NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bush Administration claims that America is safer since the "War on Terror" was declared, yet the US remains on a Elevated (Yellow) Alert Level (Significant risk of terrorist attacks), and occaisionally it has been raised to High (Orange) Alert Level (High risk of terrorist attacks).

Terror alerts: crying wolf?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ussecurity/terror_alerts.html

The U.S. colour-coded alert system began in March 2002, six months after the attacks on the twin towers in Lower Manhattan and the Pentagon. There have been reports that frequently changing the alert codes creates what some have called a "crying wolf syndrome." It has been noted, for example, that even with an Orange alert, police now maintain eight-hour shifts instead of the 12-hour shifts that were ordered when the first Orange alerts were instituted.

Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor wrote in June 2003 that people are becoming inured to the alerts and thus have lowered their guard even when the alert hits Orange........

......Some cities are becoming weary of the shifting alerts, another aspect of the "crying wolf syndrome." Feldmann said many cities across the U.S. are complaining of the costs of police overtime when alerts rise. In Portland, Ore., for instance, extra duties cost local police an additional $365,000 in overtime just to protect the city's bridges.


Considering that the US is basically stuck on Yellow Alert, with the occaisional rise to Orange Alert, how can the Administration claim that the US citizens are safer?

Please share your thoughts, and wait for the Poll.

It's more dangerous because Bush is dangerous. He's a bully and once people start to fight back, it's going to be a mess.

It's more dangerous because Bush is dangerous. He's a bully and once people start to fight back, it's going to be a mess.
Well I do tend to agree. If America was safer then the Level should have been lowered to say Blue (General risk of terrorist attacks)?

I'm not sure that safety as it refers to the possiblity of being attacked has really increased. I'll admit, I don't pay attention to the colors anymore. I did a bit when they first came out, but as you mention, they are up and down a lot, so perhaps there is some truth to the syndrome.

However, I do believe that public safety in general has increased. A lot of places have stepped up security measures in response to the attacks. True, most of these places are only doing it to be proactive instead of reactive, and should not be considered on a list of possible target. However, they do make the average citizen safer from internal danger. For example, I am a supervisor for the Security department at a local amusement park. We're fairly large, but not really nationally known. Last summer, we put in metal detectors and severly restrict what can and cannot enter the park. While taking away tiny pocket knives can be argued as pointless, it is one less risk for the average person. Even a small blade can do a lot of damage, given the proper location and force. If nothing else, it serves as a deterrent to those who would try something. Being a supervisor, I see everything that we confiscate every day, and it's mind boggling the things that some people carry on their person on a day-to-day basis.

I honestly do not know what to think...

The Bush administration tells us that they have made the world and America safer by "gettin them terrorists in Iraq"...and then they constantly warn us that "they will hit us again, in a terrible loss of life" and raise the terror alert when they're sagging in the polls.

The only fact I know for sure...we have not been attacked in 3 years.

Other than that, I distrust the propoganda machine.

If by safe you mean less countries in the world, than yes!

well its no longer a safe place for dissent or free speach anymore.

I'm not sure that safety as it refers to the possiblity of being attacked has really increased. I'll admit, I don't pay attention to the colors anymore. I did a bit when they first came out, but as you mention, they are up and down a lot, so perhaps there is some truth to the syndrome.

However, I do believe that public safety in general has increased. A lot of places have stepped up security measures in response to the attacks. True, most of these places are only doing it to be proactive instead of reactive, and should not be considered on a list of possible target. However, they do make the average citizen safer from internal danger. For example, I am a supervisor for the Security department at a local amusement park. We're fairly large, but not really nationally known. Last summer, we put in metal detectors and severly restrict what can and cannot enter the park. While taking away tiny pocket knives can be argued as pointless, it is one less risk for the average person. Even a small blade can do a lot of damage, given the proper location and force. If nothing else, it serves as a deterrent to those who would try something. Being a supervisor, I see everything that we confiscate every day, and it's mind boggling the things that some people carry on their person on a day-to-day basis.
While it is great to tighten up security at your place of work, would it be a focal point for attacks?

Generally speaking, I would imagine that amusement parks would not be high in the terrorist scheme of things, probably preferring targets that would create a more catastrophic effect, such as bridges, major highways, power plants, water systems, pipelines, refineries, filling stations, high rise buildings, airports, trains, etc.?

How secure are these systems?

I honestly do not know what to think...

The Bush administration tells us that they have made the world and America safer by "gettin them terrorists in Iraq"...and then they constantly warn us that "they will hit us again, in a terrible loss of life" and raise the terror alert when they're sagging in the polls.

The only fact I know for sure...we have not been attacked in 3 years.

Other than that, I distrust the propoganda machine.
The Bush Administration is counting on voters to believe that America IS safer, yet the Level has NEVER been lowered to Blue? Why not?

Hell no.

'Nuff said.

While it is great to tighten up security at your place of work, would it be a focal point for attacks?

Generally speaking, I would imagine that amusement parks would not be high in the terrorist scheme of things, probably preferring targets that would create a more catastrophic effect, such as bridges, major highways, power plants, water systems, pipelines, refineries, filling stations, high rise buildings, airports, trains, etc.?

How secure are these systems?

Anything could be a target. There was a minor attack not far away, and another bomb-scare just a few miles south of us. A lot of people think we would not be a target, but at the same time, we're the largest tourist attraction in the area. Which is exactly why it might be a good target. There are parks upstate that are bigger and more well-known, however, if a terrorist really wanted to send a message, they wouldn't necessarily go for the largest targets, but ones that would hit closer to home. Make people feel unsafe in daily life. Something unexpected.

That's not to say I personally believe we're high on someone's list. Quite the opposite, but it's best to be prepared. Besides, it makes the job safer. We don't have to worry about someone pulling a knife or a gun on us during a fight or some other altercation.

Every system has its flaws, but ours are fairly good. Not airtight, but good. As for public safety concerning bridges and whatnot, I really wouldn't be in a position to say. I don't see much being done to protect this type of thing, but that's not to say it isn't being done.

I don't know.

Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean we are safer. Just means we are looking for it now.

My company has offices in many countries. My company is rather conservative in its apporach to things. As such travel to "questionable" areas is canceled until further notice.

There will be another attack. Al-Q is patient and will wait it's time.

I guess we really wont know one way or the other unless another attack occurs, huh? And I think everyone can agree that is something nobody wants.

I guess we really wont know one way or the other unless another attack occurs, huh? And I think everyone can agree that is something nobody wants.
While I am certain that no one wants to see another attack, what message is the government sending to the public when the Alert Level continues to suggest "Significant risk of terrorist attacks"?

The Government says "America is safer", but they won't lower the Alert Level to Blue or general risk of terrorist attacks.

Is there a "significant risk of terrorist attacks" or not?

We're in less danger from random terrorist attack

We're in more danger from deliberate government attacks.

Al-Queda has been neutralized, they have no ability to coordinate attacks on the United States since we destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, we need to invade Iran and put a Pahlavhi Shah on the throne.

Al-Queda has been neutralized,
Do you really think that? Terrorism has increased since the War on Iraq, especially Al-Queda attacks.

Fact:

We were vulnerable to terrorist attack before 9/11/01.

Fact:

We are vulnerable to terrorist attack today.

Fact:

Another major terrorist attack on American soil, is a certainty.

Conclusion:

America, (and the rest of the world, for that matter)
Is no safer today, than we were before 9/11.

not only no but hell no
nor do george w and the neocons want it to be
they want to keep you too scared to realize truely useless
and even harmful they actualy are

who are the real terrorists?

sadam hussain and osama bin lauden
or donald rumsfield and carl rove?

however much we personaly and individualy acquire
we remain surrounded by the kind of world we all have to live in

the choice has always been and remains:
which is more important;
trying to impress each other
or the kind of world we have to live in?

what good are gold plates
without meat and bread to eat off of them?
and are not meat and bread just as filling
served on a wooden plank?

you say meat and bread alone are insufficient
and that is true
for there is no other gratification
save our own creativity
and no other coin sufficient unto its purchase

=^^=
.../\...

