Who do you think is the biggest threat to America?

[Alastor]

Nemo, once again, while I don't feel that's nearly the threat of nuclear proliferation (among other issues), it's a well written post and right on the money.

 

[Nemo]

Thank you. And, you are certainly correct - the more so considering the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of religious fanatics and extremists.

 

[Navy Pride]

You know - I'm with you on the folly of treating terrorists like a police action, but without the terrorists themselves, we wouldn't even be needing to have this discussion. And besides, I don't see democrats flying airplanes into buildings.

On the poll - I voted for terrorists still. Although "still" can mean for about 15 years (since the fall of the USSR), which in historical terms is not very long.

The recent quote from the Chinese politician saying they'd respond to our helping Taiwan in a war with nuclear weapons is scary. But the terrorists are mainly religious suicidal fanatics - and its very hard to negotiate with them. I think that will be more able to talk with China.

The problem is if you get a Liberal like Kerry or Clinton as president they just ignore terrorist attacks like the first trade center od the bombing of the USS Cole...........

It is great to have a president who will not do that and who believes its better to fight terrorism in the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq then in the streets od NYC........

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

The problem is if you get a Liberal like Kerry or Clinton as president they just ignore terrorist attacks like the first trade center od the bombing of the USS Cole...........

It is great to have a president who will not do that and who believes its better to fight terrorism in the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq then in the streets od NYC........

What's with all of the periods? 3 may be necessary, but any more than that, your index finger is working too hard.

I would rather have a president who was unproductive, like Kerry or Clinton, than one who is counter-productive like Bush. Displacing a million people in Afghanistan many of which who died of exposure and starvation, does not solve this problem. It escalates it.

 

[Hoot]

The problem is if you get a Liberal like Kerry or Clinton as president they just ignore terrorist attacks like the first trade center od the bombing of the USS Cole...........

It is great to have a president who will not do that and who believes its better to fight terrorism in the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq then in the streets od NYC........

Absolutely ridiculous...no matter how many times the info is posted in this forum we still have partisans who proclaim with all their patriotic fervor that Clinton did nothing against terrorism.

Nothing could be further from the truth...the real truth is Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any President in history and was fought tooth and nail by the republican congress every step of the way.

The real truth is Bush did nothing for 9 months until the events of 9/11 and then was forced to take action. And how does Bush take action? By attacking a country that never attacked us and was never involved in the events of 9/11.

 

[cnredd]

Nothing could be further from the truth...the real truth is Clinton did more to combat terrorism than any President in history and was fought tooth and nail by the republican congress every step of the way.

I think Clinton was wrong for not doing enough to fight terrorism....
He let small acts of terrorism go by, which led the terrorists to
get bigger nads and go further, Clinton still did nothing, the
terrorist acts got larger, still nothing...

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed...the intention was
not to kill 6 people...it was to take down the whole damn thing!...
Problem was, it was poorly scripted by the terrorists and its
objective wasn't acheived. If it did, there would have been NO
extra hour for the building collapse; it would have been immediate
(seeing how it would've taken out the foundation).There would
have been hardly any time to evacuate, and the death toll would
have EASILY reached tens of thousands...thousands MORE if the
tower fell in a certain direction.

Clinton doesn't get hammered by most on the left SIMPLY because the PLAN DIDN'T WORK RIGHT.

 

[Alastor]

Clinton doesn't get hammered by most on the left SIMPLY because the PLAN DIDN'T WORK RIGHT.

I actually agree with that statement. Clinton gets off the hook because it didn't work. Meanwhile Bush gets off the hook for a bogus war because it did work. Simultaneously, Al Gore is pigeon-holed as someone that wouldn't have responded well to 9-11, because it didn't happen under his leadership when in reality, I think he'd have acted similarly to Bush, minus the Iraqi debacle.

So I agree, but partisan politics beget one another. At some stage the cycle must be broken.

Clinton did do a lot to quell terrorism. Sometimes you have to let them get away with it - retaliations only add fuel to the fire (ask Israel). Meanwhile, when we did strike back, we did it so badly that Afghanistan is now a complete mess, with Warlords controlling most of the nation; warlords that are not US friendly I might add.

Not to mention that the current course of action in Iraq and Afghanistan have bolstered Al-Qaida's numbers and resources for them, since we went in like bulls in a china shop and tripped over our own pee-pees.

One could easily argue that Bush has done more to help terrorism than any President since Reagan, or perhaps ever.

So... if we're interested in laying blame and being honest, let's do it all around and not just for one side or the other.

I agree that Clinton got off the hook because the plan to blow up the WTC under his administration didn't work. I also agree that Clinton made great strides in the war against terror, even before it was the chief issue in the nation.

 

[cnredd]

I agree that Clinton got off the hook because the plan to blow up the WTC under his administration didn't work. I also agree that Clinton made great strides in the war against terror, even before it was the chief issue in the nation.

And an example of this "great stride" would be?

 

[Alastor]

And an example of this "great stride" would be?

Well, for starters he didn't agitate any of the situations as we're currently doing. This wouldn't be much of an accomplishment, except that everyone other than Clinton has done just that - stirred it up worse.

