Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
PsuedoGhost said:There is hardly any evidence for this statement. Show me where anyone has empirical evidence that shows that we are making the situation better by fighting in Iraq. Show me. I'd like to see it. How have we prevented more attacks at home? Last time I checked there have still been attempts on us at home... The only thing that has prevented those attacks was the extra vigilence at home. If we spent more money on Homeland Security, beefing up the border, increasing biometric security procedures, etc all the warmongering that terrorists tried would be irrelevant. Who cares if they hate us, if they can't get into the country. We have a great big ocean between us and the rest of the world, its about god damn time we used it for once. No I am not rationalizing isolationism, but its about god damn time that the people of this country realize that the more we meddle in other people's affairs, the more we dig ourselves into a deeper hole. Meddling has been the cornerstone of American Foreign policy for the second half of the last century, and it will get us into more trouble than its worth if we do not take steps to prevent it from happening again.
Furthermore, even you must concede, that you CANNOT fight a conventional war against terrorism. If they want to fight with guerilla warfare, you respond with increased intelligence and law enforcement. If they want to suicide attack, then you increase security at entrance points. Hitting them at home accomplishes nothing, but ensuring that the next generation of potential terrorists grows up with a burning hatred for the "imperialistic nations of the West."
To put it simply, you cannot change a person's heart or mind with force. A lesson that history has shown us repeatedly.
PsuedoGhost said:There is hardly any evidence for this statement. Show me where anyone has empirical evidence that shows that we are making the situation better by fighting in Iraq. Show me. I'd like to see it. How have we prevented more attacks at home? Last time I checked there have still been attempts on us at home... The only thing that has prevented those attacks was the extra vigilence at home. If we spent more money on Homeland Security, beefing up the border, increasing biometric security procedures, etc all the warmongering that terrorists tried would be irrelevant. Who cares if they hate us, if they can't get into the country. We have a great big ocean between us and the rest of the world, its about god damn time we used it for once. No I am not rationalizing isolationism, but its about god damn time that the people of this country realize that the more we meddle in other people's affairs, the more we dig ourselves into a deeper hole. Meddling has been the cornerstone of American Foreign policy for the second half of the last century, and it will get us into more trouble than its worth if we do not take steps to prevent it from happening again.
Furthermore, even you must concede, that you CANNOT fight a conventional war against terrorism. If they want to fight with guerilla warfare, you respond with increased intelligence and law enforcement. If they want to suicide attack, then you increase security at entrance points. Hitting them at home accomplishes nothing, but ensuring that the next generation of potential terrorists grows up with a burning hatred for the "imperialistic nations of the West."
To put it simply, you cannot change a person's heart or mind with force. A lesson that history has shown us repeatedly.
GunnyL said:To put it simply, has there been a successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11? No, there hasn't. And one can hardly count a bunch of homegrown nutjobs as international, Islamic terrorists. Not quite honest, IMO.
And the math is simple common sense: If I'm tearing up YOUR yard, I'm not tearing up mine. Don't know how much more evidence to a simple equation as that you require.
Emmett said:Meddling in foriegn policy ended the cold war, the greatest threat to your security in our lives.
When you conventionally shoot a terrorist, they conventionally STAY shot.
The next generation of terrorists will grow up with an already existing hatred for peace loving society because their parents are still alive to teach it to them.
The answer to combating the problem is:
Different strategies for different times.PsuedoGhost said:Yeah, meddling in the Cold War got us a lot. Like Batista, Noriega, Saddam... All dictators backed by the US because we were afraid that democracies would not be able to withstand the pressures of communism.
Yes.How about Diem's South Vietnam? Hmmm...? How about Korea? What about the Shah? What ever happened to the concept of self determination? Why do we preach it so much, but when other people make decisions we overthrow their govnerment because it does not suit our purposes? Should we be doing that? Should we have the unequivocal say so to do whatever the hell we want with people?
They hate us because we are more powerful.The terrorists dont hate us because we are peaceful.
We meddle in order to stay at the top of the power pyramid. I'm OK with that.They hate us because we meddle, but for people who disavow any real history of the Middle East all they see is that they hate us for who we are. What a crock of bullshit. Open your eyes. They dont hate us for being Christian, or free or rich (although it definitely confuses them). They hate us for meddling in their affairs. They hate us for being in their lands. That is why they hate us.
Who's espousing ideological bullshit? It's about survival of the most powerful...............and sitting back and letting these fanatics spread like a cancer (as they have in France) is not worth any ideology.Please stop with your ideological bullshit.
Power struggle that neither have been able to win.If killing them works so well, why is it that the Palestinians and Israels have been at war for decades?
They hate us because we are more powerful.
We meddle in order to stay at the top of the power pyramid. I'm OK with that.
