[Spliffdaddy]

This is surprising to me. All this time I figured most Americans were reluctant to make any sacrifice whatsoever in order to protect this nation.


In general, many Americans say they would be willing to give up some personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.

A 54 percent majority says they would give up some personal freedom, and 36 percent would not.

The number willing to make the trade off between personal freedom and security is down slightly from recent results and, not surprisingly, down significantly from polling conducted soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

In January of this year, 61 percent said they would give up some personal freedom, down from 64 percent who said so last summer (July 2005).

In May 2001, before the attacks, 33 percent of Americans said they would give up some personal freedom; that jumped to a high of 71 percent in October 2001.



BUT...on the other hand - fully one-third of Americans are paranoid, to the extent that they believe their lives are interesting enough that somebody else would even care to waste their time delving into their private lives. The poll doesn't break the responses down into political affiliation, but I'd bet my life that these 1/3rd of Americans are liberal Democrats.


Despite assurances from the president and other government officials to the contrary, nearly one in three Americans think the government is listening to their personal phone conversations.

While a 56 percent majority doesn’t think big brother is listening in, 30 percent think the government is eavesdropping and another 14 percent is unsure.

omg. Is that for real?

full text > FOXNews.com - 05/19/06 FOX News Poll: Public Supports NSA Phone Records Database - Polls | AP Polls | Gallup Poll | Opinion Polls

[Spliffdaddy]

Also, on a semi-related note:

55% of Americans believe Dubya is doing a good job with the war on terror.

Much to the shock of liberals nationwide.

[ghporter]

American veteran here, willing to give up every so-called American who's willing to part with the freedoms bought by their forefathers in blood.

The problem is that "the public" doesn't want to bother to learn about the issues, so if it sounds good, they say "yes." And of course you can always trust Fox's slant on everything-I'd want to see the ACTUAL poll (all the details, not the two-second summary) to see what was really asked, and what the answers were.

But anyone who's willing to say "goodbye" to what I served so long to protect, what my father and father-in-law served to protect (and my father-in-law earned several Purple Hearts in North Africa and Europe doing just that) what my WIFE served to protect, I'll pitch in to send them some place nice and safe...Shanghai? Havana? Their choice.

[Spliffdaddy]

All the poll data is provided via .pdf from the link in my post. Also, the questions asked by the pollsters is shown. That's something you never get from anybody but FOX.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ghporter

American veteran here, willing to give up every so-called American who's willing to part with the freedoms bought by their forefathers in blood.

The problem is that "the public" doesn't want to bother to learn about the issues, so if it sounds good, they say "yes." And of course you can always trust Fox's slant on everything-I'd want to see the ACTUAL poll (all the details, not the two-second summary) to see what was really asked, and what the answers were.

But anyone who's willing to say "goodbye" to what I served so long to protect, what my father and father-in-law served to protect (and my father-in-law earned several Purple Hearts in North Africa and Europe doing just that) what my WIFE served to protect, I'll pitch in to send them some place nice and safe...Shanghai? Havana? Their choice.

Well said and 100% agreed. This is exactly how I feel. And I am not American. Good to know there still are true patriots in the US.

V

[Spliffdaddy]

Americans gave up a lot of freedoms in order to win the past world wars - albeit temporarily.

I don't like the idea of giving up freedoms...but I like the idea of giving up America even less.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Americans gave up a lot of freedoms in order to win the past world wars - albeit temporarily.

I don't like the idea of giving up freedoms...but I like the idea of giving up America even less.

What are you afraid of? Why does this boil down to giving up America? Why would we have to?

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Americans gave up a lot of freedoms in order to win the past world wars - albeit temporarily.

I don't like the idea of giving up freedoms...but I like the idea of giving up America even less.

What freedoms exactly? Where would you draw the line? Can terrorism ever truly be defeated?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What are you afraid of? Why does this boil down to giving up America? Why would we have to?

I believe there's a good chance that if we try to keep all of our freedoms, then we stand a better chance of losing them all. Mostly because the freedoms that we have are the weak point in our defense. All efforts at terrorism seem to be rooted in the exploitation of freedoms granted to Americans. If we weren't free to travel internationally - or to travel between states - if our financial transactions and communications were monitored - then terrorists could not succeed here.

