08-07-2004, 12:46 AM
for the first question: there might have been plans found earlierto do something in 2004, in which case now that the color system is added they pushed the level up. I don't know anyoone who really pays attention to the system, so from that my guess is that it isn't a fear strategy since it wouldn't really increase fear. I a lot of people do pay attention, than that might be part of the plan but still has some actual warning in there because the fear bit wouldn't work nearly as well as releasing an actual finding.
second question: No , the military can't by itself "win the war on terror", for the same general reasons you describe. Win is in quotation marks because there will probably always be terrorists out there, so really winning means cutting down the threat by a lot. The military might be useful for going in and capturing some terorists if people know where they are, but it also needs extra security that works for cutting dow npossible bombs, etc., and a good foreign policy that has other people's views in it's planning and is partially designed not to give any extra reasons for hate. The U.S. should actually have the easiest time with this, because there is only one major are that terrorists come from. Some europian areas will be a lot harder because they're closer to the arab terrorists, and more types are in europe, like the Northern Ireland crap going on. Israle will have to worry about these terrorists for a long time coming, since it's right there andthe fact it takes up land that otherwise would have been arab is one of the main issues for them. Whatever peole do should be planned out will.
I wish they hadn't deleted that thread from the amazon basin where me and someone else were arguing about this. Oh well.
second question: No , the military can't by itself "win the war on terror", for the same general reasons you describe. Win is in quotation marks because there will probably always be terrorists out there, so really winning means cutting down the threat by a lot. The military might be useful for going in and capturing some terorists if people know where they are, but it also needs extra security that works for cutting dow npossible bombs, etc., and a good foreign policy that has other people's views in it's planning and is partially designed not to give any extra reasons for hate. The U.S. should actually have the easiest time with this, because there is only one major are that terrorists come from. Some europian areas will be a lot harder because they're closer to the arab terrorists, and more types are in europe, like the Northern Ireland crap going on. Israle will have to worry about these terrorists for a long time coming, since it's right there andthe fact it takes up land that otherwise would have been arab is one of the main issues for them. Whatever peole do should be planned out will.
I wish they hadn't deleted that thread from the amazon basin where me and someone else were arguing about this. Oh well.
I may be dead, but I'm not old (source: see lavcat)
The gloves come off, I'm playing hardball. It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full-court press. (Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun)
Some people in forums do the next best thing to listening to themselves talk, writing and reading what they write (source, my brother)
The gloves come off, I'm playing hardball. It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full-court press. (Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun)
Some people in forums do the next best thing to listening to themselves talk, writing and reading what they write (source, my brother)