• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your odds of being killed by terrorism.... [W:194]

shrubnose said:
The people who make food products loaded with fat,salt and sugar spend billions advertising their death-dealing products.

Try to watch TV or use the internet without being exposed to their advertisements.
Click to expand...

Yes. Many things are more deadly than terrorists.
 
Dittohead not! said:
We should be able to end that sort of advertising. We did, after all, end big tobacco's lies about how their product was harmless.
Click to expand...

Those items are listed in the packaging labels...
 
Dittohead not! said:
It does, and the effect one seeks during a war seems to be as many dead bodies as possible without completely bringing on the condemnation of the rest of the world.

So, no nukes, and no chemical weapons. Anything else is fair game.
Click to expand...

The trouble with many is that the agents themselves are toxic to all humans, not just those in enemy uniforms.

Agent Orange and DU have poisoned our guys too, many of them.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The trouble with many is that the agents themselves are toxic to all humans, not just those in enemy uniforms.

Agent Orange and DU have poisoned our guys too, many of them.
Click to expand...

Indeed they did. I know a vet who has terrible problems now due to Agent Orange.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I dont get your point then...people know what they are getting.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they read the labels, they know what they're getting. They knew what they were getting back when big tobacco was selling us poison using the Marlboro Man as well, if they read the label. The point is that TV advertising is a lot more powerful than a label in small print put on a package of anything.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, if they read the labels, they know what they're getting. They knew what they were getting back when big tobacco was selling us poison using the Marlboro Man as well, if they read the label. The point is that TV advertising is a lot more powerful than a label in small print put on a package of anything.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I agree. And?
 
Dittohead not! said:
...are pretty slim:



source

So, why do we spend so much time, energy, and money on this issue?
Click to expand...
How much does it cost to basically say no to unvetted immigrants?
We should follow the Statue of Liberty's poem and only allow in the huddled masses who yearn to be free. If they don't want to be free, they shouldn't be allowed in.
 
Eric7216 said:
How much does it cost to basically say no to unvetted immigrants?
We should follow the Statue of Liberty's poem and only allow in the huddled masses who yearn to be free. If they don't want to be free, they shouldn't be allowed in.
Click to expand...

There are a lot more "huddled masses" than we can actually take in, and that's for sure, so yes, we do need to be selective. I'm not sure what that has to do with spending a trillion or so on a nation building project in a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad however.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There are a lot more "huddled masses" than we can actually take in, and that's for sure, so yes, we do need to be selective. I'm not sure what that has to do with spending a trillion or so on a nation building project in a secular state in the name of fighting Islamic Jihad however.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what the trillion $ spending has to do with the odds of being killed by a terrorist. I thought that was for jobs and economic development for the country.
Surprised that Trump talked about ending all Islamic terrorism since almost all of it takes place in Islamic countries and hopefully Congress will dissuade him from much of that. But that seems to have nothing to do with his America First economic plan.
It costs nothing to simply not allow in people unvetted.
 
Eric7216 said:
I am not sure what the trillion $ spending has to do with the odds of being killed by a terrorist. I thought that was for jobs and economic development for the country.
Surprised that Trump talked about ending all Islamic terrorism since almost all of it takes place in Islamic countries and hopefully Congress will dissuade him from much of that. But that seems to have nothing to do with his America First economic plan.
It costs nothing to simply not allow in people unvetted.
Click to expand...

Correct.
It's foreign wars in the name of the war on terror that cost lives and treasure.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct.
It's foreign wars in the name of the war on terror that cost lives and treasure.
Click to expand...
Probably getting off topic here and I understand why you as a libertarian would oppose foreign wars. I suspect that Trump agrees with you and will not spend on foreign wars but then he had that line about ending terrorism.
I am more in line with JFK's "we will pay any price, bear any burden.... in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Iraq was a good war, removed an international threat, and saved lives of Iraqis. Unfortunately that victory was frittered away. Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq 2 are silly wars, ineffectively managed and humanitarian disasters.
 
Eric7216 said:
Probably getting off topic here and I understand why you as a libertarian would oppose foreign wars. I suspect that Trump agrees with you and will not spend on foreign wars but then he had that line about ending terrorism.
I am more in line with JFK's "we will pay any price, bear any burden.... in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Iraq was a good war, removed an international threat, and saved lives of Iraqis. Unfortunately that victory was frittered away. Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq 2 are silly wars, ineffectively managed and humanitarian disasters.
Click to expand...

Trump has said he opposes nation building sorts of wars like the war in Iraq. If he really means that, then score a point for Trump, a rather big point at that.

The war in Iraq turned out to be a disaster, just as I thought it would back when it started. The debacle it became was blamed on "liberals", just as I expected it would back then. History does repeat itself. The same exact thing was said about the disaster that the war in Vietnam proved to be.

The bottom line is that limited wars to win hearts and minds and/or spread democracy are doomed to failure from the start and should never be started in the first place. The policy needs to be that we don't go to war unless there is a clear and present danger to the homeland, without a formal declaration of war, without the people of this great democracy being totally behind the war. When you do go to war, you do it with no holds barred to destroy the enemy, then you go home.

You know, like the last war that really was a war, the one in which the US and its allies destroyed Nazism and the Imperialist Japanese.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and, if we can put a stop to big tobacco selling poison via TV ads, we can put a stop to fake food being sold the same way. (My original point)
Click to expand...

Who determines what is fake (inassume you mean fake food is deadly food?)
 
Sure. And your odds of being killed by a Japanese Zero in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor were pretty close to nill. That isn't the point. There are wider political arguments that have tremendous ramifications for our civilization that are determined in war. Likewise, the impact of terrorism, particularly Islamist terrorism, is far beyond its 'mere' bodycount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom