kristjam

Do americans feel less threatened by terrorism now that Saddam Hussein's regime has been removed?

Liquor Dealer

I voted that I was not afraid of him before the war, however; I am afraid of what people like him can cause to happen. The views of radical Islamics is terrifying. The fear of death is what makes military force effective - be it your death or someone elses. Homicide bombers are looking for death - Stop or I'll shoot means nothing to them. I dont't think we'll ever "feel safe" in this country again. Perhaps we were existing in la-la land prior to the terrorist attacks - perhaps we were not safe before that. I'm not sure what safe is - it is nothing more than a feeling and I doubt we'll ever really have that feeling in this country again. Do I feel safer at this moment? Yes! I do. Will this feeling last? Only until the next terrorist bomb goes off somewhere in the world - NO! Wait! That happened last night in Israel. Until there is a feeling of peace, everywhere in the world, we are never safe. When dealing with people who are gullible enough to allow someone else to convince them that they will be better off if they blow themselves up no where on earth will ever be safe.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Daval

I think the US made a whole lot more people angry with the war on Iraq and are now in more danger than they were before.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

maximusveritas

Considering that we haven't found any WMD, they're either very well hidden, non-existent, or transferred into enemy hands. Though it would be nice to find him and put him on trial, Saddam was never a major threat. The extremists who are rushing to replace him, on the other hand, are. Plus, we've hurt our relationships with our allies all over the world and have potentially created a few new Bin Ladens in the process. All this points to a big fat "No".

Dilbert1234567

it shale only piss of radicals more

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

crewsor

I never didn't feel safe. I felt plenty pissed off though. Matter of fact I'm still pissed, but its getting better. The more terrorists, extremists and dictators that are neutralized, the better I feel.

__________________
We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

The_Dude

i think that it pissed off moderates and made 'em radicals.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

phoenix1002

I didn't feel less safe even right after 9/11. Of course I was shaken, the whole thing was a shock-a terrorist attack of that magnitude had never occured before in the US. But to me, its one of those things where I'm more likely to die because my climbing harness breaks or because I fall off my bike and hit my head or something like that than I am to die from a terrorist attack. There is always the risk of dying, but I'm not going to let that stop me from living. I still went/go to NYC, even though the "terrorist warning level" was high. And I'm still here. Had a great time in the city, too. So my answer is I never felt threatened.

That said, is the risk greater? My guess is yes. I'm a bit cut off from the news here at school, but last thing I saw, the Iraqis were getting annoyed at the American presence, mainly because they (the americans) weren't doing anything to help rebuild. That might have changed by now, but they will still remember the initial reaction, or lack thereof. The war hasn't made us any more popular in the middle east. There's still North Korea, which has some nuclear weapons. And there's probably some other groups out there that don't particularly like us.

__________________
I'd rather be climbing...

I approach college much like a recovering alcoholic--one day at a time...

splck

I think the usa's action will make way more problems in the long run. Let's see what happens in the next ten or twenty years.
I never felt that Saddam was a threat.

__________________
nice line eh?

forgotten_dream

There's always going to be someone who wants to kick our ass, whether that's the british, the Nazi's, the Communists, or radical muslims. And when push comes to shove, we always come through, and that's why this country is what it is today.

__________________
"A ouija board just works better if you've made it yourself. It's sortof like how 'Clue' is more interesting when one of you has actually killed someone."

Mad_Gecko

Loads less safe, and I don't live in the US of A....

Worried about N.Korea.

Also France, Germany and the rest of the Axis powers ("If you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it") will respond to the U.S. Might be a breakaway EU power.. With no power but a lot of bark!

__________________
[color=bright blue]W[/color]e Stick To Glass

"If three of us travel together, I shall find two teachers."
Confucious

Liquor Dealer

I fail to see all of the fear that is being expressed over N. Korea!

North Korea is attempting to blackmail the world. You simply do not pay blackmail - it never stops. N. Korea has hung its own ass - they are a self-admitted violater of every nuclear non-proliferation treaty ever written and as such have placed themselves in a position of no return with Japan and China. Japan has stated that any attemp to load a weapon of mass destruction onto a missile will be considered an act of war and treated as such. They left no room for discussion and didn't offer to debate the issue. If they load a missile with a warhead it will result in war. Tha war won't last long. What N Korea has so far as a militray has been well discussed. They are not capable of doing much more than make noise on their own. If they attempt to export their nuclear technology it will be Katy bar the door on them and when that time comes no one will complain at all when there is just a Korea with no "N" and "S".

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Ourcrazymodern?

MADGECKO will talk about FRANCE?

FORGOTTENDREAM thinks we''l win anything?

I wonder what they're thinking now?

Willravel

Saddam was no longer a threat to the US. We attacked him anyway. Now global terrorism is quickly on the rise. Even though it sounds nuts, the world was safer with Saddam.

Ourcrazymodern?

