The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm talking INVASION, not a mere attack.

In other words - if suicide bombers start using nuclear bombs, how is there any way to stop them? Why waste the money on trying?

I will agree that invasion is not something we are likely to face. At least militarily. One might argue with validity that 11 million illegals constitutes an invasion of sorts, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

If we stop trying to prevent a suicide bomber with a nuke, then we will certainly end up facing one. We may anyway.

I find your comparison to traffic accidents like saying since we can't stop traffic accidents, we should throw out stop lights and speed limits. After all, they'll happen anyway.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If we stop trying to prevent a suicide bomber with a nuke,...

How, exactly, would that be possible?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

How, exactly, would that be possible?

Prevention of terrorist states, like Iran, from acquiring them is a good first step.

Right now there are machines being installed (or that have been installed - I am not sure of the time line) that scan ports and ships for radiation signatures common to nuclear weapons.

There is monitoring of terrorist "chatter".

And there are probably hundreds of other things going on that I have no idea about.

The interesting thing about the gathering of intelligence and successes in the intelligence world is that revealing successes will often lead to revealing the methods employed in those successes, therefore rendering those methods less successful.

There is no fool proof method, however. It is an ongoing tricky process that cannot be relaxed. It is only a matter of time until the next attack (nuke, dirty bomb, or otherwise) that will leave the press and the populace screaming "why weren't we doing more to prevent it?!?!".

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Right now there are machines being installed (or that have been installed - I am not sure of the time line) that scan ports and ships for radiation signatures common to nuclear weapons.

There is monitoring of terrorist "chatter".

And there are probably hundreds of other things going on that I have no idea about.

The interesting thing about the gathering of intelligence and successes in the intelligence world is that revealing successes will often lead to revealing the methods employed in those successes, therefore rendering those methods less successful.

There is no fool proof method, however. It is an ongoing tricky process that cannot be relaxed. It is only a matter of time until the next attack (nuke, dirty bomb, or otherwise) that will leave the press and the populace screaming "why weren't we doing more to prevent it?!?!".

And how much does all this cost, compared to the cost of -say- occupying Iraq? The measures you listed are indeed akin to the traffic lights and stop signs of the motoring world. They are reasonable, and reasonably priced preventive methods. Would you find a cop on every corner in America a reasonable method of preventing traffic accidents? Or would that be excessive and wasteful?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And how much does all this cost, compared to the cost of -say- occupying Iraq. The measures you listed are indeed akin to the traffic lights and stop signs of the motoring world. They are reasonable, and reasonably priced preventive methods. Would you find a cop on every corner in America a reasonable method of preventing traffic accidents? Or would that be excessive and wasteful?

I understand you sentiment, but disagree with the premise of your opening statement. Occupation implies control of the government. I do not agree that we are an occupying force.

Be that as it may.....should a nuke explode in LA, would it not be said that we weren't doing enough or spending enough to have prevented it?

Of course it would not be reasonable to have a cop on every corner. It is reasonable, though, to install traffic cameras to prevent red light running (Phoenix has a bunch and they are proving effective). They aren't at every intersection, just the busiest with a history of a problem of red light running.

We aren't monitoring Finland for terrorist activity or trying to depose the leader of Monaco because we have suspicions. That would certainly be excessive. I do not find our middle eastern activities to be excessive.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I will agree that invasion is not something we are likely to face. At least militarily. One might argue with validity that 11 million illegals constitutes an invasion of sorts, but that isn't what we're talking about here.

But we should be. It's PRECISELY the kind of invasion that our prime enemies, the radical muslims, are expert at perpetrating. They are systematically taking over Europe. But a military is not the solution to this true colonization threat.

Which again begs my question, why waste half our GNP on military "defense?" when the only credible threat comes from legalized immigration?


* * * *

We are indeed defending our country's economic interests throughout the world. Wars and military adventures have rarely been waged for anything else. As with almost any human endeavor, follow the money.

But are we getting the proper bang for our buck by defending our economic interests with wars, invasions, military occupations, maintaining overwhelming military superiority, and maintaining military readiness via bases spanning every corner of the globe? If our military purposes are economic, are we spending more than we are receiving?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But we should be. It's PRECISELY the kind of invasion that our prime enemies, the radical muslims, are expert at perpetrating.

100% agreed. However, if I recall, you are against building a high tech wall to prevent (or at least drastically slow) this invasion. This is an area that I completely agree Bush is failing drastically in, and it should be his highest priorty, as those very few Constitutionally mandated federal responsibilities include protecting the borders of the US.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

100% agreed. However, if I recall, you are against building a high tech wall to prevent (or at least drastically slow) this invasion.

Um, the problem in Europe is legal immigration. Muslims are not sneaking across borders; they are legally inflitrating Europe with the intention of creating a Muslim continent within four generations. And they may succeed. But not without the complicity of the individual European nations' individual immigraton policies.

Those are what must change. A wall does nothing to stop the legal Muslim tide.



We are facing a similar problem with latino immigration, and I'll admit that I don't know what portion of such immigration is legal or illegal (oops, maybe it's time for me to merge all the Daily Grind threads after all).

But if they are trying to make the U.S. into a latin nation, that's something I've never heard of. Maybe they're just being more surrepticious than the Muslims ... but I somehow doubt that. (Many muslims brag quite openly about taking over Europe ... it would be laugable if it weren't so demonstrably happening.)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, the problem in Europe is legal immigration.

Right. But thats changing the subject. I don't think we have a legal immigration problem (though there are problems within the system, the system isn't a problem).

We do face a similar situation with illegal immigration here, though.