the simple fact is that terrorists only have power if we give it to them. if they hit us and we flinch, they will say "two for flinching" and hit us again.
Since obviously killing 3,000 people is absolutely nothing? And America hasn't been attacked again? The more appropriate comparison would be someone shooting you in the foot. The appropriate response to that is to shoot them back in the face. The inappropriate response would be to turn around and whistle pretending they are not there.
They blow up our tower, we go to war, we kill their leader. No other terrorist attacks, as you say there should have been. So where are you getting this assumption from?
that is exactly what we should've done. in fact, if we ignored the attack, I sure as heck guarantee you american troops wouldn't be in iraq "fighting terrorists" or in afghanistan forcing democracy upon the tribes there
Of course if we ignored them the consequences would be "They got ignored". The other consequences would be "Well, they ignored it when we blue up that tower, lets blow up a bigger tower!"
And wait a second, American interference in Iraq began far before 9/11. We where already there "forcing democracy" (Or appointing dictators if we feel like it.)They wouldn't be fighting terrorist, they would be doing....Whatever they where doing. You act like Afghanistan just one day decided "You know what I really hate? Tall towers. Lets go blow some up!". What really happened was they didn't like our policies so they blew them up. So we got pissed and retaliated.
we were just like the europeans in africa blindly bringing the light of "civilization" when they were just fine on their own.
Since all those modern things like medicine where just holding them back.
they had rescources there so we decided to justify invading it by telling ourselves it's for the good of democracy.
And what resources exactly are we gaining from this?
n my view, we were hungry for new rescources, and 9/11 happened almost conveniently to give us an excuse to go into the middle east for our own selfish gain.
Let me break it down for you again.
-We where already in the middle east. Just not as much as we are now.
-We are not gaining resources from this. If we are, could you please show me what exactly?
And more?
we've spent trillions of dollars funding these wars when our economy would be better if we used that money to pay off america's deficit.
So? Your simply saying that after we got shot in the foot, we should go sell our gun for money for whatever we want to spend it on then go back to whistling and twitling our thumbs.
the only thing we got out of these wars was the rest of the world hating us because of our intolerance and hunger for war, and we wouldn't have political nutjobs running around saying "muslim terrorists" for every little problem we have.
So why the **** would we go to war if you even admit we got nothing from it? 9/11 mad us angry, so we got rid of any threat there could have been. The logical thing to do. But according to you, we somehow got enough resources to out way the trillions of dollars spent.
secretly, we knew we were going into WWII before pearl harbor, but it gave us an excuse to speed up the plans.
Source.
let me put it to you like this, if some police officer's died, the public wouldn't care that happens all the time. if a single old man gets shot, then everybody freaks out and demands the head of the guy who did it.
I fail to see your point. Someone who knows the risks of the job involve getting shot at gets shot all the time, of course. Fire men die in fires more than ordinary people, but they are less mourned because they are not civilians. They are there fighting it, while civilians are just kind of doing there thing while they are harmed, make a bigger story, especially if it is someone shooting an already vulnerable target like an old man or child.
by your logic, we should spend trillions of dollars making the american infrastructure safe while spending another set of trillions funding the war.
You mean like we are doing right now?
I think we should deal with the problem that is more dangerous, than the one that is more dramatic. the ammount of casualties that come from terrorist attacks is a small leak compared to the huge crack in the dam that is caused by car accidents. in this case, we should spend more time repairing the large crack, then focus on the small leak because it isn't as serious.
They are generally accidents, unpreventable things, while a terrorist attack is something relatively easy to fix. From what I have heard, the majority of traffic accidents are human error. So what would you want to do? Somehow get that trillions of dollars into making everyone better drivers? Make better roads so when people crash they can see pretty roads? Fund private car dealers and makers so they can make their cars safer, which they are already doing with the magic of capitalism?
It would be more like you saying "Why are you so worried about this obscure branch of cancer when obesity kills X amount of people a year? Put the money that is currently going into that cancer and instead put it to prevent obesity!". The cancer doesn't kill as many people, but it is theoretically something that can be fought with some funding. Most cures for obesity require actual work on the part of the patient, making them change attitude towards life. So why not fight both as you can?
