Would you be willing to allow 200 deaths a year from terrorism if we ended the wars and revoked...

[Logical]

the Patriot Act?

Assume the 200 are regular citizens, not law enforcement or military.

16 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I would risk losing 200 innocent Americans a year to end the wars and Patriot Act intrusions.
	12 (75%)
	No, I would NOT risk losing 200 innocent Americans a year to end the wars and Patriot Act intrusions.
	4 (25%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[geek tragedy]

1. Given that the death toll from the wars greatly exceeds 200 per year, yes. nt

[YarnAddict]

12. Does it make a difference to you

that the deaths from wars would probably be professional, armed, adult soldiers, and that the deaths from terrorism can be 8-year old children watching their dads run marathons?

I'm really not sure where I stand on this issue. Death under either circumstance is tragic, but military people know the risks, and know what they are facing; 8-year old, not so much.

[geek tragedy]

29. Morally, I don't differentiate the value of human life on those lines

for this kind of analsis.

[0rganism]

68. How many innocents die in our wars every day?

What's the difference? Oh yeah, they're Iraqis, or Afghans, or some other non-lily-white people. Does that make it someone else's problem?

If we're going to make a list of possible victims who didn't sign up for a job knowing the risks, it's going to include a lot more than Americans.

[yardwork]

77. A lot of eight year old children get killed in wars.

I think that U.S. troops have killed more than 200 children during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. We fought WW2 with 300,000 US casualties over an attack that killed less than 3,000

[geek tragedy]

43. Participation in the war was no longer optional at that point nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. You entered the discussion citing raw numbers as the rationale for fighting or not fighting

I pointed out that numbers alone do not satisfy the moral question.

[geek tragedy]

48. We didn't decide to enter a war--a war was waged upon us

before we had a chance to declare war.

Also, the hypothetical in question here does not also include fascist regimes conquering the planet and exterminating entire races/ethnicities/communities of faith if we don't fight back.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. 57,000 in Vietnam. Would that example sway you where WW2 doesn't?

[geek tragedy]

92. We certainly didn't enter Vietnam to protect American civilians. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

93. Are you seriously trying to use Vietnam as an example of a justified war on a left wing board?

Because I don't believe there's a single sane left of center person in this country who holds that opinion. Even the people in the Johnson Administration who started the fucking war came to the conclusion that it was a terrible mistake.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

95. Not at all

I'm not in support of any of the wars we have waged since the end of the Second World War. I'm also not in support of Totalitarian thugs. I've never in my life expressed support for the Vietnam War. I'm a liberal.

[Hippo_Tron]

96. I misread, my bad

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. Thanks...and it's all good

I was "switching wars" to see if that made a difference to the poster I replied to. Probably not the most insightful parallel I've tried to draw. Have a good night.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

2. Jesus.

Things are getting out of control.

[Flashmann]

3. Yes

Since the PA and the wars implicitly allow many times that number,YES!

[NightWatcher]

4. Is that what happened in 2000, 1999, 1998...?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. have you stopped beating your wife?

this is like one of those questions: the premise is faulty and any answer is going to validate a false premise

[reformist2]

6. I don't believe the Patriot Act has saved lives above and beyond ordinary detective work.

[DinahMoeHum]

13. +1

[Logical]

15. I believe you are 100% correct! n-t

[leftstreet]

24. +1

17 Intel agencies, but they needed a 500 lb document to 'save us?'

[magellan]

40. +1 n/t

[AsahinaKimi]

60. +2

+2 to agree and to be a little different.

[0rganism]

69. tend to agree

If it has, we aren't authorized to know how. Given what we're told publicly, I have to assume that there have been little or no benefits from it.

[L0oniX]

81. +1

[treestar]

90. That's what no one has really ever studied

It seems to be just assumed it never has. But then things that don't happen can't be counted.

I don't think we really know. The government seems to think it helps, and they are the ones that get blamed when there is a terrorist attack. Or any problem, come to think of it.

[HappyMe]

7. Wtf!

You first.

[pnwmom]

8. Are you saying that ending the wars would increase US deaths from terrorism? n/t

[Logical]

17. They would claim it would. n-t

[KamaAina]

9. Where on Earth dod you come up with the figure of 200 deaths per year?

Did you just pull it out of... thin air? Or are you implying that the Patriot Act has, in fact, saved on average 200 lives per year? If so, I call BS.

[WinkyDink]

66. I'm thinking the sun doesn't shine there.

[KamaAina]

89. DING DING DING!

And I'm not talking about Seattle.

[hobbit709]

10. This should make the Top 10 Dumbest.

[Logical]

14. Wow, touchy? Nap time? n-t

[hobbit709]

19. "Go to the mirror, boy"

[Logical]

23. Mr grumpy needs a nap! Nighty Nighty! n-t

[hobbit709]

25. I've had my nap but someone needs a brain.

[Logical]

31. Sounds like grumpy hobbit is tired! n-t

[hobbit709]

39. And someone is anything but logical.

[Logical]

46. Grumpy Hobbit! Image for You! n-t

[hobbit709]

50. You can't tell a dwarf from a hobbit

You're getting as bad as g4a.

[Logical]

51. That is the best I could do Mr. Grumpy pants! n-t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. top 100. there were a lot of dumb posts during the primary wars

[randome]

11. If we closed our military bases and announced to the world that we were withdrawing.

And paid more attention to the consensus-building of the U.N.

Then Yes. Otherwise, No.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Logical]

20. So preventing 200 deaths a year is worth billions in war costs? n-t

[randome]

27. I'd be willing to 'risk' more deaths.

I think the risk would be very little if we did the things I suggested.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[djean111]

18. How many Americans do we lose to guns each year, in the United States?

That is considered just sad but unavoidable collateral damage, I have been told.

[otohara]

26. Beat Me to It

the daily multiple murders is mind-boggling and depressing as hell.

[otohara]

21. Drop In The Bucket Compaired to GUNS

I want to see the privatization of our government end, period!

[dkf]

22. False choice...

They don't need every single bit of data produced to do their job.

In fact having too much data is probably more of a problem.

[Logical]

33. Then why do they keep asking for it. n-t

[dkf]

37. Because they can. Data = power, domestically and internationally.

Knowing everyone's secrets means everyone is manipulatable.

[dipsydoodle]

28. I would think the number of Iraqi and Afghani deaths each year already exceed that

from US acts of terrorism and that hasn't ended anything.

[bunnies]

30. Human sacrifice?

That show would be HUGE on the fox network.

[Fire Walk With Me]

32. If: end wars and revoke "patriot act" Then: 200 deaths a year. Your framing is bullshit.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ~Noam Chomsky

How about: If: end wars and revoke "patriot act" Then: Constitution restored, for-profit terror-industrial complex and permanent military-industrial complex war budget ended, money goes to FDR-style programs?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

[Th1onein]

34. False choice.

I doubt that scooping up all of our information stops terrorists. Also, if all of the wars were stopped, would we lose two hundred? I doubt it. We lose more than that a year in casualties. AND, your argument about an 8 year old versus an adult soldier who signed up to go to war is a bad analogy, since our wars kill THEIR 8 year olds via collateral damage.

[totodeinhere]

36. That's a false choice. There is no indication whatsoever that

ending the Patriot Act would cause 200 deaths a year. So why are you asking if we would allow something that wouldn't happen in the first place?

[Babel_17]

38. Could I instead give up one of the first ten amendments to the USC to save those lives?

Sometimes sacrifices must be made for freedom.

Woops, I forgot, they aren't mine to trade.

[apples and oranges]

42. Would the 200 deaths include me or anyone I know or love?

If yes, then no... but how would ending the wars cause 200 deaths a year? I can see how the patriot act might prevent terror attacks, but what do the wars have to do with it?

[GeorgeGist]

44. net gain of how many lives?

not just American.

[pipi_k]

47. I can't

answer this question either way, although I will say that anyone who can sit at his or her computer and say that 200 deaths a year is acceptable probably isn't including his/her own friends or family members in that total.

IOW, as long as it's someone else's mom or dad or kid who gets killed...

