Further, I would like think that both sides of the issue can present their ideas in a clear and thoughtufl way and not resort to name calling. I would ask that these discussions, even those on this Flameboard take on a new sence of decorum in light of the tragic events of recent days.
-Jay
~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those who want to argue such things at this time.
This are my contentions.
When one puts up an expensive umbrella, a determined and thinking foe will come not from the top but from the sides.
The United States government is running a $100 billion surplus this year alone, after emergency spending and tax cuts.
The only real and proven way to prevent nuclear missile attack is MAD.
There are two statements here.
1) MAD is the only proven way to prevent nuclear assault.
You can not prove that A will prevent B, by the nature of proof. All you can prove is that it hasn't happened YET.
2) MAD is the only real way to prevent nuclear assault.
This is what you are trying to prove. You can not use your conclusion as one of your premises.
SDI as an alleged umbrella would potentially stop missiles and would therefor not be a real deterrent to an purposefull and well designed terrorist attack on the United States.
Strawman attack. SDI is intended as a defense against ICBMs, from whatever source. Who said anything about terrorists?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A) It is currently possible for anyone with a certain amount of money to attack or blackmail this country using an ICBM or ICBMs. This is undesirable.
B) If we implement SDI, it will be exceedingly difficult for anyone to attack or blackmail this country with ICBMs.
C) We can implement SDI with a relatively minimal amount of money and inconvenience.
[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
quote:
The United States government is running a $100 billion surplus this year alone, after emergency spending and tax cuts.
quote:
We can implement SDI with a relatively minimal amount of money and inconvenience.
~~~~~~~
quote:
Who said anything about terrorists?
Determined terror groups are the subject at hand. Tuesday showed that such terror groups can deliver a payload without a missile.
As far as these "rogue states" go, there isn't a one of them that does not know that any missile attack will be met with several more megatons in return. Hence MAD as a deterrent.
But you know what, let's say we build a missile shield. Good, now we stop some ICBM's as they are... where are we stoping them? Well, wherever it is we stop them (forgetting about the nuclear fallout and all that), let's give the shield to any country that wants to help pay for it.
Let's make it a multi-national, heck even global effort so that every country in the world is protected from these from rouge ICBMs.
I believe that's the current plan.
As far as these "rogue states" go, there isn't a one of them that does not know that any missile attack will be met with several more megatons in return. Hence MAD as a deterrent.
It is quite possible that one will not care, especially with the possibility of blackmail.
Determined terror groups are the subject at hand. Tuesday showed that such terror groups can deliver a payload without a missile.
Terrorists are not the target of SDI. Making a thread combining the two would then seem rather pointless.
Last I heard, the SDI initiative was predicted to run into hundreds of billions of dollars, which is minimal relative to what, exactly?
Last I heard was something like $50bil. And even hundreds is minimal compared to the projected surplus over the next ten years.
Ignoring the rest of the non arguments posted regarding what seems to be brought on by a current reading a version of a Logic 101 book
I thought you said you were trying to be civil with this thread, Jay. If you have a point to make about my arguments, make it.
prove these statements
OK, you prove this:
After the 40 billion dollar appropriation, the United States can no longer afford to pursue SDI
You work in a library, you look it up. I'm on a limited schedule at this exact moment, and I have not enough online time to enlighten you about things you should have known before acting like you did.
As you can read, there were only two parts to my post. In the first I only asked you to prove your wildly imprudent statements. Something you see fit not to do.
Very well, that is your prerogative. Still I thank you as I am sure the whole of the boards thank you for making your points in the same way, non-provable way. As always you are a great help to the debate.
I do however reject your statement that I should have known something you posted but cared not to prove. These are your unsubstantiated points afterall.
I can appreciate your scheduling concerns as I think we all run into tight schedules from time to time. Imagine my heavy work load at the paper at this time considering the events of the last week and still all the other local and world news that gets printed. Yet, I would ask that you and others not post things you do not have the time to back up and then excuse them to schedule.
In regards to the second half of my post, a half I can only conjecture as to your feelings on the subject. Although, as I have come to know you from your post I dare say I think I know what you would say. Yet, caring not to put words in your mouth I eagerly await your thoughts.
I'll say this though, I am still against SDI. However, if it is built (as I believe the hawks will now work very hard to push it though) it should be a global initiative allowing everyone who contributes to benefit.
[ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
I stand corrected.
Still I thank you as I am sure the whole of the boards thank you for making your points in the same way, non-provable way.
