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

[Ingles, Raymond]

> From: allen

> >> 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?

 I differentiated between a "vital" threat and a "real" threat. I did
not, at any point, say that terrorists posed "no" threat or were an
"unreal" threat. Can you understand the distinction?

> The imminence of national extinction is too high a threshold 
> to surmount before violence is justified

 This is getting *seriously* old. You don't ever seem to read what
I write, and then you just assume that I hold some position you
dislike, and attack me for that imagined position.

 I did *not* say that violence was 'only justified in cases of
immanent national destruction'. I challenge you, here and now, to
find *anything* I've written, not just here on the MDLUG lists but
also in my rather voluminous postings on the web and in newsgroups,
that indicates that. Here, I'll get you started:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=violence&num=10&scoring=r&as_epq=ray+ingles&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=2007&safe=off

 Can you maybe *try* to assume that just *maybe* I *might* not be
some kind of leftist hippie communist anarchist radical pacifist
'surrender monkey' and either (a) address what I actually write in
my messages, or (b) *ASK* me what I actually think first?

 For example, there's a looming shadow over this conversation which
we haven't addressed, and which might help you understand where I'm
coming from. That shadow is "Afghanistan".

 I fully supported our operations in Afghanistan. That was a foreign
government that was deliberately harboring people (people who had
attacked the United States and were demonstrably planning on doing
so again), and had refused to hand them over despite repeated polite
but firm demands. And, as expected, our military did their usual
professional job and took over the place in short order without
undue destruction.

 As a bonus the 'international community' either supported our
actions or did not oppose it. (I say 'bonus' because we should not
condition our national defense on the opinions of other countries,
but diplomatic considerations are not negligible either.)

 We also pledged to reconstruct the place, and put in a democracy.
The people were already tired of the Taliban and were in no danger
of falling back into an Islamic theocracy. The infrastructure was in
shambles thanks to years of Soviet bombing - any improvements we
made at all would be positive steps, we wouldn't have to spend
billions just to get things back to pre-war levels. The people
even remembered that we'd helped them against the Soviets. (More
in an enemy-of-my-enemy kind of way, but still...) The
aforementioned approval of the 'international community' meant
we could ask for and expect a certain amount of support from
other nations. No more fertile soil for a reconstruction project
existed in anywhere in the region.

 Then... nothing. The Bush administration forgot about it (they
literally put no money for Afghanistan reconstruction in the 2004
budget), and even forgot about pursuing al Quaeda (you know, the
people who *actually did* attack the United States?), and decided
to use the situation as an excuse to attack Iraq, which many
'policy wonks' had wanted to do for years.

 I'm not at all opposed to violence, even overthrowing governments,
when circumstances warrant, and - this may come as a shock to you -
9/11 actually did warrant that. In *Afghanistan*. Not Iraq.

> 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.

 What do you think of the response I outlined above? Doesn't that
fit within the range you're proposing?

> >  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 much clearer can I *be* than, "terrorists don't threaten our
country's existence but we should still address them"? My whole *point*
is that our response has *not* been commensurate!

> 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.

 I specifically said that (a) terrorists don't threaten our country,
but (b) they warrant a response. Are you so willfully obtuse that you
are unable to draw the obvious conclusion that 'responses' can be
warranted even if 'existence' isn't threatened?

> 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?

 Actually, I was thinking of letting naked mole rats draw slips of paper
out of a hat.

 In case you missed it, that was meant sarcastically. How about asking
an honest question first, and letting me answer? *Then*, if you don't
like the response, make fun of it?

 I figure that the placement should be based on professional assessment
of risk. The Super Bowl is a logical target. The Mule Day Parade in
Tennessee probably isn't:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12assets.html?ex=1310356800&en=cc3091801be419b5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 Let me make something else explicit: you can't protect against *all*
terrorism, any more that you can protect against *all* natural
disasters. Too many potential targets, finite resources and time. But
there are steps that can be taken to improve resilience greatly. What
if the government spent some money to train lots of people in CPR,
first aid, and basic emergency response? Some volunteers (remember the
Civil Defense types from WWII?) could get additional training in
triage to be ready to be called up to help in a major incident. That
would help protect against accidents, natural disasters *and* terrorist
attack.

