NationStates Jolt Archive

Whether or not the war in Iraq has made us safer is the subject of a lot of debate, and it's my personal opinion that it has not. But one point I've never seen being made in opposition to the war seems obvious to me:

The latest numbers of the American death toll is upwards of 4,000. The death toll for September 11th was about 2,750. So... another 9/11 has already happened as a direct result of the war, plus some. It doesn't get any more direct than that... so I fail to see how this has made us any safer. And don't even begin considering Iraqi lives, which are just as valuable in every way as ours.

Some might call that simplistic thinking, I call it clear thinking. After all, why does it matter *where* someone died, why does it matter if they were in a war or not? They're still dead, period.

Only this time, it has cost us $800 billion.

Thoughts?

There is a price for Freedom.

couldn't agree more

but what do you mean by that?

We should sacrifice as many soldiers and innocent lives as possible, as well as burn copious amounts of money, in order to protect our restricted right of Freedom from outside invaders, while the greatest threat comes from within America itself.

Preventing terrorist attacks is very, very difficult. It's like they say - they only have to be right once, you have to be right all the time.

The best bet you have is a decent police doing its job, and decent courts backing them up. Going into another country to "fight terrorism" is stupid: you're not gonna find them because there is no clear "them", you're gonna piss a lot of people off (at home too, importantly) and you're gonna be responsible for a lot of death and heartache.

The most cost-effective response would probably be to improve emergency service response times and make sure hospitals, firefighters etc are prepared to deal with a big boom.

But saying that won't win you votes.

I have trouble reading between the lines on the interwebbb

plus here, you really can't give anyone the benefit of the doubt

Preventing terrorist attacks is very, very difficult. It's like they say - they only have to be right once, you have to be right all the time.

The best bet you have is a decent police doing its job, and decent courts backing them up. Going into another country to "fight terrorism" is stupid: you're not gonna find them because there is no clear "them", you're gonna piss a lot of people off (at home too, importantly) and you're gonna be responsible for a lot of death and heartache.

The most cost-effective response would probably be to improve emergency service response times and make sure hospitals, firefighters etc are prepared to deal with a big boom.

But saying that won't win you votes.

To add to this.

What really helps is that every agency that is apart of every level of government communicates to each other.

As much as I dislike the war, I feel that we have to stay in it.

Apart from having an obligation to the Iraqis to not abandon them to the shithole after we tore apart their government, if we leave Iraq then it will definately become a failed state (it can barely hold itself together with us in it), and almost certainly become a terrorist breeding ground.

The main reason why I'm not voting democratic next year.

Preventing terrorist attacks is very, very difficult. It's like they say - they only have to be right once, you have to be right all the time.

The best bet you have is a decent police doing its job, and decent courts backing them up. Going into another country to "fight terrorism" is stupid: you're not gonna find them because there is no clear "them", you're gonna piss a lot of people off (at home too, importantly) and you're gonna be responsible for a lot of death and heartache.

The most cost-effective response would probably be to improve emergency service response times and make sure hospitals, firefighters etc are prepared to deal with a big boom.

But saying that won't win you votes.
Exactly!! "There is no clear "them"" and now there is even more of "them". US foreign policy = costly abject failure.

we're going for a "dont mess with the united states, they are crazed killers" thing where we are so nutz that we will kill more americans and suffer more financial loss in misdirected retribution than we suffered in the initial attack

surely the willingness to go so far beyond the reasonable should scare the crap out of the rest of the world.

it doesnt prevent terror but it does give us a certain world image.

Whether or not the war in Iraq has made us safer is the subject of a lot of debate, and it's my personal opinion that it has not. But one point I've never seen being made in opposition to the war seems obvious to me:

The latest numbers of the American death toll is upwards of 4,000. The death toll for September 11th was about 2,750. So... another 9/11 has already happened as a direct result of the war, plus some. It doesn't get any more direct than that... so I fail to see how this has made us any safer. And don't even begin considering Iraqi lives, which are just as valuable in every way as ours.

Some might call that simplistic thinking, I call it clear thinking. After all, why does it matter *where* someone died, why does it matter if they were in a war or not? They're still dead, period.

Only this time, it has cost us $800 billion.

