Has the Bush regime made it safer for Americans or less safe?

Question

There is a hard core and growing oposition to the American in Iraq - Terror groups never existed under Sadam - they now flourish under the US occupation army

Nations are beging to flock to Russia for protection against US expansionisim


Europe is begining to look uneasy at the blunders of the US as the UK tries to walk away from a US President openly called a mad man



Oh

Regime as a political system
The more common use in mass media, a regime in the sense of a political system is the set of rules, both formal (for example, a constitution) and informal (common law, cultural or social norms, etc.) that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with the economy and society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of its Constitution in 1789.

The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term.

In the Western world, the everyday use of "regime" is usually used with a negative connotation, usually referring to a government not friendly to interests of Western governments, or a "dictatorship", even if the government is in power through a consistent application of its constitution.

Answer 1

Russia will indeed emerge as the diplomatic winner in this particular sweepstakes,i.e. the Mideast. As to the U.S. being safer,our de-evolution into a hardened authoritarian state has only accelarated under Herr Bush.

Answer 2

Are you saying that we were safe when 9/11 happened, and are only unsafe now that we've gone an routed the terrorists and their supporters? Not a very logical premise.

And while there are terrorists coming in from without, don't forget that much of the terrorism was also committed by Saddam supporters. And those same Baathists were running a terrorist government - what else would you call a government who uses WMD against its own people?

And they're not exactly "flourishing". They're getting killed in huge numbers when they show up.

The only people calling Bush a "mad man" are idiots like Chavez and Ahmadinejad, hardly rational people.

Answer 3

I feel pretty safe not attacked in 7 years alot more bad guys dead than us. If we are what you say we are becoming Why do so may people want to come to live in the U S Immigration legal and illegal at all time highs. I think you just want to bash President Bush and America feel better.

Answer 4

PERMANENT BASES CAN'T POSSIBLY MAKE US SAFER:

In the security section of the agreement between Iraw and USA "Enduring Presence", the United States commits in concept to help "deter foreign aggression against Iraq" as well as "combat all terrorist groups, at the forefront of which is Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation." The White House will not say definitively whether such a security guarantee will require permanent bases for American troops. In a press briefing on Monday, Lute said that bases are "another dimension of continuing U.S. support to the government of Iraq, and will certainly be a key item for negotiation next year." In June, Bush administration officials told The New York Times that they envision "maintaining three or four major bases in the country." Maliki's administration has given unclear and at times conflicting accounts of his position on permanent bases. Haidar Abadi, a Shiite parliament member who serves as an adviser to al-Maliki, told Tribune Newspapers that "no military bases will be offered for long terms like in South Korea," but in a conference call with reporters, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, refused to rule out the possibility of bases, saying only that it "is going to be discussed with the political parties." Iraq's National Security Adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaie has previously told the White House that there should be "no military bases for Iraq."

WHO NEEDS CONGRESS?: According to Lute, the bilateral arrangement that will be worked out over the next year is not intended to "lead to the status of a formal treaty," but will establish more of a status of forces agreement (SOFA), which is "the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil." "We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress," said Lute. If the Bush administration wants "to commit the United States to the long-term security of Iraq without a word of discussion with Congress" through a status of forces agreement, then it will be in accord with "historical practice," according to Peggy McGuinness, a former State Department official and current law professor at the University of Missouri, because "a SOFA is usually a purely executive agreement." The agreement's lack of congressional input was blasted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) office, who said that "President Bush is now trying to unilaterally negotiate an agreement with Iraq on security -- an area [where] the President has absolutely zero credibility." The situation is quite different, however, in Iraq. The Iraqi constitution requires that the Iraqi parliament ratify "international treaties and agreements by a two-thirds majority." The approval of the agreement by Iraq's parliament is in no way guaranteed, considering that in May, 144 out of 275 parliamentarians signed a petition calling for a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces. In fact, the agreement is already drawing criticism from various sections of the Iraqi parliament.

PS TO andy g: REGIME IS TOTALLY THE RIGHT CHOICE OF WORDS. BUSH IS A REGIME. A CRIMINAL REGIME. A regime (occasionally spelled "régime", particularly in older texts) is a political system, or a class of physical conditions.

The more common use in mass media, a regime in the sense of a political system is the set of rules, both formal (for example, a constitution) and informal (common law, cultural or social norms, etc.) that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with the economy and society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of its Constitution in 1789.

The term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists use it as a neutral term.

Answer 5

let see..... they invaded and occupied a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 and were NOT a threat to the U.S. They have successfully created hatred for the U.S. in a unstable part of the world for generations to come. Did they make it safer for the U.S. I hardly think so.

Answer 6

Far less safe--don't forget refusing to do anything to secure the borders, and allowing Afghanistan to produce record opium crops to fund terrorism

Answer 7

Safer and look up the meaning of regime (if they have books in canada)

Answer 8

Cold war V.2.0 is starting thanks to Bush. How is that for safer ?