Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > US safer?

US safer?
Thread Tools
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 02:12 PM
 
Do you think the US is any safer today from a terrorist act today than it was a year ago?

Do you think it will be safer in 2003?



My answer:

No, and No. Why?


1. A false sense of security has been built. Everyone thinks the other person is keeping their eyes out. The government expects that people will inform them, people expect the government to inform them.

As thousands of statistics show, most are on the lookout for a group of Arabic Males on planes. What makes people believe a terorist would try the same attack twice when they never repeated before? Everyone including the feds seem to think so. They are always creative, yet we look at the obvious, and intentionally don't think outside the box to give them the advantage.

What will the next attack be? Very different, and I wouldn't be suprised if old Bin Laden uses someone different than Arabic males, either females, or White people who joined the taliban just like Jihad Johnny. There are dozens of them. I think he will use one of them because they could walk on a plane with TNT strapped to their chest on 9/11/02 without anyone even giving them a second look. It's true, look at the news. Whenever you hear about an airport screener screwing up, it's always a white guy. And I am sure Al-Queda made a note of this.

A security blanket eventually wears off. Just like it did on 9/11. Everyone thought the US was invincible before then because we beat WWII after Perl Harbor. Nobody would mess with us again... And it happened.... Learn from mistakes? I wish that would happen.

Will the US be safer in 2003? Slightly because of military buildup, provided the Iraq crisis is averted and we don't destabilize the region further.

Anyone else? Anyone care to think outside the box?
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 02:27 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Anyone care to think outside the box?
Hell no. It's way too comfy in here!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 04:43 PM
 
It's like splitting hairs with a sledge hammer -- the wrong tool for the job.

The military activity will make the people in America happy -- but safer? I don't think so.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
macvillage.net  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 05:06 PM
 
What we need is some common sense in the government, something that doesn't exist as of now. We have irrational-triger-finger-happy Bush, Comrad Ashcroft, and the one soft spoken Colin Powell, who is scared everyone else in the administration.


A George Bush Sr., Ronny Reagan, Jimmy Carter, or even a Clinton would at least be able to calm some of the tension and steer the country from the path of disaster, and maybe this time unlike when they were president, the country is now ready to listen.


It's a shame 3,000 people died on Sept 11th to show the US that it has no sense of World Politics, and that the average American doesn't know what's beyond the horizon. It would be a real shame if another American needs to die to wake the US up. You would think people would shut up with the Patriotism and think for a second.... Perhaps if people are willing to die to get our attention, something is seriously wrong in the world? Perhaps if the US and Israel are threating to use weapons of mass distruction on a daily basis something is going on? Perhaps if people are willing to commit suicide to send a message, and consider that better than living shows something is wrong in part of the world?


Unless the history books toally made up WWI and WWII, we are on the brink of WWIII. The economy, world politics, tensions, all point to it.

-The economy is similar
-The world is taking sides
-Last minute appeals in a world forum (UN this time)
-Catalyst Action (9/11)
-Dictators/Dangerious Leaders (Sadam,Sharon,Arafat,Bush) all willing to use whatever force necessary to achieve political goals rather than ease tensions, even if it is a weapon of mass distruction or a suicide bomber (which as we all know can be a weapon of mass distruction)
-Prejudice society outcasting based on -race/religion (arab hatred world wide, arab feeling of insecurity towards western world).

Yet NOBODY sees any problems as of yet. Bush still promotes that the world is looking good, we are winning, and the economy is fine. Sharon claims he is winning, Arafat claims he can go on forever, Sadam thinks he's unstopable.

Everything is in place.


And war is the wrong tool. Everything being done right now is wrong. No attempt yet has been made to simply defuse the bomb. We just put bigger bombs next to each other to blow up the other one. Why not just pull the plug?


Not to mention the UN is completely useless and should be disbanned and replaced with something that actually has some force.
     
AlbertWu
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: boulder, co
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 05:15 PM
 
wow, right on schedule! if all goes according to plan, 600 million people will be dead, and the warp drive will be invented in montana in 28 years!
Ad Astra Per Aspera - Semper Exploro
     
pornstar
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 06:04 PM
 
macvillage, you aren't making sense.

Powell has more influence than Ashcroft on foreign policy.

The US isn't threatening to use weapons of mass destruction like nukes or bios. and just because someone is willing to kill themselves doesn't mean that they have a good point.

WWIII would require a global group who could fight against all of NATO. There is none. We were much closer during the cold war.

You say the UN is useless because it doesn't have force AND you say that force isn't the answer. Hello...how many of you are there in there?
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 06:06 PM
 
That we weren't "safe" a year ago was nothing but propaganda so Ashcroft could get the treasonous so-called "PATRIOT Act" passed.

What most people don't realize is that the gonvernment gets roughly ten to twenty threats of terrorism per day. Their job is to sort out the real ones from the hoaxes, and then go after the genuine threats. And yet in all of 2001, only one attack got through. A big one, yes, but only one. That's a 99.97% success rate for that year alone, at the low estimate. You can't ask for better than that. And no government, no matter how powerful, can give better than that. The terrorists got a big break. One that, even at pre-9/11 security levels, we wouldn't ever see again in our lifetimes, nor our children's.

No. We're not any safer. Only the nature of the threat has changed; rather than fearing terrorists, now it's our own government that we should be fearing.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Mac Zealot
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Vallejo, Ca.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 06:09 PM
 
Bush is very trigger-happy and wants to do some stupid things.

Anyway, no, US is not safe, right now I'd rather be chilling in canada or something, and if I hear about nuclear bombs headed to the US, that's where I'm going

Patriotism my arse.

*shrug* otherwise, we're just as safe today as we were yesterday
In a realm beyond site, the sky shines gold, not blue, there the Triforce's might makes mortal dreams come true.
     
macvillage.net  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 07:41 PM
 
Originally posted by pornstar:
macvillage, you aren't making sense.

Powell has more influence than Ashcroft on foreign policy.

Should have more influence.... But it is clear who Bush listens to. It's clear that Powell has given up as a result.
The US isn't threatening to use weapons of mass destruction like nukes or bios. and just because someone is willing to kill themselves doesn't mean that they have a good point.
Bush as stated it multiple times. And your right killing yourself doens't mean that it's a "good point" but one that someone feels very devout about..... Enough to give their life for. I don't see people killing themselves to destroy a refinery poluting the air, I don't see people that serious about abortion.... They obviously have really crummy lives where they are from if they resort to this.


WWIII would require a global group who could fight against all of NATO. There is none. We were much closer during the cold war.
Not really, the Arab world has oil, which powers the economy which funds Nato... cut the power at the source (literally) and NATO would be imobalized for years. NATO also has to much politics that doesn't exist in the corrupt Arab political environment where only a few people are truly involved.

You say the UN is useless because it doesn't have force AND you say that force isn't the answer. Hello...how many of you are there in there?
UN has no force, they are a forum for political talk to boost ratings. That's all.... What's really needed is true political force that ment something. Right now NATO would be the best bet. NATO's charter is a bit more binding than the UN, which is just a load of BS.


Millenium also makes a good point.

You don't hear about the sucess stories, (the other 1000 times they stopped Al-Queda's attempts at destroying the WTC) you just hear the blunders.
     
macvillage.net  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 07:43 PM
 
IRAQ TO ACCEPT INSPECTIONS:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._mi_ea/un_iraq


It appears Iraq has decided to comply.... Hmm... this could change things.


Could they really mean it?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2002, 11:34 PM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
IRAQ TO ACCEPT INSPECTIONS:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._mi_ea/un_iraq


It appears Iraq has decided to comply.... Hmm... this could change things.


Could they really mean it?

hahaha

um. no, they don't mean it this time.

perhaps next time, tho.
     
DrSpookles
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2002, 12:06 AM
 
I mean, when you look at the Homeland Security department shortly established after the attacks, you can only hope that the next attack is not as embarrassing. I'm sure they have done a lot (??), but to be honest, all that I've seen from that is a Lite-Brite-esq color coding of the terror threats.