My point is that I'd rather give up certain freedoms in order to make sure there was an America left to defend.

[Chuckit]

Temporarily buckling down is one thing. Simply giving up liberty to eliminate any potential threat from anything is quite another. This willingness to surrender our liberty is a much greater threat to America than a few nutjobs from a third-world dustbowl.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I believe there's a good chance that if we try to keep all of our freedoms, then we stand a better chance of losing them all. Mostly because the freedoms that we have are the weak point in our defense. All efforts at terrorism seem to be rooted in the exploitation of freedoms granted to Americans. If we weren't free to travel internationally - or to travel between states - if our financial transactions and communications were monitored - then terrorists could not succeed here.

My point is that I'd rather give up certain freedoms in order to make sure there was an America left to defend.

I think our weak point is the bureaucratic nature of many of our institutions. Why is it that so many Republicans are so Gung-ho about a free market and free enterprise when many of these institutions (in addition to government institutions) provide weaknesses that can be exploited? Why won't we give up the freedoms of running a business or organization a particular way, rather than only focus on our personal civil liberties?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

We already understand what the Islamic terrorists want.

They want westerners dead.

Maybe we should offer them all of our liberals for sacrifice.
...
So what is it we must give up?

It sounds like you want us to give up our freedoms?

Me, I'm not willing to surrender to the terrorists. I think we should give up not our freedoms, but our oil dependency. Then these countries will have a choice: Either they clean themselves up, stomping out destructive radicalism, or they do nothing and let their economies drop down to the level of Somalia. It doesn't matter to me -- some will prosper and some definitely won't. But without funding from Saudi Arabia and Iran, which in turn comes from gas stations (around the world), terrorism will founder.

[tie]

It's interesting how these polls go. Americans in bulk have some rather contradictory beliefs, and choosing the right surveys to quote can say a lot. Here are some more for you, Spliffdaddy:

"51 percent of those surveyed see no link between the war in Iraq and the broader antiterror effort ... a jump of 10 percentage points since June"

"Fifty-three percent of those polled said that going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 48 percent in July; 62 percent said events were going “somewhat or very badly” in the attempt to bring order and stability to Iraq"

"Mr. Bush recorded a gain of 4 percentage points in how the public views his handling of terrorism, rising to 55 percent approval from 51 percent a week earlier.
...
Mr. Bush’s overall standing was nevertheless unchanged from the previous week, resting at 36 percent approval to 57 percent disapproval"

"Now only 32 percent considered it [Iraq] a major part of the terror fight, while 12 percent rated it a minor part"

link

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Also, on a semi-related note:

55% of Americans believe Dubya is doing a good job with the war on terror.

Much to the shock of liberals nationwide.

Liberals know he's doing a good job on terror, what the right does not understand is the illegal ways he is doing it. And the biggest issue is Iraq that had NOTHING to do with terrorists (9/11 related) UNTIL we invaded them. Afghanistan was where Americans wanted the toops to go to fight, not Iraq. Now we are fighting a civil war that the US shouldn't be in.

[Spliffdaddy]

Amazing how worthless polls really are.

Even on the eve of a presidential election - the poll results end up being wrong....Gore leads by 6%.

I think it has a lot to do with the context of the questions that are asked - along with the general stupidity of Americans.

I've never been polled. In fact, I bet none of us have.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Liberals know he's doing a good job on terror, what the right does not understand is the illegal ways he is doing it. And the biggest issue is Iraq that had NOTHING to do with terrorists (9/11 related) UNTIL we invaded them. Afghanistan was where Americans wanted the toops to go to fight, not Iraq. Now were fighting a civil war that the US shouldn't be in.

Illegal? You haven't bought into that crap have you?

It ain't illegal if there was congressional oversight.

Nobody had a problem when Clinton did the same thing - without congressional oversight.

The constitution only protects us from 'unreasonable' searches - nowhere does it say you need a warrant.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Illegal? You haven't bought into that crap have you?

