I would like to know WHY you feel more threatened as a result of the Iraq War?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

In a poll on this forum we had more say that they feel more threatened since the Iraq war. Why do you feel more threatened? Also tell us where (in general) you are located?

I say more threatened because of the following.

1) Saddam has NEVER posed a threat to either the US or the UK. Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Saddam would be willing to launch WMD on British targets "within 45 minutes", yet he was unable to launch these mystical WMD which have still not been found on an INVADING FORCE within 3 weeks.

2) Bush has the intelligence of a mad cow. He has managed to wage a war on a religion that spans the world. He has made all Muslims believe that this is a holy war, and given the fact that he is nice and safe, (in the event of any attack, he will run away just like he did on 911), it is us, Mr and Mrs ordinary that will bear the brunt of the dissatisfaction throughout the Muslim world.

3) The most spineless leader in the history of the UK is in charge of our nation. Tony Blair openly supported Al Gore in the run up to the stolen election, then under pressure of action from Governor Bush, decided to act as his puppet. Being a British citizen now makes me, (just like the thousands of Black American citizens in Florida), basically nothing more than an American citizen who has no vote. I never voted for Bush, as I was not allowed, yet it is he that controls my nation.

4) By being a British citizen, I am now considered nothing more than an American in the eyes of terrorists. These terrorists, contrary to what you may believe, are terrorists for a reason. They do not wake up one day and say "Hmm, I think I will blow myself up and kill some Americans today". They are agrieved with America, and the American citizens are the closest they can get to dealing a blow at the people they are agrieved with. America has continually shown its motives with regards to global hegemony, and support at all costs of Israel and its murdering leaders.

These are just some of the reasons, and anybody that thinks that by occupying a sovereign nation that just happens to be mainly filled with people of a religion that already has a problem with Americans, makes you more safe, is deluded to such an extent that psychiatric care is in order.

I currently live in Germany, but am British and will be returning to the UK soon.

How many terrorist attacks have happend in the UK?

C'mon, Ron. You know and I know that the only reason these leftists say they feel more threatened is to undermine in any way possible the U.S. operation in Iraq. Gimme a break!

Well, with regards to "terrorist", I am presuming that you mean more than simply Islamic terrorists.

Back when I was about 7 years old, I went with my uncle and my brother to Harrods. We were looking around at Christmas presents when I decided I wanted to go to the toilet. We searched for the toilets in the store and, in hindsight, did something that was rather strange. Instead of asking an assistant where the toilets were, we remembered that exactly opposite to Harrods were some public toilets. We exited Harrods and were waiting at the pelican crossing to cross the road. Just as the crossing started to beep for us to cross, I looked up and saw a whole load of glass falling on top of us. I then looked all around, heard an almightly bang, and heard everyone screaming. My Uncle grabbed me and my brother, and at the end of it all I had large shards of glass in the hood of my duffle coat.

This was a terrorist attack by the IRA. As it happens, the bomb was planted in the toilets. Now looking at the people that planted the bomb, my conclusions are as follows.

1) My Mother is an Irish Catholic. I personally believe in the reunification of Ireland, and can understand why they were doing what they were doing, although I cannot ever justify the killing of innocent lives in the process.

2) The IRA was, and to a large extent, still is funded by the USA. The Americans have funded terrorism in the UK for a number of years, largely due to the fact that Americans seem to think that if their great great great grandfather comes from a country, this makes them the same.

3) The British tried exactly the same sort of tactics as the US are currently trying in Iraq, in Ireland. They have tried the military option, such as on bloody sunday when they slaughtered peaceful protestors. Following bloody sunday, the IRA, which had been considered an "extremist group", sudenly found themselves inundated with people more than willing to sign up. Bloody sunday has been described as the biggest recruitment drive the IRA has ever experienced.

What you are suggesting is that the UK will not undergo a terrorist attack. This is absurd. With every speach that GW has made regarding Iraq, the UK has been mentioned. The UK WILL undergo major terrorist attacks. Indeed, who do you think the bombing of HSBC and the British Consulate in Turkey was aimed at?

