Most important issue we face in America

[tryreading]

And that is exactly what we are trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq........

Yeah, but my point is that we can't do it in Iran, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc. And what we're doing in Iraq may not succeed. These countries will have to support our goals, in the interiors of their borders, if we are going to minimize the number of terrorist attacks worldwide, and more importantly, here at home.

There will be more arguments for lower troop levels and a definite plan for Iraq as the mid term elections draw closer, but that's a recipe for election success, not a democratic Iraq. Then there will be a much more urgent push for withdrawing from Iraq before the 2008 elections. Those are the important goals to the politicians.

One thing that really bothers me about the progress in Iraq is that last year we had trained three brigades which could operate independently of us, and this year there is only one. How can this be possible? Either there were a lot of Iraqi army deserters, or somebody was lying.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Scarecrow Akhbar wrote

Originally Posted by AlbqOwl

My interpretation of your citation of the 2nd ammendment deals more with the concept of civil liberty and domestic insurgency than it does anything. I think it's reference pertains more towards conflicts of civil war and the proliferation of liberty... not the installation and dictation of democracy. We are a republic first and foremost

I would like to point out that I did not write this nor do I necessarily support it in the context it was written. I believe the second amendment is intended to provide means for citizens to protect themselves against all enemies, both domestic and foreign, as might be necessary, and it is the very constitutional rights written into our democratic Republic that allows us that freedom. To say that citizens do not have responsibility for their own security and safety is to give far more power to government than was ever intended by the Constitution.

 

[Conflict]

Say what? It is precisely because the citizens are ultimately responsible for the security of this nation that the Constitution grants the House of Representatives sole authority to declare war.

It is precisely because the citizens are responsible for the public defense that each state had it's own militia.

It is precisely because the citizens are responsible for the public defense that an elected official is the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces.

And it precisely because the citizens were the final watchdog against tyranny by their own government that the Constitution has the Second Amendment.

I voted "other" in the poll, and was going to say that apathy was the nation's biggest problem, not that anyone cares, but perhaps ignorance of our own history is the top problem.

Funny... several citizens have been very concerned about the Bush Administration and their hawkish tactics (I think it's around 65% at this point)... but you don't want to listen to them. Your lip service does you no justice. The motive and intention of what you speak contradicts the semantical prudence of your claims.

A citizen in all common terminology holds a high contrast to the term official or defender in terms of executive, legislative or administrative physical action. As a matter of fact the word citizen is one that clearly is a definitive semantical moniker of a non-official, non service person.

As fare as all the lame personal and subjective insinuations you have thrown at me.... that within itself also speaks volumes about your composure and character.

 

[Conflict]

You responded directly to my post. I didn't take anything personally, just offered some advice. Also, if I attacked you, it was a pretty mild attack. Also, could is not definite. In my scenarios, the idea was that if a particular thing occured, then my prediction would happen.

I responded directly to your post but I did not respond directly to anything that you have said. If you were to read some of my posts I don't tend to beat around the bush if I have a particular disagreement.

Nevertheless I still have yet to see anyone touch anything I've said on the post in question in it's entirety. Would you care to respond directly to my concerns there-in?

the phrase "could is not definite" has been embolded above. That is part of what I was saying in the post which you became inflamed upon. Now you are using the phrase against me?

Translation from could to would equals assumption in the context that you used the word "would". You don't know what they would do. You just assume. There has not been one dirty bomb detonated anywhere in the world. If someone blows up a hospital or elementary school... that is an act of extremism. If someone attacks your pentagon or a pinnacle of (inter)national economy that is an act of war. There is little room for assumption in warfare.

 

[tryreading]

I responded directly to your post but I did not respond directly to anything that you have said. If you were to read some of my posts I don't tend to beat around the bush if I have a particular disagreement.

Nevertheless I still have yet to see anyone touch anything I've said on the post in question in it's entirety. Would you care to respond directly to my concerns there-in?

the phrase "could is not definite" has been embolded above. That is part of what I was saying in the post which you became inflamed upon. Now you are using the phrase against me?

Translation from could to would equals assumption in the context that you used the word "would". You don't know what they would do. You just assume. There has not been one dirty bomb detonated anywhere in the world. If someone blows up a hospital or elementary school... that is an act of extremism. If someone attacks your pentagon or a pinnacle of (inter)national economy that is an act of war. There is little room for assumption in warfare.

There would be massive retaliation in the Israel scenario I gave. There is no doubt. I stand by my other woulds too.

I was not inflamed at all, or using anything against you. I was correcting you.

I will respond to any concern or question. Just repost them, please.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

nuclear holocaust and the annihilation of the human race.

you now have nuclear capable countries (Iran-Pakistan-Israel-India-China) that hate eachother alot more and who are alot less stable than were the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War.

This is a pretty important issue.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Funny... several citizens have been very concerned about the Bush Administration and their hawkish tactics (I think it's around 65% at this point)... but you don't want to listen to them. Your lip service does you no justice. The motive and intention of what you speak contradicts the semantical prudence of your claims.

