I found this editorial in the paper today, and I think it truly shows what we are up against. I know, many of you lefties will call it nothing more than warmongering, but you would be the same people that would blame Bush if we were attacked again. You would say something along the lines of ....He didn't do enough. or why has he ignored _____ . Damn the rest of the world if they choose to turn a blind eye to the peril that is Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. We must do everything we can protect ourselves!

Quote:Why America sleeps

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, Washington Post Writers Group


WASHINGTON -- Thank God for Hans Blix. Whenever we become lax and forgetful about how the world changed on 9/11, former chief inspector Blix is there to make the case for mindless complacency.
In a recent speech he warned that one should be wary of the claim that "the risk that reckless groups and governments might acquire weapons of mass destruction is the greatest problem facing our world today." Why? Because "to hundreds of millions of people around the world, the big existential issue is hunger, and also that wherever you live on this planet, the risk of global warming and other environmental threats are existential."

Here we are at the crux of a debate over America's aggressive interventionism. Is Islamic radicalism in potential alliance with WMD-bearing terrorist states a threat to the very existence (hence: "existential") of America and of civilization itself?

On Sept. 12, 2001, and for many months afterward, that proposition was so self-evident that it commanded near unanimous support. With time -- three years in which, contrary to every expectation and prediction, the second shoe never dropped -- that consensus has evaporated.

The new idea, expressed by Blix representing the decadent European left, and recently amplified by Michael Moore representing the paranoid American left, is that this existential threat is vastly overblown. Indeed, deliberately overblown by a corrupt/clueless (take your pick) President Bush to justify American aggression for reasons of -- and here is where the left gets a little fuzzy, not quite being able to decide whether American aggression is intended simply to enrich corporations (or maybe just Halliburton alone) with fat war contracts, distract from alleged failure in Afghanistan, satisfy some primal masculine urge, or boost poll ratings.

We have come a long way in three years. The idea that 9/11 was a historical turning point, a wake-up call to a war declared by our enemies but ignored by us, has begun to fade. The week after 9/11, the late-night comedy shows went dark. Today, Moore produces a full-length film parody of 9/11 and its aftermath that is not just highly celebrated but commands a huge audience. To be sure, Moore's version is not quite as crazed as the French best seller claiming that the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center were remotely controlled by the CIA at the behest of the president. Moore merely implies some sinister plot, citing connections between the Bush and bin Laden families.

Unlike the French book or the Moore movie, Blix is not deranged. He is merely in denial, discounting the uniqueness of the WMD-terrorism issue by comparing it to global warming and hunger. Yes, hunger is an existential issue to the people suffering it. As are car accidents, heart disease, and earthquakes. But they hardly threaten to destroy civilization. Hunger is a scourge that has always been with us and that has not been a threat to humanity's existence for at least 1,000 years. Global warming might one day be, but not for decades, or even centuries, and with a gradualness that will leave years for countermeasures.

There is no gradualness and there are no countermeasures to a dozen nuclear warheads detonating simultaneously in American cities. Think of what just two envelopes of anthrax did to paralyze the capital of the world's greatest superpower. A serious, coordinated attack on the United States using WMDs could so shatter the United States as a functioning advanced industrialized society that it would take generations to rebuild.

What is so dismaying is that such an obvious truth needs repeating. The passage of time, the propaganda of the anti-American left, and the setbacks in Iraq have changed nothing of that truth. This is the first time in history the knowledge of how to make society-destroying weapons has been democratized. Today, small radical groups allied with small radical states can do the kind of damage to the world that in the past only a great, strategically located industrialized power like Germany or Japan could do.

It is a new world and exceedingly dangerous. Everything is at stake. We are now deeply engaged in a breast-beating exercise for not having connected the dots before 9/11. And yet here we are three years after 9/11, the dots already connected themselves, and we are under a powerful urge to ignore them completely.

<a href='http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1410602p-7533773c.html' target='_blank'>Here is the editorial!</a>

Quote:The new idea, expressed by Blix representing the decadent European left, and recently amplified by Michael Moore representing the paranoid American left, is that this existential threat is vastly overblown. Indeed, deliberately overblown by a corrupt/clueless (take your pick) President Bush to justify American aggression for reasons of -- and here is where the left gets a little fuzzy, not quite being able to decide whether American aggression is intended simply to enrich corporations (or maybe just Halliburton alone) with fat war contracts, distract from alleged failure in Afghanistan, satisfy some primal masculine urge, or boost poll ratings.