Who's espousing ideological bullshit? It's about survival of the most powerful...............and sitting back and letting these fanatics spread like a cancer (as they have in France) is not worth any ideology.
Power struggle that neither have been able to win.
Mr.Conley said:6 million people died over 8 years in the Holocaust. Maybe 50,000 are dead due to Islamic terrorism. For every person killed by terrorism worldwide, probably 10,000 die of malaria or some other preventable disease, many of them children. If it's about saving innocents, then fighting terrorism gets you the least bang for your buck.
Mr.Conley said:That's the thing, Hell will freeze over before Islamic terrorist can even begin to think about contemplating whether or not to consider talking about eventually planning for such an attack. They don't have the resources. Sure, I'd love a pink pony, but that doesn't mean I'm ever going to have one, and sure Islamic terrorist would love to 'destroy the West,' but their track record indicates that they can barely pull of 1 major attack every half century. Even suggesting that terrorist could perform such on attack on even 1% of the medical facilities in the West is riddiculous.
PsuedoGhost said:Until we acknowledge that all meddling causes are messes that we have to clean up later on down the road, we will never be able to get to the root cause of terrorism or anything for that matter. We'll never understand why the Arab world hates us, why Europe has a distaste for us. And as much as you may say "fuck em" eventually this attitude too will come back and haunt us. We no longer have the military power to parade around doing whatever we want. We never had the RIGHT to do so in the first place. You know what, if a people democratically elect someone who is opposed to the United States, fine so be it. Not, let's get all hellbent on changing their politics. That kind of bs has led to so many problems in so many countries... It's unbelievable. Let people govern how they want to? What happened to this founding principle of liberalism (libertarianism now)? What happened to the right of self determination? What gives us the right to meddle in other countries affairs? What if GB had toyed with us during our development? During our civil war? How would we have reacted?
America is a nation of hypocrisy. We preach freedom, but in reality its freedom on our terms, not on the people's.
PsuedoGhost said:Let me ask you something: If you tear up their yard, and their kids who might have been neutral on the matter suddenly hate you for it, and then 20 years down the line tear up your yard, was it worth it? Even if the tearing up 20 years down the line is far worse in magnitude than anything that their father could have done before hand?
Fallacious argument, based on speculation. Ignore evil today for what you assume it might become tomorrow? I think not.
Shooting terrorists only accomplishes anything in the short term. Thousands are more than willing to fill their shoes. Remember, violence only begets violence.
Disagree. Those potential "thousands" might decide there's a price to pay if they see enough heads on poles.
How do you end terrorism? Nation building. It really is that simple. You give your poor, uneducated tank fodder something to aspire towards. Once they have that, they will think twice before picking up a gun.
Originally Posted by GunnyL said:Terrorism can actually destroy us as well, just by a different means.
Originally Posted by PsuedoGhost said:How? By simultaneously hijacking every airplane in the world and running them all into buildings? I doubt the terrorist can come up with something as final as superpower war.
Err... PseudoGhost didn't write that sport. I did.theHawk said:You seriously have to ask this question? You can't see that all they have to do is get their hands on a nuke or some deadly biological weapons, and they'll easily be able to kill millions?
I also find it a little strange that you use the low number of deaths of 9/11 compared to natural caused deaths/accidents to justify terrorism, when you just as easily could compare those high numbers of natural deaths/accidents to the low number of deaths our military has taken over the last 5 years. I guess we see where your loyalties lie.
Anyway, we are in a War against Islam, the term "terror" is just a politically correct way of saying it.
Dude WTF, stop making stuff up. I never said we do nothing about terrorism. If you had actually read what I posted, you would have noticed that I propose we continue to maintain border security and screen foriegn visitors and commercial goods of potential terrorist threats, but I feel the $800 billion we're going to spend in Iraq would be much better spent finding solutions to problems that kill hundreds and even millions of people every year, not Islamic terrorism, which has killed 3,000 Americans over the past half century.CSM said:I suppose then that we can just ignore the terrorists until the number of deaths reach some arbitrary number.
Actually I sort of like that metric. We should use it for most issues we face. Aids: don't fund research there until the numbers are high enough. Education: so what if a few kids get substandard education? When the numbers get high enough we'll do something. Welfare: well, hell, the unemployment numbers are way down, so lets just stop handing out welfare checks altogether until the numbers get higher.
Heck, pick any issue and we can use this metric to justify inaction...I like it a lot!
Mr.Conley said:Err... PseudoGhost didn't write that sport. I did.
Are you really calling me a terrorist because I want to prevent malaria?
Now, as to the one part of your post that is relevant, the first paragraph. You state that if terrorists were to obtain biological or nuclear weapons and sneak them into the United States, then they could potentially kill millions. That is true, and that is why I say we should maintain and expand our already running programs to detect such threats at the points of entry. I never said anything about dismantling our current domestic protections, you imagined that.
