Safe American Poll

The people I know who are voting Bush are doing it for two reasons, 1) Better security 2) Tax cuts. Ok, maybe those being registered republicans have something to do with it but anyway.

I want to discuss only the first point in this thread. So, how many guppies here believe that a second term from Bush will make America(n) less likely or more likely to be target of another terrorist attack on US soil?

Please share your reasons & let’s not discuss other Bush/Kerry problems here.

p.s: Seems like a good poll question to me.

Safe American Poll

Poll: A second term of Bush will make America(n) less likely or more likely to be target of another terrorist attack on US soil?

Bush or no Bush America is a target. Will Kerry create a better Homeland Security network, yes.

Like it or not, there have been no new terrorist attacks on American soil under Bush. Whether this is luck or skill, Bush will get some credit.

Usually Clinton gets blamed as far as US policies are concerned for 9/11. If Bush wins in Nov. and there is another terrorist attack say in his second term, will that make him partly responsible for it?

it doesn't matter.. another attack will happen and regardless of who's in the driving seat.. we'll see a more totalitarian state emerge.. the two stooges don't matter.. it could happen on anyone's watch..

"Usually Clinton gets blamed as far as US policies are concerned for 9/11."

Ahmadjee,
Clinton deserves a lot of blame, but after a president has been in office 4 years, he owns the results. 9/11 cause a lot of movement that would have been impossible in the 90's, so there is no excuse for any further attacks. However it takes impossibly long times for agencies like the INS to adapt to new realities. Still undermanned and poorly run.

Bush cutting the funding on local Homeland Security budgets and failing to protect Seaports, Airlines, and the boarders is directly the fault of Bush.

I voted more likely for the following reasons:

In the last attack 15 of the 17 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Their profiles show that they were from well of families who had access to US, and were disgruntled by the policies of Saudi Government & its perceived backers the United States. The main one being US forces in Saudi Arabia & the greater Middle East. Their second big dissatisfaction was the US-Israel relationship and last but not least the influence of US popular culture.

1) No significant change in US policies has been made towards Saudi Arabia. And certainly this administration has no intentions of doing so in the near future.

2) US forces in the greater Middle East have increased agitating more likely terrorists & their support throughout the Middle East & there is no sight of US leaving that region anytime soon, especially not on the watch of this administration.

3) US policy on Israel hasn’t changed an iota & is the same status-quo as many previous administrations with a little bit here & a little bit there. Bush administration has especially aligned itself with Sharon, notoriously infamous for his brutality in the Arab world & not very friendly terms with the EU. No discussion on US security will ever be effective without a through review of US-Israel relations.

4) All changes in the ‘home land security’ are done based on what have already been done. Terrorists don’t utilize the same tools over and over again, well the dumb ones do but the ones who had the mindset to organize and plan 9/11 are certainly not those. So, to say that we screen the people coming in and keep track of them while they are here and stuff like that is all well and good but as long as you aren’t ahead to figure out the terrorists’ next move the sense of security is phony.

5) Bush administration has distant itself with other countries that might be helpful, especially in the EU circle and have destroyed the credibility. So, while other countries might keep giving the lip service on support, it has definitely affected the war on terror in general. Thus, making it more likely to be a target sooner. Re-election of Bush will not help revamp those bridges.

Some might say that even if Kerry wins the election at least the 3 & 4 are not going to change significantly. I agree!

Sad to say if, God forbid, another attack does happen on US soil, the US public might be supportive of whoever is the president but I doubt we can expect the same sympathy & support from the world the second time around, especially if Bush is President.

OG Bhaijaan, I would love to discuss some day how much Clinton is to blame but this thread will digress. Anyway, from your response, I gather an attack on Bush's clock will make him partly responsible; I will keep that for future reference.

Do we know those 19 hijackers were actually onboard on those planes???? Firing a rocket propell grenade or stinger missiles in mountains is one thing, but carrying out a well coordinated, sophisticated and fool-proof attack in USA in the presence of FBI and CIA sounds still out of question to me. I mean come on they were being trained for several months and Dubya couldn't stop them, inspite of the intellegence knowledge. I don't buy it.

smooth_guy, I totally understand why someone will have doubts on the intelligence levels of the terrorists blamed but the alternative is even more doubtful. Needless to say, there are people who believe man never went to moon & Elvis is still alive & Pakistan actually won the 71 war.

But thats all out of the scope of this thread.

ahmadjee don't pull a strawman yaar.. why place some valid criticism together with wacko fantasies? don't fall prey to the rubbish they feed you in the guise of 'information' in the mainstream media

an attack is bound to happen.. but at the right time.. when it's most needed and when the next war is to be launched.

I voted "less likely" but it's a bogus question. IMO, there will be another terrorist attack on US soil sometime in the future. Since it is bound to happen anyway, it is neither more nor less likely that it will happen if GWB is re-elected.

People who vote for GWB on the security issue vote for him because they believe we will be "more secure" not because they believe we will be "perfectly secure."

^ and so the question had less likely & more likely rather than 'absolutely' & 'perfectly safe'.

Anyway, like I asked OG bhaijaan, who would you consider responsible if another attack does happen in the coming 6 years (other than the terrorists) if Bush does get re-elected?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
^ and so the question had less likely & more likely rather than 'absolutely' & 'perfectly safe'.

Anyway, like I asked OG bhaijaan, who would you consider responsible if another attack does happen in the coming 6 years (other than the terrorists) if Bush does get re-elected?
[/QUOTE]

ahmadjee: If it is going to happen no matter what, then it is neither more likely nor less likely that it will happen. It can be made harder rather than easier. It can be made later (perhaps) rather than sooner. But it can not be made more or less likely.

When it happens, I will consider the responsible parties to be the ones who planned, sponsored, aided and abetted and carried out the attacks. Then I will want to know what my government leaders knew and when the knew it. If they didn't know something critical, I'd want to know why they didn't know it. You can't answer an abstract question like you're asking without getting more details.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by smooth_guy: *
Do we know those 19 hijackers were actually onboard on those planes???? Firing a rocket propell grenade or stinger missiles in mountains is one thing, but carrying out a well coordinated, sophisticated and fool-proof attack in USA in the presence of FBI and CIA sounds still out of question to me. I mean come on they were being trained for several months and Dubya couldn't stop them, inspite of the intellegence knowledge. I don't buy it.
[/QUOTE]

Forget about everything. Do you really believe you'll let some one with a pocket knife fly you into a building?