National Security and You

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0&feature=related have a look at this, it is absolutely crazy.

If we want to be 100% sure about our security then we need to be sure that we don't have any enemy too.

If we don't want any enemies then we need to convert enemy in to friends.

And this cannot be done with force and power.

Here are few steps need to be taken.

Every citizen on the planet should feel the proud citizen of planet.

Everyone should condemn religious discriminations, of any kind.

All religious leaders should come forward and should ask their followers to follow the rule of land. (Should be mandatory for religious leaders in all countries)

Democratic agitations and protest should be allowed everywhere.

World religious matter parliaments should be created. Where religious leaders selected from each Country should participate and can resolve interreligious issues.

Good things of all faiths should be advertised in all countries and bad should not be discussed publicly.

Formation of any country on religious and linguistic basis should not be accepted.

Philosophy of Nation first religion second should be encouraged.

There are two kinds of people in this world one those who believe in god (all religion) and 2^nd who don't believe in god. second one never fights together, its only believers who are fighting.

How do you propose that we make friends with people who think we are evil because we are Christians and want to exterminate us?

StandardsGuy, I looked at the link supplied in post 1 and I looked at a number of others on Youtube - to be honest I was absolutely shocked by what I saw and heard. If you listen to some of the people and see the hatred in their faces then it is clear that these so called Christians believe that others are evil because of their religious beliefs, in particularly there seems to be a complete intolerance towards Muslims.

With this sort of intolerance for one of your own citizens it is no wonder that some people believe that there is also intolerance shown to citizens of other countries.

On a slightly off topic note it was particularly disturbing to hear racial remarks being made against Barrack Obama. I thought (incorrectly it seems) that this type of intolerance was left in the past.

I recently worked for a period of time in the USA and to be honest I did not hear/see this type of attitute so I would think (hope) that the beliefs/ attitutes expressed on Youtube are not wide spread.

Before this becomes a USA bashing thread it has to be said that other countries also show intolerance towards people of different racial/ religious beliefs - just look at the not so distant history of Europe and you will see exactly what I mean. The Middle East, Asian and Africian countries also have a not so pure history when it comes to dealing with people with different religious beliefs.

With this abundance of intolerance it is no wonder that National Security has become such a hot topic. It is so easy to point the finger at the USA and blame them for all the woes in the world when really we are all part of the problem.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Mr. Snow,

"Before this becomes a USA bashing thread it has to be said that other countries also show intolerance towards people of different racial/ religious beliefs - just look at the not so distant history of Europe and you will see exactly what I mean."

The first part of this causes me great concern. The last part I agree with exactly -- weren't Cortes, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and Hitler all from Europe? Also look at how many of his own people Saddam Husein killed because he didn't like who they were or what they believed. Bosnia was an other example. The US was the only country to be outraged by these travesties enough to do something about it.

It seems that you and a lot of others are judging all Americans by the extreme, as based on extreme web sites like You-tube. Maybe we'd all be better off without the internet.

Regards,

S

StandardsGuy, perhaps you could re-read my first post again. I was commenting on what was shown on Youtube - based on my very limited experience of working in the USA I would think that the attitutes expressed were not common. However, these were the attitutes expressed by these people, or are you suggesting that this was a staged event ?

I would not consider Youtube to be extreme by any means. Because a TV channel or internet site shows something that you do not agree with does not mean it is extreme or would you consider Fox News, CNN, NBC etc extreme ? There is probably an underlying agenda with all media outlets.

I also made the point that this is not just about America even though you seem to think I was implying this. America is not the centre of the universe.

"The US was the only country to be outraged by these travesties enough to do something about it." - in fact the equipment that Sadam used to kill his own people with was supplied by the US, France, Britan and Germany to name just a few of the countries. The slaughter of the innocent peoole in Iraq did not cause outrage in the Western world - the though that our supply oil might be interrupted caused outrage. If the Western world is so outraged by the slaughter of innocent people then why has no one done anything about Darfour in the Sudan ?

