Mitigate due process, privacy, personal dignity and rule of law to prevent a few pinpricks. Good plan.
Printable View
Mitigate due process, privacy, personal dignity and rule of law to prevent a few pinpricks. Good plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I don't know what gets caught by the email sniffing, wiretapping, etc., so I don't know if the costs are justified.
Seems like the best defense is the non-islamaphobic-vigilance of ordinary people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I think prevention of very large-scale attacks on our homeland is a reasonable standard. I don't expect that all the attacks by jihadi-come-latelies can be prevented.
What is a large-scale attack? Does 9/11 count?Quote:
I think prevention of very large-scale attacks on our homeland is a reasonable standard.
We've gone from the major national security threat being nuclear annihilation to random acts of violence, yet we're still breaking the bank on military expenditures.
The Cold War peace dividend has been squandered because we like being on edge.
We lose more Americans in two months to car crashes than we did on 9-11, and it is estimated that economic losses from car crashes in the US tops roughly $20bn per month.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Our use of cars is more dangerous to the average American than Al Qaeda.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
(2001-2009)
369,629 Americans have been killed in vehicle accidents.
Add in a rough guess of 35,000 for 2010, and that will easily top 400,000 people.
Men, women, children.
Where is the war on car crashes?
You do know he was in law enforcement, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
You do know he caught Ramzi Yousef, don't you?
This guy would punch you square in the vagina, Darrin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...Administration
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Hmmm. Interesting.
Say, you sound like you know a lot about the FBI. Did he work in the criminal investigative division of the criminal branch or the counterterrorism division of the national security branch?
He worked in the law enforcement agency known as the FBI.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
If you think the FBI is a branch of the military, you need another punch in the vagina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
What the fuck are you talking about? You're boutons-dumb.
The man you brought up, John O'Neill, worked for the FBI.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The FBI is a law enforcement agency.
The FBI is not a branch of the military.
What part of this do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Who said the FBI was a branch of the military?
What part of this do you not understand?
Apparently you do not understand any of your own arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Not a problem for me.
Do you think that citizens should be given an idea of how many terrorists were caught using certain methods? Or do you think we should havefaith that the budgeting for these items is justified?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I'd like to know. It's our money.
Because of our presence? What do you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Not so much our presence, but the unintended consequences our military causes. While we may not intend to kill innocents, we end up doing so. We can't expect the local populace to just say, "It's ok, you did your best" and put it aside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
In fact, there's been a few jihadis who have explicitly said that the occupation was a reason they decided to attack the US. (obviously not saying they're justified in this belief)
War is hell. I'm sure you know that but there's really nothing we can do about them not grasping that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Ah. Ok. I thought that's what you were in fact saying. Just had to ask before I responded accordingly :DQuote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Sounds a lot like what Bin Laden would say to the families of those who died on 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Where is the war on car crashes?
Doesn't seem to be working does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I would call 400,000 dead Americans to be a pretty solid failure.
Seems to me that the problem is not enough government interference in the free market.Quote:
Research on the trends in use of heavy vehicles indicate that a significant difference between the U.S. and other countries is the relatively high prevalence of pickup trucks and SUVs in the U.S. A 2003 study by the U.S. Transportation Research Board found that SUVs and pickup trucks are significantly less safe than passenger cars, that imported-brand vehicles tend to be safer than American-brand vehicles, and that the size and weight of a vehicle has a significantly smaller effect on safety than the quality of the vehicle's engineering.[2] Comparisons of past data with the present in the U.S. can result in distortions, since the level of large commercial truck traffic has substantially increased from the 1960s while highway capacity has not kept pace with the increase in large commercial truck traffic on U.S. highways.[3][4] However, other factors exert significant influence; Canada has lower roadway death and injury rates despite a vehicle mix comparable to that of the U.S.[5] Nevertheless, the widespread use of truck-based vehicles as passenger carriers is correlated with roadway deaths and injuries not only directly by dint of vehicular safety performance per se, but also indirectly through the relatively low fuel costs that facilitate the use of such vehicles in North America. Motor vehicle fatalities decline as gasoline prices increase.[6] NHTSA has issued few regulations in the past 25 years. Most of the reduction in vehicle fatality rates during the last third of the 20th Century were gained from the initial NHTSA safety standards during 1968–1984 and subsequent voluntary changes in vehicle crashworthiness by vehicle manufacturers[7]
How many people are you willing to let die because you want a "free market" solution to transportation, Darrin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I've been working in this field for over 20 years.
In the early days it was all about preventing injuries and fatalities (airbags, seatbelt laws, crash energy management, more pliant materials for interiors, etc). Crash avoidance technologies (ABS, stability control, etc.) have received more attention in recent years. Either way, the govt does recognize the dangers of auto accidents and has made significant investments to ameliorate those risks.
Now if we could only get the police to ticket the people who follow too close.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Just because one may get something logically doesn't mean it won't affect them emotionally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
If the US govt was doing construction work on your street, and it somehow killed a kid on your block, the parents could "understand" that the construction crew wasn't at fault while still harboring ill feelings towards them.
Also, they'd probably look for compensation. I don't know if we give compensation to families of innocents that we have killed.
Nope, just saying it happens, and we should recognize the possibility of these unintended casualties when we go to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas