I was going to wait until it was split, but since Alan asked, I'll just continue it here.

Wilson ran on a platform of "He kept us out of the War" and then as soon as his second term started he got all "hay lets attack germany lolz." His intervention brought a decisive enough end to the war that one side got to walk over the other, and his waiting that long to enter made both sides weary enough to have motivation to do so.

And while I'll admit that Wilson is apparently liked by polisci people, I don't remember the average American liking him. If they do, then that's really, really sad.

I'll agree; impouding ethnic groups because we're at war with a country in which that group is dominant is bad. I'm willing to overlook that because of the good Roosevelt II did, and also because, as I said before, we were in the middle of WWII there. Bush has no good to balance out all of his bad, and he does this stuff because he can. I mean, what do we have to worry about now, as foreign threats? We're occupying Afghanistan, but that's basically just a drain on troops and moneys, not an actual thread, and we're occupying Iraq, an war that happened entirely because the Bush administration really wanted it to.

He had good reasons to want to attack Germany, one we felt Germans were violating freedom of the seas, 2 there was constant war and death someone needed to bring the war to an end, 3 we believed Germany was planning on teaming up with Mexico to attack the United States (Though truthfully that was a British) Though some could argue that if we didn't enter the war Germany would have won, because Russia was exiting the war around the time we entered.

Wilson I feel can't be blamed for WW2 because he tried to prevent it more then anyone else, the League of Nations was his idea, his 14 points would have been war largely impossible, he was an idealist but alot of men at his time were, all he could do was try to get the French and British to lessen on Germany. The French wanted revenge, the British wanted to punish Germany, Wilson just wanted to move on, and Italy wanted territory. It was the Treaty of V that made Germany so bitter, and the world depression that let Hitler gain influence which is why I don't think Wilson can be blamed.

Also Wilson was hugely popular, he's considered one of our greatest Presidents ever, when he walked through the streets of France people threw roses at him, some people argue on a world stage he was our most popular President ever and he made America as popular as it'll ever be.

Also you can argue whether Bush has no good or bad, but I don't think there is any justification for what Roosevelt did, people call that Patriot Act bad but what Roosevelt did was worse, and I believe he's guilty of limiting freedom of speech like Wilson did too which is inexcusable as well (I don't see how anyone can argue that it's responsible to limit free speech when it comes to commenting on the Government)

Also you say whaty do we have to worry about as foreign threats? If you honestly want my opinion, I do believe terrorism is the greatest threat we have, our armies are so powerful that no one would ever dare attack us in a full scale war, it's sneak attack from the inside that we're most vulnerable to. We can intercept nuclear missles but if someone were to enter D.C. and blow up a dirty bomb in the middle of it, we could be fucked. I don't think we should go McCarthy over the threat but it is a serious threat.

It's irrelevant if ever person in 1919 France wanted to have Wilson's babies; the point in question is if people forgive Wilson now.

I don't recall Roosevelt II doing anything to supress free speech, outside of keeping military stuff secret. Evidence?

Dood, lighten up. Terrorism has been around forevers (note: not trying to say that we shouldn't badmouth terrorists; just saying it's nothing new). Buildings have been blown up, people killed, and officials assassinated. This didn't all suddenly appear once a largely-successful attack happened against the US.

Also, for the record, if someone set off a dirty bomb in Washington, that'd be pretty much about as bad as someone setting off an equally-sized bomb. Dirty bombs are nothing; they're a bomb that will make an area slightly more radioactive than normal.

I would say he's pretty popular considering his average rank according to Wikipedia is as the 6-7th greatest President of all time. Though his popularity is severely going down though that might be because coverage goes down too, considering JFK is up near the top and I consider him a lousy President for causing Vietnam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ra...ates_Presidents

Also about the Free Speech, there wasn't anything from what I believe of Lincoln, Wilson level of limiting free speech but talking abotu stuff like Communism I believe was deemed illegal by stuff like the Smith Act but I'd have to research the whole thing more.

Terrorism isn't new but it's now far more effective, nuclear bombs can be fit into briefcases these days and America is so much more powerful that the threat of war has decreased so we can focus now on the other. Lets put it this way, more Americans died on 9/11 in that attack, then the entire Iraq War and the majority of those deaths are due to terrorist attacks in the country.

