Has Bush's War On Terror Made The World Safer?

Do you guys think "The War On Terror" has made the world a safer place? Personally I think it's made it more dangerous.

www.rense.com...

Since the destruction of the World Trade Centre and the attack on the Pentagon two years ago, there have been no major terrorist incidents in the United States. There were the anthrax attacks and a brief scare about radiological weapons, but the US as a whole has escaped further atrocities. Some would argue that this means the "war on terror", proclaimed by President Bush, is being won, even though there are repeated warnings of attacks in the US and the UK as well as civil defence exercises such as today's on the London Underground

From a global perspective, however, the picture is very different. The recent increase in violence and insecurity in Iraq, continuing unrest and insurgency in Afghanistan and the global activities of al-Qa'ida and its associates all point to a "war on terror" that is hardly being won.

Yeah, i am with you on this.. US actions since 9.11.2001 have only made the world more angry and dangerous place for Americans..

Now most people even in WEST and in US hate the Bushes gov. this is not the way to go about things.. something must change

Sorry about accidently starting that other post Fulcrum.

Yes, it has made it a safer place. It is disrupting logistical and communications lines, as well as disrupting finance. It is making it clear to the enemy that attacks against us will not be tolerated.

Cowardice and inaction is what fomented the 9.11 attacks, initially. The enemy understands action and power, it has no use or respect for weakness.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes, it has made it a safer place. It is disrupting logistical and communications lines, as well as disrupting finance. It is making it clear to the enemy that attacks against us will not be tolerated.

Cowardice and inaction is what fomented the 9.11 attacks, initially. The enemy understands action and power, it has no use or respect for weakness.

"logistical and communications lines" Please!

One harly needs anything more tha 2-3 friends that think alike, and AK with 90 rounds of ammo and maybe a hand grenade and some explosives to become a terrorist..

Bombing Taleban, Al-Qaida, Afgan civilians, Iraqis.. did solve anything..

Afganista and Iraq are both now out of control of anybody. And more people are mad at US.. plus US troops are all over the places in which people hate them making them easy targets..

HAHAHA! Oh Fulcrum your the poster I love to hate.
We are taking control of Iraq and Afghanistan. These things time though. It doesnt happen overnight. While the war on terror is going on, the world may not be safer, however it will be once its over.

...seems to me, all that changes is the person behind the trigger who is willing to maybe point a gun at my head if I don't play their game...

There is no safety in safety by force and threat.

It has made it a much, much more dangerous place, or atleast that is how it appears.

Perception is in the eye of the beholder and always goes beyond what the normal eye can see.

regards
seekerof

NO, it's not safer, however, I don't think you can put "all" the blame on Bush, sure he's poking sticks at a few Hornet nests and they are swarming. But the lack of real and I mean real support from the rest of the world isn't helping. This thng will take a world wide effort and about 10 years to kill I think. I reserve the right to be wrong though :-)

War on terror = the biggest BS line I've ever heard in my life.

No it has most definitely made the world much more unstable. That's pretty freakin' obvious.

[Edited on 8-9-2003 by Total Enslavement]

Kinda looks like the war on drugs to me...



[Edited on 8-9-2003 by Salem]

Safer from whom is the question we should be asking?

www.thestar.com.../Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1062886227242&call_pageid=968332188854&col=96835006 0724

Amid the aftershocks of recent suicide bombings in Baghdad and Najaf, and countless other horrors since Sept. 11, 2001, it is easy to understand why many believe that the world has entered a new and frightening "age of terror," the title of a recent collection of essays by Yale University scholars and others.

However, two years after 9/11, the United States has yet to confront the roots of terrorism, has waged more war than peace and has continually raised the stakes of international confrontation.

On 9/11, the world reacted with shock and horror, and sympathy for the victims. But it is important to bear in mind that for much of the world, there was a further reaction: "Welcome to the club."

For the first time in history, a Western power was subjected to an atrocity of the kind that is all too familiar elsewhere.

The War On Terror has helped the terrorist groups expand their membership, clearly the real goal in the War On Terror is to turn the rest of the world against the arab world, it is working.

