Nuclear war

[quade 3]

Quote

If it never happens people will say he wasted money. If he doesn't do it and it happens everyone will want his head on a platter for not doing anything about it.

True, but that doesn't actually make it technologically feasible at this time and it doesn't stop something like the WTC from happening again.
The time, money and effort to go into such a defense system actually could be put to much better use against much more likely scenarios.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Sebazz1 2]

Maybe our country should turn off all the lights, not answer the phones, lock the borders, and pretend we are not home.........
It works for crazy ex girlfriends maybe it will work for crazy terrorist rogue nations?
Stupid waste of bandwith sorry guys..............
Sebazz........

[jfields 0]

Sebazz,
Sadly, we have more than enough wackos inside our borders already. Many of them are even US citizens by birth.
Justin

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

That is a semantic quibble.

No, it is not semantics. I was in the Army during this period, 1988-2000. We started by deactivating divisions but maintaining our training readiness with the remaining divisions. Morale was still high and soldiers were ready and able to fight and win. When Clinton came on board he quickly pulled training funds and quality of life funds from the military, then increased peace keeping missions until the military had to divert more training money to support the numerous deployments.
When I left the Army I was handing my men 30 rounds of ammunition for a 7 day field problem. We were usually out about halfway through day one. My M203 gunners were never qualified because we couldn't afford to buy HE rounds for them. Same with 9mm pistols. We never could get aviation support to train because they were grounded due to cuts in flight hours.
There is a big difference between downsizing and deterioration.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[billvon 2,435]

>Remember, it was Clinton who pulled the funds back so tightly that
>organizations tasked with protecting the US had their hands tied.
And remember as well that it was Clinton who, in 1996, lobbied hard for his anti-terrorism bill, claiming it was necessary for the protection of the US and its allies. Recall as well that it was soundly defeated by the then-republican Senate.
>he got blow jobs from a fat whore...
In the future, when we discuss Bush, I will have to try to maintain your standards of respect when it comes to discussing the leaders of our country.
-bill von

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

downsizing did not cause any detioration of our military power

I missed your point about military power. Yes downsizing did decrease our military power but that was a well thought out plan due to the changing threat. The threat changed so our military had to change. We no longer needed the 14 division Army of the cold war and could feasibly defeat all threats with a 10 division Army. It was a planned downsizing not a deterioration.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[FreeFlyFreaky 0]

Quote

moreover, those generations have faced that challenge head on and come out on top. I have faith in America to pull through.

You know, I pray that you're right but I just don't know how many 9/11's (which is a relatively small attack compared to the potentials) that America can really endure and "come out on top".
There are lots of worst case scenarios and pretending that there are solutions that can prevent them all is ludicrous. We need Missle defense and every other possible protection we can think of which should include pre-emptively destroying ALL regimes that potentially wish us harm.
My gut feeling is there is some nasty history about to be made.
Please people HAVE A SAFE WEEKEND!
Whit

[billvon 2,435]

>A year ago everyone would have said that it wasn't feasible for terrorists to fly
> three commercial jets into large American buildings.
Really? Can you find a single example of that? Since this came about a year after a pilot flew a light plane into the White House, and several years after Tom Clancy wrote a book about a terrorist flying a fully fueled 747 into the Capitol Building, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously think that. We were lucky, and have been for a long time.
-bill von

[kingbunky 3]

Quote

A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port

not far fetched at all, read this. conventional explosives, and it nearly wiped out a city. imagine a nuke. go down to your nearest port and watch the container ships coming in and figure out for yourself how difficult it would be to send one in that way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bunky
get crazy, before it gets you.

[jfields 0]

kmcguffee,
So you are saying that all those deactivated divisions under Bush Sr. did not in any way diminish the cumulative power of the military? I don't buy it. I'm not saying you didn't work hard, or that the remaining troops weren't good soldiers. I am just saying that both Bush's downsizing and Clinton's military fiascos negatively effected the total ability of our military to project might and enforce our policies.

Quote

There is a big difference between downsizing and deterioration.

In the means, yes, in the end result, no. Both ended up with a weaker military. It is like saying that subtraction is different than adding a negative number.
Justin

[AggieDave 6]

Sorry Bill, I'll refrain from inappropiate comments. I get worked up sometimes. Oh, and Bill, you need to recheck your sources, it was passed on April 17, 1996 and was herolded by such persons as Bob Dole, who was the Senate Majority Leader at the time.
What did the bill do? It gave the government more power in prosecuting domestic and international terrorists. What didn't it do? It did NOT give organizations such as the CIA and the FBI the funds they needed to further their HUMINT and SIGINT sources, thus binding their hands in the hunt of terrorists.
Aerials
So up high
When you free your lives (the) eternal prize

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Recall as well that it was soundly defeated by the then-republican Senate.

That bill was passed by the House (4-17-96) and the Senate (4-18-96). It was just worthless. http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/dn96laws.html#antiterr
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Since this came about a year after a pilot flew a light plane into the White House, and several years after Tom Clancy wrote a book about a terrorist flying a fully fueled 747 into the Capitol Building, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously think that.

Find an example that everyone would have said it wasn't feasible? Come on now. Should we also consider all of Tom Clancy's other novels as indicators of possible terrorist attacks? How about Stephen King? There is a lot less control over a small general aviation aircraft and a large commercial aircraft.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[billvon 2,435]

>Oh, and Bill, you need to recheck your sources, it was passed on April 17, 1996
You're right; I was looking at something that described the bickering in Congress over it, and suggested it wouldn't pass; should have checked further.
-bill von

[freeflir29 0]

That so called anti terrorism bill was backed by the Clinton/Feinstein/Handgun Control Inc/et al Gestapo regime for one reason and one reason only. The portion that dealt with the "Assault Weapons" ban. If you don't realize that then I'll start to think you aren't too smart. I haven't seen any "terrorists" using assault weapons on US soil lately. A few nut cases....but not "terrorists"
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Both ended up with a weaker military. It is like saying that subtraction is different than adding a negative number.

Yes weaker but very different. One was supposed to end up with a smaller military that could still effectively complete its mission. Albeit, that mission was different from what the military had been doing up to that point. The new mission did not require as large of a force. The military power was reduced but it could still engage and defeat the current enemy threat.
What happend was the military was allowed to go to hell and could not effectively complete its primary mission. We were good at being a police force but if the projected enemy threat (a two front war ie Iraq and N. Korea) would have been realized we would have been in trouble. Luckily, that didn't happen.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[AggieDave 6]

The bickering was over a part of the bill that would allow federal wire taps on suspected domestic terrorists, with OUT going through the process of obtaining permission from the court due to proper prior evidence. That could have become missed used very quickly by people in power if they wanted too, especially after 9/11. Another thing dropped would have been a ban on the ability to post instructions on the ineternet on bomb construction. Although there really isn't a valid point for having bomb instructions out there, government intervention on the internet of information is overstepping their bounds. Eitherway, off the top of my head I could name you atleast 5 books that are legally published in the US that has the same information and are easy to purchase. The Republican lead senate fought for our individual rights, that I applaud.
(Bill, this is a bit more fun now that I've met you in person! Aerials
So up high
When you free your lives (the) eternal prize

[freeflir29 0]

One more thing.....don't make me find that speech where Field Marshal Reno outlines "Her" requirements for someone to be classed as a "terrorist" Basically she said that if you own a gun and go to church you are a terrorist. Scary stuff......and how bout her speech about encryption where she says you can have any encryption you want domestically as long as you give the "Justice" department the key. Talk about 1984...........
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[billvon 2,435]

>Find an example that everyone would have said it wasn't feasible?
No, I mean, did you know of even one person a year ago who said "that's just not feasible?" Heck, almost exactly a year ago the Egyptians warned the CIA that someone might try to fly an airliner into the G8 summit!
>Should we also consider all of Tom Clancy's other novels as indicators of
> possible terrorist attacks?
Heck yes! In fact, I hope we have someone _better_ than Clancy (who is an almost scary combination of sound knowledge and imagination) thinking up what terrorists might do next.
As a concrete example, we might want to figure out how to better defend ourselves from nuclear weapons shipped here in the back of a boat or truck. He wrote a novel on that, too - I think it's a movie now.
>There is a lot less control over a small general aviation aircraft and a
>large commercial aircraft.
From a hijacking standpoint, not really. There are plenty of airports you can just drive onto, hop on a 757 cargo aircraft, order everyone on board off at gunpoint, and take off. There isn't even a good way to stop them on the airport. You just need more training, which terrorists seem willing to get nowadays.
-bill von

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

It did NOT give organizations such as the CIA and the FBI the funds they needed to further their HUMINT and SIGINT sources,

fbi sigint sources... ha ha. steve

[coconutmonkey 0]

There are only two things in the world that scare me and one is nuclear weapons.... the other is Carnies. You know, circus folk.... they have small hands... smell of cabbage....
"Beware when meddling in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

the other is Carnies

"Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!" -N2SKDVN's Shirt....
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[coconutmonkey 0]

I prefer the shirt
"We don't laugh at death,
we sneak up on deaths door in the middle of the night,
ring the door bell and run away.
He HATES it when we do that!"
"Beware when meddling in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."

[Sebazz1 2]

Quote

"Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!" -N2SKDVN's Shirt....

I want to buy that shirt right now. Please........ I love clowns, shit I am a clown, a nuclear clown Yeah yeah clowns rock!!! woooooo whoooooo!!!!
Sebazz........

[jtval 0]

Heck yes! In fact, I hope we have someone _better_ than Clancy (who is an almost scary combination of sound knowledge and imagination) thinking up what terrorists might do next!!
I dont think terrorist are that smart. I think they watched CNN after the attack(maybe they are clancy fans) and got a whole new game plan.CNN did a very good job of pointing out all of our weaknesses. Im not saying that they(the weaknesses) weren't there but nost ppl wouldnt see the opportunity for attacks. I wonder how much CNN helped al queda and the more likely "copycat" terrorists!
(I am using CNN b/c they are an international viewable network. any local news station surely covered the same thing.but I cant be sure of that, I am still in korea)
I thought there would be a bond between the smaller counrties who "dislike" U.S. In a "kick-em-while-he's-down" kinda way. We used to look at ourselves as Davie...have we turned into goliath?
Life's a bitch, and I'm her Pimp!
JT
http://community.webshots.com/user/jtval100