If not, I guess the Bush administration has been doing a good job combatting terror over the last ~5 years

If so, what is the Democrats' plan to combat it?

9/1/2006 2:03:45 PM

Quote :

"Be thoughtful/humorous - Hundreds of people browse the message board each day. Before you post something, think to yourself, "would the majority of the users want to read this?". If the answer is "no", then don't post it. "

9/1/2006 2:04:13 PM

please dont gay up this thread sober

9/1/2006 2:04:44 PM

too late

9/1/2006 2:05:42 PM

stop trolling please, this is The Soap Box, not Chit Chat

so anyway, is terrorism a threat or not? i've heard plenty of people say both yes and know and would like to continue this discussion

9/1/2006 2:06:23 PM

what if i didn't think terrorism was a problem/threat to begin with? (or at least that there are far worse problems that we should concern ourselves with)

9/1/2006 2:06:28 PM

Quote :

" i've heard plenty of people say both yes and know"

9/1/2006 2:07:10 PM

regardless of prioritizing problems, I am asking is terrorism a threat or not? If you say you didnt think it was a problem to begin with, I am assuming you dont think its a threat...but I dont want to offend you by putting words in your mouth

9/1/2006 2:08:03 PM

know, i dont think its a problem

9/1/2006 2:08:26 PM

it is a threat. but so are lightning strikes.

bush has done a good job with preventing me from getting struck by lightning these past six years.

9/1/2006 2:09:33 PM

so if its a threat like you just said

whats the democrats plan for dealing with it?

9/1/2006 2:10:03 PM

believe it or not i don't consider myself a democrat, nor do i speak for them.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2006 2:11:27 PM

ok, well what in your opinion should whatever party govt, whether it be bush finishing out his term or the next president, regardless of party...what should they do to help prevent terrorism?

9/1/2006 2:13:17 PM

9/1/2006 2:14:06 PM

have a national policy that respects non-european/israeli countries.

and believe it or not: i really don't think i'm qualified to make policy decisions like this. i'm just an engineer.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2006 2:16:50 PM

like kuwait and saudi arabia and india?

seriously, be more specific..."have a national policy of respect" sounds pretty vague...what ideas do you and others have?

9/1/2006 2:17:41 PM

I don't believe terrorism is or ever has been a problem/threat. Our government is ruining us and itself in search of protecting us from pin pricks.

9/11 was a one off, we were ungodly unlucky once in our nations lifetime, it was bound to happen and we should not over-react.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .,.]

9/1/2006 2:37:21 PM

Quote :

"If not, I guess the Bush administration has been doing a good job combatting terror over the last ~5 years "

What's that day that's coming up again?

V Look at your calendar, and you will see a number 11 in the month of September. Now, remember what happened that day 5 years ago. How good were they at combatting terror that day? Fighting terror by reading about a pet goat wasn't exactly a good strategy.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 2:51 PM. Reason : goat]

9/1/2006 2:40:14 PM

Quote :

"9/11 was a one off, we were ungodly unlucky once in our nations lifetime"

what?

^what?

9/1/2006 2:40:16 PM

We should be worrying about nuclear weapons flying at us from Korea instead of some dude in a car running people over.

9/1/2006 2:42:21 PM

we shouldnt be worried about both? why not?

9/1/2006 2:42:48 PM

Sure it's a threat.

So is forming a wholly simplistic understanding of what motivates them.

9/1/2006 2:43:49 PM

we should be but worried about both but I would rather be dodging cars than radioactive particles.

9/1/2006 2:44:44 PM

Quote :

"Sure it's a threat"

oh my fucking god hell must have frozen over...gamecat admitted terrorism is a threat...wtf

9/1/2006 2:45:13 PM

lol

cute

so since car accidents are a bigger threat to your mortality

i don't recognize terrorism as a threat

please outline your logic.

9/1/2006 2:45:57 PM

how come whenever you tell me one of my comparisons is "like comparing apples and oranges"

you come and compare terrorist attacks to car wrecks

9/1/2006 2:49:23 PM

i thought my last post was pretty funny....oh well

9/1/2006 2:49:29 PM

^^ Because you're talking about a threat.

There's a threat that you'll die in a fiery auto accident.

There's also a threat that you'll die in a fiery plane crash orchestrated by a terrorist.

