Denis Bider: if the response to 9/11 prevents many future deaths, than the original post ISN’T “entirely correct.” But to those who can’t comprehend the possibility that the so-called overreaction might have saved lives, consider that Al Quaeda was escalating attacks until it got the desired response: war. And what, pray tell, do you think the next level of escalation would be, that would one-up the thousands killed on 9/11? Nuclear terrorism, maybe. Biological terrorism. You’re letting your hatred of Bush prejudice your interpretation of events. Personally, I agree that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea, and badly done. But I’m open (non-biased) to the possibility that I’m wrong, and that, in the long run, it’s impossible to acknowledge all the ramifications, good and bad, of any action. And one of the possible ramifications of the Iraq invasion is an end to the escalation of terrorist actions. Further, it’s possible that, even if the childish and hateful number “one million” Iraqi deaths is accepted, how does anyone here know that there wouldn’t have been more deaths if Saddam had remained in power? You can’t, you can only be biased about the chances, and refuse to remember how many people died in the Iraq/Iran war he waged, and how many of his own people he starved and tortured during his reign.
And to everyone, please: I would highly recommend that, to your refusal to fall victim to Bush propaganda, you add a refusal to fall victim to anti-Bush propaganda.
Why is the board so determined to think that being anti-bias should only mean being anti conservative bias? All the while so easily duped by liberal bias?
To which, I know—let me save you all the trouble of a response—it isn’t POSSIBLE to be a victim of liberal bias, because “our kind of people/thinking can’t be/isn’t biased, it’s just RIGHT! “Bias” is what other kinds of people/thinking suffer!!!
Denis Bider: if the response to 9/11 prevents many future deaths, than the original post ISN’T “entirely correct.” But to those who can’t comprehend the possibility that the so-called overreaction might have saved lives, consider that Al Quaeda was escalating attacks until it got the desired response: war. And what, pray tell, do you think the next level of escalation would be, that would one-up the thousands killed on 9/11? Nuclear terrorism, maybe. Biological terrorism. You’re letting your hatred of Bush prejudice your interpretation of events. Personally, I agree that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea, and badly done. But I’m open (non-biased) to the possibility that I’m wrong, and that, in the long run, it’s impossible to acknowledge all the ramifications, good and bad, of any action. And one of the possible ramifications of the Iraq invasion is an end to the escalation of terrorist actions. Further, it’s possible that, even if the childish and hateful number “one million” Iraqi deaths is accepted, how does anyone here know that there wouldn’t have been more deaths if Saddam had remained in power? You can’t, you can only be biased about the chances, and refuse to remember how many people died in the Iraq/Iran war he waged, and how many of his own people he starved and tortured during his reign.
And to everyone, please: I would highly recommend that, to your refusal to fall victim to Bush propaganda, you add a refusal to fall victim to anti-Bush propaganda.
Why is the board so determined to think that being anti-bias should only mean being anti conservative bias? All the while so easily duped by liberal bias?
To which, I know—let me save you all the trouble of a response—it isn’t POSSIBLE to be a victim of liberal bias, because “our kind of people/thinking can’t be/isn’t biased, it’s just RIGHT! “Bias” is what other kinds of people/thinking suffer!!!