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.

[scaeagles]

President Hu?

I loved that the Chinese President was heckled today. So nice for him to be exposed to something here without the power to imprison the heckler.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It's quite simple, really. I am expressing disgust with the violence performed by Islamic radicals. You said:



The "fanatical Christians" as you put it, by and large, aren't out killing people they disagree. Radical Islamists are. Daily. And they want more of it. You are making a comparison between non-violent Christian "radicals" and ultra-violent Islamic terrorists by saying that equal comdemnation should exist of words and of killing people.

Edited to add:
Another quote:



I would agree with that sentiment, but again you have compared a lack of vigorous opposition to spoken word as equivalent to lack of opposition to blowing up restaurants.

Do you think that hate speach doesn't cause violent actions? When someone goes out and beats or kils a gay man because their church leaders taught them to hate gays, I find those church leaders just as responsible, moraly, as the person doing the physical act. They may not have struck a physical blow, but by their words, they incited the actions of others. And those that remain silent about those words must also carry part of the guilt.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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

How, exactly, would that be possible?

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

President Hu?

I loved that the Chinese President was heckled today. So nice for him to be exposed to something here without the power to imprison the heckler.

That's awesome.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Do you think that hate speach doesn't cause violent actions? When someone goes out and beats or kils a gay man because their church leaders taught them to hate gays, I find those church leaders just as responsible, moraly, as the person doing the physical act. They may not have struck a physical blow, but by their words, they incited the actions of others. And those that remain silent about those words must also carry part of the guilt.

Couldn't disagree more. Words are words. Those who do the actions (or plan the actions) bear the blame themselves.

[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?!?!".

[Nephythys]

If words are the issue can I charge several members of certain forums with hate speech for the outrageous and hateful things said about what I believe in?

(sarcasm..tounge in cheek- for those who forget that I do that sometimes too)

[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]

How could we ever stop shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles from getting into the US?

Guilty plea in missile smuggling

Similar to things that would go on to prevent a nuke from being smuggled i, I would suppose.

In regards to President Bush meeting with Hu today, I would love it if Bush asked him why a Chinese General was implicated, but somehow I doubt that's going to happen.