The same way you made your points, I would point out. Seeing as we do not have enough confirmable information on hand, I would submit that no conclusions can be drawn at present. So let's end this until one of us comes up with some info. I'll work on it tommorow, if possible. No time tonight, unfortunately.
I do however reject your statement that I should have known something you posted but cared not to prove.
I stated that you should have had information on the topic before you first posted on it. I'd say you're jumping to conclusions, seeing as you admittedly have no information on the subject, and that I am holding a precarious position, because I at present can not back up my claims. So again, we need more info.
quote:
I stated that you should have had information on the topic before you first posted on it. I'd say you're jumping to conclusions, seeing as you admittedly have no information on the subject.
Again, I really must beg your pardon and seek clarification on what you are writing.
I allegedly admitted that have no information on the subject? When did I admit anything of that ilk? Not in any of the posts here.
As for the other part of the above statement, let's take this in chronological order. Not a difficult task since this thread is so short.
Ok, after your first post Omega my dear, I asked you to prove the following points:
quote:
The United States government is running a $100 billion surplus this year alone, after emergency spending and tax cuts.We can implement SDI with a relatively minimal amount of money and inconvenience.
You chose not to. Rather, you posted a evasive non answer by saying:
quote:
OK, you prove this:
And:
quote:
You work in a library, you look it up. I'm on a limited schedule at this exact moment, I have not enough online time to enlighten you about things you should have known before acting like you did.
Thereby trying to place burden of proof on me. Again, another skillful evasion, but the burden of proof for your statements remains with you so in response I post:
quote:
I do however reject your statement that I should have known something you posted but cared not to prove. These are your unsubstantiated points afterall.
Now, clearly the onus is on you my dear friend to either prove your statements or remove yourself from this discussion. I am so sorry to be so technical here about all this, but your diversions and evasions cast a color of illegitimacy over much of what you write.
[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Forgive me. "Apparently" would have been a somewhat more accurate choice of word. My point was that you brought up the subject of possible budgetary problems in your original post, and made a statement in that area. A statement that you have thus far not proven, much the same as I on the same subject. Therefore, as I have stated, we have not the information at hand to back any argument either of us might make on the budgetary aspect of SDI.
Thereby trying to place burden of proof on me.
You misunderstand. I hold you to the same standards you hold me. Nothing more. I will research this, as I hope you will, in an attempt to back up my claims.
Now, clearly the onus is on you my dear friend to either prove your statements or remove yourself from this discussion.
Which was exactly my point when I said:
I have not enough online time to enlighten you about things you should have known before acting like you did.
You brought up the subject of the budget, not I. You should have had the information available to you when you did so. We've both made unsupported statements, and we should both be attempting to rectify that, no?
quote:
OK, you prove this:
You might as well have said 'OK, you prove this first before I move to say anything.'
You know and I know that that is not the way to debate any give topic. I wish in the future you would either answer the question, say nothing or say something like:
"Well I have no proof for that. However I would as your source about this statement."
In debate, as you well know, the onus is on you to either prove or give up the point when asked for evidence. You can't say you prove this first. No debate works that way and you know that full well.
quote:
You brought up the subject of the budget, not I. You should have had the information available to you when you did so.
I certainly did and I certainly do. However, you also know full well that I have no intention of moving to give any information until we get the the question of your proof settled first. Again, you like to use evasion debate as a tatic and clearly I have no intention of moving on until you clear up the questions asked of you.
This is not a double standard. Nor is it a legitimate debate tatic on your part to claim so after you have moved to divert the question.
Once you answer the question put to you I will do the same and everyone can move on. So, answer the question (I see you have claimed time to do so) or leave the thread.
I refer you to table eighteen of the above-linked page. "MID?SESSION BASELINE TOTALS". It states that the 2001 surplus at time of publication was $157.8 billion. This was published in August, so it was obviously before the terrorist attack. Thus subtract... what, $50bil, now? Still, over $100 billion this year alone. Admittedly, the probable recession we entered this morning may affect tax receipts to some degree, but considering that this plan was intended to be implemented over a number of years under any circumstances, this year's surplus doesn't need to be enough to pay for the entire program anyway. Even though it may well be.
quote:
Thus subtract... what, $50bil, now? Still, over $100 billion this year alone.
Conjecture is not proof.
While I enjoyed looking at the White House numbers, I thought that we might take a look at another source in The Congressional Budjet Office. The CBO had updated its figures on 5 September 2001, and in general the numbers are about the same, but the CBO goes into more detail than the White House.
quote:
Recently enacted legislation and the continued sluggish behavior of the U.S. economy have reduced the projected federal budget surpluses for fiscal year 2001 and future years. CBO projects that the total budget surplus in 2001 will be $153 billion--$122 billion lower than CBO estimated in May. About two-thirds of the decrease results from new legislation; one-third comes from a weaker economy and other factors. Despite that drop, if the $153 billion surplus materializes in 2001, it will equal 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the second largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951.Because of the smaller total surplus, CBO now projects a small on-budget deficit for this year. (The on-budget accounts exclude the spending and revenues of Social Security and the Postal Service.) If current tax and spending policies are maintained and the economy performs as estimated, CBO projects small deficits or surpluses in on-budget accounts for the next four years; however, steadily increasing on-budget surpluses reemerge by the middle of the decade. The projected surpluses would allow all public debt that is available for redemption to be retired by 2010.
The Budget Outlook
For the five years from 2002 through 2006, CBO projects surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion, which come almost entirely from off-budget accounts (see Table 1). For the 10-year period through 2011, CBO estimates that under current policies, surpluses will total $3.4 trillion. Social Security makes up about three-quarters of that total. In 2010, the on-budget surplus reaches 1 percent of GDP, and the total surplus grows to 3 percent of GDP. Those estimates should be viewed cautiously, however, because future economic developments, technical estimating errors, and future legislative actions could produce substantial deviations--a point that CBO discussed in detail in its January report on the budget and economic outlook.
Find the report here.
Some key parts I'd like to point out in the CBO report:
The fact of the matter is is that all the CBO and the White House can do is speculate as to if there is a surplus or not. What is clear however, is that when negative growth forces are applied to the budget, ie tax cuts, emergency military outlays and economic downturns, then the numbers consistantly get revised downward.
The American stock market took a huge hit when the planes destroyed the World Trade towers and hit the Pentagon. The economic downturn continues to deepen and as a result it is unclear at this point if there is a surplus of any kind. Therefor looking to fund the SDI initiative based upon a projected surplus is indulging in fancy.
Both the White House and CBO include Social Security in some aspect of their budget analysis. I believe it is wrong to view Social Security as just another part of the general fund however. The monies in the Social Security Trust Fund have in a sence been spent already as future payments to retirees. Consequently, it is not free to be spent on other programs or military expenditures.
Again, as the surplus is revised downward as a result poor economic forecasts, it becomes less realistic to point at the budget and say that there is a surplus at any given level if at all.
Now, there is considerable debate on where spending should go in each and every budget passed by the United States Congress. Rightly so. I believe that the United States needs to avoid moving back into the huge deficit spending of the Reagan years. With the huge emergency outlays by Congress in recent days, and the fact that predictions of the surplus are precarious at best, and with shaky economic news combined with my strong belief that the domestic side of policy can not be overlooked too long during all of this brings me to the conclusion that the United States can not afford to pursue this unproven, expensive and divisive idea.
[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
But you know what, let's say we build a missile shield. Good, now we stop some ICBM's as they are... where are we stoping them? Well, wherever it is we stop them (forgetting about the nuclear fallout and all that), let's give the shield to any country that wants to help pay for it.Let's make it a multi-national, heck even global effort so that every country in the world is protected from these from rouge ICBMs.
Which is why we wait until we actually have the money to build SDI. No one is proposing that we do it NOW. We don't even have the technology perfected yet. If the surplus doesn't materialize, well, tough noogies, I guess. Maybe we can kill some stupid program out there that's a waste of money and use those funds.
I believe it is wrong to view Social Security as just another part of the general fund however.
That is where the money you pay goes, and where the money your grandfather receives comes from. It IS part of the general fund now. It shouldn't be, though, and that's part of what Bush was trying to fix. I'd bet it just got kicked down a couple years on the priority list, though.
The monies in the Social Security Trust Fund have in a sence been spent already as future payments to retirees.
There is no trust fund. Your SS taxes have been spent on EXISTING retirees.
With the huge emergency outlays by Congress in recent days, and the fact that predictions of the surplus are precarious at best, and with shaky economic news combined with my strong belief that the domestic side of policy can not be overlooked too long during all of this brings me to the conclusion that the United States can not afford to pursue this unproven, expensive and divisive idea.
One problem with this: the word "can". As in "can not afford". Try "may not be able to afford". I say we wait and see if the money's there when we can actually use it. There's no way to know to any degree of certainty.
