Questioning the War on Terrorism.

[Mr.Conley]

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.

 

[KatarinaZ]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

A threat that barely exists unless you are one of its victims.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Mr.Conley]

A threat that barely exists unless you are one of its victims.

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?

 

[Gunny]

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?

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.

 

[Hobbit]

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?

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.

 

[Mr.Conley]

How many people in the US actually died as a result of the Cold War?

There is one big difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror. In the Cold War, our opponents could actually destroy us.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

 

[Mr.Conley]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

There is one big difference between the Cold War and the War on Terror. In the Cold War, our opponents could actually destroy us.

Terrorism can actually destroy us as well, just by a different means.

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.

And lose how many more lives in the next terrorist attack because we were looking the other way as happened on 9/11?

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.

It did not take 5 decades to pull off 9/11. The twin towers didn't even exist 50 years ago. It took about 5 YEARS.

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?

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.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Terrorism can actually destroy us as well, just by a different means.

How? By simultaneously hijacking every airplane in the world and running them all into buildings? I doubt the terrorist can come up with something as final as superpower war.

And lose how many more lives in the next terrorist attack because we were looking the other way as happened on 9/11?

1. Less than 1 million we lost every year to heart disease, or the 500,000 we lose to cancer, or the 42,000 who die in car crashes.
2. Who ever said stop looking out for terrorist. I say that we'd be better off spending the $1 trillion we're putting into Iraq elsewhere, and that the terrorist threat is overhyped.

It did not take 5 decades to pull off 9/11. The twin towers didn't even exist 50 years ago. It took about 5 YEARS.

According to, among others, I believe you, we've been 'at war' with Islamofacism since 1948, over fifty years, and in that time, we've had one major terrorist attack, and less than 10 minor ones. Is that a serious threat? One major attack in a fifty year old war? No.

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.

So people who die of heart attacks aren't useful? If I ever come across a stroke victim in the mall I should just watch?

Even if we do get rid of heart attack victims or health problems in general, we've still got tons of stuff that would be of greater benefit to society. Why not put the money to designing better cars and navigation systems to elimanate the 42,000 annual deaths in automobile accidents? Compared to the 3,000 who have EVER died in a terrorist attack on US soil, I think the money would be better spent.

People die. We can't stop that. We CAN minimize them dying before their time.

Exactly, and spending $1 trillion to prevent a terrorist attack is an extremely inefficeicent way of going about this, especially when $25 billion to Homeland Security would do practically the same job.

 

[Emmett]

I do however believe there is a way to end it! Rather quickly. Not without loss however AND....we could save billions!

Line up two of our Navy's Nuclear Boomers (nuclear powered submarines with ballistic missiles) for those of you who do not know, along the gulf (of course they wouldn't have to be in the gulf cause they can reach around the planet).
Anyway, line them up, contact North Korea, Iran and Syria. Advise them they have 1 fucking day (24 hours) to stop ALL this nonsense or we are going to strike. Then if there is one single person killed by a terroristic means traceable to them, FIRE!!!!!


Belikeve me, it will end, just like it did in Japan. Innocents WILL die. They WON"T be ours. One Boomer can make a damn parking lot out of Tehran. Trust me! A PARKING LOT!!!


After you fire, tell them again, stop the terrorism! They will stop!


It may seem inhumane what I just said but I believe what I just said. It is the sure fire way to end the senseless loss of innocent life. It's kill or be killed. We have tried treaties, peace accords, negotiations, and agreements. We've trusted nations that can not be trusted so we shoyuld now install a fear, just like you do with a child. A nation that kills it's own people and disrespects folks(no education for women), acts just like a child. The mentality must be dealt with like a child. Ask the Japanese folks, it works. They fear us and will never ever ever ever again attack us.

It is good for them that I do not have my finger on the nuke button cause there would be flourescence everywhere in Iran and Syria tomorrow night if this foolishness did not stop.

 

[Hobbit]

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.

And just stand by while they continue to blow up innocents all across the rest of the world? Remember what happened the last time we stood by during a holocaust?

 

[Mr.Conley]

And just stand by while they continue to blow up innocents all across the rest of the world? Remember what happened the last time we stood by during a holocaust?

6 million people died over 8 years in the Holocaust. Maybe 50,000 are dead due to Islamic terrorism. For every person killed by terrorism worldwide, probably 10,000 die of malaria or some other preventable disease, many of them children. If it's about saving innocents, then fighting terrorism gets you the least bang for your buck.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

And just stand by while they continue to blow up innocents all across the rest of the world? Remember what happened the last time we stood by during a holocaust?

Oh you must mean Darfur right?

Or Rwanda?

Or Serbia?

Right?

 

[dilloduck]

6 million people died over 8 years in the Holocaust. Maybe 50,000 are dead due to Islamic terrorism. For every person killed by terrorism worldwide, probably 10,000 die of malaria or some other preventable disease, many of them children. If it's about saving innocents, then fighting terrorism gets you the least bang for your buck.

Islamic terrorism would be happy to destroy every medical research faciltity that the west has. That would set things back a bit I bet.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Islamic terrorism would be happy to destroy every medical research faciltity that the west has. That would set things back a bit I bet.

That's the thing, Hell will freeze over before Islamic terrorist can even begin to think about contemplating whether or not to consider talking about eventually planning for such an attack. They don't have the resources. Sure, I'd love a pink pony, but that doesn't mean I'm ever going to have one, and sure Islamic terrorist would love to 'destroy the West,' but their track record indicates that they can barely pull of 1 major attack every half century. Even suggesting that terrorist could perform such on attack on even 1% of the medical facilities in the West is riddiculous.

 

[dilloduck]

That's the thing, Hell will freeze over before Islamic terrorist can even begin to think about contemplating whether or not to consider talking about eventually planning for such an attack. They don't have the resources. Sure, I'd love a pink pony, but that doesn't mean I'm ever going to have one, and sure Islamic terrorist would love to 'destroy the West,' but their track record indicates that they can barely pull of 1 major attack every half century. Even suggesting that terrorist could perform such on attack on even 1% of the medical facilities in the West is riddiculous.

I'm not ready to declare them as impotent as you are. It doesnt take a lot to destroy millions of lives.

 

[Gunny]

How? By simultaneously hijacking every airplane in the world and running them all into buildings? I doubt the terrorist can come up with something as final as superpower war.

What was the result of 9/11? This Nation came to a complete standstill for over a day, and some of our rights have been altered to suit legislation aimed at countering terrorism.

When we are attacked again, and we will be, what do you think the result of THAT is going to be?

And why does it have to be "superpower war?" I bet two nukes in the right places would place this Nation under martial law.

1. Less than 1 million we lost every year to heart disease, or the 500,000 we lose to cancer, or the 42,000 who die in car crashes.
2. Who ever said stop looking out for terrorist. I say that we'd be better off spending the $1 trillion we're putting into Iraq elsewhere, and that the terrorist threat is overhyped.

Yeah, we thought the terrorist threat was overhyped pre-9/11. Who'd have thunk the Japanese would have the stones to bomb Pearl Harbor? Who'd have thought one of our own people would blow up a Federal building over his heartburn with Waco?

It's actually UNDERhyped. It's just that the left in this Nation would scream bloody murder if anything that would have a REAL effect was implemented.

According to, among others, I believe you, we've been 'at war' with Islamofacism since 1948, over fifty years, and in that time, we've had one major terrorist attack, and less than 10 minor ones. Is that a serious threat? One major attack in a fifty year old war? No.

Sorry, wrong number. Islamofascism may have been at war with us since 1949, but as far as I'm concerned, you need go back no further than 1979.

So people who die of heart attacks aren't useful? If I ever come across a stroke victim in the mall I should just watch?

That's just bullshit, misconstruing my words. I expected better of you.

Even if we do get rid of heart attack victims or health problems in general, we've still got tons of stuff that would be of greater benefit to society. Why not put the money to designing better cars and navigation systems to elimanate the 42,000 annual deaths in automobile accidents? Compared to the 3,000 who have EVER died in a terrorist attack on US soil, I think the money would be better spent.

Why not just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there isn't a whole fanatical religious subculture out there Hell-bent on destroying us to teh last man, woman and child?

Exactly, and spending $1 trillion to prevent a terrorist attack is an extremely inefficeicent way of going about this, especially when $25 billion to Homeland Security would do practically the same job.

Wrong. Fighting a war in THEIR yard saves countless, noncombatant US lives every day that war isn't fought in OUR yard.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Wrong. Fighting a war in THEIR yard saves countless, noncombatant US lives every day that war isn't fought in OUR yard.

There is hardly any evidence for this statement. Show me where anyone has empirical evidence that shows that we are making the situation better by fighting in Iraq. Show me. I'd like to see it. How have we prevented more attacks at home? Last time I checked there have still been attempts on us at home... The only thing that has prevented those attacks was the extra vigilence at home. If we spent more money on Homeland Security, beefing up the border, increasing biometric security procedures, etc all the warmongering that terrorists tried would be irrelevant. Who cares if they hate us, if they can't get into the country. We have a great big ocean between us and the rest of the world, its about god damn time we used it for once. No I am not rationalizing isolationism, but its about god damn time that the people of this country realize that the more we meddle in other people's affairs, the more we dig ourselves into a deeper hole. Meddling has been the cornerstone of American Foreign policy for the second half of the last century, and it will get us into more trouble than its worth if we do not take steps to prevent it from happening again.

Furthermore, even you must concede, that you CANNOT fight a conventional war against terrorism. If they want to fight with guerilla warfare, you respond with increased intelligence and law enforcement. If they want to suicide attack, then you increase security at entrance points. Hitting them at home accomplishes nothing, but ensuring that the next generation of potential terrorists grows up with a burning hatred for the "imperialistic nations of the West."

To put it simply, you cannot change a person's heart or mind with force. A lesson that history has shown us repeatedly.