Your Solutions on....

I'l let others decide what your intentions were when you made your comment. I'm not buying your explanation.

ok chip. You're right..We don't do enough to protect ourselves from natural disasters or to prevent accidents.

Terrorism is different because there is INTENT attached.

Intent doesn't change statistics. We can't rationally and efficiently address the real risks until we drop the us versus them shit. I think everyone should go back to their corners and maybe we can have a rational debate about this in another five or ten years when everyone's thinking clearly again.

You'd have a higher probability of success wishing for world peace really really really hard.

You are ignoring the fact that we already do a great deal to help prevent loss of life and damage to infrastructure caused by Natural Disasters.

We also so a great deal to create and enforce codes that help minimize engineering accidents and flaws in order to help prevent unnecessary loss of life and infrastructure.

Also, your argument suggests that protecting people from natural disasters and engineering IS NOT or CANNOT be done at the same time the government makes attempts to twart more terrorist attacks against US and ALLIED interests.

Actually - by investing in our infrastructure, strengthening our levees and dams, re-engineering weak bridges, widening roads etc. we are investing in our own security whether it's protection against terrorism, hurricanes or earthquakes.

It's like weight loss though, everyone wants to take a pill and lose ten pounds overnight instead of doing the hard sweat work that needs to be done.

People "perceive" that lots of spy stuff they don't understand might help security and save "thousands of lives".

People can't see how spending money on more road work or on hospitals or bridges would help.

It's all perception.

.

If you say so.. but it's true. Even many of the troops in Iraq believe the invasion of Iraq was in retaliation for Iraq's role in 9/11

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/030406a.html

feeding troll bad mmkay?

The arrogance of actually telling me what I really meant and was thinking lol !! You are not involved in American foreign policy by any chance? This tells me more about your attitude and viewpoints than any statement you make here.

I thank you for reminding me... sorry

OMG Kendra - ya just made tea go up my nose.

Anyhow - this is the kind of thing that I think is actually harmful to security because it undermines peoples trust in their government and it encourages the DOJ to do things in an underhanded manner: (sorry for the temporary derailment of your thread Kiamat)

I think the Patriots act is anything but and should go bye, bye.

"So people actually now believe September 11th was a pre-emptive strike on America by Iraq. It is amazing how the power of the press and propaganda can re-write even recent history and people believe it."

it is how you started your post with "So...now". If you don't know how to convey your intended meaning then don't get mad at me.

Yes, I've seen this. It just goes to show you how stupid people are. I was very engaged in news reporting for months leading up to the beginning of full military operations in Iraq. The strange thing is that I never suspected that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, nor do I recall ever hearing or reading a news story that confirmed any Official statement that claimed Iraq was invloved.

EDIT: Actually, this is a new poll. Which is interesting because similar results were published years ago. I was refering to the older results, not this new poll.

If Rude was referring to this new poll, then it would have been easy to refer to it or link it. Again, make your point clearly or accept criticism when you don't

I hadn't seen any previous polls referring to only the military and the beliefs held by many of the troops. I had only seen previous polls referring to Americans in general - and more military personnel believe there were ties between Iraq and 9/11.

There never was an official statement, but it had been inferred quite a few times - linking the two in quite a few speeches.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Yes, you are right, the older poll was about Americans in general, and as you point out, this is a poll of military personnel.

Thanks Joy. The results of the poll are troubling. And frankly, I haven't heard anything about it in any conservative forums (tv, radio, internet).

That wasn't just for you Joy, even though it appeared right after your post. Just in general, no good can come of this thread.

I never said this was a battle. I said this was a place for the naysayers to get on record with what they would do rather than just decrying what is being done. I don't believe that either side has *all* the answers and I welcome counter suggestions. Thus this thread.

-Kiamat Dusk

Oh, I sometimes (giggle) get carried away with trolls, thus the thanks

Let me put on my referee hat here for a minute.

Champie and Joy-please take your private conversation elsewhere.

Chance, Chip, and Kendra.....awwww nevermind....

Cindy....I want to be the father of your children!

Currently this thread is about your rational, reasonable suggestions for improving national security. If you're not offering your own suggestions or commenting on someone else's, please play in another thread.

-Kiamat Dusk

No it's not. None of us are qualified. This about you making an underhanded swipe at those who oppose the Bush administration while implying that we don't care about national security. Some of us weren't born yesterday.

My solutions are pretty simple... Stop being sheep willing to vote for any corporate whore who comes along. Do some research into their past service and voting history, into how they really stand on issues, if they're willing to stand at all.

Vote accordingly, and get the corporate whores out of office.

If they whored themselves out to the highest bidder during their former offices/positions, they won't have changed just because you promote them into the presidency.

Anyone who read anything about Bush Jr's record should not be at all surprised about his presidency.

I wager that if we removed all airport security, an event like 9/11 would still never happen. Heightening security sounds like a great idea but it is expensive. How about trying to figure out why we have enemies in the first place? Or how about not naming everyone an enemy? How about diplomacy? How about not calling countries "evil" as if we are in high school?

You can never be completely secure. That's why we have to help our neighbors and bring up their education and living standards. In the meantime it would not hurt to improve our school system that's been suffering for a while now.

Education, Education, Education. People can not fear the things they are familiar with. People do not hate the things they're familiar with. We need to educate ourselves and we need to educate the world.

Troy

But as you can see it very rapidly became a pointless argument. You didn't have to say you thought it was a battle, the wording you used to start the thread was combative enough on it's own. (Even ignoring the tone of your replies in other threads.)

Not all of us who think that President Bush isn't doing a good job are "diametrically opposed to anything and everything this Administration has, is, or will do."

Wording it that way sets the tone that anyone who doesn't agree with the President 100% is a left wing nut job. Not a very conducive environment for a productive conversation, no matter what your original intentions where.

Not only is it our right as American citizens to question our leader's actions, it's our duty to do so.

There will never be any headway made on either side until both sides actually start to respect the fact that other people will have different opinions than they do. The goal shouldn't be to beat the “other side” with your opinion until they relent and admit that you are right. The goal is to put our egos aside and actually listen to what the “other side” has to say, then try to find a compromise that is acceptable to both sides.

After all, compromise is what makes democracy work in the first place.