So, shall we declare the budgetary side of this a stalemate until 2003?
quote:The rigged missile defense test
The target destroyed in the "successful" defense shield test contained a global positioning satellite beacon that made it easier to detect. Why has the media mostly ignored the story?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason
July 31, 2001 | The Pentagon and the Bush administration are determined to sell the American people a national missile defense system that will probably increase tensions with allies and adversaries and will surely cost more than $100 billion. Their latest marketing exercise took place on the evening of July 14, when a "kill vehicle" launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific smashed into a rocket sent up from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.Precisely according to plan, the target was instantly vaporized on impact -- and along with it, or so the Pentagon's uniformed salesmen hoped, the perennial concern that missile defense won't work. With the cooperation of major news organizations and conservative pundits, that test provided an enormous propaganda boost to the Bush proposal, which conveniently enough had been brought up to Capitol Hill by Defense Department officials just two days earlier.
There was only one thing that all the happy salesmen forgot to mention about their latest test drive. The rocket fired from Vandenberg was carrying a global positioning satellite beacon that guided the kill vehicle toward it. In other words, it would be fair to say that the $100 million test was rigged.
No wonder, then, that Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, the Air Force officer who oversees the NMD program, told the Washington Post on the eve of the test that he was "quietly confident" about the outcome. The general knew about the GPS beacon, while the reporters didn't.
This rather significant aspect of the July 14 mission remained hidden in the fine print until a few days ago, when the Pentagon confirmed the role of the GPS device to a reporter for Defense Week magazine. But of course most Americans still don't know why the test functioned so smoothly, because the Defense Week scoop was either buried or ignored by the mainstream media, which had so obediently celebrated the technological breakthrough two weeks earlier.
And as Kadish later acknowledged, each of the previous three tests -- two of which failed anyway -- had also involved the use of a guidance beacon. (To longtime observers of the missile-defense effort, this latest news recalled the notorious "Star Wars" scandal, when investigators discovered that a target had been secretly heated to ensure that it would be picked up by the interceptor's infrared sensor.)
Reuters was among the few news organizations that bothered to cover the Defense Week story. The wire service quoted a Pentagon official who "conceded that real warheads in an attack would not carry such helpful beacons." Probably not, although we can always hope that the Iranians or the North Koreans or the Chinese will attach to each incoming nuke a loudspeaker that screams "come and get me!"
Unfortunately, weapons experts agree that even the most primitive enemy missiles are more likely to carry a very different kind of accessory, namely, decoys designed to fool the computerized sensors aboard the kill vehicle.
While the missile launched from Vandenberg on July 14 did spit out a single Mylar balloon as a symbolic decoy, that scarcely challenged the kill vehicle's capacity to select the correct target -- particularly because there was no GPS beacon on that shiny balloon. In real warfare, an incoming missile is expected to deploy multiple decoys of varying shapes and sizes to lure the kill vehicle astray. Past tests have indicated that these simple fakes work far more reliably than the complex technology designed to detect them.
Eventually, the truth about the inherent problems of national missile defense may emerge in congressional hearings. But meanwhile, the Pentagon and the Bush White House mean to stifle any dissent about the capabilities of their favorite toy. They have repeatedly sought to reclassify documents that show that the system doesn't function as advertised. And within the past few weeks, they have blatantly attempted to intimidate Theodore Postol, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is the country's leading critic of missile defense.
In early July, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Defense Department officials asked MIT to confiscate the reclassified report from Postol and to "investigate [his] actions." At first MIT president Charles Vest, no doubt worried about millions of dollars in defense research grants to his university, moved to comply with that request. Only when Postol protested publicly did MIT back down.
Bogus tests and bullied critics are the hallmarks of a defense establishment that fears facts. With billions in contracts at stake and bellicose ideologues in power, the salesmen for national missile defense must conceal the many defects in their dangerous product. And the press corps, reverting to the bad habits of the Cold War, has done little so far to penetrate the Pentagon's propaganda.
So when the next "successful" missile-defense test is announced with fanfare and fireworks, don't necessarily believe what you hear. You are the buyers targeted by this massive sales effort -- and you should most certainly beware.
You know, somehow I don't think anyone who launches an ICBM at the U.S. (well, at any nation) will include a GPS.
Well, at least the Convervative's "liberal bias" bullshit has taken a fatal hit. They don't mention the rigged missile test ... they don't mention Bush's gift of $48 million to the Taliban ... oh, wait, Bush is a *liberal* now (by Omega's definition, anyway)
[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
On what basis do you draw that conclusion?
You know, somehow I don't think anyone who launches an ICBM at the U.S. (well, at any nation) will include a GPS.
