one of the cute things about both Pakistan and India having nuclear arenals is that the next A-Bomb to be dropped could have nothing to do with America. Hell, if you look at the pollitical dynamic of the region, the next nuclear war could even be an civil war.
-
Can't bring liquids on planes.
-
Do the natives count as terrorists???
-
They do if they commit terrorist acts. You don't have to be any particular ethnicity or religion to be a terrorist.
-
I'm not saying who we should bomb. But to say, I'm from such and such country, I'm not affected nor will be is a lie (i.e. about Canada). If the US goes down, many other "Western" countries will follow, and it's a joke if you don't believe this.
-
I don't know if I'd use the word "lie"; maybe misunderstanding or ignorance. But if the U.S. can be brought down by terrorist acts, then the U.S. is weak at its core. Countries like Israel have dealt with terrorism for decades, and their citizens are not shaking with fear around the clock. They still have a democracy and an economy that functions.I'm not saying that there's anything good about terrorism, but the reaction to it can cause far more harm than the terrorist acts themselves. Going overboard would be playing right into the terrorists hands. The invasion of Iraq was a great gifts to Iran and Islamic terrorism.(That was not all directed at you, but at the thread in general.)
-
Steve, no hard feelings or anything, butAlthough countries like Israel have dealt with terrorism for decades, I highly doubt many ppl/countries would want to live like they do (at least I don't!)---- how the ppl go to work/school on a daily basis to get an education with all the chaos is beyond me.
-
It's not good, but it's their "new normal". There's no magical way to stop terrorism. But Isreal could have responded by declaring a national emergency and suspending their democratic institutions. Instead, they implemented some effective techniques to keep their airplanes from getting blown up. And the level of chaos in day-to-day life there is far less than you might imagine, although when people get onto buses or go into cafes, there is probably some fear in the back of their minds. But they won't let the terrorists define their society.I'm definitely not saying that Israel is a paragon of perfection, but I fear that if there is another big act of terrorism, the Constitution will become a quaint memory. The level of fear will shoot right up, and domaogogic politicians will take advantage of the situation and feed the fear. Meanwhile, in the U.S. alone, 17,419 persons were killed in alcohol-related crashes in 2002.
-
And probably millions dead every year (indirectly) from too much McDonalds/Burger King/Wendy's/Denny's/Coke/Pepsi/etc.
-
Becareful! Ciggarettes are now terrorists in ths US!!Run Helms!
-
all liquids are banned.
(this obviously isnt at you abi)
i agree with everyone who said they're winning the war of fear.
whats next? someone gets smothered with a shirt,so we can only fly naked? -
Soon we'll have to donate blood before we get on a plane, because some of that blood might be explosive. I've seen people so drunk on planes that they're blood must have been combustible.
-
humans are mostly waterwe are big bags of goo... NO HUMANS ON PLANES!actiually, that WOULD solve the problem
-
I'm pretty sure that most people care. Now if someone could just figure out how to stop terrorism, we'd be all set. Unfortunately, what we (the U.S.) are doing now is breeding more terrorists, most troublingly in Western countries where the Arabic/Islamic communities are culturally isolated, but also throughout most of the Islamic world.Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in early June, and the rate of killing (of civilians) has increased significantly.So you could argue that, so far, "caring" hasn't fixed the underlying problem. We may have intercepted some individual acts of terrorsm, but the underlying problem is still boiling. It's like catching baseballs in the outfield: eventually you're going to miss some. We haven't figured out how to stop the hitters from stepping up to bat.
-
and which "good point" would that be? That we should care?No one said we didn't. We not only care but we've taken action. We have a significant dployment in Afganistan.. part of wich is to clean uip after the US but primarily to protect the normal muslim population from the taliban.The US campagn in iraq is obviously not working yet you keep suggesting that the solution is more.More of the wrong medicine does not a cure make.Pretty near every major country has had it's own home-grown terror groups, including the US, Canada, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Japan etc etc. The problem isn't that "we need to go there and kill them" The problem is "how do we prevent this from starting?"
-
I am not suggesting that we go out and kill anybody, and I doubt A.W. wants that either. Will you stop STEREOTYPING Americans/the US government---afterall there are people in govt. who don't want the war either.(Remember, not everybody even voted for Bush to begin with, so don't act like we all want to go over there and kill people.) People complain about what the US is doing- heck, I don't agree with it all myself, but unless YOUR country is doing something SIGNICANTLY to make a difference (i.e. YOUR LEADERS meeting with Bush, YOUR LEADERS suggesting policies that would actually bring WORLD peace), you're no better than the current American govt!
-
You disagree with US policy as many people do, so make sure YOUR government has a BETTER policy that WORKS. I'm sure when that policy begins, the US govt, seeing another country with a BETTER policy, will follow suit.
-
So you're justifying the actions of the U.S. government by saying that they just couldn't think of anything better?
-
In reply to:
You disagree with US policy as many people do, so make sure YOUR government has a BETTER policy that WORKS. I'm sure when that policy begins, the US govt, seeing another country with a BETTER policy, will follow suit.
The current U.S. policy doesn't seem to be very effective, especially considering its breathtaking cost. Whatever other countries do or don't do, it doesn't change that.
What should the U.S. (and the other countries) do?
-
but you see, I'm not steriotyping the members of the government, I'm simply judjing it by it's actions. I know tha many Americans, in and out of government, disagree with the actions of the Bush admin... so YOU do something about it. Up until recently, our government was diametrically opposed to the Bush admin. Long story short, that changed recently and now we have a PM who is trying despritely to crawl up Bush's ass.We couldn't affect change by opposing Bush, I doubt we'll affect much by supporting him. All we can do is to continue the peace keeping and humanitarion missions we're involved in.
-
I think its retarded that any politician that does anything even remotely friendly to Bush's US then he is "up Bush's ass" or some other phrase with sexual conatation. It makes no sense atall. These politicians side with bush because they believe its the right thing to do. They dont do what bush says because Bush says to do it. They say and do the same things as Bush because they so happen to share his beliefs. Nations need allies, and with the rise of non-American markest the USA is not the only viable option anymore. Thus the only reason our politicians would side with bush is because they genuinely believe in what they and Bush are doing, its nothing to do with being slavish to America. Or is it so incomprehensible that Bush is not infact the only person in the world who has his opinions? Its not possible that some Canadians and Australiands and Britons also happen to feel that military intervention is the way forward?
Stick to the better reasons to put down your politicians alliance with America than crappy and primitive ideas about everyone doing everything America says. Even the most powerful of states has to work with willing partners.
