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

[Beet]

Here is a good article from Steve Flynn at the Council on Foreign Relations, a pretty conservative, pro-business think tank.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040726-664992,00.html

Since Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has spent more than $500 million to make America's seaports more secure. Sound like a lot? It isn't.

That's about what the U.S. spends in Iraq in four days, notes Stephen Flynn, whose new book on homeland security, America the Vulnerable, concludes that the U.S. is scandalously unprepared for the next terrorist attack. Why? Because it still doesn't see protecting the homeland as a priority. Flynn, a retired U.S. Coast Guard commander and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says our leaders harbor the delusion that the real fight against terrorism is overseas. In the meantime, the U.S. has made scant progress in protecting its own infrastructure.

Having spent years visiting America's high-risk targets, Flynn offers a damning assessment and some solutions as well.

If Sept. 11, 2001, was a wake-up call, clearly America has fallen back asleep. With the exception of airports, much of what is critical to our way of life remains unprotected: water and food supplies; refineries, energy grids and pipelines; bridges, tunnels, trains, trucks and cargo containers; as well as the cyberbackbone that underpins the information age in which we live. The security measures we have been cobbling together are hardly fit to deter amateur thieves, vandals and hackers, never mind determined terrorists. Worse still, small improvements are often oversold as giant steps forward, lowering the guard of average citizens as they carry on their daily routine with an unwarranted sense of confidence. For instance, while the flying public is busy shedding shoes and bags at X-ray check-in points, the tons of air freight being loaded into the belly of most commercial airliners continues to fly the American skies virtually uninspected...

[opebo]

Because of the Muslim terrorists.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

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

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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.

3,000 is the most frequently referenced number, but I think it was actually slightly under rather than slightly over.

Everyone thought it was over 3,000 until they reassessed a couple months after 9/11 and realized it was actually under.  But it doesn't really matter to the overall picture.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The point is more people die in auto accidents and because of gang violence than terrorism.

[The Dowager Mod]

Scared people vote republican.
so they keep reminding us.

[Horus]

Yup.

[teri]

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.  

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

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.

[Brambila]

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.

Do you believe that the sole reason why we're fighting against terrorism is for the few times they terrorize us? NickG, if we were able to anticipate every terrorists attack and that only a small number of people would be killed, we wouldn't bother fighting terrorism, we'd prepare ourselves for the attacks. It's similar to citizens living in Virginia Beach- hurricanes happen and may kill some, but they don't try stopping the hurricane, they prepare themselves for the attack. However, that's not the issue. The point in defending America from terrorism is that the threat could escalate a hundred times worse than 9/11, and can be more frequent. Even at this moment, the heightened security is stopping terrorism simply by discouraging it. By simply discounting terrorism as a bloated issue, you're encouraging terrorists to attack us more often, and make the attacks more damaging.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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.  

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

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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[Scorpio]

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.

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

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!

[TheWildCard]

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

[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?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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

Assuming we are talking about Americans, all the other terrorist attacks combined have killed only a handful of people...not enough to raise the number much over 3,000.

Our government has never shown much interest in protecting foreigners on foreign soil.  If it did, our foriegn policy would be drastically different in any number of ways.

I suppose it is possible that terrorists could acquire and use a nuclear weapon on the US, but it is unlikely, and it has never happened before, so I think is inappropriate to just assume it will happen at some point when you are calculating the risks.  People love to concoct nightmare scenarios, but the job of the government should be to base their decisions on actual facts and not encourage the public's delusions.

[TheWildCard]

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

[TheWildCard]

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

Assuming we are talking about Americans, all the other terrorist attacks combined have killed only a handful of people...not enough to raise the number much over 3,000.

Our government has never shown much interest in protecting foreigners on foreign soil.  If it did, our foriegn policy would be drastically different in any number of ways.

I suppose it is possible that terrorists could acquire and use a nuclear weapon on the US, but it is unlikely, and it has never happened before, so I think is inappropriate to just assume it will happen at some point when you are calculating the risks.  People love to concoct nightmare scenarios, but the job of the government should be to base their decisions on actual facts and not encourage the public's delusions.

And you believe North Korea wouldn't want to sell any of their weapons to terrorists? You don't think Iran would do it for the right price?

[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?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

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?

I think we should incorporate economic damage, injuries, and all other measurable losses into the equation...but I think deaths are by far the greatest loss in any of these situtations, so lost lives is a decent estimate of the total magnitude of loss.  Car crashes and disease result in economic loss as well, so I think it balances out in the end.

What measure for the magnitude of various problems confronting American would you prefer to use?

And why do you feel the need to resort to vulgar personal attacks in an otherwise civil discussion?

It seems like many Republicans, when questioned about the "war on terror", just start hurling insults.

[The Duke]

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.