As technology advances, so advances the technology to combat it. Terrorists are more advanced, but the technology and techniques to fight them has advanced at the same pace.

And more died in 9/11 than in Iraq? 2,973 people died, with another 24 still listed as "missing". In Iraq, there are 3,257 from the US alone. More than 53,000 counting all coalition forces and Iraqi security forces in the new regime, and over sixty thousand civilians.

And the whole issue is, free speech limiting during times of extreme duress is understandable, at the height of wars. But in a low-level slow, drawn out war of attrition that has been, for better or for worse, placed in the area in and around Iraq, the time where it would be acceptable and precidented has long passed. If haivng terrorists justifys limiting freedoms, then kiss the freedoms goodbye forever, not jsut for a few years, 'cause it ain't going nowhere.

I would argue it's harder to combat terrorism now then ever, since for example to spread a disease is easier now, to detonate a nuclear bomb is easier somewhere.

Zap, I said Amercans not Iraqis and even if 300 more people have died that still proves in 1 day more people died then in over 4 years.

Also I don't approve of limiting free speech during any time what so ever, because to me it's the cornerstone of democracy, Lincoln was the only President to me to even have the tiniest excuse, even during war it's mostly unacceptable, but the question also remains if rights should change over time, being strengthed and limited, because the Founding Fathers didn't mean the Bill of Rights to be the law of the land, and note this is a question not a personal opinion and it's a responsible question too. Some argue that as society changes laws need to change and the Founding Fathers realizes this as well, which is why they made it possible to pass new amendments and repeal them too.

Okay Alpha, I see your point; terrorism is the biggest threat to America. Let's put it on this handy threat rating chart that lists deaths from 1995 to 2005, just to make sure people take notice of this!



Wait a second...

Anyways...

Yes, I know. My first response in here was me admitting that polisci people appear to like him, because I saw that very page. I was asking if the American public likes him or doesn't like him.

Jogurt because I clearly wasn't talking about risk when it comes to national secruity and relatively possible worse case scenario situations when it comes to purposeful intent to harm America. Few to no people in the last 50 years have died from Nuclear War doesn't mean it's not a huge threat to the world.

I coudn't answer that Jogurt, I'd have to find a vast public survery but from what I've talked to people about they seem to like him, so take that as you will.

What do you mean by "national security"? What are we guarding against?

Loss of life?
Terrorism doesn't kill many Americans. Drunk driving kills about as many Americans as the 11 Sept attacks every two months.

Economic hardship?
The attacks cost about 42 billion dollars to New York and the Federal Gov't, according to Wikipedia. The war on drugs goes through that in less than a year.

So, what, then?

Jogurt, I'm not talking about the lives actually being loss, I'm talking about the amount of lives that could lost in a well planned, reasonable attack, it's the same kind of principle applied to nuclear war, people joke about the fact that more people have died in Ted Kennedy's car then in nuclear accidents in the United States but does that mean nuclear accidents aren't a reasonable threat to the American people? Imagine if someone activates a suitcase bomb in DC, or unleashed a deadly disease, or many other things they may be worst case scenarios but they're very real scenarios. I'm not saying Terrorism should be the number 1 concern of the American public, but I'm saying it is a threat to our safety and should be taken seriously.

Ignoring the myriad issues with hypothetical suitcase-nuke and ebola plague attacks, I'd just like to bring up one thing.

Emphasis mine.

Which I already explained, I was talking about foreign threats, not all threats in general, and just because I think terrorism has the potiential to hurt America intentionally then other things doesn't mean I believe it should be the number 1 concern of the country. I think there are other concerns that need to be solved like the Deficit, the fact that 10% of our citizens can't get married the way they want, the way education seems to be going in some places and the atrocities going on in Africa, I just believe Terrorism is serious and is a serious threat, if countries like India and China start becoming more agressive and more on an equal footing with America, I'll change what I view as the biggest threats.

edit: Seriously you seem to be implying the lack of deaths involving terrorism makes it not a top issue, does that mean the lack of deaths involving nuclear war makes that not an issue or concern ? Or the lack of deaths involving disease in the country makes disease prevention not an issue or concern? Maybe I interpret you wrong but that's the message you're portraying.