You wouldnt say that if your wires were tapped and the only person who approved it was some guy who thought you just ' seemed like a terrorist'. Sounds like communism to me when the government has free play on your rights.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I've never been polled. In fact, I bet none of us have.

I have. Twice.

Once in a phone call, once in an actual home visit. Both times the questions were a little restrictive, to say the least.

As an example, it'd be something like this:

How long do you think murderers should get in prison?

A) 5 years.
B) 10 years.
C) 15 years.
D) 20 years.

No option for "permanently".
This wasn't an actual question, but you get the drift.

[Nai no Kami]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I believe there's a good chance that if we try to keep all of our freedoms, then we stand a better chance of losing them all. Mostly because the freedoms that we have are the weak point in our defense. All efforts at terrorism seem to be rooted in the exploitation of freedoms granted to Americans. If we weren't free to travel internationally - or to travel between states - if our financial transactions and communications were monitored - then terrorists could not succeed here.

My point is that I'd rather give up certain freedoms in order to make sure there was an America left to defend.

You are too easy.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

55% of Americans believe Dubya is doing a good job with the war on terror.

Much to the shock of liberals nationwide.

Originally Posted by tie

It's interesting how these polls go. Americans in bulk have some rather contradictory beliefs, and choosing the right surveys to quote can say a lot. Here are some more for you, Spliffdaddy:

"51 percent of those surveyed see no link between the war in Iraq and the broader antiterror effort ... a jump of 10 percentage points since June"

"Fifty-three percent of those polled said that going to war in the first place was a mistake, up from 48 percent in July; 62 percent said events were going “somewhat or very badly” in the attempt to bring order and stability to Iraq"

"Mr. Bush recorded a gain of 4 percentage points in how the public views his handling of terrorism, rising to 55 percent approval from 51 percent a week earlier.
...
Mr. Bush’s overall standing was nevertheless unchanged from the previous week, resting at 36 percent approval to 57 percent disapproval"

"Now only 32 percent considered it [Iraq] a major part of the terror fight, while 12 percent rated it a minor part"

link

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Amazing how worthless polls really are.

Why did you post about the poll in the first place if you think it's worthless? Or are polls only worthwhile when they support your point of view?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

This is surprising to me. All this time I figured most Americans were reluctant to make any sacrifice whatsoever in order to protect this nation.

In better times, people sacrificed their lives for freedom. In modern times, people sacrifice freedom for their lives. Truly, we are no longer "the land of the free and the home of the brave," but a nation of cage-brave cowards. And you are one of them, Spliff.

You think I'm not willing to make a sacrifice? Quite the contrary: I'll put my very life on the line to protect this nation. But "this nation" has a much deeper meaning than a parcel of land, a few historical notes, and a handful of souls. Not many nations can be said to have been founded with a purpose, but the US was: it was founded to make its people free. It hasn't always lived perfectly up to that ideal, but despite a few stains on our history, the purpose has more or less held.

How do I know this? It's quite simple: it's the only advantage we've ever really had over anyone else. God knows we've never had the strongest culture, the best educational system, or the . Except for one point around the end of World War II, we haven't even had the strongest military: even our nuclear arsenals have been eclipsed by others. No; our freedom is really the only we've ever had as a people, and yet look where it has gotten us. Some love our position of wealth and power while others loathe it, but either way, few would deny it's there. Our freedom is the only strength we have, but it's the only strength we need: on the scale of the nation, and on the scale of many of our people, we have shown that with freedom in hand, you can achieve pretty much whatever else you might want, given time and effort. Without that freedom, you can become strong indeed, but there will always be a ceiling you can never break past.

That's what it means to give freedom up; you're giving up opportunity and potential. What could possibly be worth that? In better times, people understood the truth: nothing could be worth it. It's why they were willing to lay down their lives. You say that I and those like me are unwilling to make sacrifices, but truth be told, I think you're the one who's unwilling.

BUT...on the other hand - fully one-third of Americans are paranoid, to the extent that they believe their lives are interesting enough that somebody else would even care to waste their time delving into their private lives.

