Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
so i take it that you see no social causes for hunger in the states then.
|
Not in this country. I would define a social cause as somthing similar to what occurs in Africa, where food is deprived from people for power, political or other reasons. That does not happen here. Generally there is help for people who want it in this country.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Um, what if you pretty much ignored them? Terrorists can only control you if you let them.
|
Good point. I was ignoring them prior to 9/11, but they were not ignoring us. I would love to get back to the day when I felt comfortable ignoring them.
Quote:
Their goal isn't "increase the security around the door to an airplane", there goal is to impact US foriegn policy (which, I might note, they have done). When a terrorist nutjob hijacks a plane and rams it into a building:
1> Increase airplane pilot's door security.
2> Teach hostages to not go along with terrorist demands on a plane.
3> Maybe fund a real air-marshal program.
And now the entire avenue of attack used on 9/11 has been blocked.
Terrorism only generates policy changes if you let it. Currently, Terrorism has caused massive policy changes on the part of the US government.
My point is, using the Terrorism to justify the enroachment upon civil liberties, invasions of states, nuclear bunker buster bombs, or massive increases in military spending is disingenious. Terrorism really isn't dangerous enough to justify such large changes.
The reaction is overblown. It would be like firing a nuclear weapon because someone killed a single citizen -- the killing of a citizen is a problem that should be delt with, but responding in an overkill manner just makes more problems.
|
I agree some of our reactions have been pointless, over-the -top and have been harmfull to our freedoms. Some feel the attacks were our fault, I don't. My initial raction is to increase the consequences of terrorist activity on the terrorist. I know my feelings are "wrong" but my initial reaction is that if you hit us, we hit you back with 25 times the intensity.
My reactions are primal on many levels, but at least I know what they are when they arise. I think the "liberal mind" is different. The problem in communication arises because they often see this difference in terms of being some how, better, smarter than the "simplistic" conservative mind. An exampe is - your assumption that I did not understand the levels of risk from being a victim of a terrorist attack V. being in a car accident. Or, when I say when it comes to protecting you family the means justifies the ends, the liberal mind translates that to being immoral and that they would never act in such a manner. I think we know thats B.S., but if I call it B.S. the liberal mind gets offended.