Who says Iraq was never a danger to the US

[skymiles 3]

So how do you explain 4000 dead US soldiers? Sounds pretty dangerous to me.

[Trent 0]

I wonder how long people waited for a certain number so they could attempt to make a point?

I hear dancing on graves is bad luck.

Oh, hello again!

[shropshire 0]

Are you serious? What are you blithering on about?

Were those unfortuantes killed on the US mainland?

So when did it become dangerous?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Butters 0]

Quote

So how do you explain 4000 dead US soldiers? Sounds pretty dangerous to me.

Considering how many people die of alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, etc. every year, it doesn't sound that dangerous.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,132]

>Considering how many people die of alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, etc.
>every year, it doesn't sound that dangerous.

If those are your standards, the 3000 people killed on 9/11 aren't even a blip on the radar.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

So how do you explain 4000 dead US soldiers? Sounds pretty dangerous to me.

LMAO, You've got to be joking.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[DZJ 0]

Quote

Quote

So how do you explain 4000 dead US soldiers? Sounds pretty dangerous to me.

Considering how many people die of alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, etc. every year, it doesn't sound that dangerous.

War on Terror! War on Booze! War on Drugs! (oops, too late!) War on Smokes! War on Cars!

[jimmytavino 16]

well stepping blindly into quicksand is pretty dangerous too...

and stupid...

there was this 'hornets nest' of sorts, over there. we saw it , we were monitoring it, and it had Little to do with Bin laden or Nine-Eleven...

so what did we do???

we ran over there and started banging on that nest, with a big stick.... using our high tech weaponry to fire missles and rockets at all sorts of targets, military AND civilian..... and basically just pissed off all the hornets, who were quietly staying IN their nest...
So then, out buzzed all these angry hornets....( you'd be angry too, if you saw everything around you blown to smithereens ) .. THEY all start attacking our soldiers, and all the coalition forces...

We were NOt greeted as liberators, but as usurpers, and foreign war mongers...who totally
destroyed the infra structure, and way of life , of all those poor souls.. whose country was a mess, BEFORE we ever got there....
so now there are guerilla ( sp? ) attacks...
IED's, hatred and resentment towards we Invaders........

only reason there are not twice the deaths attributable to the war, is the better medical and evacuation techniques in place, which gets seriously wounded OUTTA there, fast, and efficiently....
How many More have died???? AT Ramstein Air Force base???? how many have been saved, but with loss of limb (s) ,, and loss of soul???

If you think that P T S S ... was bad before... ( Korea, V.Nam ) .. just wait til wee see the full ramifications of THIS mess. on the minds and hearts of those who DO return...with torn up bodies, and psyches....

Iraq never was a danger... til WE went in there and made it so...

IMHO

jmy

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

>Considering how many people die of alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, etc.
>every year, it doesn't sound that dangerous.

If those are your standards, the 3000 people killed on 9/11 aren't even a blip on the radar.

Ten times as many people die each year here in the US from the flu. Where's the war on flu? Why don't we have a Dept of Homeland Inoculation? I hear that duct tape can create a superior virus barrier. Hey, many of the flu viruses come from China so let's invade Venezuela!

[peckerhead 0]

Score:

Bin Laden 3000
Bush 4000

Mission accomplished!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

"4,000 Americans killed in Iraq laid foundation for peace" - George Walker Bush

ROFLMAO ... the man starts a war and calls this laying a foundation for peace?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,132]

>the man starts a war and calls this laying a foundation for peace?

Hey, don't make fun of the guy. He's the one suffering under the heaviest load from this war. Sure, soldiers get blown up and stuff, but they don't have his burden to deal with - and they volunteered to do it anyway.

ABC News:
----------------------
"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."
----------------------

[Darius11 12]

i have no idea what you guys are talking about.

I am just going to sit with GWB and pray are way out of this. youll see in the next 100 years they will remeber us as great leaders.


now lets hold hands and pray that always works.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

ROFLMAO ... the man starts a war and calls this laying a foundation for peace?

It's par for his course. Other notable misnomers:
"Patriot Act"
"No Child Left Behind"
"Fair Pay initiative"
and my favorite
"Compassionate Conservative".

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

>Considering how many people die of alcohol, tobacco, automobiles, etc.
>every year, it doesn't sound that dangerous.

If those are your standards, the 3000 people killed on 9/11 aren't even a blip on the radar.

Of course from the point of view of the individual families, the 3000 deaths were far more than a blip on the radar.

From the point of view of national policy, though, 3000 deaths is indeed not large when looking at national mortality statistics. What justifies a strong national response to 9/11 is not just the number of deaths on 9/11 itself, but the risk of future attacks orders of magnitude larger. Domestic terrorist attacks seemed to be growing in seriousness by orders of magnitude. 9/11 was more than 10 times as serious as the Alfred Murrah Federal Building bombing, which at the time itself horrified the nation. Without a strong response to 9/11, the next attack could have claimed 30,000 or 300,000 lives. That's why we responded so strongly as a nation to 9/11.

By contrast, it is very unlikely that the threat posed by automobiles or alcohol will increase exponentially in the near future--hence not as strong a response to automobiles or alcohol is called for.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Butters 0]

Quote

From the point of view of national policy, though, 3000 deaths is indeed not large when looking at national mortality statistics. What justifies a strong national response to 9/11 is not just the number of deaths on 9/11 itself, but the risk of future attacks orders of magnitude larger. Domestic terrorist attacks seemed to be growing in seriousness by orders of magnitude. 9/11 was more than 10 times as serious as the Alfred Murrah Federal Building bombing, which at the time itself horrified the nation. Without a strong response to 9/11, the next attack could have claimed 30,000 or 300,000 lives. That's why we responded so strongly as a nation to 9/11.

