Has the U.S. led Global War on Terrorism made the world safer?
969489
Well let's see. You've made a few assumptions in your question that make it difficult to answer. \n\nFirst, is it a global war? \n\nI don't think so. The zone of conflict is very much centered on the area around the Arabian Sea, so its not really a global conflict. To claim that the issues with North Korea come into play as part of this war on global terrorism is weak. The issues with North Korea are more latencey issues from the Cold War than part of the allegded war on terrorism. \n\nSecond, you assume that this is a war on terrorism. \n\nThis too can be challenged. My view is that this is a huge grab for oil resources by the US. Iraq is conservatively estimated to have the largest oil reserves in the world and much of that is unexplored and undeveloped. Further, the main goal of the conflict in Afghanistan is to secure the eastern region of the country so that the oil pipeline from Kazakhstan can be completed, securing oil resources for a long time in to the future for the US. Anyone who lived through the oil crisis of the early 1970's and was in Europe during the driving bans, knows that not having a secure and steady supply of oil can bring the entire Western world to a grinding halt in days, not weeks.\n\nThird, you assume that the US is leading this effort. \n\nIs the majority of the nation behind this effort? Is the effort the will of the people? I don't think so. This folly into violence has been perpetrated on the American citizen by their arrogant and greedy aristocracy. While you may vote for your representives, where do they come from? The ranks of the elite for the most part. George W. Bush can't equate with the common man any more than his father, and his father before him. The Bush family are and have been among the wealthiest of Americans. They are far removed from the citizenry. George Bush senior was driven the school daily in his father's Rolls Royce will depression era Americans rode the rails and starved in the streets. So is this violence the will of the American people? Based on the latest election results it seems aless likely scenario with each passing day.\n\nHas all of this made the world a safer place? \n\nFor business travellers who travel by air within the US the skies are definitely safer. What passed for airport security in the US prior to 9/11 was a joke of global proportions. Today that is not the case. Would it still be possible for a repeat of 9/11 to happen; an attack launched from within? Yes, it is still possible, but it would be more difficult to pull it off. American airports actually now have some level of security. As for travel outside the US, I think its far more risk know than at any time in the last century. The violence of the so called war on terror has polarized and destabilized the security of most western nations. Having once travelled freely and without concern throughout Europe, I would not feel as comfortable today as in the past.\n\nHas the entire reaction of the west to the violence of 9/11 made the world a better place? Not in my opinion.
65408
a safer nation from terrorism. A better economy.  Lower taxes.  More freedom.
1087827
Right... except for the fact that Republican policies have engendered hatred around the world, increasing terror attacks since 2003, and causing over 2,500 American deaths while breeding thousands of new enemies of the U.S.... The Republicans keep us real safe... That's why they caved to special interest groups and blocked passage of the Safe Skies CArgo Inspection Act (introdcued by a Democrat -a Massachusetts Democrat) that would have -gasp- required the inspection of 100% of cargo transported on passenger aircraft in the U.S. by 2008.  As it is, under Republican policies - less than 5% of cargo is scanned for radioactive material.  And how about our ports? The less said there the better.  Bush and his cronies have absolutely zero interest in keeping the country safe - they only stand to benefit from increased violence and fear.
621973
safer than iran or iraq
16514
The book "Whats So Great About America" has the answers to this question. But in brief, I think education and military force and vigilance are the answers. \n\nWith education, terrorism and fanaticism can be halted in future generations. With miltary strength and vigilance, we can guard against present threats and strike back as well.\n\nWe need Islamic countries as allies, or else we will continually be seen as the Great Satan. But I think we should be allies with a progressive nation like the UAE.
364398
As a member of the military I have some reluctance in answering this question the way I feel it needs.\n\nWill the USA sugger another large-scale attack?  I don't doubt that another attack of the magnitude of 9/11 is possible.  In fact I am quite sure there are a number of terrorist organizations planning attacks like 9/11 even as I write this posting.\n\nAre 9/11's preventable?\n\nI think that if news reports are to be believed we have already prevented attacks such as this.  (I don't necessarily believe news reports).  That said in a free society such as we enjoy we simply can not (And probably should not) do what is necessary to prevent all such attacks.  If we give up our freedom to prevent all such attacks we are handing a victory to the terrorists.
253245
No,I don't feel any safer. Americans around the world are being still being killed. The people of the Middle East still hate us and Bush made it worse. Our soliders are suffering and being killed because George Bush and his GOP minons did not have a plan on how to win the peace. I know that if I was an American solider or business man then I would not feel any safer especially in the Middle East.\n\nThe government is not supposed to spy on its own people without good reason and the executive branch should report what it is doing to the other two branches of government. Nobody, especially George Bush, should be able to do whatever it wants to, not even in the name of national security. \n\nOur goverment is based on the "checks and balances" and no branch especially the Executive Branch should do things in secret and it must also obey the law. Otherwise, our goverment becomes exactly like the ones that we are trying to protect ourselves from!  \n\nWarrent-less wire tapes and other violations of liberty should not go unlimited, unchecked and without reason. The Executive Branch must report its actions to Congress or someone else other than itself.\n\nGod Bless and forgive America for its sins against it own people and the people of the world.
44395
Hmm, lets see.  How many major terrorist attacks have we had on US soil since 2001... 0.  How many in 2001... 1.  I would say I feel safer now than I did in 2001 yes.
570976
with the invasion of Iraq and other dealings n the Middle East since (continuing support of Israel despite years of oppression against the Palestinians, refusing to recognize and aid the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Palestine and our actions against Iran, who simply wants the same nuclear power that the rest of the modern world has had for more than 50 years) have don little to make me feel safer.  If anything, these actions have simply made terrorist attacks against American targets at home and abroad mor justifiable.  We're playing into the terrorists' hands--proving to the people of the Middle East that we are the @$$holes they think we are--and all in the name of oil.