Only one-third of Americans understand that everyone suffers when freedoms are eroded, not just evildoers? Only one-third of Americans understand that blanket eavesdropping programs don't discriminate based on probable cause or even "interestingness", as you put it? Only one third of Americans understand that yes, even the innocent have things to hide?

The poll doesn't break the responses down into political affiliation, but I'd bet my life that these 1/3rd of Americans are liberal Democrats.

I doubt anyone here would mistake me for a liberal Democrat. I doubt anyone here would mistake me for a liberal at all. Has the center truly shifted so far that suddenly I'm on the left of things? I look back and say the old times were better -a classic conservative viewpoint- and suddenly I'm on the left? Good God, man; what does that make you?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Amazing how worthless polls really are.

Even on the eve of a presidential election - the poll results end up being wrong....Gore leads by 6%.

It didn't get the exact margin right, but it did correctly predict that Gore would win the popular vote, yeah?

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I believe there's a good chance that if we try to keep all of our freedoms, then we stand a better chance of losing them all. Mostly because the freedoms that we have are the weak point in our defense. All efforts at terrorism seem to be rooted in the exploitation of freedoms granted to Americans. If we weren't free to travel internationally - or to travel between states - if our financial transactions and communications were monitored - then terrorists could not succeed here.

My point is that I'd rather give up certain freedoms in order to make sure there was an America left to defend.

The way I see it, terrorists have been and are infiltrating our country to live as civilians so that they can kill us. They are being organized from outside of our borders. The FBI is in charge of domestic crimes and the CIA works outside of our borders. The CIA can gather information within the U.S., but cannot investigate or prosecute. Only the FBI can investigate and prosecute within the U.S. So what sense does it make to have a "wall" put up between these two agencies? The FBI can't do anything outside of our borders (where the organizational structures of terrorism lie) and the CIA cannot do much inside our borders (where the terrorists are living as civilians with the same protections we all have).

At some point, we are going to have to decide if those coming here are entitled to the same civil liberties as we Americans are. Otherwise, we will continue to get attacked here at home and some day we will be talking about acts much more destructive and lethal than those on 911. That is the balancing act we are faced with whether we like it or not. If our govt would stop letting in droves of immigrants for the sake of commerce and the economic benefits to business, we might be able to get this mess under control.

What does get under my skin is how some Americans define as their civil liberties. When I hear complaints about not being able to take nail clippers on airplanes I have to think that they are confusing civil liberties with convenience. That might be inconvenient, but it's not a loss in civil liberties.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My point is that I'd rather give up certain freedoms in order to make sure there was an America left to defend.

What's left of America to defend when you strip away liberty?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

At some point, we are going to have to decide if those coming here are entitled to the same civil liberties as we Americans are. Otherwise, we will continue to get attacked here at home and some day we will be talking about acts much more destructive and lethal than those on 911. That is the balancing act we are faced with whether we like it or not. If our govt would stop letting in droves of immigrants for the sake of commerce and the economic benefits to business, we might be able to get this mess under control.

Immigrants have nothing to do with the war on terror, it's a disparate problem. Last time I checked, I don't know of any Mexicans who came to the US as terrorists

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

What does get under my skin is how some Americans define as their civil liberties. When I hear complaints about not being able to take nail clippers on airplanes I have to think that they are confusing civil liberties with convenience. That might be inconvenient, but it's not a loss in civil liberties.

I don't think this is what most of us think of when we discussing the curbing of civil liberties.

@Millenium:

[D. S. Troyer]

Scary!

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by itai195

What's left of America to defend when you strip away liberty?

Ummm....America when the liberties come back? Similar to pre/post WW2 maybe? There are times for tight control and there are times when controls are eased...it's the way it has always been.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Ummm....America when the liberties come back? Similar to pre/post WW2 maybe? There are times for tight control and there are times when controls are eased...it's the way it has always been.

That was then, this is now.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by D. S. Troyer

That was then, this is now.

Ever taken a history class there junior?