Okay, if you were just talking about threats posed by foreign nations, yes, terrorism is pretty bad (though that's not saying much at allsince we're the superpower with a military still designed around fighting the Soviet Union), but it's nowhere near the top. One of the big ones is the fact that the US gets about a quarter of its daily oil from the Middle East. You know, those people who love us so much?

Threats don't have to materialise in flashy ways with explosions and bodybags.

No, there's also the fact that terrorism isn't a big threat.

You talk of super diseases spread and suitcase nukes going off in cities. Where are a group of people who are at best funded by third-world shitholes going to find means to surmount the technical difficulties in building miniaturised nukes? Where are they going to find some crazy super disease to wipe out vast swaths of people?

You speak as if there is some grave threat behind terrorism. There was a grave threat behind nuclear standoff: nuclear war. There is not one behind terrorism.

And to bring this back home, yes I think we should have nice and secure borders; that's just common sense even if there isn't terrorism, because it helps against crime and stuff like that. I do not see why this "war" on terror that just magically started on 11 Sept is cause for infringement upon civil liberties, and the fact that you brought it up on a discussion on justifications for infringements upon civil liberties implies that you do.

A final note: the rules of this forum are to label all edits. That includes the one you wrote about India and China.

Terrorism is a big threat is a fact? Wow that sounds like an opinion to me.

Also I think you'r underestimating the resources terrorist can supply, the fact is that alot of the nuclear technology needed is available and already made by countries like the former Soviet Union, especially with the rumors of there being over a hundred of them missing from the Soviet Union, also terrorism is not always from third world countries the majority of it is, any country is capable of terrorism, also to spread a disease is not that expensive, just infect someone get them into a densely populated area or to somewhere like an airport (where those people will go to densely populated areas) and WHAM you know have potiential millions of deaths. There are diseases that are possible to get like small pox and anthrax and stuff like that.

Threat means it has a possibility of being a problem, not that it currently is a problem.

I don't think terrorism magically became a threat on 9/11, we just realized it is a threat, and I never said I fully agree with infringing rights, I merely am asking thought provoking questions, I'm personally conflicted when it comes to rights and terrorism, on one part I'm very idealistic and believe we must always protect our rights on the other hand, I also realize that sometiems in the current system, things are too ineffective, for me to fully be able to take a stance, I'd have to look at Government files and know the true threat of terrorism, because we don't know what really goes on, and I'm not saying that makes it okay for the Government to do it, the fact of what could be going on, doesn't I'm just saying ,I'm not absolute in my opinions.

Edit: I don't think honestly after this we're going to get anywhere, wanna agree to disagree?

You have to justify the claim that terrorism is a big threat. Since it doesn't actually have a terribly large effect, you have to show that there is a large potential threat. Not only that, but a large potential threat that is reasonably likely to ever happen.

Yes, the major nuclear powers have made small nuclear devices. They also are the ones who won't sell their bombs to people, since that'll bring quite the consequences upon themselves (you can tell where the materials for a nuclear device came from). And ONLY the major nuclear powers can make the small bombs. Even if terrorists were able to suddenly find the infrastructure to make a nuclear bomb (and it's hard for countries to do this), and magically found themselves having some nuclear material, the bomb they could make would be the size of a small car.

Rumours that have turned out to be bullshit. Not only that, but if they had been taken, nuclear devices take a LOT of maintenance, and small nukes don't even last very long, because the material decays until you no longer have critical mass.

What would any stable, industrial country hope to gain from supporting an attack on the US?

What are you going to infect them with? The flu? There aren't many other dangerous, very infectious diseases floating around besides that.

Small pox is gone. The only samples of it left are in highly secure laboratories, and I'd think we'd know if they went missing. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure most Americans are vaccinated against it. I know I am, and I was born seven years after the disease was gone.
Anthrax? Anthrax is not a highly contagious disease. It's been used because it has a spore form, which allows it to be transported outside a living body.

See my first point.

And how is infringement upon civil liberties going to help fight terrorism?

Large effects, contaminating water supplies, attacking Government buildings, the antrax situation which would be a serious problem. The threats are reasonable.

Actually those rumors were never disproven.

There are some stable nations like China if they got the right opening attack, could defeat America in a war (it'd have to be a immediate sneak attack on DC where they took out the 3 branches there)

Anthrax actually is a highly contagious disease, all you have to do is have it and cough on someone and considering I got this info straight from an ER doctor, I'm pretty sure it's reliable. Also most Americans are not vacinated against smallpox. Plus there's also other diseases out there, disease is a pretty serious issue in some parts of the world and it can be used as a deadly weapon, in fact certain groups agree that biological warfare is potientially worse for the world then nuclear warfare.

About the Civil Liberties some people believe by wire tapping and not needing search permits the Government can stop potiential terrorist right away by finding out info they need from potiential terrorist, rather then having to go through the legal system and have a potiential disaster the Government can directly solve the problem. . Some people say that if true torture is truly going on, it's needed to know info that vital for national secruity. NOTE NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION, JUST THE OPINION OF OTHERS.

Again, you think terrorism isn't that serious, I do. We disagree and I doubt you're going to be able to persuade me and vice versea so really I don't see much of a point in debating this further.

Contaminating the water supply isn't a good terrorist plot, because it looks like a natural accident; you want to make people worry. It's TERRORism, not killingpeopleism. As for government buildings, we've already passed measures to help prevent that after the Oklahoma City bombing. Note that these measures don't involve infringement upon civil liberties.

Anthrax I'll get to momentarily.

Yes they have. They were started by a single general mouthing off in an interview, and have since been denied by multiple Soviet and Russian agencies. There is no evidence any small nuclear devices have gone missing from Soviet stockpiles.

Why would China ever, ever try to take on the US? At best, they win, ruin our economy, and their economy goes into the shitter, too. Yay!

No. China could not defeat us in a war, unless we were the agressors. They don't have the force projection capabilities to get troops or planes anywhere near US soil, while we can against them.

Well Mr. ER Doctor disagrees with the Center for Disease Control, so I don't think he's reliable.

Ok. Where are these terrorists going to get smallpox? It ONLY EXISTS IN SECURE LABORATORIES.

And what "certain groups" agree on that?

There are a depressingly large number of people who believe that the 11 Sept attacks were orchestrated by the US gov't. That doesn't mean they're anything but crackpot whackaloons with more time on their hands than braincells, and it doesn't mean I'm going to start giving their opinion in debates.

Why do you doubt you'll be persuaded?

I like em hairy

That's kind of why Terrorist admit to it being their fault later on.

Also while I understand it's a rumor, I doubt the Soviet Russia denying is considered proof, though it's just an example.

I'm sure if China knocked out Washington DC they could use the chaos to win, but I doubt that'll happen.

Russia also has them, in fact they say that traces of smallpox were found in 2003. There's west nile virus. Again biological warfare is a serious threat, and terrorist could use it, I'm not saying it's going to destroy the planet.

What grousp well the US and the Soviet Russians agreed when they tried to ban biological weapons that they were incredibly dangerous...wait a minute, did you just doubt the fact that biological warefare is one of the most dangerous things on Earth?

Umm the idea that the Government previously was too slow to effectively act isn't a crackpot theory, it's a major argument against bureacrcacy, the more rules and regulations around, make it slower for the Government to
act, that's a fact, the Government able to get to terrorist right away and solve problems isn't a crackpot theory, it's not that it's illogical that most Americans disagree with the Patriot Act, it's the ethics they disagree with.

Edit: About the Anthrax thing, guess my dad was wrong, sorry but hey he's usually turns out right, so I assumed he'd be in this case too.

Maybe you're right, terrorism isn't a big problem at the moment (well actually you're right about that, terrorism itself isn't a big problem at the moment) but I believe it has the potiential to be a gigantic threat, because the people behind it usually don't care about their own lives, they belong to no one country, it's not like they wear uniforms so you don't know who truly is one and who isn't. Like I said we shouldn't go McCarthy over the problem but it is a problem and in a world where there is no individual country we're in a war against, it's one of the bigger threats from the outside IMO.

Edit: How long are we going to debate this anyways?

Edit: Better idea, how about I just say you win, so I don't obsesse with my OCC mind about this.