I've been thinking about this for a while. I need to find the statistics and Moore quotes, but I'm probably right about this.
Michael Moore says we shouldn't fret about terrorism because what are 3000 people on 9/11 in the grand scheme of things? More people die in traffic accidents each year, or from overdosing on aspirin, or slipping in the bath tub. In light of this, what we should worry about is the circumscribing of civil rights in the reaction to terrorism. I think this is a commonly held Liberal sentiment, at least the part that we should be more afraid of our government than Islamic terrorists.
Technically, Moore's completely right about how you're far more likely to die from day-to-day dangers than international terrorism. I personally think that's besides the point, since the idea of thousands of fanatics backed by states and millionaires planning ever more deadly ways to kill masses of America civiliams troubles me. But if Moore wants to play these sorts of games, why is he so adamantly against using troops in combat?
Because just like you're more likely to die in a car wreck than a terror attack, American soldiers are far more likely to die in car wrecks than combat. In fact, traffic accidents are the #1 killer of American servicemen, not enemy fire. Ever drive on a base, and experience the MPs' fanatical enforcement of lower-than-civilian speed limits? This is probably why.
In fact, US troops are statistically safer on battlefields than on America streets. Fewer troops died during the Desert Shield/Desert Storm missions than a comparable 9 months in supposedly safe garrisons.
So if we're so concerned about soldiers' safety, should we be sending them into combat more frequently in order to keep them from behind the wheel?
Just using Moore's logic here.
Michael Moore says we shouldn't fret about terrorism because what are 3000 people on 9/11 in the grand scheme of things? More people die in traffic accidents each year, or from overdosing on aspirin, or slipping in the bath tub. In light of this, what we should worry about is the circumscribing of civil rights in the reaction to terrorism. I think this is a commonly held Liberal sentiment, at least the part that we should be more afraid of our government than Islamic terrorists.
Technically, Moore's completely right about how you're far more likely to die from day-to-day dangers than international terrorism. I personally think that's besides the point, since the idea of thousands of fanatics backed by states and millionaires planning ever more deadly ways to kill masses of America civiliams troubles me. But if Moore wants to play these sorts of games, why is he so adamantly against using troops in combat?
Because just like you're more likely to die in a car wreck than a terror attack, American soldiers are far more likely to die in car wrecks than combat. In fact, traffic accidents are the #1 killer of American servicemen, not enemy fire. Ever drive on a base, and experience the MPs' fanatical enforcement of lower-than-civilian speed limits? This is probably why.
In fact, US troops are statistically safer on battlefields than on America streets. Fewer troops died during the Desert Shield/Desert Storm missions than a comparable 9 months in supposedly safe garrisons.
So if we're so concerned about soldiers' safety, should we be sending them into combat more frequently in order to keep them from behind the wheel?
Just using Moore's logic here.
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
I'll get back to you when I do though, I promise.