Ten,
re: The ratio of social spending to defense is already 4:1. Seems like you'd rather see that ratio increase. Guess what? It's already going to increase, thanks to these free-spending politicians in Washington. Prescription drug benefit, Ted Kennedy's education bill, baby boomers retiring, the clouds of Hillary-care on the horizon. All these budget-busters are going to make the cost of Iraq look like chump change.
Yes, I would rather see government funds spent on infrastructure, or social programs, or R&D for renewable energy, or... almost anything other than "defense" (it could be argued that "offense spending" is a better phrase than "defense spending"; certainly with the biggest, best equipped armed services in the world, out "defense" is OK). I agree about the free-spenders in Washington, but I notice it was Kennedy's education and Hillary-care. If you want to personalize these things, you ought to call it Bush's prescription drug benefit, he's the power behind that one.
re: Fine, then argue for better intelligence (which Clinton helped to gut in the 90's). Argue for better homeland security, and forget about appeasing the overzealous privacy nuts. Argue for more reliance on well-trained special forces that can hunt down the terrorists wherever they may hide. And argue for a stronger foreign policy that holds the U.N. to its charter for world peace and security.
I have argued for better intelligence. On homeland security, I think we've done most of what we can do. There is such a thing as TOO MUCH security, note some of the former and current communist countries, they are so secure that they can't express an opposition opinion. I'm all for special forces hunting down REAL terrorists. And I argue for a stronger UN. So on 4 of those 5 points we are in agreement.
re: Don't pretend that 9/11 wasn't the single most horrifying act to occur on American soil, that it didn't paralyze the most metropolitan city in the world and change its skyline forever.
When did I pretend that?
Don't pretend something worse can't happen in a free nation with open borders (that we'd rather keep open, contrary to what Jimmy Mac wishes for).
Anything "can" happen. The only way to avoid anything is to completely close the borders, and institute a police state. Eliminate all firearms or weapons of any kind from the population. Set up random search checkpoints. Jail dissenters. It's worked pretty well in other coutries that value security over freedom. Is that what you want? Where do you draw the line between security and freedom?
And don't pretend that fear is just a condition we can turn off like a light
We will have terrorist acts in this country, no matter what we do outside of the police state scenario. To me, the most remarkable thing is that, in this country of 250 million, we haven't had a single suicide bomber since 9/11. I, personally, don't live in fear of terrorism. I was out and about all weekend, and never once did I even think about a lurking terrorist.
The fear is manufactured by the talking heads in the media and government. It's self-serving; the word "terrorist" sells papers and elects politicians.
re: We live in a relative paradise compared to the rest of the world. Is is so wrong to want to keep it that way? Or should we wallow in enough self-pity to handicap us until we become just like the "rest of the world"?
That's exactly what I would say to you wrt the fear of terrorism.
John |
