PDA

View Full Version : Is the US safer today than before 911 ?



uscitizen
08-11-2006, 08:44 AM
Is the US safer today than before 911 ?

Cypress
08-11-2006, 08:45 AM
Is the US safer today than before 911 ?

Iraq war and Bush's foreign policy has bred more terrorists. I'd say no.

uscitizen
08-11-2006, 08:49 AM
That is my view as well Cypress.
We might have slightly better border security, but Bush's actions has increased the hatred against the USA, so more terrorists want to get us.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:14 AM
Is the US safer today than before 911 ?
We have directly engaged an enemy we largely ignored. Short-term, no. Long-term... IMO yes, we will be safer in the long-term by recognizing that we need to do something about this threat. It'll take some time to work through exactly what we need to do, but we'll get there.

uscitizen
08-11-2006, 09:16 AM
I dunno Damo, the route we seem to be taking will in my opinion keep terrosm growing not diminsh it.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:23 AM
I dunno Damo, the route we seem to be taking will in my opinion keep terrosm growing not diminsh it.
Right, this is why I said Long-Term... One approach will be tried, another will be tried, etc. Recognizing the threat is an important first step.

Cypress
08-11-2006, 09:25 AM
We have directly engaged an enemy we largely ignored. Short-term, no. Long-term... IMO yes, we will be safer in the long-term by recognizing that we need to do something about this threat. It'll take some time to work through exactly what we need to do, but we'll get there.


e have directly engaged an enemy we largely ignored. Short-term, no.

Iraq wasn't supporting anti-american terrorism, al qaeda, or international theocratic jihhadists. Most of our "engagement" is being wasted on iraq.

uscitizen
08-11-2006, 09:29 AM
Yes Damo I agree with you , if we don't trigger WW3 withour misteps before then, or go bankrupt.

Cypress
08-11-2006, 09:31 AM
After the 9/11 attacks, any ameircan president would have "engaged" the threat. I'm quite sure Al Gore would have attacked al qaeda in afghanistan.

The question isn't whether we can have a president who "engages the post 9/11 threat"....the question is, HOW do we engage the threat.

IMO, invading and occupying Iraq was not "engaging" the threat, and in fact it diverted us from the real threat - and probably making the threat worse.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:32 AM
Yes Damo I agree with you , if we don't trigger WW3 withour misteps before then, or go bankrupt.
The whole WWIII thing is a bit premature. Now the "going bankrupt" thing... I can't describe how pissed I am at this spending.

LadyT
08-11-2006, 09:33 AM
define "long term". If you mean in over hundred years or so when we are in our graves and the relatives of those who have survived our aggressions are dead and/or too old to remember and are a lot more liberal than yes, I'd say long term we "could" be safer, if by long term you mean 20 or 30 years from now when the victimized children our unjustified agressions grow up to become leaders, I'd say no.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:35 AM
After the 9/11 attacks, any ameircan president would have "engaged" the threat. I'm quite sure Al Gore would have attacked al qaeda in afghanistan.

The question isn't whether we can have a president who "engages the post 9/11 threat"....the question is, HOW do we engage the threat.

IMO, invading and occupying Iraq was not "engaging" the threat, and in fact it diverted us from the real threat - and probably making the threat worse.
It was a surround and conquer thing (yes, I have been saying this long before it was "popular"...) the aim was Iran. And yes, I believed from the beginning that this was the wrong tactic. A better one would be to support the underground in Iran as much as possible...

Once again, one tactic tried, it's about time for the next and that will happen at the next Presidential election. The short-term future doesn't look so bright, but long-term I am glad we are actually engaged at working toward a solution to this problem.

uscitizen
08-11-2006, 09:35 AM
Damo,
Per bush we are in WW3. He says the war on terror is a global thing, so I guess that qualifies :) Just kidding, well sort of.
I wonder why Dixie has abandoned Newt and his WW3 rhetoric ? I guess the cons threw him out like the demos did Lieberman :)

Cypress
08-11-2006, 09:39 AM
It was a surround and conquer thing (yes, I have been saying this long before it was "popular"...) the aim was Iran. And yes, I believed from the beginning that this was the wrong tactic. A better one would be to support the underground in Iran as much as possible...

Once again, one tactic tried, it's about time for the next and that will happen at the next Presidential election. The short-term future doesn't look so bright, but long-term I am glad we are actually engaged at working toward a solution to this problem.

I wouldn't call Iraq simply a "tactic". It will end up costing probably a trillion dollars, and over 100,000 lives. That's by far, more expensive than any american war in history, except World War 2.

I would call the the most collasal strategic blunder in american history. And one that will not help "engage" the threat posed by anti-american theocratic jihaddists.

I think we will ultimately prevail. Its just that Bush probably set us back a couple decades.

evince
08-11-2006, 09:42 AM
This is what the neocons wanted

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:44 AM
I wouldn't call Iraq simply a "tactic". It will end up costing probably a trillion dollars, and over 100,000 lives. That's by far, more expensive than any american war in history, except World War 2.

