03-15-2004, 07:47 PM
Hi,
Yes, something should be done about terrorism. And it should have started a whole lot sooner, given that international terrorism has been a major world wide problem for half of a century. That the USA needed 9/11 to get involved was a shame. But not just any arbitrary spasm is a proper reaction.
You talk of fighting terrorism? OK, let's give the administration a grade:
Invading Afghanistan: while there were terrorists in the country, we failed to catch most of them and now they are spread throughout the world, many of them in a country that we will not invade because it has nuclear weapons. So-so effort, poor result. Call it a C+ on the curve.
Invading Iraq: not a terrorist in sight prior to the invasion. But it is becoming a haven for terrorists now. Bad effort, worse result. Solid F.
Homeland Security: we spend many times as much as we do for getting drunken drivers off the road for an infinitesimally smaller result, if any. We greatly increase the bureaucracy at the airports for a negligible increase in safety (again, keep in mind that airport security DID NOT FAIL in 9/11). We spend large sums of money integrating pre-existing agencies which continue to roll on doing their expensive and inefficient jobs as before. We now have a person in charge of flicking the spinner to determine the color of the day -- and if that color is "hot" we spend a whole bunch for readiness to vague threats. D- minus at best, and only because the motivation is right.
Patriot Act: It's a good thing the founding fathers are all dead, because they'd either have grabbed their muskets or died of shame. Solid F.
Yeah, in an emergency it's good to act decisively, rapidly and correctly. This administration and its actions got two out of three correct. And alienating the rest of the world is hardly a good way of leading the attack against a global problem.
BTW, your analogies to the "ostrich effect" is yet another of those "you're with us or against us" rants. One can feel that much has to be done about terrorism (and other problems) and not agree that the inefficient and stupid blundering of this administration is the right thing to do. Perhaps it is time to let some intelligent and informed people take over and attempt some actions that actually address the problem rather than just making the American feel good. International politics is not a ball game. Not that Shrub did that well even in managing a ball team.
--Pete
Yes, something should be done about terrorism. And it should have started a whole lot sooner, given that international terrorism has been a major world wide problem for half of a century. That the USA needed 9/11 to get involved was a shame. But not just any arbitrary spasm is a proper reaction.
You talk of fighting terrorism? OK, let's give the administration a grade:
Invading Afghanistan: while there were terrorists in the country, we failed to catch most of them and now they are spread throughout the world, many of them in a country that we will not invade because it has nuclear weapons. So-so effort, poor result. Call it a C+ on the curve.
Invading Iraq: not a terrorist in sight prior to the invasion. But it is becoming a haven for terrorists now. Bad effort, worse result. Solid F.
Homeland Security: we spend many times as much as we do for getting drunken drivers off the road for an infinitesimally smaller result, if any. We greatly increase the bureaucracy at the airports for a negligible increase in safety (again, keep in mind that airport security DID NOT FAIL in 9/11). We spend large sums of money integrating pre-existing agencies which continue to roll on doing their expensive and inefficient jobs as before. We now have a person in charge of flicking the spinner to determine the color of the day -- and if that color is "hot" we spend a whole bunch for readiness to vague threats. D- minus at best, and only because the motivation is right.
Patriot Act: It's a good thing the founding fathers are all dead, because they'd either have grabbed their muskets or died of shame. Solid F.
Yeah, in an emergency it's good to act decisively, rapidly and correctly. This administration and its actions got two out of three correct. And alienating the rest of the world is hardly a good way of leading the attack against a global problem.
BTW, your analogies to the "ostrich effect" is yet another of those "you're with us or against us" rants. One can feel that much has to be done about terrorism (and other problems) and not agree that the inefficient and stupid blundering of this administration is the right thing to do. Perhaps it is time to let some intelligent and informed people take over and attempt some actions that actually address the problem rather than just making the American feel good. International politics is not a ball game. Not that Shrub did that well even in managing a ball team.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?