Azadre, I apologize, I should have posted this in a new thread instead. Will work on that right now. Edit: Moved my responses to a separate thread.
to compare it straight out is dumb, but if you narrow the comparison it doesn't have to be. If you only talk about resources placed into education and taking steps into preventing the two things, it makes sense to compare.
Education? I thought you were talking about fast food? If you are concerned about fast food being unhealthy, how exactly do you compare resources for education and military expenditure? Do you single out "education about fast food" resources?
When it comes to terrorism or any other type of political violence you have to address the root causes. Attacking the symptoms in the case of terrorism is actually counterproductive, because it only strengthens and intensifies the root causes. Some actors in the international system do examine grievances and determine if they are legitimate or not. If the grievances do have legitimacy, they begin to address them either unilaterally or enter into negotiations with groups that use violence to accomplish political goals in order to reach negotiated settlements. Then you have other actors in the international system that view the above approach as one of weakness or appeasement, and steadfastly believe that you do not negotiate with terrorists. Sometimes this belief is sincere, but more often than not, states need a foreign threat to justify the expansion of state control at the domestic level, the restriction of rights internally, a large military budget, and so on. Thus, they feel that the problem can be solved by aggressively targeting organizations and their infrastructure. In the short term this type of strategy may temporarily succeed, but it does not address the perceived grievances on the ground. Only a political solution can tackle those issues. Also, despite the public rhetoric, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find an actor in the international system that has not in one way or another negotiated with groups it believes are terrorist organizations. Just and lasting resolutions require the relevant actors to make tough choice that may be unpopular in the short term, but are in the best interest of long term stability. Often times there is too much of an emphasis on punishment. Truth and reconciliation commissions have been successful in Africa and Latin America, because they allowed perpetrators (both state and non-state) to confess to wrongdoings and receive amnesty. Other models have focused on integrating non-state actors into the political process (examples include Mozambique and El Salvador) in order to give them a vested interest in the well-being of the state. It is also important to get regional players and neighboring countries involved in the process, because they have a stake in the outcome due to geography whereas other external actors from difference parts of the world may not have to directly live with the consequences of their decisions. Although this is an issue that should be taken on a case by case basis since every conflict is different, past models and experiences do have broader applicability and provide important lessons on how to handle political violence in the present and the future. This is an issue that can be resolved, but it requires a great deal of political will, the willingness to engage with actors that you otherwise would not want to deal with, and the fortitude to make decisions that at the time are unpopular.
Not sure what this proves other than that right wing superhero Reagan was too busyfunneling money and arms to terrorists to bother responding to terrorist actions. maybe he was a secret muslim too!
Odds are that you and everyone here is more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorists attack.
Yes, there is education about nutrition in schools, and it certainly could be more targeted to deal with nutrition issues concerning fast food. It wouldn't have to be to fast food specifically but nutrition overall. It could also be addressed with physical education concerns.
its even better when fatherland security chief chertoff is the one who advocated for and bought them on behalf of the government and then when he leaves his job promptly goes and gets hired by the very company who made the body scanners...pretty sweet deal. chertoff should be in jail. ive heard that term "theater of safety" alot - thats exactly what it is.
viva mexico! actually, i will drive everywhere from now on. im tired of being treated like a criminal everytime i fly. until we get these body scanners and invasive pat-down out of the airport i wont be flying. dont be surprised to see the TSA working outside the airports in the near future - there will probably be some "terrorist attack" at a shoping mall and they will require you to get body scanned and felt up if you want to go to dillards or forever 17. everything has been done incrementally - first you take off your shoes and belt, then you cant bring liquids on, then bottles over 3 oz...now its naked body scanning and getting felt up by some minimum wage, high-school drop-out, wanna-be mall cop. if people will accept this what wont they accept? our economy is in the toilet and we have become an orwellian police state where a bunch of jack-boot government punks can douse you in low levels of radiation and look at and grope your naked body - it should be clear to all at this point that "the terrorists" have won.
