Questioning the War on Terrorism.

[theHawk]

So here is my question, which one saves more lives? Spending $800 billion dollar fighting an enemy that, over the last 50 years, has killed approximately 3,000 Americans, or use the money to find a cure to heart disease, which kills 1 million people yearly, or to reduce the number of fatal accidents, which kills 42,000 annually, along with several dozen other major afflictions, all for significantly smaller amount of cash and effort. You choose.

The answer is: Spending 800 billion on fighting an enemy that wants to kill us all, doesn't matter that they haven't succeeded in killing as much as disease does. Whats the point of dumping all that money into trying to find a fountain of youth ect. when they could all just be wiped out by terrorists? I agree borders need to be secured much more tightly, but we also need to prevent terrorists from getting those kinds of weapons.

Sorry if I misquouted, was cut n' pasting.

 

[Mr.Conley]

The answer is: Spending 800 billion on fighting an enemy that wants to kill us all, doesn't matter that they haven't succeeded in killing as much as disease does.
Whats the point of dumping all that money into trying to find a fountain of youth ect. when they could all just be wiped out by terrorists?

That's the thing, there should be no 'could' in your sentence, terrorists can't wipe us out. Terrorist finding and sneaking a nuclear weapon into this country is a big if. Even with a nuclear weapon, they couldn't wipe us out, and even then, we'd still save more lives my investing in medical treatments. Plus here's the thing, I'm not talking about the overall War on Terror really, just the Iraq War. There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, so terrorists couldn't have gotten them there, and either Saddam didn't have biological weapons or they might have been given to the Syrians, which is hardly an improvement. Should we do something if a rogue state starts giving nuclear material to terrorists? Yes. Should we secure the nuclear material in the former Soviet Union? Definitely. But Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program. I fine with border security and making sure international terrorist don't get biological weapons, but the War in Iraq isn't doing this, and for the amount we are spending there, we could save so many more lives. I'd rather find a cure for the hundreds of thousands of children with juevenile diabetes then spend on Iraq.

 

[dilloduck]

That's the thing, there should be no 'could' in your sentence, terrorists can't wipe us out. Terrorist finding and sneaking a nuclear weapon into this country is a big if. Even with a nuclear weapon, they couldn't wipe us out, and even then, we'd still save more lives my investing in medical treatments. Plus here's the thing, I'm not talking about the overall War on Terror really, just the Iraq War. There were no nuclear weapons in Iraq, so terrorists couldn't have gotten them there, and either Saddam didn't have biological weapons or they might have been given to the Syrians, which is hardly an improvement. Should we do something if a rogue state starts giving nuclear material to terrorists? Yes. Should we secure the nuclear material in the former Soviet Union? Definitely. But Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program. I fine with border security and making sure international terrorist don't get biological weapons, but the War in Iraq isn't doing this, and for the amount we are spending there, we could save so many more lives. I'd rather find a cure for the hundreds of thousands of children with juevenile diabetes then spend on Iraq.

I guess that's the difference--you're willing to take a chance

 

[Mr.Conley]

I guess that's the difference--you're willing to take a chance

Either we spend $800 billion in the wrong place trying to stop something that might possibly happen someday, or we spend 1/10th of that and end something that is happening everyday.

 

[dilloduck]

Either we spend $800 billion in the wrong place trying to stop something that might possibly happen someday, or we spend 1/10th of that and end something that is happening everyday.

Again--It's your opinion that we are spending it the wrong place. How close does the crisis need to get before you are willing to engage it. It's just so shitty for the enemy to hide far away, ain't it?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Again--It's your opinion that we are spending it the wrong place. How close does the crisis need to get before you are willing to engage it. It's just so shitty for the enemy to hide far away, ain't it?

Wrong dilloduck, Iraq is the wrong place. If we invaded Iraq to prevent terrorist from getting nuclear weapons, we went to the wrong place. Iraq didn't have nukes. If we really wanted to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons, we need to secure nuclear material in the former Soviet Union and scan all incoming passengers and cargo for radioactive material.

 

[dilloduck]

Wrong dilloduck, Iraq is the wrong place. If we invaded Iraq to prevent terrorist from getting nuclear weapons, we went to the wrong place. Iraq didn't have nukes. If we really wanted to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons, we need to secure nuclear material in the former Soviet Union and scan all incoming passengers and cargo for radioactive material.

By now you should realize that Iraq is in the VERY HEART of terrorism. The US military now stands on the borders of two of the WORST terrorist supporting countries in the world. A good place to be to finish off the job.

 

[Annie]

Besides September 11th, name one successful terrorist attack by Islamic terrorists against the continental United States that has kill even 500 people.

