Are we going to have attacks worse than 9/11 in the near future?
Yes
Side Score: 13
|
 |
No
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
If we keep pissing off other countries by occupying them when we aren't wanted and killing civilians...probably. I wouldn't say near future, but it's gonna happen. You can't have a war that leads to the death or over 400,000 civilians and expect everything is going to hunky-dory. Side: yes
It seems people are confusing those who hate us but not enough to attack us (like the French) and those who hate us no matter what we do (like the Taliban and al-Qaeda). As long as those fuckers exist, we are always in a constant state of danger. it doesn't matter how likable we come with more civilized countries (like Europeans), the fact is, radical terrorists like al-Qaeda hate us for the very things we stand for (freedom of religion, capitalism, etc.) with Obama as president, i can't tell just yet if it will hurt us or help us when it comes to battling terrorism. his whole "speak directly with Mahmoud" thing is more of just what the British did with Hitler, but he did say that he isn't taking fighting Iran off the table. I'm just hoping he doesn't negotiate with the bastard... Intimidate would be nice, but i doubt it. he'll probably just talk with him... realize that he is crazy, and consider helping Israel fight Iran. Or, he can pander to Mahmoud, let him take over Iraq and overthrow Israel, and then once he starts getting out of hand (like, committing genocide), the Russians (for some Historical reason) will start fighting them and then we'll come in right after, and the British this time will come in to finish them off and take all the credit for it. lol, wow, sorry, that's WW2. well, not really, this time WE'RE the ones who let a genocidal, Radical dictator take over a region. well, I doubt Obama will do that... i'm hoping once he gets the information that he never had access to before (like WW2 history), he'll decide that negotiating with Iran is not the best idea. Side: yes
1
point
0
points
As much as I'd love to I cannot guarentee that it will not happen, especially with Obama as our President. I think that the terrorists will take advantage of him and it's just a question of will it be something small like releasing a video to scare us but never actually doing it or will it be something ver bad Side: yes
2
points
Especially with Obama as our President? The last time I looked it was a Republican President who had the watch on 9/11 and you're actually stating that because Obama will be our President come January we are in more jeopardy than we were on that day? From what or whom? How on earth will "they" take more advantage of him than they would anyone else? Your logic escapes me Republican08. Do you really think they are afraid of ANY American President? No, we're not going to have attacks worse than those of 9/11 unless someone falls asleep at the helm. Side: No
|
2
points
The implication seems to be, are we going to have a bad attack because Obama is the President elect- and that's a bunch of baloney. No doubt, there are people plotting to attack us- as there have been before 9/11, and have been since. Should we act like there is a threat? Of course. Should we let that threat take away our American way of life? Take away our freedom? Of course not. I am going to hope that, if Obama gets a memo saying someone is determined to attack us with planes flying into buildings, that he will do something about it. Side: No
It would be a really bad idea at this point. We have a world wide approved progressive electorate about to take office that is pressed by history to put on a good show. The middle east is already being more cooperative just knowing that we've elected Obama. I don't think there's much to worry about in the way of terrorism. Now, if we're talking about superpowers, we may be dealing more with that in the future, but again, I don't think we're going to see something worse than 9/11 on American soil again for a while. Side: No
2
points
I am really sitting on the fence on this one...perhaps there should be a category for that reply too... I disagree with The Republican, though. Most of our hostiles are waiting to talk to Obama. Obama is for peace, as wars are costly and lives are lost...but never think for a moment that he wouldn't defend us. If McCain and Palin had gotten in office, I would say YES as they are both war-like personalities. In case you hadn't noticed, the world sighed a sigh of relief when Obama was chosen. Get your heads out of the sand from losing and look around. Or is peace a bad thing to you, too? Anything can happen. We are just very lucky that the criminal WORLD terrorist, that we had in the oval office for the last 8 years hasn't gotten us into worse WARS! Being the new kid on the block doesn't mean that you are going to fail. But Bush, who had 8 years to get it right...will go down as the WORST President for America, ever. We are lucky we did not get blown to smithereens with him at the helm. Count your lucky stars...or go buy a lotto ticket, it is your lucky day! Southern smiles and world peace, Sharon ~The Baby Boomer Queen~ Side: yes
1
point
Read your science textbooks, realise 9/11 is hardly the work of aircraft. But refer to the debate http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ However, _disclaimer_ I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to impeach any party in it's responsibility. Conversely, Obama is an intelligent man, he is a much better choice than McCain when it comes to diplomatically diffusing international tensions. So if 9/11 were the work of international disenfranchisement, Obama will be more able to prevent such an issue happening again compared to McCain. Side: No
What's your definition of "near future"? We should never assume or fear terrorism. It's a week and evil thing, and the only way it can ever work is if we let it. The fact is, with all the pomp and parade since 9/11, we've done virtually nothing to make our country safer, except perpetuate a constant state of fear among the citizens. The opposite infact, by invading a sovereign nation we've unwittingly earned the reputation in the minds of terrorists which they had already, and incorrectly, attributed to us. That we are imperialistic, big, spoiled, and dumb. This could not be further from the truth. In spite of Bush's best attempts to make it otherwise, and inspite of this dip in world opinion we've hit, we are the smartest, most just, free-est, and by far the most generous nation in the history of mankind. 9/11 was a tragedy, and thousands were killed, and Osama and Al Quada should be brought to justice. The greatest tragedy though was that we allowed, in the aftermath, things like the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, Guantanamo, and torture. Though thousands died at 9/11, millions have died to keep this country a beacon to the world, free, and a place where the best of human nature rises to the top, and the worst is squashed in an aire of free thought, expression, and exceptance. The greatest tragedy of 9/11 is not the death toll, but the toll on the spirit of a nation. We as a people did not react the way Americans should react. Yes, Bush and Cheney and his administration will carry that shame to their graves, but we are all to blame for it. Because we are one nation, and indivisible, no matter how hard terrorists, and opportunity seeking politicians try and make us otherwise. Side: No
It's not FOR terrorists. The terrorists are a wakeup call to tell us we're extremely unpopular around the world. I didn't say we shouldn't protect ourselves. But the best way to do that is make sure people don't WANT to attack us, rather than try to find every terrorist with methods that just make people hate us even more. Your second comment is devoid of substance. Side: No
|