Hey, he's been reading this board!

I have to pause when I hear about things like "global warming" being cause for concern of our very existance.

There are folks who claim they'd do nearly anything to get rid of Bush b/c his policies are so bad for the environment.

BUT, Hussein is the guy who lit oil fields on fire! Shouldn't they be glad that Bush got rid of him? Isn't that exactly the same thing?

Next, none of these green folks talk about the environmental impact of 9/11. How many barrels of oil will it take to clean up and re-build the WTC? What about the pollutants, especially the particulate mater that were released into the air? What about the wasted resources in reaction to 9/11; the immediate ones of panic and the long-ranging ones of homeland-security infrastructure?

Terrorism is a HUGE problem if you're environmentally concerned. But I've found that most of these folks aren't so much environmentally concerned as they are overgrown spoiled children who are spiteful and vindictive toward anyone/anything that doesn't give them what they want. For Blix to invoke this rhetoric, I believe shows his true character.

Fine. I don't disagree with most of what he said. It's what he doesn't address that is the problem.

Not only did we know on Sept. 12, 2001, the reality of a major new threat, but so did the rest of the world. That was an important moment of opportunity. We pissed it away in a matter of months through our own belligerance.

The only effective way to combat terrorism is for the world's civilized countries to recognize the common threat it poses to them and reach new levels of cooperation in eradicating it. The Bushies got the pre-emptive part right, but war in the military sense was the wrong noun. As we should learn from Iraq, if it reaches the point of conventional war, it's a victory for the terrorists, no matter how badly they suffer on the battlefield.

The only way to win this "war" is not to fight it. We have to dismantle the terrorists' capacity bit by bit (isolation, sabotage, financial interdiction, intelligence and -- if we're lucky enough to locate a nest of them together -- covert action). Then we have to increase our own vigilance. But we can't beat them into submission strictly through our military might, no matter how much self-satisfaction our national ego might derive from the exercise.

Socko Wiethe Wrote:The only effective way to combat terrorism is for the world's civilized countries to recognize the common threat it poses to them and reach new levels of cooperation in eradicating it.

Agreed, but if our "allies" such as france choose to ignore the problem instead of facing it, we must continue without them. We can't let other countries opinions determine whats best for our national security and interests.

I think this guy is exaggerating the threat from terrorists to an unbelievable extreme. No one can argue that terrorists aren't a threat but to argue they are an existential threat shows an incredible lack of historical understanding.

The Soviet Union was an existential threat. They could have literally killed almost all of the population of the United States. Germany was an existential threat. If they had been allowed a few more years of development, the Nazi's could have had the atomic bomb and the threat would have come from Germany rather than the Soviet Union. Japan, although a serious threat, never really posed a threat to the existence of the United States. They didn't have anywhere near the industrial capacity to defeat the US nor were they anywhere near close to developing an atomic bomb.

The Confederacy was an existential threat. Without some key Northern victories just prior to the 1864 election, there would not be a United States of America as we know it. Probably, there would be 3-4 countries making up what we now know as our nation.

With that being said, let's turn our attention to terrorists.

On 9/11, they managed to kill a little over 3,000 people. It sure as hell got our attention but, with minor adjustments such as increased security at airports and reinforced cockpit doors, we pretty much ensured that particular act could never happen again. Now, they might somehow get a bomb onto a plane and blow it up but it is very doubtful they would ever again be able to use a civilian airliner as a weapon. They might be able to blow up a section of railroad track. It would be an inconvenience and, possibly a few dozen people would be killed, but that's it. They can always load up a truck with explosives and detonate it in front of a building and kill some few dozen more but you can't argue with a straight face that blowing up a truck really and truly poses the same threat as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or the Confederacy.

Wait a minute Mako. You haven't said a word about WMD's. OK. Let's look at worst case scenarios.

Acquiring a true nuclear weapon is something that's probably beyond the means of any terrorist organization. But, even if they got one, they might blow up one city. Huge event to be sure but a real threat to the existence of the United States? No. And that's the absolute worst they can possibly do under any imaginable scenario. So, let's look at slightly more likely scenarios.

