Politics

[mikey]

inhaling even half a cubic foot of DHMO is deadly!

[Altissimo]

dhmo FALLS FROM THE SKY YALL

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

terrorism numbers are always low though, it's not about killing people (I mean neither is lack of healthcare, though it is effective).  Just saying that you can find a better example, like DHMO or cell phones

The reason I mentioned terrorism is because in the GOP we currently have a candidate who pledged to "bomb the hell out of ISIS", his only real contender (Cruz) saying he'd "make the sand glow".

I'm not really sure if that's something that could be fixed "easily"...

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

one could also argue that the reason why the deaths from terrorism are lower than they could be is because governments are actively working to stop terrorism, not to mention any other deaths or costs that result from the actions of terrorist groups (i.e. war and other conflicts in the Middle East, refugees, etc.)...

That argument simply has no basis in reality. The "efforts" in solving terrorism have been things like the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, both of which were enormous failures.

not to mention the fact that you can't just leave a threat like that unresolved, for several reasons (one of the most important ethically is the well-being of the people actually living in those conditions; it sure wouldn't help international relations if everybody just went "ah, screw it" and did absolutely nothing to help- I don't know if you're explicitly encouraging that, but your post seems to drastically downplay the ramifications of the situation).

Of course. ISIS won't just "go away". But the US has only made the problem worse, and it's a problem we have no place in actively resolving. I have nothing against helping, say, the Kurds fight ISIS by giving them humanitarian support and under certain circumstances even using Special Forces, so long as we go through the proper legal channels. But carpet bombing and all the rest of the tactics we've used have done nothing to ISIS' numbers.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-resources

That doesn't seem like an easy fix at all, especially considering the politics behind it.

That argument simply has no basis in reality. The "efforts" in solving terrorism have been things like the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, both of which were enormous failures.

You're oversimplifying it. Neither of those are the only thing that governments (referring to more than just the U.S. government) have done.

Of course. ISIS won't just "go away". But the US has only made the problem worse, and it's a problem we have no place in actively resolving. I have nothing against helping, say, the Kurds fight ISIS by giving them humanitarian support and under certain circumstances even using Special Forces, so long as we go through the proper legal channels. But carpet bombing and all the rest of the tactics we've used have done nothing to ISIS' numbers.

On the contrary, ISIS is losing territory, losing important members, facing increased infighting, and growing weaker (despite what my grandmother says ). Just in case you doubt me, I found a few articles: Article 1; Article 2; Article 3; Article 4; Article 5.

Though, we can't be certain what will happen after ISIS crumbles- whether other groups will take its place, or whether there might be a brief time of peace, though I would disagree on your conclusion that other nations outside of the region shouldn't help, as the Middle East is a very unstable region and likely won't fix itself without some form of foreign aid (though, if we make the same mistakes as in the past, all efforts thus far will be pointless).

[FireArrow]

He's not saying we should be isolationist, he's saying we shouldn't carpet bomb.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

it's a problem we have no place in actively resolving

all the rest of the tactics we've used have done nothing to ISIS' numbers.

[FireArrow]

I have nothing against helping, say, the Kurds fight ISIS by giving them humanitarian support and under certain circumstances even using Special Forces, so long as we go through the proper legal channels. But carpet bombing and all the rest of the tactics we've used have done nothing to ISIS' numbers.

His point is: ISIS is not a major threat to the U.S. right now so while helping isn't necessary, I have nothing against it. If we do help though, we should change our tactics because the way we've currently been doing things and the way Trump and Cruz propose isn't helping anyone.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

And the way he is making that point is by oversimplifying and downplaying the whole situation.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

That doesn't seem like an easy fix at all, especially considering the politics behind it.
You're oversimplifying it. Neither of those are the only thing that governments (referring to more than just the U.S. government) have done.
On the contrary, ISIS is losing territory, losing important members, facing increased infighting, and growing weaker (despite what my grandmother says ). Just in case you doubt me, I found a few articles: Article 1; Article 2; Article 3; Article 4; Article 5.

Though, we can't be certain what will happen after ISIS crumbles- whether other groups will take its place, or whether there might be a brief time of peace, though I would disagree on your conclusion that other nations outside of the region shouldn't help, as the Middle East is a very unstable region and likely won't fix itself without some form of foreign aid (though, if we make the same mistakes as in the past, all efforts thus far will be pointless).

The main reason ISIS is losing ground is because of their conflicts with other Islamic terror groups; the Taliban and Al Qaeda have both denounced ISIS. They've mainly lost ground in Syria, likely due in large part to their fighting with Assad.
U.S. involvement had nothing to do with ISIS' dwindling numbers.

And the way he is making that point is by oversimplifying and downplaying the whole situation.

yes god forbid I don't go into 10010% detail when I was just posting a political rant I had about the attitude towards the relative non issue of terrorism vs the actual crisis of lack of healthcare

[mikey]

I don't think you can say one is more of an issue than the other, it doesn't seem fair to either of the people whose lives are affected by those

[FireArrow]

One is affected significantly more americans than the other. Saying terrorism is a non-issue is insulting to people who had family die in terrorist attacks, but prioritizing it over much more relevant issues to avoid "insulting them" is just dumb.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Note that I said "relative nonissue".

[EFitTrainr]

I walk into a politics discussion on the internet, and everything I saw was civil and not angry! I WANT MY MONEY BACK

[mikey]

so britian voted out of the EU just now.  I hear that's a pretty bad thing for world politics

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

And now the pound is at a 33 year low.