|
Edited on Tue Sep-12-06 07:34 PM by HereSince1628
How has failing to capture Osama Bin Laden for 5 years and leaving him free to finance, plan, and direct terrorist attacks actually made us safer?
How has the prolonged and deepening failure to overcome insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated to the world that the US is an opponent who shouldn't be provoked?
Since basic logic tells us we can in no way be 100% secure from terrorism let alone defeat a tactic, how can billions of dollars spent on the misdirected pursuit of glorious success OVER THERE justify the forsaking of federal emergency programs, domestic infrastructure, and critical social needs OVER HERE?
How is it that if a layered defense is best we have placed our offense OVER THERE as our ONLY defense because we we have neglected to adequately protect against our vulnerabilities over here?
How does a tax program supporting trickle-out economics for off-shoring corporations leave any capital to trickle down to working Americans?
How is support of patronage, partisanship, and ideology more desirable than the maintenance of a capacity for competent Federal response capability to back up local government during local crises and regional natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina?
How is it that hiding the American government behind multiple veils of secrecy promotes the informed consent of the governed through which all authority of the American government is derived?
How is it a better policy to secure America’s energy needs in peaked oil resources by force of military, rather than investing in the alternative energy infrastructure that makes such conflict for finite foreign resources unnecessary?
How is it that during every previous existential threat to the United States during more than 230 years of history we feared fear more than anything else yet 911 changed that?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
