Should the government issue terror alerts?

[sumphead]

I wish I had the ability to reach down in the depths of my limited knowledge and pull up words that could paint a picture so clearly that this matter could be put to rest. Not that I know the answers as there clearly are none, but such words don't exsist. As everyone has differing views, opionions, and emotions on this subject that is what makes us who we are as a whole. We are Americans. A mixed breed of the world and VERY PROUD OF IT!

Why is there a Terror Alert system? Do we need to know? Do we worry to much? *shrugs* The simple fact is that his is a government by the people for the people. And being such when the people demand answers they are given answers. Even if those answers are right, wrong, lies, or otherwise. In order to maintain a solid integrity of a government and it's itelligence agencies there are things no one outside of that government should know. So when the people via the media demand answers they are given the "terror alert system". Basically what I am saying without trying to offend anyone is; you know nothing in retrospect to the entire situation. You (should) have elected officials whom you trust to represent you and make decisions as a nation for you. If you don't like where it is going, vote again. Be proud of your country.

I won't quote other posts but to touch them all I'll give you a short summary of myself: I joined the US Army at 17 years of age. Yes it is still legal with parental permission. I loved every minute of it, even the times when I didn't if you will. I was highly deployable and found myself in places that I did not know where I was. I eventually reclassified into air traffic control for a future career. I eventually got out of the military and wound up an air traffic controller at arguably the 4th busiest en route air traffic facility in the world. So needless-to-say I am still very much directly related to national security.

I don't take kindly to people who doubt the military and thier actions. They are not children at all but men and women fighting against the forces that threaten our county and YOUR way of life. The men and women of the uniformed services take orders. They take orders from those trusted and respected and those orders are not questioned.

I realize that I cannot tell people there is information they simply don't have a need to know and to trust the government without an argument. But there are indeed things that in the interest of national security can not be released. Anything that has been released in error is either from the pressure of the people for answers, or just that, an error. If you cannot feel comfortable with the direction of the country then vote to change it.

Oh, what did I do before reclassification? Intelligence.

Whatever you believe, try to have faith in your nation because your nation is what you are. May God bless us all.

 

[poikilotherm]

I have mixed feelings about the terror alerts. I believe that law enforcement professionals and first responders need to be aware of any information that may require them to be on a heightened level of preparedness. I do, however, feel that the way that these alerts are jacked up and down with great fanfare for all Americans is playing with fear in the minds of the American people, and accomplishing the terrorists' goals (fear) more effectively than the terrorists could themselves.

<rant>
I feel that a major component of the current administration's war on terror is misguided. While it is important to address any threats, the root cause of terrorism is not any single government, and it is not Islam. The root causes are global geopolitics and economic inequality. The path to addressing them is not by overthrowing governments (qualification: Afghanistan started out OK, but we didn't finish the job before diverting our attention to Iraq), but by starting with the more liberal autocracies and using "strong" diplomacy to encourage human rights and democracy.

Real protection begins with port security, good intelligence, following the money, accounting for old nuclear stockpiles, and international diplomatic and economic policies that make our benevolence clear. The threat is severe, but there are actions that lower the threat and actions that raise it.

Also, I think that the calls to "just trust the government" go against the principles on which the government was founded. That is nationalistic, not patriotic, and is not what I mean by uniting the country. I don't doubt the military, I have a strong respect for them. It's the rhetoric that makes "support for the military" the same as "support for the decisions of a few people at the top who had 'better things to do' than join the military when it was their time" that really galls me. The two are *not* the same.
</rant>

Sorry about that, I feel much better now. I'm done in the lounge for a bit, I'm going back to the FW forums.

 

[rubysoho]

**PBS is a good source for unbiased news. They don't have to answer to huge corporations and are not tied down (as much) in politics. If you don't want to rummage through all the news stations and internet (like a couple of you mentioned) to find a good source, then go there. Also, checking out papers from other countries can give you outside opinions as well as knowledge that may not be told to us in America.

