Could the US survive a major terrorist attack in the present state of the economy?

[Cliffie]

I can't vote on any of the choices in this poll. It's not just (or even primarily) about what Obama does. Another major terrorist attack would pull Americans together, like the last one did, not split us apart. What I hope is that this time we would find and punish the actual terrorists involved, instead of using the attack as an excuse to start two other unrelated wars. I do think this is more likely this time, because of Obama's open-forum "just e-mail me about it" approach. I look at Bush's response to 9/11 and I don't know what the hell he could have been thinking about.

[Asheville Native]

We don't need terrorists to threaten or attack us, we can't survive the greedy bastards of Wall St. and Washington D.C. They are the ones that has this country on it knees now.

[cruxan]

Originally Posted by Asheville Native

We don't need terrorists to threaten or attack us, we can't survive the greedy bastards of Wall St. and Washington D.C. They are the ones that has this country on it knees now.

ya i was about to say the same thing... we are being attacked by those greedyparasiticcockroache ceo's.... for now they are the real terrorist and should be Xterminated immediately.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit

If there were another event, the constitution is the most important thing that must survive. Anyone who says otherwise is a dictator in the wings.

I would disagree with that.
The U.S. Constitution is merely a compact between the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled. The "United States" is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
What IS paramount, is that the sovereignty of the American people must be preserved. THAT is the only thing that separates the U.S.A. from every other nation on this planet. So far, our opponents have successfully erased that from over 3 generations of Americans. We are ripe for being 'picked clean', and having a new "constitutional" socialist collective uber State imposed.

----------
References:

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it....."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia

FEDERAL CORPORATIONS - The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.
- - - Volume 19, Corpus Juris Secundum XVIII. Foreign Corporations, Sections 883,884

"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]

REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, ... directly,....
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary

There is no other nation nor government on this planet that has a "republican form of government". Everyone else is a subject citizen of their government, even if its a parliamentary democracy.

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary,Sixth Ed. p.244

"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

We've been tricked to claim subjugation, despite all the evidence to the contrary on the law books.

Did you think you were born a "U.S. citizen"?
Who told you that?
It's not in the law.

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [14th Amendment, Section 1.]

Uh oh... Sovereign Americans are not persons subject to nor object of the governing power of the servant government, especially of a foreign corporation.

[stormy night]

Originally Posted by Cliffie

I can't vote on any of the choices in this poll. It's not just (or even primarily) about what Obama does. Another major terrorist attack would pull Americans together, like the last one did, not split us apart. What I hope is that this time we would find and punish the actual terrorists involved, instead of using the attack as an excuse to start two other unrelated wars. I do think this is more likely this time, because of Obama's open-forum "just e-mail me about it" approach. I look at Bush's response to 9/11 and I don't know what the hell he could have been thinking about.

Wasn't it Obama who is closing Gitmo and has been letting the terrorists go? Hmm.

I think Obama would be more likely to smile, slap those terrorists on the back and invite them to sit down and talk about how much like Lincoln and Kennedy he (Obama) is. Then ask them what they think he should do to make the world a better place.

[SCGranny]

I think that to answer this question you would have to consider what the next attack might portend.
Al-Q has already said they won't drive any more planes into buildings.
Not that you can trust them too much, but still... there are so MANY other ways to do this. Everything from a dirty bomb in a football stadium, through a pandemic of superflu or another disease, to a co-ordinated multi-pronged attack on several places at once. An epidemic in a place that is recently struck by a hurricane, flood, or other 'natural' disaster. The list goes on and on. What you have to look at is impacts.
1) How many people will escape the zoned area, carrying with them the virus or bacteria to infect other areas?
2) How will the martial law and other constitutional violations of individual rights be used to decimate the population, strip them not only of their rights but leave them totally dependent on government for their succor - and what would be the variable outcomes of that?
3) What would be the impact on the economy of each scenario - either Pandemic, attack on a public event attended by millions, multi-faceted and widespread bombings, etc? Hospitals overflowing or forced to shut down, meidcal and physical aid rushed to the sites, LEO consription and mobilization... all of these have cost impacts as well as human impacts.

Then you have to look at society not just in whole but in part - how many people already expect the government to succor them, and would riot when things were not done to their expectations? What areas would be more likely to be neighborly and help each other - and what areas would be more likely to turn on their neighbors; stealing, raping, murdering?

Think of it as societal triage - the strict definition of which is - "who shall live and who shall die?" Who are more likely to survive a manmade calamity - those who depend on themselves, or those who depend on government succor? How many times and in how many places in a given amount of time will government bureaucracies be able to succor everyone - or be forced to declare a martial law where all are declared equal in both what they receive and what they are allowed to have?

EX. Say I lived in IA, and the floods came up again. Now, I am ten miles from a flooded zone, and I have water in my basement but am ok. I have food storage in my attic, barrels of potable water in my living room, and have a woodburning stove for heat, kerosene lamps for light, loaded guns in my gun rack for hunting and self protection. I have no need to leave my domicile. Then some Sm*** A$$ terrorist decides to infiltrate the only available potable water supply to the flood zone with a superdisease. Martial law is declared in the zone, and the ill and dying people - thousands of them - are incarcerated within a perameter so that they do not infect others. All of their guns are taken away, and food and water are strictly distributed - as is health care. You live in the flood zone - and you are not sick yet. You know me, who I am and where I live, as well as what I have. What are YOU going to do to survive? Now, say you are a youngster who is in the National Guard, and you are under orders to control all of these sick, dying, and frightened people. Then YOU find out who and where I am. What will YOU do? What will your superior officers do? And what would such a simple occurance - happening in several places at once, natural disaster or no - do to the economy, much less the social structure, of an area and a state or even a country?

So the only answer available is - it depends.

[Rosinante]

Originally Posted by Colossus_Antonis

Unclench fists o'thine, and thou shalt have my love letter

Then goeth thou and I; and kisseth in the verandah

Yes We Can

No he can't.

[camping!]

Yes, the american people will survive, rebuild and come together. It is our greatest strength that as a nation we can put aside politics, race, and religion when the going gets tough.
The economy would actually improve -- war has a way of making it so.
As to Obama......I don't know how he would react. I think it would depend on who is advising him at the time.