This is why we're not proposing to implement the system now. It needs more refinement. However, even with a GPS tracking system, can you not see the incredible achievement of hitting something traveling several times the speed of sound and shooting it down?
Hitting a bullet with a bullet is an amazing accomplishment, even if the second bullet is a smart bullet.
quote:
On what basis do you draw that conclusion?
Since you define a liberal as someone who wants a "big government", and considering that government is finally going to take over, among other things, airport security (not to mention bailing out the airlines), not to mention new powers by the Justice Department (easier phone taps, etc.), then Bush is clearly (by your definition only) a "liberal."
quote:
It needs more refinement. However, even with a GPS tracking system, can you not see the incredible achievement of hitting something traveling several times the speed of sound and shooting it down?
Considering the ICBM was pretty much broadcasting a homing beacon directing the shoot-down missile directly to it ... well, no, I can't. I very much doubt incoming ICBMs will be so thoughtful as to broadcast a "Hi! Here I am! Lock onto my heat signature and shoot me down!"
[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
The government will gain no new power over my life under the new laws.
Good for you. That's why I'm a liberal, and you're not: even if new laws don't effect me directly, I still take a stand against them if they effect others injustly.
For some reason, I thought you to do the same. Apparently, I'm wrong. And regardless of whether or not they effect you, government is taking a really big-step to "Big Brother" under the administration of George W. Bush. If Gore was in office, lordy knows you'd be screaming bloody murder about the whole thing (regardless of whether or not you were affected by them).
Food for thought:
quote:
Taking Liberties:Fear and the Constitution
9.14.01
by Natasha Hunter"When you're in this type of conflict, when you're at war, civil liberties are treated differently." -- Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss)
The ACLU's phone is ringing off the hook with questions about what the recent disasters in Washington and New York will mean for a free society. People stare and point at the military "humvies" with their black-bereted guards parked on D.C. street corners. The Arab-American Anti-Defamation Committee protests an emerging "pattern of collective blame and scapegoating against Arab-Americans and Muslims."
While no one protests the current uptick in military and police presence in the wake of Tuesday's tragedy, liberal-minded folk are wondering if the current calamity will spark yet another: a systematic breakdown of respect for personal liberties in the name of personal and national security. Will security hawks use the recent events to justify a "wish list" of radical and invasive measures?
The U.S. Constitution makes no provision for its own suspension during emergencies, unlike those of many other nations, including Canada. While citizens of other countries can expect to sacrifice certain civil liberties in wartime or other extreme situations, Americans' rights are supposed to remain intact even in the most dire circumstances. That is, at least, from a legal standpoint. Practically speaking, of course, we can all name situations where the government trod upon or just downright ignored human rights in the name of national security.
Where was the writ of habeas corpus, for example, during the Palmer raids of 1919, when thousands of immigrants were rounded up and detained for months following an explosion in attorney general Palmer's home? (About five hundred were eventually deported, and the others were released without apology). Or when an estimated 110,000 Japanese immigrants found themselves in internment camps in 1942 for the crime of having Japanese ancestry? Or during the McCarthy era, when laws passed targeting persons for their political affiliations, regardless of their actual activities.
The McCarthy era provision authorizing the deportation of immigrants for being members of the Communist Party was finally wiped from the books in 1991, but the substance of it was reborn in the Congressional Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Designed as a response to the Oklahoma City bombing, the law radically restricts a prisoner's ability to challenge the constitutionality of his or her conviction, allows the deportation of immigrants on the basis of "secret evidence", and permits the prosecution of citizens for supporting any organization that the State Department dubs terrorist.
In none of these cases did governmental action bear much relevance to the crime committed. No connection was ever established between the Palmer explosion and any of the immigrants detained. The Japanese immigrants and Japanese Americans not only were not traitors, but the government tacitly acknowledged this by conscripting the military-aged men to fight for the country that had illegally imprisoned them.
Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole has successfully defended 13 immigrants, mostly after 1996, where the U.S. has tried to use secret evidence. (The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is currently authorized to withhold evidence, even from defense counsel, that it deems a threat to national security. Suspects can therefore be tried and convicted on evidence they have never seen and cannot defend themselves against). He fears that the events of September 11 will spark yet more restrictions on civil liberties, especially for immigrants and minority groups.
"Historically we have overreacted in times of fear," Cole says. "Everybody feels they have to do something, which often turns out to be symbolic as much as anything."
Cole isn't sure what sorts of restrictions on political freedoms to watch out for in the coming months, in part because the responses after tragedies like the one in New York and Washington so rarely reflect rational forethought. The FBI will probably seek broader powers, perhaps in the form of more intrusive surveillance, especially of the Internet. Other likely changes include a broadened ability to deport "suspicious" aliens, and racial profiling at airports and other locations. We could also see an expansion of military enforcement of civil law, allowable now only in cases of biological or chemical attacks. And the recent bi-partisan sentiment in favor of eliminating secret evidence cases will probably go up in smoke.
Other experts, like Harvard law professor Frederick Schauer, expect the effect on political rights to assume a subtler, but perhaps more pervasive form. If we look at recent history, Schauer says, what we should be concerned about is the suspension of so-called informal civil liberties. Muslims, Arabs, and those of Middle East descent may find themselves victims of social marginalization, racial slurs, rhetoric, and a general failure to be heard or respected in common society.
Many of the anti-immigrant, anti-Arab actions will prove counterproductive, Cole says, as the Arab community feels itself increasingly singled out and persecuted. Many Arab-Americans are already extremely mistrustful of the FBI and see no advantage in cooperating. Cole likens the situation to law enforcement in the inner cities, where African- Americans already feel themselves under suspicion and vulnerable, which in turn breeds distrust of officers and makes policing more difficult.
A recent ABC/Post survey found two out of three people expressing willingness to surrender "some of the liberties we have in this country to crack down on terrorism." Cole attributes this not only to a heightened concern for safety, but to the fact that the majority are not generally affected—that is, it's not their relatives being detained and questioned. We should all ask ourselves, he says, how much of our freedom would we personally would be willing to give up for a gain in security.
What's crucial, says Schauer, are statements from those in authority encouraging people to distinguish between what people actually do and their ethnic identity. "These authority figures are where people get their signals," he says.
[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
The U.S. Constitution makes no provision for its own suspension during emergencies
The Constitution says that the President can suspend habeas corpus. Other powers and restrictions are defined under the National Emergencies Act and other Acts.
One is forced to wonder just what CONSTITUTIONAL rights these folks feel are being violated. If you're going to claim something on those grounds, better be able to back it up. Freedom from ethnic slurs isn't in there... though Freedom of speech IS.
Still, it was Franklin who said that "A people who are willing to sacrifice essential Liberty for a measure of Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security."
But to get back on topic, I no more expect a ICBM shield to prevent standard terrorist attacks than I wopuld expect my dog to fly... they're just not designed for it. Still, If I want a pet that flies, I get a bird, and if I want a pet that will bring my slippers, I get a dog.
Somebody here said that a missile defense was unnecessary because no rogue nut would launch a missile at the US because that would be 'suicide.'
Guess what? So's piloting a jetliner into a building.
Nutballs don't CARE, or they think God'll protect them, or they'll all go straight to paradise for it.
quote:
I no more expect a ICBM shield to prevent standard terrorist attacks
Especially if our missile defense can only shoot down ICBMs broadcasting a "Hi! Here I am!" message to the missiles we're using to shoot it down. Jury-rigging missile tests? C'mon guys. If it doesn't work, just admit it, eh?
Still, one wonders if Conservatives read the Constitution. Regulating interstate commerce is clearly a power given the Federal government (sec. 8), but Omega seems hell bent against it.
As for suspension of habeas corpus ... The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended; unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Well, safe to say a rag-tag army of POed Democrats isn't going to carry Bush out of the White House in chains any time soon (although you might've wanted to mention something along those lines to angry NRA members, who while the election was being decided by the Supreme Court, threatened to break out their guns if Gore won the White House).
And I very sincerely doubt that soldiers of fanatical, fundementalist, American-hating, Taliban-loving Muslims are going to start storming Ocean City, MD or Virginia Beach. Or anywhere, for that matter. Therefore, what possible motive could there be for Bush to suspend the writ of habeas corpus? He can't say, "for the purposes of National Security, you can't have your habeas corpus." He has to have very specific things happen to do so, and they haven't happened yet.
But, hey, the era of Big Brother has arrived, in the name of "National Security". And surprise, surprise ... guess who is in charge? The same guy who gave the Taliban $48 million bucks. If Clinton had done this before a terrorist attack on the U.S., Rob and Omega would be screaming that Clinton had deliberately given the money to Bin Laden through the Taliban so that he could get his poll numbers up.
[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
Jury-rigging missile tests? C'mon guys. If it doesn't work, just admit it, eh?
I suppose you could have passed a calc test on your first day at kindergarten?
You keep forgetting (and for someone of your obvious intelligence, I can only assume its deliberate) that these are tests only TRIAL runs to test SOME of the equipment, and NOT full-scale actual-conditions operating systems tests. We're a LONG way from that. Nobody's talking about implementing this thing next year, or even within the next five years, or longer.
Sheesh, we sent 3 Apollo capsules to the Moon before we landed. And how many Gemini and Mercurycapsules did we use? Those were ALL 'tests,' in preparation for the moon landing, but NONE of them were meant to be the finished product.
quote:
blah-blah... Bush.. blah-blah... NRA... blah-blah... Gore...
Why are you talking about the election?
Oh. "Partisan bitching," that thing only WE do, eh? *smug smirk*
Dragging back to topic again...
"rebellion or invasion"
Well, a group of infiltrators intent on destruction (Since the evidence seems to be showing that the perpetrators of these acts had lived here for some time) could probably be seen as either of those two things, depending upon one's point of view. Either we've been 'invaded' by terrorists, or a segment (albeit a miniscule segment, so far, thankfully) of the population is rebelling. Probably the first definition would be more appropriate.
And nobody HAS suspended habeas corpus yet, HAVE they? Any citations?
quote:
I suppose you could have passed a calc test on your first day at kindergarten?
No, but if my parents said I could, then fed me the answers so I could, and I got an "A" on the test, it'd would still be as jury-rigged as this.
quote:
and for someone of your obvious intelligence, I can only assume its deliberate
::blush:: Thank you -- !
quote:
Nobody's talking about implementing this thing next year, or even within the next five years, or longer.
Maybe they should come right out and say, "yes, we're putting GPS systems on our missiles ... we're only testing, and ways we're planning on tracking incoming ICBMs without GPS and avoiding decoys is ..." (and then, obviously, list them)
quote:
Oh. "Partisan bitching," that thing only WE do, eh? *smug smirk*
Two points to this.
There's a big difference between pointing out legitimate facts ($48 mill* to Taliban, government moving to Big Brother?**)and using a national tragedy to make fun of Al Gore, or spend several hours on the radio talking about Bill Clinton being in NYC.***
* This is more of a wake-up call that America's Foreign Policy is mighty fucked up. We put men like Castro into power, we fund Saddam Hussein, and we trained bin Laden. Even after we're attacked by bin Laden (the first WTC bombing, the Embassies, the Cole), and we presumeable know him to be residing in Afghanistan, we still gave money to the Taliban. Why? This is not partisan-bashing. While I'm sure more paranoid left- or right- wingers might draw massive conspiracy theories about how Bush gave the money to bin Laden in order to boost his approval rating and push a Conservative agenda, I am not -- to the best of my knowledge -- doing that. If I was going to do that, I would've posted "George W. Bush Paid Bin Laden To Blow Up WTC and Attack Pentagon" and made out a much more detailed plan. I do not believe it to be true, and I would hope more people don't believe it to be true. It is certainly, however, very scary what we do with our foreign policy, and it's time to become more aware of it. I think everyone realizes that foreign policy has been fucked up for a very long time -- Vietnam, attacking the Sudan (is it any surprise our intelligence agencies didn't pick word up on this? They thought an aspirin factory was bin Laden's HQ!) That is my arguement for why this is not partisan.
** If anything, this is bi-partisan bitching since the Democratic leadership in the Senate don't seem to be doing anything to make sure we don't go too far, and since only one Dem in the House had the courage to recognize the need to temper our response, I won't even mention them
***And I'm not just talking about Republicans here, enough Democrats kept calling in just to defend (and in some cases, attack) Bill Clinton's appearance in NYC that I really just wanted to throw up. This was the Saturday after the attack, and all anyone wanted to do was bash Clinton some more. C'mon, people ... again, bi-partisan bitching.
**** Final Thought. I'm a registered member of the Green Party as of about a month ago. So I can't really do a lot of partisan bitching, since I'm not a partisan. This isn't the first time I've mentioned on these forums that I'm no longer a registered-Democrat, but the reason for my change is that I think the main-stream of the Democratic party is too mainstream for the left. End of speech. Sorry for all the small type. *****
quote:
Well, a group of infiltrators intent on destruction (Since the evidence seems to be showing that the perpetrators of these acts had lived here for some time) could probably be seen as either of those two things, depending upon one's point of view. Either we've been 'invaded' by terrorists, or a segment (albeit a miniscule segment, so far, thankfully) of the population is rebelling. Probably the first definition would be more appropriate.