You second paragraph is unintelligable garbage.
So here is my question, which one saves more lives? Spending $800 billion dollar fighting an enemy that, over the last 50 years, has killed approximately 3,000 Americans, or use the money to find a cure to heart disease, which kills 1 million people yearly, or to reduce the number of fatal accidents, which kills 42,000 annually, along with several dozen other major afflictions, all for significantly smaller amount of cash and effort. You choose.
Besides September 11th, name one successful terrorist attack by Islamic terrorists against the continental United States that has kill even 500 people.CSM said:How long would it take the terrorists to gather the resources if we didn't "interfere"? The fact that Hezbola has some pretty sophisticated weaponry (and has used it) only a few years after Israel stopped "interfering in Lebanon should tell you something.
Maybe the reason they can only launch isolated attacks and has limited resources is because someone interferes!
I dont know which cave you live in but you need to get them to install cable TV for you. One major attack every 50 years????
Mr.Conley said:Dude WTF, stop making stuff up. I never said we do nothing about terrorism. If you had actually read what I posted, you would have noticed that I propose we continue to maintain border security and screen foriegn visitors and commercial goods of potential terrorist threats, but I feel the $800 billion we're going to spend in Iraq would be much better spent finding solutions to problems that kill hundreds and even millions of people every year, not Islamic terrorism, which has killed 3,000 Americans over the past half century.
It's your choice, would you rather save another 3,000 Americans over the next 50 years, or would you rather save 50 million?
If the point of the War on Terror is to minimize the number of Americans who die wrongful, preventable deaths, then investing in medicine, improved automobile navigation, environmentally friendly industrial production and other efforts will every year, for less then we are spending on Iraq, save more than 10,000 times the number of America killed in a terrorist attack EVER.GunnyL said:The problem with your argument is countless billions have been, and are STILL being spent on the research you list. I wouldn't allocate another dime for any of it if we lived in a Utopian paradise. If you're going to give ME a say in the matter, I'd prefer to keep more of what I earn.
That's where your wrong. We are on the edge of a quantum shift in the way medicine is produced and administered. Artifical hearts and new organs, genetic engineering of the human genetic code to reduce the risk of disease, nanobots capable of delivering chemotherapy directly to cancer cells without affecting the surronding tissue. Right now these advances in medicine are at least 25-30 years away, but with less than 5% of the funding and manpower we're putting into Iraq, we can reduce that number to less than a decade.GunnyL said:The fact is, all the reasons you list fall under the heading "Mortality." You're looking for an answer that doesn't exist in the mortal sense of the word. Obviously however, you are more than willing to throw my tax dollars after your unrealistic idealism.
I bolded the important part because apparently you keep missing it.dilloduck said:Apparently you're willing to take the chance that radical islam will never be able to damage America proper and don't feel like it would be a threat if it proceded to radicalize the rest of the world? One little Islamic nuke--no biggie huh?
So I'm guessing you'd rather let 50 million Americans die.dilloduck said:Dude WTF, stop making stuff up. I never said we do nothing about terrorism. If you had actually read what I posted, you would have noticed that I propose we continue to maintain border security and screen foriegn visitors and commercial goods of potential terrorist threats, but I feel the $800 billion we're going to spend in Iraq would be much better spent finding solutions to problems that kill hundreds and even millions of people every year, not Islamic terrorism, which has killed 3,000 Americans over the past half century.
It's your choice, would you rather save another 3,000 Americans over the next 50 years, or would you rather save 50 million?
Mr.Conley said:If the point of the War on Terror is to minimize the number of Americans who die wrongful, preventable deaths, then investing in medicine, improved automobile navigation, environmentally friendly industrial production and other efforts will every year, for less then we are spending on Iraq, save more than 10,000 times the number of America killed in a terrorist attack EVER.
That's where your wrong. We are on the edge of a quantum shift in the way medicine is produced and administered. Artifical hearts and new organs, genetic engineering of the human genetic code to reduce the risk of disease, nanobots capable of delivering chemotherapy directly to cancer cells without affecting the surronding tissue. Right now these advances in medicine are at least 25-30 years away, but with less than 5% of the funding and manpower we're putting into Iraq, we can reduce that number to less than a decade.
GunnyL said:I'm not wrong. You just have a problem distinguishing between reality and La-La Land. I can't fault your idealism except for the fact that it is unrealistic.
We, you, they, whoever are not going to cheat death, no matter how hard you try, and how much money you throw at it. It is one of the guarantees in life.
We've already been throwing countless billions and countless man-hours at cancer and heart disease, and whatever other ailment you wish to come upwith and there SITLL is no cure for the common cold, much less them. Meanwhile, I work about ten hours a week for free.