The perceived risk of a terrorist attack is higher than the real risk (due to fear mongering).

Quote

By contrast, it is very unlikely that the threat posed by automobiles or alcohol will increase exponentially in the near future--hence not as strong a response to automobiles or alcohol is called for.

Wrong. It is very likely that the threat posed by automobiles, alcohol, tobacco, etc... will increase exponentially since they are directly related to population and population is increasing exponentially.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,132]

>Of course from the point of view of the individual families, the 3000
>deaths were far more than a blip on the radar.

Of course. And the 4000 military families who have lost loved ones in Iraq are no different. (Well, there are more of them of course.)

>Domestic terrorist attacks seemed to be growing in seriousness by orders
>of magnitude.

Terrorism has never, and will never, cause the number of casualties a war does. That's because terrorism does not rely on the same philosophy that countries use. They do not achieve success by destroying the enemy's military, homes, factories or businesses. They do not win by capturing the enemy's capital or controlling his military.

They achieve success by breeding terror in a population. Through this terror, they manipulate the populace into giving up their freedoms in exchange for a feeling of security. They manipulate the government into attacking the terrorist's enemies. They control foreign policy by forcing governments to react to them, rather than letting them choose more carefully thought out policies that would be, in the end, inimical to the terrorist's plans.

We decide whether or not terrorists are successful. If we work to prevent future attacks and ignore them, then we win. If we panic, give up our rights as americans (say, our rights as called out in the Bill of Rights) attack enemies because of our fear and let terrorism dictate our government's policies, then they win.

Our choice. I hope we start deciding to win.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Wrong. It is very likely that the threat posed by automobiles, alcohol, tobacco, etc... will increase exponentially since they are directly related to population and population is increasing exponentially.

The world's population is expected to peak at 9 billion in 2050:


World's population

Less than 50% higher than current levels--that hardly qualifies as exponential growth in my book although it may have been exponential in past decades/centuries. Furthermore I think it reasonable to assume that the US will account for a less than proportional share of the remaining growth.

The potential for increase in terrorist attacks is much higher. The seriousness of terrorist attacks, at least up to and including 9/11, seemed to be growing at a rate that would give Moore's Law a run for its money.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

>Of course from the point of view of the individual families, the 3000
>deaths were far more than a blip on the radar.

Of course. And the 4000 military families who have lost loved ones in Iraq are no different. (Well, there are more of them of course.)

>Domestic terrorist attacks seemed to be growing in seriousness by orders
>of magnitude.

Terrorism has never, and will never, cause the number of casualties a war does. That's because terrorism does not rely on the same philosophy that countries use. They do not achieve success by destroying the enemy's military, homes, factories or businesses. They do not win by capturing the enemy's capital or controlling his military.

They achieve success by breeding terror in a population. Through this terror, they manipulate the populace into giving up their freedoms in exchange for a feeling of security. They manipulate the government into attacking the terrorist's enemies. They control foreign policy by forcing governments to react to them, rather than letting them choose more carefully thought out policies that would be, in the end, inimical to the terrorist's plans.

And it worked, didn't it?

Richard Reid achieved a spectacular success even without detonating his shoe bomb.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[likearock 2]

Quote

>Of course from the point of view of the individual families, the 3000
>deaths were far more than a blip on the radar.

Of course. And the 4000 military families who have lost loved ones in Iraq are no different. (Well, there are more of them of course.)

>Domestic terrorist attacks seemed to be growing in seriousness by orders
>of magnitude.

Terrorism has never, and will never, cause the number of casualties a war does.

You're making the assumption that terrorists will never lay their hands on nuclear weapons. I'd love to believe you, but what do you offer for evidence?

[Lindsey 0]

Ten times as many people die each year here in the US from the flu. Where's the war on flu?

That 30,000 is comprised mostly of elderly people. If you look at the number of young healthy people who die of flu, I think it might be more like 1/10th of the 3,000 killed on 9/11.

Then who complains when we put efforts into planning for another serious flu pandemic???

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[skymiles 3]

Quote

Are you serious? What are you blithering on about?

Of course I’m not serious. My statement is clearly flawed and ridiculous. Judging by the responses, most people thought so too. For those who thoughtfully replied, I apologize.

Nonetheless, this idiotic logic is similar to that used by the pro-Iraq war supporters in a last ditch attempt to justify the war. For example the argument “We fight them [terrorists] there so we don’t have to fight them here” is equally ridiculous. It too, overlooks the fact that terrorism was not a problem in Iraq until we invaded and that Iraqi militants (who had/have no interest in attacking the US mainland) are responsible for much of the violence in Iraq. Also, this doctrine assumes that all the terrorists (Al Qaeda I assume) who seek to harm the US are flocking to Iraq to set up base and attack US soldiers. However, the opposite is also likely. With our troops bogged down in Iraq and our military stretched thin, those terrorists determined to hit “here” have safe haven everywhere outside Iraq. Furthermore, to believe this doctrine, you are advocating the use of our troops as bait to lure in the terrorists. But considering that the preferred method of killing our soldiers is the remotely detonated IED, “cannon fodder” may be a more suitable term than bait.

Phil

[shropshire 0]

The problem with text is that it does not always convey the thoughts behind them, so people could take your word at face value (as I wrongly did)... There are people around that don't think that the coalition did the wrong thing in invading Iraq

Oh well...

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome