It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In the months following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, many expected an immediate attack against the West Coast. Fear gripped the country and a wave of hysterical antipathy against the Japanese engulfed the Pacific Coast.
The FBI quickly began rounding up any and all "suspicious" Japanese for internment. None was ever charged with any crime. Almost all were simply Japanese community leaders, Buddhist or Shinto priests, newspaper editors, language or Judo instructors, or labor organizers. The Japanese community leadership was liquidated in one quick operation.
Nixon declares war on drugs.
At a press conference Nixon names drug abuse as "public enemy number one in the United States." He announces the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), to be headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe, a leading methadone treatment specialist. During the Nixon era, for the only time in the history of the war on drugs, the majority of funding goes towards treatment, rather than law enforcement.
Extremely heated debate developed in the United States beginning on or around September 11, 2001. A significant percentage of Americans were found by polls to favor formal declarations of war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terror network; their requests were largely pushed aside as "uninformed" by the White House. They since began to argue that the recent Second Gulf War was unconstitutional, because it lacked a clear declaration of war, and was waged over the objection of a significantly sized demographic in the United States.
Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force. Such authorizations have included the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that initated American participation in the Vietnam War, and the recent "Use-of-force" resolution that started the 2003 Gulf War. However, there is some question as to the legality of these authorization of force in some circles. Many who support declarations of war argue that such declarations keep administrations honest by forcing them to lay out their case to the American people, while at the same time honoring the constitutional role of the United States Congress.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. — Dwight David Eisenhower, 1953
Should we just announce to the Islamic extremists out there that we are not at war so they can pack up their suicide bombs and go home?
In the year 2000, 560 people died due to drunk drivers in the UK alone. Thats x10 more dead than caused by Islamic terrorists in London to date. Where is the War on Drunk Drivers? Where is the proportionality? When a drunk person gets into a car, to drive, they know they are dangerous. Summarily detain drunks or remove our right to imbibe alcohol. These actions, if they were to prevent terrorists, would be lapped up by the hoards of the frightened civilians in the UK. Where is the proportionality? Why dont we crack down hard on very real and many many times more deadly crimes?
We seem to be brainwashed into thinking, "yep lets let the government have all these sweeping powers to fight these terrorist sonsabitches, then when they are wiped out we can repeal all these harsh laws and get back to normal again". W-R-O-N-G. We will ALWAYS be under these draconian "war time" measures because they are aimed at criminals - not a defeatable enemy nation.
Originally posted by Intrepid
Yup, no disagreement here but how does this invalidate L4T's post?
Originally posted by looking4truth
Subz you should know better, you just wrote an op/ed not long ago blasting that kind labeling. I have come to my own opinion, if you disagree fine, but I'm not brainwashed just because I see things through a different prism.
Originally posted by looking4truth
but all of them have the same goals, fighting the percieved infidels and installing a strict Fascist Islamic rule on the entire world.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Let me get this staight, subz, your basically advocating that the West simply sit back and let acts of terrorism continue on their own soil? Basically allow further 9/11 and UK 7/7 type events to be continue unabated, unanswered for?
Originally posted by Seekerof
Your solution is to look at the heart of the problem?
That would be what, exactly?
Originally posted by Seekerof
The US support of Israel, while the EU supports Palestine is a problem?
You want the ending of US and European foreign policies in regards to the Middle East, in general? This will solve the problem?
Am I missing something here? Your basically saying that because of the US and the European actions in the Middle East, that we have asked for what we are getting? But you want to get to the heart of the issue right?
I get labelled a "glutton for punishment"!
That would be actually considering why these people are motivated to want to kill us rather than killing them all and crossing our fingers no more take the dead terrorists place.
Again the stereotypical myopia that festers at the heart of our Western public consciousness. So we cant simply solve what we have done wrong and take the fight to those terrorists with unreasonable demands.
If we got at the heart of the common issues. Palestinian statehood and a fair treatment of Middle Eastern soveriegnty we will cut the unreasonable terrorists off at the knees.
Originally posted by Seekerof
what you are seemingly advocating is
what you are saying or seemingly advocating, is
you were seemingly insinuating
I do know is that those... are basicially saying
I am sensing that you think