Reply
Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:00 am
1. Induct all able-bodied men between the ages of 18-22 into the armed forces so the military can assume the patrol duty for potential terrorist targets that is now entrusted to civilian police or not patrolled at all.
2. Ration gasoline and electricity and develop solar, wind and biomass alternatives to completely eliminate our reliance on Middle Eastern oil supplies.
3. Establish regional stockpiles of food, fuel and medical supplies for use in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. These stockpiles should have a service radius of no more than 100 miles to make distribution easier if the transportation system beaks down.
4. Provide school-based civil defense training for all persons between the ages of 16 and 18. This training should include first aid, recognizing the symptoms of bio-chemical chemical weapons exposure as well as general disaster preparedness.
5. Disseminate daily radio and television war briefings on all broadcast, satellite and cable channels. These briefings should include a threat assessment as well as preparedness advice.
6. Use daily newspapers and movie theater newsreels to notify the public of persons wanted by law enforcement authorities for suspected terrorist activity.
7. Retool the entire economy towards mass recycling to conserve energy and natural resources so we can be as economically self-sufficient as possible. This way our economy will not have to be tied our foreign policy.
8. Eliminate all federal spending not designated for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, law enforcement and the war effort (which would include public education).
9. The federal government must provide every U.S. citizen with gas masks and establish monitoring stations to detect bio-chemical weapons.
10. The federal government must establish, maintain and fully provision sufficient bio-chemical/fallout shelter space for all U.S. citizens.
11. Tin foil hat for flaja
12. Kool Aid antedote for flaja.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:11. Tin foil hat for flaja
12. Kool Aid antedote for flaja.
How is what I have proposed any different from what we did in World War II?
Introduce right-wing, reactionary
sturmabteilung with really cool brown uniforms to enforce dictatorial policies on an unwilling population, and prevent a new presidential election.
Herr Flaja's new Homeland Security Action Figure!
flaja wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:11. Tin foil hat for flaja
12. Kool Aid antedote for flaja.
How is what I have proposed any different from what we did in World War II?
That was a real war. This is a police action. Very different.
I think we could do it a little more easily:
1. If we spent the $20+ billion a month we're currently spending in Iraq on energy independence (nuclear, solar, wind, synthetic fuels, hydrogen, fusion research) within a few years we could significantly reduce our energy imports from our Middle East friends.
2. Secure our boarders. Initiate a program of work visas and immigration control, so that only people we approve enter our country, for durations of our choosing.
3. When world energy prices begin to fall (because of step one), and energy revenues to our Middle East friends begin to dry up, funding for terrorists will become scarce.
4. And if we are no longer dependant on the Middle East for energy, then why should we care how they want to run their countries?
I consider your proposals to be eminently reasonable Jim . . . and i consider that you will make many enemies in the energy and produce industries, who aren't going to want you to slaughter their cash cows.
Flaja,
How large do you estimate the chance that the US will be hit by a bio-chemical terrorist attack causing over 1,000 victims within the next 10 years?
Jim wrote:I think we could do it a little more easily:
1. If we spent the $20+ billion a month we're currently spending in Iraq on energy independence (nuclear, solar, wind, synthetic fuels, hydrogen, fusion research) within a few years we could significantly reduce our energy imports from our Middle East friends.
We are not in Iraq because of oil. Our foreign policy in the Middle East isn't as driven by our energy needs as many people seem to think it is.
U.S. oil imports by country as of November 2005:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports
Iraq 5%
Saudi Arabia 12%
Kuwait 3%
Algeria 3%
Canada 18%
Mexico 15%
Venezuela 10%
Nigeria 12%
Angola 6%
Quote:2. Secure our boarders. Initiate a program of work visas and immigration control, so that only people we approve enter our country, for durations of our choosing.
Which we will need #1 in my list to do.
Quote:3. When world energy prices begin to fall (because of step one), and energy revenues to our Middle East friends begin to dry up, funding for terrorists will become scarce.
Assuming that terrorists don't turn to other sources of funding- Red China for instance.
Quote:4. And if we are no longer dependant on the Middle East for energy, then why should we care how they want to run their countries?
Because democracy and liberty are not secure here if we are unwilling to support them there.
Flaja - I agree that we are not in Iraq because of oil. Yet nonetheless we are still spending huge amounts of money there. If instead we had chosen to permanently blockade Iraq, and spent the money on our own energy independence, I believe the United States would be in a better position today.
nimh wrote:Flaja,
How large do you estimate the chance that the US will be hit by a bio-chemical terrorist attack causing over 1,000 victims within the next 10 years?
Better than 50-50. I'd say that the chance that Cuba or terrorists operating from Cuba will launch an air attack on a U.S. nuclear power plant is even greater.
Jim wrote:Flaja - I agree that we are not in Iraq because of oil. Yet nonetheless we are still spending huge amounts of money there. If instead we had chosen to permanently blockade Iraq, and spent the money on our own energy independence, I believe the United States would be in a better position today.
Iraq shares a land border with Iran, Turkey and Syria (all of which are or potentially hostile towards the U.S.). How could we have established any kind of effective blockade? And no blockade would have prevented Hussein from developing WMD with whatever materials he already could have had on hand before the blockade started.
flaja wrote:Iraq shares a land border with Iran, Turkey and Syria (all of which are or potentially hostile towards the U.S.).
Undoubtedly, Turkey's potential hostility toward the United States accounts for her membership in NATO.
flaja wrote:Jim wrote:Flaja - I agree that we are not in Iraq because of oil. Yet nonetheless we are still spending huge amounts of money there. If instead we had chosen to permanently blockade Iraq, and spent the money on our own energy independence, I believe the United States would be in a better position today.
Iraq shares a land border with Iran, Turkey and Syria (all of which are or potentially hostile towards the U.S.). How could we have established any kind of effective blockade? And no blockade would have prevented Hussein from developing WMD with whatever materials he already could have had on hand before the blockade started.
Hussein was put into power by the U.S. in exchange for oil favors. He was given money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon making WMD's only possible by American support.
but like Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh, Hussein tried to nationalize the oil and this was totally unacceptable to the British and American oil companies.
Setanta wrote:Undoubtedly, Turkey's potential hostility toward the United States accounts for her membership in NATO.
Well, the only joined NATO in 1952.
I knew there was something suspicious and untrustworthy about those jokers ! ! !
flaja wrote:nimh wrote:Flaja,
How large do you estimate the chance that the US will be hit by a bio-chemical terrorist attack causing over 1,000 victims within the next 10 years?
Better than 50-50. I'd say that the chance that Cuba or terrorists operating from Cuba will launch an air attack on a U.S. nuclear power plant is even greater.
Dude. OK, in that case your proposals make sense vis-a-vis your risk assessment. I doubt many share your risk assessment though.
Personally, i think that there is a higher risk that all those Cuban gay boys in Miami are going to destroy our nation by redecorating our homes, but skipping town before the job is done . . .
Amigo wrote:flaja wrote:Jim wrote:Flaja - I agree that we are not in Iraq because of oil. Yet nonetheless we are still spending huge amounts of money there. If instead we had chosen to permanently blockade Iraq, and spent the money on our own energy independence, I believe the United States would be in a better position today.
Iraq shares a land border with Iran, Turkey and Syria (all of which are or potentially hostile towards the U.S.). How could we have established any kind of effective blockade? And no blockade would have prevented Hussein from developing WMD with whatever materials he already could have had on hand before the blockade started.
Hussein was put into power by the U.S. in exchange for oil favors. He was given money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon making WMD's only possible by American support.
but like Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh, Hussein tried to nationalize the oil and this was totally unacceptable to the British and American oil companies.
I am well aware of Anlgo-American support for people like Hussein, but at the time Hussein's alternative was the Soviet Union. Furthermore, if the U.S. had invaded 20 or 30 or 40 years ago in order to install a democratic government, the liberals would be just as upset as they are that we invaded now.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace