A violently true depiction of what war really is

That's why we have the Bill of Rights in the US. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and so on. Our society is (currently) civilized enough that people can speak up without problems.

All of a sudden, you and everyone else in the social group have to weigh the consequences of you or someone you love dying somewhere far away.

That just tips the balance differently. Now, if you're a big war hawk, people can say, "Well, you don't have to go fight or have family that fight." If everyone has to go fight, and you're a dove, people will say, "Well, you're just a coward who isn't willing to give your fair share."

we should avoid all this security theater BS

I totally agree with you. TSA is a massive violation of rights and is ridiculous. The solution is to end states that give terrorists leeway in their borders or directly support them. And I don't mean a 10 year ground occupation. I mean forcing their leaders to abide by certain written rules, or they get booted.

You mean Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and the Taliban (Afghanistan)?

But yeah, I definitely think we should have acted much more forcefully to end the wars much more quickly and with far fewer casualties on both sides.

I think we probably could do this without resorting to nukes, but applying the same "kind" of intense pressure. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were huge successes compared to a minimum decade-long ground invasion and occupation of Japan resulting in possibly millions of deaths.

You have a somewhat inflated sense of agency here, I believe. Additionally, these "terrorists" and "rogue states" are hardly "bullies"--and your claim of "no tolerance for that kind of shit" is exceptionally incongruous with past and present US foreign policy.

It's not like the terrorists decide that their favorite golf course is closed for the weekend, so instead they blow up some innocent civilians. In the absence of motivating forces, such as economic depression, sanctions, or political meddling, they are likely to not be terrorists--or even more likely, to be somebody else's problem!

As for the intent of my comment: do a calculation with me.

Average human lifespan is around 66 years.

Average time at airport security line is 20 minutes (http://www.bts.gov/publications/airline_passenger_opinions_o...).

Let's say 600 million passengers embark every year (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/).

Run it through (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28600+million+times+20...) and we see that something like 345 human-life-equivalents are wasted every year waiting in line to pull off shoes and get groped or irradiated. All so that people can feel more safe? From an effective non-threat?

In ten years we've wasted more human-live-equivalents than the WTC attacks. From fear and bureaucracy alone.

"Pakistan should not have it. (Remember, Pakistani leaders knowing sheltered Bin Laden.)"

So, the proper argument here is that Pakistan's security is questionable, but that's beside the point.

What does it matter that the Pakistanis knowingly sheltered Osama? Good God, if we were to hold nations accountable for the company they keep America (not to mention all of Europe and the rest of the world) would have a great lot of explaining to do!

"There are many groups that are actively hostile that are not identical to a national government. There are many national governments that are largely sympathetic to these groups."

There may be a reason for this, yes? If you knew of a world government with an exceedingly strong economy and a disposition for meddling extensively in the sovereign affairs of other states, wouldn't you be a wee bit wary? The reason that we face so much hostility is due to our failings in foreign policy, least of which being our military adventurism.

"If you look at history, from the middle ages until now, you see a continual improvement."

Improvement in what, technology? Amusement? Wealth?

Kill ratios?

This is a lot to unpack, but I think that one could make an argument that things are different--not necessarily better--and that happiness of a serf, a slave, or a modern person is open to debate. I'd enjoy debating this point further, but not immediately.

"Moreover, the idea that people are brutes is disturbing. We have to see people as reasoning individuals; otherwise, we decay into fascism, religious extremism, etc."

You've never seen a reasoning brute? You've never seen a fascist attempting to do what they believe is best for their nation? You've never seen a reasoning zealot do what they think is best for their faith?

"Reason" is not some panacea that magically turns the barbarians into white-collar workers and lays the lion down with the lamb.

At any rate, I intended to suggest not that the great unwashed slavering masses will throw us repeatedly into war: I meant to suggest that any more abstract reasoning, any more intellectual appeal, is too open to debate, argument, and misinterpretation. A draft is quite clear.

Kinda sobering.

You're basically correct in your interpretation of my views on the security theater and the like. The sad, sorry state of the matter is that when your country is as wealthy as ours, and--more importantly--as large as ours, you kind of have to stop thinking about things any other way than statistically.

It's a hell of a thing to say, but honestly, what's a few thousand deaths in a fluke attack? What's a few hundred million dollars worth of property damage?

The likelihood of that happening to any one of us is so small as to be absurd--even less if everyone is armed, but that is a brand of crazy I don't expect to sell to everyone.

The damage these attacks has actually done to us has been to invoke this media meme of the evil terrorists coming to kill us in our moment of distraction.

The initial loss my country suffered has been compounded beyond all reason by the fear-mongering and reactionary policy-making. Worse still, while we fret about a loss of men and material over a decade ago, our government (with, apparently, our own consent and approval!) has gone on to attack our fundamental liberties and notions of decency so systematically that many still refuse to believe they're up to anything.

All because people are dumb, and get afraid, and are susceptible to the same emotional pandering as they've always been. Oddly enough, I'm actually in agreement with javert about the fact that people should reason more--I just know that you can't write policy that depends on it.