The author argues that the US has overreacted to the 9/11 attacks, and that by historical standards, they were small indeed. In fact,
But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States...Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.
The conclusion, then, is that war was not the appropriate response to this 9/11 pinprick. Bull-bungabunga.
Here's the conclusion:
To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.
Obviously our author is rather struthious. He, like other anti-war (anti-Bush, really) lefties, doesn't listen when the enemy speaks. He chooses to believe what he wants about them, rather than believe what they say. Isn't it the height of cultural arrogance to impose your own cultural standards and beliefs on someone else, in total contravention to what they clearly say? Our enemy has stated that they are a threat to our existence. Our enemy demonstrates cunning, patience, and tenacity. They use our own legal and cultural systems against us (such as our political correctness, our respect for diversity, our culture of victimhood), and operate on a time schedule that is long-term when compared to what we are used to in our own society. We see what large numbers of Muslims are doing in the Netherlands, France, and Britain--if you don't, you should read Little Green Footballs (see blogroll at left) more often, as he links directly to respected news sources.
Our enemy has told us what they want; people like the author of the linked opinion post should listen--and then get on board with killing them. Because keeping your head in the sand only does two things: keeps you from acknowledging and reacting to the menace, and keeps your butt pointed in the air so the enemy can kick it.
2 comments:
One can only imagine the response of such people when the first American city is leveled under a nuclear fireball by a nuclear device smuggled into America over our southern border. you notice that I did not say "when."
With North Korea actively assisting the Iranians in nuclear weapon development, can any sentient being doubt that the North Koreans will give them technology or actual components that will allow them to leapfrog year ahead?
I can see it now: Was the annhilation of Seattle really all that big a deal? If we strike back now, why, everyone else in the world will really hate us!
I don't know why we don't have a chapter of Spriitual Sons and Daughters of Chamberlain on every campus. I wish that the security wasn't such an issue and the true number of attacks that have been averted could be made public. I am sure that LA and San Francisco were on someone's list to attack. One of my biggest complaints about California is the newspapers. They are insular and narrow, exhibiting little interest in things beyond their own borders. I read things on forums the day of the attack that basically said they didn't believe it was "really" an attack. For some reason they are still in the mindset that their nutso liberal politics will absolve them and the Al Queda Angel of Death will somehow passover them. The truth is much more gruesome. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time collaborationists tried to bring down a nation. Look at France-formerly a world power, now a stopover from England to Germany.
Post a Comment