The Answer Guy Online

Providing information to unwitting victims on a "don't-need-to-know" basis since 1974.

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

Spanish Bombs

Suppose there was a terrorist attack in your country, and your government tried to point the finger at what evidence suggests is the wrong culprit, so that they themselves and/or their policy prescriptions might look more attractive.

Would you re-elect them?

Suppose your government dragged your country into a war under the idea that it would make your country safer from terrorist or other threats, but that most relevant experts believe that it would have just the opposite effect. Suppose your government greatly exaggerated the threat posed by that nation in order to help justify the invasion. Suppose further that they significantly downplayed the costs of said invasion.

Would you re-elect them?

Could you be talked into re-electing them by the very idea that the terrorists wouldn't want you to do so, that it would be "appeasement?" Even if it's not at all clear what they want you to do, or why? Can the terrorists be trusted to tell the truth about their motives, intentions, or potential tactics?

Or would you recognize that basing your decision about whether or not to vote out your government on what terrorists want or don't want, either way, is letting the terrorists win?


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home