Simple fact. Terrorism can only be prevented by a combination of not pissing them off in the first place, and by covert police operations. This involves MI5, MI6 and Scotland Yard. This does not involve the RAF and a large number of cluster bombs.

The majority of America supported the war before it began and they still support it NOW! Anything beyond that matters not a bit and is idle chatter—ineffectual gossip. Enjoy.....

And by the way, scott, 9/11 was planned during Clinton's APPEASEMENT administration:

"Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency. Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996--at the height of the Clinton Administration's hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism."

So, go pound sand, you European propagandist!

9/11 was planned during Clinton's APPEASEMENT administration:

"Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency. Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996--at the height of the Clinton Administration's hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism."

So, go pound sand!

Scott you are wasting your time with this fella. It's unfortunate that America continues to learn nothing in the wake of terrorism. Joe sports the typical attitude of a western supremacist. Being devoid of any facts they resort to the typical "leftist propagandist" and "anti-American" comments among others.

However, being a person from a country that has experienced terrorism for years, certainly longer that the US, you bring to the table a unique perspective that open minds could learn from.

America is truly a great nation, but we here in America are an arrogant people. The attack on 9/11 shattered the fragile shell of false security we here were able to experience so long in a world full of violence. As a result, for the first time America feels insecure. In order for us to return to that arrogance and feeling of superiority we look to a leader that will return us to the feeling of status quo (latin for "the mess that we're in")

Bush gives them hope of return to that feeling, a feeling of false security. In bombing someone in the name of terrorism he can return us to that false sense of security we had prior to 9/11 while giving us the impression we're the big bad country whom no one dare mess with or else you'll get this. So next time anyone even thinks about it they'll have to contend with our wrath.

In reality what Bush has accomplished is exactly what you said we shouldn't be doing.

This is something we've not learned yet. Instead we are reacting to a terrorist instead of preventing them in the first place. No one wakes up and says “my ambition is to cause world terror”.

Iraq created more terrorist that ever before because the US appears unjust. In the name of terrorism the US invaded Iraq on the pretext of WMD. To the Americans this is "yeah we'll show them" but to the rest of the world it's "well, why did you do it there's no WMD found yet". As a result, Osama has a waiting list as long as his arm trying to gain access to membership into his club. America has made it the Muslim national pass-time to hate the US and extremist will emerge because of it. If we simply look at Israel & Palestine, we will see exactly the road we're headed down.

Scott, I'd like to hear more about the terror in your country and how the IRA felt they had no choice. Maybe in sharing that here, some people can gain a little more perspective instead of simply and blindly accepting everything our governments tell us. In light of absence of evidence, some of us still accept this course of action without waiver. Not only is this not intelligent, but it preps us for dangerous courses that lie ahead.

One last thing Scott. You have to learn to ignore people that resort to the typical insults and "leftist" remarks. The moment someone mentions that phrase you instantly know you are dealing with a closed mind. There are plenty of people to reasonably debate with. The immaturity of some should not discourage you from seeking the maturity of others, whether or not we agree.

Happy holidays Scotty

Ron, you seem to be a reasonable person. Why do you feel like this war makes us safer?

Very interesting thread here. Why do I feel more threatened as a result of the Iraq war ?
In france, we have been striken by various forms of terrorism for nearly 50 years. The first attempt labeled as so dates back to 1954 - this was precisely the beginning of the war in Algeria. A war which officials here used to name with an euphemism - "events" - not so far ago, even though it killed about as many French soldiers than American ones during the Vietnam war.
Since then we have experienced all kind of terror. "Domestic" one from minorities fighting to get independance for their piece of land. Perhaps not at the same height of terror just like in England with IRA, but Corsicans and Basques know very well how to manufacture bombs made with tens of pounds of explosives that blow away a whole neighborhood. We have even been the witnesses of an attempt "à la libanaise" on the port of Bastia (Corsica) a few years ago.
And this is for the national folklore only. Don't conclude that the police are inefficient or weak on this issue. As for the Brits, or for the Spanish, it appears that these concerns are far to be a piece of cake to manage. It all has to do with the complexity of our history and cultures.

