search this site: search the web:
LCD recommends Bestandworst.com. he requests, no DEMANDS, your presence here!

DEMOCRATS: WOULD YOU FAVOR ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE US . . .

user ballots

political :

DEMOCRATS: WOULD YOU FAVOR ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE US . . .


[+] serious ballot by herzog
created Fri Aug 25, 06

prior to the next election if it ensured the democrats retake the whitehouse and congress?

Russell Shaw does:

I hope and pray we don't get hit again, like we did on September 11. Even one life lost to the violence of terrorism is too much.

If I somehow knew an attack was coming, I wouldn't pause for a second to report it in order to prevent it from occuring.

But on the other hand, I remind myself that without the ultimate sacrifice paid by 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War II, tyranny could well have an iron grip on the world, and even on this nation.
If the Nazis had prevailed, tens, if not hundreds of millions more would have been killed.

That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:

This is a type of calculus that Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time- a combination of what-if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.

What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

Be in a position to elevate the party's chances for a regime change in 2008. A regime change that would:

Save hundreds of thousands of American lives by enacting universal health care;

Save untold numbers of lives by pushing for cleaner air standards that would greatly reduce heart and lung diseases;

More enthusiastically address the need for mass transit, the greater availability of which would surely cut highway deaths;

Enact meaningful gun control legislation that would reduce crime and cut fatalities by thousands a year;

Fund stem cell research that could result in cures saving millions of lives;

Boost the minimum wage, helping to cut down on poverty which helps spawn violent crime and the deaths that spring from those acts;

Be less inclined to launch foolish wars, absence of which would save thousands of soldiers' lives- and quite likely moderate the likelihood of further terror acts.

I am not proud of myself for even considering the notion that another terror attack that costs even one American life could ever be considered anything else but evil and hurtful. And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.

But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this. Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:

If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?

Any at all?
- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -

So what do you say? Is it worth another 911 to retake the whitehouse, or is this guy a little off his rocker?

If it ensures enlightened liberals retake the whitehouse then I'm for it
No, nothing is worth that, this guy is nuts
Illogic, similar to neocon thinking


Ballot #101005 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
95057. Does it seem to anyone else that Democrats attack Republicans on issues but Republicans attack Democrats on personal issues?
10993. response to terrorist attack
100733. What will be the next big staged terrorist attack and WHERE will it be?
6005. Will there be martial law in America after the next terrorist attack?
16503. How would another terrorist attack affect the '04 election?
33606. Will martial law be imposed in the United States after the next staged terrorist attack?
94475. TRUE OR FALSE: Ann Coulter would support a terrorist attack on the New York Times building
49221. Will the forthcoming war against Iran come before or after the next "terrorist" attack on American soil?
57199. New taped message: Bin Laden says any state whose electoral votes go to Kerry will be spared from a terrorist attack. An attempt to elect Kerry?
11822. Does America "deserve" another terrorist attack in '04?


COMMENTS:
And yes, I know he started with the standard "oh I really hope this doesn't happen ", but he kind of lost credibility by spending the next page and a half doing exactly that.
by herzog on Fri Aug 25, 06 11:02pm [+]

Usually the effect of terror attack is to decrease support for those who advocate "softer hand" when dealing with terror (Spain being the exception) causing the country to be safer after the government changes. So I'm not sure that this man's logic is correct, because even when, for example, Ariel Sharon replaced Ehud Barak as the PM of Israel in early 2001 (Carried by promises to end the attacks on Israel, and later bring peace), when the Intifada broke out but the violence was not in its peak. It peaked over a years after Sharon took office, causing him to finally adopt the plans to enter to West bank cities and root out terrorism - but the support for him only grew as the violence intensified, and his actions finally brought the decline of violence in 2003-2005 to less than 100 deaths per year, in comparison to 120 in March 2002.

Of course the effect of war on terrotrism is decrease of terrorism, and lowering the chances that terrorist attacks will occur and influence the next elections.

Yet, parallel to the briliant victory ove the terrorism from West Bank, Sharon lead similiar move to what Barak did in Lebanon in May 2000 - that's to evacuate territories where terrorism prospers, giving it an achevement to proclaim, and win the popular support - both in Lebanon and now in Gaza. The recent rounds of violence will probably lead to the replacement of Olmert's government - the heir of Sharon, and the original supporter of the retreat from Gaza, by government of the people who predicted exactly what will happen as a result from these retreats.

Buttom line is, that if anything terrorism boasts support for those who seek to fight it, and although the ideal situation will be not to suffer from terrorist and not fight it to, but it isn't fantasy world, and nations are facing the grim reality, that those who make pessimistic prophecies about terrorism are usually correct.
by Yosi on Sat Aug 26, 06 2:47am [+]

I wonder how many democrats feel this way, and how this has influenced their voting and policy making. Kind of scary to think that they'd be willing to see americans dead to get a donkey in the whitehouse.
by herzog on Sat Aug 26, 06 9:23am [+]

But hey, ignore this and continue to claim that repuoblicans want dead americans to boost ratings.
by herzog on Sat Aug 26, 06 9:23am [+]

Voted : No, nothing is worth that, this guy is nuts
That's just sick. Anyone who read that abroad now has one more reason to dislike Americans.
by Truthseeker013 on Sat Aug 26, 06 1:05pm [+]

FYI. herzie cut and pasted this blog from the Huffington Post. I can't imagine why he didn't want you to know that. IC_tune

Also, my first reaction to this ballot was: "Who is Russell Shaw? His bio states that he is: a technology and politics author, journalist, blogger and consultant in Portland, Oregon. Author of seven books, he writes the daily IP Telephony Blog for ZDNet." He has his own website, too.
by cranky on Sun Aug 27, 06 8:58am [+]

Voted : Illogic, similar to neocon thinking
1. An attack is bad. Hoping for one for political gain is worse.

2. GOP spin cannot lose:

A. No attack: See how effective GOP governance is?

B: An attack occurs: Oh no! We are in danger! Unite behind our existing government and cede more of your freedoms for security!!!

What a funny ballot ... throwing out a framed rhetorical question ballot, the real purpose of which is merely to discredit a war dissenter.
by Cathexis on Wed Oct 11, 06 1:50pm [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |
© 2002-2008 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved