The Left's False Narrative

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Other than number three I agree. In every war some freedom must be surrendered for the sake of security. Believing anything else is naive and self defeating. The enemy uses our rightouness against us. Yet those on the left say both sides are as rightous then lecture us on how we have to be more rightous and always claim the highground. Next thing out of their mouths is the US tortures people and holds them illeagly. Were worse than the terrorists and the number one threat to peace in the world. IN comparison to acts done by administrations in past wars the Patriot act is pretty tame. I think it needs strengthing. Again the drug laws are much more invasive of our rights than the Patriot act and effects millions of us in fact all of us.

[Al Khalifah]

No one is saying that the US is worse than the terrorists. The problem is the fact that often the administration will choose to benchmark any action they take (or indeed government they establish) against the actions of the terrorists (or the previous government).

It's all well and good saying that the situation in Iraq is better for the people now than it was before - it is - but that is hardly much of comparisson.

[Hurin_Rules]

Not really. The standard history of civil liberties finds theoretical impetus in the works of ST. Thomas and then is given more formal structure in the 16th Century by those thinkers that were setting up challenges to the Divine Right of Kings (the exact opposite to royal mandate as justification). Legislative action and formalization also occurred outside of monarchy, as seen in the formation of the Bill of Rights (18th Century). So, the history, as it were, doesn't usually appeal to any Kingly mandate.

Actually, you're missing two important steps. First, the urban privileges of the high middle ages, springing mostly from Germanic folk beliefs about consultation and consensus. You don't find that if you just read the philosophers, mind you, but its there in the texts. Note these, like Magna Carta, were conferred by royal mandate. Second, the step after Aquinas, in the 14th and 15th centuries, particularly the conciliarists. One can thus perceive the history of civil liberties stretching back in an unbroken line to the eleventh century, and inextricably linked with royal mandate.

By the way, did you notice which form of government Aquinas preferred?

In any event, democratic systems of government are not unique to the West. One can see them in anthropological studies of small communities throughout the globe. They probably predominated in the pre-literate cultures of Eurasia. The first democracy to leave large amounts of texts that are easily accessible to Western academics is Greece. If one looks carefully, however, one can see democratic ideals in other cultures. Early Muslims were shocked that the Abbassid caliphs became so authoritarian, for example, because in the early spread of Islam all Muslims were seen as brothers. I can't speak for China or Japan, but drawing from the fact that Greece was the first to leave records of democracy the inference that it created democracy is problematic at best. Most cultural 'innovations' are borrowings rather than inventions.

But getting back to the point at hand: whence springs this cultural superiority? Can the people who believe the West is superior please answer me that. Is it linked to a specific race, or not? If not, why the West rather than the East or the South? And will this superiority endure? I think your anwers to that will be revealing.

1000 years ago, the West was the poor cousin to the great world civilizations in China, India, Islam and Byzantium. Was the west still superior then?

Here's a shocker for you all people: civilizations rise and fall. In another 1000 years, will the West still be on top? Perhaps it will be China, or India. Will you still be able to maintain the West's superiority then? Or will we instead be talking about the origins of efficient administration in Confucius and the first Chin emperors in the same way that we now talk about Plato and Athens? Will we be pointing to Mao rather than Pericles? If you can rule that out, then I'll agree wholeheartedly that the west is just plain better than everyone else. If you can't, then try to have a bit more perspective.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's all well and good saying that the situation in Iraq is better for the people now than it was before - it is - but that is hardly much of comparisson.

Trying to insinute that the situtation there is comparable to what it was under Saddam is disengenous at best.

Look its pretty simpe. I look at Nations much like people. If I get in a fight withsomeone ane we agree not to do certain things and this guy starts doing them and causing damage to me Im gonna do the same right back at a him. Being the one holding the morale high ground doesnt do you any good if your dead. You fight fire with fire. Again this is about our very survival. I hear many on the left say there is no war on terror and Bush is making it up. THeres no moral equivalancy. Its us or them.

[CBR]

When Mr Hinson hand pick the facts so that they fit his theory, he is not doing a good job as a newswriter, he's just being dishonest and biased.

Same thing with his books on Greek warfare...so doesnt surprise me a bit


CBR

[Azi Tohak]

I think the thread keeps going because this is entertaining.

My point about China was they are just as, if not more racist, than evil whiteys like me. (Bad Azi! Bad! Against affirmative action? You must be racist!) Same for Japan. Those countries prove that the idea of racial superiority is not just a western thing.

I'm just curious about what Kerry or Gore would have done in Bush's position. Increase aid to the Taliban regime to buy off another attack? Give money to Hussein and ask nicely that he be a good boy and quit butchering his people?

And no, I'll not blame the US and UK for the deaths of all the Iraqi children. What happened to those kids was the fault of their parents for not overthrowing Hussein. But you know the fun part about popular rebellions? That is called Civil War. The same thing that would happen if the US, UK and Aussies pulled out now.

Despite what some people believe, Iraq won't magically calm down if the Allies leave. It will be civil war. And if you thought hundreds of thousands of dead was bad before, wait until you have millions dead because of the rival religious and ethnic factions.

Was Bush wrong to attack Iraq? Maybe. Did any Democrats really try to stand up the administration at the time? (I'd talk about the UK too, but I get confused with the party names.) Not a chance. Now the left is trying to castrate Bush by claiming "we knew it all along!" Ah bulls**t. The left lacked the spine to stand up to Bush before the war, and now with the media dominance, has the US confused about what is going on there. Heck, I'm not even sure about what is happening and I try to follow closely.

Anybody remember what happened in the Philipines when the US finally shut down the rebels? The US governor (MacArthur I believe) captured a bunch of the (moslem) terrorists, tied them up to stake, covered them with piggies blood, and then executed them. The rebellion died. But can the US do that? Nope. It is 'inhuman' and 'immoral', and the media would go even more ape than they did over Guantanamo Bay. It would be political suicide because the left has so thoroughly emasculated our society as to believe anything beyond a slap-on-the-wrist is too much punishment. Remember, it is my fault that the mullahs hate me. I would love to see every terrorist tortured to extract info, and then executed, in much the same way as in the Philipines.

Okay, that about exhuasts my vitriol for right now.

Azi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This country was founded on principles, and certainly the current Republican stock seems rather keen on making sure we all remember how rightous and justified we are as a country. A good step towards making that claim anything other than Hypocrisy would be to stop the constitutional bastardization. Do you think the founding fathers sat there writing it thinking: "Hey, I hope someone makes this totally null and void some day."

Better tell that to Linclon and FDR for starts who were far worse in this type of thing. You also havent addressed the fact that the drug laws are far more invasive of out privacy.

Anybody remember what happened in the Philipines when the US finally shut down the rebels? The US governor (MacArthur I believe) captured a bunch of the (moslem) terrorists, tied them up to stake, covered them with piggies blood, and then executed them.

Well that was just a story its not true and Mac wasnt the one it was Pershing. The story was he executed 50 Muslim terrorists by slaughtering two pigs and then dipping the bullets in the blood before shooting them. I also believe the story is a fabrication. I still think we should lube our weapons with pig grease though

I believe the year was 1913 that this story was supposed to have occured in.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

FDR? What did he do? If you're talking about the New Deal, those weren't nearly as bad as the Patriot Act or Homeland Security,

No Im talking about confiscating the property of thousands of Japanese US citizens and interning them for the duration of the war. I hardly think the Patriot act compares to that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As for the Drug Laws.. Drugs are a real problem. Just like the great depression was a real problem. But here is where I draw the great distinction:

I don't do drugs, and I don't deal, transport, or otherwise handle drugs. I am not at risk of having my rights violated due to drug-related causes.

Two can play this game


As for the Terrorist Laws.. Terrorists are a real problem. Just like the great depression was a real problem. But here is where I draw the great distinction:

I don't do terroists things, and I don't deal, transport, or otherwise handle terrorists. I am not at risk of having my rights violated due to terrorist-related causes.


Also you pay for and are effected by the war on drugs just about everyday in more ways than you can imagine. Where do you think they got many of the provisions of the Patriot act from. Apparently druggs are more dangerous them terrorists. If theres anything were guilty of making more of by fighting them its drug dealers and organised crime.

[Red Harvest]

As far as VDH's theory of the "Western Way of War" that book is beyond the scope of this thread. The focus of this thread is the left/right dichotomy regarding the war on terror.

No, Hanson's credibility and his bias in historical writing are quite relevant to the thread. His villification of those who disagree with how things have been conducted is further evidence of his failings as a writer. How can one evaluate history objectively, when revealing an utter lack of objectivity in the present?

I was for invading Iraq and finishing the job that his father left undone, yet I cannot objectively look at what Dubya has done and feel that he has managed the situation with any competence. He ignored good advice about what the campaign would require (and those weren't leftists either.) And the WMD aspect really makes my blood boil. His strategic blunders have been large, and his integrity on the matter is at best highly questionable.

Look at Hanson's claim that "America has suffered in Iraq .006 percent of the combat dead it lost in World War II." World war II had 292,131 combat deaths (vs. 404,399 total.) In Iraq we presently have had 1352 combat deaths (DoD numbers excluding contractors.). That is 0.46%, so Hanson was only off by a factor of 76 or so. There are some problems with the simplification he is attempting too, as the survival rate is much higher now than it was in WWII. So far in Iraq there have been 13,438 wounded with about half being in the "return to duty" category.

Perhaps Hanson should try his hand at fiction?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Another splendid post!

Why dont you just marry him and get it over with We get it you two think alike.

So? Countless Americans are at risk. Innocent Americans who have done nothing wrong. Far beyond the point where it is acceptable. So what if you're not at risk?

Thhe fact that your not at risk is your reason to support unconstitutional drug laws. I say countess innocent americans are far more at risk from terrorism than drugs. The main reason theres a drug problem is the government created it. Your being nothing but a hypocrite here.

Terrorists are not exactly rampant within America,

I say they are. Would you like to wait for the next 911 before you do something about them? Have some consistancy.

[Kanamori]

Before I could discuss his writing seriously, I would need to know what the West is more specifically; it seems so broad he can pick and choose as he likes. I would like to see a more specific definition of leftist as a opposed to liberal, and rightist opposed to conservative.

[Pindar]

I can't believe this thread keeps going



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

I don't understand the reference to circularity. I have made no circular appeals. Science refers to a set theoretical disposition that involves, as I previously mentioned: physical data, inductive logic, symmetry, verification schema etc. Nothing along these lines developed anywhere else. Democracy refers to popular sovereignty meaning the government reflects the will of the citizenry and derives its power from the same. No other Civilization developed along those lines. Civil liberties refers to an inherent limitation on government force and intrusion power. The initial theoretical impulse for this was found in natural law which gave the individual standing independant of the government. This also was a uniquely western construct. Each position has set criteria that makes no reference to the West, but was developed by the West. There are no tricks, sorry.

It's obvious that at least we enjoy the benefit of science, democracy, and civil liberties for ourselves.We did accomplish that. We did err quite a lot on the way even in our own countries (WWI horrors, WWII crime against humanity). We did nothing for others.

Reagardless of any perceived failings, if you recognize the above as 'goods': that science does have positive products, democracies do in fact exist, and civil liberties have recognized legal standing then the point is made.

[Pindar]

Actually, you're missing two important steps. First, the urban privileges of the high middle ages, springing mostly from Germanic folk beliefs about consultation and consensus. You don't find that if you just read the philosophers, mind you, but its there in the texts. Note these, like Magna Carta, were conferred by royal mandate. Second, the step after Aquinas, in the 14th and 15th centuries, particularly the conciliarists. One can thus perceive the history of civil liberties stretching back in an unbroken line to the eleventh century, and inextricably linked with royal mandate.

I know of Germanic cultural traditions and their influence on the West as it emerged from the Dark Ages, I think such are important when considering the rise of a merchant class etc which are helpful when trying to put more pieces in place to understand how things came to be. The relevant point however, is that civil liberties is itself a theoretical position. Thus, to trace its origins as a theory one has to look at intellectual history.

I understand why you mention Conciliarism, but the roots of the movement are actually quite a bit older than the 14th Century. The Eastern Church had assumed a Conciliarist posture well before. More to the point however, is this position did not involve secular law whereas natural law does.

By the way, did you notice which form of government Aquinas preferred?