America, (and the rest of the world, for that matter)
Is no safer today, than we were before 9/11.
It appears so far that most of the people who have voted, share your views. That being said, how is it possible for Bush to declare in his re-election campaign that "America is safer today", especially since the terrorist alert has never been lowered past yellow?

well its no longer a safe place for dissent or free speach anymore.

:rolleyes:

Sure it's not. I hear this all the time and yet I have not seen anyone given a hard time about their beliefs or any statement they have made. Can you cite some credible examples?

We're in less danger from random terrorist attack

We're in more danger from deliberate government attacks.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. The upped security will be able to stop random guys like that shoe bomber a while back. However, no security is perfect, and a well planned deliberate attack will get through.

This is just a thought; to be honest, I don't really know much about this at all.

But: if the colour thing IS lowered, and then the US is attacked again, will you lot not be screaming about Bush's incompetence, that the colour should NOT have been lowered? It seems to me that he's in a bit of a Catch-22 situation here.

Just a thought.

It appears so far that most of the people who have voted, share your views. That being said, how is it possible for Bush to declare in his re-election campaign that "America is safer today", especially since the terrorist alert has never been lowered past yellow?
Well gee, concidering the "officiality" of this poll, I sure do see your point about that :rolleyes:
I do maintain that America is safer now.... simply because we as a people have a slightly better understanding of what the enemy is capable of comitting in the name of "Allah".
What do you think was going through the minds of the legitimate passengers on those planes on 9/11? Sit down, dont antagonize the hijackers. Wait them out and don't do anything rash. Why? Because it was unthinkable what they had planned.
Now, even if we only have a little better understanding of what the muslim fundamentalist is capable of comitting, we are safer.

We're no safer - Iraq hasn/t made things better and Al-Queda is regrouping, FAST!

:rolleyes:

Sure it's not. I hear this all the time and yet I have not seen anyone given a hard time about their beliefs or any statement they have made. Can you cite some credible examples?
He might be talking about the PATRIOT Act.

Well gee, concidering the "officiality" of this poll, I sure do see your point about that :rolleyes:
I do maintain that Iraq is safer now.... simply because we as a people have a slightly better understanding of what the enemy is capable of comitting in the name of "Christ".
What do you think was going through the minds of the legitimate citizens being killed and maimed? Sit down, dont antagonize the invaders. Wait them out and don't do anything rash. Why? Because it was unthinkable what they had planned.
Now, even if we only have a little better understanding of what the Christian fundamentalist is capable of comitting, we are safer.
Makes it a little more disturbing, doesn't it.

I don't work for the government, and don't know. But I bet that we aren't any safer. Sure, the air and rails may be safer, but what about our borders? The US-Canadian border is the longest undefended border in the world, and one of the more pourous. The Canadians aren't doing much in the way of perimeter security, so we must. Yet we barely have enough border patrolmen for the Mexican border, let alone the Canadian. And as I just said, the Mexican border is awful as well. Human and drug smugglers cross it all the time, so why can't terrorists? My personal suggestion would be to build border fences along both borders, with gaps only at border crossings. More border patrol agents wouldn't hurt, either.

Do you really think that? Terrorism has increased since the War on Iraq, especially Al-Queda attacks.

In the middle east, yes. America, however, has not experienced any further attacks since we crushed their central baseofoperations in Afghanistan.

The Bush Administration claims that America is safer since the "War on Terror" was declared, yet the US remains on a Elevated (Yellow) Alert Level (Significant risk of terrorist attacks), and occaisionally it has been raised to High (Orange) Alert Level (High risk of terrorist attacks).

Terror alerts: crying wolf?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ussecurity/terror_alerts.html

The U.S. colour-coded alert system began in March 2002, six months after the attacks on the twin towers in Lower Manhattan and the Pentagon. There have been reports that frequently changing the alert codes creates what some have called a "crying wolf syndrome." It has been noted, for example, that even with an Orange alert, police now maintain eight-hour shifts instead of the 12-hour shifts that were ordered when the first Orange alerts were instituted.

Linda Feldmann of The Christian Science Monitor wrote in June 2003 that people are becoming inured to the alerts and thus have lowered their guard even when the alert hits Orange........

......Some cities are becoming weary of the shifting alerts, another aspect of the "crying wolf syndrome." Feldmann said many cities across the U.S. are complaining of the costs of police overtime when alerts rise. In Portland, Ore., for instance, extra duties cost local police an additional $365,000 in overtime just to protect the city's bridges.


Considering that the US is basically stuck on Yellow Alert, with the occaisional rise to Orange Alert, how can the Administration claim that the US citizens are safer?

Please share your thoughts, and wait for the Poll.

As a member of the United States Air Force (http://www.af.mil) working at the National Security Agency (http://www.nsa.gov) since 1999 on Fort George G. Meade (http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/index.html) I can look you in the eye and tell you now only is America a safer place, the whole world is a safer place... Including Iraq... I've been there, I would know.

I don't think that the US is safer. It may be true that Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked again, and that the US hasn't suffered another terrorist action in it's own soil; but the conditions that led to the first attacks are still there and, if anything, the animosity towards the US is greater.

So, perhaps the current terorist movements and organizations have been disbanded, which is uncertain, there are still people who want to get back at the US. If their anger is not addressed, it's almost certain that with time they will grow in organization and sofistication. And they won't necessarily have to come from the Middle East, or enter illegaly through Mexico or Canada.

Of course, no country will ever be safe from terrorism, we can only expect a reasonable amount of safety. But it's dangerous for the US people to get a false sense of security out of the current policies and happenings.

As a member of the United States Air Force (http://www.af.mil) working at the National Security Agency (http://www.nsa.gov) since 1999 on Fort George G. Meade (http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/index.html) I can look you in the eye and tell you now only is America a safer place, the whole world is a safer place... Including Iraq... I've been there, I would know.

Were you there before? How do you know that the entire world is safer? Taking what basis for measurement?

You can't say that the world is safer now, because not that much time has passed to be sure. Also, nothing real is being done to cut the causes of anger and hatred that fuel terrorism.

Sure, from a subjective point of view, things may look calmer on the surface, but we don't yet know what may be brewing under it.

I don't work for the government, and don't know. But I bet that we aren't any safer. Sure, the air and rails may be safer, but what about our borders? The US-Canadian border is the longest undefended border in the world, and one of the more pourous. The Canadians aren't doing much in the way of perimeter security, so we must. Yet we barely have enough border patrolmen for the Mexican border, let alone the Canadian. And as I just said, the Mexican border is awful as well. Human and drug smugglers cross it all the time, so why can't terrorists? My personal suggestion would be to build border fences along both borders, with gaps only at border crossings. More border patrol agents wouldn't hurt, either.

That reminds me of a joke. Two men, an Englishman and a Scotsman, are vacationing at the same beach. While walking late at night, both of them stub their toes on a strange bottle. They both grab for it and, before you know it, a huge genie has popped out of the bottle. He says, "You are both in posession of the bottle, therefore I will grant you each a wish. The Englishman responds quickly, "I want you to build a large, impenetrable wall around England so that we can keep everyone else out of our beautiful country." *POOF* the wish is granted. The genie then looks to the Scotsman, "Tell me about this wall," he says. "Well, nothing can get in or out of it. It's an impenetrable wall." The Scotsman thinks a little while and says, "Good. Fill it with water."

I guess my point is that blind nationalism isn't going to make the country any safer.

Why do people not get it? The war on terror has increased the chance of attack on America twenty fold. A british diplomat call Emporer Bush "Al-Quaida's best recruting agent" just the other day. This is the truth. It doesn't matter whether our efforts to destroy terrorist are succesful, the act of destroying just makes it worse. Every Osama Henchman out there has a family, friends and relatives who will try and avenge him if he is killed.
It doesn't matter whether we are right ether. If you think Fox is biased, try watching one of the hundreds of radical islamist chanels out there. THey exagerate, lie, and turn out propaganda to the extreme every time an arab is killed by us. The only real way to deal with terrorists is to understand why they are attacking, and try to fix the problems. If arabs really see us helping them and improviing their lives, we won't see the endless recruiting line for Al-Quaida.

It appears so far that most of the people who have voted, share your views. That being said, how is it possible for Bush to declare in his re-election campaign that "America is safer today", especially since the terrorist alert has never been lowered past yellow?


Do you really think that Americans actually think about things? Bush is winning the polls becausehe can sumerize his campaign in a few sentences. Look at the polls. Latly Kerry is losing ground because "Americans don't think he is giving a clear message." Kerry is as smart as a kangeroo on LSD, but we still don't understand him. Have you ever asked an American about the kyoto treat? The landmine treaty? Don't bother. I have, and even my liberal friends don't know what the f@#$ is going on in our own country. This is why that poll thinks that we arn't safer. Most Americans who would vote otherwise have never left the intertainment part of the internet.

Read the bleeding paper my countrymen! Turn off the flipping TV, I don't care wht's on, and learn what your country is doing! Every week another prisoner is killed in guantonimo bay who had never commited a crime. Look past the headline and research your life!

:rolleyes:

Sure it's not. I hear this all the time and yet I have not seen anyone given a hard time about their beliefs or any statement they have made. Can you cite some credible examples?

Well the safety thing is questionable but there is an effort to becareful what you say or news you run these days.

The Shrub is many things but he has not re-established the Sedition act.



Yet......

Were you there before? How do you know that the entire world is safer? Taking what basis for measurement?

You can't say that the world is safer now, because not that much time has passed to be sure. Also, nothing real is being done to cut the causes of anger and hatred that fuel terrorism.

Sure, from a subjective point of view, things may look calmer on the surface, but we don't yet know what may be brewing under it.

Yes, I've been to Iraq before and after we went in.

Let me tell you my point of view. I spy on people. I spy on people who want to hurt us. There are now less people for me to spy on, and those who are still out there are less and less sure if there plan is going to work, in fact the are less and less sure if they want to be apart of a group of people who aims to attack Americans.

There will always be a hardcore faction of people who are willing to die to killl us, but then there will always be a wall of men like me who would die to protect us too.

Yes, we are safer.

I would not put MY life on the line if I didnt think we were making a difference!

This is just a thought; to be honest, I don't really know much about this at all.

But: if the colour thing IS lowered, and then the US is attacked again, will you lot not be screaming about Bush's incompetence, that the colour should NOT have been lowered? It seems to me that he's in a bit of a Catch-22 situation here.

Just a thought.
Nope, if the color is lowered and the Us is attacked again. I'll just ask why was it high before when we weren't being attacked?
I'm not screaming about imcompetence I'm screaming about how the color thing seems foolish.
Not a catch 22, just a logic 22.

It's more dangerous because Bush is dangerous. He's a bully and once people start to fight back, it's going to be a mess.
you mean bombing innocent people in airplanes, schools, restuarants, and busses worlwide is not bullying...I think we are finally standing up to those bullies..now what are you going to say..."those are just freedom fighters trying to liberate themselves from oppression...were the 200+ children in an elementary school oppressing anybody? was the world not a mess before this. do you not consider it a mess when 3000 people going to work to support their families are brutally killed by these terrorists...is not the genocide of black christians in africa by muslims a mess...respond to this and give me some examples not just opinion.

Yes, I've been to Iraq before and after we went in.

Let me tell you my point of view. I spy on people. I spy on people who want to hurt us. There are now less people for me to spy on, and those who are still out there are less and less sure if there plan is going to work, in fact the are less and less sure if they want to be apart of a group of people who aims to attack Americans.

There will always be a hardcore faction of people who are willing to die to killl us, but then there will always be a wall of men like me who would die to protect us too.

Yes, we are safer.

I would not put MY life on the line if I didnt think we were making a difference!


Haha, very funny. We can all stop pretending to be James Bond now. No really, it's been fun.

