Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
O.P.P: The US can't protect the whole world at the same time, as much as they would want it to. 
No attacks on America, though. From what I read, there is no shortage of threats, either. |
We must live on different worlds. You on the one where the rest of world wants the U.S. to protect it and I on the one where the rest of the world doesn't support the U.S. concept of protection (preemption).
Is not beheading an American a terrorist act on America?
If you're going to state that "there hasn't been 1 single terrorist attack on the US since they decided to take the fight to those religious freaks" as to imply that we are safer since the U.S. invaded Iraq, you might want to consider the facts which state that there has been an attack (2 now, with today's news of another beheading) on America. Further, you're implying that the U.S. is safer because 1000+ Americans have died "taking the fight to them" in Iraq in the 3 years since 9/11 vs. the less than 1000+ Americans that died fighting terrorism between 1993 and 2001. I don't see how that equates - unless soldiers are expendable even while they have failed to produce any noticable gains against the terrorists.