Scared to be an American

[Perseph0ne6]

Do you think the States should expect another 911 soon?

Furthermore do you think that the war with Iraq will decrease terrorism by eliminating Sadam's monetary influence, or will it increase terrorism by strenghtening anti-american sentiment?

[TheEvilOne]

I think that without Saddam's money, terrorism will be dealt quite a blow. Anti-American sentiment already runs high over there, so other than a few new recruits for al Qaeda, I don't really see how this could increase the danger of terrorism. Terrorists may try to launch a retaliatory strike, but I doubt it would be on the level of a 9/11.

[HernetheHunter]

Don't be scared.......that's exactly what they're trying to achieve.

[bumcheekcity]

i think america will see another 9/11 catastrophe. it may not be on the scale of 9/11 but enough people hate america to want to do that. you have to remember, binladen is still alive, and even if hes not, al-quieda still has his money.

america (and now the UK as well) needs to go out being nice to people, not bombing them. the US is shooting itself in the foot.

[HernetheHunter]

i'm a bit nervous 'cuz i live in NJ........which just happens to be in between NY & Philly. DC's not too far either.
I'm worried about biological & chemical stuff. Maybe bombs too. Whatever they plan on using is most likely in the country already.

[VasIndustries]

At 3/20/03 02:50 AM, HernetheHunter wrote: i'm a bit nervous 'cuz i live in NJ........which just happens to be in between NY & Philly. DC's not too far either.
I'm worried about biological & chemical stuff. Maybe bombs too. Whatever they plan on using is most likely in the country already.

I hear that. I'm in the same exact position. Being only 5 minutes from Manhatten might not be such a good thing.

[mysecondstar]

i have friends and family in almost all corners of the US. anywhere there is a terrorist attack, sadly, it'll effect me or the people i know. anti-American sentiment is already as bad as it will get, but the one thing that spooks me out is that al Qaeda promised that if the US attacked iraq, they would attack the US. and you can never question the resolve of religious fanatics.

[Ambyth]

I don't really think America has too much to be scared of. 9/11 was unbelieveable, I can't see the Americans letting that hapen again.

I was reminded the other day about the money that some American celebrities gave to Sinn Fein, which was the poilitical wing of the IRA. Thus helping the IRA to conduct it's actiities, so America and indeed U.K. (we trained the Kameir Rouge) are not innocent of funding international terrorism.

I don't think it will escalate anti-Amreican sentement thats pretty high with the threat to war. The problem with terrorism is that it's an ideal and not an army, just look at the Oaklahoma boming it's not just muslims that bomb buildings.

[mysecondstar]

like i said, you can never question the resolve of a suicidal fanatic. no matter what happens, there is very little we can do. if you look at measures taken regarding all facets of homeland protection, things like another 9/11, using airplanes as guided missles, is still in almost the same position it was, sadly, as it was before 9/11. so i have every reason in the world to be a little freaked out.

[lapslf]

Glad not to be an American!

[JMHX]

It wouldn't be the scale of September 11th if another terror attack happened. It would probably be contained and simple to carry out by sleeper cells already existing in the United States. I think we can expect one sometime during the course of this war.

[Freakapotimus]

If something were to happen, wouldn't it be an act of war and not a terrorist act?

[JMHX]

At 3/20/03 09:38 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: If something were to happen, wouldn't it be an act of war and not a terrorist act?

That's what I've been calling it on other threads, but it momentarily slipped my mind. Bwah.

[VasIndustries]

At 3/20/03 09:34 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: It wouldn't be the scale of September 11th if another terror attack happened. It would probably be contained and simple to carry out by sleeper cells already existing in the United States. I think we can expect one sometime during the course of this war.

Yeah, there is going to at least be one such attempt. I doubt it'll be as big as 9/11, but its still a possibility depending on what exactly is done. I'm just keeping my ears and eyes open, and that's all Americans can really do. I didn't want this war, and if anyone gets injured or killed on American soil, I'm going to permenantly put the blame on Bush's sholders.

[mysecondstar]

but you can never be too sure. if a person is willing to kill himself, imagine what he could do to thousands of people.

[NJDeadzone]

At 3/20/03 09:38 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: If something were to happen, wouldn't it be an act of war and not a terrorist act?

wait a sec, this may be a "war on terrorism" but there's no real declaration of war. What we're doing is combatting terrorism with terrorism.

[Commander-K25]

At 3/20/03 10:04 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:
What we're doing is combatting terrorism with terrorism.

You think there's a comparison? Are you really that deluded?

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/20/03 11:37 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 3/20/03 10:04 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:
What we're doing is combatting terrorism with terrorism.

You think there's a comparison? Are you really that deluded?

Oh, yes. There's a comparison. Very real comparison.

Statements I need to make first: I am American. I know Saddam Hussein is an evil man and needs to be taken out of power. I disagree with how it's being done.

Now...

Frankly, it's disgusting to me that America likes to not only the Big Brother of all the hurting nations in the country, but the Big Bully to all the countries that don't agree with them, or cooperate.

So...I'm gonna see if I can make this simple. Bush's problem with Iraq and Saddam Hussein (supposedly) is that he didn't cooperate with the UN. Bush is now waging a rather unofficial and illegal war on Iraq...and in turn, isn't cooperating with the UN. That's hypocracy.

So, why am I scared to be an American? I have a sickening feeling that eventually, the USA is going to be standing alone, and all the nations that the USA has pissed off is suddenly going to look at the US and say, "YOU dropped bombs. YOU started this. YOU did this against your own Constitution, AND without approval of the United Nations. YOU are now considered a terrorist. YOU disarm."

Boom.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/21/03 12:22 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Oh, yes. There's a comparison. Very real comparison.

Statements I need to make first: I am American. I know Saddam Hussein is an evil man and needs to be taken out of power. I disagree with how it's being done.

Now...

Frankly, it's disgusting to me that America likes to not only the Big Brother of all the hurting nations in the country, but the Big Bully to all the countries that don't agree with them, or cooperate.

So...I'm gonna see if I can make this simple. Bush's problem with Iraq and Saddam Hussein (supposedly) is that he didn't cooperate with the UN. Bush is now waging a rather unofficial and illegal war on Iraq...and in turn, isn't cooperating with the UN. That's hypocracy.

So, why am I scared to be an American? I have a sickening feeling that eventually, the USA is going to be standing alone, and all the nations that the USA has pissed off is suddenly going to look at the US and say, "YOU dropped bombs. YOU started this. YOU did this against your own Constitution, AND without approval of the United Nations. YOU are now considered a terrorist. YOU disarm."

Boom.

you do know that the US has a great deal of support throughout the entire world including, but not limited to, Japan, the UK, Spain, Australia and 40 more in every continent in the world. not only that there are countries that unofficially support US action in Iraq (perhaps France?).

and it is general concensus in the world that if the iraqi regime uses their WMD (iraq has already used a SCUD missle, which had been banned by the UN) all the countries against war would be more than willing to help in the fight.

also almost every country want to help in the rebuilding of iraq. so i find it very unlikely that anything like to your extreme view of the future will occur.

[karasz]

At 3/21/03 12:22 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: So...I'm gonna see if I can make this simple. Bush's problem with Iraq and Saddam Hussein (supposedly) is that he didn't cooperate with the UN. Bush is now waging a rather unofficial and illegal war on Iraq...and in turn, isn't cooperating with the UN. That's hypocracy.

thank god im not the only one who thinks this...

So, why am I scared to be an American? I have a sickening feeling that eventually, the USA is going to be standing alone, and all the nations that the USA has pissed off is suddenly going to look at the US and say, "YOU dropped bombs. YOU started this. YOU did this against your own Constitution, AND without approval of the United Nations. YOU are now considered a terrorist. YOU disarm."

Boom.

now now, this probably wont happen... the nations that dislike us also want us to do stuff for them, so dont expect any nation to be getting the US to disarm anytime soon... besides any resolution involving the US to disarm would be vetoed by the US... and worst case scenario the US says 'fuck the UN' and leaves it...

also there wont be another attack, farthest it would go is CIA/FBI stops it in time...

also make sure u tell ur congressman to veto the new patriot act 2 bill... section 501 states that secret arrests are legal...

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 3/21/03 12:38 AM, mysecondstar wrote:

:... and it is general concensus in the world that if the iraqi regime uses their WMD (iraq has already used a SCUD missle, which had been banned by the UN)...:

The SCUD delivery system isn't "illegal" as long as it is equipped with a standard warhead (non-bio or chemical).

[mysecondstar]

At 3/21/03 12:46 AM, Ruination wrote:

At 3/21/03 12:38 AM, mysecondstar wrote:

... and it is general concensus in the world that if the iraqi regime uses their WMD (iraq has already used a SCUD missle, which had been banned by the UN)...:

The SCUD delivery system isn't "illegal" as long as it is equipped with a standard warhead (non-bio or chemical).

the SCUD is beyond the 95 mile (or km?) maximum range for their ballistic missles program set by the UN. i believe the SCUD has a range of 400 miles (km?) so it is way beyond the maximum range. that is why the UN wanted the al Samoud missles destroyed because they had a range of 105 mi (km?).

[House-Of-Leaves]

First...yes. I know there's some support from the countries mentioned. I realize that, I'm fairly well informed. ;) But the fact remains that even the countries that -are- supporting the US in their acts of war aren't 100% in agreement with the methods.

For example...Turkey. I've heard it listed on the news (pfft) that they list Turkey as an ally, when really? They -might- open up their airspace to us (if they haven't already), but refuse to let us use the bases or any ground access into Iraq.

I also know that anything is possible. So, who says these allies won't back out? I point to: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749825703.html where it states: "Ten hours of debate ended with about half of Labour's backbench - 139 MPs - voting against Mr Blair, who had staked his political future on winning parliamentary backing for the war."

It's a possibility, that's all I'm saying.

Also, I didn't say my 'prediction' was dead on, or even a huge possibility. But it -could- happen. It's something that I've thought about, though I wouldn't exactly put money on it. Okay. Maybe five bucks.

The reason? North Korea and their growing arsenal. Are we ignoring them? The media is. But I highly doubt we are. So...sure. We go after North Korea, and suddenly...China's fighting against us, too. It'll come to nuclear blows, I fear, if that happens.

It's something to think about. America is NOT IMMUNE to this stuff. Don't live paralyzed in fear, but don't rule out the things that are still possible.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/21/03 01:09 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: First...yes. I know there's some support from the countries mentioned. I realize that, I'm fairly well informed. ;) But the fact remains that even the countries that -are- supporting the US in their acts of war aren't 100% in agreement with the methods.

For example...Turkey. I've heard it listed on the news (pfft) that they list Turkey as an ally, when really? They -might- open up their airspace to us (if they haven't already), but refuse to let us use the bases or any ground access into Iraq.

they have opened up airspace. there is more to the Turkey issue though. the Turks and the Kurds have bad blood between one another. and the Turks want to be able to go into northern Iraq and occupy the region. the US has said yes, but they also said they are staying with the Turks to make sure bloods don't boil.

I also know that anything is possible. So, who says these allies won't back out? I point to: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749825703.html where it states: "Ten hours of debate ended with about half of Labour's backbench - 139 MPs - voting against Mr Blair, who had staked his political future on winning parliamentary backing for the war."

i don't know the exact number, but i believe it was 400 some odd members of the House of Commons to that 139. it was an overwhelming victory for PM Tony Blair.

It's a possibility, that's all I'm saying.

Also, I didn't say my 'prediction' was dead on, or even a huge possibility. But it -could- happen. It's something that I've thought about, though I wouldn't exactly put money on it. Okay. Maybe five bucks.

The reason? North Korea and their growing arsenal. Are we ignoring them? The media is. But I highly doubt we are. So...sure. We go after North Korea, and suddenly...China's fighting against us, too. It'll come to nuclear blows, I fear, if that happens.

the US government has never forgotten the situation in Korea. not since 1950. you are absolutely correct. but the whole north korea situation is very delicate. unlike with Iraq, north korea needs a great deal of diplomacy. in fact, the US is trying to get talks started with US' allies such as Japan, South Korea, and China to talk to NK to get them to settle down. we can never really "fight" the north koreans conventionally. the proximity of the DMZ to Seoul is a metropolis of 12 million and is way too close at 20 miles.

the other issue is China as you say. it is very hypothetical, but it is still possible that they may join in the war if the US decides (God forbid) NK. and i'm sure the US isn't too keen on the idea of fighting a country of 1 billion.

It's something to think about. America is NOT IMMUNE to this stuff. Don't live paralyzed in fear, but don't rule out the things that are still possible.

[House-Of-Leaves]

First of all, mysecondstar, I want to thank you for the way you're debating this with me, tho I don't think it's really a debate. All too often on this BBS, people aren't reasonable, and I'm slightly apprehensive about sharing my thoughts. I appreciate the way you've responded.

Second, you're right, and you've given a lot of facts. I think, tho, I mistrust the American media a bit too much, and they've only stated that Turkey IS AN ALLY. That's it. They don't give us any of the details that you have. Now, I knew about what you said to a point, tho that's something I've not really educated myself on...but I suppose my point was that they'd have the majority of the American public believe that our allies are stronger than they actually are, or that we have more OF them than we do. Honestly. The numbers change from channel to channel. It's insane.