I'm sure all NSA operatives go around talking on internet forums, hinting about their jobs. (And just think, if I had my hacker friend Mike, here he could get all your personl infomation) Yeah Right. Even if you were, I would'nt believe you. Even someone who watches the TV should know that hundreds of attacks take place every month in Iraq on our buisness and military establishments. Donald Rumsfield himself has admitted that Al-Quada has many, many cells in Iraq and is leading attacks every day. As I said, any moron with a TV knows this. What about the hostages who are being systematically killed these past few days? Do they not exist? Are they just some foreign governments ploy to scare us?

I always fully support our governments efforts to protects us from invisible enemies, while the real ones conviently turn the president into a war time hero. Always.

you mean bombing innocent people in airplanes, schools, restuarants, and busses worlwide is not bullying...I think we are finally standing up to those bullies..now what are you going to say..."those are just freedom fighters trying to liberate themselves from oppression...were the 200+ children in an elementary school oppressing anybody? was the world not a mess before this. do you not consider it a mess when 3000 people going to work to support their families are brutally killed by these terrorists...is not the genocide of black christians in africa by muslims a mess...respond to this and give me some examples not just opinion.


You idiot! (No offense.) Do you really think that the chetchnian rebels who attacked the elementary school have any relation to Bush? Russia is being attacked because they have oppressed their little colonies for decades. The responses are horrible, but little more horrible than the suffereing those people have had inflicted on them.
Tthey attack us. We attack them. The pretty little cycles go on and on.
And yes I consider "You are either with us, or against us" to be bullying.

russia is being attacked because fanatics everywhere have not been taught the full lesson of "kill our innocents and you will be completely and totally eradicticated"... of course this has nothing to do with bush it has to do with cowardly whacko fanatics thinking slaughtering civilians and children will cower us instead of pissing us off to the point that we will fight....and besides if we vote in kerry he will bow to the U.N. ...the very same that led the coalition to bosnia and ordered pilots to drop bombs from such heights as to make it impossible to accurately hit anything resulting in hundreds if not thouseands of other innocents dieing...the samem u.n. that allowed french generals to pull troops from bosnia so that the genocide and religious persecution could continue...the same u.n. that propped up saddam with the bogus oil-for-food program....please bush is not the smartest...look at our wide open borders...but he is a much better choice than flip flop waffle boy kerry

russia is being attacked because fanatics everywhere have not been taught the full lesson of "kill our innocents and you will be completely and totally eradicticated"... of course this has nothing to do with bush it has to do with cowardly whacko fanatics thinking slaughtering civilians and children will cower us instead of pissing us off to the point that we will fight....and besides if we vote in kerry he will bow to the U.N. ...the very same that led the coalition to bosnia and ordered pilots to drop bombs from such heights as to make it impossible to accurately hit anything resulting in hundreds if not thouseands of other innocents dieing...the samem u.n. that allowed french generals to pull troops from bosnia so that the genocide and religious persecution could continue...the same u.n. that propped up saddam with the bogus oil-for-food program....please bush is not the smartest...look at our wide open borders...but he is a much better choice than flip flop waffle boy kerry


Than why don't we all vote for Nader?

I would disagree with you on the Chetchnians. I know I would kill some Russians if they had been killing my countrymen and raping my counntry women every day. Not that I agree with an elementary school, but people don't understand terrorists. Why would you want to die just to kill some other people? Probably because they have done bad thing to you. Russia has oppressed, killed, destroyed and burned chetchia time and time again.
People do things for reasons. Saying, "they are being attacked because they have not been taught the full lesson of "kill our innocents and you will be completely and totally eradicticated"... " is incredibly simple and close minded. Which in effect is what Bush is doing.


How can you justify "Ethnic Clensing"?