[FreakinDJ]

49. PASS - Lame "Push Pole" question

Its so KKKarl Rove

[morningfog]

52. This is inane.

[Celldweller]

53. oh FFS

so WHO is going to volunteer their spouses, parent or children to be the 200?

disgusting.

[Ian David]

54. 200 deaths is still fewer people than are killed by toddlers with guns. n/t

[limpyhobbler]

55. The wars create more terrorism than they solve.

probly

[Decoy of Fenris]

56. In a heartbeat.

200 deaths is nothing. 150,000 people die a day; what's 200 more for freedom and peace? Hell, I'd line up for that myself when I felt the time was right.

[Ohio Joe]

57. If we ended the wars and revoked the patriot act... The threat would go down, not up

I'm all for it

[Logical]

59. Great point! n-t

[Marr]

63. Yeah! It was made about a million times during the Bush years!

You probably even repeated it yourself a few times back then! I don't expect you to remember or anything-- basic principles change so quickly, it's hard to keep up sometimes!

[Autumn]

58. Of course I would. How many die each year in gun violence?

And I'm sorry I consider a shooter going into a school or a theater and unloading their weapons on innocent people to be a fucking terrorist. Where is the fucking governments outrage and concern over that?

[meow2u3]

61. The real question is...

Would you rather die at the hands of terrorists or live as a slave?

[Marr]

62. HOLY shit. Our DLC crowd really has become completely indistinguishable from neocons.

Really? You're setting up a choice between endless wars/undermining Constitutional rights and 'death by terst'?

Seriously? And you're not gagging-- even a little bit?

[kentuck]

64. I don't think anyone would have to allow any number of deaths.

Eighty billion dollars on the NSA and 80 billion dollars on Homeland Security does very little to protect us. They are morons.

[WinkyDink]

65. Why not ask: "Would you eat hot-dogs every Friday if....?"

I pulled that one out of the same hat.

[ThePhilosopher04]

67. I doubt there would be 20 deaths - total - over the next 10 years ...

much less 200 per year, if the Patriot Act were rolled back. So yes, I would end the Patriot Act.

[Ikonoklast]

70. You forgot one thing. One of those people who die must be someone you know and love.

Make this personal and see if people are so willing to sacrifice one of their own.

[Marr]

86. Do you honestly not remember the neocons making this argument to justify

all sorts of overreach? Did you consider it a valid argument then?

The easy way so many people adopt these nonsensical, offensive old justifications for trampling civil rights really blows me away.

[Ikonoklast]

100. Like sending people you don't know to fight and die in wars.

It is a valid argument for both sides.

[CakeGrrl]

71. Would the "yes" votes still be yes if they knew and/or cared about some of those people?

Or is it easier to be 'principled' when it doesn't get personal?

[Decoy of Fenris]

80. I'd still vote yes.

I'd be one of the first in line volunteering; never make decisions that will affect others without being willing to accept them first upon yourself.

[pipi_k]

87. To that

I would say, never make decisions for someone else, period.

Forget the "without being willing to accept them first upon yourself" stuff.

If people don't mind dying for whatever cause...go for it. By all means, step right up and volunteer if that'll make you all happy.

Just make sure that anybody else who gets sacrificed is also a volunteer.

[Spider Jerusalem]

72. that's half the number of people struck by lightning each year.

[cpwm17]

73. That's a bogus question

Ending the wars would provoke far less terrorism. Most of the foreign terrorists are open about their motivations for their terrorism against the US: it's payback for US foreign policy.

Osama couldn't be clearer about his motivations for 9-11: US bad behavior concerning Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Iraq.

Plus our wars murder far more innocents than are murdered in terrorist attacks against the US. This creates more terrorists looking for payback. The cycle never ends. Only the US can end it.

[alarimer]

74. Even if it's me and my family, I would risk it.

More people were killed in the past year by toddlers than by terrorists.

[ileus]

75. small price to pay for freedom.

[aquart]

76. We lose that many in a bad hurricane.

I would much prefer our resources to be devoted to hurricane and tornado protection.

No terrorist has ever destroyed a city.