[christ]

Originally Posted by Millennium

In better times, people sacrificed their lives for freedom. In modern times, people sacrifice freedom for their lives.

This is the best analysis that I have seen of the US(/UK) approach to the War on Terror.

It is the coward's approach, as perfected by playground bullies the world over.

[christ]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Ummm....America when the liberties come back? Similar to pre/post WW2 maybe? There are times for tight control and there are times when controls are eased...it's the way it has always been.

When will the "War on Terror" be over? Aren't the liberties being taken away to stop it? Won't that mean that when the liberties return, the nasty men come back? It implies to me that the intent of the current round of liberty removals is intended to be permanent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My point is that I'd rather give up certain freedoms in order to make sure there was an America left to defend.

This is like leap out the screen and bitchslap yo' mamma ironic.

Twice.

[DBursey]

I'm reminded of Ben Franklins famously quotable musings on the mode of thought as espoused in this thread.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Ummm....America when the liberties come back? Similar to pre/post WW2 maybe? There are times for tight control and there are times when controls are eased...it's the way it has always been.

I find it interesting that in a discussion on freedom/liberty you articulate your points in terms of "control" as if government control over our lives is the norm and all that has changed recently is how much control they have. I get worried when people talk about government control over its citizens as a normal experience.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Ummm....America when the liberties come back? Similar to pre/post WW2 maybe? There are times for tight control and there are times when controls are eased...it's the way it has always been.

Why do you insist on comparing things that are distinctly different? There is no nation of terrorists, you can't even properly say when the war on terror ends … Plus, there is no hope that the terrorists will ever win (unless you do give up your civil liberties and change your way of life).

Also, do you really think of liberties in this manner: that pre-9/11 was a time when the controls (of civil liberties) were eased? Wow.

[himself]

"When the people fear the ‘government,’ that is tyranny. When the ‘government’ fears the people, that is liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

also (the sig)...

[Dr Reducto]

It's funny how the famous Ben Franklin quote was adopted by the right during the Clinton years (espescially with regards to gun control in the wake of Columbine), but now it's the rallying cry of the moveon.org crowd

[medicineman]

[QUOTE=Millennium]In better times, people sacrificed their lives for freedom. In modern times, people sacrifice freedom for their lives. ...

Interesting post. Yet, you have to define what 'freedom' is. You can argue in the abstract and ethereal or the real world and the practical.

Is freedom the ability to go about your daily life without interference? I believe most people do that. Or is it the freedom to open a business, or the steps you must take to do so? Or to maintain that business? To engage in social or political activities? All these actions have rules (laws) associated with them, so as such, freedom is restricted.

Or is freedom the ability to keep your life private? The idea of a private life is an illusion. The amount of information you give up in tax reports and census forms is immense. Your life is transparant. Add to that the data collected by phone companies and credit/banking institutions, and there is precious little left to hide.

The one saving grace may be that this information is not concentrated in one location, or manipulated by one entity.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by christ

When will the "War on Terror" be over? Aren't the liberties being taken away to stop it? Won't that mean that when the liberties return, the nasty men come back? It implies to me that the intent of the current round of liberty removals is intended to be permanent.

I don't know when the WOT will be over.

Some liberties (which don't seem to affect me) are suspended. My life is no different than pre 9/11.

When WW2 ended, was there/is there a chance that another facist dictator could come to power somewhere in the world and threaten us?

It wasn't permanent after WW2.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I find it interesting that in a discussion on freedom/liberty you articulate your points in terms of "control" as if government control over our lives is the norm and all that has changed recently is how much control they have. I get worried when people talk about government control over its citizens as a normal experience.

There always has to be some degree of control by a government, right? So yes, it is a normal experience.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Why do you insist on comparing things that are distinctly different? There is no nation of terrorists, you can't even properly say when the war on terror ends … Plus, there is no hope that the terrorists will ever win (unless you do give up your civil liberties and change your way of life).

Also, do you really think of liberties in this manner: that pre-9/11 was a time when the controls (of civil liberties) were eased? Wow.

I insist on comparing them because both create a threat to the citizens of the US (and other countries, but we're not talking about them in this case).

