Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
So therefore the loss of American lives in Iraq isn't worth getting worked up over either and is VASTLY over-sold?
Tell me what is your over-sold thresh hold?
Exactly how much death, destruction, and disruption does it take to make ratbastid take notice?
Do you stroll by on fine spring days and someone says 'hey weren't there two buildings over there yesterday?' and you say 'well yes, but car accidents cause more death. Anyways lets get a coffee.'
Does someone say 'Man this is like the Vietnam war all over' and you say 'well really we barely lost more men in Vietnam than a year worth of car crashes, and that was over an entire decade, cars are 10 times more dangerous, so this whole Vietnam thing was VASTLY over-sold.'
The greatest loss of Civilian life in an attack in the US ever, shut down on of the most important cities on the planet for a week, disrupted international trade and travel for days, but really the threat was over-sold.
|
Don't go there. I mourn the losses we took on 9/11 as much as anyone, and certainly more than those who would twist the lessons of that day for political ends.
Yesterday, Fox News asserted that Al Qaeda is behind the California wildfires. See
. I mean, you call 9/11 conspiracy folks insane! You're going to tell me that the terrorism threat ISN'T being over-sold for political purposes??
This really ought to speak to you, Ustwo, if you can pull your head out of the administration's "fur us or aggin us" terrism sales pitch, because it's really a matter of cost/benefit analysis. In terms of protecting americans and keeping them safe, alive, financially solvent, healthy, and happy--is spending trillions on dismantling a middle-eastern non-threat nation really an effective use of our funds? Does putting American hopelessly in debt--a debt our great-grandchildren will be lucky to be able to afford interest payments on--really get as much benefit as a few percent of that amount spent on domestic programs? Given your position on financial conservatism, I don't understand why your blood isn't totally boiling about the way your administration has acquitted itself and the choices it's made.
If I could spent 1/100 the war budget on making cars safer and thereby save, say, five times the 9/11 casualties every single year, wouldn't that be worth it? That's all I'm saying.
To say the loss of American life in Iraq is a result of terrorism is just flat disingenuous. You can't invade somebody's country and then call their response terrorism. If we hadn't made the massive mis-step and--yes, I'll say it--overreaction that was our Iraq policy, we wouldn't be losing those lives.
On the other hand, I fully supported our action in Afghanistan. These days I'm not so sure exactly what we're doing there, so I can't say whether I still support it or not. But going after people who had direct input into what happened on 9/11, I'm completely and entirely FOR.