Which is why I don't watch the news all that often. *lol*

Second, Bush is a cocky bastard, and if he had the big brassy ones to go against Security Council mandate, AND the Constitution, I've got faith that he'll try something with North Korea. I know they've readied more than one unit in the military specifically for that. A friend of mine has told me such, and they've been training specifically for that. It's touchy, and it's more than a little frightening.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/21/03 01:42 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: First of all, mysecondstar, I want to thank you for the way you're debating this with me, tho I don't think it's really a debate. All too often on this BBS, people aren't reasonable, and I'm slightly apprehensive about sharing my thoughts. I appreciate the way you've responded.

thank you for that. i wish there were more reasonable people like you on the BBS.

Second, you're right, and you've given a lot of facts. I think, tho, I mistrust the American media a bit too much, and they've only stated that Turkey IS AN ALLY. That's it. They don't give us any of the details that you have. Now, I knew about what you said to a point, tho that's something I've not really educated myself on...but I suppose my point was that they'd have the majority of the American public believe that our allies are stronger than they actually are, or that we have more OF them than we do. Honestly. The numbers change from channel to channel. It's insane.

FOXnews Channel, or, i believe, foxnew.com, is an excellent source of relatively unbiased news. in fact, a lot of the information that i gather is directly from there. MSNBC and CNN and the like usually put their own agendas in the news. FOXnews is the best i've seen in quite some time.

Which is why I don't watch the news all that often. *lol*

Second, Bush is a cocky bastard, and if he had the big brassy ones to go against Security Council mandate, AND the Constitution, I've got faith that he'll try something with North Korea. I know they've readied more than one unit in the military specifically for that. A friend of mine has told me such, and they've been training specifically for that. It's touchy, and it's more than a little frightening.

he's a Texan, what more do you expect? but, to be honest with you, Dubya has a refreshing naive, child-like approach to the US agenda which, for the most part, get the job done. UN resolution 1441 made it quite clear that Iraq disarm its arsenal of WMD and any ballistic missles with a range farther than 95 km i believe. iraq has, in fact, fired a SCUD missle with a range of 400 km at a US military installation in the Kuwaiti desert shortly after the initial bombs were dropped. that means they are in material breach of the UN resolution with little cooperation as even Hans Blix, who is openly against war, has said. in fact the Iraqi regime had since 1991 to disarm itself completely. the US is right on the moeny when they say that the Iraqis won't disarm without a swift kick to the ass.

as for the Constitution, checks and balances is in worder. either the Congress or the Court must decide on whether or not the President can wage war without an official declaration by Congress. However, no arguement has been made to the unconstitutionality of it.

now Korea is a touchy subject. there is no denying that. as Dubya is a hot-blooded Texan, if he would probably address the Korean issue as to confirm his upbringing. however, he has a national security advisor in Condoleeza Rice who would not allow him to do that unless appropriate. Korea is scary. there are currently B-52s and F-117s in Guam as we speak to carry out "military games". in other words, the US is indirectly telling NK that it had better think twice before messing with the US. tactically, the US could very silently destroy most of the north korean nuclear installations and other points of interest. however, the repercussions of such an attack could be disasterous as NK has Taepo III missles, an ICBM that could hit the west coast with a nuclear warhead with little or no warning before impact. but if he knows what's good for the country, which he's demonstated he does, than he would know to hold back.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 3/21/03 02:19 AM, mysecondstar wrote:
FOXnews Channel, or, i believe, foxnew.com, is an excellent source of relatively unbiased news. in fact, a lot of the information that i gather is directly from there. MSNBC and CNN and the like usually put their own agendas in the news. FOXnews is the best i've seen in quite some time.

That's actually what I've been watching, for the most part. I don't have a problem with the coverage they're giving me tonight about the protest I had to leave early, or the war coverage for the most part. But I don't like the media in general, because they feed into the culture of fear. Violent crime goes down? Coverage of it goes WAY up. Violence sells papers and gets ratings.

UN resolution 1441 made it quite clear that Iraq disarm its arsenal of WMD and any ballistic missles with a range farther than 95 km i believe. iraq has, in fact, fired a SCUD missle with a range of 400 km at a US military installation in the Kuwaiti desert shortly after the initial bombs were dropped. that means they are in material breach of the UN resolution with little cooperation as even Hans Blix, who is openly against war, has said. in fact the Iraqi regime had since 1991 to disarm itself completely. the US is right on the moeny when they say that the Iraqis won't disarm without a swift kick to the ass.

I agree with that, for the most part. I HATE war, because it's scary and it kills. But I refuse to be the type that's against war at all costs.

