Has the US Made the World Less Secure?

[Sunstone]

Has the United States, and specificially the Bush Administration, made the world less secure by its actions over the past six years?

If so, how, and -- more importantly -- what, if anything, can be done about it?

If not, why not?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Has the United States, and specificially the Bush Administration, made the world less secure by its actions over the past six years?

If so, how, and -- more importantly -- what, if anything, can be done about it?

If not, why not?

I think the world is a much safer place because of the Bush Administration over the last six years. Will there still be terrorism? Of course. Do we still have problems with the Arab World? Of course. But as long as we steadily create an opportunity for cultural change in the Middle East, we have a chance to bring East and West together.

 

[Comprehend]

Has the United States, and specificially the Bush Administration, made the world less secure by its actions over the past six years?

If so, how, and -- more importantly -- what, if anything, can be done about it?

If not, why not?

I think the US and the Bush administration has made the world less secure for the moment but in the long run more secure. It would be difficult to say that there has been less violence and death so far as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan than there would have been over the same time period if we had not acted.

However, a stitch, in time saves nine. Or rather, a (relatively) little conflict now, saves a whole lot of conflict down the road. I think that the war on terrorism was inevitable because the terrorists have shown they were not going to stop attacking us.

While one may say that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. I say, that depends on how short sighted you are. A world leader must look at long term effect. Especially with foreign policy decisions. People thought Reagan was a moron when he dealt agressively with Russia. 20 years has done much to vindicate him. Bush may end up the same way if he is able to defeat radical islam and terrorism by planting democracy in the heart of the muslim world and letting it take root. 20 years from now, what will people think if there are 3 or 4 democracies in the Middle East?

The fact is, the sooner we can bring the middle east into the 21st century, the sooner we can have peaceful normative relations with them. Democracy seems to be a great moderator of fanatical peoples. Japan is a great example. France maybe a little too good :foot: .

What a bargain it might be to be able to knock over a couple of corrupted despotic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, plant the seeds of democracy and let democracy defeat the rest of the countries radical beliefs. A generation or two might make the middle east look completely differently politically.

We are really looking at some old foreign policy. Allan Dulles or George Kennen? Roll-back or containment? Bush chose roll-back. So did JFK. Is it right? Is it wrong? Kennedy's choice didn't turn out so well. Only time will tell if Bush's does.

I don't know if I agree with Bush's actions. Generally I do not like the neo-con straussian view of foreign or domestic policy. I think it is a little too aggressive. In the war on terrorism though, I think something had to be done. We had been absorbing attacks for too long and to the terrorists we appeared weak. It is very difficult to fight an opponent that does not have a country. There isn't much of a target, but you can't simply sit there and take hits... tough call.

 

[Seraphiel]

The world was never secure and I don't feel the US made it less or more secure. But the US made the world FEEL more insecure. I think the US is the grand master in spreading fear in it's own country and now also around the globe. There has always be terrorism, and there will always be. There has always been war, and there will always be. Nothing to be afraid about.

 

[FatMan]

The world is just as secure or not secure as it has been for years. The security issues have just shifted to other places in the globe.

George W. wasn't in office when past genocides were taking place in other areas of the globe and terrorism didn't start just when he took office.

I don't think any effect on world security has been affected by Bush.

 

[Djamila]

Has the United States, and specificially the Bush Administration, made the world less secure by its actions over the past six years?

If so, how, and -- more importantly -- what, if anything, can be done about it?

If not, why not?

They've made the world immeasurably less safe, particularly for Americans but to some extent for all of us.

The Iraq war has made matters worse, of course. That it happened at all, and how it has been carried out, has ruined America in the yes of - it seems - most of the world, perhaps for a generation or more. The largest protests in the history of our species, simultaneously being carried out in most every major city around the world - that was our message to the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. And still they went. If it wasn't costing Iraqi lives, I'd be absolutely gleeful when I said, "I told you so!". Arrogant, lying ********.

The war between Israel and Lebanon is another issue of contention. For the United States, after all its fiasco with Iraq, to supply Israel with cluster bombs and other potential WMDs was sickening. Thousands of men, women, and children were killed in Lebanon - the country was destroyed - over two kidnapped soldiers. Two kidnapped soldiers.

Both of these things, in the eyes of - it seems - most of the world, rest squarely on the shoulders of the Americans.

And that's not even getting into everything else that's happened...

 

[opensoul7]

Has the United States, and specificially the Bush Administration, made the world less secure by its actions over the past six years?

If so, how, and -- more importantly -- what, if anything, can be done about it?

If not, why not?

Yes.
Since the "war on terror" there have been more terrorist attacks worldwide than before . "the war on terror" is a joke , first that is a broad and general statement that could include any person or persons anywhere . Second we in the US have never even been fighting a war on terror . That was a spin statement in order to justify a invasion of Iraq . We have never been focused on stoping terrorists , and have done more by starting a illegitimate war to incite terrorism worlwide, than to stop it. A majority of the terrorists in the 911 attacks were from Saudi Arabia , but we have not even asked them to help us hunt down terrorists or for them to try and stop insurgents coming from their country. Yes we need leadership in this country that will refocus us on capturing the remenants of Al queida (sorry if the spelling is wrong) and through communication and GOOD foreign policy help build the relationships between us and the rest of the world. Through those strong ties we can start worldwide intellegence and as a whole (as much as possible ) Work together with the world to stop the threat of terrorism that faces us all.

 

[FatMan]

Yes.
Since the "war on terror" there have been more terrorist attacks worldwide than before .

That's false.

 

[Djamila]

That's false.

No it's not. There have been more in Iraq this month than across the entire world prior to the war.

 

[opensoul7]

I beg to differ the 35,000 plus souls lost in Iraq due to terrorists acts by insurgents since we ivaded says otherwise. That also does not include the other bombings and kidnappings in the rest of the world . I have not even mentioned Africa or asia .

 

[Polaris]

Arrogant, lying ********.

What lying are you referring to?

The war between Israel and Lebanon is another issue of contention. For the United States, after all its fiasco with Iraq, to supply Israel with cluster bombs and other potential WMDs was sickening. Thousands of men, women, and children were killed in Lebanon - the country was destroyed - over two kidnapped soldiers. Two kidnapped soldiers.

Both of these things, in the eyes of - it seems - most of the world, rest squarely on the shoulders of the Americans.

So I assume it's America's fault that the Hezbollah terrorists tactfully hid out in civilian-populated locations. If they were so inculpable why didn't they fight like brave men and quit using innocent Lebanese as shields.

Terrorists caused the destruction of Lebanese people and cities, not America. I simply don't understand why people continue to turn a blind eye to the real problem -- terrorists -- and point fingers at the US.

 

[Djamila]

What lying are you referring to?

Hahaha... exactly.

 

[opensoul7]

Terrorists caused the destruction of Lebanese people and cities, not America. I simply don't understand why people continue to turn a blind eye to the real problem -- terrorists -- and point fingers at the US.

My Answer

We have never been focused on stoping terrorists , and have done more by starting a illegitimate war to incite terrorism worlwide, than to stop it.

It is hard for others to believe us when our actions have been so wrong. The war in Iraq has never had anything to do with stopping terrorism , or stopping al-queida. That was known before the war in Iraq even started , there never has ,is ,or was a connection between Sadam and Osama.

 

[Polaris]

Hahaha... exactly.

So you can prove that Bush lied about Iraq possessing WMD's?

Yeah, maybe you're right. He somehow convinced the intelligence agencies to provide him with the necessary (albeit faulty) information so he could spitefully invade Iraq. And in doing so he was also able to convince leaders from the Democratic party as well as other major world leaders that his decision was valid and justified and was even able to garner their support. Maybe he isn't so dumb after all.

 

[opensoul7]

So you can prove that Bush lied about Iraq possessing WMD's?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html

 

[FatMan]

No it's not. There have been more in Iraq this month than across the entire world prior to the war.

You cannot equate "terrorist acts" during a war to making the World less safe. Along that logic, Bush has done a fantastic job in eliminating terrorist acts in Vietnam.

We are specifically talking about if the whole world is less safe now, and I'd say no.

 

[Polaris]

The war in Iraq has never had anything to do with stopping terrorism , or stopping as-queida. That was known before the war in Iraq even started , there never has ,is ,or was a connection between Sadam and Osama.

The problem is that you can't prove any of that. We simply don't have access to all the information that has been presented to the president and we can't get in his head to know his true intentions. There is definitely evidence of al-queda networks in Iraq and I have a hard time believing that Saddam was oblivious or indifferent to that.

Bush definitely is not perfect and he's clearly made mistakes in this war, but at the time we entered into the war president Bush had strong bipartisan support as well as the support of certain major world leaders. I believe that he believed that Saddam possessed WMDs and that they were in the process of attempting to develop even more capabilities in that area. Saddam may not have ever had nuclear capabilities but you'd be naive to think that he didn't want them and wasn't attempting to get them. Saddam had repeatedly ignored UN resolutions against his WMD development operations. At some point something had to be done. Or do you suggest that we should have waited until he actually had active and functional nuclear weapons? That's a risk I don't think Bush wanted to take and rightfully so.

 

[NoahideHiker]

I'm interested in making America more secure. I think we have made strides towards this goal but much more needs to be done. Like locking down our borders. I would have much rather seen all the money spent on Iraq spent on our borders than to take out Hussain.

 

[opensoul7]

Would not a unjust war initself be cosidered a act of terrorism ?
ter·ror·ism

(těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You cannot equate "terrorist acts" during a war to making the World less safe.

Yes you can.

We are specifically talking about if the whole world is less safe now, and I'd say no.

I would say yes
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/04/goodby_patterns.html

 

[Djamila]

There is definitely evidence of al-queda networks in Iraq and I have a hard time believing that Saddam was oblivious or indifferent to that.

No there wasn't - and it's important for Americans to realize Saddam Hussein was an enemy of al'Qaeda. He was a rather secular dictator and under his rule women achieved equal rights, alcohol became commonplace, and non-Muslim minorities achieved some power.

Saddam Hussein was even more an enemy of al'Qaeda than the Jordanian royal family, perhaps even more than the House of Saud but for different reasons.