One of these threats is a fuckton more likely than the other, and it has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden.

9/1/2006 2:51:59 PM

apples /= oranges

how come the logic YOU use to critique MY analogies doesnt hold true for yourself?

9/1/2006 2:53:43 PM

the car companies are terrorsts.

9/1/2006 2:54:07 PM

^^ Give an example of what you're talking about and I'll gladly walk you through it.

What did you mean by the word "threat" in the thread title?

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2006 2:54:55 PM

lots of things are problems. alot of things are going to kill me before some arab does.

9/1/2006 2:55:50 PM

^^oh ok, back to the semantics game...i get it

9/1/2006 2:55:53 PM

Questions are like kryptonite to this motherfucker...

9/1/2006 2:56:49 PM

so lets just get this out of the way.

yes terrorism is a treat but a small one when you look at the larger picture. We should put money into cancer research before we put money into blowing the fuck out of abunch of brown peoples homes which will no doubt make them not happy with us.

9/1/2006 2:57:28 PM

I'd say more money ought to be spent identifying the root causes of terrorism instead of insisting on whatever explanation is the most political expedient.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2006 2:59:03 PM

Ok Tree et, al... this could have been a good topic if it weren't for the namecalling and asshattery. Stop now, and focus on the issue

It seems like there is a central question to be addressed:

Is terrorism a problem/threat. I think it would be better to augment this with: Is terrorism a significant problem/threat, so we don't argue about the threat of lighting and other things like that.

Then, if it isn't: Do you attribute some or all of the lack of threat from actions by the Bush administration (or government action in general)?

If it is: Do you think the democrats have a solid plan to combat this threat, and what would that plan be.


One argument I've heard is that it isn't a significant threat and that 9/11 was a freak occurrence that should be expected from time to time. That's an interesting viewpoint. I would tend to agree with you, except that I think terrorism is more significant in that it is threatening to be more and mroe disaterous as it progresses. For instance, there are talks about dirty bombs and nuclear attacks from terrorists and rogue states. I think we can't just accept that occasionally a few thousand of us will die because I don't think its a steady-state threat like lightning. I think the threat will continue to grow until it is significant if it isn't already. Do you disagree?

9/1/2006 3:02:12 PM

Quote :

"yes terrorism is a treat but a small one when you look at the larger picture. We should put money into cancer research before we put money into blowing the fuck out of abunch of brown peoples homes which will no doubt make them not happy with us."

I can respect this opinion dental, but I have to disagree. First, the characterization of fighting the war on terror as "blowing the fuck out of abunch of brown peoples homes" is convenient when making a political statement, but it is oversimplifying.

Second, IMO, the government is responsible for protecting us from threats of terrorism, but not necessarily from the threat of cancer. See, it is my own personal interpretation of the constitution that the government should be focused primarily on law/order and national defense. Because of that, I don't see it as a "we can't spend money to fight terrorism until all other larger threats to my health are taken care of"
But I can at least respect your point of view on it.

9/1/2006 3:05:32 PM

^ What about the general welfare?

Quote :

"bgmims: One argument I've heard is that it isn't a significant threat and that 9/11 was a freak occurrence that should be expected from time to time. That's an interesting viewpoint. I would tend to agree with you, except that I think terrorism is more significant in that it is threatening to be more and mroe disaterous as it progresses."

I'd slightly modify that.

First of all, 9/11 was a freak occurrence that should be expected from time to time (by no means often) so long as a persistent enemy with adequate resources seeks to strike at us.

Second, our people need to understand that no government can keep its citizens completely safe--not from auto accidents, lightning strikes, hurricanes, or terrorism. This should be obvious to those who realize perfect defensive systems do not exist.

Quote :

"bgmims: For instance, there are talks about dirty bombs and nuclear attacks from terrorists and rogue states. I think we can't just accept that occasionally a few thousand of us will die because I don't think its a steady-state threat like lightning. I think the threat will continue to grow until it is significant if it isn't already. Do you disagree?"

No. I do not.

That is why I find it more critical to focus on what motivates the threat instead of focusing on body counts of terrorists.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ...]

9/1/2006 3:16:49 PM

Terrorism is the great issue of our time. Islamic Fascists pose as great a threat as have any empires of the past. Dont support the programs used to monitor these fascists here and abroad? You must not care about your own security. Liberals wish to repeal all of these measures which are aimed at catching terrorists, not listening to the phone calls of common people, no matter what moveon tells you.

