It would seem to me that we should since they all pose more risk of death than terrorists, doubt me? See what the CDC says here are a few stats for all those who just love this war and have no problem with thier civil liberties being taken over it.
1 in 88,000 of a terrorist attack
1 in 1,500,00 of a terrorist-caused shopping mall disaster assuming one such incident a week and you shop two hours a week
1 in 55,000,000 in a terrorist-caused plane disaster assuming one such incident a month and you fly once a month ( 1 )
1 in 55,928 of death by lightening
1 in 20,605 in your clothes igniting
1 in 10,455 of dying in your bathtub
1 in 10,010 by falling from a ladder or scaffolding
1 in 9,396 due to excessive heat
1 in 8,389 due to excessive cold
1 in 7,972 in a drowning accident
1 in 6,842 in a railway accident.
2006-11-25 06:38:16 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
While we're discussing how about the war on poverty and the war on drugs, have we "won" those yet?
2006-11-25 06:59:44 · update #1
to The Government... Mule hope your second tour is safe my friend, I REALLY REALLY wish you didn't have to be over there, I think there are far more intelligent ways to stop terrorism and wish we had a government that would invest in a more workable solution, that said best of luck and come home safe, your country appreciates you lthe eft and the right believe me
2006-11-25 07:03:02 · update #2
Actually the world didn't agree that Hitler had to be stopped, there were vast efforts at appeasement which failed, the only reason Hitler was eventually defeated was due to the Japanese bombing pearl harbor bringing the full force of the US Miltary into the war, we were on the sidelines until then and it wasn;t Hitler but his allied Japanese counterparts that actully got us in there know you're history before you just spout off
2006-11-25 07:40:08 · update #3
Note to ME: I am using statistical averages based on a preset group of scientific variables, while your assertion is just that with no factula basis to be judged against as you posit it, sorry but you are just WRONG
2006-11-25 09:17:24 · update #4
I'm not a huge fan of the war, but I have served successfully one tour in Iraq and I am currently on my second tour. I admit it is interesting to see the odds you lay out. My wife needs to see them so she might not worry about me as much over here. LOL But honestly, we fight terrorism because it is an ideal that goes against what America stands for. Unlike the other issues you've mentioned, that is the difference...it goes against who we are. That plus it gets a lot of media attention and honestly people are interested because it is a puzzle they can't solve. So that is my two cents...I'll now get off my soap box. SSG Bitson
2006-11-25 06:57:51 · answer #1 · answered by The Government Mule 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Statistics can always be misleading, and I'd love to know how they figured the probability of a terrorist attack out
But terrorism is on purpose, the others are all accidental, not that you were looking for an explanation, but anyway
2006-11-25 06:40:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The numbers of lifeless and wounded inflicted via an enemy, in spite of the undeniable fact that extremely substantial, are actually not the only reason of struggling with or waging conflict. some will gladly provide up their freedoms for "peace" despite if cruel tyranny is enforced upon them. Re: @ under 20% of yank Colonists have been for the revolution. to avert conflict with the main effective u . s . a . in the worldwide on the time, maximum Colonists have been keen to stay in relative peace under what the vast majority of the inhabitants seen to be the not easy tyranny of the English Crown. Many human beings concern dropping our freedom extra advantageous than dying. guy or woman freedoms for our fellow electorate and our progeny are extra substantial to us than our lives. life's not very just about me. it particularly is how we've been given the freedoms we've and regrettably, it particularly is the only way we are going to save them.
2016-12-29 11:40:58 · answer #3 · answered by frahm 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have come to the conclusion that terrorism will still exist whether or not we compromise our civil liberties. The only people who are going to agree to searches and seizures are the people who abide by the law. Terrorists will not.
2006-11-25 06:42:01 · answer #4 · answered by Joe K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you want to start with the statistics, then your chances of being killed in Iraq are slim to none compared to your chances of being killed on the highways this Christmas.
The world agreed that Hitler had to be stopped, and the world needs to agree that terrorism needs to be stopped.
2006-11-25 07:20:21 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Yes we should.
I hereby declare a War on falling from a ladder or scaffolding.
Alert the Internet.
2006-11-25 06:40:11 · answer #6 · answered by Meep, the Kind Wolf 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. We should. Who wants to fit into society anyway?
2006-11-25 07:30:24 · answer #7 · answered by TheShadowIllusionist 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree...lol....there should be a second Patriot Act...we should all have to be naked, dirty, and never get into cars or other methods of travel.
2006-11-25 06:43:22 · answer #8 · answered by elysialaw 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you are just manipulating numbers. numbers can be very deceving. did you know that since the decline in pirates the earth's tempature has gone up so therefore pirates caused it. i am using the same reasoning as you
2006-11-25 06:43:32 · answer #9 · answered by me 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I see the point you are trying to make but it will be lost on most.
2006-11-25 06:41:38 · answer #10 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