Let's fight what's really trying to kill us.

[Avalux]

78. To those who voted yes - even if it was your child? n/t

[Logical]

79. Not a fair question really. I think most people would agree to house to house searches daily....

if it meant their child would not die.

[Avalux]

82. I know, but your OP is a dilemma and I thought I'd qualify it a bit.

Maslov's heirarchy of needs and all.

[Logical]

83. I see your point. n-t

[pipi_k]

88. Totally fair

question, actually.

As I stated somewhere above, it's all fine and dandy when it's someone else's loved one(s) being sacrificed in the name of freedom.

In any case, even if someone were to say he would sacrifice his own kid(s), it's pretty much meaningless when it's more than likely not something that will ever happen.

IOW, it's all bullshit.

[Decoy of Fenris]

84. Yup.

Now, if after three or four cullings I'd lost three or four children, I'd think something's up, but otherwise, yeah.

Then again, I've been surrounded by death all my life and it doesn't really hold much sway on my views any more.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. False premise, we're dealing with probabilities

The question wasn't whether or not you'd sacrifice your child to get rid of the Patriot Act. The question is whether or not you would enter yourself, your child, your parents, your siblings, and everyone else you care about into a lottery where they have less than a 1 in a million chance of being killed by terrorism every year.

[Gravitycollapse]

102. Yes. As opposed to someone elses child? I cannot be so selfish.

[Cerridwen]

85. If a wo/man steals medicine to help his/her suffering child, is it still justified?

If there is a national safety net that allows all to be treated for illness and injury, is the previous "philosophical" question applicable?

How many billions (trillions?) of dollars are spent to track "terrorists"?

What would happen if we stopped invading and bombing "them"? Even our "enemies" have family who love them and might think they, too, have a right to an "eye for an eye".

Or, just for shits and grins, let's imagine a completely different scenario or even a group of scenarios.

We start by not blowing up people or countries and we stop invading other countries. It could happen they might eventually stop hating us and wanting to gouge out our eyes.

We could even help them to set up, ya know, infrastructure; schools, hospitals, that type of thing. Psssst. It used to be called humanitarian. I know, I know. Not nearly so adrenaline pumping as nuken' 'em and letting gaaaawd sort 'em out. But, it might help.

Or, we could leave them the hell alone and quite stealing, er, I mean, appropriating their resources and leave them for their people rather than use their resources for "our" profit. It might work.

We could even, with those billions of dollars, maybe hire better quality investigators who could, investigate rather than instigate and then, I know this sounds so weird, we could listen to them and avoid attempts at flying planes into towers. Hmmm, maybe that could work. Well, maybe, if we, ya know, made decisions based on good work rather than partisan politics and trying to make the "other guy" look bad.

Imagine; governing and creating rather than playing politics and destroying for profit.

I know. It's "utopian", but, hey, a girl can dream, right.

Ooooo, oooooo, wait, there's more.

Naw, nevermind. Too boring and not nearly violent enough.

[JackRiddler]

98. False assumption.

Several of them:

There are currently tens of thousands of deaths from terrorism every year. You are implicitly defining "terrorism" in the American way of pretending it only qualifies if the killer is Muslim and the victims are in the US.

The "enemies" of this country are largely and in part wittingly produced by this country's "defense" policies.

The "counterterrorism" policy of this country has not prevented terrorism even by the way you have implicitly defined it.

[mick063]

99. Would you be willing to

implant a computer chip in your forehead so that everything you ever did or said could be monitored 100% of the time so that we could stop 200 deaths a year from terrorism?

Would you be willing to plant cameras in every room of your home to be constantly recorded and filed away to save 200 lives a year?

Would you be willing to change the judicial system so that folks are guilty until proven innocent....to save 200 lives a year?

Would you agree to American citizens to be searched at the whim of "authorities" to save 200 lives a year?


If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

Right?

[backscatter712]

101. Compared to the thousands of deaths caused by our wars? That's easy. n/t

[dlwickham]

103. the 55 who voted yes

are they willing to be part of the first group of 200 to die?

how about their families? neighbors? co-workers?