A citizen in all common terminology holds a high contrast to the term official or defender in terms of executive, legislative or administrative physical action. As a matter of fact the word citizen is one that clearly is a definitive semantical moniker of a non-official, non service person.

As fare as all the lame personal and subjective insinuations you have thrown at me.... that within itself also speaks volumes about your composure and character.

I wrote:

Say what? It is precisely because the citizens are ultimately responsible for the security of this nation that the Constitution grants the House of Representatives sole authority to declare war.

It is precisely because the citizens are responsible for the public defense that each state had it's own militia.

It is precisely because the citizens are responsible for the public defense that an elected official is the Commander in Chief of all US armed forces.

And it precisely because the citizens were the final watchdog against tyranny by their own government that the Constitution has the Second Amendment.

I voted "other" in the poll, and was going to say that apathy was the nation's biggest problem, not that anyone cares, but perhaps ignorance of our own history is the top problem.

1) You have serious insecurity issues if you find "lame personal and subjective insinuations" in that post. That's not an insinuation, that's a factual statement. I suggest you seek therapy, and probably medication for your problem.

Heck, I didn't even use the word "you" in that post. Perhaps I should offer to pick the lint out of your navel so you can read my posts better?

2) I've read your post several times over. It still makes no sense in relation to what I wrote in the post you quoted. Try again.

 

[tryreading]

This is a pretty important issue.

Its the issue. Nuclear proliferation, biological agent proliferation, and anything that can be used as a device to kill hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, and potentially leave large areas uninhabitable, at least temporarily, are the most important problems to pursue now. Unfortunately, at some point there will probably be another terrorist attack(s) in this country, and it would be better for us if the weapon is conventional. Imagine 9/11 with checked luggage loaded with a potent radioactive dust of some kind. The nightmare of the attack which profoundly affected us in this country would have been geometrically worse.

 

[debate_junkie]

You can not condemn all Christian, Jews, and Moselms for the actions of a few..........

And yet you continually condemn all liberals because of Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry...what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Its the issue. Nuclear proliferation, biological agent proliferation, and anything that can be used as a device to kill hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, and potentially leave large areas uninhabitable, at least temporarily, are the most important problems to pursue now. Unfortunately, at some point there will probably be another terrorist attack(s) in this country, and it would be better for us if the weapon is conventional. Imagine 9/11 with checked luggage loaded with a potent radioactive dust of some kind. The nightmare of the attack which profoundly affected us in this country would have been geometrically worse.

Bah. Any amount of radioactive dust a man could carry would cause practically no harm whatsoever. Any lethal amount would either have so much shielding he couldn't carry it, or it would kill him before he could deliver it. It's a self-regulating thing.

"Dirty" nuclear bombs are a hazard because the fission process can generate tons of radioactive fallout. A conventional bomb packed with radioactive material wouldn't cause much damage at all.

What would be damaging is the total ignorance of the American public, their superstitious hysterical fear of anything nuclear, a fear fed by decades of Surrender Monkey leftist propaganda that anything "nuclear" will kill the whole planet and fed also by media ignorant hype on all networks that a dirty bomb is a disaster that will paralyze the nation.

Here's what you do if you see a bomb go off and you don't want to breathe the dust. Put several layers of your tee-shirt over your mouth and nose, and breathe through that. Walk up wind and out of the smoke plume. Take a carefull shower, and you might have to go through the deadly embarassment of shaving all your hair off.

If you don't breathe the radioactive material into your lungs, if you don't swallow any, you'll be fine with no injury at all.

That's how insignificant a "dirty bomb" is.

 

[tryreading]

Bah. Any amount of radioactive dust a man could carry would cause practically no harm whatsoever. Any lethal amount would either have so much shielding he couldn't carry it, or it would kill him before he could deliver it. It's a self-regulating thing.

"Dirty" nuclear bombs are a hazard because the fission process can generate tons of radioactive fallout. A conventional bomb packed with radioactive material wouldn't cause much damage at all.

What would be damaging is the total ignorance of the American public, their superstitious hysterical fear of anything nuclear, a fear fed by decades of Surrender Monkey leftist propaganda that anything "nuclear" will kill the whole planet and fed also by media ignorant hype on all networks that a dirty bomb is a disaster that will paralyze the nation.

Here's what you do if you see a bomb go off and you don't want to breathe the dust. Put several layers of your tee-shirt over your mouth and nose, and breathe through that. Walk up wind and out of the smoke plume. Take a carefull shower, and you might have to go through the deadly embarassment of shaving all your hair off.

If you don't breathe the radioactive material into your lungs, if you don't swallow any, you'll be fine with no injury at all.

That's how insignificant a "dirty bomb" is.

In my scenario I was talking about checked luggage, which could hold a large quantity of material. The resulting measurable radioactivity would cause panic and evacuation, even if no one dies. If there were a detectable level of radioactivity dispersed in New York, people would abondon the affected area. The country would be in a paranoid state, the threat level at extreme, our freedoms further limited. Remember that the stock exchange was closed for a few days? It would have to be moved in this scenario, because nobody would go to work there, so it would be closed for weeks, which would be economically damaging to the country, and therefore damaging to the world economy. About paralysing the nation, the original World Trade attack did that, with no nuclear material. Our planes didn't fly for days.

I know a dirty bomb will not kill many people, didn't make that clear in my post. But the perception of invisible death, based on a large scale of contamination, would be enough to cause significant damage to our lifestyle, wellbeing, and economy.

 

[Conflict]

I wrote:


1) You have serious insecurity issues if you find "lame personal and subjective insinuations" in that post. That's not an insinuation, that's a factual statement. I suggest you seek therapy, and probably medication for your problem.

Heck, I didn't even use the word "you" in that post. Perhaps I should offer to pick the lint out of your navel so you can read my posts better?

2) I've read your post several times over. It still makes no sense in relation to what I wrote in the post you quoted. Try again.

Right.

So you have insinuated that I'm ignorant and I need medication over the course of this thread. All the while I have yet to attack you personally. You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. I find it to be quite profound when imperious persons on an internet debate forum tend to perceive kindness and pacifism as a form of weakness. THere is cause for concern.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

In my scenario I was talking about checked luggage, which could hold a large quantity of material. The resulting measurable radioactivity would cause panic and evacuation, even if no one dies. If there were a detectable level of radioactivity dispersed in New York, people would abondon the affected area. The country would be in a paranoid state, the threat level at extreme, our freedoms further limited. Remember that the stock exchange was closed for a few days? It would have to be moved in this scenario, because nobody would go to work there, so it would be closed for weeks, which would be economically damaging to the country, and therefore damaging to the world economy. About paralysing the nation, the original World Trade attack did that, with no nuclear material. Our planes didn't fly for days.

I know a dirty bomb will not kill many people, didn't make that clear in my post. But the perception of invisible death, based on a large scale of contamination, would be enough to cause significant damage to our lifestyle, wellbeing, and economy.

In my scenario, airplanes don't permit a passenger to check that much luggage...besides which, there's a couple problems with your scenario:

1) A high altitude airburst would disperse the RAM far and wide...and thinly, practically eliminating all risk of contamination.

2) A really heavy dense package should be saying to any intelligent checker "X-Ray Me!". That's assuming we have intelligent in the Dept of Homeland Security, which is doubtful.

3) The person checking the luggage in still has to deal with the radiation exposure issues, unless he's wrapped his present up in lead, and it takes a two inch thick layer of lead to reduce the radiation levels by 90%. (the so-called "Tenth Thickness"). So how's he going to carry this thing?

He may be able to ship it as cargo labelled "machine tools", perhaps, but still, the high altitude airburst practically eliminates any effectiveness the thing might have.

Worry not about "dirty bombs", just breathe your shirt. A much bigger concern should be damned deluded muslim pigs self-infected with small pox, or dispersal in confined areas of anthrax (this last isn't a real problem since most any attempt to do that would be noticed and potentially affected people could get antibiotics to treat the disease.)

Small pox. And to think the man that ruled the Soviet Union while it was developing both highly refined and deadly strains of smallpox concurrently with a MIRV'd biological ICBM got the Nobel Peace Prize for his strong efforts to end the war in Afghanistan. Sure Gorbachev tried to end the war. His problem is the other side won. And now it's possible samples of that smallpox could get in towelhead hands.

I know a dirty bomb will not kill many people, didn't make that clear in my post. But the perception of invisible death, based on a large scale of contamination, would be enough to cause significant damage to our lifestyle, wellbeing, and economy.

What I think you mean is the transfer of revenue from production to the purchase of Depends for all the ignorant pants-wetters will slam the economy to a halt, right?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Right.

So you have insinuated that I'm ignorant and I need medication over the course of this thread. All the while I have yet to attack you personally. You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. I find it to be quite profound when imperious persons on an internet debate forum tend to perceive kindness and pacifism as a form of weakness. THere is cause for concern.

No.

I stated quite plainly that you need meds. I didn't insinuate anything about that at all.

 

[teacher]

Bah. Any amount of radioactive dust a man could carry would cause practically no harm whatsoever. Any lethal amount would either have so much shielding he couldn't carry it, or it would kill him before he could deliver it. It's a self-regulating thing.

"Dirty" nuclear bombs are a hazard because the fission process can generate tons of radioactive fallout. A conventional bomb packed with radioactive material wouldn't cause much damage at all.

What would be damaging is the total ignorance of the American public, their superstitious hysterical fear of anything nuclear, a fear fed by decades of Surrender Monkey leftist propaganda that anything "nuclear" will kill the whole planet and fed also by media ignorant hype on all networks that a dirty bomb is a disaster that will paralyze the nation.

Here's what you do if you see a bomb go off and you don't want to breathe the dust. Put several layers of your tee-shirt over your mouth and nose, and breathe through that. Walk up wind and out of the smoke plume. Take a carefull shower, and you might have to go through the deadly embarassment of shaving all your hair off.

If you don't breathe the radioactive material into your lungs, if you don't swallow any, you'll be fine with no injury at all.

That's how insignificant a "dirty bomb" is.

Was gonna post here with "Take a friggin shower and have a beer, and don't lick buildings or sidewalks until it rains" but I see Scarecrow has it 100% correct.