Now that Saddam is gone the US are safer

Remove all ads!

So sais prince George. Well, how comes the US is on code orange then?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1224/dailyUpdate.html?s=entt

For all Americans here, don't let the fearmongering spoil your christmas. Merry Christmas

 

Safer - yes.

Completely safe - no.

 

We are less safe now.

Saddam posed no threat whatsoever. If he had weapons don't you think he would of used them against the invading American force? If he did in fact pose a threat because of WMDs we could simply bomb him like we have been doing for years.

A good portion (probably the majority) of American deaths in Iraq have been caused by non-Iraqi terrorists. We have *created* terrorists with this war. People from neighboring countries are so outraged with the war they are coming into Iraq to commit terrorist acts on U.S. soldiers. And now they now have a much greater motivation to attack America.

This "War on Terror" disgusts me. I hate to break this to simpleton Bush, but these "evil-doers" do not commit acts of terror because they "hate our freedoms." They hate us because they think, incorrectly, that we're a Christian nation; they are on a "jihad," afterall. Furthermore, they hate the fact that we kiss Isreal's ass.

 

The code orange is because of this. I for one am happy that our government is being proactive. That includes taking the fight to the terrorists, using intelligence assets to help prevent future attacks, and trying to dry up their cash.

Now it is true that everything the United States is doing is probably putting American citizens at risk. I believe it was Yammamoto in WW2 who said "We have awoken a sleeping dragon" (apologies for not looking up the exact quote). While other nations may seem content to sit on the sidelines and criticize, we are not. How will it all end, I have no idea, but at least we are trying to end it.

Happy holidays to everyone, keep in your thoughts and prayers all of the brave citizens that have put their lives at risk.

 

Terror-mongering is not the same thing as being proactive. Bush still doesn't get it - you don't perform surgery with a sword.

 

True, but a butter knife won't do much good either.

 

Yes, but only a scalp can perform the task successfully.
On the issue of terrorism, what do you think is USA and any other country in the world is using?

 

For a while the U.S. was using "kid gloves" when dealing with chaotic states. After 9-11, we learned quite a bit.

 

Iraq was not a chaotic state - far from it.

 

Indeed, dictatorships can rarely be called chaotic, unless they are unstable and Saddam's regime really wasn't unstable until the Americans came. I would say that Iraq is way more chaotic now than it was before.

Then this about America being now safer. I really doubt it, I doubt that Saddam really had that big of a role in the attacks on American soldiers, and even if he had someone will very likely take his place in the lead.

 

I have always asked myself what's the point in declaring a nationwide "terror alert" when intelligence tells an attack is probable to a degree.

What can an ordinary citizen do? Get a gun? Buy a bunker? Well, as you don't know what might happen (because for some weird reason terrorists prefer a degree of secrecy in their planning) and as you can't be prepared for everything, you can't do anything at all, except for being afraid.
Terror warnings are for intelligence agencies and police, useful for them only.

What use is it to you to know, that maybe, maybe not, terrorists will do something bad to a US asset on the globe? Or somewhere between Anchorage and Florida?

Yeah dude, with code orange I'd feel safer already

 

I don't think the idea of a public alert is really that logical. It's basically saying "We are placing measures to handle covert terriorist attacks. These are the measures <bla bla bla>." So any intelligent terrorist will realise "Oh, okay, thanks for the warning, we'll just prepare a bit more."

Why announce such a thing? You want to catch terrorists and make examples of them not just scare them off for a little while (because you know they will be back). Announcing that you're worried about terrorist attacks simply shows the terrorists that they're getting to you.

Don't warn the bastards. Be on alert without announcing it to the public. Catch them and bluff that you were able to catch their most covert plans when your country was in a state of not worring about terrorist attacks. That'll make any terrorist ponder his chances of harming the country in a new light.

 

And an alternative interpretation would be that it's covering asses, in a somewhat uningenious way: "See, we made this alert because we saw something coming .... errr .... oops ...."

On the other hand you're right BTA, the threat alerts are there to remind people of the need for increased security measures. But I think the purpose of security checks is pretty self-evident, on airports especially.

The color code alerts generate an unfocused fealing of fear, and the urge to fight this fear -bringing people to easier accepting restrictions of civil liberties.

It wasn't Roosevelt who wanted the detention of loyal American Japanese in concentration camps during WW-II - the concerned american people, afraid of the 5th column, wanted it. And it wasn't Lincoln who lifted the "habeas corpus" for the years of the civil war but the panicked electorate. And so today it isn't so much the agressive Mr. Ashcroft who's threatening civil liberties, it's the pure fear of a scared people crying for safety.

That's why I'm so sceptical about the color codes. The color codes fan the fear, they block off the healthy processes of supression, prevent the return to normality.

Ironically, in the fight against the likes of Bin Laden, this reaction on this fear, restriction of civil liberties, is in itself a victory for them. The more the people is afraid, the more willing they are to sacrifice their freedom for security.
That is what General Franks was referring to when he wrote that one more big terror strike could sweep away democracy in the US.

Probably by accident Bush made a good point when he, right after 911, said that going on as normal is the right thing to do - why then the color codes? The color codes are not only useless, they are counterproductive.

 

I really don't care for the whole color system - which seems just a tad silly.

Perhaps the color system can be used for internal government operating procedures; however, in the case of the average citizen, there is really no need.

I would perfer an offensive color chart that the U.S. can display to tell the public what state the war is in.

• Red - Active military campaign against terrorists or their allies (e.g. Saddam)
• Orange - Locating and destroying terrorists - like we are currently doing in Afganistan and Iraq.
• Yellow - Gather information about terrorist groups
• Blue - Not looking for terrorists.
• White - Surrending or becoming a passive, declawed nation like France or Germany.

This list would help.

 

Who the hell tells you all this bull? Not deciding to go on a rampage is sometimes pretty smart an idea, and to me it is very much obvious that you do not at all know anything about France's record in fighting terrorists, let alone Germany's.

Terrorism isn't something you sucessfully fight with invading countries and aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Blowing things up is sure satisfying, especially in a revenge sort of way, to a degree understandable after 911, but it won't really bring you further. The mayhem in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq as a result of ... wars to end terror should tell you that.

Besides, calling Germany peaceful and harmless is probably the greatest compliment you can give to it.

 

The color codes are completely bogus. Two of them are utterly meaningless, and two of the remaining three are essentially the same.

Blue is the lowest level, indicating lower-than-normal threat of terrorist activity. I can gurantee you that we will NEVER be in code blue. Green is an average threat, which despite the fact that we have never been in green, seems to me that at some point since this system has evolved the terrorist threat should have been average at some time...

Yellow and orange are the most confusing colors. Yellow is already an "elevated threat". So what's the difference between yellow and orange? Orange is simply "more elevated"? Puh-lease.

Red is as meaningless as blue. Red signifies an "imminent" threat, meaning that it is almost certain a terrorist attack will take place. In order for this to happen, we would have to know precise details of what was going to happen, and you would think if we had this information, we'd be able to stop it.

Bottom line here is we've already turned into "the boy who cried wolf". This is the fifth time we've gone from yellow to orange. The only problem being the information given to the public is so vague that the public has no idea WHY they are at increased risk. Plus, we are told to go about our daily lives as normal. So if we're not supposed to do anything - if we can't do anything - and nothing more ever happens anyway, why is the system even present?

 

In a word, politics.

 

This post is only regarding the security system etc., from elsewhere a thread that reminded me of this one:

and,

and,

I think that there are changes with the change in the color. I think the changes are a signal to law enforcement and emergency folks across the nation. People who live in areas that are likely targets apparently notice it, so I'll defer to them.

And from another poster:

It sounds like that poster nailed this thread in some ways.

 

Isnt it an acknowledged fact that Saddams Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists? Acknowledged by those who dont press their hands to their ears and shout "la-la-la", of course.

But maybe I am wrong.