G.W. Bush gets alot of bad press because of some of his foreign policies, however, if I am not mistaken he has donated more to fight the HIV epidemic in Africa than any other person/country. (when I say "he" I mean the Americian Goverment). However he will not be remember for this which is rather unfortunate.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Aren't the americans also from Europe?

I am doing nothing more than living the live i used to live before the terrorist craze.

In Europe there was allready a long history of terrorist organisations like the IRA, RAF, ETA, even in holland were i come from with Molluk terrorist who hijacked a train.

But you don't see us go grazy after the many bombing and assanations.

It was bound to happen in America the way the USA Government intervenes in Foreign politics.

That's just My opinion.

"Aren't the Americans also from Europe?"

Americans are from every country. Recently, mostly from Mexico.

"But you don't see us go grazy after the many bombing and assanations."

Your tolerance is truly amazing.

I am not Tolerant about it, the investigators (interpol) will do their job in hunting down the culprits.

The American Government has used the WTC tragedy to inspire fear in its populace for an Terrorist world threat and used it as an excuse to invade a former ally (Iraq) on false grounds (Iran has probably al quida training camps and by now nuclear capability), Invoked the patriot act which is my IMO unconstitutional.

It inspired unity in us regardless of religions or beliefs.

We have inspiration and leadership has focused same to what end?

Only because we allow them to focus the nation towards war. WE ARE IN CHARGE, and they must be made to remember that.

Dragon

Exactly!

Thank you Bwire. I would recommend that all who are registered voters in the United States get out to vote. I believe it is time to send these "public servants" a message:

We do not like how you have treated the populace as a trust fund. We do not wish to be controlled or robbed any further, so therefore those of you who have been in office and forced the rest of the people to live under laws you have been largely immune to, should now live like the rest of us.

In other words vote every single incumbent out. And if, in two or four years, we are not pleased or at least less displeased, vote those in office out. Eventually, they will get the hint.

This nation has had at least one revolution. Let us hope this time it is bloodless.

Regards Dragon

It is long past time to send our public servants a message. Will This cycle will exhibit a majority of progressively tolerant voters?

I have high hopes that we are not continually guided by fear in our collective decision making processes.

I have hope that we realize the American dream isn't solely comprised of home ownership but of financial and all forms of socially responsible liberty.

Well said, Possum. I gave you a good answer.

Good Answer.

Dragon

Basically, I would prefer the government do the least "for my own good" as possible. There's already more than enough hatred and paranoia to go 'round without contributing more in my name. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said "those who would sacrifice eternal liberty for temporary safety deserve neither", and I wholeheartedly agree.

"What steps not already taken would you suggest need to occur?"

Bill Maher would say eliminate religion.

Most often when I hear of national security the unword becomes a re-arranged prejudice played to an uninformable public .....

I'll stick with Jesus Saves (Moses Invests?)..............ignorance is my bliss

The most definitive steps I believe are education and freedom of information. Some of the most repressed nations (nations that promote violence against their own citizens because of minor or major differences in belief) are also the least educated about those beliefs.

Another step would be to give each person the ability (they already have the right) to defend themselves against those who would oppress them. Because there are always those who think that because of wealth, upbringing, religious belief, affiliation or brute force that they have some authority to control what others believe or say or do.

I, personally, will prevent such an occurrence from happening in my life by what ever means necessary. Any individual or groups of individuals who attempts such an infringement will meet what ever Deity they choose to believe in much sooner than they expect.

As far as the You-tube video, a half-dozen or so, bigoted, uneducated individuals can be made to appear to say anything with clever editing.

And please do not believe that the posters of that video did not have exactly that agenda in mind when they filmed it. Consider the source of the broadcast.

Regards Dragon

Dragonsfarm, it is interesting that you mentioned "freedom of information" and then went onto comment about the "source of the broadcast".

When someone (person, organisation or country) see's/hears something they do not like the first thing they do is to question the "source of the broadcast". They attempt to put a spin on it to suit their own needs/ requirements so it is actually difficult to get the honest truth out there. I personally believe that the idiots shown in that clip actually said all of those things but the fact that they are idiots (in my mind) should also be taken into account. I am sure it would be possible to get those idiots to admit to shooting JR and Mr Byrnes (Dallas and Simpsons reference there for anyone who does not get it)

Freedom of information is a difficult thing sustain and I am not really sure if there is freedom of information in any country - perhaps being from Europe I like to think that we have more freedom of information than say the US, Russia or China but if I was totally honest it is probably not any better. We, like the rest of the citizens in the world, are fed the information from our media organisations (governments ??) and we take it in as if it is the absolute truth.

