On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:59:44 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H. wrote:
Did we really increase the size of the government that much by our involvement
in Iraq?

Did we really not?
Think about it.

And in any event, my statement
The facts are that President Bush and the current Congress has vastly
increased the size of the gov't, despite their principles.
is unarguably true.




.... There will be
no end to the amount of money they will need to do all of that, and it will
still not be terrorist-proof.

..... I
guess since we can't possibly make the ports & the borders absolutely
100% iron-clad and totally impervious, then there is zero point in
trying to improve port & border security by enough to at least make it
more difficult to tote in WMDs?


How do you define 'more difficult'?

That seems pretty simple & obvious. "More difficult" means that there is
at least *some* likelihood of detection, and some credible threat of
getting caught.


Would a 10% likelihood suffice? 50%? Of course not. Then the complaint would be,
"We only inspect 50% of the containers."


... I think we should close our border with
Mexico, but not because it will make terrorism impossible.

No, but it could make terrorism more difficult.


... No matter how much you spend, you will not be able to search
and protect everything.

And so, by your logic, we should not even try?

We should go after the source.


... The remaining solution is to try to stop it at its
source.


I agree that going after the sources of terrorism is a good idea. Other
than the removal of the Taliban from power, the Bush Administration has
not done that.... maybe that's why terrorism is worse now.

Good. We agree.

We *cannot* protect everything in this country from terrorists.


You're right. But your illogical suggestion that it would be a waste of
time & money to improve border security is not very smart.

Nothing to do with smartness. Has to do with use of assets. Why waste them? See
above. How much is enough?


Again, where would it stop? When would you have enough border security?


Again, when there is a credible deterrent.

What's credible? There is no stopping the amount of money that could be spent,
and we would still be porous!

Or maybe you think we just should invade yet another oil-bearing country
that has no connection with terrorism?


Now you're getting close. Let's focus on the ones that *do* have a connection
with terrorism.

Like Iran & Saudi Arabia? How about Pakistan & Egypt & North Korea? Does
the lack of oil make their terrorist safe at home?

You're good. Now you're getting the idea.

DSK


--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD