COMMENTS:
EXCELLENT question. It's like trying to stop up a leaky dam with your fingers.
by mojo on Sat Jan 29, 05 12:39pm
[+]
Throughout history, successive rulers have used the fear factor to control their citizens.
Sabre rattling does the job of frightening weaker nations into playing ball, and gives the nation itself an ego boost that serves to bolster the armchair soldiers that believe that their country is 'number one'.
In the end it is all just a distraction while our leaders systematically strip us of our freedoms and call it 'security'.
As to you primary question about the vunerability of a nation to protect itself, no nation is invunerable to a determined terrorist with access to nuclear materials and a suitcase.
The whole war on terrorism is a smokescreen, because in the end, if the balloon goes up, no measures taken by a government can prevent it.
there is no absolute security in life. for instance, in the gulf war america fired depleted uranium ammunition against iraqi soldiers. searches on the internet show many babies born horribly deformed as a result of this act. im not saying they were born deformed as a direct result of the depleted uranium, because i dont know for sure
many sources say they were, but then there are those in the american government that say DU had nothing to do with the deformaties. and i feel like 'damn, these were innocent babies that did nothing to no one, and war made them be born horribly grotesque monstrosities.' all you can do is try hard to stay safe, and hope to be fortunate, cause in the end, there is no absolute security in life
Although ... if we gave more than lip service to "winning hearts and minds" ...
but then the people might get corrupted
Many are. That's why you don't put the few in power over the freedom of the many.
You can stop concerted, organized, and well funed efforts. Which are usually the most devastating, like 911. You can never prevent all the lone nuts in the world from killing a few people here and there, not in a free society anyway.
The best defense for that is an alert, well armed public.
are we talking lack of freedom here, or annoyance of being inconvienced. example, i hate going into a building to undergo a routine check by security. by i understand its necessary to safeguard against nuts with bombs that might blow me up
That's not a lack of freedom because you are free to not enter the building if you don't want to be searched.
The question, I believe, is if there is any way to secure our nation completely and still be free. I'm saying even if you deny our freedoms in the name of security, it would still not secure us, merely enable those in power greater advantage over the rest of us.
I fully support defensive military actions. It's the 'pre-emptive military force' part that scares me. But sometimes the line is hard to define.
the minute such a trade-off occurs, the ACLU would rise like Lazarus from his tomb to lodge protests. We want the security, but we're still too fearful of the cost of that freedom being our liberty. I know I am.
Your ballots stick out like a sore thumb Cathexis.
herz: You can stop concerted, organized, and well funded efforts? Which are usually the most devastating, like 911?
Umm ... I doubt it. For some strange reason, all of our resources are going in to preventing attacks that have never happened: nuclear, biological, etc. ... and yet, the 9/11 attacks were a simple, low-tech attack that took advantage of inherent vulnerabilities of a free society.
But ... since all the NeoCons have is a hammer, they treat all problems as if they were nails.
'You can stop concerted, organized, and well funded efforts? Which are usually the most devastating, like 911?'
It is possible yes. Using the FBI, INS, CIA, military, and local police forces it is possible with some effort to prevent the bulk of these attacks. You can't have it both ways cath, on the one hand you can't say that 911 was all bushs fault, and then on the other hand say it was impossible to prevent. Doesn't work that way.
'Umm ... I doubt it. For some strange reason, all of our resources are going in to preventing attacks that have never happened: nuclear, biological, etc. ... and yet, the 9/11 attacks were a simple, low-tech attack that took advantage of inherent vulnerabilities of a free society.'
So it's your belief that preventing such attacks is impossible? No wonder you have such a negative view of any action taken to prevent them. Of course these attacks can be prevented. What would have happened with 911 if 20 arabs all asking to recieve flight training (no takeoffs or landings) at once, all paying in cash, and all here on expired visas were rounded up? That scenario should have set off little alarms in the heads of everyone involved, but we didn't realize at the time how evil these characters are. Now we know, and now we can work towards fixing the problem.
Can we stop every attack? No, but we can try, and we can get most of them.
herzog: First ... I don't recall asserting that 9/11 was "all Bush's fault." Feel free to refresh my memory.
(Although ignoring the cryptically entitled memo would have been a start, now that I think of it.)
IMO, Bush was clearly at fault. However, I have never asserted it was "all his fault."
Do I believe preventing every such attack is impossible: Yes, especially given our tendency to exacerbate the problem and invite more of them!
Now, anticipating your tendency for binary thinking, I'll answer your next jibe:
Do I believe that we should do nothing, then?
No.
But I do believe that it is futile and ineffective to focus security efforts as military actions. Or that coercion should be the primary line of defense. Taking that approach guarantees eventual loss.
Here are my suggestions for effectively working to lessen terrorism:
1. Stop thinking of it as a War; it isn't and we waste time and contribute to the problem.
2. Work to decrease poverty.
3. Stop supporting/ financing oppressive dictators.
4. Stop covertly helping ethics- challenged Corporations exploit other peoples.
5. Establish inclusive government, rather than Winner-Take-All forms.
6. Intelligence efforts.
7. Police-style efforts, if needed
8. Military efforts only when appropriate ... notas 1st line of defense
Cath: if 911 style attacks can't be prevented, as you clearly implied earlier, then how could they be bushs fault? Because he failed to prevent an act that could not be prevented? That doesn't make alot of sense.
When I saw 9/11 attack my first thought was: OMG, This kind of attack can not be prevented, USA is no longer safe, It won't be safe ever again!
'Do I believe preventing every such attack is impossible: Yes, especially given our tendency to exacerbate the problem and invite more of them!'
I believe I clearly stated the preventing *every* attack is not likely.
2. the leaders of these attacks are very well off, how will alleviating poverty affect them? Besides which, it isn't poor nations that are sending terrorists our way, it's arab nations. There aren't alot of north korean or zimbabwean terrorists out there. And the arab nation that sent the most terrorists our way on 911 was also the wealthiest.
3. Agreed, on general principles. But that had nothing to do with 911 or any possible future attacks.
4. Again, nothing to do with terrorist attacks.
5. Perhaps that will stop some democrats from launching future terrorist attacks on the whitehouse, but it will impact al qaeda, bin laden and the rest not at all. No effect.
6. Yep, increase the range and funding of the CIA, very good.
7. Yep, I mentioned those as well.
8. The militarys job is to be our first line of defense. They aren't supposed to sit things out, wait till the situation gets worse then act. You mentioned police and the CIA as the only active measures we should take against these guys, what if they train, recruit, recieve aid, etc in foriegn nations where our police aren't allowed to operate? Well then the CIA can take care of everything, no that's not their job they don't have the ability to do it and that tends to have a negative result. So for the sake of argument let's say canada were a radical muslim nation, arming and training terrorists within their border. They send some our way every now and then. What do we do? The CIA knows what's going on and has reported all this to the president (that's their job). And the police do their best to grab them as they sneak across the border, but it's a very long border and they can't get all of them. So what do we do? Ignore canada while they constantly train and recruit new terrorists to hit our cities? Or take military action to destroy the government that is causing us all these problems?
'1. Stop thinking of it as a War; it isn't and we waste time and contribute to the problem.'
A war is an armed conflict between two or more organized groups. Sounds like a war to me.
basically your refering to america and the answer is america is now hated nore than it was before 9/11
Military force can be very effective if civilians stop yelling about "inocent victims". There are no such things in a WAR.
|