Now, let's talk about the islamic terrorism. Many attempts during the seventies. Not really "islamic", but anyway due to malcontented arab terrorists, or people (Carlos) working in close relation with.
We faced major strikes in the mid-nineties in Paris (commuter trains blown away - the responsible of the network has recently been tried and condemned to jail for life -, plane hi-jacked and algerian terrorists killed by special ops in Marseilles).
Islamic terrorism. Yes, we know a little bit about it. And we know as well a little bit about arab muslim culture and mentality.
That's the reason why I, and the majority of my fellow countrymen, are convinced that the war in Iraq is a very, very bad case in the so-called "war on terror. Bin Laden, even an evil bastard, is clever and knows that if he wants to get his clash of civilization, he has to make global forces to confront against each other. And right now, unfortunately, his plan works fine.
By reading some of the comments of rightist short-minded Americans on this board, it is clear to me that things are really bad engaged. You see people in constant denial of facts, convinced of their rightness, labeling, categorizing, bashing all of those who disagree, American or not. You've got one of them who goes as far as labeling opponent viewers as "terrorists". Those people are pretty good material for a Bin Laden, whose final aim is not to throw other planes in our building.
France would be more secured becaused it opposed to the war in Iraq ? Well, we are definitely part of the west. We are enemies all the same for those islamists spreading terror. The 10% muslims inhabiting this country don't make any difference, in good or bad.
When coming on this board, I did not think I would find some people so deeply ignorant of the rest of the world. But, conversely, I found some others (Oneofpeace, Keremiko,...) who, in my opinion, are real assets to their country, by their open-mindness and intelligence, to help passing the hardship. Because this is just a beginning.

Ron, I think you missed scotty's point. He did say Islamic terrorist did attack his country.

Another thing I think if you believe it, it's giving you a false sense of security. You asked how many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11. You speak as if this was the norm here in America. How many attacks have we had before 9/11? How often? You believe the attack on Iraq has prevented this from happening somehow?

Have you been reading or watching the news? Al Qaeda bombed embassies in Turkey that belong to the UK. They will strike at the most easiest targets because of the success rate. It's harder to strike in the UK and definately the US. It's always been that way pre 9/11 and after.

If you look at the violence around the world, you will see that it's stepped up, not decreased since the Iraqi invasion. We created many more followers of terrorism than discouragers of it.

This is why many feel more threatened. The more people you have gunning for you, the more likely you will be hit.

I got his point, but it doesn't answer why he feels more threatened, which is the question here. All I can read is that HE feels more threatened because of an association with the US. Am I wrong?

There are always going to be attacks on Embassy's and Consulates overseas. That is a fact of life. And no war is going to stop it. But don't you think a terrorist may think twice about bombing a US Embassy know the fact that it will bring the wrath of the US and UK army?

The question here is "Why do YOU feel more threatened as a result of the Iraq War?

Well put h@ts

Another thing

When you look behind the Democrats' rhetoric, then, what you find is no plausible alternative plan — just more rhetoric.

Keep pounding that sand, boyzzzzzzzzzz........

So your answer is that you don't know why you feel more threatened it's just more spin.

Ron I miissed this point in your post Why exactly are IRA terrorists different from Arab terrorists? please explain!

Ron, if you think we feel safer, check out the terror alert level. It's been raised.

Here, I'll help ya out

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/21/th...evel/index.html

As you see, the newly invigorated terrorist are trying to inflict something worse than 9/11 on us domestically. This is why people do not feel safer.

OneofPeace

The terror alert level has been raised before. Do you know why they raise it? And do you know what happens when they raise it? And just because they raise it to High doesn't mean that an attack is imminent

Scottc

First of all the US does not declare Holy War. It's just plain war.

Second you say you have had a Terror Attack in Great Britain from Islamic Terrorist. When was that? Can you show me an article because it didn't make news here in the states.

Third Yes I can see and read and I still see you don't have an answer except to say because of an alignment with the US.

There has not been an attack in the US or UK that I know of since 9/11. Am I wrong?

Ohhhhh, so they bomb a embassy or consulaate in Iraq so now you feel threatend in England or Germany or where ever the heck your are at the moment. They can't reach you in England, Right? Just like Saddam couldn't reach the US.

So by your assertion GW was right to attack Iraq because of a threat?

You can't have it both ways, if you don't feel safe then you should do something about it. Which is exactly what Bush did.

If you believe that there is a terrorist threat from the terrorist in Iraq what do you suggest we should do?

So really deep down you support Bush for his actions but you are trying to figure out ways around it so your friends will like you....

You see the problem with Saddam was, nobody could talk to him, you couldn't intimidate him and you couldn't threaten him. He played with the UN he played with the US and he played with the inspectors.

Talking to him didn't work,
Sanctions didn't work,
Resolutions didn't work,
The threat of war didn't work.

So what does work? The only thing he understands. WAR! How do you think he came to power.

The majority of the terrorist in Iraq are Saddam Loyalist with maybe a few hundred foreigners.

Don't go trying to insult me and my education. I guess you haven't figured out that I HAVE been to countries other than the US. I do watch a lot of news and yes I do watch FOX NEWS, because it is the best news channel on and their ratings prove it. I am very knowledgable about world affairs and I married into a diplomate family. So I probably understand what's going on much more than you do. If you could have looked at things LOGICALLY as you say then you could have only come to one solution.

Oh and it's not that I didn't see it in the news it's that I forgot where the embassy was that was bombed. My wife reminded me.

Terrrorism was around before the Iraq war, and look what has happened since. Iran is backing down, Libya is backing down. Who's next, my guess Syria.

You just can not say that the terrorist threat is greater in our respective countries than they were before the Iraq war. Terrorisom was always happening in that part of the world.

So why did they raise the terrorist threat. Let me tell you this, If there wasn't a system in place, you would never had known. Now that there is a system in place, it is in your face. The chatter would always elevate during certain parts of the year. What is different now is that they are telling us about it. And why are they telling us about it. Because of 9/11! Before 9/11 they picked up on the chatter but handled it internally, the public didn't know and didn't care. When 9/11 happend everyone on the left said, why, why didn't you see the signs. Well they did see the signs. They just didn't tell us they saw the signs. Now after 9/11 they are tell us and if something happen, then they can come back and say. SEE, WE TOLD YOU. But aside from that, raising the terror level put different programs into action. It tells everyone, hey be on the look out for suspicious things.

Do I feel safer since 9/11, yes I do. Would I travel to Iraq or the Middle East. NO! I would not.

A worthwhile read:

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....4003&forumid=13

UNILATERALLY?

You all keep saying that, which means that the dictionary needs to be changed.

New definition

Unilateral meaning multilateral without France, Germany and Russia. So multilateral would have been 66 countries instead of 63?

Actually it's just the opposite, the reason we didn't wait was because Saddam wouldn't work the Hans and co. Sure he let them in but he didn't work with them and wouldn't give them what they required. They were not there to try and turn over every rock in Iraq. They were there for Saddam to point them to the banned items. He faild to do that didn't he?

Yet the logical explanation for this at this point would seem to be is he failed to show them what wasn't there, Maybe if the U.S. hadn't turned the rules of evidence on their heads. and forced Iraq to try to prove a negative...... you stilll haven't explained Ron the difference moral or other wise between Arab and Irish terror I'm interested in this. Neither Unilateral is correct nor is Coalition of the willing ( can you have a coalition f the unwilling ) Three countries alone actually sent troops. thats rather different from the 63 you exageratedly try to claim!

If they weren't there then why didn't he explain what happened to them? That was what he was suppose to do.

Irish terror isn't at issue here so it doesn't matter and I didn't bring it up.

So 3 countries is unilateral and 6 countries is multilateral, I'm getting a new education here. It's not how many countries actually went in it's how many countries supported it.

you made the statement about the IRA and I was curious to know your arguement but you don't have to defend it.
I agreed unliateral is wrong your arguement here is with others. I will say I can see how they use unilateral but its not quite accurate.
Actually Bushes arguement was SH had to prove what had happend to them not merely claim they were destroyed.