I also just wanted to add in response to whomever made the comment that elections in Spain were changed because of the terrorist attack. This is not entirely true, I know because half of my family is Spanish and are very involved with politics. Yes, the terrorist attack had an effect, but what honestly caused everyone to change their votes was the fact that the people in power LIED to the public in order to gain support and keep voters (they tried to make it seem as if it was an internal attack from a spanish terrorist group even though they had already had evidence it came from Al Queda..or however you spell it, hehe), and when that was quickly revealed to be false, the people changed their votes to elect the other group who hadn't lied. So that was the governments fault there. This isn't a very well know fact because US Media doesn't cover much foreign policy, at least nothing in detail outside the war in iraq. But I am off the original topic now, so I quit talking

 

[ClamKnuckle]

I too joined the military when i was 17, and I don't care what you people say, some people over there are children....jut because you just turned 18 doesn't give you the true mental capacity and the maturity level to be considered an adult

It is my belief that when a leader is doing something that is absolutely and honestly against everything we stand for, then sure, protest that one thing... don't protest the leader himself

I feel that telling lies and getting over 900 Americans killed and costing us billions and billions of dollars is against everything we stand for. I don't understand this protest the one thing and not the person who did it reasoning....How many things does someone have to do wrong until your allowed to blame that person or administration? Is there a magic number? Isn't one thing allowed to be bad enough when its something so great?

We had a witch hunt in this country a few years back about a president that lied about having an affair...just like every single one of us would do if we were caught with our pants down. And yet we have hundreds dying and trillions in debt and social programs being cut across the bored and fire houses closing down and police officers losing there jobs and gang violence on the rise and I shouldn't protest the man/administraion responsible?

As far as voting just to get Bush out of office, I think that is a stupid idea as well. Why? Because if Kerry won, then all we'd be doing after the next four years would be trying to vote Kerry out of office

So people that feel the country is going in the wrong direction shouldn't make a change because others will feel the same way in 4 years...that just blows my mind. The hatred towards Bush by people today is, from my perspective, greater then the hatred towards any other leader in my life time. But we shouldn't change things because in 4 years we might go through this whole thing again. Well, then why are we in a Democracy? Shouldn't we just appoint him king and let him rule so we can stop this cycle? Who cares if people hate him...we would just leave it be no matter what because people might not be happy in 4 years with the other choice.

I don't understand this "voting for one just because you don't like the other isn't very smart" reasoning

What ever reason it is that people vote is good because they are out there voting. If you hate the way one guy is doing the job with that much passion then you should go out and try to get him out. By your logic there would have been no American revolution because even though we hated being under the rule of the Brits we had no idea what would follow them so we shouldn't have done it. Okay that's extreme, but the point is still there. Should people educate themselves, yes, but at least the people who will vote him out just because they hate him have reasons to hate him. Not like the people who just vote political lines blindly no matter how bad they are.

This whole concept of winning the war on terrorism baffles me too. Are we going to win this like we won the war on drugs and the war on poverty and what ever other "war" we declare? I don't care who the leader is it's not doable. How are you going to change the mindset of millions and millions of people? Terrorism has RISEN world wide since our war has begun. Our biggest ally in the Islamic world is the Saudis and never mind the fact the person responsible for 9/11 is Saudi and most of the hijackers were too, but since 9/11 we have caught them funding terrorism...this is progress? Taking out leaders of foreign countries or scaring them into policy changes does not change the mindset of the people with in that country and the hatred they harbor towards us no matter how ignorant it is.

 

[shawmutt]

ahem...I said I'd stay out of it, but Sting calms me down

http://www.songlyrics101.com/print-lyrics/S/Sting Lyrics/This War Lyrics/

and that's all I got to say about that

(for real this time )

 

[rubysoho]

Quote:

As far as voting just to get Bush out of office, I think that is a stupid idea as well. Why? Because if Kerry won, then all we'd be doing after the next four years would be trying to vote Kerry out of office


So people that feel the country is going in the wrong direction shouldn't make a change because others will feel the same way in 4 years...that just blows my mind. The hatred towards Bush by people today is, from my perspective, greater then the hatred towards any other leader in my life time. But we shouldn't change things because in 4 years we might go through this whole thing again. Well, then why are we in a Democracy? Shouldn't we just appoint him king and let him rule so we can stop this cycle? Who cares if people hate him...we would just leave it be no matter what because people might not be happy in 4 years with the other choice.

end quote

** I think you are missing my point here. I agree that if people want someone out of office they should vote for someone else, BUT the problem is that voting for the "next best thing" without really checking out the facts is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go about it. Personally, I will not be voting for Bush, but I do not see a difference between Bush and Kerry. From what I have read (and I am still a little unclear about it so correct me if I am wrong) Kerry wants to send in another 40,000 troops to Iraq. Maybe he is switching troops out, maybe he is adding more to our forces. I don't know. Now there is information about Pakistan training soldiers for Al Queda and sending them over to Afghanistan to fight our troops (New York Times today). which means we may be heading there with our troops next. Plus, the media is completely ignoring everything going on in Haiti (and yes we have troops there too). So much is happening that so many Americans don't know about, and they need to be informed so they can make the right decision in November. I don't want people voting for Kerry simply for the fact that he isn't Bush. Look at their platforms, make sure Kerry is who you truely want to represent America if you don't want Bush in power. Also, don't forget about Nadar. I have heard that a lot of Democrats who are unhappy with Kerry are voting for Nadar, and if he gets 5% of the votes, that means a third party will gain funding from the government and will actually have a chance of winning in the future. Now, the more important reason for having a third party is that it forces the democratic party and republican party to take different stances on issues (not all this agreeing with Bush's policies on everything that I keep hearing from Kerry) which then gives the public real choices to choose from and creates a better, healthier democracy. Just trying to get the "lesser evil" into power isn't a true democracy. Phew... that was a lot of information to write, and probably a lot to read as well. Hope I was able to keep things clear. If not, shoot a question my way, I am more than happy to answer/discuss so long as people are willing to be open to conversation on the subject and not take anything personally. I beleive everyone has the right to their own opinion AND the respect for having the opinion. Thanks for putting up with all my rants!!

 

[ClamKnuckle]

There's a reason republicans across the country are trying to get Nadar on the ballot, they want the democrats/undecideds to split the vote so Bush can win. IMO a vote for Nadar is a vote for Bush. So IMO if you are voting to get Bush out your not doing yourself a favor by voting Nadar.

Perot as a third party had more then 5%...a lot of good that did huh?

He wants to increase active duty by 40,000 troops to get some of the reservists and national guard people home. The "back door draft" as they call it. Another thing is he wants to try and mend some of those broken fences and get countries back on our side so the UN will help us out in Iraq and we can do 2 things:

1) Get a lot of our troops home

2) Put a real force back in place in Afghanistan since most of them were diverted to Iraq (there are almost 10 X's more troops in Iraq then Afghanistan. You think if we put as much commitment in the war against the people that attacked us as in the war in Iraq we might have gotten the people responsible by now?)

Kerry and Bush are really not that similar and I have no idea where people get that from, so people who feel that way, please send some info my way.

 

[poikilotherm]

Whether you're talking about Nader or Perot, the fact that the "spoiler phenomenon" exists is an indication that the electoral system in this country is in need of reform. Instant Runoff Voring would take care of this problem, although not some of the other problems we are dealing with!

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

Despite the current relevance of this with regard to Nader, this is not a partisan issue. The simple implementation of this system would allow other parties to become involved in the political discourse without driving the election in the opposite political direction to which the country is moving. Unfortunately the Republicans and Democrats will probably not let this happen. Entrenched interests and all. It's a shame, it would be so good for the country.

I know we're kind of off-topic here, but what a lively thread!