You idiot! (No offense.) Do you really think that the chetchnian rebels who attacked the elementary school have any relation to Bush? Russia is being attacked because they have oppressed their little colonies for decades. The responses are horrible, but little more horrible than the suffereing those people have had inflicted on them.
Tthey attack us. We attack them. The pretty little cycles go on and on.
And yes I consider "You are either with us, or against us" to be bullying.

also there you go saying they were fighting back because of oppresion...i re-iterdate which one of those dead children oppresed anybody...you justify their deaths but you are probably the same person that says we shouldnt execute conficted murderers..where is your logic from

Than why don't we all vote for Nader?

I would disagree with you on the Chetchnians. I know I would kill some Russians if they had been killing my countrymen and raping my counntry women every day. Not that I agree with an elementary school, but people don't understand terrorists. Why would you want to die just to kill some other people? Probably because they have done bad thing to you. Russia has oppressed, killed, destroyed and burned chetchia time and time again.
People do things for reasons. Saying, "they are being attacked because they have not been taught the full lesson of "kill our innocents and you will be completely and totally eradicticated"... " is incredibly simple and close minded. Which in effect is what Bush is doing.


How can you justify "Ethnic Clensing"?

unless whack job murderer has suddenly become an ethnicity then your comment is worthless

you do have one good point ..i would also figth back against a foe that killed my country men and women but my bombs would hit true military targets...children have done nothing...if they would attack legitimate foes i would speak differently of them

russia is being attacked because fanatics everywhere have not been taught the full lesson of "kill our innocents and you will be completely and totally eradicticated"... of course this has nothing to do with bush it has to do with cowardly whacko fanatics thinking slaughtering civilians and children will cower us instead of pissing us off to the point that we will fight....and besides if we vote in kerry he will bow to the U.N. ...the very same that led the coalition to bosnia and ordered pilots to drop bombs from such heights as to make it impossible to accurately hit anything resulting in hundreds if not thouseands of other innocents dieing...the samem u.n. that allowed french generals to pull troops from bosnia so that the genocide and religious persecution could continue...the same u.n. that propped up saddam with the bogus oil-for-food program....please bush is not the smartest...look at our wide open borders...but he is a much better choice than flip flop waffle boy kerry



"...look at our wide open borders..."
So we should build a huge wall, right? Put thousands on soldiers on the boders, protecting ourselves from those evil Canadians who have legal gay marraige...
There is precedent, too! They put a wall right through Germany, and it worked great! And that wonderful wall protecting Israel. Who cares about all those palastinian homes that were bulldozed...

We cannot protect ourselves from hate. This has been proven time and time again in the history court. Love, G@$dammit! Walls never help anyone in the long run. We should work to make people happy, istead of letting our corporations exploit them into oblivion. If anyone is responsible for Al-Quaida, it is Exxon and the horde ofoil corporations taking advantage of Arabic people. Let me reapeat myself, security will not help one g@#damn bit if half the world hates us.

no...i dont walls ...i want legitamate immigration...i would pull every troop back and feel secure if we could garauntee no other terrosrists could enter our nation and kill our people on our on soil..do you know how many arabs have been caught crossing the mexican border...at least 50 that i have read about .. and dont call me a racist i just call em as i see em and the majority of terrorists we need to worry about are of arab descent

Woah, the mexican border? I'l have to look into that. No blame for the Arab comment, the only other heritage of the terrorist I know is America, with Walker and what not.
Anyway, good discussion, sorry for the rants, and got to go.

thanx i enjoyed ...no offense ever taken when the discussion remains intelligent and doesnt resort to too much name calling

It's more dangerous because Bush is dangerous. He's a bully and once people start to fight back, it's going to be a mess.

Exactly! That moron will be the death of us all!!!! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I don't think it's any safer and not just because "blah blah blah i hat bushybuhs cuz he fag an kll pplz." At least he's done his part by increasing security. The real problem is that 9/11 made people paranoid. You walk around mentioning bombs, guns, drugs and so on, and something's going to happen to you. Furthermore, everyone's preparing for it. Everyone keeps a gun on their person, ready to kill anybody who looks at them. Everyone's ready to start screaming "Terrorist!" At the drop of a hat.

The terrorist attack worked; America is in terror.

well its no longer a safe place for dissent or free speach anymore.
Never has been.