Chemical weapons scare the hell out of folks but most don't realize how difficult they are to deliver effectively. The An-Shin-Rykio (sp?) cult in Japan let loose nerve gas in a subway. Normally, chemical weapons become ineffective rather rapidly as they disperse in the atmosphere. But, even in an environment where you don't have good air circulation, that cult only managed to kill a dozen or so people. And, the last time I checked, Japan still exists. The truth of the matter is that chemical weapons, while frightening to most people, pose less of a risk than the chemical plant in town. After all, one of the most devastating chemical disasters of all time came not from a weapon but from a plant in Bhopal, India.

As for biological weapons, they are terribly easy to make and anyone with even a little bit of chemistry knowledge can make anthrax in a bathtub. But, making it is one thing. Weaponizing it is quite another altogether. Somebody, probably domestic, stuck a bunch of anthrax filled envelopes in the mail and killed a few people. Again, tragic for those people but not exactly a threat to the existence of the United States.

The truth of the matter is that, even under worst case imaginable scenarios, terrorists don't pose a threat to the existence of the United States. Do we need to keep our vigilance when it comes to intelligence gathering and security? Of course. Do we need to engage in selective "removal" of terrorists when the opportunity presents itself? Absolutely. What we don't need to do is overblow the threat that is there and scare ourselves to the point that we ignore other threats that might really threaten our actual existence.

MAKO Wrote:The Soviet Union was an existential threat.&nbsp; They could have literally killed almost all of the population of the United States.&nbsp; Germany was an existential threat.&nbsp; If they had been allowed a few more years of development, the Nazi's could have had the atomic bomb and the threat would have come from Germany rather than the Soviet Union.&nbsp; Japan, although a serious threat, never really posed a threat to the existence of the United States.&nbsp; They didn't have anywhere near the industrial capacity to defeat the US nor were they anywhere near close to developing an atomic bomb.&nbsp;

The Confederacy was an existential threat.&nbsp; Without some key Northern victories just prior to the 1864 election, there would not be a United States of America as we know it.&nbsp; Probably, there would be 3-4 countries making up what we now know as our nation.

With that being said, let's turn our attention to terrorists.

Only one man could utilize pseudo-intellectual horsepoop to concoct an equation of Confederacy = Nazis = Soviets.

Absolutely stunning in its brevity of recourse to thoughtful evaluation.

sherman&amp;grant Wrote:Only one man could utilize pseudo-intellectual horsepoop to concoct an equation of Confederacy = Nazis = Soviets.

You might be well served to go back and read his post again. I think you are missing Mako's point (or intentionally distorting it)

MAKO, i don't think you understand that we aren't trying to stop terrorists from killing americans. we are trying to stop them, period. they pose a threat to the world.

Usually, when someone throws out the term "pseudo-intellectual", it means they don't like the conclusion of an argument but they can't attack either the premises or the conclusion. Occasionally, it means they lack the ability to understand it. So, I'm going to simplify it for S&G in case it's the latter.

Just because both "A" and "B" are existential threats to "C" does not necessarily imply that "A" and "B" are equivalent. Confused? OK. Try this. A cat, a snake and an owl are all existential threats to a mouse. But, it is not therefore logical to conclude that a cat, a snake and an owl are all equivalent.

An asteroid 10 miles or so in diameter is an existential threat to the United States. Does that mean that an asteroid and the Soviet Union are equivalent? No. Similarly, the Confederacy, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were all existential threats to the United States. Despite the fact that all were existential threats, it is not logical to conclude that the Confederacy = Nazi Germany = the Soviet Union.

So, do you challenge my assertion that all three threatened the existence of the United States? Or do you assert that terrorists pose a threat of the same magnitude as the three I chose to initially discuss?

As for swoosh's argument, you will notice that I admitted that terrorists were a threat. What I challenge is the hyperbole of the original author when he tries to argue, with little success, that terrorists threaten the very existence of the United States. I think he exaggerates the threat and I gave three examples (four if you want to include the 10 mile diameter asteroid) of threats that really did or do threaten our existence as a nation.

