posted
If anybody can suggest a better thread title, I'm all eyes, I'll edit.
The old debate thread has fallen prey to the classic law, which states, "Any discussion will, if carried on long enough, eventually turn into a discussion of German foreign policy and eyebrow waxing."
I couldn't believe Bush said we couldn't afford to screen more luggage or watch the borders better. People are continually testing the system and finding it wanting, unable to stop smuggling of WMD materials into the country. Bush agreed that our greatest threat was WMDs, but said the best strategy was just to kill all the terrorists and build a missile defense shield. It wouldn't take an especially large or puissant terror network to nuke New York, and they certainly wouldn't use missiles. One guy with a dirty bomb (i.e. a bunch of radioactive stuff and conventional explosives) has a chance of carrying it off. Kerry undersands this, Bush didn't show he did. I had not been getting the sense that the Feds were doing much defensively, and Bush confirmed it when he said that offense was more important.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Kerry really plans to make it impossible to travel in or out of the country, that would stink. I know I'm oversimplifying here, but so were you.
P.S. A large chain connecting two cannonballs that are fired simultaneously into a crowd would probably kill more people than a dirty bomb. It was invented during the civil war, but due to the loose definition of "simultaneous" tended to be more dangerous to those using it.
posted
Well, whatever. I'd call it nuking the city to spread radioactive waste, but obviously it's the least scary scenario associated with nuclear proliferation.
Added: pooka, Kerry said nothing that I remember or can see in the transcript about restricting people's movements in the U.S. So that's not a simplification, it's just wrong.
posted
If they're dirty, why don't they just clean them? Nobody likes a dirty bomb...I'd much rather be blown up by a clean bomb anyday.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are considering the ingredients of a dirty bomb a WMD, then I don't know if anyone could maintain that none were found in Iraq. I could be wrong. P.S. Dirty bombs can be worried about, but you do that by finding actual terrorists and not trying to confiscate all the harmful materials in the country/world.
quote:If you are considering the ingredients of a dirty bomb a WMD, then I don't know if anyone could maintain that none were found in Iraq. I could be wrong.
Good one.
I was using a dirty bomb as an example of what I'm worried about, not as the sum of all fears. One guy could pull off a dirty bombing, ten a hijacking, one hundred an actual nuclear detonation...with a lot of luck, and incompetence on our side, of course. Since the odd hundred terrorists can always slip through the cracks, I feel we could spare some money to stop them from getting a bomb, and to stop them from smuggling it in.
In the "cheap shots" realm: Deaths from panic count. The fact that a dirty bomb would kill through fear doesn't make it less dangerous.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it only took two men, one rifle and a beat up old car to throw Washington, DC, eastern Virginia and a good portion of the nation into a tizzy.
When Malvo was shooting people at gas stations, how many of you felt a little "exposed" every time you filled up your car's gas tank?
Terrorism, of any sort, is intrinsically hard to stop. Even with armed soldiers on the street and huge security measures, incidents happen almost daily in Israel.
Blockades and barricades just aren't going to keep us safe. There has to be a better way.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry thought of a decent one in the WMD side: get rid of the nuclear materials as best we can. Its sure better than anything Bush has come up with. And now to direct us back on topic: the debate.
At one point during the debate Kerry stated that Bushes administration had cut funding to one of the programs (had something to do with nuclear material, can't remember the exact name). Bush said he'd increased it 35%. Which one is wrong? I can't tell, I don't trust Bush, he's been caught on lies (or maybe just stupidity before), but then again its entirely possible Kerry just flubbed.
Over all I think Kerry did far better than Bush, and I certainly know who's getting my vote.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just posted something large to the other thread that wasn't derailing or talking about Germany. Should I post it here as well?
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whenever you talk of "cutting" or "raising" funding to a specific program, you have to realize that the numbers involved can be related to previous funding averaged over N years, last year's funding, the projected budget for next year, or the projected budget for the next N years.
For example, if the Federal Widget collection service has the following expenditures/budget profile right now:
The prior 5 years were funded at $12,000 per year, the next 5 years are budgeted at $18,000 per year.
If the President doesn't change anything, then under his administration the funding level for 2005-2009 increased 50% over the levels of the prior 5 years. If the president reduces the budget to a $500 increase each year (averaging $15,500 per year), then the projected funding levels for the next 5 years increased ~29% over the previous 5 years. However, the projected funding levels for the next 5 years also decreased 13% over the budgeted levels for the next 5 years.
When you consider there are 3 budgets each year to pick from, and 3 years during the Bush administration to use as a baseline, and any number of spans of years to use, it's possible to come up with almost any number you want. You can't really know what X% increase/decrease means without a clear knowledge of what the baseline.
It's very likely both were correct, according to whatever definitions are being used by each.
posted
Dagonee, of course, is right, though I'm annoyed the media isn't even trying to analyze that exchange. What's clear, though, is that Kerry came out in favor of more security funding, especially anti-proliferation, and Bush came out against.
Either Bush is spending enough or he isn't, and that's something that can be meaningfully debated, unlike whether he's increasing or cutting spending.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
HDB, you mentioned borders as being the problem, and apparently Kerry said WMDs were crossing the borders daily. At the time I didn't know if he meant Iraq, it appears you think he means here. And I said travel into and out of the country.
You are the one saying it only takes a minute amount of stray material to wreak havoc. I'm saying that it's unrealistic to contain all the material- especially outside of our borders. (though of course we should contain as much of it as we can). Identifying those most likely to engage in terrorism may or may not be the more effective course, but it is the one Bush has been pursuing.
I felt the debate was a draw. Though I think I saw Kerry making fun of Bush stuttering on the news. That was classy. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing stood out to me (that I don't think has been discussed):
Bush said, 'Osama bin Ladan can't dictate how this war is fought.'
If what you're doing to combat terrorism is causing more terrorism, then you're losing the war on terror, regardless of how many countries you've freed.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide.
It's a good piece of reasoning. I'm sure Bush has been on the other side of this because of the Patriot Act. We are fooling ourselves. Osama bin Laden does decide where we fight this war. If he is in Afghanistan, we should be in Afghanistan.
Someone asked Willy Sutton why he robbed banks and he famously said, "Because that's where the money is." I liked our policy better when we went to Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists were, but then again, maybe I shouldn't let a bank robber decide my policy.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Good one.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
