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

[allen]

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> 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"?
>
>   
How about not? How about something or someone(s) who've taken it upon 
themselves to make the world a better place by flying airplanes full of 
innocents into buildings full of innocents?

The imminence of national extinction is too high a threshold to surmount 
before violence is justified if there's to be any hope of shielding the 
peaceful and the innocent. If someone wants to talk I fully support, and 
would insist on, a policy of talking until everyone is blue in the face 
and gasping. But the instant someone chooses to settle the argument with 
the barrel of a gun then that's a real, vital threat to which there is a 
distinctly circumscribed range of responses.
>> 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.
>
>   
Then maybe you should make that clear since the quoted sentence sets an 
unreasonably high standard of threat before responses commensurate with 
the threat may be taken.

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

What would constitute *not* ignoring terrorists until the point that 
they threaten our country's existence? If you believe some lesser 
standard warrants a response, let's hear about it. But so far the only 
tripwire is the threat to national existence.
>> 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.
>   
And let me ask my question yet again: how do you propose to create this 
physical security with your 10,000 well-trained professionals? Divy 'em 
up, 200 per state? Or would the division be proportionate to the state's 
congressional representation? Although at first blush impressive that 
10,000 seems an unreasonably small number to expect to provide much 
additional security to a public of 300 million.
>> 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.
>
>   
Which is to say they'd be effectively useless unless you're also going 
to insist on a particularly stupid specie of terrorist.

What do you figure those terrorists will do when they see the half dozen 
or so Lawgivers that'll be available to cover any particular airport, 
big sporting event, public gathering, etc? Hurl themselves against the 
bulwark of public safety to be dashed to pieces? Or find some other, 
undefended target among the many to choose from in an open society? I'm 
thinking, "Door number two".

Alternatively, if there were a situation to which all the terrorists 
were inexorably drawn, a battle which they must fight whether they stand 
the slightest chance of winning or not and in which they will face not 
unarmed, unsuspecting, essentially helpless citizens but well-trained, 
very well-armed and rather more then 10,000 People's Security Police, 
wouldn't that be a fine way to deal with the situation? For those 
committed to the use of violence, keeping them far away and facing 
overwhelming force seems like a pretty good idea.

>  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."
>
>   
Are you serious about holding El Al up as an example? Take a look at the 
wiki page you link. El Al's fleet size is 31 aircraft plus 2 on order 
plus 4 cargo aircraft. You could base the whole fleet out of 
Wayne-Oakland without straining the facilities. And El Al's security 
procedures make TSA look like Barney Fife which is the sort of security 
you have to have when you live with the daily reality of terrorist 
attacks as Isreal does.

You think it's even remotely reasonable to build an organization the 
level of thoroughness of El Al for a nation of 300 million? How many 
very capable, very committed security personnel would be required to 
handle that chore? Rather more then your People's Secret Service would 
have on tap I suspect.

>  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.
>
>   
That would be true if the intentions of terrorists hadn't changed. 
Previously the hijacking and the hostage-taking were a means to a 
political end. That's what allowed three of the four 9/11 planes to 
reach their mark. Now the end is mainly to engender fear which is 
accomplished more simply and efficiently by bringing an airliner down 
rather then hijacking it.
>> 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.
>
>   
Oh sure I did. So which figure is the proper one? The ridiculously low 
figure or the ridiculously high figure? You do realize that the $30 
billion budget would make your 10,000 public Secret Service officers $3 
million dollar men (and women I suppose) don't you?
>> 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
>
>   
Thanks for the link to wikipedia but the question remains unanswered. 
When did Bill Maher go from being a "B" list comedian to a worthwhile 
policy wonk?

If you're unclear on the concept, an ad hominem is an attack on the man 
rather then the argument. It's distinguishable from a question of 
competence because a question of competence raises the issue of the 
ability to form a worthwhile opinion.
>> 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!
>
>   
You must be getting confused. Whether they succeed or not is immaterial. 
Whether I or anyone else thinks they can succeed or not is immaterial. 
What is material is that they are trying to succeed and the methods they 
employ in that pursuit.
>> 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:
>
>   
Yes, and I answered it 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?
>
>   
Sure. The two are unconnected despite your attempt to connect them. Iraq 
is a military problem solvable by the military. Some nutbag is a police 
problem. When the nutbag attacks some newspaper columnist he gets packed 
off to the gray bar Hilton or a grave. Repeat as necessary until *that* 
problem is solved.
>>>  "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...
>
>   
Nope, that's just the practical problem. The notion that it would have 
the slightest effect on the problem of international terrorism would be 
worth a good guffaw if you weren't serious.
>> 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.
>
>   
Yeah, a sophomore would be less prolix but the case for 
defense-through-noble-conservation is still pretty stupid.

First, the price of oil would drop. And what happens when the price of a 
commodity drops? That's right, usage goes up. All those newly-minted car 
owners in India and China will suddenly find their markets flooded with 
cheap gas. Ditto for every other hydrocarbon consumer in every other 
nation but those two particularly due to the size of their populations 
and the swiftness of their economic expansion.

Maybe they won't drive more and buy more cars, encouraged to do so by 
cheap gas. Maybe the Chinese and the Indians will hearken onto the call 
to preserve our precious, natural reserves of petroleum for future 
generations. Then again, they might not. I have some modest experience 
with people who've been involuntarily hungry for lengthy periods and, 
oddly, they seem to be unwilling to revisit the experience, or any part 
of it, again.

Second, it might be a bit tougher to fight an international war on 
terror with the U.S. going through a self-imposed depression. You know, 
the one resulting from the diversion of large amounts of capital from 
more economically worthwhile purposes to fund access to high cost 
continental petroleum reserves?

>> 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.
>
>   
Well of course petroleum is, largely, fungible. There are some 
differences in petroleum from different regions but in the main it is 
fungible. I think the term you're really looking for is "price 
elasticity". As in "if we import less oil from those dastardly Ayrabs 
the price'll go down and then they'll be sorry".

But since there are other buyers for petroleum, buyers who are 
constrained by price to a greater degree then the U.S. - remember, we're 
rich, we can buy the stuff at the higher price - when the price goes 
down demand will go up until a new price support level is reached.

Which brings us to the question of what conceivable difference that 
lower price could make? Remember, these are guys who don't ask. If you 
don't give them what they want they'll shoot you and they may shoot you 
even if you *do* give them what they want. Will the Ossami of the world 
decide to take up another line of work if all they have to do is take 
what they want from the people who were formerly, voluntarily funding 
them? Somehow, I don't think so. Maybe Bill Maher will have an answer to 
that little conundrum as well.
 

Allen