MAKO Wrote:Usually, when someone throws out the term "pseudo-intellectual", it means they don't like the conclusion of an argument but they can't attack either the premises or the conclusion.&nbsp; Occasionally, it means they lack the ability to understand it.&nbsp; So, I'm going to simplify it for S&G in case it's the latter.





So, do you challenge my assertion that all three threatened the existence of the United States?&nbsp; Or do you assert that terrorists pose a threat of the same magnitude as the three I chose to initially discuss?

Well, let's turn our own logician's laser beam on just one part of the original post and see if you can follow along.

Quote:(MAKO @Jul 9 2004, 03:07 PM)
Germany was an existential threat. If they had been allowed a few more years of development, the Nazi's could have had the atomic bomb and the threat would have come from Germany rather than the Soviet Union.

With your first sentence, you posit the Nazi's as a true "existential threat." With your second, you make it clear they were not, though they may in time have become one (Note: you fail to extend the same courtesy to today's terrorists). Of course, that part of your analysis sort of skips right by the reality of what the Allies had been doing to the Nazi rocketry capabilities based at Peenemunde, and their heavy water facilities in Norway. The simplistic substitution of Germany for the USSR is so bizarre it is unworthy of substantive response.

Fact: today's terrorists have access to vastly more devastating weapons and vastly more reliable delivery systems than the Nazis ever did or were likely to.

Quote:With that being said, let's turn our attention to terrorists.

Our's, or your's? Your purpose in this is transparent, as you have repeatedly sought to denigrate Bush's priorities in the war on terrorism. This most recent screed is just a variation on that theme.

And at the risk of repeating myself, sheer verbosity will not overcome vacuity. You should keep that in mind.

Quote:Fact: today's terrorists have access to vastly more devastating weapons and vastly more reliable delivery systems than the Nazis ever did or were likely to.

You have got to be kidding. The V-2 had an operational range of about 200 miles with an accuracy of 11 miles. It could hit a city but not a factory. The Germans fired over 3,000 V-2 rockets before the war ended. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2_rocket' target='_blank'>Linky to Source</a> The Scuds the Iraqis originally obtained had a similar range with a 2,000 pound warhead. They modified some to give them a longer range by reducing warhead weight and by burning fuel during the early part of the flight. These modifications however, made the Scud unstable in flight and they often broke apart in the upper atmosphere making accuracy poor. <a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.html' target='_blank'>Linky to Source</a>

I invite and encourage you to cite to any reputable source indicating that terrorists have obtained or are likely to obtain 3,000 ballistic missiles. I invite and encourage you to cite to any reputable source indicating that terrorists have obtained or are likely to obtain a nuclear weapon. I further invite you to cite to any reputable source that will show me how terrorists are equivalent to a nation-state that is as technologically advanced as the United States (as was Germany at the relevant time).

Fact: You can't.

MAKO Wrote:

Quote:Fact: today's terrorists have access to vastly more devastating weapons and vastly more reliable delivery systems than the Nazis ever did or were likely to.

You have got to be kidding. The V-2 had an operational range of about 200 miles with an accuracy of 11 miles. It could hit a city but not a factory. The Germans fired over 3,000 V-2 rockets before the war ended. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V2_rocket' target='_blank'>Linky to Source</a> The Scuds the Iraqis originally obtained had a similar range with a 2,000 pound warhead. They modified some to give them a longer range by reducing warhead weight and by burning fuel during the early part of the flight. These modifications however, made the Scud unstable in flight and they often broke apart in the upper atmosphere making accuracy poor. <a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/weapons/scud.html' target='_blank'>Linky to Source</a>

I invite and encourage you to cite to any reputable source indicating that terrorists have obtained or are likely to obtain 3,000 ballistic missiles. I invite and encourage you to cite to any reputable source indicating that terrorists have obtained or are likely to obtain a nuclear weapon. I further invite you to cite to any reputable source that will show me how terrorists are equivalent to a nation-state that is as technologically advanced as the United States (as was Germany at the relevant time).

Fact: You can't.

Oh go away. Your position was the Nazis threatened the existence of the United States of America. Their ability to deliver a weapon ended at the English Channel. Any well-funded terrorist organization could buy Learjet or Gulfstream and have superior capacity to deliver ordnance to this country, and accurately.

