Quote:
|
Originally Posted by outlier
Just a little perspective regarding where money, resources, and national debate get focused. Most people who favor anti-terror policies seem to favor them because they "protect American lives", but while I think there are very good reasons for attacking terror, if the goal's life-protection, there may be other threats to consider. The extent of life lost due to the 9/11 tragedy seems tragically overblown.
IM(correct and not very)HO.
o
|
I found the list thought provoking. Hence, two thoughts:
1) Perhaps, more than just protecting American lives, they favor anti-terror policies because they see them as protecting the American way of life, an institution whose importance and influence extends beyond our borders to much of the world. Our terrorist enemies want to create uncertainty and/or anarchy in order to force us to accede to their demands, either through fear or expediency (the cost/benefit analysis of increasingly draconian security measures, including suspension of certain civil liberties, can eventually lead to capitulation--a game many states play to varying degrees). Hence, it's not just the few thousand Americans that die tragically in terrorist attacks. It goes way beyond that. It's trust and confidence in the continued survival of a system and way of doing things that bring great benefit to Americans and the rest of world.
2) Many of the deaths you cited resulted from suicide or people choosing to participate in risky behavior (lung cancer, hypertension, illicit drug use, AIDS/HIV). One could also assume that large chunks of those that died from car accidents, murder, and drowning fall into this same category. Perhaps people see many of these tragedies as self-inflicted, hence they warrant less of the funding, resources, and the national debate (although one could argue that the national focus on the evils of tobacco, coupled with laws to counter the effects of second-hand smoke, have been far more effective than carpet-bombing ever could have been).