ToshiroOC

I recently read an article by retired RADM. Carey:

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0...032204,00.html

I just want to say that I think this was an absolutely BRILLIANT article. People seem have stopped thinking in terms of numbers and fallen to fear. His comments about funding really strike home, too.

In America, we lose about 725,000 people to heart disease every year and 550,000 people to cancer every year. That's about 3500 people a day - more than died in the terrorist attacks on the world trade center. If the money being put into some of the antiterrorism measures that do little more than reduce possible terrorism a little bit, like multimillion dollar scanning machines at airports, and instead was used to make a cure that cured only 1/3rd of a percent of our nation's heart disease, we could save more lives per year than if we stopped a WTC-sized attack every year.

Of course, terrorism is a threat that needs to be addressed - just passive measures like security that waits for terrorists to try and take action while huge amounts of tax dollars are required to sustain the passive defense do not strike at the root of the issue. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a step in the right direction, but as has been demonstrated by the Madrid bombings, the capability for terrorists to continue relatively large-scale operations has not been eliminated yet.

It is my opinion that there is only one sure way to stop terrorism: Terrorism must be made to carry such a high cost that no civilian of a foreign nation will consider it. Merely killing terrorists as they attempt to destroy is not a step far enough, because many of these terrorists (such as suicide bombers) have no regard for their own life. Rather, we should hold governments that do not suppress local terrorism to the greatest practical degree responsible for terrorists from their nation; eventually, all governments that currently provide aid or turn a blind eye to terrorism would either be held responsible for terrorism through military force and be replaced, or would put governments consistently against terrorist groups, leaving no safe place for anyone who tries to actively prepare for terrorist acts.

I welcome any discussion this brings about

As a side note, I do not support the way the Bush administration handled and justified the Iraq invasion. Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer who gassed thousands of Kurds, and did not suppress terrorism directed as us within his country - I don't believe there is much more justification needed, and the now seemingly debunked issue of WMD is in my opinion a moot point when it comes to worthwhile reasons for invasion. I do not believe that Saddam Hussein had any direct involvement with Al Qaeda, but I also believe that installing a government that will actively suppress terrorism will make a significant difference in the war against terrorism.

I certainly expect there will be holes and problems with my argument, so don't hesitate to point them out. I typed this all out in one go without doublechecking much to see if I was conceptually consistent to a sufficient degree, but I believe I was. Thanks for reading

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

bird chest

We should put money into both but heart disease is not a big vote getter on the ticket.

digerati

It's called. Drink more water, eat less fatty oily food, get off your ass every once and a while and stay away from the sweet candies. We can't lessen the threat of terrorism by changing our diet, but we can with heart disease.

Vampyromaniac

Gotta disagree with you, Toshi

I can stomach the fact that people die of natural diseases, but not when innocent people are killed prematurely by other people.

I'd rather have a world where the cure for cancer, etc. is never found, but people around the world are free from terrorism,
than a world where many people aren't killed by these diseases, but people still suffer tragedies like those in Spain, Israel, Ireland, New York, etc etc etc all around the world.

Progress is very slow in both fights, and we'll probably never eradicate either kind of killer,
but one of them disturbs me more than the other.

__________________

raid517

Well that is an in insanity all of its own. Millions die of heart disease and cancer and other illnesses every year, how can you compare that to the few thousand who die each year as a direct result of terrorism? How can you say, going by the number of lives saved alone, that it is better to pump infinite resources into a a war against terrorism, while neglecting other killers that serve often to decimate entire populations?

How do you make that kind of comparison?

GJ

bird chest

but people often times who die of heart disease have no one to blame but themselves.

raid517

And what about cancer (excluding lung cancer) and a multitude of other leathan diseases that have nothing to do with the way people live their lives?

What about them, who would you blame for that?

GJ

bird chest

And you want think the US should have universal health care. We have funded cancer and have been doing so for years with little gain. I have had 5 family members die from cancer raid and I still think the way we are handling it is fine.

raid517

No you are diverting attention from the debate. I don't think America should have universal health care - in the UK we have it and many people are grateful of it - and that is all that matters.

The question here was which was more ethical, to spend billions chasing terrorists - or to spend the money saving many more lives by investing it in research.

And on the contrary, there has been quite amazing progress in cancer research in the last 10 years - to the point where it is no longer always the death sentence it once was. I can quote many examples for you if you wish.

In any case there was no argument for universal health care there - regardless of the fact that I don't see what you guys have against it.

I don't think big business will allow universal health care in the US for many years to come - if indeed it ever does.

But as I said, that is another debate.

GJ

bird chest

Not everything is up to the government. That is why Ilike privatized health care because they need a head up on everyone else so if they create a cancer cure they are instant billionaires. Good incentive. My Grandma was saved her first time through cancer by kemo (spelling?) but died because it came back. Cancer is a problem but it is natural like vampyrionic said. Terrorism is not.

raid517

That is still side stepping the issue. While it is possible that investment in research (whether you subsequently privatise it or not) can yeild major benefits in healthcare and can in many cases can cure otherwise fatal illnesses, is it moral to spend billions of dollars tax payers money (since those are the people who are dying in their 100's of thousands) on chasing terrorists, when far more lives would be saved in investing in medical research.

Why make a distinction between 'natural' and 'unatural' - and why exactly is one any worse than the other? I'm sure in both cases the concequences and the emotions are equally devastating for everyone involved. So why should there be a distinction?

It is not an easy question - and personally don't have a simple answer. You can't ignore terrorism - but equally it may indeed be imoral to let millions die while you pusue what is essentially a political objective.

It is an interesting question - and you would have to be pretty inhuman to not have your concience pricked by it.

Maybe someone else has an answer for a change - because I certainly don't.

GJ

bird chest

NO IT IS NOT THE SAME. When somone was taken from you in a natural way and has a chance to say good bye. These people often come to terms with their death. Many of these cancer patients are old to. I don't want everyone to live for ever they need to die. Terrorism is different.

raid517

Then maybe you don't know how sudden and unexpected death can be? Not everyone gets a chance to say goodbye.


GJ

bird chest

Whatever raid you will never admit you are wrong so if murder and dying of natural causes to you are the same then fine. I am not goin to argue with you about it.

raid517

How is anything I said wrong - or are you unaware of the many thousands that die unexpectedly each year - and certainly not as a direct (or even indirect) result of terrorism?

I certainly won't admit to things that have no factual basis - and ignoring this fact in this particular case will not serve to make your case any more forcefully.

However as I said it is not an easy question to answer - and I really don't have an answer for it. Maybe you could say that fighting terrorism is just a very expensive thing to do - but then I'm not sure if this is enough on its own to justify the disparity.

As I said it's not something I feel in a position to give an answer to.

GJ

bird chest

Our government is running a 500 billion dollar defecit. I think we need to be taking money out of a lot of things and not putting it in. I know it is good for out economy if our country is in debt but it is too big.

raid517

So why not take it out of fighting terrorism? Why take it out of research instead?

Sigh... This debate isn't really going anywhere is it?

GJ

bird chest

Why take it out of the war. What war? We are in a occupation and a bloody one. Are you suggesting we just pick up and leave Iraq. We have a duty to rebuild that country we took them over we must rebuild them. I do not want them to be rebuilt in our image I want them rebuilt in their image. But yes cut back in military spending and cut back in a lot of kinds of spending. If people want cancer cured they can donate money. It is not the governments job to force the research of cancer on us.

raid517

No that's not what I'm saying and that's not what the debate was and you know it. The debate was why was one any more moral than the other?

You gave some vague answer about terrorism being too sudden a death and I pointed out that there are a lot more sudden deaths caused by natural causes than terrorism.

I still think you would have to be pretty inhuman not to have a conscience about it - but as I said unlike you I don't think there's any simple answer either.

GJ

bird chest

Name a wide spread natural cause that kills in seconds.

raid517

Well seconds is pushing it a bit, but there are a whole host of viral type infections that can kill over very short periods of time, like meningitis, flu and many others that I can't be assed to list. (its too depressing a subject to argue about). That is why biological weapons are often said to be so effective - exactly because of their ability to kill suddenly.

Nature is very good at finding ways to kill you. There are also kidney disorders, liver disorders, nervous and other disorders that people can live with for a long time without knowing about it. All of these are also highly effective killers. These also can't be conveniently attributed to life style. There are many other natural disorders that as you say take much longer to kill than others - but I personally find it a very thin definition that just because you have time to say goodbye that you shouldn't make any efforts to find cures for these disorders.

No one is saying everyone should live forever, but if you will recall the question is what is more moral? To save many lives with a pill, or to save possibly only a very few lives with a bullet? In medicine it is certainly considered unethical to take a life in order to save a life, so from a purely medical perspective the answer would clearly be no.

This is in any case something of a distraction. I already said I didn't have an easy answer for this. I don't think you can ignore terrorism - but it is still hard to square this with the relatively few lives that are saved and the disproportionate costs involved.

Of course if you don't have a conscience, then not even thinking about this is OK I guess. I am simply saying I do have a conscience and it stings a bit when I think about things like this - even though I know we can't ignore the threat that terrorism presents. Now why you have a problem with that don't know...

GJ

bird chest

I will give you that it is more then just saying good bye. But it is something I can not describe. I have no clear line that I can describe. But murder will never be cancer or any of those other diseases.