Why are we fighting Brown Men and not The Clown? (USA)

2005 --
U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 56
U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 17
U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 11
2006 --
U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 28
U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 27
U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 12
2007 --
U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 19
U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 0
U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 17

Total of ALL US deaths by terrorism in 2005-2007: 103
Total of US deaths by heart disease every 3 hours in 2006: 216
******
Heart disease and cancers kill about 2 of us every minute. Now while I understand that not all heart attacks are self-inflicted by stuffing oneself with Big Macs and fries, it is undeniable that Americans pose a vastly greater threat to their own lives than the best efforts of some of our most dedicated and persistent enemies.

If we are willing to spend piles of money to wage wars to, ostensibly, prevent the loss of a few lives at the hands of enemy combatants, doesn’t it make more sense to spend the same dollars to promote healthier lifestyles here at home?

How would we react to a leadership that refocused our budget away from large-scale anti-terrorism operations abroad and instead poured the money into healthy school lunches, school & municipal athletic programs, and subsidized domestic produce farms? We would, of course, still cultivate intelligence contacts in key areas of concern and occasionally send in deltas/SEALS to reach out and touch individual targets of interest. But we’d be using a hammer to strike the nail as opposed to dropping a building on it.

What would be wrong with that approach? The only thing that comes to mind is that it would possibly interfere with our individual rights to eat/drink/smoke ourselves to death.

I see your point, but I think that the fear we have (we, just being The People in general) is that terrorism has to be contained. That is, the reason that there were only 56 US citizens killed by terrorism last year is that we've been busting our asses to fight the terrorists. Now, I'm not arguing whether it's true or not that if we stopped there would be multiple events like 9/11, but I think that's what folks are afraid of.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya

2005 --
U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 56
U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 17
U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 11
2006 --
U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 28
U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 27
U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 12
2007 --
U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 19
U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 0
U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 17

Total of ALL US deaths by terrorism in 2005-2007: 103
Total of US deaths by heart disease every 3 hours in 2006: 216
******
Heart disease and cancers kill about 2 of us every minute. Now while I understand that not all heart attacks are self-inflicted by stuffing oneself with Big Macs and fries, it is undeniable that Americans pose a vastly greater threat to their own lives than the best efforts of some of our most dedicated and persistent enemies.

If we are willing to spend piles of money to wage wars to, ostensibly, prevent the loss of a few lives at the hands of enemy combatants, doesn’t it make more sense to spend the same dollars to promote healthier lifestyles here at home?

How would we react to a leadership that refocused our budget away from large-scale anti-terrorism operations abroad and instead poured the money into healthy school lunches, school & municipal athletic programs, and subsidized domestic produce farms? We would, of course, still cultivate intelligence contacts in key areas of concern and occasionally send in deltas/SEALS to reach out and touch individual targets of interest. But we’d be using a hammer to strike the nail as opposed to dropping a building on it.

What would be wrong with that approach? The only thing that comes to mind is that it would possibly interfere with our individual rights to eat/drink/smoke ourselves to death.

---

This is such a complicated question. First, the United States is the current big dog on the world stage. This will change surely in time, likely without the US even realizing it's happening at first. But for now we get to be the Romulus and Remus of our age. But that's the thing, even I don't know how to rationalize morally the war with Iraq based on the crazy reasons we started it. Sure you can defend it based on the present, somewhat, but figuring out why we even went there logically? It can't be done. Bush was just fucking imperial. :hist:

So it goes. . .

Funding education and shit for the children is great, I mean I don't care about the kids but they're cute so I can see why some people do. The problem is the same people that want the funding for their kids. None of them agree on what they want uniformly and they're all powerfully motivated by special-snowflake syndrome. The rise in our current litigious society is turning what once was a pretty good system into one rife with bureaucratic inefficiency. That said school systems differ wildly based upon the economic makeup of its students, capitalism at work! :sci:

Liberty! It is always easier to create a law than it is to take away a law. Respecting the freedoms of others is pretty much what every American knows the constitution is about. We've never read it, but we're pretty sure it's about freedom. So those that smoke, those that have smoked, and those that aren't missionaries trying to free the unhealthy should dislike the idea that businesses can't decide for themselves what legal substances they allow inside their business. Beware the health missionaries, they preach a gilded cage. :mad:

I have forgotten my point. Heart disease is bad.

We already have healthy school lunches, school & municipal athletic programs in place, sometimes not operated efficiently. My wife is a cafeteria manager in an elementary school, and I can attest to the nutritional value and variety her cafeteria produces. Most of the menu is controlled by nutritionists and follows state regulations.

I expected killer clowns in this thread, dammit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya

What would be wrong with that approach? The only thing that comes to mind is that it would possibly interfere with our individual rights to eat/drink/smoke ourselves to death.

---

Yeah, exactly this. There's a big difference from someone protecting you from an attacker and someone protecting you from yourself. People should be allowed to make their own tradeoffs between lifespan and living the way they want to. What is it to you that someone would rather eat Big Macs and extra large fries than have to go on a strict diet for the rest of his life in order to bring his weight down and maybe live a while longer (unless you're paying for his socialized healthcare)? I mean, my own personal weight is just fine (or even a bit close to the low side, purely because of my genes), but I'm sure I'd be healthier if I were to exercise more. The problem is I don't want to; to me, being a little healthier is not worth spending forty-five minutes exercising a day.

That said, we do spend way too much money on the War on Terrorism. But it's not like we've got a huge pile of money sitting around burning a hole in our collective pocket; we have a gigantic budget deficit. The idea that we have to spend the money on something doesn't make sense.