 

[rubysoho]

here is where I get the idea that Bush and Kerry are very similar from:

Foreign Policy:
Bush's "go get 'em" strategy
Kerry was quoted saying "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." sounds very similar to Bush when he didn't want to wait for the UN when attacking Iraq to sniff out and destroy all those "weapons of mass destruction" they were going to threaten us with(although I feel Sadam and his two sons were WoMD... but that wasn't what Bush was looking for...)


the topic of abortion:
obviously Bush is pro-life
Kerry spoke to the press, and said he felt life begins at conception, which is a huge argument for pro-life believers... then he uses vagueness to appeal to both sides saying yes life begins as conception, but "personhood" doesn't start until a child is born. I would like him to firm up his stance and not stand on the fence line.


Death Penalty:
Bush, from texas, obviously pro death penalty
Kerry straddles the fence saying death penalty is not ok unless it is for a terrorist (so all other mass murderers will not be included)

same sex marriage:
Bush eats out of the church's hands (no offense)
Kerry says he is against same sex marriage, but that there shouldn't be a constitutional amendment and that states ought to fight it out... so his basic veiwpoint is the same there as well.

actually, I can't wait for the debates to start becuase I haven't heard anything about taxes, social security, environment (and Bush has really screwed up that one... especially here in the Blue Ridge Mnts...) and other stuff. I have yet to choose on who I am voting for, but I do consider myself pretty liberal so I'll be voting with whomever I beleive fits my beleifs the most. I am hopeing Kerry will start being decisive and stop tiptoeing around these subjects.

 

[sumphead]

Personally I value each and every one of your comments. I value open disscussions from all opinions. This is indeed a lively thread and so far well said on all accounts. I also thank everyone for stating their opinions without getting personal with others.

Just to play advocate:

For those who do not think the "war on Terror" is winnable and we should not be in Iraq, what do you think our best course of action if any is against terrorism and attacks against the US and it's allies?

 

[bungle]

the problem is that voting for the "next best thing" without really checking out the facts is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go about it.

I kind of recall that frame of mind is what put us in the position we're in today. I remember a lot of people voted for Nader the last time around to avoid choosing between "the lesser of two evils" (myself included). Which in turn allowed the supreme court to SELECT the next president.

 

[ClamKnuckle]

poikilotherm, you couldn't be more right...the entire system is flawed

I still can't believe that there wasn't any election reform after the 2000 election. Millions of more votes yet you lose? That's wrong. The electoral college is so out dated.

I think the founding fathers must be rolling over in there graves with regard to the political system as it is today. I don't think they had career politicians in mind when they envisioned the system. I don't think they had a 2 party system in mind either, but like you said when the two parties make the laws that limit any more competition its almost impossible to change it

 

[rubysoho]

that instant runoff system sounds great... too bad it probably won't happen anytime soon. oh well...

also, I think the problem we have when trying to decide on what else could have been an appropriate action towards the war on terror comes from our violent history. I think we ought to look to Canada for some answers (even though they are always made fun of)... Canada has 7 million guns in a population of 10 million people, 8% unemployment rates (that might be outdated info...) and still manages to have so little crime. Their "ghetto" looks like some middle class townhomes! It is really incredible when you compare it to the US where we have only 4% unemployment, a very similar gun ratio, yet we have a heck of a lot more crime/murder. Sounds like an internal issue we'll eventually need to deal with before we can "fix" the rest of the world's problems, like terrorism.

 

[ClamKnuckle]

For those who do not think the "war on Terror" is winnable and we should not be in Iraq, what do you think our best course of action if any is against terrorism and attacks against the US and it's allies?

If the people in charge with all the information don't know what to do then how should we? We do need to invest in our intelligence programs and follow the suggestions of 9/11 reports. Terrorism is breed in third world nations with people who have nothing but there religion and there hatred for people that don't believe what they do. If we got every one in that part of the world a job and enough to eat and an education then that would help but that's not going to happen. We have an ally in Israel and troops in the middle east so there are going to be people over there that want us dead just for that. I don't think you can ever get rid of the mind set, just try to learn what you can about it and about their actions and try to prevent them from doing us harm. The Bush administration said Iraq was contained, but then decided to go in there anyway, this has only made the matter worse

 

[quarryshark]

Yes by all means, vote for Nader.

 

[ClamKnuckle]

Foreign Policy:
Bush's "go get 'em" strategy
Kerry was quoted saying "we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake."

I don't see that as the same...going after some one when our safety is at stake and going after some one you said was contained are different in my mind

the topic of abortion

You can believe life begins whenever and still be pro choice. Not following the life begins at birth credence doesn't mean you ride the fence it means you have a different point of view. The republicans were running an add bashing him for voting against the lacy peterson bill...he did that because he is pro choice and he didn't want to say that killing an unborn child should count as a murder because it would throw fuel on the fire of the pro lifers

Death Penalty:
Bush, from Texas, obviously pro death penalty
Kerry straddles the fence saying death penalty is not OK unless it is for a terrorist (so all other mass murderers will not be included)

i see a difference there too...killing someone for an act of war against our country is different then killing someone as a deterrent that does not work

same sex marriage:
Bush eats out of the church's hands (no offense)
Kerry says he is against same sex marriage, but that there shouldn't be a constitutional amendment and that states ought to fight it out ... so his basic viewpoint is the same there as well

I think Kerry's thing there was marriage wasn't okay but common law stuff was or something down that road. I'm not too sure on that. But I do think allowing states to decide something and making a Constitutional amendment to limits a minorities rights are very very different

 

[ClamKnuckle]

Yes by all means, vote for Nader.

You a part of the Republicans for Nadar movement?

 

[poikilotherm]

sumphead, I'll try to share my thoughts on your question. The question of whether the "War on Terror" is winnable is not a question of whether we should be doing what we're doing or doing nothing. The long-term question is how we can address the root cause of terrorism. The short-term question is how can we head off any immediate terrorist plans.

The long-term goal articulated by this administration is basically that democracy in the Middle East will take care of this. The rhetoric is that "they hate us for our freedom", and if we make them free they'll be happy. Unfortunately it isn't this simple. Democracy is an admirable goal, but cannot be imposed by fiat, especially with religious fundamentalism on both sides polarizing the situation. Nation-building is long and difficult, and I fervently hope that it works in Iraq. As I stated previously, using "carrot and stick" diplomacy to encourage liberalization of some of the more liberal autocracies in the middle east is IMHO a much more effective and cost-effective way to encourage the spread of respect for human rights and democracy than invasions.

The short-term goal would be to spend the money we are spending in Iraq to inspect containers at our ports, and refine our intelligence system so it's not so factional domestically, and work in a truly international framework to share information to understand these networks of terrorists. Some of this is being done, but the war in Iraq in conjunction with the tax cuts is killing our budget, and not allowing the basic domestic protection we need, cutting our police and firefighter services, and leaving our borders inconsitently monitored. I guess that terror alerts (to bring the thread back to its original topic) would have some meaning if they were implemented along with the money to allow the dedication of resources to address the alert level.

I'm just frustrated because the rhetoric does not match the reality, and I'd rather see politicians working for the good of the country rather than for their own political goals. I guess I'd rather see a situation where the good of the country and political goals are the same thing. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I think that we should expect more.

 

[rubysoho]

nice responses clamknuckle, I partially agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I still feel Kerry isn't being straight forward and is being very unclear in his positions on such controversial topics. I would respect him more if he wasn't trying to appease everyone in his statements. This is another reason why I can't wait for the debates because it will (hopefully) get all this greyness cleared up. Of course, it may just make things more muddled in the end... who knows

 

[ClamKnuckle]

nice responses clamknuckle

Thanks

poikilotherm...you said what i was thinking but you obviously have a higher mental capacity then me since i couldn't formulate my thoughts into words!

I hope that they will have real debates and not scripted ones...
I wish they would have real "town hall" type debates with out scripted questions that the candidates can prepare there answers for in advance