Yes. Recall, I argued civil liberties finally come to the fore in the 18th Century with the construction of the Bill of Rights.

But getting back to the point at hand: whence springs this cultural superiority? Can the people who believe the West is superior please answer me that. Is it linked to a specific race, or not? If not, why the West rather than the East or the South? And will this superiority endure? I think your answers to that will be revealing.

I think, the key to West's rise was it remained basically fractured whereas the other older more developed Civilizations atrophied under a single dominant system.

Here's a shocker for you all people: civilizations rise and fall.

Yes they do.

[Pindar]

No, Hanson's credibility and his bias in historical writing are quite relevant to the thread.

You have a very different approach than I. I don't care what a person thinks about other things any more than I do the color of their shoes. I take any argument or essay presented on its own merits.

[Pindar]

Before I could discuss his writing seriously, I would need to know what the West is more specifically; it seems so broad he can pick and choose as he likes. I would like to see a more specific definition of leftist as a opposed to liberal, and rightist opposed to conservative.

My guess:

I think he defines the West as the Civilizational children of the Greeks with perhaps a more specific orientation on the Western European strand: those lands dominated by Catholicism and Protestantism.

I think he would define Leftist as those views that are inspired by socialism and the right would be views inspired by market driven approaches.

[Hurin_Rules]

I know of Germanic cultural traditions and their influence on the West as it emerged from the Dark Ages, I think such are important when considering the rise of a merchant class etc which are helpful when trying to put more pieces in place to understand how things came to be. The relevant point however, is that civil liberties is itself a theoretical position. Thus, to trace its origins as a theory one has to look at intellectual history.

Why must civil liberties be considered a theory rather than a practice?

Why do you assume this theory precedes practice, rather than vice versa?

Neither of these assumptions has been proven. Moreover, if you're talking about origins, then surely you must be able to demonstrate a consistent link between the democracy of the high middle Ages and the democracy of ancient greece. Yet, there seem to be major lacuna here that would suggest different origins for modern democracy in the ideas of the high middle ages rather than ancient Greece. Are the origins of our democratic practices really to be found in Greece rather than medieval Europe?

I understand why you mention Conciliarism, but the roots of the movement are actually quite a bit older than the 14th Century. The Eastern Church had assumed a Conciliarist posture well before. More to the point however, is this position did not involve secular law whereas natural law does.

Note I was only pointing out some, not all, of the steps you had missed.

There is no relevance to the distinction between secular and canon law. It's not doing any work for you.

Yes. Recall, I argued civil liberties finally come to the fore in the 18th Century with the construction of the Bill of Rights.

And which documents did the constructors of the Bill of Rights have as their models?

I think, the key to West's rise was it remained basically fractured whereas the other older more developed Civilizations atrophied under a single dominant system.

I might agree with you to some extent there. Nevertheless, this creates tremendous problems for Hanson's theory and your defence of it. If being politically fractured is an inherent characteristic of 'The West' that makes it superior, then the Greece and Rome you look to for the origns of 'The West' were not truly 'Western'. Greece was unified by Alexander and Rome was an empire for over 500 years.

[Kanamori]

I think he defines the West as the Civilizational children of the Greeks with perhaps a more specific orientation on the Western European strand: those lands dominated by Catholicism and Protestantism.

Then, as I'm pretty sure you see this coming, where do places like Japan stand? They are certainly a succesful democracy, and they have many cultural portions of his Christian "West". Perhaps a better question is: If the advent of Civil Liberties, Democracy, and the Scientific Method come from the West, as you have defined it, why is the West still superior to any other place that has adopted Western ideals?


I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are you implying that Terrorism is more common and more of a threat than the Drug industry here in America?

Im not implying anything. Im stating a fact. Terrorism is a much larger and more dangerous threat to our way of life than drugs are.

[Kanamori]

I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

What an ironic post

[Pindar]

Why must civil liberties be considered a theory rather than a practice?

Why do you assume this theory precedes practice, rather than vice versa?

If we look at what the Founding Fathers wrote both in the Federalist Papers and other personal works it is clear that the rights position they took was derived from the work of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau etc. It was a theoretical enterprise and thoroughly a product of Enlightenment thought.

