user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Based on the opinions of many on this site... not very.
Serious enough to invade a country that had nothing to do with terrorism just to make sure that the terrorists wouldn't go there. 
Voted : 3
What cranky said.
by mojo on Tue Sep 12, 06 8:48am
[+]
FiddleFaddle was right on this one. I dont think serious enough. Then if something happens again and it will, The same people will be screaming that not enough was done.
hurricane: Perhaps the right things are not being done?
If I am to build a brick wall somewhere and try to accomplish this by running on a treadmill -- I expend huge amounts of energy, true. But it doesn't address the problem.
I think the threat is very serious. A top priority. Unfortunately, many do not realize the nature of the threat we face.
The current administration's priority level in dealing with this I think is pretty high. However, I think they do a very poor job at communicating this. Part of that is due to the credibility lost as part of the Iraq thing and part is due to the ineptitude of the administration. They also have done fairly poorly in implementing some of the right measures. Some is their own fault and some is due to the knee jerk reaction to any spy or interdiction program they propose. While Rome burns.
Far more was done during World War 2 as people realized the threat.
^ AH, now that was an answer, FF ... even if I don't agree.
Voted : 7
I've no idea how we'd measure seriousness about terrorism. Fighting terrorism is difficult because there is no well-defined enemy, and no nation or army against which to declare war or victory. If we measure it by the incidences of terrorism following our war, then you might conclude, at this point, that the war on terror is being won because there have been no new attacks against the United States since 9-11. However, I think are collectively holding our breath, waiting for the other shoe to drop. We almost know that more attacks against us are imminent. Until such attacks eventuate, the Bush Administration will continue to claim that we are winning the war against terrorism, and unless/until such an attack against the mainland, critics will be unable to say that we aren't. Are we? I don't think so, and I hope I'm wrong.
Voted : 4
I won't consider the effort even halfway made.
but, cranky, didn't they- ah- uh...ummm..never mind. My brain's starting to ooze out of my ear again.
^ might I recommend silicone ear stopples? They work great for me :-)
by mojo on Tue Sep 12, 06 12:25pm
[+]
Voted : 7
I agree with fiddle on the seriousness of the issue--it's very serious. Unfortunately, this administration seems to be using "terrorism" for their own agenda. An army of "Bush Brownshirts" spitting on the constitution while invading every aspect of our private life in the name of terrorism has left a bad taste in many a person's mouth. The manner in which this administration has politicized terrorism has made many a little leary about terrorism; hence, fiddle's perception that "many on this site" don't consider terrorism a serious threat. We should be worried about terrorism, but this administration is not up to it. In fact, thery're a terrorist dream. Bush/Chaney remind me of Klink/Schultz and they're providing the perfect environment for Hogan's Terrorists.
Cathexis, I wish more was being done. But its like the FBI and CIA hands are being tied when they want to go in at that moment and get someone. They have to ask permission for everything. Terrorist should not have any civil rights. Our protection should trump their rights. It is the Liberals in DC and the ACLU who are hurting us in protecting the country.
hurricane: Unless the terrorists are wearing name tags, you can't pick them out of a crowd. This means you either go about it sanely and in a civilized manner or you strip rights from wide swathes of people who have not been shown to be guilty of anything.
|
|
