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

[??????????]

We are scared b/c the Bush administration loves to constantly remind us of the threat of terrorism without backing up their warnings with solid facts.

Face it, terrorism has killed only a handful of people in the past year.  It has killed less than 3,000 people in the past decade....and this was in the worst decade for terrorism in American history.  Americans should be much more frightened of car accidents, handguns, AIDS and many other causes of death, each of which kill hundreds of times as many people as terrorism.

It's just that terrorism is a political plus for Republicans, and people are poor evaluators of risk, so terrorism is all we hear about.

Until they get a nuke of course. But that's ok keep underestimating the threat. And I think you need to re-read your facts. More then 3k died on 9/11.

[??????????]

Scared people vote republican.
so they keep reminding us.

I guess terrorism is no threat? These are the reasons why John Kerry and Edwards are threats to our future as a nation and I pray that these goons don't get in.

[??????????]

We are scared b/c the Bush administration loves to constantly remind us of the threat of terrorism without backing up their warnings with solid facts.

Face it, terrorism has killed only a handful of people in the past year.  It has killed less than 3,000 people in the past decade....and this was in the worst decade for terrorism in American history.  Americans should be much more frightened of car accidents, handguns, AIDS and many other causes of death, each of which kill hundreds of times as many people as terrorism.

It's just that terrorism is a political plus for Republicans, and people are poor evaluators of risk, so terrorism is all we hear about.

So,  when a terrorist organization declares war, attacks multiple US interests  and then actually strikes  US soil killing 3000, what is the appropriate reaction?
Hint- pretending that terrorism is just a fact of life, just as common as car accidents is not the right answer.  

I think our reaction in terms of going after terrorist in Afghanistan was entirely appropriate.

But I don't think it is appropriate to keep people in constant fear for an endless period of time for basically political purposes.  

Terrorists killed 3,000 people once.  
Handguns kill 30,000 people every year.  
Cancer kills over 300,000 people every year.

If we should be living in fear of anything, it sure shouldn't be terrorism.

Terrorism is a threat, but in the national scope of things, it is a minor one.  Maybe if there was an historic pattern of terrorism, like there is in Isreal, my reaction would be different, but one event does not make a pattern.  

Unlike Cancer and handguns. Terrorism is not just a CHANCE. We will get killed if we aren't watching our backs. Cancer death or handgun deaths are not guaranteed.

[??????????]

Does anyone have any idea how much time and investment (both monetary and human) it would take to gaurd every single port, railroad, bridge and building in America?  The United States would be bankrupt, literally, we could not raise the amount of money needed.  This is not to mention economic collapse do to the strain on the workforce.

This is why Bush, in his wisdom, has decided that the War of Terror is a real war, not a police action.  It is literally impossible to stop all terrorist threats at home, that is why we need to go abroand and take the conflict to them, so they can't get over here.  The narrow-mindedness involved in supporting the Kerry possition is astounding.

Declaring war on a noun is pretty silly to begin with.


The Republicans / Bush, let's face it, it's Bush... want the American public to be affraid.

Fear is used as a political tool to control the masses and influence public opinion.

The conventional wisdom tells us, the more scared we are, the more likely we will elect Bush (The first time!).


I think America is pretty sick and tired of being "scared".


Let's run this through the washer again, Bin Laden attacked us, so we went to war in Iraq.

Yeah, this really makes sense to me.

Your logic is astounding!

[??????????]

Some of you guys are just going overboard here.

I mean Terrorism hasn't just killed 3,000 people what about the people who were killed and the damaged caused in the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the suicide bombings, the first WTC bombing, the night club bombing. I mean yes Cancer is a threat but cancer can't buy a nuke off the black market, it can't sneak it into a country, and it can't blow it up and the last time I checked a gun and a car can't do that either. Terrorism also threatens the world and both the sponsors of it and the terroists themselves both must be dealt with

Then why are we in Iraq?

There was evidence that Saddam had WMDs which he could have sold to terrorists organizations plus he was paying Palestinians Bombers Families to blow up Israelis. Putin even said that Iraq was planning an attack on America

The question is not meant to inflame.

It is a serious question when you get right down to it.


Case in point: You mention Saddam paying Palestinians for suicide bombings inside Israel.

How is this a threat to the United States.

You say: Even Putin said Saddam planned to attack America.

I ask: With what?  And with what army?


I'm sorry, but the argument that Saddam was a threat to the United States is simply just silly at this point.

Also, the "intel" argument is equally weak.  There is/was no intel to suggest otherwise.


Fighting those who would commit acts of terror against the United States should be the first and only priority for our government.

And Iraq does not fit into that equation.


Wrapping one's party in the flag and shouting slogans like "With us or against us", really isn't what the country needs.

Rallying this country is EXACTLY what we need at this time. But thats ok we all know about Salman Pak and Saddams aiding and abetting terrorist. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions however.

[??????????]

Again,

Iraq did have WMDs. Did seek Uranium. Both have been proven.

Saddam is guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists. Fact.

So again prove me wrong?

[??????????]

Again,

Iraq did have WMDs. Did seek Uranium. Both have been proven.

Saddam is guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists. Fact.

So again prove me wrong?

There is no need to prove anyone wrong.


I won't split hairs on this.

Iraq was not a clear and present danger to the United States of America when George W. Bush "decided" to wage war there.

The war in Iraq has weakend our ability to fight "real" terrorists.

If all of the, "yeah but he...." arguments make you feel better, have at it.

They do nothing for me.

I know I was mistaken. I should never let the facts get in the way of any democrats belief. To do so would be a waste of breath.