Neither of these assumptions has been proven. Moreover, if you're talking about origins, then surely you must be able to demonstrate a consistent link between the democracy of the high middle Ages and the democracy of ancient greece. Yet, there seem to be major lacuna here that would suggest different origins for modern democracy in the ideas of the high middle ages rather than ancient Greece. Are the origins of our democratic practices really to be found in Greece rather than medieval Europe?

The fall of the Classical World did not mean a complete erasure of all that it had produced. Certain platonic works (like the Republic) survived in the West. The same is the case with elements of Roman legal dicta. Further, from 1087 with the fall of the Library of Toledo to the Christians, the Aristotelian corpus was again available.

The reason 'democracy' in English is Greek derived and not German is not insignificant. (love those negatives!)

Note I was only pointing out some, not all, of the steps you had missed.

There is no relevance to the distinction between secular and canon law. It's not doing any work for you.

I'm not attempting any exhaustive exegesis. My original point was civil liberties is a Western construct.

Conciliarism isn't tied to civil liberties discourse.

I might agree with you to some extent there. Nevertheless, this creates tremendous problems for Hanson's theory and your defence of it. If being politically fractured is an inherent characteristic of 'The West' that makes it superior, then the Greece and Rome you look to for the origns of 'The West' were not truly 'Western'. Greece was unified by Alexander and Rome was an empire for over 500 years.

I don't think fracture is an inherent characteristic. Rather is was a characteristic and in areas where this has been the case: the Greek city-states, the Italian Peninsula or Western Europe in general that situation has generally produced more dynamic societies.

[Hurin_Rules]

If we look at what the Founding Fathers wrote both in the Federalist Papers and other personal works it is clear that the rights position they took was derived from the work of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau etc. It was a theoretical enterprise and thoroughly a product of Enlightenment thought.

Which itself looked back on the actual struggle between Cromwell, parliament and the monarchy in the previous century, which itself cited the Magna Carta and the liberties of the middle ages, which themselves... etc. etc.

The fall of the Classical World did not mean a complete erasure of all that it had produced. Certain platonic works (like the Republic) survived in the West. The same is the case with elements of Roman legal dicta. Further, from 1087 with the fall of the Library of Toledo to the Christians, the Aristotelian corpus was again available.

Actually, only the Phaedo and Timaeus were widely available in the West. Where are you getting the idea that the Republic was known?

The entire Aristotelian corpus was available in Latin translation only in the thirteenth century.

The reason 'democracy' in English is Greek derived and not German is not insignificant. (love those negatives!)

Latin was the written language, Germanic tongues spoken. Again, you're looking only at theory and not at practice.

I'm not attempting any exhaustive exegesis. My original point was civil liberties is a Western construct.

Do Byzantium, Jerusalem and Alexandria count as part of The West?

Conciliarism isn't tied to civil liberties discourse.

The concept of free elections certainly is.

I don't think fracture is an inherent characteristic. Rather is was a characteristic and in areas where this has been the case: the Greek city-states, the Italian Peninsula or Western Europe in general that situation has generally produced more dynamic societies.

Then what is the inherent characteristic that makes the West better?

[Pindar]

Then, as I'm pretty sure you see this coming, where do places like Japan stand? They are certainly a succesful democracy, and they have many cultural portions of his Christian "West". Perhaps a better question is: If the advent of Civil Liberties, Democracy, and the Scientific Method come from the West, as you have defined it, why is the West still superior to any other place that has adopted Western ideals?


I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

Japan isn't a Western nation. From the Meiji Reformation forward Japan has adopted or had imposed certain elements of the West. Several of these elements have become more or less settled, but the source remains foreign: the primary civilizational impulse remains Far Eastern.

My use of superior was historical and moral. The West produced these 'goods'. I think they are superior to rival claimants. For example: I think science is demonstrably superior to superstition when dealing with the world. I think the same is the case on the moral plane: I think democracy and civil liberties are superior to autocracy. As these ideas spread to other arenas I think the people there naturally benefit: Japan is an example. I hope Iraq proves to be as well.

[Pindar]

Which itself looked back on the actual struggle between Cromwell, parliament and the monarchy in the previous century, which itself cited the Magna Carta and the liberties of the middle ages, which themselves... etc. etc.