Ron are you saying that 63 countries moved with the US on this invasion?

This invasion was unilatteral. Because a couple of puppet governments went along doesn't make this a multilateral invasion. You know as well as the rest of the world, if the US didn't insist on invading in March, neither would have none of it's puppets.

Frankly, we don't give a flying **** what you consider unilateral and what you don't, deathy! But you're absolutely right: NOBODY else would have lifted their little finger had the U.S. not pushed for the war. That's why America is a leader and the rest—France, Germany and Russia, in particular—are LOSERS! (BTW, I just want ya to know, I'm waving my stars-and-stripes as you read this!)

Now, go pound your sand!

Al Qaeda has support of official authorities in some Arab countries.

Al Qaeda commits acts of violence against certain countries with its own forces, as well as funds Muslim side in any conflict which has a Muslim and non-Muslim parties.

It's possible to regard terror attacks committed by Al Qaeda as done by intellegence of supporting countries. This is a casus belli (good reason to start a war).

A state of war between two states is a quite usual (while not best) situation.

The UN isn't at all a world government which makes member state to obey all the decisions of UN. It's more a kind of a club.

So, the war against Iraq is quite legal. The questions are only: 1. Was the war a good, appropiate measure 2. Will it make the situation better?

Hey Ron, I've been a little busy, I hope you don't mind the late "answer" to your posts...

Well for starters, you can not compare the Islamic Extremist with the IRA. The only thing that they have in common is that they performed acts of terror. All be it for different reasons.

Why can't you compare it Ron?
I think, whether IRA blowing up an English Pub, or PKK blowing up a school bus, or Islamic Fundamentalist flying planes into buildings or MrJukoVette putting liberals in to a hole and blowing the **** out of them is the same bloody thing: terror.
And, yes you can compare it.

How are they different Ron?
All comes from ideological differences.
All are acts of violence.

As others have mentioned in this thread, I would love to know your reasoning on how they are different.


First of all the US does not declare Holy War. It's just plain war.

Really?

On June 26th 2003, in an Israeli paper called Al Harretz, Bush was quoted telling this to Palestinan Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas:
"God told me to strike al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

I think this is Little Bush's Holy War Ron.


Second you say you have had a Terror Attack in Great Britain from Islamic Terrorist. When was that? Can you show me an article because it didn't make news here in the states.


There was an attack to the British Embassy, a truck full of explosives destroyed the entire building, along with the British Consul General and British workers. A consulate, no matter where it stands geographically is the soil of the country it represents. Therefore, there has been an Islamist Terrorist attack in British soil since the start of the Iraq war.

Third Yes I can see and read and I still see you don't have an answer except to say because of an alignment with the US.
There has not been an attack in the US or UK that I know of since 9/11. Am I wrong?

Yes you are, see my answer to your second point. Also, tell me when and where did Islamic terrorists attack in the US before 9/11.
Please do realize, I am not suggesting there has been no Islamic terror attacks in US before 9/11, I just want to see how many attacks have been orchestrated in our soil.

The question here is "Why do YOU feel more threatened as a result of the Iraq War?

Because we all live on the same planet Ron. Don't you understand that, this will come back to us? For all of you who do not believe violence brings more violence, I can only remind you that you reap what you sow. If one side does not find a way to get out of a dead circle, you will be stuck in it!
THIS war, is not going to help us.

When you drive in a very rich neighborhood, and you see all the security gates, CC cameras, guards and private petrol; is that the safety you want? Is that your freedom?

In my favourite place to go on vacation, I do not lock my doors, everything is out in the open, even if I stay there for weeks. I am totally free.

Wherever I am, the more blood spilled on Earth, the less safe I would feel. If you are one of those people who cannot see that 9/11 happened because of our policies and strategies (and that WTC was NOT a random target), you won't see the point I am making here.