You are correct. There is no nation of terrorists. And no, I can't say when the WOT will end...and I doubt anyone knew when WW2 would end either.

This "war" isn't about winning, it's about combating and effectively restricting the ability of people who hate us from attacking and killing US citizens and US interests. There will always be people who hate us.

If when you speak of pre-9/11 being just after WW2, then yes...controls of civil liberties were eased after WW2 when the threat of the Axis powers was eliminated. Some civil liberties have tighter controls now because there is once again a threat against the US

What control of civil liberties is bothering you right now?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by idjeff

When WW2 ended, was there/is there a chance that another facist dictator could come to power somewhere in the world and threaten us?

What about Stalin? Well, he wasn't a fascist, but a communist dictator, I give you that.

Your analogy just doesn't hold. Neither are some of the human rights violations (e. g. the internment camps for Japanese-Americans) something Americans are proud of. I find the idea that civil liberties are to be regulated by the state very un-American. Current events remind me of the communist scare: hysterical people with no clear idea of what to do are in power. Fortunately the endless reminders that we are `in a war (on terror) and hence we need to keep on doing what we are doing' wears off, especially when it is repeated time and again.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by idjeff

You are correct. There is no nation of terrorists. And no, I can't say when the WOT will end...and I doubt anyone knew when WW2 would end either.

They didn't know when, but they knew what the goal was.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by idjeff

I insist on comparing them because both create a threat to the citizens of the US (and other countries, but we're not talking about them in this case).

And there are many other threats to our countries: natural disasters, competition for resources, the list goes on and on. If you compare the efforts put into the war on terror to similar efforts to reduce risks in other areas, what conclusion do you draw?

These threats won't end either.

Originally Posted by idjeff

You are correct. There is no nation of terrorists. And no, I can't say when the WOT will end...and I doubt anyone knew when WW2 would end either.

That's not true. It was decided at the conference of Jalta that WW2 is over as soon as Germany unconditionally surrenders. Perhaps they didn't know when exactly that would be, but since WW2 was a conventional war, it was perfectly clear when it would end.

Since there is no nation of terrorists, you cannot even define when there is a cessation of hostilities.

Originally Posted by idjeff

This "war" isn't about winning, it's about combating and effectively restricting the ability of people who hate us from attacking and killing US citizens and US interests. There will always be people who hate us.

If you don't even want to win a war, then you have lost it already. There have always been people who hate Americans/Westerners and probably always will be. So?

There is no war on terror, perhaps a war on Al Quaida, Hezbollah, the insurgents in Iraq.

Originally Posted by idjeff

If when you speak of pre-9/11 being just after WW2, then yes...controls of civil liberties were eased after WW2 when the threat of the Axis powers was eliminated. Some civil liberties have tighter controls now because there is once again a threat against the US

A neverending threat at that.
Threats are not an excuse to bend or break laws. I'm not arguing it doesn't happen, but rather that it shouldn't happen. Legislature and judiciary seemed to have been in a state of shock up until recently … (even though all branches of government have been in Republican hands).

Originally Posted by idjeff

What control of civil liberties is bothering you right now?

That I will have to give my finger prints to the American government next March, for instance. I don't have a criminal record (which is checked during the visa procedures anyway), and I don't like to feel like one.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

What about Stalin? Well, he wasn't a fascist, but a communist dictator, I give you that.

Your analogy just doesn't hold. Neither are some of the human rights violations (e. g. the internment camps for Japanese-Americans) something Americans are proud of. I find the idea that civil liberties are to be regulated by the state very un-American. Current events remind me of the communist scare: hysterical people with no clear idea of what to do are in power. Fortunately the endless reminders that we are `in a war (on terror) and hence we need to keep on doing what we are doing' wears off, especially when it is repeated time and again.

Yes, Stalin was a threat, yet that's history. I was talking about future threats. The future hasn't been written so we have yet to see what lies in store for us. I mean WW1 was "the war to end all wars"...