Kind Regards

Mr W.A Snow

Hole in the Snow, I agree with nearly everything in your post, enough to give it a Good Answer.

The only thing that I wish to state is that I have no agenda that I am aware of. I am embarrassed that those narrow minded bigots were allowed air time. The last thing that is needed is more intolerance and hatred.

Although, I suppose it proves the point of the broadcast.

Regards Dragon

1. What steps not already taken would you suggest need to occur?

2. What limitations (if any) do you think should be imposed to preserve the rights of individuals?

3. Is the goal of national security the same as individual rights?

1 a. Overt attention to our Constitution of the United States of America, Bill of Rights and require government to fulfill it's primary duty.

1 b. The tail wagging the dog needs to stop. When law is enacted principles and objectives are also written to succinctly describe the intent of the law. These principles and objectives are routinely ignored by bureaucracy that implements the law. The effect is the law can not be enforced nor can the objective be met.

2. Overt enforcement of the civil liberties and protections considered inalienable rights prior to 9-11; what ever happened on that date happened because we as a nation weren't using collective thinking, instead we were whining about our government of the people not taking care of us ; DUH!

3. Not the same though it is of an inclusive nature in that without national security the quality of our individual rights will not be maintained.

When it comes down to survival of our way of life, then a restriction of certain individual rights may be necessary. It is done in the UK now. They feel it is necessary in order to preserve their way of life. I believe this country (the U.S.) is much too free. If you are abiding by the laws of society, then you don't have anything to fear. It's only those who want to bend or break the laws are the ones complaining the loudest about their freedoms be abridged.

Regardless of what the Constitution or Bill of Rights says, freedom is not a right. Only those who are willing to take responsibility for their actions deserves rights. We lock up criminals in prison and take away their rights.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I agree with the constitution, but I feel there are those who use the constitution to their own adgenda to supress the rights of others. Those people manipulate through the courts to wangle their way out of situations, while quoting the constitution. Just about every person who is in prison or has been, is/was there because they deprived another person's rights. If it means locking up Muslims because of 9-11, so be it. We did it during WWII because we were fighting to keep our country safe and we were not going to take any chances. Today, we are at war against those who would take away our rights and during war, our survival is foremost, therefore drastic measures sometimes need to be taken

It always comes down to the one basic principal that takes precedence over all else and that is survival.

Point taken.

Dragon

ronseto, "If it means locking up Muslims because of 9-11, so be it" - are you for real ? The US is not at war with Muslims as far as I am aware. This has to be the most biggotted thing that I have heard in a long time - it is the same attitute that was displayed on the YouTube video - perhaps this attitude is more wide spread that I would like to think.

So depriving Muslims of their rights is OK by you ? Next of all you will suggest locking up anyone that is not tall, blond and blue eyed.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

The end does not justify the means

USA has always claimed a high moral fiber but when push comes to shove it quickly goes out the window.

A lot of replubicans ected threatening during the election so they should be locked up too?

Yes, our moral high ground often becomes merely a bog of self-righteousness. I suppose that's what comes of having all the world call your country a "superpower", you end up with a Superman complex. I'm not advocating locking anyone up, I just didn't think the previous posters were seeing things the same way. Some folks say you can't "profile" a certain group of people. But if those who attack you are all of that group, can you really afford to not scrutinize that group a bit more closely than those who are friendly - or even your own countrymen? But if those fellow citizens turn nasty, I'm gonna keep them out in front of me too.

bwire, "grossly uneducated army recruited from extreme poverty and including elements of unrealistic religious beliefs, whom are also victims" - this sounds like any arm in the world. What percentage of the US army would fall into this category ?

The problem here is that we (the so called "Civilised" world) view these people as terrorists and therefore justify hunting them down and killing them. They however also view us as terrorists and justify hunting us down and killing us. Can you see where the problem is ?

I hope that some headway in this conflict can be brought about when Obama is president - I think GW Bush has done some very good things (eg fight against AIDS in africa - more than anyone else I believe so US citizens should be proud of this) but unfortunately he did some other things that were, perhaps with hindsight, not so good and he will be remembered for this, but this is always the case.

Kind Regards

Mr. W.A Snow

Yes and the rule of law may be a greater asset than we realize.

The hunting is necessary now and will be for some time to come.

But containing the situation has proven difficult as nailing jello to a tree, someone is going to be displeased.

I'll share this quote due it's pertinence:

Comments to follow --

WE hear constantly now about "our commander in chief." The word has become a synonym for "president." It is said that we "elect a commander in chief." It is asked whether this or that candidate is "worthy to be our commander in chief."

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

I first cringed at the misuse in 1973, during the "Saturday Night Massacre" (as it was called). President Richard Nixon, angered at the Watergate inquiry being conducted by the special prosecutor Archibald Cox, dispatched his chief of staff, Al Haig, to arrange for Mr. Cox's firing. Mr. Haig told the attorney general, Elliot Richardson, to dismiss Mr. Cox. Mr. Richardson refused, and resigned. Then Mr. Haig told the second in line at the Justice Department, William Ruckelshaus, to fire Cox. Mr. Ruckelshaus refused, and accepted his dismissal. The third in line, Robert Bork, finally did the deed.

What struck me was what Mr. Haig told Mr. Ruckelshaus, "You know what it means when an order comes down from the commander in chief and a member of his team cannot execute it." This was as great a constitutional faux pas as Mr. Haig's later claim, when President Reagan was wounded, that "Constitutionally ... I'm in control."

President Nixon was not Mr. Ruckelshaus's commander in chief. The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: "The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States."

When Abraham Lincoln took actions based on military considerations, he gave himself the proper title, "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." That title is rarely — more like never — heard today. It is just "commander in chief," or even "commander in chief of the United States." This reflects the increasing militarization of our politics. The citizenry at large is now thought of as under military discipline. In wartime, it is true, people submit to the national leadership more than in peacetime. The executive branch takes actions in secret, unaccountable to the electorate, to hide its moves from the enemy and protect national secrets. Constitutional shortcuts are taken "for the duration." But those impositions are removed when normal life returns.

But we have not seen normal life in 66 years. The wartime discipline imposed in 1941 has never been lifted, and "the duration" has become the norm. World War II melded into the cold war, with greater secrecy than ever — more classified information, tougher security clearances. And now the cold war has modulated into the war on terrorism.

There has never been an executive branch more fetishistic about secrecy than the Bush-Cheney one. The secrecy has been used to throw a veil over detentions, "renditions," suspension of the Geneva Conventions and of habeas corpus, torture and warrantless wiretaps. We hear again the refrain so common in the other wars — If you knew what we know, you would see how justified all our actions are.

But we can never know what they know. We do not have sufficient clearance.

When Adm. William Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticized the gulf war under the first President Bush, Secretary of State James Baker said that the admiral was not qualified to speak on the matter since he no longer had the clearance to read classified reports. If he is not qualified, then no ordinary citizen is. We must simply trust our lords and obey the commander in chief.

The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizement's; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizement's. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket).

We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past — by caudillos.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's prescient last book, "Secrecy," traced the ever-faster-growing secrecy of our government and said that it strikes at the very essence of democracy — accountability of representatives to the people. How can the people hold their representatives to account if they are denied knowledge of what they are doing? Wartime and war analogies are embraced because these justify the secrecy. The representative is accountable to citizens. Soldiers are accountable to their officer. The dynamics are different, and to blend them is to undermine the basic principles of our Constitution.

Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern, is the author, most recently, of "What Paul Meant."

First and foremost we are a nation governed by laws and in order to lead the world towards a resolution we need preserve our integrity by fostering governance of law internationally. This is our primary mission.

Terrorists are an extreme menace and should be hunted down like vermin and exterminated with co conspirators period.