282123
No... Neo-Liberal economic policies, combined with crippling western-backed wars (Congo, Iraq, US bombings in Nigeria, Western intervention in the Balkans, etc.), senseless economic blockades (like those imposed on Cuba or Iraq), have led to a wide increase of poverty and unemployment world-wide, this having, as a consequence, the rise of crime, radical ideologies such as fundamentalist islam, and terrorist movements.\n\nThe Bush decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan has actually increased terrorism exponentially, by creating more poverty and desperation among the Arab populace, while Bush's imperialist expansionist foreign policies have propped rogue states like Iran or North Korea to adquire nuclear weapons to defend themselves, and to become more radical themselves. (such as Iran's election of Mahmud Abdinehab)\nNeo-liberal economic policies are also causing industries to close in the first world, under the guise of this so-called globalization, so that production can be moved to sweatshops in Asia, under dictatorial or weak governments that allow bussinesses to pay less than 15 cents per hour to their workers. This is causing the slow destruction of the middle classes, worldwide, increasing poverty, social-inequality, and reducing economic security.\n\nIn politics, the so-called war on terror has led to a widespread reduction of civil rights, in the US (with the PATRIOT Act and domestic eavesdropping), in Europe (shoot-to-kill policies, and other examples) and in dictatorial countries like China or Pakistan (who are using the "War on Terror" to crack down on their resistance groups, like the Ughiur or the Tibetan independence movements).\nIn addition to all this, neo-liberal policies have implicated the reduction of healthcare and education budgets in many countries, reducing the education level of its populaces and the access to proper healthcare for the poorest segments of their societies.\n\nSo, no, the world is not safer than in 1996. Terrorism, poverty, social inquality, crime and uncertainity have increased, while our civil rights, economic and physical security, health and education levels, have decreased.\nThe world is becoming more and more a dangerous and competitive place, a jungle, if you will, for us commoners, while those in the upper half of society become richer and more powerful each day at the expense of the rest.\n\nVery good question, by the way.\n\n\n\nEDIT: To answer "The Wise One": I am Latin American, and let me inform you that the process of democratization happened during the 1980's, not during the 1990's.\nThe latin american countries that were democracies in 1996 are still democracies now (Including Venezuela and Bolivia, whose governments were democratically elected and, in the case of Venezuela, ratified by a referedum.)\nAlso, the "banana republic dictatorships" (a very offensive term, by the way) you are mentioning were in most cases implanted and backed by the US government, (like, for example, the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, Videla in Argentina, Fujimori in Peru, The toppling of Arbenz in Guatemala, "Papa Doc" Duvalier in Haiti and many others.\nSo, please learn your facts before opening your mouth.\nAs an Argentinian, we have a democracy that, albeit its dictatorial interruptions, has been in existance since 1912. A term like "banana republic" proves to be very bigoted and offensive.\n\nDon't fool yourself, Oh Wise One... when all serious ONGs and international organizations in the world say that famine and social inequality are increasing worldwide, when the UNESCO says that education levels are decreasing, when millions of people are starving in Haiti, Congo, Sudan and elsewhere (in a situation WORSE than 10 years ago), when the number of terrorist attacks per year worldwide has multiplied iself by 8 or more, the world cannot be a better place.
469885
Unfortunately, yes.\n\nWe've cracked down on security, so it will be harder.  The terrorists know this, so their attack will be even more devestation than 9/11, I seriously fear.
135359
No.  These are the primary governments that ensured the safety of the world during WWII.  While other governments did half-measures, these stood up, lost an entire generation of their young blood to stop the total loss of freedom for self-government.   Perhaps after this round against terrorism, we should count the countries that stood up and kick a couple off the UN SC.
737244
Not really. In fact, the current occupation of Iraq doesn't have anything to do with the reason we went over in the first place.\n\nWe're doing nothing more than baby-sitting the country, and acting as its local police force, while it's in the middle of a civil war. There is no evidence, none, that says anything we're doing there has any effect on global terrorism. It's purely politics and empire-building.
423300
Absolutly not. And futhermore, increasing the omnipotent powers of the U.S through arms loans is not worth it either. Human lives are not worth it. Speaking of which, the lastest count on the number killed in the war in Iraq is horrible. But that number is infanitly smaller than the number of unreported deaths of Iraqi CIVILIANS. The U.S went to war to fight terrorism. This is hypocritical because the U.S supports and trains terrorists. Its used to be called the School of Americas and is now called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation and its located in Fort Benning, Georgia. The school actually distributes manuals and textbooks on torture and violence. SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers in counterinsurgency techniques, sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics. These graduates have consistently used their skills to wage a war against their own people including the majority of the dictators of South America including Pinochet. Hundreds of thousands of Latin Americans have been tortured, raped, assassinated, “disappeared,” massacred, and forced into refugee by those trained at the School of Assassins.
1077682
No, but I have gone to war to keep this country free from the fear of terrorism.
1092262
America has not "attacked" those countries, by themselves, out of a whim.  They are backed by the United Nations and many other countries have helped in the effort to decrease terrorism.
907005
Absolutely none at all, not that small problems like that have stopped them trying to assassinate foreign leaders,  de-stabalize small countries economies, cause wars, fund wars, fund terrorist groups just because they exist in a country where the government are friendly with anyone they dont like.\n\nThen they wonder why they are the No1 terrorist target on the planet. What worries me more is that President Bliar follows him like a lapdog all the time.