Whoa, guess what? I guess he willravel, even though I agree with him.
If anyone ever asks you the meaning of life, just shrug and smile, unless they propose violence, then you do what you must. I've never done violence in my life, except maybe some verbal, and I don't believe what the feminists and their sympathizers say about that. So...since I've never been threatened enough to do physical violence, I've been too sheltered? Bah, everyone should be so sheltered.
I came to this place because I was having words with my wife about the nature and history of burkhas. I haven't learned too much about burkhas, but I don't hold that against this site. THIS IS COOL!
Dr. Phil? In the same sentence with god?

Willravel

Um, the bottom part is my signature, not a contribution to the thread.

Yakk

Terrorism...

On 9/11 < 3000 people died in NYC.

Population of NYC is 8 million.

That is 1 in 2667 people in NYC died.

Every year, 1 in 7000 people die from a car accident.

So it would take a terrorist attack the size that hit NYC every 3 years in every "NYC size" chunk of population, to match the car death rate.

That would be about 12 9/11 sized attacks every year, or 1 per month.

This is why terrorist attacks are not a serious offensive military threat. The amount of terrorist attacks required in order to do serious damage to the target is simply ridiculous.

As a defensive measure, they are more effective. But they do rely on the attacking power not going all out -- if, for example, the USA where to use scorched earth tactics (simply kill every man, woman and child in Iraq), terrorist tactics by Iraqis wouldn't be an effective defence against it.

Meanwhile, a full-scale military is an effective defence against a terrorist force who seeks to kill every man, woman and child in the USA.

Military force being a threat of force, and not just an overwealming application of force, is a choice that modern nations make. Do understand that it is a choice. Terrorists are simply people who have chosen not to limit themselves by the rules of limited engagement -- not to wear identifying equipment, and not to attempt to restrict their attacks from civilian targets.

If a modern military chose to follow the same tactics, there wouldn't be anyone left to stand up against them.

Even in Veitnam, the war was not a total war on the part of the Americans. They didn't target engage in full scale genocide. They where not close to 100% ethical, but don't underestimate how much the Americans held back.

The Vietnam/Iraq wars, if anything, teaches the price of having a civilized military who plays by the rules. There are benefits to having a civilized military (many of them!) -- but there are also costs.

So the way to look at Terrorism is "what is the proper response of a relatively civilized military when attacked by people who don't follow rules of engagement"?

Personally, I'm more afraid that it will be decided to throw out the rules of engagement, more than I am of piddly terrorist cells blowing up a building or two.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Mojo_PeiPei

Those who would win a war can rarely make a lasting peace, those who can make a lasting peace would never win the war.

Nice post Yakk.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Dilbert1234567

bravo sir, bravo

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

ASU2003

Terror threats existed way before 9/11 from non-Islamic sources. Terrorism will exist well after. You might be able to make it difficult, but you can never stop terrorism.

Small scale stuff doesn't really concern me too much. The chances of dying in it are too remote. Now, certain countries getting nuclear weapons might be a problem just because instead of killing 3,000, you can now kill 1 million. On a side note, I still can't quite figure out how 1.2+ billion muslims can't get rid of Israel when they outnumber them 100 to 1.

MuadDib

Now that the war is won... *snicker*

Anyway, gotta say wasn't threatened before. I would've said take care of other axis of evil powers, but that seems to subtly imply Iraq was a threat and I would only mean that N. Korea & Iran are?

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

flstf

The people in charge of our national security must be doing something right. Either that or I overestimated our enemies' desire and/or ability to attack us. I am amazed that we haven't been attacked in a major way since 9/11.

dc_dux

Perhaps we are marginally safer or perhaps the al Queda types are very patient. Dont forget there were seven years between the World Trade Center attacks.

If we are safer, it is certainly not because of our invasion of Iraq. As the NIA report from earlier this year noted, our presence in Iraq has created more terrorists.

Our own intelligence imay be slighltly better (with a long way to go). But more importantly, other nations have stepped up their intelligence and their coordination with the US as a result of 9/11, particularly in Europe and among our Muslim "allies" (Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc).

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

alansmithee

All but the last line, I agree with. Personally, I would be most afriad if we don't somewhat expand the rules of engagement to allow us to deal more with terrorists on their level. Especially because now every war by a "civilized" has essentially two fronts-one military and one political/popular opinion based. Bringing up Vietnam again, the Tet Offensive was a military disaster. However, the images were so shocking to the US public that it definately shook the resolve of the american people, and increased pressure on leaving as well as fragmenting support and opinion. I think one of the most pressing issues for the modern military is how to react when not faced with another conventional army, and how to fight on both fronts.

Yakk

The attack on 9/11 was clever. They noticed that airplanes are large missile weapons, and that the dogma towards terrorist attacks on planes didn't take this into account.

Remember the lesson of UA-93: it won't work again. Terrorists can't use a jetliner of Americans as a manual missile, because the people on the plane won't let them anymore. So a terrorist who attacks a plane can, at best, blow up the plane.

There are some other instances of "use infrastructure against them" tactics. LNG supertankers, factories that use dangerous chemicals of various kinds, and other things of it's like. But those are being watched, and in any case they wheren't as good a target in the first place.

It was well known how to take over an airplane before 9/11.

Even in Iraq, currently the resistance forces concentrate more on soft-target Iraqi government, and not on harder-target American forces.