I don't think this is right. Just to cite Locke as an example, he used the followng language:

"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man." (Second Treatise of Government, 1690.)

Like the above, Enlightenment Thinkers were not involved in historical argument to justify their position, but rational inquiry as to the nature of rule.

Actually, only the Phaedo and Timaeus were widely available in the West. Where are you getting the idea that the Republic was known?

The entire Aristotelian corpus was available in Latin translation only in the thirteenth century.

I thought the Republic and the Laws were both available. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. (constant expossure to leftist thought tends to deaden the mind).

Yes, the translation process took time, the key point is the recovery of Classical thought.

Latin was the written language, Germanic tongues spoken. Again, you're looking only at theory and not at practice.

Latin was written and spoken among the intelligensia.

Yes I am looking at theory because it was theory that was used to justify the overturning of monarchic systems.

Do Byzantium, Jerusalem and Alexandria count as part of The West?

The 'West' is not a set geogrpahic point, but the ideas and values of a Civilization. Areas where those values have been replaced by say Islamic notions wouldn't qualify.

The concept of free elections certainly is.

I don't know what this means. Paritcipants in Ecumenical Councils were Bishops, themselves appointed, who were to decide theoretical stances. The last of these was in the 8th Century. This has nothing to do with the governance of a state or the rights of men.

Then what is the inherent characteristic that makes the West better?

I don't know there is an inherent characteristic. I don't even know what that would mean given culture and Civilization are constructs.

[Hurin_Rules]

I thought the Republic and the Laws were both available. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. (constant expossure to leftist thought tends to deaden the mind).

Ah Pindar, my friend, I've known you long enough to recognize that a diversionary, backhand swipe at the left is the closest you can come to admitting an error. I'll just take it for what its worth and keep delivering the tough love. Rock on, buddy.

More to come on your more substantial points when I get a moment free from work.

[Pindar]

Ah Pindar, my friend, I've known you long enough to recognize that a diversionary, backhand swipe at the left is the closest you can come to admitting an error. I'll just take it for what its worth and keep delivering the tough love. Rock on, buddy.

More to come on your more substantial points when I get a moment free from work.

Cheers

When you reply clarify for me: your position isn't so much contra my claim about democracy and civil liberties arising in the West as much as when this occurred. Is that right? If so why do you consider this important?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Prove it.

Look at the NEWS. Drugs are not a threat to our way of life. The real harm was done by making them illegal and in fact its the governments ridiculous position on it that causes almost all the problems with drugs. There was no drug problem until the drug laws of the 60s. Most of the deaths from drugs can also be layed squarely at the feet of the government.

[bmolsson]

Prove it.

BOOOOM !!!!!

[Goofball]

Wow. A guy writes an article that says "The war in Iraq was a good idea, detaining people at Gitmo is a necessary and just thing, the Patriot Act doesn't infringe on civil liberties, and western (read "American") culture is superior to all others," and all the conservatives in the Backroom have themselves a love-in gushing over his brilliance.

Who'd of thunk it?



At any rate, I am aquainted with quite a few lefties, and most of them are even non-American lefties (the worst kind, from what I understand). Never have I heard any of them even hint that they believe American bears any culpability for the Sep11 attacks. This claim is just a tactic used by the right to villify those who have political viewpoints anwhere even slightly left of Ronald Reagan. While there may be a few rabid freaks on the fringe who believe the U.S. "had it coming," on Sep11, it is certainly not mainstream liberal thinking.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's not proving it. In September 2001, let's say about 3000 people died from Terrorism in the US. Less actually, were American citizens. I think I can safely say alot more than 3000 people died in the US from drug-related causes in September of 2001.

I knew you would go here. Fuist off less people die from drugs than from terrosim. But many more Americans die from the war on drugs than from the war on Terror. Also by your reasoning the automoblie is a fer greater danger to our way of life than either of these as more peole dir in car accidents. Im talking of threatening our way of life not how many people die from it.

Prove terorism is more dangerous, more of a threat, or otherwise a bigger deal. Or are all Republicans afraid to pull out some hard facts these days?

All it takes to realise Im right is a brain that works.