Look, I'm not saying that interning people is the correct course of action-such as what was done to the japanese-americans in WW2. That would be the extreme removal of civil liberties--basically imprisoning citizens to "watch" them. But you see, we aren't even close to that situation at moment, are we? I don't see "american-muslims" being rounded up and placed into internment camps just because they're american-muslims, do you? Could it happen? Of course.

We entrust our government to do what's best for us right? The US will do whatever it needs to do to survive, even removing civil liberties. Is the government always right? Of course not.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by itai195

They didn't know when, but they knew what the goal was.

I believe we know what the goal is now too.

[porieux]

...

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

And there are many other threats to our countries: natural disasters, competition for resources, the list goes on and on. If you compare the efforts put into the war on terror to similar efforts to reduce risks in other areas, what conclusion do you draw?

These threats won't end either.

Now that's just silly. I'm talking about pre-meditated threats with the ability to capitalize on said threats.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

That's not true. It was decided at the conference of Jalta that WW2 is over as soon as Germany unconditionally surrenders. Perhaps they didn't know when exactly that would be, but since WW2 was a conventional war, it was perfectly clear when it would end.

Since there is no nation of terrorists, you cannot even define when there is a cessation of hostilities.

So it is true then...they didn't know "when" it would end. That's true though...you cannot define when there will be a cessation of hostilities.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If you don't even want to win a war, then you have lost it already. There have always been people who hate Americans/Westerners and probably always will be. So?
There is no war on terror, perhaps a war on Al Quaida, Hezbollah, the insurgents in Iraq.

This is not a conventional war. That's why I say its not about winning...I mean, what do you get if you win? We are trying to stop a threat.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

A neverending threat at that.
Threats are not an excuse to bend or break laws. I'm not arguing it doesn't happen, but rather that it shouldn't happen. Legislature and judiciary seemed to have been in a state of shock up until recently … (even though all branches of government have been in Republican hands).

That I will have to give my finger prints to the American government next March, for instance. I don't have a criminal record (which is checked during the visa procedures anyway), and I don't like to feel like one.

Why does that make you feel like a criminal? Because you've seen people fingerprinted on TV?

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by porieux

>> In general, many Americans say they would be willing to give up some personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.

Well, they should lock themselves in prison and/or kill themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.

Out of what?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by idjeff

Now that's just silly. I'm talking about pre-meditated threats with the ability to capitalize on said threats. ?

No, it's not silly. I was criticizing the media frenzy around the so-called war on terror. Politicians focus on this subject when they have plenty of other things to worry about.

Originally Posted by idjeff

So it is true then...they didn't know "when" it would end. That's true though...you cannot define when there will be a cessation of hostilities. ?

No, it's not true.
You know when a conventional war is over: as soon as there is a cease-fire agreement or all your opponents are dead. You can also see progress clearly: you can take over towns and cities, destroy the enemy's factories and military, you can see progress and you can measure how many of your goals have been achieved.

There are no such attainable goals in the so-called war on terror. That's why the whole war metaphor that has been used by the current administration now comes around to hit them back. `Them' is the Congress men and Senators who are up for election pretty soon and the voters finally want to have answers.

As a matter of fact, there is no big difference between what (not how) was done before, the US has dealt with terrorists before, Iraq had been invaded before by Bush Sr. There have been other large-scale terrorist attacks that could have cost as many lives as in 9/11 or even more. The only new part of the equation is the way it is presented to the people: as something new with a clearly defined enemy (`Islamo fascists who hate us').

And this is supposedly a good justification for having a tighter grip on civil liberties, especially without proper checks and balances?

Originally Posted by idjeff

This is not a conventional war. That's why I say its not about winning...I mean, what do you get if you win? We are trying to stop a threat. ?

No, you are not even going to stop a threat. With this war, the only thing you can do is lose without actually losing. The US is not going to be invaded by terrorists. Terrorists use terror because they cannot win a conflict with conventional means.

Unless you give up your freedom, the terrorists have no way to win.

Originally Posted by idjeff

Why does that make you feel like a criminal? Because you've seen people fingerprinted on TV?

Eh, no. Where I come from, only criminals are finger-printed. I'm not a criminal and I don't like being treated like one.