If Bush is so good on terror, why are we so scared?

[MarkDel]

Let me get this straight...the measure of a "threat" is based on how many people die from that threat??? That means that nuclear energy is nothing to worry about, right? So why don't we start building thousands of nucelar power plants so we can become self-reliant for energy sources and not have to "go to war for oil" like you leftists are prone to saying.

Using Nick and BetterRed's logic, automobiles or street gangs are a much greater threat to national security than nuclear power plants or global warming...I mean, how many people in the US have died as a direct result of radiation exposure because of accidents at a nuclear power plant?

You guys should actually THINK before you make ing ludicrous posts where you claim that street gang violence, or some other social ill, is a bigger threat to national security than terrorism. Basing a THREAT on the number of people who have died from that threat is structural logic that I would be embarassed to use in SECOND GRADE.

[MarkDel]

Let me get this straight...the measure of a "threat" is based on how many people die from that threat??? That means that nuclear energy is nothing to worry about, right? So why don't we start building thousands of nucelar power plants so we can become self-reliant for energy sources and not have to "go to war for oil" like you leftists are prone to saying.

Using Nick and BetterRed's logic, automobiles or street gangs are a much greater threat to national security than nuclear power plants or global warming...I mean, how many people in the US have died as a direct result of radiation exposure because of accidents at a nuclear power plant?

You guys should actually THINK before you make ing ludicrous posts where you claim that street gang violence, or some other social ill, is a bigger threat to national security than terrorism. Basing a THREAT on the number of people who have died from that threat is structural logic that I would be embarassed to use in SECOND GRADE.

I'd still like to see Nick or one of the other Left Wingers explain to me why it's in any way logically coherent to base the magnitude of a threat primarily on the number of people who have been actually killed by that threat. Please explain to me why this kind of logical structure is more than one step above people who sleep in cribs and still sh*t in their pants? What are you guys, six years old?

[MarkDel]

Nick,

The insults are made to stress the incredibly simplistic logic that leads to someone saying, with a straight face, that lives lost are the best measure of analyzing a potential threat.

If you can't see WHY that is overly simplistic...I'm not sure what to say other than to try and walk you through it step by step. To summarize the intrinsic flaw in such logic, please consider that it is "outcome based" thinking. You are working backwards from a result to asses a situation that took place under different circumstances BEFORE the result took place.

For example, using your logic...if no person has ever been eaten by a Polar Bear in the United States, then it would be more dangerous to encounter a mosquito than a polar bear because mosquitoes carry the West Nile virus and that HAS resulted in death. So using your logic, it would be safer for me to shake hands with a Polar Bear than to have a cookout where a mosquito was present.

And I notice you did not tackle my examples of nuclear power or global warming either, but they too betray the logical flaws in the argument you and others make. The proper assesment of a THREAT is not the result of that THREAT, by then it's too late to do something about it, the true measure of a THREAT is the POTENTIAL damage caused by a worst case scenario or plausible scenario between best case and worst case.

By the way, you commented that we should incorporate economic damage and other measureable losses into the equation...I find that rather inconsistent with your Left Wing views...for example, using that logic, it is perfectly acceptable when a Car Company decides to make a neconomic decision that it is cheaper to pay off the wrongful death lawsuits rather than incur the expense of a vehicle recall, right?

[MarkDel]

Stupid leftists.

We aren't fighting an earthquake or a hurricane.  We are not trying to stop something that mindlessly kills at random for no reason and will just fade aaway if we are caring enough.

We are fighting a war against a deliberate enemy who deliberately targets large population centers stategically, not randomly, and this makes it a greater threat than cancer or auto accidents.  It also makes it a more reasonable target than cancer or auto accidents.

Terrorism, more specifically Islamism, can be defeated.  Auto accidents and street crime cannot be defeated, only minimized.  For this reason, it makes more sense to fight something you can actually stop.

I agree that we can't stop auto accidents or crime.  But if we find that accidents and crime are causing a hundred times as much damage as terrorism, then reducing them by just 1% is as good as stopping terrorism entirely.

Can any Republican please give me an estimate on what they think the costs of terrorism are, compared to other social problems and why?

Nick,

The accurate measure is NOT the costs, but the potential costs.

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

WOW...that was a major league "rhetorical ass kicking" you just gave Scorpio...if this were a fight they would stop it!!!