Alan, It isn't the job of the military to tell the government and the people to use them. Militaries who do this are dangerous to the very people and government that pays for them.

That is the road to Fascism -- where the people exist to serve the military, and not the other way around.

Did Tet "shake the resolve" or "wake up" the American people? When the government feeds the people constant lies, when those lies are shown to be blatant, and the people react by rejecting the policies of the government -- that is known as the rule of the people.

When a war founded on lies fails due to lack of support, you should blame the lairs, not the people who point out the lies. Unless it is your opinion that the American people should be ruled by deception?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Ourcrazymodern?

Lo siento mucho. I thought one's signature meant something!

Willravel

No problema. The sigature is more of a general statement of persona to the world. It's my personal message to everyone, and if it did have anything to do with the thread, it would be a cioncedence.

Locobot

To the five people so far who have said that they feel safer--I'd like to interest you in a little product I'm selling: TERR-X Terrorist Repellant! It comes in an aerosol can and is PROVEN to keep terrorists away! I've been using it regularly since 2001 and haven't been attacked by terrorists once! Only $29.99 a can! You will never feel safer than you will with TERR-X. PM me for more details.

NCB

Obviously a baited question that wouldve been called out if it were posted by a conserative

FYI...I wasnt "afraid" of Saddam. Hell, nobody was; it was the weaponry and info he couldve passed on to terrorists that concerned people.

Also, FWIW.....

I actually participated during the first first gulf war and let me endulge you liberal pontificators on what actually occured there.My unit was charged with the supervision and sweeping of blown out bunkers in Kuwait and Iraq. The bunker usually had 3-4 Iraqi soldiers who manned the AA artillery guns and the bunkers.

While watching outsourced Saudis clean out the blood, guts, and other pleasantries from the blown out bunkers, they found manuals descrbing their orders which included the obligation to shoot any wannabee deserter, regardless of reason. More often than not, people tried to flee the bunkers not out of fear, or American airpower, bvut rather because they were thirsty and hungry. You see, Saddam deprived his own soldiers the basics to survive and more times than not, we would see bodies lying about 75-100 feet from the bunkers, shot in the back. Saddam was an evil fuckhead and for people to come on here in the comfort of their own warm and cozy homes and pntificate what we should do or that Saddam is flat out ignorant, arrogant, and out of touch

__________________

docbungle

Where would you have us post on this forum from, if not from the coziness of our own homes? You imply that discussion on a message board equates to ignorance and arrogance, but I think it is you who are out of touch. And quite a bit so. Just about everything you post seems to be a troll of some sort, and at the very least is worded in the most condescending, sarcastic and disrespectable manner possible.

There are a lot of people who don't feel the way you do. And that's just the way it is. You don't really make a good case for yourself by simply acting superior and saying spitefull things.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Yakk

NCB, Saddam was an evil fuck, as where his supporters.

Your contributions to this thread, however, seem strange. You attack Saddam over things that aren't all that evil.

The maximum U.S. penalty for desertion in wartime remains death"

It is true the USA hasn't killed someone for deserting their army since 1945ish, but the USA hasn't been defending it's own land against a hostile power since well before then.

I'd expect any nation's military to shoot people who desert if the enemy was threatening to invade and destroy the country.

Saddam's nation was under a trade embargo. It had more than enough resources to pay for the feeding of every soldier -- but it wasn't allowed to sell them.

As demonstrated by Gulf War II, even though Saddam was not actually making WMD, Saddam was under threat of American invasion at a whim. It turns out that Saddam properly understood the situation, and directed maximium resources towards his military.

When you are under threat of invasion and occupation, defence is actually more important than anything more than the bare minimium of food.

...

Saddam is a monster, that is true. He did use American supplied WMD to kill people who rebelled against him. He did use CIA support to take over the nation of Iraq and turn it into a dictatorship client state of the USA. He did invade Kuwait, another sovereign nation, after asking permission from the US ambassador.

So, like I said, Saddam and his supporters are evil fucks. It is possible they where engaged in a battle against a larger evil -- say, the soviet empire -- using the tactic of "better a lesser evil than a greater". This doesn't explain why there wasn't a decrease in the use of evil tactics after the larger evil -- the soviet empire -- fell apart.

One would have to figure out some other cause -- say, the military/industrial/congressional complex of Eisenhower, the US-president-predicted vested interets who would warp US government policy to be imicle to the American people, to explain that kind of behaviour. Or find some other reasonable explanation.

When you fund and train fanatics to fight a holy war in Afghanistan, when you equip and encourage a military dictator to go to war over disputes, there is sometimes something called "blowback". Blowback is when covert military operations cause fallout on the American people, but the American people aren't told it was pretty much directly caused by American operations.

Continueing the policy of "every president will invade and occupy a nation, under some excuse" will result in a growing chunk of the world being willing to give their lives to kill Americans. Name a president since WWII that hasn't invaded a foriegn nation with military force? Don't you think that is strange?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

cyrnel

Where's the moderation? Why does this thread exist?

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

Sty

This kind of thread necromancy is bad bad thingy.

*click*

__________________
br,
Sty

I route, therefore you exist