Well, since the Founding Fathers probably didn't intend "invasion" to refer to a group of fanatical religious zealots willing to crash airplanes into buildings, either you're saying:
a) Yes, you're quite right, we've not been invaded.
Or ...
b) Damn, dude, you're right ... the Founding Fathers could never know what we'd be facing hundreds of years after they died, so the "intent" of the Founding Fathers can't be used in Constitutional arguements!*
* Downside of agreeing with "b", is, of course, that you can pretty much ignore me whenever I take the "intent of the Founding Fathers" tack in gun debates to try and convince people that they didn't even have to deal with revolvers -- pretty sure on that, anyway -- and that their views on modern weaponry would be much different if they could see the present day and re-write the Constitution, but if you want to reply to this, let's start a new thread, eh?
quote:
And nobody HAS suspended habeas corpus yet, HAVE they?
I don't recall anyone saying that they had been. I do remember a call to point out to people, hey, folks! We've still got our rights, lets make sure they don't get infringed, eh? I would think that this simple task would be agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals.
***** NOT!
[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
On Sept. 11 politics died. Contemporary American partisan politics as we have come to know it, full of thrusts and parries, charges and counter-charges, simply stopped. Without any polls or focus groups telling them what to do, Democrats and Republicans instinctively stopped quarreling among themselves, rallied behind a president whose very legitimacy had been questioned and pledged to give him whatever he wanted to fight a war on terrorism. Budgets did not matter. Protecting the "lock box" of Social Security did not matter. Political positioning did not matter. Elections did not matter. Only America mattered.The fundraising direct mail was pulled. The 30-second political advertising in New Jersey and Virginia was halted. The New York City mayoral primary was postponed and within hours commentators were suggesting that term limits should be repealed so that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani could run again. National and state political fundraisers were canceled all over the country and the constant pulse tones of members of Congress dialing for dollars went silent. Political consultants were asked by candidates, "What do I do now?" The answer from those sharp-tongued professionals was a unanimous, "Nothing." Congressman Gary Condit's face disappeared from the television scene, as did the discussion of Al Gore's new facial hair. Again, as always happens, nothing brings Americans together like a common enemy, and nothing makes Americans more focused than a common tragedy.
This political unity was rightly perceived as one of the defining characteristics of American patriotism. But an equally important characteristic is the one that our common enemies do not often understand, and in many cases, may be fighting against: Our patriotism is premised on our democracy. Our ability to debate important policies, to disagree vehemently and vocally about where our country needs to go, and yet still stand together against a common enemy in the face of a common tragedy is what distinguishes us from military and religious dictatorships all over the globe.
That is why there is so much danger in politics dying. Will every political difference between Democrats and Republicans be portrayed now as an unpatriotic display of partisanship? Will legitimate differences on how we should fight terrorism be characterized as unbecoming a great nation?
Unquestionably, a significant and important slice of the American electorate is fed up with what is perceived as partisan bickering in Washington. After the impeachment of a president and the fall of two speakers of the House, it is no wonder that voters think there are too many personal attacks that have nothing to do with the serious issues that confront our country. But now that truly serious issues confront our country, we cannot let serious debate be perceived as inappropriate.
If Democrats have differences with President Bush they should make those differences clear and fight for what they believe. That is patriotic. If Republicans object to the direction in which Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is moving, they should fight for their beliefs. That is patriotic. But what will do our country and our cause no good is for either side to accuse the other of a lack of patriotism if they disagree.
This disagreement is the sine qua non of democracy. Democracy is what our terrorist adversaries want to disrupt. Let us not let them. Let us debate among ourselves so that we are better able to fight against them. Let us reinvigorate the checks and balances that make our democracy so strong. Let us encourage people to get involved in politics and to come out and vote. Let us hope for record turnout in the postponed mayoral primaries in New York because Giuliani demonstrated these past two weeks that mayors matter.
As baseball, football and Jay Leno come back, politics may come back too. But we are preparing for a war, and when the first military action happens, there will be a tendency for politics to die again. While politics must stop at the water's edge, what we do before we jump over that edge and how we prepare our nation for a just but complicated coming conflict must be debated.
We can do without polls and direct mail, but we do need politics. We need the vibrant discussions, the challenges to the assumptions of the status quo; and the sometimes messy, American process of reaching serious decisions. Let us not let the terrorists take that away from us. Let us try to help promote it for them.
quote:
...Democrats and Republicans instinctively stopped quarreling among themselves...
Hmm. Really?