Kosovo is a good example though, of a time we stepped in and prevented a catastrophe that otherwise surely would have turned into a terrorist hot-bed as the Muslim population did whatever it took to get the help they needed.

The peace talks with Arafat and Barak at the end of his Presidency, while they didn't result in much on paper, sent out strong messages. He did manage the Middle East crisis rather well while he was in office too.

Economically and politically he gave other nations many more avenues to approach the problem - going more after the source of terrorism and doing his best to pressure those he could into giving their people a larger political voice.

And other instances too.

 

[robin]

I think America is the biggest threat to America.
Her policies abroad have brought her to where she is so hated.
You can't expect to tramps over everyone trying to protect your interests in other people's countries with impunity.
Please don't come back with 'your an American hater' or 'you want to appease terrorists'. I despise wicked people whether they be the bad apples in American society or politics or in Muslim society.
I'm just telling it as I see it.

 

[cnredd]

I think America is the biggest threat to America.
Her policies abroad have brought her to where she is so hated.
You can't expect to tramps over everyone trying to protect your interests in other people's countries with impunity.
Please don't come back with 'your an American hater' or 'you want to appease terrorists'. I despise wicked people whether they be the bad apples in American society or politics or in Muslim society.
I'm just telling it as I see it.

Muslim extremists do not want the US security forces on Arab land.
But the leaders of these Arab lands requested the US to secure their oil fields, due to the terrorists wanting the leaders to lose their power so they can take over.

Western Europe gets most of its oil from these same Arab lands, yet provide NO security to the oil fields they NEED to economically survive.

So if the US DIDN'T defend these oil fields, and the terrorists overran them, and destroyed the leadership that now sends oil to Western Europe, how long would it take for these European nations to econimically crumble?

Any more importantly, why does Western Europe hate America for it?

PS - 9/11, as well as many other attacks, were before the invasion of Iraq, so any reference to it will be deemed "irrelevant". The terrorists have wanted the US to stop from protecting Middle Eastern oil fields LONG before Iraq

 

[cnredd]

You did everything possible to get out your hatred....

But you STILL didn't answer the post's question...

So if the US DIDN'T defend these oil fields, and the terrorists overran them, and destroyed the leadership that now sends oil to Western Europe, how long would it take for these European nations to econimically crumble?

 

[cnredd]

I think a better question would be how long it would take for those middle eastern country's economies to crumble worse than they already have.

Nope...they'd just divert the barrels currently going to Western Europe to India & China, who will have the demand for quite a few more years.

 

[teacher]

Hey cnredd.

It that a Christmas Mr. Hanky as you avatar?

 

[cnredd]

Why, yes it is...

Just remember...I love him, and he loves you...
Therefore, vicariously, I love you...even if you're a poo!

 

[teacher]

Why, yes it is...

Just remember...I love him, and he loves you...
Therefore, vicariously, I love you...even if you're a poo!

Why thank you. Speaking of poo guess what my monkey army is becoming very skilled at flinging?

 

[Fantasea]

Who do you think is the biggest threat to America?

I had to vote "other".
Nor do I think it is a "who" but a what.

I think the biggest threat to American is the lack of a thorough and sound education.

I don't know what you're complaining about. The public education system delivers the best education possible through the combined resistive efforts of the teachers unions, the ACLU, and the politically correct libs.

After all, what can you expect when you only spend a national average of $10,000 a year on kids K-12.

Some colleges don't even spend that much.

If my sarcasm isn't sufficiently apparent, please re-read until it is.

Maybe this trio is the biggest ongoing threat to America.

 

[Nemo]

Karl Rove: He would sacrifice national security for political expediency.

 

[tanenger]

Karl Rove: He would sacrifice national security for political expediency.

George W Bush

 

[NoobieDoobieDo]

Other please specify :

The biggest threat to America is America.

 

[tanenger]

Better to treat terrorists as a police action than to treat Americans as a police action.

 

[teacher]

Who do you think is the biggest threat to America?

Corporate boardroom members, lobbyists, and bought and paid for politicians.

Something defiantly needs to be done about wages in this country. Dems and Repubs alike are beholden to the dollar.

 

[teacher]

Other please specify :

The biggest threat to America is America.

Could you kinda be like....more specific. I've been in the basement a while.


How about here.....Billo?

 

[Youve Got To Be Kidding!]

GEORGE W BUSH AND CO.

 

[FiremanRyan]

short term:the biggest threat is our ourselves. we appease illegal (not legal) immigrants who suck the blood out of our culture and economy, not to mention compromise our national security. we fail to find solutions to eliminate world poverty. instead we send millions of dollars to N. Korea, a plenty capable country that spends all its money on its military, leaving nothing for the people. we continually shell out aid money to countries without attacking the problem at the root (give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime). we aren't putting enough energy into Iraq and getting them on their feet, which in turn means less money toward the war on terror, a potential long-term threat. were slowly moving towards big government and backing away from out capitalist 'upbringing'. everyone wonder why there are more and more problems each year?

America is losing its identity. becoming another 'face in the crowd'.