9/1/2006 3:23:23 PM

Quote :

"That is why I find it more critical to focus on what motivates the threat instead of focusing on body counts of terrorists."

And again, I don't disagree. We can't destroy all terrorists through force because the force creates more terrorists. I understand that, and most people should get that.

On the other hand, I think we can and should attack terrorists with force for two reasons 1)A bit of revenge is good for the national pride and 2)We have to continue to make terrorists live in fear that we'll get them, which can minimize their amount of operations

On the "General Welfare." I interpret general welfare to be more along the lines of keeping us safe to live our lives in whatever way we choose without hurting others as well as helping in education. I don't think it means that we need to make sure no one dies of anything (or that we should sink tons of money into reducing deaths from natural causes like cancer). There is obviously room for interpretation and I think the general welfare has been vastly over-interpreted. Now it seems to include things like art, bridges to hundreds (ring a bell), etc. that I think ought be left out of the term.

9/1/2006 3:33:40 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: On the other hand, I think we can and should attack terrorists with force for two reasons 1)A bit of revenge is good for the national pride and 2)We have to continue to make terrorists live in fear that we'll get them, which can minimize their amount of operations"

1) I personally reject vengeance as a form of policy. Go after bin Laden, sure. Capture and kill those that violently hinder your effort to get him, too. But there are far more important issues at play with terrorism than killing and capturing large numbers of terrorists.

2) But, must the pursuit of terrorists be our nation's all consuming obsession? I think not. I dispute entirely the notion that our military apparatus must make a constant spectacle of itself in order to make terrorists live in fear that they'll be caught.

Quote :

"bgmims: On the "General Welfare." I interpret general welfare to be more along the lines of keeping us safe to live our lives in whatever way we choose without hurting others as well as helping in education."

What do you mean by "keeping us safe to our lives?"

Quote :

"bgmims: There is obviously room for interpretation and I think the general welfare has been vastly over-interpreted."

However, I strongly dispute the notion that requiring seatbelts in automobiles qualifies as a vast over-interpretation of the term.

Quote :

"bgmims: Now it seems to include things like art, bridges to hundreds (ring a bell), etc. that I think ought be left out of the term."

I have a difference of a opinion, for sure. But I agree that this is the clause that enables much of the pork and related bullshit to enter our government.

As a general matter, though, I'd argue that the TSA is a _good_ thing.

9/1/2006 4:01:04 PM

you guys should read last month's atlantic monthly article on why we should go ahead and end the war on terror as a doctrine

9/1/2006 4:03:48 PM

Can you summarize the article?

9/1/2006 4:14:24 PM

Gamecat

Quote :

"What do you mean by "keeping us safe to our lives?" "

Well, I said keeping us safe to live our own lives, but I think you just had a typo there. What I mean is that the government is in charge of keeping law and order so we minimize the risk of robbery/rape/murder etc. that interfere with your ability to live your own life peacefully. I don't necessarily mean keeping us safe from ourselves. As for the seatbelt issue specifically, I do think those laws are ridiculous. People under the age of 18 can be made to wear seatbelts without a word from me, but if an older person chooses to not wear them and increase his chances of being killed in an accident, I have no problem with it. Especially when its legal to ride a motorcycle, which is hardly any safer than not wearing a seatbelt in a Honda. Also, the train of events after you start protecting people from themselves with seatbelt laws gets kind of ugly. Should people not be allowed to eat red meat, because it is also dangerous. Should they be mandated to exercise or take medicines? A difficult question. Again, I recognize that may look slippery slopish, but I don't think that it is unreasonable to consider where that path could lead.

On the arts, we disagree, which is fine by me. I'm not a purist, and I can make room in my doctrine for a few things I don't consider "Education and National Security," especially if they are most obviously for the common good and don't hinder my freedoms. Do I think art qualifies? Not really, I don't see why artistic expression of one kind should be favored over others. The movie industry is an artform and it seems to be doing fine without government aid. I think it is a matter of tastes, and people simply dislike contemporary American artistic taste, so they want to fund more traditional types of art to compensate. I don't agree with that course of action.

Sounds like we're both understanding one another at least, though.

