Your Solutions on....

National Security

...you live in one of the safest countries in the world. sort out the real problems, like homeless, drugs etc.

"Pre 9/11-no preemption
Post preemption-no attacks on American soil"

I once got attacked by a bear. Then I got my anti-bear stick (tm). I've never been attacked by a bear since.

Before 9/11 there was pre-emption (Bay of Pigs ring a bell?), and there had been attacks on American soil prior to 9/11 (at the World Trade Centre no less).

See, the thing you have to remember is that most of the world puts up with terrorist attacks all the time. The IRA blew the fuck out if Manchester in 1996. Very few victim nations of terrorist attacks go apeshit crazy and invade multiple countries.

Besides, that tactic of pre-emption has hardly been successful:

Worldwide deaths from terrorism per year:

http://www.realitybasednation.com/images/terrorism-deaths0705.jpg

Taken from http://tkb.org/AnalyticalTools.jsp. Try it yourself.

Musuko.

Your presumption is that there is a problem with National Security in the first place.

Previous to all the police state crap that has been recently implemented, the US like any other country was completely safe from anything except a concerted attack by a well organised extremist group with a serious gripe against the country. Now civil liberties have been thrown out the window, you are living in a police state and you are still at risk from .... a well organised extremist group with a serious gripe against your country.

The mistake is in believing that you can, or should be able to protect every single citizen in the US at all times from groups justifiably angry with your countries treatment of them. Sometimes people die, sometimes large masses of them.

It's foolish to think that there is some technological or social engineering solution that can stop it from happening. The way to stop it is by removing the conditions for the violence, by making peace with those who would do such a thing in the first place.

The only correct response to an attack from a group that is responding to your aggression is to stop that aggression and talk to that group. To try to change the circumstances that led to their aggression and to not hit them back or clamp down on your own culture and beliefs in some vain hope that more rules and more violence will eventually force everyone to your way of thinking.

Aggression is a cycle, you screw them, they screw you back, etc, etc. ad infinitum. The only way to "fight" aggression is to stop it. Be the first on your block to swallow your pride and do the right thing!

Or as LL (and Ghandi I think), says... "be the change."

Darlings, I think the only way to actually secure one's nation is to stop funding known terrorist organisations that might turn on you in the future. (The end does not justify the means )

So it is your opinion then that 9/11 was "justifiable?" That those people got what they deserved? Interesting theory.




This is called appeasement. The last time we tried this, Hitler nearly took over Europe.


-Kiamat Dusk

Is it your opinion, the civilians being killed in Iraq, "collateral damage" I think is what you call it, are getting what they deserve? A country that had nothing to do with 9/11, in case anyone here forgot that. Even more interesting.

Wrong.

I said their anger is justified not necessarily their acts. I don't think anyone deserves to die in such a particularly horrible way as most of those folks in the twin towers did.

I would argue that the ultimate cause of their deaths was 50 years of ill-advised middle east and third world policy on the part of the US though. That's a long time to screw with a group of people and plenty of time to think about changing your ways. You could say that 9-11 is kind of the pinnacle of a long long period of abuse. It certainly could have been easily avoided even in the short term.
Wrong again.
Appeasement is merely giving in to the other side.

As Rocky says to Bullwinkle... "That hardly ever works!"

I said they should talk. I said they should make peace. That is a different thing altogether from simply trying to appease the other side.

You could also use turn the appeasement argument around. In essence the US is telling all the Muslims that they should just "give in" to what the US wants for the middle east and "go western," or democratic and the (so called), wiser people in the Middle East are in that sense in favour of appeasement towards the US.

Even knowing that the US (to them) is basically an imperial invading force and that what they are doing is "wrong," wise-heads in Middle East society are arguing that if the militants give in and just let the US do what it wants, everything will be okay.

The militants on the other hand, are saying (like you), that this "appeasement" is foolish and weak and that they should fight for what they feel is right unto death. They feel that if they give in, the westernization will just continue and that ultimately they will be defeated. They feel its dangerous to give in to a militaristic bully of a nation.

These middle east militants are more like you than you imagine.

"This is called appeasement. The last time we tried this, Hitler nearly took over Europe."

Dianne is right. Making peace with someone does not mean "let them have it all their own way".

And the last time you did it was not when Hitler nearly took over Europe. The last time you did it was when America and Russia decided to stop risking total nuclear destruction.

Musuko.

Your argument hinges on the unrealistic concept that peace is possible with these terrorists. People like you will just never understand that there is no peace to be had. They don't want us dead because of "50 years of ill-advised middle east and third world policy on the part of the US", they want us dead because we don't have Taliban-style government in place.

And what do you mean by "westernization"? You mean like allowing women the right to vote, to go to school, to have freedom from honor killings? It never ceases to amaze me how stingy people can be with freedoms they already have. I mean don't you want the Middle East nations to be more "progressive"?

These are not "militants", they're hard line terrorist zealots who will kill indiscriminately until they get what they want. Period. And the more you justify they're actions by blaming the victims, be it the US or Israel, the more power they have.



The collapse of the Soviet Union was brought about by their inability to keep up the arms race and the internal decay that is inevitable in a Communist society.



I have never said that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, nor have I claimed that "collateral damage" was anything short of tragic. And, in case anyone forgot, there is a big difference between the accidental killing of civilians, ie collateral damage, and the intentional targetting of civilians done by terrorists around the world.

-Kiamat Dusk

As a lifelong Rocky and Bullwinkle fan I must interject here. What Rocky says is "But that trick never works"

Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat.
Rocky: Again? But that trick never works.
Bullwinkle: This time for sure!
<Bullwinkles begins to extract one of a variety of fearsome beasts from the hat and pushes it back in then retorts with one of a number of responses including: "I don't know my own strength" or "I think I need a new hat">
Rocky turns to the camera: And now for something you'll really like.

Yes, you're right. The terrorists kill a lot less of them.

"Your argument hinges on the unrealistic concept that peace is possible with these terrorists."

Has anyone ever bothered to try, or has everyone just assumed as you have done?

Musuko.

Really, man-just use the quote button That's what it's there for.

-Kiamat Dusk

So, you just completely advocated the terrorists over troops from your own country. Amazing. Still want to be called a patriot? Not only is an outrageous attack on our troops, it's an outright lie.

But keep it up, Chip. It's people like you, spewing gems like this, that keep people like me voting for people like Bush.

-Kiamat Dusk

It is so confusing reading posts by you because you refuse to use the feature.

Make it easy on us, please.

Briana Dawson

It's a simple statement of fact, Kiamat, as much as you'd like to deny it. How many innocent people have been killed as a result of terrorist strikes since the start of the war? Even if you include 9/11 the number is still under 10,000. Probably under 5000. Now compare that to the number of civillians killed by our military over the same period of time. We've killed what, 30,000? 40,000? The motive hardly matters to the loved ones who are mourning them. Dead civillians are dead civillians.

Chippi you know I love you to pieces, BUT, where does the 30k-40k number come from? If it's true, that really is an amazing amount of civilian deaths and I would be somewhat disappointed in my country for so many innocent deaths. The price of war is expensive.

But freedom does cost a buck oh-five.

Briana Dawson

Your number stink to high Heaven-most likely because you're pulling them out of your ass.
But thanks for adding your .02 cents worth of irrelevance.

-Kiamat Dusk

Most likely Chip's myopia has prevented him from discerning between our troops and the terrorists who actively target civillians.

-Kiamat Dusk

I found that website before i replied to Chips post and discounted it.

------------------------------
THE IRAQ BODY COUNT PROJECT

This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks).

It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available here and on various IBC web counters which may be freely displayed on any website or homepage, where they are automatically updated without further intervention.

Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.
------------------------------------------

I honestly don't think that website is a reputable source. Heck that site is even anti-Howard Dean.

Briana Dawson

Then I'm surprised you discounted it

EDIT** I have done a little checking around on the net and it appears that these people are using news accounts to get their numbers. It sure beats what Lancet was estimating two years ago (somewhere between 8,000 and 100,000).


exerpt from a 10/29/04 Slate article


http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

It comes straight from the horse's ass, I mean mouth...



http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/14/154251#transcript

Edit: That press conference was quite a long time ago now. I'm sure the number has grown quite a bit since then. So now that you've heard your king say it himself maybe you can cut out the denial shit. Welcome to cold hard reality.

Jeeze, no one is in denial Chip. No need to sound so hostile.

30,000 civilian deaths is alot, and is unfortunate. However, it is definetly less than the number of people that died under Saddam's reign by Saddam's actions.

Briana Dawson

Agreed