QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

[RetNav]

I have always felt that a person that makes up their mind when first exposed to some circumstance, sets in action a plan and then never deviates from that plan, even when the circumstances change can not be an effective leader. <br /><br />According to this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6302447/ At least the way I read some parts of it, we are not safer now than when all this started. In fact with the change in operational tactics of Al Quieda it appears to me that we might be even worse off than before. <br /><br />I am not trying to get into any contest about Bush or Kerry, I am simply looking for some intelligent analysis of this article, maybe to check my own perception of what is being stated. If you are not equipped to accomplish this, please refrain from attacks.

 

[NCOffSeason]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

No, we are not safer. The reason Bin Laden started this whole thing years ago came from him wanting the US off of Arab soil.<br /><br />Invading Iraq just gives him more reason to hate us and more recruits. For every dead innocent victim, he'll get 1000 new recruits.<br /><br />Bush played right into his hands.

 

[samagee]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

I do not agree with chris on this.<br /><br />However, I do not think we are safe. We are more safe than before, because many have finally woken up. Yet, we still have big corporations cutting cost in their normal areas. For instance security. I also see some security companies just throwing anyone on the payroll in order to have a body to fill the contract need. I also see many going back to thinking as they did before 9/11. In fact maybe they think they can erase it, if they just ignore it. I don't know why sheep just stand around in a field not watching over their shoulder.<br /><br />I personally do not understand why there are not national guardsmen/women patrolling air ports and other areas. I do not understand how the ACLU can get away with, forcing us into being afraid to screen over a certain percentage of middle easterners. I personally see the ACLU as an enemy of the state now. They truly have a hiden agenda that threathens this nations security.<br /><br />At any rate, these are my feelings in a nut shell. However, I do not think that the traitor Mr Kerry should be elected. If he gets elected, I plan to be more involved in Congress to block what ever he and his party try.

 

[Carphunter]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

I really don't see how anyone could not think we are safer. <br /><br />For what its worth, heres what I think,<br />#1 - An evil dictator has been overthrown, (and regardless what the media says, he was a threat), #2 - Many of the "Top 50" terrorists have been captured, #3 - Bin Laden can no longer operate out in the open for fear of being captured, (and he will be captured or killed eventually), he may be on the run, but he is "on the run", #4 - We are not done yet, our troops are still working over there, this is gonna take time, and in some aspects, this will never be over because we are fighting for a way of life, #5 - We are more aware of the terrorist threat now, #6 - Homeland security was created as a direct result of 9/11.<br /><br />I think we are safer, but that doesn't mean we are completely safe. At least this President is making an effort to try to make this a safer world to live in. <br />Unfortunately, the Earth is full of idiotic people that seem to enjoy death and destruction. We will never be able to wipe these people from this planet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

I feel safer. I fly quite a bit for my job. I have always taken mental note of middle easterners at the gate and on the plane. After 9/11 I still do it, but I know everyone else is doing the same thing.

 

[KaGee]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

Mr. RetNav:<br />I could not stomach reading the whole article as the writters have an obvious agenda. <br /><br />Your question of safety is very subjective. <br />You are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in your automobile this afternoon. You could get some infectious desease just by being out in public and die. Circumstances above and beyond your control might bring to a halt your ability to earn an income or support your family.<br /><br />These things all have a greater chance of happening to you than a terrorist attack. <br /><br />The heart of the matter can be quickly exempified by your signature. You view yourself as the master of your ship. Your safety depends upon you. Your security and well being is based on the ability of you and others like you. You place your faith in the abilties of man. <br /><br />Whereas the security and wellbeing of my family is not based in the abilities or strength of any man. My safety, my finances, my job, my family, my home, my health, my future, all that I have and all that I am is secure. Secure in knowing the Lord God, Creator of Heaven and Earth is in control. <br /><br />So, if you're concerned if you are safer with Kerry or Bush, then you are certainly to be disappointed with either man.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

He said rigid

 

[PatPatterson]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

I think we are safer for a couple of reasons.<br /><br />1. We are safer because, as stated above, there is a much higher awareness. I, as Guageguy, travel quite a bit for my job. I notice people on airplanes, and they are looking around, and aware of thier surroundings. People in my office talk about what's going on. We are more aware of the threats that we face, and safer because of it.<br /><br />2. Regardless of your opinion of Iraq, and Afganistan, we are there, and our troops are in combat. Key word is there. If we hadn't been there for these months, there could, and probably would, have been more attacks here. I am aware of the dangers that our forces face, and the deaths that have happened because of combat operations, but open combat there is better than terrorist attacks and activity here, isn't it? <br /><br />Ask Isreal, where there is a suicide bomber virtually daily, and civilians are being killed in the street.

 

[RetNav]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

You know, it really doesn't matter what is posted, some people can't help from judging and attacking other people. I suppose it says more about them than people they are attacking.<br /><br />Mr KaGee, those twenty letters, all ten words, can't carry as much meaning and weight as you seem to get from them.

 

[Barlow]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

LMAO@SBN ..<br /><br />

 

[12Footer]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

In respect, I'll have to refrain.

 

[woodrat]

Re: QUESTIONS ABOUT RIGID LEADERSHIP

I would like to remind all you folks who think that we should pay extra attention to those who appear to be of middle eastern descent, that Tim Mcveigh was not only pretty dang caucasian, but a native US citizen and a veteran of the US armed forces as well. <br /><br />Do I think we are "safer"? heck, I didn't think we were "safe" before 9-11, and the more we try to get the government to make us "safe", the more government we're gonna get, til pretty soon, we won't be feeling too safe about that either. I'm one of those way-out loonies who doesn't look to the government to make me feel "safe" and wouldn't trust the government to d othe job right anyway.<br /><br />I think that the invasion of Iraq has guaranteed and endless supply of "the enemy" for generations to come. heck, one abu ghraib picture will be all that's needed for the next 30 years of recruiting.