Received this from my former roommate, a physicist with a law degree (can you say, "overachiever?" I knew you could!). Thought I'd share.
I have been in conversation via the internet with a war-supporter (for lack of a better phrase). He offered a three point argument (not his own, but one he felt had legitimacy), the first point of which was:
1. We have actually been "at war" with these terrorists for 22 years (he then provided a list of attacks on America, or foreign-American soil, such as the 1993 and 2001 WTC attacks, attacks on our embassies, and the USS Cole).
So, I did a little research, and based on the events he listed, America has lost approximately 166 people per year to terrorist attacks over the last 22 years. To put this in perspective, we lose 40,000 per year on our highways, and 550,000 per year to cancer. Overall, the risk of being an American and being killed by a terrorist on an annual basis is slightly more than being killed by lighting, and slightly less than being killed by an airline crash, if you only fly one round trip anywhere during the entire year.
My point (and, I am making one), is I think that as a matter of policy, the U.S. should have examined, and still needs to examine, the overall risks to Americans from acts of terror in formulating an appropriate response.
I think these are the kinds of things we need to be pointing out to our elected representatives (which, obviously, excludes Mr. Bush).
This is the same gal who's been getting trouble from one of our senators for speaking publicly about her opposition to a bill the senator authored, which if passed, would cripple the ability of many medical facilities to detect and treat certain cancers.
She always was a rebel.
Last edited by Rox at Mar 28 2003, 08:09 AM
03-28-2003
Hybrid Mode
