[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] Iraq stuff again was:First impressions of Vista

[Ingles, Raymond]

> From: allen
> >  I'm the one who's saying that the terrorists are *not* a vital threat.
> > In what way do I sound "AFRAID" of them?
> >   
> What would constitute a "vital" threat as opposed to a real threat?

 How about what I wrote in my message: something that "threaten[s] our
country's existence"?

> There's a big hole in the ground in New York City that makes it clear 
> the threat is real and not inconsequential.

 Nor did I say it's 'inconsequential'. In fact, I said: "It makes sense
to take steps to deal with and mitigate the problem."

 Now we're just arguing about what steps to take. Don't try to pretend
that I advocate ignoring terrorists, because I don't. But clearly we
should make sure our response is in proprotion to the actual threat.

> There's enough in the way of braying about CIA, FBI, HSD Bill of
> Rights abuses and you - no, sorry, Bill Maher - propose a whole new
> crew of policia?

 Let me quote my email yet again: "...the best steps for doing that
consist mostly of beefing up physical security." Nobody objects to the
Secret Service protecting the president in public on civil liberties
grounds. I just think we should extend some of that kind of protection
to the rest of us.

 We don't need to suspend habeas corpus and such for that. Here's a
proposal I like when it comes to spying on Americans: If you get a
warrant, you can use the information you get in an actual trial. If
you really think it's so time-sensitive that you can't wait three
days for FISA to *retroactively* rubber-stamp the warrantless
surveillance (I think, of the tens of thousands of requests they've
gotten, they've rejected *four*) then you can go all Jack Bauer, but
you can't use any of the evidence you get there in a trial.

 Fair enough, right? Real emergencies are stopped, but the feds have
strong motivation to only use that power when they really need to.
I'm not convinced even *that* is necessary (the Founders didn't and
they'd been through an actual war on U.S. soil) but I'm willing to
discuss it.

 Instead, we get kangaroo courts, abuse of powers, and United States
citizens being detained for *years* with no charges filed.
 
> How will they differ from the current batch? Training? Naw, all
> alphabet agency folks get heaps of that.

 The FBI does Investigating. (Federal Bureau of...) The CIA does
Intelligence. (Central what Agency?) We have the TSA but that's
crap - they aren't paid enough to attract good talent, they only
tackle airports (you may note that wasn't the only thing I proposed
securing - to quote, I said "airports, big sporting events, public
gatherings, etc."), and they're doing security *stupidly*, relying
almost entirely on reactive procedures and random (not targeted)
searches.

 Why not take some cues from El Al, where despite major motivation no
successful terrorist attack has been carried off against them since
1968:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al

 Some of their most effective security measures are... hey, I actually
wrote some of them up in the message you're talking about:

 "Reinforced cockpit doors, more intelligent arrangement of parking and
security at airports."

 Finally, of course, terrorists aren't going to bother with airlines
much anymore. The case of Richard Reid shows that barn door's been
closed.

> If "no" then your $1 billion figure is out the window.

 Let me quote Ray Ingles on that:

 "Let's assume the "public Secret Service" actually costs $30 billion
per year (double the salaris, administration, equipment, transportation,
standard government waste)."

 You and Aaron never seem to actually read what I write.

> And Bill Maher? When did he go from being a "B" list comedian to 
> worthwhile policy wonk? On his best day he's not fit to hold Chris 
> Rock's coat.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

> Considering the means they've put to use so far I'm disinclined to 
> ignore the effort even if I am convinced that it is, ultimately, 
> hopeless.

 What a coincidence! That's what I said too! Thanks for agreeing!

> I'd like the time between now and when their effort to impose 
> Shari peters out to be as short a time and as unproductive as 
> possible.

 And attacking Iraq helps that how? Oh, wait, I asked that already:

> >  Now, I have a question for you. How does your presence in Iraq
> > do anything to prevent some nutbag here in the U.S. from attacking
> > a newspaper columnist who said something some imam didn't like?

 Do *you* have an answer?

> >  "Improving our overall fuel efficiency by just 2.7 miles per gallon
> >   would completely eliminate our need for oil from the Persian Gulf."
> >       - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"

> Beyond the practical aspects of that sort of national mpg bump - the car 
> fleet turns over what? every eight or nine years now? -

 So we should get started as quickly as possible. If we'd started in 2002
we'd be halfway there now...

> there's the 
> sophomoric implication that the income stream derived from the oil will 
> dry up and all those sheiks and imams will just sit there scratching 
> their heads wondering what to do next.

 Maybe a sophomore would draw that implication, but that's not what I said.

 We import ~5 billion barrels of oil per year now. About 20% of that comes
from the Persian Gulf. We are, *by far*, the largest consumer of oil in
the world:

 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

 Cutting our oil consumption by 20% (i.e. reducing demand) would result
in a significant drop in the price of oil, at least 10%. If we share with
other countries (even if only in our products) the technology we develop
to achieve that efficiency, we cut world demand even further, depressing
the price still more.

 This has two effects. First, the less dependent we are on oil, the
less we have to care what those thugs running the Middle East do or
say. We wouldn't have to prop up stable but tyrannical despots to
ensure the constant flow of oil, and they would have to focus a lot more
on their own domestic issues instead of (like Saudi Arabia) taking our
support and telling their people that all their problems come from us.
Imagine the theocratic government in Iran having to try to actually
solve internal problems instead of inflaming passions against the Great
Satan? If that doesn't put a smile on your face, you don't have any
sense of humor.

 Second, with dramatically reduced oil revenue the handouts and/or
military buildups they use to rule become more and more difficult to
maintain, further increasing internal strife. The House of Saud is
already in trouble:

 http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200305/baer

 The other Middle East thugocracies have similar issues.

 You should be all *for* this. Hugo Chavez isn't much of a pain, really,
but the only reason he's any pain at all is his oil money. Dropping the
price of oil hurts only the people we don't like anyway.

> You think maybe they'll find other customers for their oil? I think so 
> and then just exactly how much good has Maher's 2.7 mile per gallon bump 
> done for us?

 Oil's a fungible commodity:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungible

 Depressing demand for it drops the price worldwide.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317
 
 "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in
  nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious
   problem coming down the road. I'm going to prevent that."
       - George W. Bush; Oct. 3, 2000 (debating Al Gore)
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.