 (Hell, that'd even help at traffic accidents. And let's see, how many
Americans have died from terrorism since 9/11? Counting 9/11, that's
3,000. Plus let's count the fighting in Iraq, say 3,000 there. Let's
imagine that maybe there's been 3,000 others, though that's a *vast*
overestimate. So, 9,000. Now, 200,000 people have been killed *inside
the US* in traffic accidents since then. Which, exactly, is the greater
risk? Which poses a greater threat to Americans?)

 Apparently there aren't any firefighting boats suitable for containing
a fire on a big freighter anywhere on the west coast. By the time one
of them made it through Panama, it wouldn't do any good. Why not make
one available on the other side of the country? There are simple and
cost-effective things like that we can do instead of mounting a major
military offensive against a country that had nothing whatsoever to do
with 9/11 and posed no significant threat to the U.S.

> 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.

 Not if you prioritize properly. Let's face it, there really isn't
much to attract terrorists in Montana.

> 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".

 Yup... as I acknowledged above, you can't stop all terrorism. (*You*
certainly haven't proposed any solution that can do so. Got one?) But
the reason we protect high-value targets is because... they are high-
value. We minimize the impact of terrorism if it can only hit low-value
targets. And, compared to traffic accidents and armed robbery and
drug-related violence, terrorism's impact is pretty minimal already.

> 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.

 Okay, let's assume the "flypaper strategy" actually works, and really
draws "all the terrorists" ("all"? really?) and *doesn't* have the
effect of increasing terrorism recruitment worldwide, not just in the
'war zone'. Now, explain to me, in detail... why couldn't *Afghanistan*
have been that 'situation to which all the terrorists were inexorably
drawn'?

> >  Why not take some cues from El Al
                  ^^^^ ^^^^

> You think it's even remotely reasonable to build an organization the 
> level of thoroughness of El Al for a nation of 300 million?

 No, I don't. I said... look up about 6 lines... "some cues". They don't
just do "Barney Fife" searches. They look for odd or suspicious behavior,
and things that don't fit, and they check things out. It wasn't any
specific security feature that detected Anne Murphy, it was intelligent
and well-trained staff who asked questions and smelled a rat:

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

 We don't *need* something of the level of paranoia of El Al. Hijacking
isn't going to happen. We just need to look for signs of people trying
to *destroy* a plane. The equipment to do that is rather more substantial
than that needed to hijack a plane.

> >  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?

 Why is $30 billion "ridiculously high"? How much are we spending on
national security now, counting Iraq which is, according to you, part
of that effort? Note that the 2003 budget for the existing Secret
Service, protecting a handful of buildings and persons, was $1.044
billion:

 http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/budgetsummary/btd/1975_2002/2002/html/page133-135.htm

 They employ "over 5,000" people, according to Wikipedia:

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

 And bear in mind that by far their biggest focus is on "fraud and
counterfeiting". An organization focused on security alone, well...

> 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?

 What's wrong with well-trained and supported professionals protecting
the public? I'm not married to the 10,000 figure, but it's a nice round
number and probably in the neighborhood of the sensible amount.

> 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.

 So, since the idea came from someone who *you* say is 'a B list
comedian instead of a policy wonk', it is by definition false and
worthy of out-of-hand dismissal? That's ad-hominem.

> It's distinguishable from a question of competence because a question
> of competence raises the issue of the ability to form a worthwhile
> opinion.

 You might not predict that a good idea to come from a comedian. But
the idea itself should be judged on its merits. I haven't seen you
substantively address the merits of the idea yet.

> >> 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!

> What is material is that they are trying to succeed and the 
> methods they employ in that pursuit.

 Yes... like I have repetitively reiterated reduntantly over and over
again ad nauseum.

> >>>  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.

 Um, actually, it was *Aaron's* attempt to connect them. Go follow the
email exchange. Aaron stated that with respect to Iraq, and
terrorism in general, "the threat to our nation is grave" (direct
quote). I disputed that, and then *Aaron* accused me of being "so
AFRAID" of terrorists, and acting like Europe, afraid to confront
"assassinations in full daylight in the middle of the street" (again
a direct quote).

 I agree with you - Iraq has little or nothing to do with the "war
on terror", except insofar as it acts as a wonderful recruiting boon
for al Queda and their ilk.

> >> 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.

 One of the main stated reasons that Bin Laden hates the U.S. (and
the Saudi government) is because of US bases on "Islamic" soil. Why
are those bases there? Because we're abjectly dependent on the oil.
He'd still be terrorist scum (would that Bush et al had followed through
and he were *dead* terrorist scum) but he wouldn't have that rallying
point if we didn't need to be there.

 I am not saying (so don't even get started on it) that Bin Laden or
any terrorist schmucks are actually *justified* in their lunatic
hatreds. They aren't - they are warped, twisted, evil bastards. But,
all things being equal, as a practical matter there's a difference
between "provoking the evil bastards" or "not provoking the evil
bastards". Note also that "not provoking" is *very* different from
"appeasing".

 Those sickos are going to be blowing things up no matter what. But if
we're not in their sights, it's not our problem. If they are going to
be blowing up buildings, I would *much* rather see them blowing up
government buildings of the thugocracies in the Middle East.

 Disengagement from the area is in our long-term interest. That place
is radically unstable, and so long as we're dependent on resources
from there, we're going to spending inordinate amounts of cash and
materiel trying to keep the place from falling over, and we'll be
vulnerable when bad things happen there - not just terrorism but
natural disasters and more.

> First, the price of oil would drop. And what happens when the price
> of a commodity drops? That's right, usage goes up.

 It wouldn't have to, in the U.S. Appeal to people's sense of patriotism.
It worked in WWII to reduce consumption of vital war goods and it could
work now. But nobody in America was really asked to sacrifice anything;
all anyone was ever told was "shop to keep the economy running!"

> All those newly-minted car owners in India and China will suddenly find
> their markets flooded with cheap gas.

 Then let *them* spend the dough to stabilize the Middle East.

 Wouldn't it be nice to have the luxury of being able to ignore
the crises of the the Middle East the way we can afford to do with
Africa? I'm not opposed to humanitarian aid - far from it - but
part of the reason people don't get worked up about slaughters in
Darfour, but do worry about massacres in Iraq, is because the latter
hits *us* in the pocketbook.

> 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.

 Possibly, but can I point out that I didn't call for us to reduce
consumption based on environmental concerns? I don't know where you
got that from; the *only* things I referred to were political and
national security concerns. Find where I said anything about 'emissions'
or anything of the kind. Go ahead, I'll wait.

 (Seriously, why can't you stick with what I actually write instead of
apparently hallucinating things you *wish* I said so you can attack
them?)

> Second, it might be a bit tougher to fight an international war on 
> terror with the U.S. going through a self-imposed depression. 

 Of course, we haven't established that a Manhattan Project to reduce
dependence on foreign oil, plus a sensible and effective domestic
security force, would be more of an economic diversion than the more
than $200 million per day (as I said, more than $70 billion per year)
we're current hemmoraging in Iraq. I'd like to see you make that case.

 (Ah, remember the halcyon days of 2002, when they were arguing that
the total cost of the Iraq war would be "only $100-$200 billion", and
maybe "under $50 billion", that "We're dealing with a country that
can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."?)

> 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?

 I didn't suggest anything about digging out more oil. I said we should
spend money developing technology that uses less oil, or alternatives.
I'm not married to any specific proposal - hybrids, ethanol, hydrogen
generated by nuclear plants, even coal. Whatever works, or whatever
combination works. More efficient cars are certainly possible. Better
farming practices that require less fertilizer (it's not generally
appreciated how much petroleum the farming sector consumes), more
efficient heating and cooling, extra insulation in homes. It really
wouldn't take that much.

> 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.

 And then those other people can be held hostage by oil, we will be
relatively immune. And we'll be developing and selling products that
use less oil.

> 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.

 But if they have trouble affording guns or ammo, it becomes much harder
for them to shoot.

> 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?

 Right now, they get funded and supported by thugocracies as a pressure
valve for their people, directing the rage at their conditions at the
U.S. and Israel instead of their own government. If they start *attacking*
those governments, well, the situation changes. There wasn't all that
much terrorism in Iraq under Saddam, and the rest of the thugocracies
are just as ruthless.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                                     (313) 227-2317

 "[F]or a long time I bought into a common schema for the Bush administration:
  dim-bulb president surrounded and propped up by bright, ruthless neocons...
    I'm chagrined to admit now that I have, at least in part, bought into a
 lie... The neocons surrounding Bush are not all that bright... - Jon Carroll
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.