Sick of Politics

alfadriver wrote: To the kind Dr... We really need to put this terrorsim thing into perspective. Counting the ones lost in the wars, how many lives have been lost to terrorists in the past, say 10 years? Does 10,000 Americans sound fair? 4000 in Iraq, 1000 in Afganistan, 3000 for 9/11, and just for error- 2000 more? So, 10,000 American lives lost- terrible, right? Over 10 years. Right? We loose OVER 40,000 Americans in driving accidents EVERY YEAR. So over that 10 year time span, 400,000 Americans lost their lives. Sounds like we need a "War on Car Accidents" if we are basing all of this on American lives. Or at least send drunk drivers to Gitmo, since they are the equivallent to holding an RPG and just pointing it.... According to the CDC, over 600,000 Americans lost their lives to heart disease in 2005. Should we have a "War on Heart Disease"? Diabetes lost 75,000 Americans- "War on Sugar"? Should we send sugar beet farmers to Gitmo? I'm not trying to lessen the losses of 10,000 Americans due to Terrorism or the War on Terrorism, as that loss is truly horrible. But to subscribe to taking away rights based on the simple phrase "All Men Are Created Equal" in the name of saving American lives.... You could do better than that. Eric

Looking deeper into the CDC report, we need both a "War on Murder" (+18,000 Americans in 2005), and a "War on Suicide" (+32,000 Americans in 2005). Interesting that people kill themselves almost at twice the rate that they kill each other.

Almost 20,000 Americans died in Falls- "War on Balance"?

I suppose I could go on, but the point stands- Terrorism and the War on Terrorism has killed a relatively small amount to many other preventable deaths of Americans. Interesing the effort we put into it, and the vileness of some of the arguments... Especially compared to other dangers that Americans must face in life.

E-

Salanis, my comment on never being successful by holding hands and singing is in reference to organized groups that want to exterminate you, like foreign governments. For all practical purposes, Al Quida, Iran, North Korea are foreign governments. Show me one case in history where being nice to, say, the Huns, for example, led to them not doing whatever the berkeley they wanted to do anyway?

The history of the Indian independance from the UK goes a whole lot deeper than Ghandi. I'm not an Indian history expert, but I would venture to say that Ghandi and his pacifism (at that point, he had a history of violence in S.Africa, if I recall) was a minor player in the whole thing. And the U.S. civil rights movement probably advanced further and faster because of armed black groups than because of pacifist black groups.

I would say the difference here is that we are not at war with an aggressive foreign force out to conquer and dominate. We have been attacked by groups seeking retribution.

The Jihadists don't hate Canada.

Salanis wrote: I would say the difference here is that we are not at war with an aggressive foreign force out to conquer and dominate. We have been attacked by groups seeking retribution. The Jihadists don't hate Canada.

Umm, they do, actually. We've managed to stop a few of their plots, including one recently where they planned to behead our Prime Minister.

Nashco wrote: So...how did the "unknown infection agent from SPACE" get to earth? In a capsule made (by humans) specifically for catching stuff to turn into bio-weapons and bring it back to earth.

Not in the book I read, it didn't.

Wasn't it carried along in some rock or ice samples? Or something like that?

Yes. It was entirely an unintended result of the mission. And, as Hess accurately points out, the 'secret government lab' was NOT in fact evil, it was good - intended to be a safe place where a crack team of scientists and doctors could be isolated from any major outbreak and work on solving the crisis.

Although it was still the rash decision of top brass to sterilize the place with a nuke, that threatened a massive spreading of the virus.

Agreed! But "rash" !=! "evil", nor does it imply intent to destroy mankind on purpose. Although misguided, the military's intent was to STOP the infection, not spread it.

Somehow, this is interpreted into being a chemical weapons lab that was releasing the infection on purpose (or at least creating it on purpose to kill innocent people.

Because Everyone Knows Those Rich Evil White Guys Will Do Anything For A Buck.

berkeley politics. I wish the filter didn't censor that word, so as to emphasize how much I'm sick of politics.

Most... Ironic...Thread...

Ever.

Carry on.

Well, It's been nearly a decade since I read the book, but I seem to recall there being a bioweapons motive behind it. I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but wikipedia agrees with me:

The scientists think the satellite, designed to capture upper-atmosphere microorganisms for bio-weapon exploitation, returned with an microorganism that kills by disseminated intra-vascular coagulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_strain

Clearly, it's on the internet, it must be true.

Bryce