So, if they do manage to pull off another attack, then all bets are off? I'm having trouble with this. Granted, I'm jumping in the middle of a thread...

 

[MtnBiker]

If the point of the War on Terror is to minimize the number of Americans who die wrongful, preventable deaths, then investing in medicine, improved automobile navigation, environmentally friendly industrial production and other efforts will every year, for less then we are spending on Iraq, save more than 10,000 times the number of America killed in a terrorist attack EVER.

I believe the War on Terror is far more reaching than just minimizing the number of American deaths by the hands of terrorists. Having a several countries or entire regions of the globe controlled by terrorist regimes is not good for anyone.

 

[Dr Grump]

By now you should realize that Iraq is in the VERY HEART of terrorism. The US military now stands on the borders of two of the WORST terrorist supporting countries in the world. A good place to be to finish off the job.

Not before the invasion it wasn't. Sure is now.

 

[Mr.Conley]

So, if they do manage to pull off another attack, then all bets are off? I'm having trouble with this. Granted, I'm jumping in the middle of a thread...

I believe the War on Terror is far more reaching than just minimizing the number of American deaths by the hands of terrorists. Having a several countries or entire regions of the globe controlled by terrorist regimes is not good for anyone.

Definitely not; however, it is not the worst threat. Which do you think is worse for Africans: disease, civil war, and lack of infastructure, or Islamic terrorism? Which is worse for workers in China: environmental destruction and human rights infringments, or Islamic terrorism. In India, which kills more: the Mumbai train bombings or crushing poverty and disease? If the United States is supposed to be a force for good in this world, then shouldn't it strive for the greatest good? Which saves more: a cure for malaria, a disease that kills 2 million people, mostly children, annually, or Iraq? The fact of the matter remains, on the list of ways to die, terrorism is near the bottom. If the United States wants to provide the greatest amount of good to itself and the world, then finding cures for disease such as malaria that kill millions every year, and assisting developing nations will provide the greatest benefit to both us and humanity ingeneral. A rising tide lifts all boats I believe, and any US effort to help second and third world countrires acheive first world status will, undoubtably, benefit those of us here at home.
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. We need to secure nuclear material in Russia, we need to ensure the security of our borders, and we need to search every container entering this country for WMDs. However, we need to realize that the threat of terrorism is extremely small, that it is highly improbable that any of us will die in a terrorist attack, and rather than letting fear cloud our minds an be turned against us, we need to continue our lives as we would pre-9/11. We must still be vigilant, but we must not allow this vigilance to become allconsuming.

 

[red states rule]

Not before the invasion it wasn't. Sure is now.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/06/winds-of-war-how-liberal-would-fight.html
Winds of War: How Liberal Would Fight the War on Terror

From The Gathering Storm

A recent editorial in the Khaleej Times, the No.1 English language daily newspaper published from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, seems to have taken a page out of the liberal left playbook on how to fight the misnamed War on Terror.

According to the editorial,

"Americans feel that if the United States should win the larger war, namely the War on Terror, it must use peaceful non-military tools.” The editorial goes on quote that some media surveys – get that? Media surveys? And you know what media that is - have found "surprising consensus" among bipartisan experts on this matter. “
“While these experts want continuation of the War on Terror, for obvious reasons, they want it be waged not by gun, and not by bloodshed. Lives are important for Americans and they understand the importance of peace and law and order. Hence, while they want the anti-terror campaign continued, they want it conducted by way of non-violent means, like persuasion-by preaching and by prompting.”
There you have it. “Preaching” and gentle “prompting” will make the jihadists roll over in submission and immediately cease their Jihad against the free democracies.

The editorial goes on.

“Such an endeavour can be undertaken by giving the rest of the world, be it the Middle East, or countries like North Korea, an example of how good the America systems are; how these systems take care of the needs and aspirations of the people, in a way that there is little scope for people to be misled into dangerous ways. This would be in marked contrast to the dictatorial ways that have left people in misery and want-situations that help terror gangs.”
Yes. That’s it. America and the opportunity of freedom that it presents is little known by the down trodden of the world literally dying to get into this country. It’s those very freedoms that the Islamists and their handmaiden the jihadists are seeking to destroy. I think it’s safe to say that the world is quite aware of what America represents since our way of life is what the jihadists have preached to their followers as the threat to Islam and their civilization.

And then this piece of historical ignorance.

“America neutralized its bitter Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, not by waging a war, but by spreading the message of freedom and democracy to the peoples who were caught in totalitarian ways of governance for long years. The Eastern Bloc of Europe, under the Soviet orbit, changed their political perspectives after they came to know what they have missed in their lives. That realization-and not bullets-changed their lives for ever. Eventually, the whole of Soviet Union crumbled like a pack of cards.”
“….after they came to know what they have missed in their lives”. Yep. That’s what did it. One day the communists woke up and realized freedom was the way and tossed communism into the trash bin of history. I don’t know how old the write of this editorial is, but I remember that we won the Cole War by literally bankrupting the Soviets in an arms race and its economy collapsed under its own weight.

