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

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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?

[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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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?

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I don't really see how we can measure potential costs except as a function of past costs.  

If terrorism was actually a grave threat to our society, I think we would have already experienced another attack.  On September 12, 2001, it was rational to believe that terrorism was a huge future threat...for all we knew,  it could have been the start of monthly or even yearly attacks.  But three years later with no further attacks, I think we have to downgrade the potential future costs considerably.  How many years have to pass before we can conclude that 9/11 was a one-time event that we don't have to live in constant fear of any more?

In the car recall example, I think this decision is acceptable, assuming the company is measuring overall costs to society rather than simply costs to the corporation that will instead be borne by consumer.  But generally, if a safety feature costs more than the benefit it confers, then that safety feature should not be included in the design.  This also assumes that the public has full information about the costs and benefits of the feature or defect.

I haven't commented on global warming because I don't know the statistics well enough to make an informed conclusion about the relative danger.  
And I don't really have a problem with nuclear power.

[Scorpio]

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.

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

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.

[TheWildCard]

Scorpio,

Saddam supported Terrorism by paying those people to bomb innocent civilians. And sadly it doesn't take an army to attack another country plus Putin isn't going to do Bush any favors I'm shocked that he even said that the Russians had that intelligence.

Here are a few questions for you Scorpio why did Saddam kick the U.N. inspectors out if he was clean? Why wouldn't he let them back into Iraq?

From everything I know of Saddam he was power hungry he wouldn't give up his control of Iraq for nothing.

[Scorpio]

Scorpio,

Saddam supported Terrorism by paying those people to bomb innocent civilians. And sadly it doesn't take an army to attack another country plus Putin isn't going to do Bush any favors I'm shocked that he even said that the Russians had that intelligence.

Here are a few questions for you Scorpio why did Saddam kick the U.N. inspectors out if he was clean? Why wouldn't he let them back into Iraq?

From everything I know of Saddam he was power hungry he wouldn't give up his control of Iraq for nothing.

Sorry.  I don't have a crystal ball and won't attempt to look into the mind of Saddam.


Saddam wanted what all men with power want.

More power.

However, that being said:


I find it ironic that Republicans continue to support the notion of going to war in Iraq, after everything that has come out about the failed intelligence, and the lack of WMD.

I mean, is it the Bush - "I can't admit a mistake" disease?


Here's the skinny.  Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11.

Bush elected a war of choice on Iraq.  

Please explain how this makes sense?

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

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?

[Scorpio]

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.

[Beet]

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.

There is only one problem with this reasoning (other than its wild and wilfully fatalistic exaggeration): Flynn's already thought of it! Yet he still chose to write this book. Why? To make the case that an a serious attempt at homeland defense after 9/11 is worthwhile.

First, one must accept the deep and serious consequences possible from a major terror attack, including thousands of deaths or economic collapse. Second, Flynn points out how easy such an attack would be. Al Qaeda realises now that 9/11 was a tactical victory and a strategic mistake. Its organization is now seriously weakened and it failed to launch a knockout blow against the United States. If it was going to make the same mistake again, it already would have. Third, Flynn points out that the $500 million total we are spending on domestic security is only what we are spending in four days in Iraq. A quick, genuine handover of power in Iraq, or a diversion of funds away from the President's Mars program, would easily allow up to double or triple what we are currently spending. But fourth, Flynn proposes a solution: a Federal Homeland Security System integrating private and public expertise, funded by levying fees on such activities as the movement of containers and by requiring owners and operators of critical infrastructure to carry antiterrorist insurance. The details of Flynn's proposals are significant in representing a genuinely long-term response to a threat he is convinced will remain serious for an indefinite longterm. Any risks they might pose to civil liberties, he argues, are marginal compared with the likely domestic consequences of being caught unprepared a second time.

This is certainly an interesting book by a guy who knows what he is talking about.

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

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.

[Scorpio]

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.

Okay.  If it makes you feel better, but I'm right.


Iraq was not a clear and present danger to the United States of America.  Iraq has no connection to Al-Qaeda.


Bush chose a pre-emptive war based on lies and misinformation.

I'm truly sorry you have such a hard time with this, but I don't want to upset you further, so let's just leave it as I will support John Kerry and you can do whatever you want.

There, everyone happy?

[12th Doctor]

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

You mean like the War on Poverty?

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

Fear and vigilence are to different things.  Learn the difference

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

You mean like "the Republicans are going to kick grandma out on the street", "elect Bush and another Black Church will burn", "Bush and Ashcroft are facsists", etc?

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

There is that tired old line.  

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

So then lets eliminate the threat instead of attacking the President and then they won't have anything to be scared about.

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

We also went into Afghanistan, but it happened so fast that you probably didn't notice it.  Not only was Iraq training terrorists, but the conditions in the Middle-east as a whole are what is causing the problem to begin with.  The only way to fix it for the long term is to go in and actively restructure those systems that breed terrorists.  What is so difficult to understand about this.  

Just imagine that the terrorists are Bush, then you'll be angry enough to take them on.

Yeah, this really makes sense to me.

Now that I've read over enough of your posts to get a feel for where you are coming from, I wouldn't expect you to.

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

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

[The Duke]

Supersoulty puts one in the bleachers.  Very nice.