likely to be killed by lightning.
2007-06-02 13:45:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't really believe so. You have to remember that this country was attacked by a full Jananese Naval force and not 20 or so radicals. The people were proud to fight for Americas well being and to keep the Japanese forces from getting all the way to Calif. In those days, we americans would sign up and serve without question. Today, there is the question as to if this war we are in is a legal war and was it justified?? Or as many people think, did Bush want to finish what his Daddy refused to do.
2007-06-02 13:39:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Back then the US faced a real, but unlikely nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Now the US faces much more likely, but less lethal terrorist attacks, not only in the US, but against all US interests around the world. The whole idea of mutual destruction made confrontration less likely back in the 1950s.
2016-04-01 12:21:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
FDR was refering to the Great Depression when he said this, not to any foreign enemy. He was trying to restore people's confidence in banks, the stock market, and the economy in general, because people were not investing out of fear.
2007-06-02 13:46:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Modern Democrats have nothing in common with F.D.R.. He immediately executed enemy combatants(terrorists) he found in the America. Democrats today would be screaming from mountain tops if a president did the same as F.D.R..
He made the comment "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" in 1933 ( during the Depression) and he was referring to the economy.
This is the first paragraph from Roosevelt’s first inaugural address: "I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/character/links/roosevelt_speech.html
2007-06-02 13:31:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by a bush family member 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I would say a play on fear has been a big part of Bush's scaring the public when no such threat exists! Even if Minuit, I wouldn't go out and buy a bomb shelter because Iran may make a nuke somewhere about 10 years from now!
If he would just quit selling Iran spare parts for their F-14's, which we also gave them, I would be happy!
2007-06-02 13:32:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
nope because the propaganda machine has made those fears concrete:
9/11
e. coli in basically everything
bird flu
impending collapse of the dollar
trillions in deficit
failed home loan system
China
Russia
Iran is getting nukes and is going to blast us
Iraq will collapse and Al-Queda will have training camps everywhere
Ft Dix 6
The 4 they just got with the airport plan
Somalia
Breast Cancer
Immigrants taking over
A bleak Tommorrowww (spelling custom by Hillary R. Clinton)
2007-06-02 13:36:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It wasn't even relevant, or smart, back when he said it. Maybe if he'd been a little more afraid of Hitler in the 1930s, we could've stopped him before he got a huge army and killed millions of people.
2007-06-02 13:32:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
No not completely, but what we must fear more than anything is our Government.
2007-06-02 13:34:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Plumbingfool 2
·
1⤊
1⤋