Both the writer of this editorial and the liberal left enjoy the fantasy that the proper use of military force, the forcible removal of those who teach jihad in our country, forcing the closing down of organizations that support the Islamist agenda, and eavesdropping on their conversations to prevent them from attacking us again, are not the proper way to wage a war.

Kerry and Dean must be very happy that an Arab newspaper supports their version of fighting the ‘war on terror’. A dubious support considering the source.

 

[8236]

Also, we 'understand' terrorism perfectly. It's a bunch of brainwashed barbarians who attack civilians out of some twisted sense of holy purpose.

Is it? I think the origin of modern terrorism can be traced directly to the unquestioning support of the west for Israel and anything it does. The geo-political issues ass is then dressed up in religion to appeal to the masses.

Israel tried to understand the terrorists and, as a show of good faith, gave up Gaza and the West Bank.

When did they give up the west bank? If they had, then what are all their settlements doing in it?

Israel's occupation of post 1967 Palestinian territories is illegal. The settlements are also illegal. Security Council Resolutions 242, Nov. 22, 1967 and 446, March 22, 1979. 'Good faith' is irrelevent. International law says Israel shouldn't be there, just like it said Iraq had to 'comply'. Maybe we should therefore invade Israel for non-compliance...

 

[dilloduck]

Is it? I think the origin of modern terrorism can be traced directly to the unquestioning support of the west for Israel and anything it does. The geo-political issues ass is then dressed up in religion to appeal to the masses.


When did they give up the west bank? If they had, then what are all their settlements doing in it?

Israel's occupation of post 1967 Palestinian territories is illegal. The settlements are also illegal. Security Council Resolutions 242, Nov. 22, 1967 and 446, March 22, 1979. 'Good faith' is irrelevent. International law says Israel shouldn't be there, just like it said Iraq had to 'comply'. Maybe we should therefore invade Israel for non-compliance...

Is launching rockets into another country legal ?

 

[manu1959]

Is it? I think the origin of modern terrorism can be traced directly to the unquestioning support of the west for Israel and anything it does. The geo-political issues ass is then dressed up in religion to appeal to the masses.

When did they give up the west bank? If they had, then what are all their settlements doing in it?

Israel's occupation of post 1967 Palestinian territories is illegal. The settlements are also illegal. Security Council Resolutions 242, Nov. 22, 1967 and 446, March 22, 1979. 'Good faith' is irrelevent. International law says Israel shouldn't be there, just like it said Iraq had to 'comply'. Maybe we should therefore invade Israel for non-compliance...

the muslim hostage school thing in russia is western?

they gave it up a while back and demolished their settlements?

to the victor goes the spolis.....since when do you give back land you won in a war?

 

[8236]

Is launching rockets into another country legal ?

Apparently... go ask your government...
or go ask the Israelis: they got plenty of practise in 1956 and 1967.

Seriously though, my point is that muslims see on the one hand the rigorous application of a wishy washy resolution regarding Iraq, and on the other the way Israel gets away scot free with ignoring resolutions to do with palestine.

 

[manu1959]

Apparently... go ask your government...
or go ask the Israelis: they got plenty of practise in 1956 and 1967.

Seriously though, my point is that muslims see on the one hand the rigorous application of a wishy washy resolution regarding Iraq, and on the other the way Israel gets away scot free with ignoring resolutions to do with palestine.

no one follows un resolutions....go read the ones on terrorists

 

[Mr.Conley]

Apparently... go ask your government...
or go ask the Israelis: they got plenty of practise in 1956 and 1967.

Seriously though, my point is that muslims see on the one hand the rigorous application of a wishy washy resolution regarding Iraq, and on the other the way Israel gets away scot free with ignoring resolutions to do with palestin

Come on now. In 1967, Egypt had put practically its entire army on the Egpyt-Israeli border. It was Egypt who started the war; Israeli just prempted their military attack in order to minimize civilian casualties on their side.

 

[8236]

Come on now. In 1967, Egypt had put practically its entire army on the Egpyt-Israeli border. It was Egypt who started the war; Israeli just prempted their military attack in order to minimize civilian casualties on their side.

Fair enough- you are right
1956 then: Israel definitely was an aggressor then. They jumped on the Anglo-French bandwaggon and invaded the Sinai without any excuse.

 

[8236]

to the victor goes the spolis.....since when do you give back land you won in a war?

Fair comment. But then don't be surprised when the disposessed strike back...