You may feel safer in your "all-American" neighborhood, with your family and I hope you'll continue to live safe and sound. But, when the question was asked Ron, I did NOT take it INDIVIDUALLY. I took it a little more seriously than that. Let's not be that self-important!

Short-term, I will be safe in my neighborhood.
Long term, I (or my children, or my grand-children) will pay for this war with coin and blood.

I can supply part of an answer to your question keremiko there was a pervious attack on the WTC in the early ninties a van parked in the car park

Oh is this a quiz? ermm embassy bombings Kenya Tanzannia How am I doing?

Which comes back to my point, as a people traveling all over the world in general (the world is not a safe place). As a person living in America going about my business I do feel safer. The government raising the terrorist alert level makes me feel safer. Why, because I know that if they are seeing more (chatter as they say) they are doing something about it. I'm sorry if they don't have a terror alert in other countries.

This was a simple question. "Why do you feel more threatened?" If scottc is a world traveler then I can understand, If he is constantly visits Embassies and Consulates traveling around to those countries where the majority of the population doen't like the west, then I can see why he feels more threatened. If he does not vernture outside of his country then I would like him to tell me why he feels more threatened. Not the generic, because the world is not a safer place, that a general assumption.

scottc gave this answer

Ron, explain why you believe invading Iraq makes the US safer? Somehow you believe that this has put a dent in the terrorist infrastructure?

Now we have warnings that people are planning something to rival Sept 11th and that makes you feel safe?

I am totally puzzled here.

I don't know about you... but invading Iraq makes me feel we are in more danger.... If the US is safer, why is the terrorist warning level been increased? I see more BS to come and if Bush gets re-elected due to his "accomplishments" we are in bigger trouble. I say, bring back prez's like Clinton... so what he acts like a red blooded american man that can't resist looking at the top of a woman's head while he leads the nation.

At least we were in better shape when he was in office. He could have had a long time affair with my 3rd grade teacher just as long as he ran the US effectively...lol

Look around people. The countries in the middle-east are now paying attention.
They are finally waking up the the fact that you cannot teach hatred to your children without consequence. This is all coming back to haunt them and they are realizing that. Many are detecting ang detering terrorizm where they did not before. This is a wakeup call. The future of terrorism is doomed.
Don't get me wrong, there will alwasy be the whacko who feels his cause is just.
So, do you think it's worse? I don't.

Let me make this brief... I believe that anyone that is comfortable with Bush's reasons for the Irag invasion and not think it to be coincidental that the terror alert is up is MAD!!! one may not have to do with the otherto most but to me.... there is no coincidences...

Those that are pro war, happy for you, but the BS resoning is sickening! We are in trouble due to maniac US leaders. I think it is easier for no US members here to talk trash because the affects are not felt like US citizens.

I believe they are possible terrorist on this forum that could be sitting back strategically planning their next move. Call me paranoid but it makes you wonder when I read some of the idiotic cimmenets.

For use of better judgement, I will not point out guilty parties....lol

Let's see, why do I feel safer.

1. The creation of Homeland Security
2. The revamp of Airport Security and the TSA.
3. The arrest of suspected terrorist cells.
4. The creation of the Terrorist Threat Alert system.
5. The working together of the different agencies like CIA, FBI, INS, Board Patrols.


What happens when they raise the Terrorist Alert Level.
1. Stepped up patrols at Power Plants, Bridges, Buildings,
2. Increased security at the Airports, with more perimeter patrols, working dogs, and vehicle checks.
3. Increased security at our borders.
4. Aircraft surveillance of our nations waterways and other vital assets.
5. A greater Police presence, more visability

6. Coordinating necessary security efforts with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies or any National Guard or other appropriate armed forces organizations
7. Taking additional precautions at public events and possibly considering alternative venues or even cancellation
8. Preparing to execute contingency procedures, such as moving to an alternate site or dispersing their workforce
9. Restricting threatened facility access to essential personnel only.
and much more

Do you believe this psycho babble posted up above? Are these the same people that are pointing to 9/11 as a reason to justify this war? I'm sure they weren't looking at statistics when the WTC came down.