I would call the the most collasal strategic blunder in american history. And one that will not help "engage" the threat posed by anti-american theocratic jihaddists.

I think we will ultimately prevail. Its just that Bush probably set us back a couple decades.
On a per capita and adjusted for inflation basis this is not the most expensive war ever. But that is beside the point. I am simply pointing out that if you don't recognize a threat, or assume your failed earlier tactics are going to do something about it, either one is getting you nowhere....

We'll try something new, we'll continue, and in the end we will find a solution. That is my prediction. I get so sick and tired of all the "WE'RE DOOMED!" rhetoric. We aren't doomed, we have just begun.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:46 AM
This is what the neocons wanted
That was my point from the beginning! The Neocons, on their website, promote the spread of US style Democracy by any means. This is why I believe that Iraq was just an end-run at Iran. They basically tell you what they plan and what they are doing on their fricking site...

I have been against this agenda, and undeclared war, from the beginning, will continue to be, and will fight it regardless of who is in office.

Cypress
08-11-2006, 09:46 AM
On a per capita and adjusted for inflation basis this is not the most expensive war ever. But that is beside the point. I am simply pointing out that if you don't recognize a threat, or assume your failed earlier tactics are going to do something about it, either one is getting you nowhere....

We'll try something new, we'll continue, and in the end we will find a solution. That is my prediction. I get so sick and tired of all the "WE'RE DOOMED!" rhetoric. We aren't doomed, we have just begun.

I never said were doomed. I said Bush set us back by a couple decades, with the worst strategic blunder in american history.

And yes, in terms of inflation adusted dollars, Iraq will shortly outpace the Vietnam war to become the most expensive war in history (except for world war two)

Chart III: war costs, inflation adusted:

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm

AnyOldIron
08-11-2006, 09:47 AM
We have directly engaged an enemy we largely ignored. Short-term, no. Long-term... IMO yes, we will be safer in the long-term by recognizing that we need to do something about this threat. It'll take some time to work through exactly what we need to do, but we'll get there.

I don't see you being safer in the long-term.

The US might have recognised a threat but it has made a right pig's ear of the resolution.

By reacting like a bull in a China shop, and particularly supporting so vehemently Israeli terrorism, the US has guaranteed itself a terrorist problem for many more decades than neccesary.

The US reaction since 9/11 has been it's very own Bloody Sunday...

evince
08-11-2006, 09:49 AM
If we continue to commit to failed policy because we dont want to seen as "appeasing" the enemy or we want to "stay the course" we are doomed.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:49 AM
I don't think it was the worst in American History... but in the end I don't think it will prove to be as costly in lives as VN was. It is something worth working towards providing better solutions and engaging strong minds in another direction... I'm simply happy we actually have begun to engage the threat that we ignored as a population. Until the populace realizes what an actual grave threat this is we still probably won't provide the necessary resources to find the end solution.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:51 AM
If we continue to commit to failed policy because we dont want to seen as "appeasing" the enemy or we want to "stay the course" we are doomed.
We won't though. You just assume that all America will never simply work toward a different solution. We have proven long ago and repeatedly we will change when we believe it necessary. It just is inane to keep "dooming" us in fear rhetoric in order to get it done. It works against you as the other side starts digging in...

Cypress
08-11-2006, 09:53 AM
I don't think it was the worst in American History... but in the end I don't think it will prove to be as costly in lives as VN was. It is something worth working towards providing better solutions and engaging strong minds in another direction... I'm simply happy we actually have begun to engage the threat that we ignored as a population. Until the populace realizes what an actual grave threat this is we still probably won't provide the necessary resources to find the end solution.

Serioulsy, Damo: you think spending up to a trillion dollars on Iraq, was a wise investment? Or a massive blunder?

AnyOldIron
08-11-2006, 09:53 AM
We won't though. You just assume that all America will never simply work toward a different solution. We have proven long ago and repeatedly we will change when we believe it necessary.

I can't remember who said this, but the US tends to do the right thing only after it has exhausted doing all the wrong things....

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:54 AM
Serioulsy, Damo: you think spending up to a trillion dollars on Iraq, was a wise investment? Or a massive blunder?
I think it is a blunder, but not the most massive blunder ever. I think allowing slavery from the beginning was the most massive blunder ever. It still has repurcussions and will continue to have them even when the solution to this one is found.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 09:55 AM
We won't though. You just assume that all America will never simply work toward a different solution. We have proven long ago and repeatedly we will change when we believe it necessary.

I can't remember who said this, but the US tends to do the right thing only after it has exhausted doing all the wrong things....
Nah, it's only that the right thing finally solves it, there is no longer any need to try to find new solutions...

It's like saying, "It's always in the last place you look!" of course it is, once you find it you stop looking!

