Just considering the view of the Middle Eastern Religions and the fact that the U.S. would have a Woman leading the country, would her election increase the threat of an attack?
2007-12-27 04:23:21 · 29 answers · asked by thakid90 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Probably, in addition to the fact that she will get rid of the majority of our military.
2007-12-27 04:27:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 9⤋
Why would a woman President of the US make any difference? She will likely have a male Secretary of State who is the person the Middle East Muslem Republics would be dealing with anyway. With the STILL OPEN borders it is possible to have an attack before Hillary takes office. I say that because Bush has done NOTHING to ensure the border is closed and neocons presume Hillary is about to take the big chair any minute now even though no caucus or primary has even been held let alone a general election.
2007-12-27 05:01:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
US foreign policy and the fact that the US fund terrorists (as long as they are on your side) are the reasons that the US got attacked.
"Do as we say and follow us exactly" will constantly put the US under scrutiny.
Do you know who has the most nuclear weapons in the world, the US. They don't disarm though because they think the weapons are 'safe' in their hands, but ask the other countries if they feel the same.
Bush ranked #2 or #3 on the worlds most dangerous people in an international poll. Including up here in Canada.
I know a lot of people died in 911 and it was tragic, but if you actually trace back responsibility, you will understand that it wasn't an action, but a reaction and it was a reaction to US foreign policy.
As long as US citizens think they matter more than any other citizens, they will elect leaders that feel the same way and you will ALWAYS have this problem of the world disliking you more than they like you.
You are the same as everyone else, you aren't better and the sooner you realize that, the safer you will be.
2007-12-27 04:36:43 · answer #3 · answered by brettj666 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There could be an attack at any time, the true defenses we have domestically are our intelligence police and security services.
If you think that terrorists are more inclined to attack based on who the President is, that's just absurd. We've seen, time and time and time again, that these people are more than willing to kill themselves for their terrorist cause.
So, for example, the rightwing perception of Giuliani as a "tough guy" is going to deter a terrorist? What is Rudy going to do to the terrorist after he has already blown himself up in 1000 pieces?
BTW, to the crazed neocons above, WTC 1993 took place a month after Bubba took office, and was planned on Bush 41's watch. There were no domestic terror events in the eight ensuing years of the Clinton Administration. If you want to talk overseas, there have been thousands and thousands of terror attacks during Bush 43, far far more than any other President in history.
2007-12-27 04:35:42 · answer #4 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Plan a terrorist attack - no longer even humorous. Hillary could be a much greater advantageous President than Obama. although if, regardless of the media hype, who the President is has little impression on the problem-unfastened American's daily existence.
2016-10-09 06:02:29 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Socialized health care could be considered a terrorist attack...at least, it would do more damage than a terrorist attack. The tax increase would cost more to this country than any terrorist attack. So, in essence, the very election of Hilary to the Presidency would be a terrorist attack.
2007-12-27 05:03:17 · answer #6 · answered by Brad the Fox 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YES. The same for all the other Dem. candidates as well. It is a tragedy that we are forcved to choose from such a weak lot of losers that will disable our country 4 years at a time. Hillary and Obama are equally as tragic. They are committed to ending our involvement in the "war" on terror. I think the Musims would rather see Hillary in office...it makes their job easier and they are already familiar and friendly with the Clintons.
2007-12-27 05:51:27 · answer #7 · answered by WTFever 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think the terrorists hate America regardless of who is in the White House. I don't think a Hillary administration would increase the likelihood of another attack which will probably come some day.
2007-12-27 04:29:43 · answer #8 · answered by Elliott N 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Well, I think it will, considering 'Slick Willie' cut back on the military when he served in office, so you can bet she will do the same, thus, leaving the door wide open for a high risk of an attack!
There hasn't been another attack since 9/11 because Bush has taken the initiative to create the Homeland Security administration, which I'm sure a dem wouldn't have done if one was in office when 9/11 happened. Bush has done a great job at protecting this country from another attack - if Hillary's elected, I think that the risk would increase because she would not only cut back on the military, but also on Homeland Security as well. They like to cut back, but also like to increase our taxes at the same time!
2007-12-27 04:32:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
let's just say the threats of more to come ..
and the odds of those attacks coming don't look better with her than without her..
of course youtubers state that since Bush and Israel were behind it..all will be just fine and dandy
2007-12-27 04:28:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Contrary to the propaganda of the religious right, Muslims are no more anti-women than are the religious right themselves--and no less, etither.
But if there is an attack, it will be because Bush and the right-wing have left our borders and ports unsecured.
2007-12-27 04:28:46 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