.
Hapaboy: There has not been an attack on US soil since 9/11, and numerous plots have been thwarted.
Yes, there are still gaping weaknesses, such as port and border security, and the undeniable fact is that a free society such as ours makes us an easier target. However, the fact that we have not been hit again in almost four years when we are enemy number one, says something about the steps that have been taken here and abroad.
If that's an illusion, it's a heck of a good one.
***
Version77: Over reacted? How so? By going to Afghanistan looking for Osama Bin Laden? By going into Iraq?
And your claim we are "still as unsafe today in the US as we were
on September 10, 2001" is not exactly true. Some steps have been taken.
Many more are on the way.
*********
SouthAmerica: Here, I am quoting from my article published March 2002
âSeptember 11, 2001 and the religious war that changed the USAâ
To wage a war on terrorism is an absurd idea. The United States spent $ 1 trillion dollars in defense in the last three years, and $ 2 trillion in the last eight years. Even with these very large amounts of defense spending the United States could not prevent the attack by 19 terrorists armed with low-tech box cutters.
The sad thing is that the American people have been mislead to believe that they can be protected from a terrorist attack by increasing defense spending. When the reality is: it is an impossible task for the government to protect the American people against most kinds of terrorism attacks in US soil.
Here is how the US overreacted when the country were attacked by 19 terrorists armed with low-tech box cutters and a little imagination â The US reacted with defense spending of over $ 2.1 trillion dollars.
*****
From January 2001 to December 2005 - (5 Year-Period)
Since George W. Bush took office in Jan 2001, year after year the US defense spending has gone up. During the first five years of a Bush Administration the US has wasted over $ 2.1 Trillion dollars in defense spending.
During that same period it is estimated that Europe spent $ 750 Billion dollars, China $ 235 billion dollars, and Russia $ 325 billion dollars in defense spending.
***
On February 20, 2005 The New York Times â Week in Review Section â had an article âNuclear Reality: America Loses Biteâ by David E. Sanger.
The article talks about North Korea and how they become a nuclear power. The article also mentioned how George W. Bush and his administration changed their tune, because North Korea has nukes today.
The N.Y. Times also had another article in the same section saying ââ¦It is striking, however, how much has not changed in the three and a half years since nearly 3,000 people were killed on American soil. The nationâs chemical plants are still a horrific accident waiting to happen. Nuclear materials that could be made into a âdirty bomb,â Or even a nuclear device, and set off in an American city remains too accessible to terrorists.
â¦Chemical plants â After Sept. 11, the Environmental Protection Agency identified 123 chemical plants that could, in a worst-case attack, endanger one million or more people.
The article also covers other areas such as nuclear materials, nuclear power plants, port security, hazardous waste transport, and bio-terrorism.
********
In the last few days Lou Dobbs on Moneyline program started showing on television how unsafe the chemical plants are today. He shows how easy would be access to the terrorist to chemical plants with very dangerous chemicals. He did show how unprotected a chemical plant was right here in New Jersey â and if terrorists decided to attack that chemical plant that they show on television for the entire world to see it â they calculated that 12 million people would die from such an attack.
There are two possibilities here: 1) The media are getting very stupid in the US to show on television how easy would be to attack such unguarded chemical plant full of powerful toxic chemicals or 2) It is a trap to see if the terrorists are watching the information on television, and they can catch them in the act if they try to attack such a chemical facility.
Note: By the way, the reason that corporations are not protecting many of their chemical tanks around the country, it is because they are in business to make money, and they are not going to spend money hiring people to guard their tanks to prevent acts of terrorism.
.