Cypress
08-11-2006, 09:57 AM
I think it is a blunder, but not the most massive blunder ever. I think allowing slavery from the beginning was the most massive blunder ever. It still has repurcussions and will continue to have them even when the solution to this one is found.

Okay, I should have said the most massive foreign policy blunder in american history. Obviously slavery and the civil war were the most traumatic and destructive events on the domestic front.

Damocles
08-11-2006, 10:02 AM
Viet Nam was the worst blunder, it cost far too much in lives. In this case the cost is high, but not as costly as the other... Lives cost more than any monetary value, IMO. I am glad that so far this blunder is less costly than most others...

bob
08-11-2006, 11:01 AM
created more terrorist ? how do you prove that?

i feel its safer, not much but, i havent heard of too many sucsess stories for terroist in the usa, well besides the political mess

Cypress
08-11-2006, 11:05 AM
created more terrorist ? how do you prove that?

i feel its safer, not much but, i havent heard of too many sucsess stories for terroist in the usa, well besides the political mess

created more terrorist ? how do you prove that?

from President Bush's own Head of CIA, Feb. 2005:

Iraq War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told

Washington Post Staff Wr
Thursday, February 17, 2005; Page A01

The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html

OrnotBitwise
08-11-2006, 11:19 AM
created more terrorist ? how do you prove that?

from President Bush's own Head of CIA, Feb. 2005:

Iraq War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told

Washington Post Staff Wr
Thursday, February 17, 2005; Page A01

The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html
The only really baffling thing is how so many smart people -- and some of them are quite smart indeed -- could be baffled by something so obvious. There's an old saying about missing the forest for the trees that seems particularly apt.

uscitizen
08-11-2006, 11:46 AM
Never underestimate the power of pack mentality Ornot.

OrnotBitwise
08-11-2006, 11:48 AM
Never underestimate the power of pack mentality Ornot.
Yah. Groupthink and all that.

uscitizen
08-11-2006, 01:00 PM
Yah. Groupthink and all that.
and sheeple with their reasoning centers controlled by the TV.

NOVA
08-11-2006, 09:01 PM
As it turns out....
with 40 arrested in Italy
5 or more in the US
and 20+ in the UK....

I'd venture to say we are safer....

AnyOldIron
08-12-2006, 03:45 AM
As it turns out....
with 40 arrested in Italy
5 or more in the US
and 20+ in the UK....

I'd venture to say we are safer....

How do you figure that? If these are bona fidi terrorist threats then it seems like the number of threats is increasing.

The security services have to be lucky every single time. The terrorists have to be lucky once...

bob
08-14-2006, 11:07 AM
As it turns out....
with 40 arrested in Italy
5 or more in the US
and 20+ in the UK....

I'd venture to say we are safer....

How do you figure that? If these are bona fidi terrorist threats then it seems like the number of threats is increasing.

The security services have to be lucky every single time. The terrorists have to be lucky once...

we are safer, simply because a majority of americans are now aware of what some people are capable of, like 9-11, people didnt get the picture in 93' ... but after 9-11, its on alot more peoples mind. i belive that alone make this country safer than it was pre 9-11

maineman
08-14-2006, 11:10 AM
"It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't."

Will Rogers

OrnotBitwise
08-14-2006, 11:43 AM
we are safer, simply because a majority of americans are now aware of what some people are capable of, like 9-11, people didnt get the picture in 93' ... but after 9-11, its on alot more peoples mind. i belive that alone make this country safer than it was pre 9-11That would have been true no matter what the administration's response. The relevant question here is whether the current administration's policies have made us any safer.

uscitizen
08-14-2006, 11:56 AM
Some of the responednts on here seems to think safety is a perception not a measureable absolute.

maineman
08-14-2006, 12:23 PM
we have spent billions of dollars on airport luggage screening technology...that we now find out cannot detect liquid explosives that terrorists could bring aboard in shampoo bottles.

We will not be able to "defeat" terrorism with high tech military might.....we need to consider addressing the socio-economic causes of terrorism as part of an intelligent strategy that does NOT heavily rely on military muscle which, if used as the primary element of our approach to terrorists, will certainly be counter-productive.

LadyT
08-14-2006, 12:33 PM
we have spent billions of dollars on airport luggage screening technology...that we now find out cannot detect liquid explosives that terrorists could bring aboard in shampoo bottles.

We will not be able to "defeat" terrorism with high tech military might.....we need to consider addressing the socio-economic causes of terrorism as part of an intelligent strategy that does NOT heavily rely on military muscle which, if used as the primary element of our approach to terrorists, will certainly be counter-productive.

Yup. That's tantamount to using a machine gun to take care of your termite problems.

maineman
08-14-2006, 12:36 PM
and the termites are smart enough to figure out a way to sneak in under the hail of machine gun bullets...

LadyT
08-14-2006, 12:42 PM
and the termites are smart enough to figure out a way to sneak in under the hail of machine gun bullets...

pretty much.