Do you feel any safer now than you did when the events of 9/11/01 occurred?

I voted yes. Simply becuase in DC we've been so consumed with these "terror alert" false alarms for the last two years that I just don't care anymore. It's like worrying about getting hit by a bus.

I'm also sick of Rummy and Cheney saying "when and not if" in order to scare everyone into supporting every wrong move they make.

Didn't the president say earlier this year that Al-Qaida was "on the run" and "out of commission"?

 

no... BUT... i dont feel any less safe than i did before the attacks.

 

It would be fair to say that I feel safer than I did on 9/12/01. However, that's only because it's been two whole years, and I can't sustain a single emotion for such a long period. I don't think the U.S. is a safer place than it was then.

 

I'm more worried about being thrown in jail or otherwise harassed by the government than I am about terrorists attacking.

I read something interesting the London Financial Times:

USD spent investigating Clinton's kanoodling around: 70 million
USD spent on the September 11th investigation: 3 million

 

I feel about the same, so the answer was NO. Nothing of measurable value has been done to improve our safety. I live in a very safe area, but that has everything to do with a close-knit community, a transparent govennment and a healthy greenbelt around our town.

 

I voted yes, I think the CIA and other national spy agencies are much more active now in intel of the terror groups.

 

I voted no. That's because violence begets violence. The US under Bush has used too much violence to deal with the world's problem since 9/11. I don't see that will do American citizens any good outside the country.

I'll feel safer when the president be a democrat.

 

Yes, the correct response to 9/11 would have been to turn the other cheek.

Terrorists get discouraged when you don't react. Just like in third grade when Mikey called you "doo doo head" but you just ignored him and eventually he just stopped saying it.

For this post, pretend this is a thousand

 

Why we haven't emulated Israeli anti terror policies is beyond me. El Al is probaly the safest airline outside of Qantas. The anti missile is a great idea, but many here whine "it will cost too much." I don't care what the price is, because if just one more flight is hijacked the airline industry is done. Kaputt. Game over.

Also, air marshals don't seem to be catching on here. People we have to guarentee the safety of out flights.

 

I don't believe for a second that the 2nd item there is correct.

 

I handled Mikey the way Bush would: I went and beat the shit out of Nancy.

 

Right. Bin Laden hit your right cheek real hard. And you killed everyone standing next to him. Then asked people "Bin Laden who?"

You think that's a correct response?

 

> I don't care what the price is, because if just one
> more flight is hijacked the airline industry is done.

There is a big difference between El Al and airlines in the United States. The first is heavily subsidized by the Israeli government (just as almost all airlines outside the US are). They can afford to give up seats to guards and fit expensive equipment because they don't have to make a profit. Private airlines are not a profitable business, and are always on the bring of losing money. To ask them to do these things will have a massive impact on the airline business - prices would skyrocket and the number of flights will plummet.

 

This won't happen if another flight is downed????

 

> This won't happen if another flight is downed????

So since we are going to die anway, you don't see anything wrong with shooting people?

 

Democrats use violence sometimes, but at least they don't brag about it. They also don't claim God's on their side when using it.

 

http://news.ft.com/home/us

Find it for yourself. I get thet print edition and don't look at the website much. I swear its not a french newspaper.

btw: the "september 11 investigation" is that independant commitee that good ole Kissinger was supposed to be the head of. I would assume that 3mil figure does not include FBI expenditures.

 

So you don't agree with spending money to protect commercial aircraft flights?

 

> So you don't agree with spending money to
> protect commercial aircraft flights?

No, I don't agree with your absurdist reductionism arguments. Just because I don't agree that particular saftey measures have to be taken does not mean that no safty measures have to be taken. Saftey takes resources, and at some point it costs more than the benefit it provides. The saftey measures we already impose are close to that tipping point for most airlines. Putting in complicated electronics that are only partially successful against threats that have nevery been used against any American airpliner is height of unthinking reactionism. We are not helping ourselves by spending this money to no purpose - we will in fact be doing the enemy's job for them. They will always be able to get around the defense, or just attack some jucier target.

 

Stupid government.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0030918/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/airlines_missiles_4

Bush is putting $100 million for development costs. It is estimated that it will cost $10 billion to equip all the aircraft. That is more than the market caps of United, Delta, American and Continental airlines combined. The government has become convinced that money is infinite, and that they can buy votes by spreading this funny money around on every idea they have.

I guarantee that not one life will be saved by this, if it is ever installed.