You can't defeat terrorism with war, look at Northern Ireland.

war on terror war merely a name to keep people from not liking it, who would wanna support a war on getting the oil trades back to USD???

anyways i getting rd of saddam hussein was a good idea but it hasn't made nothing really safer theres now just fighting in the streets and such, and all they did to afghanistan was destroy everything, so no i think that it made the world more dangerous, and will continue to do so as he pissed off more people

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes, it has made it a safer place. It is disrupting logistical and communications lines, as well as disrupting finance. It is making it clear to the enemy that attacks against us will not be tolerated.

Cowardice and inaction is what fomented the 9.11 attacks, initially. The enemy understands action and power, it has no use or respect for weakness.

You are funny TC, I've got to give you that.

John, you asked a question and I responded; I see no humor in that.

No action, no force or threat of force brought on The 9.11 attacks, and it didn't bring on the first attack on the WTC, either.

The world response, you say, was "Welcome to the club." We do not prefer to join the club and go by the world's rules. A Chamberlain-like response to a delcaration of war doesn't work. This is obvious, and has been proven the case many times in history. It seems that some perceive the world as a more dangerous, more unstable place since we responded to the cowardly assault upon noncombatants on our soil, and they preceive the reason for instability is our response. I see no indication of this, but I do see that some have a weak constitution for doing what needs to be done, and as long as it isn't their own kinsmen being blown to bits, they would rather ignore or appease the ones wanting to bring war and destruction upon our citizenry. I do not subscribe to that way of thinking.

When England entered into the last war in Europe, she didn't bring instability to the continent, it was already there. Neither was instability increased when America finally entered into the war. What did occur was the downfall of the enemy to peace and liberty, and even though the enemy was a clear and defined nation bent on global domination, it still took longer than 2 years from the time the first shot was fired to conquor the enemy that caused Hellish death and suffering. This war is obviously more abstract, with more complicated lines drawn into the sand of many places, but it is still a war that must be fought, and cowardice only invites more death of innocent men, women and children.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
This war is obviously more abstract, with more complicated lines drawn into the sand of many places, but it is still a war that must be fought, and cowardice only invites more death of innocent men, women and children.

Contrary to popular belief, there is a big difference between a pacifist and a coward.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
John, you asked a question and I responded; I see no humor in that.

No action, no force or threat of force brought on The 9.11 attacks, and it didn't bring on the first attack on the WTC, either.

The world response, you say, was "Welcome to the club." We do not prefer to join the club and go by the world's rules. A Chamberlain-like response to a delcaration of war doesn't work. This is obvious, and has been proven the case many times in history. It seems that some perceive the world as a more dangerous, more unstable place since we responded to the cowardly assault upon noncombatants on our soil, and they preceive the reason for instability is our response. I see no indication of this, but I do see that some have a weak constitution for doing what needs to be done, and as long as it isn't their own kinsmen being blown to bits, they would rather ignore or appease the ones wanting to bring war and destruction upon our citizenry. I do not subscribe to that way of thinking.

When England entered into the last war in Europe, she didn't bring instability to the continent, it was already there. Neither was instability increased when America finally entered into the war. What did occur was the downfall of the enemy to peace and liberty, and even though the enemy was a clear and defined nation bent on global domination, it still took longer than 2 years from the time the first shot was fired to conquor the enemy that caused Hellish death and suffering. This war is obviously more abstract, with more complicated lines drawn into the sand of many places, but it is still a war that must be fought, and cowardice only invites more death of innocent men, women and children.

Oh you were being serious with that statement? I thought you were joking, I do apologise.

I personally believe that the key to making the world safer is preparedness. Unfortunately much of what went wrong on 9/11, particularly the rescue personnel dying was a lack of training. The government is only slowly understanding this. It is not the job of the common citizen to worry about what people in other countries are doing. Therefore the common citizen shouldn't be dealing with that. What the common citizen needs is a better process in which they can be prepared just in case anything like that happens again. That means better communications than the archaic radio system FDNY uses. Better training for MCI's (mass casualty incidents). Better equipment, for example gas masks and Mark 1 kits (two syringes 1 of atropine, 1 of pralidoxime chloride, used to counter nerve gas attacks). These things are unfortunately necessary for more people to have and be familiar with. In my mind keeping people safer, and protecting lives has to start with us ourselves looking out for people and taking the steps to keep people safe. What happens in other countries should be secondary. I place more priority on preparing our land than I do on doing things to other lands.