Questioning the War on Terrorism.

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Mr.Conley, Jul 18, 2006.

  1. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    The fifth aniversery of the September 11th attacks is only 2 months away. Since that infamous day the United States has invaded two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, spent nearly $1 trillion, strained relations worldwide, divided the country, and now fights a bloody battle seemingly without end. Reflecting upon all that has happened in the last five years, I have to ask myself: has it all been worth it? While at first my answer was a definitive yes, I now find myself questioning the national energy we put daily into the War on Terrorism.
    According to some, the battle against Islamofacism has lasted for over 50 years. According to them, our enemy is relentless. Supplied with vast oil wealth pilfered from our own pockets, the enemy seeks to destroy us and everything we stand for. They show no mercy, killing civilians, journalists, women, and children to further their cause. While all of this is true, I counter: Is the effort worth it? I am starting to believe it is not.
    Before September 11th, the Americans rarely thought about terrorism. Until 9/11, you were more likely to be killed in a fatal vending machine accident then by terrorists. Since September 11, we as a nation have been fortunate enough to not experience another display of wanton brutality we first saw five years ago. Thanks to government vigilance throughout the past 50 years, the total number of major terrorist attacks within the United States could be counted on your hand. Obviously we have been extremely successful. Terrorism in this country is rarer than honest politicians. Yet despite the relative rarity of terrorism in the United States, we live in constant fear. We spend our days watching the news, waiting in horror for the next attack. Our government spends billions of dollars protecting New York, Wyoming and Montana from the terrorist scurge. We fight wars on the other side of the planet in hopes of luring the terrorists away from us. But are all these precautions nessicary? Do we really need to exist in such a state of fear? While I am not saying that we should do nothing about terrorism, on the contrary. I don't mind waiting another 15 minutes at the airport and I'm sure that Wal Mart will survive having to get it's containers checked for nuclear material, but I have to ask: Why should we spend so much, end the lives of so many American soldiers, and streatch our strategic resources thin inorder to defeat an enemy that has managed to truely "attack" us once ever. In fact, nearly 10 times as many Americans are killed every month by heart disease alone then terrorists have killed ever. It's like worrying about a bad hair day when you've got lung cancer. Instead of living with this constant threat, why couldn't we have simply put the nessicary safeguards in place. Screen the containers, scan the passengers, put flight marshalls on the planes, whatever. But all of these preparations don't require even half of the blood and money we send to Iraq. Why not spend the other $800 billion going there here fighting disease, funding education, maintaining the enviroment, and enjoying our lives? Americans face a far greater personal threat from our own automobiles, yet we've spent more money fighting this war than we've appropriated to heart disease, cancer, and stroke, combined. Don't even mention the national anxiety. Prescriptions for antidepressants have skyrocketed since the attacks. But why live in constant fear from a threat that can maybe pull off one more attack in the next century? We Americans face a far greater threat from the seemingly innocuous events of our everday lives then terrorist can ever dream of poising. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight terrorism; I just don't think it's our most important concern anymore. I say stay vigilant, but lets not be consumed by a threat that barely exists.
     
  2. KatarinaZ
    Offline

    KatarinaZ Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    35
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    I believe Mr. Bush and his advisers should attempt to understand terrorism before they can attempt to "fight" it. Terrorism existed a long time before the Sept. 11 attacks. It is just as prevalent in the countries that America supports as it is in the countries that America dislikes.
    For a United States President, Mr. Bush shows a very poor grasp of foreign affairs.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    A threat that barely exists unless you are one of its victims.
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The President and his advisors understand terrorism just fine. The most effective way to combat terrorism is to yourself become more terrorist and meet force with greater force; however, such is morally reprehensible to civilized Nations.

    That's the difference between us and the people whose cause you champion.
     
  5. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    In my opinion this whole thing is one giant misallocation of resources. In total, 3,000 people have died in the United States because of terrorism ever. Every year, 1 million Americans die of heart disease. It would take over 300 9/11's to equal the number of Americans who die of heart disease in one year, yet we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars ending terrorism. Heart disease doesn't get 1/100th of that. I know that terrorist attacks are far more graphic and violent than a heart attack, but is the life of a man who dies of a heart attack less valuable than one lost in a terror attack? Is his death less tragic? Is his family any less shattered? Are his now fatherless children somehow not as heartbroken?
     
  6. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    How many people in the US actually died as a result of the Cold War?

    We can't do much to stop the mortal condition of heart disease. We can only minimize it with education and medication.

    We can't do much to stop terrorism. We can only minimized it with vigilance and education. Obviously we weren't doing enough to minimize it nor be vigilant to allow an event as large-scale as 9/11 to take place.

    However, comparing a condition of being human with unnatural and premature, violent death at the hands of fanatics is going a bit far, IMO.
     
  7. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    So we should let fanatical Muslims carry out their genocidal campaign across the globe because...people die of heart disease? I fail to see the logic.

    Also, we 'understand' terrorism perfectly. It's a bunch of brainwashed barbarians who attack civilians out of some twisted sense of holy purpose. Trying to negotiate and just get along is a sign of weakness to them, and doing so will only get them to attack you harder. The way you deal with terorrists is by killing the brainwashers and giving the impoverished something to look forward to that sounds better than ending their miserable lives under a totalitarian regime by suicide bombing Israeli school busses. Israel tried to understand the terrorists and, as a show of good faith, gave up Gaza and the West Bank. The thanks they get is a volley of rockets into Haifa.
     
  8. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    There is one big difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror. In the Cold War, our opponents could actually destroy us.
    Can we? You'd be amazed at some of the stuff they're doing in biotechnology. With enough investments, we could potentially eradicate 4 out of the 5 leading causes of death in the United States. Besides, heart disease is just one example of the hundreds and thousands of ways where, for less than we are spending in the War on Terror, we could save a hundred thousand more lives.
    It took terrorist 5 decades to pull off 9/11, and that was before we had any of the safeguards we have inplace now. Why then, instead of hunting down terrorist on the other side of the planet, don't we turn our attention elsewhere. Let's try to improve education, or help the inner cities, or work to cure the cancers and disease responsible for more deaths in one year than terrorist will kill in the next 100. If we used even half of the money we're putting into Iraq, none if these problems would exist.
    A condition that doesn't have to exist, and again, is the life of a man who dies of a heart attack less valuable than one lost in a terror attack? Is his death less tragic? Is his family any less shattered? Are his now fatherless children somehow not as heartbroken?
     
  9. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    No, we just need to realize that the 'Muslim genocidal campaign' is a cruel joke. Honestly, if it took Islamic terrorists 50 years to pull off one major terrorist attack BEFORE all the measure we have in place now, then I'm not betting on them outdoing themselves anytime soon. Just leave the system we have in place now to prevent terrorist from entering the country, and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war on the other side of the planet to protect us from a practically nonexistent threat, why not use the money to find solutions to problems that affect millions of families across the country and around the planet.
     
  10. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    A life lost to a heart attack is part of natural selection. A life lost due to murder is prematurely ending an otherwise (potentially) useful, healthy life.

    The attempted play on emotion has not gone unnoticed, but such are the realities of life. People die. We can't stop that. We CAN minimize them dying before their time.
     

Share This Page