What?

If it were up to me, if I had to tell the nation about a rainbow-flavored spectrum of threats, I would introduce a code brown. At least then you'd know if you were about to s*** your pants or not.

-DrSpk
iChat/AOL: DJTcl
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2002, 05:04 AM
 
I somewhat agree with Macvillage.net.

� The UN really has no power, and very little influence. Afterall, the member nations can easily drop out. And not even the United States is paying it's dues.

� I think for the UN to have any real power, it needs it's own state. An island in the pacific somewhere. They can have their own Defence Force, International Police Force, 'World Parliment' etc. The island would be 'uber developed' and paid for by the richer member countries.

� None of the world is safe from terrorism, anyone that thinks they are is stupid.

� To tell you the truth, I support what the American government is doing, they may not be perfect but they are on the right track. Suddam Hussein has be to be taken out of power ASAP. Even if he is not developing weapons of mass destruction, his regime is suppressive and .... evil.

OK, I've said enough.
In vino veritas.
     
macvillage.net  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2002, 10:04 AM
 
The UN is a good theory. But will never work since nobody is obligated to do anything.

If it was it's own state, maybe.... and everyone who became part would be obligated to go with it's policies. Regardless. If the UN decided to take out Sadam, if you like it or not, your country is at war. And the same goes if it does not want war. Only then would it be effective. This "talk" doesn't do anything. Sadam is laughing that we first fight a war with the UN before we can touch him.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2002, 10:57 AM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The UN is a good theory. But will never work since nobody is obligated to do anything.
Actually, that is not true. Article 49 of the UN Charter states that:

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
Notice the use of the word "shall." That's legalese for "must, no argument allowed." There are also provisions in Article 44, and 45 requiring members to make their armed forces available to the Security Council, and there is a general provision in Article II requiring support for UN actions.
     
macvillage.net  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2002, 11:10 AM
 
And that is enforsed?


Has it ever? Even been used as a reminder?


Nope.


The UN is about as politically active as this forum.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2002, 11:16 AM
 
Originally posted by macvillage.net:
And that is enforsed?
Has it ever? Even been used as a reminder?
Nope.
The UN is about as politically active as this forum.
It is enforced in the sense that nations feel the political weight that a UN Resolution carries. That's why Saudi Arabia, for example, said this week that it would allow a UN authorized attack to be launched from its territory. Saudi Arabia explicitly said this would be becase its UN Charter obligations would mandate the cooperation. There are also many other less dramatic examples, for example in the enforcement of UN Security Council-mandated embargoes. These are generally honored by members of the UN.

Just because you don't see pressure out in the open doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Sep 17, 2002 at 11:21 AM. )
     
nredman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Minnesota - Twins Territory
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2002, 05:37 PM
 
at least we now somewhat recognize that there are alot of freaks in the world who like to kill themselves and others...i have stopped thinking about it...the world isnt a safe place...it never will be.

"I'm for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniel's."
     
putamare
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYF'nC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2002, 06:20 PM
 
There certainly are more likely ways to die: cigarettes, fatty foods, salt, automobiles, natural disasters, cancer, HIV.

Ten Leading Causes of Death in the U.S. Preliminary 2000 data:
Heart Disease: 709,894
Cancer: 551,833
Stroke: 166,028
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease: 123,550
Accidents: 93,592
Diabetes: 68,662
Pneumonia/Influenza: 67,024
Alzheimer's Disease: 49,044
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 37,672
Septicemia: 31,613
Source: National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 12

Ten Leading Causes of Death in the U.S. Final 1999 data:
Heart Disease: 725,192
Cancer: 549,838
Cerebrovascular diseases: 167,366
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,181
Accidents: 97,860
Diabetes: 68,399
Influenza and pneumonia: 63,730
Alzheimer's disease: 44,536
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 35,525
Septicemia: 30,680
Source: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 49, No. 11

Jim Rockford was beaten repeatedly for your entertainment.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:34 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,