My questions after 2005

Interesting questions.

1)Why was Afghanistan acceptable to attack, but Iraq was not?

As has been said, Afghanistan has a direct and material connection to the attacks in New York and Washington. Iraq did not. Moreover, we were not yet done in Afghanistan when we undertook the Iraq boondoggle.

2)Are we truly at war?

The answer depends on what your definition of war is. To my eyes, the answer is yes.

3)Is the Patriot Act a good thing?

No.

4)Which is more important: our lives, or our freedom to live them the way we choose?

Most people will, and always have, choose the former.

5)Why is Iraq so important?

It is not.

6)What is our goal?

Who knows?

7)Four years later, have we overreacted to 9/11?

Some of us have, some of us have not.

8)Have the lives we've lost in Iraq been less than the lives we've saved in doing so?

Impossible to tell for sure.

9)Is this a temporary state, or a new paradigm of America?

A new pagadigm.

10)Are things better?

No.

[ QUOTE ]
It would seem that no one remembers we will be electing a new President in two years, and that much of this will change(barring we elect Cheney).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with another poster that there is a significant non-zero chance (about half the chance of another major terrorist attack) that he 2008 election will be cancelled.

[XxGodJrxX]

Just a small point I want to make. You guys say we aren't "legally" at war, but if we are not legally at war, then we would be illegaly or allegaly (is this a word?) at war. Since the United States has existed, Congress has declared war only FIVE times. Wars that were not declared by Congress include the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, etc. In my opinion, a war is war when you go into another country and start shooting people or bombing things. Just cause you call it a "police action" or "democratization", does not make it any less of a war.

[lehighguy]

"I agree with another poster that there is a significant non-zero chance (about half the chance of another major terrorist attack) that he 2008 election will be cancelled."

I think that is a little crazy. Give me odds and I'll put money on it.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]

1)Why was Afghanistan acceptable to attack, but Iraq was not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither were. The US military can overthrow as many regimes as it wants, but terrorists will still be able to plan there attacks somewhere (last time I checked, Bin Laden is still at large). In 1995, Timothy McVeigh did it from inside the US.

It isn't worth the resources to take preventive measures that will never work. A $50 handgun in the hands of the pilots of those planes would have been more effective than the US's $400 billion military budget.

[ QUOTE ]

2)Are we truly at war?


[/ QUOTE ]

The government is sending people to kill people. That is war.

[ QUOTE ]
3)Is the Patriot Act a good thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Will it do anything but contribute to the ever increasing power of government at the expense of the freedom of the fearful taxpayer? Read the “War is Peace” (Goldstein's book) section of Orwell's 1984.

[ QUOTE ]

4)Which is more important: our lives, or our freedom to live them the way we choose?


[/ QUOTE ]

Both are obviously of the utmost importance. But accepting the latter doesn't mean that we are compromising the former.

[ QUOTE ]

6)What is our goal?


[/ QUOTE ]

“Our” is very ambiguous. The government's goal is not necessarily consistent with that of individuals in America. The goal of right wing political leaders--whether conscious or unconscious--seems to be self-aggrandizement by means of fear-mongering. Historically, fear has proved to be a powerful political ally. I'm sure that some of them actually believe that they are accomplishing something in Iraq/Afghanistan -- but this is naïve.

[ QUOTE ]

7)Four years later, have we overreacted to 9/11?


[/ QUOTE ]

To say the least.

[ QUOTE ]

8)Have the lives we've lost in Iraq been less than the lives we've saved in doing so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Impossible to say but in all likelihood, yes. This is not to mention the 30k Iraqi deaths. It is hard to get out of the nationalistic mode of thinking, but think about it this way. Just because people are born outside of the jurisdiction of the US government doesn't mean that their lives are any less valuable(especially when they are the ones facing aggression).

[ QUOTE ]

9)Is this a temporary state, or a new paradigm of America?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would tend to lean toward the latter given historical tendency. Adoptions like the welfare state have stuck, regardless of their effectiveness. I don't see any incentive for government to relinquish their militant state, given that it only adds to its power. The future is headed toward the old “to achieve peace, perpetual war is necessary” paradigm.

[ QUOTE ]

10)Are things better?


[/ QUOTE ]

Wasted resources. Wasted Lives. Less Freedom. To put it succinctly... no.