Thanks for highlighting again the futility of taking substantive issue with your blazing insights. For your next assignment, give us an essay on whether the Confederacy posed a greater threat to the US, or the French. I mean, if Napolean had refused to cooperate with the Louisiana Purchase, where the heck would we be?

Mako, I appreciate your posts.

Socko Wiethe Wrote:The only effective way to combat terrorism is for the world's civilized countries to recognize the common threat it poses to them and reach new levels of cooperation in eradicating it. The Bushies got the pre-emptive part right, but war in the military sense was the wrong noun. As we should learn from Iraq, if it reaches the point of conventional war, it's a victory for the terrorists, no matter how badly they suffer on the battlefield.

Disagree.

The US armed forces are rapidly approaching being unmanned, save the guy on the radio controls.

Also, there will ALWAYS be countries with no fortitude, that will sit back and reap the rewards of the hard workers. Or a country that after one minor attack, will bow out and go cry in the corner.

Save the United States and United Kingdom, the world is appaulingly empty of countries with a clear mission and the willpower to see it through in tough times.

It took strong leadership from the United States to make the confedracy, nazisim and communisim go away. If John Kerry were to win and not deal effectively with terrorism, he could find himself out of a job in 08.

S&G, all you have done is engage in ad hominym logical fallacies while failing to present a single shred of evidence to support your position. Come back and play again when you get a college education and learn how to support an argument. And here I thought all along they taught that in freshman English.

MAKO Wrote:S&G, all you have done is engage in ad hominym logical fallacies while failing to present a single shred of evidence to support your position.&nbsp; Come back and play again when you get a college education and learn how to support an argument.&nbsp; And here I thought all along they taught that in freshman English.

It would be an ad hominem logical fallacy (of the "ad hominem tu quoque" variety, I believe), if I stated: You don't even know how to spell "ad hominem," and are therefore too stupid to properly utilize the concept in an argument.

It would not be an ad hominem logical fallacy if I stated: In my freshman English class, we were taught the correct spelling of "ad hominem."

You are incapable of distinguishing between fact, opinion, and baseless supposition, so attempts to acquaint you with the not-so-subtle distinctions between those concepts remain exercises in futility.

I can only hope to someday attain the lofty educational heights to which you routinely soar.

sherman&amp;grant Wrote:It would be an ad hominem logical fallacy (of the "ad hominem tu quoque" variety, I believe), if I stated: You don't even know how to spell "ad hominem," and are therefore too stupid to properly utilize the concept in an argument.

It would not be an ad hominem logical fallacy if I stated: In my freshman English class, we were taught the correct spelling of "ad hominem."

You are incapable of distinguishing between fact, opinion, and baseless supposition, so attempts to acquaint you with the not-so-subtle distinctions between those concepts remain exercises in futility.

I can only hope to someday attain the lofty educational heights to which you routinely soar.

:ownd:

sherman&amp;grant Wrote:

MAKO Wrote:S&G, all you have done is engage in ad hominym logical fallacies while failing to present a single shred of evidence to support your position.  Come back and play again when you get a college education and learn how to support an argument.  And here I thought all along they taught that in freshman English.

It would be an ad hominem logical fallacy (of the "ad hominem tu quoque" variety, I believe), if I stated: You don't even know how to spell "ad hominem," and are therefore too stupid to properly utilize the concept in an argument.

It would not be an ad hominem logical fallacy if I stated: In my freshman English class, we were taught the correct spelling of "ad hominem."

You are incapable of distinguishing between fact, opinion, and baseless supposition, so attempts to acquaint you with the not-so-subtle distinctions between those concepts remain exercises in futility.

I can only hope to someday attain the lofty educational heights to which you routinely soar.

:ownd:

Baseless supposition is something at which you have excelled. You stated that terrorists have access to better delivery systems than the Nazis. That is, at best, a guess. Better delivery systems exist to be sure but, just because those delivery systems exist does not mean that terrorists have access to them. During WWII, the United States had around 450,000 killed and around 1,000,000 wounded. Assuming around half of those casualties occurred in the European theater, that's still a hell of a lot more than the worst any terrorist organization has ever managed to do. Basically, when you do the math, in terms of numbers, we had a 9/11 about every 10 days. The terrorists are way behind schedule.