Thoughts?
Only $800 Billion? Try much higher:

Report: Iraq, Afghan wars cost U.S. $1.9 trillion so far (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071113/ap_on_go_co/war_costs)

Please don't use the word 'terror', it's a buzzword that makes the best of us grit our teeth.

We should sacrifice as many soldiers and innocent lives as possible, as well as burn copious amounts of money, in order to protect our restricted right of Freedom from outside invaders, while the greatest threat comes from within America itself.

Of course! The best way to beat people who hate our freedom is to get rid of our freedom!

Preventing terrorist attacks is very, very difficult. It's like they say - they only have to be right once, you have to be right all the time.

The best bet you have is a decent police doing its job, and decent courts backing them up. Going into another country to "fight terrorism" is stupid: you're not gonna find them because there is no clear "them", you're gonna piss a lot of people off (at home too, importantly) and you're gonna be responsible for a lot of death and heartache.

The most cost-effective response would probably be to improve emergency service response times and make sure hospitals, firefighters etc are prepared to deal with a big boom.

But saying that won't win you votes.

To add to this.

What really helps is that every agency that is apart of every level of government communicates to each other.
Seconded. Properly funded, equipped and trained law enforcement and emergency services (for both prevention and response; i.e. belt + suspenders) at the local level PLUS coordinated information and communications across states and at the federal level (mostly prevention) PLUS intelligent diplomacy in foreign relations at the federal level (the key to prevention by slowing down the production of enemies) are the way to prevent terrorism.

Attacking nations that never threatened us and doing other things that fulfill all the negative stuff the terrorists say about us is not the way to prevent terrorism, as I think we have seen pretty clearly.

There is a price for Freedom.

Good then, we can sacrifice people like you annually who are willing to pay it.

Good then, we can sacrifice people like you annually who are willing to pay it.

Three words.

SAR

CA

SM

Three words.

SAR

CA

SM
I don't do sarcasm.

I don't do sarcasm.

Yea?
Well Sarcasm does you. :rolleyes:

In Soviet Russia!

Like I even contemplated that. :rolleyes:

Yea?
Well Sarcasm does you. :rolleyes:

In Soviet Russia!

Preventing terrorist attacks is very, very difficult.

Not really. Peaceful nations usually don't have a problem with terrorism: Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. Of course, there are some exceptions, but maybe if the U.S. stopped actively policing the world, people wouldn't be so pissed off at us. The more we meddle, the more enemies we make, and the more radical our enemies become.

Not really. Peaceful nations usually don't have a problem with terrorism: Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. Of course, there are some exceptions, but maybe if the U.S. stopped actively policing the world, people wouldn't be so pissed off at us. The more we meddle, the more enemies we make, and the more radical our enemies become.

Thailand has a large problem with extremist groups in its southern region and is not known for extra military adventures.

Noodniks can come from any corner of the world.

Thailand has a large problem with extremist groups in its southern region and is not known for extra military adventures.

Thailand has fought a few military adventures (World Wars I & II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War); however, its extremist problem is unrelated to any of them.

Noodniks can come from any corner of the world.

As I said, there are exceptions.

Edit: I mostly meant attacks by foreign terrorists, not domestic ones.

I mostly meant attacks by foreign terrorists, not domestic ones.
The problem is that the line between a domestic and a foreign grievance is very thin in a globalised world. Those people who blew up the trains in Madrid did it as much for domestic reasons as for reasons related to Iraq. Even more likely is that their particular reasons were so obscure (their faulty idea of Islamic martyrdom) that they were quite happy to have found a rationalisation, not a reason.

You're right in so far that traditional terrorist disputes usually weren't international and when they were, the reasons were clearly defined. At the moment you have this Wahhabist Jihad thing going around though, and that blurs the lines. Staying out of Iraq didn't stop people from trying to blow up trains in Germany.

The problem is that the line between a domestic and a foreign grievance is very thin in a globalised world. Those people who blew up the trains in Madrid did it as much for domestic reasons as for reasons related to Iraq. Even more likely is that their particular reasons were so obscure (their faulty idea of Islamic martyrdom) that they were quite happy to have found a rationalisation, not a reason.

You're right in so far that traditional terrorist disputes usually weren't international and when they were, the reasons were clearly defined. At the moment you have this Wahhabist Jihad thing going around though, and that blurs the lines. Staying out of Iraq didn't stop people from trying to blow up trains in Germany.

Very true. You make a good point.