Talk about a bunch of useless nonsense.

Skool, you're wasting your time. Do not try and convince, just make your point. Obviously there are those that are completely detached from reality amongst thse forums.

Cute Ron, but you are relying on the fact that the "terror alert" will be raise prior to every effort to commit destruction. You need to awaken Ron. America cannot simply "feel safe" like we did pre 9/11. Our actions from this point will either make it better or worse. So far everything was good until Iraq. Blindly we supported our ambitions unstead of intelligence.

I am not confident in a "terror alert" system as it has way too many points of failure for me to feel comfortable. If you put your stock into this, then I truly now know why you indeed feel safer. I just think you're misdirected in your faith.

You are right peace... "why try"... unfortunately, I do believe the "psyco babble" above...lol

If too many (level minded) realists as ourselves come together.. we're considered "rebels". That't why we can't keep leaders like Clinton in office....lol

Peace.. don't even feed into the nonsense you know what you're dealing. These are the same minds ruling the world today!!!

Peace... I mean I am not surprised at what I am reading from Ron....lol

Getting back to Iraq, Do I feel safer now that a dictator is gone with known ties to terror and terrorist and gave those terrorist training and possibly gave them the capability to use biological or chemical weapons. Yes. Sorry if you don't feel safer.

Since the war on Iraq and Saddam's capture we have seen Iran back down and allow in the IAEA, we have seen Kadafi back down and allow in inspectors and is or says he will show them everything.

I for one am happy that we have a President that wont just sit back and play those silly games with these dictators and terrorist. We are a world superpower, and if a country or terrorist group thinks they can attack us and get away with it they they are sadly mistaken, (With this President). We have put the world on notice, don't mess with the U.S.

"Faith in the system" That is the one of the problems. Vastly large on at that...
We (most) grew up thinking and believing in the government. Trusting them etc. I have faith and trust, surely it does not lie in the government, being a US citizen, I can only speak for the US. But you guys gotta wake up.

Peace, give it up, these guys are in for a long nap. If anyone is comfortable is truly being foolish but one could say the same for me, believing and having faith in an entity that can't be seem....lol

...that can't be seen...lol

I know you shouldn't be, but sometimes I marvel at the naiveness of America. We have been sheltered so long and we simply don't understand the consequences of this invasion. We simply want to return to the pre 9/11 unawareness around us.

9/11 has changed not only us, but the world. We know there is terrorist, we know we have to deal with them. We also must know how to handle this so that we don't create more problems down the road for us and the world. What we do will have a ripple effect one way or the other.

Our approach to Iraq was a huge step backward. Not only did we encourage more terrorist, but we've done absolutely nothing to disrupt their network. We are largely seen by the world as being after Iraqi oil. This is exactly why the pipeline and oil refineries there are being attacked.

We fool no one but ourselves if we think we can continue in this "war on terror" at this rate.

skool me,

I have a question for you... What grade are you in?


--JV

Ron you keep referring to Iraq and attacking the US as synonomous in some way. This is why you think this invasion was the correct thing to do.

I have noted all the things you mentioned, however you missed some things, like the bombings in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The movement of drug in the Persian Gulf, undoubtedly a way to finance more terror. The threats are now up in the US, and Bin Laden, remember him, is still on the loose creating havoc in the world.

Now if you think Iran is simply going to kick out terorist now because of Iraq, then indeed you are sitting on false senses of securities. The are everywhere, not just Libya and Iran. You will come to see in the coming days exactly how much disruption we've caused among terrorist networks.

I will tell you in a minute Ron... you'll have to give me a few because I'm @ work.

Jvstr,
I understand your need to attempt to hit below the belt... it is quite alright coming from the brain you were cursed with.... lol but seriously, the implied name calling is very "mature".. If you have something in that "brain" that slightly resembles an intelligent question comment etc, feel free to bring it on... otherwise all other ignorant remarks as such will be ignored.

I've been taught. "Sticks and stones may break..."Learned that last week in Mrs Brown's 2nd grade class...lol