9/1/2006 4:24:21 PM

Quote :

" bgmims: On the other hand, I think we can and should attack terrorists with force for two reasons 1)A bit of revenge is good for the national pride and 2)We have to continue to make terrorists live in fear that we'll get them, which can minimize their amount of operations"

I would just like to look at these two points.

1) How does this make us any less insane than the terrorists. Sure I love explosions but you can only do so much "revenge" before the public stops carring about it which to a certain extent they have. Also pumping up national pride by using military force is tricky since we should be using our military forces to obtain objectives which will help our country in the long run not just make some rednecks happy to be an american.

2) These people you want to live in fear are blowing themselves up. They dont have much to live for other than God and killing those who opose God. Fear is not disrupting their operations its increasing them by leading people to their cause...but of course you know this.


oh and Randy, this is not a biblical war. We are fighting a ghost so dont make this look like WW3.

[Edited on September 1, 2006 at 4:36 PM. Reason : !]

9/1/2006 4:35:51 PM

^what is that supposed to mean?

we are at war with islamic fascists, do you even know what that means?

9/1/2006 4:57:22 PM

Quote :

"2) These people you want to live in fear are blowing themselves up. They dont have much to live for other than God and killing those who opose God. Fear is not disrupting their operations its increasing them by leading people to their cause...but of course you know this."

Point somewhat taken, but I think you are confusing ALL terrorists with suicide bombing terrorists. There are obviously those not only willing to risk death, but to induce it in their operations, but I'd say there are plenty more who are afraid of being killed that aren't willing to go to suicide bombing. Also, even the suicide bombers are afraid...they're afraid of being captured or killed before they can really become martyrs by inflicting maximum damage.

I still think its ok for us to hunt down terrorists a bit for revenge, a bit to discourage it, and of course a lot of prevent terrorist attacks. I don't disagree that killing terrorists will not stop all the terrorism, but I do think it can decrease it if it is coupled with trying to win the hearts and minds of those on the fence about becomming terrorists. Economic devlopment, governmental cooperation, and (god I hope) some tempering of the religious zealotry are needed to make it successful.

9/1/2006 5:11:32 PM

I think you overinterpreted my point about the TSA, bgmims. But that's about it.

The TSA is the reason your cars have safety belts. They wouldn't have them if the TSA, which exists purely because of the General Welfare clause, didn't require auto manufacturers to put them in every car.

That's what I meant. I wasn't referring to the laws which require you to wear them (which they are, as you correctly pointed out, responsible for). Frankly, I don't think you deserve a ticket for riding around unbuckled.

But I do draw the line at requiring adults to wear them. Children ought to be required, if only so they can have an adult or two explain why--as children will incessantly ask for an explanation as to why they're treated differently--and to limit negligent endangerment from the parents.

Generally though, sounds like we're not far apart on how we view government.

I'm a waffler on federal support of the arts to tell the whole truth. In the absence of much religion I tend to overweight the significance of artwork (common among agnostics, I hear), but recognize that I can't really tie a strong case to government support of it.

Quote :

"bgmims: Point somewhat taken, but I think you are confusing ALL terrorists with suicide bombing terrorists. There are obviously those not only willing to risk death, but to induce it in their operations, but I'd say there are plenty more who are afraid of being killed that aren't willing to go to suicide bombing. Also, even the suicide bombers are afraid...they're afraid of being captured or killed before they can really become martyrs by inflicting maximum damage."

Upon what do you base your belief that there are plenty more who fear death?

Of those who don't blow themselves up or crash airplanes, the only other kind (aside from leadership) that predominate the headlines are the ones who are shooting at marines. If a person shooting at marines doesn't fear death, I don't know who does.

Quote :

"bgmims: I still think its ok for us to hunt down terrorists a bit for revenge, a bit to discourage it, and of course a lot of prevent terrorist attacks. I don't disagree that killing terrorists will not stop all the terrorism, but I do think it can decrease it if it is coupled with trying to win the hearts and minds of those on the fence about becomming terrorists."

I cringe at the word revenge, but totally agree with your other two reasons.

Quote :

"bgmims: Economic devlopment, governmental cooperation, and (god I hope) some tempering of the religious zealotry are needed to make it successful."

Amen.

9/1/2006 8:36:20 PM

we're under constant attack now. yea....we're safer.

9/1/2006 8:46:47 PM