My stance: The military action we're taking is, technically, not about disarming anymore. The stated goal is regime change, which is ouside the reach of resolution 1441.

as for the Constitution, checks and balances is in worder. either the Congress or the Court must decide on whether or not the President can wage war without an official declaration by Congress. However, no arguement has been made to the unconstitutionality of it.

I think the issue of it being illegal has been ignored because of the repercussions it could have. Congress hasn't approved this war, and since Congressional approval is mandatory according to the US Constitution...I feel it's pretty illegal. That's just this country, however, and not international law. BUT! It's not been approved by the UN or NATO, and we struck first.

...technically? All that put together? That would make Bush and his buddies war criminals.

Unfortunately, the Korea thing is just too much for me to comprehensively debate at midnight. *lol* I don't like Bush at all, I don't trust him, I don't think he's doing a very good job, but that's the beauty of humanity. The differing beliefs make everything so interesting. I do appreciate that Bush surrounded himself with people smarter than he is, and that was a good move. But I just don't feel like he's right for this.

I'll end this post with my favorite quote:

"Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

- Abraham Lincoln, 1848

[mysecondstar]

At 3/21/03 03:15 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 3/21/03 02:19 AM, mysecondstar wrote:
FOXnews Channel, or, i believe, foxnew.com, is an excellent source of relatively unbiased news. in fact, a lot of the information that i gather is directly from there. MSNBC and CNN and the like usually put their own agendas in the news. FOXnews is the best i've seen in quite some time.

That's actually what I've been watching, for the most part. I don't have a problem with the coverage they're giving me tonight about the protest I had to leave early, or the war coverage for the most part. But I don't like the media in general, because they feed into the culture of fear. Violent crime goes down? Coverage of it goes WAY up. Violence sells papers and gets ratings.

can't disagree with you there. apin and suffering sells and brings in the ratings.

UN resolution 1441 made it quite clear that Iraq disarm its arsenal of WMD and any ballistic missles with a range farther than 95 km i believe. iraq has, in fact, fired a SCUD missle with a range of 400 km at a US military installation in the Kuwaiti desert shortly after the initial bombs were dropped. that means they are in material breach of the UN resolution with little cooperation as even Hans Blix, who is openly against war, has said. in fact the Iraqi regime had since 1991 to disarm itself completely. the US is right on the moeny when they say that the Iraqis won't disarm without a swift kick to the ass.

I agree with that, for the most part. I HATE war, because it's scary and it kills. But I refuse to be the type that's against war at all costs.

My stance: The military action we're taking is, technically, not about disarming anymore. The stated goal is regime change, which is ouside the reach of resolution 1441.

i hate war too. war does kill indiscriminantly. unfortunately, we live in a society in which war is necessary. in other words everyone is so stuubborn in what they want which leads, inevitably, to conflict.

the US is carrying out UN resolution 1441. however, the US took it upon themselves to take it one step further and to topple a regime everyone wanted to see gone in the first place. i suppose that arguement is that the US is taking the initiative to do the world a favor.

as for the Constitution, checks and balances is in worder. either the Congress or the Court must decide on whether or not the President can wage war without an official declaration by Congress. However, no arguement has been made to the unconstitutionality of it.

I think the issue of it being illegal has been ignored because of the repercussions it could have. Congress hasn't approved this war, and since Congressional approval is mandatory according to the US Constitution...I feel it's pretty illegal. That's just this country, however, and not international law. BUT! It's not been approved by the UN or NATO, and we struck first.

...technically? All that put together? That would make Bush and his buddies war criminals.

it will never be carried out. especially with Bush's "coalition of the willing" which does cover almost the entire globe with unofficial graces of the rest of the world. although it isn't official on paper, it's official in the world's eyes.

Unfortunately, the Korea thing is just too much for me to comprehensively debate at midnight. *lol* I don't like Bush at all, I don't trust him, I don't think he's doing a very good job, but that's the beauty of humanity. The differing beliefs make everything so interesting. I do appreciate that Bush surrounded himself with people smarter than he is, and that was a good move. But I just don't feel like he's right for this.

i believe his straight-fowardness is a refreshing change to the, i suppose, political correctness that almost all politicians are following these days. talk is cheap.

I'll end this post with my favorite quote:

"Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

- Abraham Lincoln, 1848

"there is a thin line between caution and cowardice."

- ronin warriors

i admit, i hated that anime, but that quote is very appropriate. in the US many people are a little too cautious. almost to the point where they are afraid to take action. i believe that Dubya's strong point is that he does the things he needs to do, or the things that would ensure the safety of our country.