On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:07:52 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H. wrote:
It seems that the basic liberal approach is to spend much more money trying to
protect anything which can be attacked in the US. They constantly complain that
we are not spending enough on train, subway, port, city, building, etc,
security.

Actually, the US Coast Guard says we're not spending enough on port
security. Guess they're just a bunch of homo-loving liberal traitors, eh?

... They would be happy if we turned every subway entrance into the
equivalent of an airport security installation, checking each passenger's shoes,
bags, etc. A roadblock every couple miles to check every truck on the road would
be good, as would a complete unloading and repacking of every container entering
the country.

Which liberals are suggesting any such thing? Aren't you just making up
stupid stuff to attribute to them? I guess you're better at thinking up
dumb ideas than most liberals, so it's a good thing for you to occupy
your time with...



John H. wrote:
The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only
*feasible* method of fighting terrorism.

Great idea. When are we going to start taking the battle to them outside
Afghanistan?

... Of course, this won't greatly
increase the size of the government.


thunder wrote:
Did Rush tell you that or have you been asleep for the past five years?
Big government and Bush go hand in hand. Don't believe me, read for
yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search


JohnH believes all that right-wing blather about how it's the liberal
Democrats who have increased the deficit, and it's all Clinton's fault.
Somehow it hasn't occured to him yet (along with a large number of
others) that the deficit has ballooned under President Bush and a
Republican controlled Congress... and that's not including the Iraq war
expenditures, which are largely off-budget.

DSK

I made no comments about deficit.

My comments had to do with approaches to combating terrorism. If the decision is
made to protect our ports by inspecting every container, ship, boat, kayak,
inner tube, etc, then the Coast Guard will needs lots more money. 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.

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

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

John H. wrote:
I made no comments about deficit.

Really? Then what did you mean by:



John H. wrote:
The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only
*feasible* method of fighting terrorism.
... Of course, this won't greatly
increase the size of the government.

???

Do you think that vastly increased expenditures are somehow *not*
connected with increased gov't size?


Do you not consider the tremendously increased bureaucracy 'helping' the
gov't of Iraq, and supporting the right-sized Army occupying Iraq, as an
increase in the size of the gov't?

The facts are that President Bush and the current Congress has vastly
increased the size of the gov't, despite their principles.


My comments had to do with approaches to combating terrorism. If the decision is
made to protect our ports by inspecting every container, ship, boat, kayak,
inner tube, etc, then the Coast Guard will needs lots more money. 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.

OTOH right now, there is almost *no* effective port security. It would
be simplicity itself to ship a WMD in an unmarked cargo container. 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?




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.

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

DSK

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:58:07 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H. wrote:
I made no comments about deficit.

Really? Then what did you mean by:



John H. wrote:
The other approach, taking the battle to them, seems to be the only
*feasible* method of fighting terrorism.
... Of course, this won't greatly
increase the size of the government.

???

Do you think that vastly increased expenditures are somehow *not*
connected with increased gov't size?


Do you not consider the tremendously increased bureaucracy 'helping' the
gov't of Iraq, and supporting the right-sized Army occupying Iraq, as an
increase in the size of the gov't?

Did we really increase the size of the government that much by our involvement
in Iraq? The size of the military hasn't increased by all that much. I think the
TSA (about 57000 folks) was a sizeable increase, but it would pale at the
increase necessary to protect all the things in-country that need protection.

The facts are that President Bush and the current Congress has vastly
increased the size of the gov't, despite their principles.


My comments had to do with approaches to combating terrorism. If the decision is
made to protect our ports by inspecting every container, ship, boat, kayak,
inner tube, etc, then the Coast Guard will needs lots more money. 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.

OTOH right now, there is almost *no* effective port security. It would
be simplicity itself to ship a WMD in an unmarked cargo container. 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'? I think we should close our border with
Mexico, but not because it will make terrorism impossible. Where does your 'more
difficult' stop? No matter how much you spend, you will not be able to search
and protect everything. The remaining solution is to try to stop it at its
source.


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.

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

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.

DSK


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

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:58:30 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:




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



About all we are "protecting" from terrorists in this country are the
politicians. These would be the last people I'd spend money to protect.

How would *you* go about protecting all the things that need protection, Harry?

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

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.


... 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?


... 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.


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.


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


Again, when there is a credible deterrent.



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?

DSK



DSK

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:37:12 -0400, John H. wrote:


Big government and Bush go hand in hand. Don't believe me, read for
yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search

What would your approach be?

First, my post was to enlighten you on the increase in size of government
by the supposedly conservative GWB. As for my approach to fighting
terrorism, I will begin with bin Laden, bin Laden, bin Laden. This is a
man who *has* attacked this great country, and is still out there
somewhere making a mockery of our power. Remember back to shortly after
9/11, when we had the support of virtually the entire world to hunt down
this terrorist, what did GWB do? He makes a bone-headed statement, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority," and invades Iraq, thereby
fracturing the world's resolve and creating the next, great terrorist
training camp.

As for the domestic front, the next time you take of your shoes, and watch
your wife get patted down to board an airplane, look to see if they have
added a simple cockpit bulkhead to that airplane. No? Then I say, all
the domestic procedures against terrorism are just bureaucratic BS,
placed upon this country's citizens. Perhaps, this will make my feelings
clearer. While the threat from terrorism has always been real, I feel
it's threat is considerably smaller than the threat of government running
amuck.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
First, my post was to enlighten you on the increase in size of government
by the supposedly conservative GWB. As for my approach to fighting
terrorism, I will begin with bin Laden, bin Laden, bin Laden. This is a
man who *has* attacked this great country, and is still out there
somewhere making a mockery of our power. Remember back to shortly after
9/11, when we had the support of virtually the entire world to hunt down
this terrorist, what did GWB do? He makes a bone-headed statement, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority," and invades Iraq, thereby
fracturing the world's resolve and creating the next, great terrorist
training camp.

As for the domestic front, the next time you take of your shoes, and watch
your wife get patted down to board an airplane, look to see if they have
added a simple cockpit bulkhead to that airplane. No? Then I say, all
the domestic procedures against terrorism are just bureaucratic BS,
placed upon this country's citizens. Perhaps, this will make my feelings
clearer. While the threat from terrorism has always been real, I feel
it's threat is considerably smaller than the threat of government running
amuck.

Wow.....What a profound and 'to the point' statement! How true!!!!
I agree.

Jim

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

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:06:22 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:37:12 -0400, John H. wrote:


Big government and Bush go hand in hand. Don't believe me, read for
yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG= Search

What would your approach be?

First, my post was to enlighten you on the increase in size of government
by the supposedly conservative GWB. As for my approach to fighting
terrorism, I will begin with bin Laden, bin Laden, bin Laden. This is a
man who *has* attacked this great country, and is still out there
somewhere making a mockery of our power. Remember back to shortly after
9/11, when we had the support of virtually the entire world to hunt down
this terrorist, what did GWB do? He makes a bone-headed statement, "I
don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority," and invades Iraq, thereby
fracturing the world's resolve and creating the next, great terrorist
training camp.

Would sending troops into Pakistan be permissable?

As for the domestic front, the next time you take of your shoes, and watch
your wife get patted down to board an airplane, look to see if they have
added a simple cockpit bulkhead to that airplane. No? Then I say, all
the domestic procedures against terrorism are just bureaucratic BS,
placed upon this country's citizens. Perhaps, this will make my feelings
clearer. While the threat from terrorism has always been real, I feel
it's threat is considerably smaller than the threat of government running
amuck.

I agree that most of the money spent on airport security is a waste.

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

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 15:18:07 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:58:30 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:



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


About all we are "protecting" from terrorists in this country are the
politicians. These would be the last people I'd spend money to protect.

How would *you* go about protecting all the things that need protection, Harry?


First, I'd stop wasting lives and money on Iraq. If we're bringing war
to them, they're certainly capable of bringing it to us, and, in fact,
did, yesterday. We're not defeating terrorism in Iraq.

I'd close our borders and use our national guard to patrol our northern
and southern borders, and increase funding for the coasties so they
could do a better job of patroling our wet borders.

The National Guard has a mission. An armor battalion is wasted performing guard
duties on the border, as is an engineer battalion or signal battalion.
Performing guard duties prevents the Guard from training for their real mission.
Would you activate them full time? Whose National Guard would you use,
Maryland's?

Wouldn't it make more sense to increase the size of the Border Patrol and tell
them to shoot?

I'd devise a reliable system for checking freighters and their contents
coming to our ports.

Would we stop every freighter, unload and inspect all the containers? How long
would we allow the line of freighters to get? Would we simply quadruple the size
of the Coast Guard.

I'd harden public infrastructure, such as subways, bridges, tunnels,
dams, where possible through retrofitting, and more closely guard all
major venues where people gather in large numbers.

Should we have airport type security for every subway, train, and bus stop in
America? What is a big number? If forty can be killed, is that a big enough
number? Should we have TSA folks at every school cafeteria? Why not? How about
at every high school basketball or football game?

I would take a good chunk of the $2 billion a week we are wasting on
Iraq, and use it instead to buy legitimate intelligence from arab assets
who can be recruited by and infiltrate al Qaeda cells.

Your measly $2 billion wouldn't even come close to guarding the high school
football games.

I'd stop wasting money on bigger and better military hardware
acquisitions, and concentrate military expenditures on personnel and
training that will help us keep track of terrorist activities. We need
fewer bombers, aircraft carriers and tanks, and more brainpower.

The people who build the bombers, aircraft carriers, and tanks take just the
opposite approach. But, your idea about less concentration on conventional
warfare is a good one, unless China gets it in it's shorts to go do some 'land
acquisition'.

That's just off the top of my head.

Well, better think again.

Oh...in the next election, I think we ought to pick someone smart.

Maybe the Debs will have somebody decent as an alternative?


Your conservative, militaristic approach...doesn't work.

You think adding a few million Coast Guardsmen will do the job?

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