One of the best uses of all the homeland security money would be to create an inexpensive secure wireless broadband across the entire country.
Then the population could remain decentralized, and communicate and do business without having to ride subways and collect into buildings like the world trade center where we are targets for terrorists.
It's very very hard to defend against terrorism, we have to protect every point, and they only have to attack at one point. By putting cheap broadband everywhere we can make all their attack points have lower value.
We could then encourage telecommuting to business, education, government, and entertainment. In this way we make ourselves less vulnerable and we reduce our dependence on oil because we won't need to drive as much. The dependence on oil is part of our vulnerability to terrorism.
We improve the quality of everyone's lives by letting them spend their commuting time with their families instead of stressed out in rush hour traffic.
We improve the environment by driving less and reducing air pollution.
Cheap and easily available wireless broadband would stimulate commerce, science, and research and would improve our economy, which would generate more wealth for everyone and increase tax revenues without having to increase tax rates.
It would allow us to distribute better public educational resources to children in areas that that are remote or disadvantaged. I believe that education is one of the few social programs that actually make our society more just by providing opportunity for all.
A nationwide wireless broadband would be valuable resources for connecting and linking security and emergency services allowing them to work in unison and be more effective. It would make their communications less vulnerable during times of crisis and allow better and more distributed command structures.
I don't believe that the government should be involved in running a nationwide broadband service. Frankly they just don't seem to do things without screwing them up. What government could do is encourage the use, development and implementation of cheap broadband by allowing tax credits for research and implementation.
They could even make our ISP fees tax deductible to encourage increased use of the Internet.
This would be the exact opposite of taxing it. It would also be the right thing to do.
I'm not sure I follow everything you're saying but I think we actually agree on a lot.
The money spent in Iraq is a waste. The Iraq war has no economic benefit to the US. The Iraq war was also a strategic mistake, but having made that mistake, backing out now might be another mistake.
Saddam Hussein is scum, but had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. In fact as a secular Arab leader he was a natural enemy of Al-Qaeda. He also apparently had no WMD's.
I have no idea why we went to war with Iraq. It could be that Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad. Also it could be that the neo-conservatives were planning to take on Iraq even before 9/11. It could also be that Saddam was bluffing and pretending to have WMD's with his cat and mouse games with the UN inspectors. His position was always kind of strange. "We have no WMD's but if you attack us we'll use them on you." In fact we know he had WMD's at one time because he used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. He claimed they were all destroyed but would not or could not document their destruction.
The truth is that he was surrounded by enemies, the Kurds to the north and the Iranians to the east and the Shiites to the south. Also Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were not happy with him because of the Kuwait invasion. So Saddam may have felt that he had to a least bluff that he had WMD's. This may go down as the worst bluff in modern history, if it turns out that this is why Bush invaded Iraq.
It's very very hard to defend against terrorism, we have to protect every point, and they only have to attack at one point. As much as possible we have to attack them. I just wish we were smarter about it. The good thing about democracy is that eventually you get rid of bad leaders.
Anyway don't worry too much about terrorism. Do what you can do about things that you can do and don't worry about the rest. Your chance of being killed by terrorists is very low. You are at more risk from just crossing the street, or driving a car. My advice is to look both ways and use your turn signals and don't think too much about terrorists. There will always be the "chicken littles". There are people who kind of want things to get worse because it will shake things up and things are not going so well for them currently so they figure that shaking things up may be better. I've got bad news for them, there will be set backs, but essentially everything is going to be fine, civilization will continue and flourish. Art, science, technology, culture, medicine and even politics and human relationships are all going to undergo continuous wonderful positive transformations and life will be better for everyone.
I refer to it as "mass murder of innocent men, women and children".
It is still a moral and public relation failure for the terrorists.
It persuaded no one that they were right.
It also failed to terrorize (except for you apparently). The brave people of London are back to work. The financial markets are recovering.
There will be more and worse attacks, and they are extremely dangerous, but they will not succeed in their goal to undermine our society or to accept their twisted world view.
By the way you really should work on the hostility thing. Do you think you have a right to demand that others not express their ideas? Especially when you don't seem to read them in the first place? I understand that you may not agree with me about something but I also suspect that you are not an idiot. I do not think that calling you an idiot would make your ideas less persuasive. Anyway I wish you well.
This one goes down as a loss for Al-Quida. With all due respect to those killed and injured, the London attack actually seems weak.
There have been three major attacks on western soil, 9/11, Madrid and now London.
Each has been progressively weaker. The first killed thousands. The second killed hundreds. This one has killed dozens.
But the primary loss for Al-Quida is that they have lost any sense of moral supremacy. When the world is debating Abu Grav and Guantanamo, it is clear that just randomly and deliberately killing people who are uninvolved is far worse. Leaving time bombs on public transport to kill people who are just trying to go to work to provide for themselves and their families is obviously morally bankrupt.
The problem originates in a sense of tribalism. The thinking goes like this "If I think someone has done something wrong then it is OK for me to exact my revenge on someone from the same tribe. If I can't punish the person who did the apparent wrong then I will punish someone who looks like him, or lives near him, or has a similar philosophy. This will make me feel better and appease my rage and sense of injustice."
There is another way that this represents a loss for Al-Quida. Just when the G8 leaders were going to disagree about aid and global warning (and thus appear weak and uncaring) now they are all in solidarity against terrorism and their differences don't mater.
What were they thinking? Did they expect London of all places to be cowered by this despicable type of action? Many residents of London still remember the blitz. In that case the people of London crawled out of the wreckage and collectively gave Hitler the finger.
When you see a group of people who are willing to commit mass murder of innocent men, women and children as a way of making a political point, all you can do is steel your resolve to never, never, never let these people win, regardless of the cost and the sacrifice.
You say that:
"I truly believe that if we left Iraq tomorrow, the insurgency would collapse in a short time because they'd have no real reason to exist. The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists."
I think you are wrong; they would triple their efforts because they would feel that victory is at hand. The place would then collapse into civil war, after the Shiites and the Kurds react. No one could govern and it would be bad for the common Iraqis. Eventually it may end up there anyway, but given the current situation, keeping US troops in Iraq is the best chance that Iraq has. (That doesn't mean that going in to Iraq was a good idea in the first place.)
Slashdot Mirror
One of the best uses of all the homeland security money would be to create an inexpensive secure wireless broadband across the entire country.
Then the population could remain decentralized, and communicate and do business without having to ride subways and collect into buildings like the world trade center where we are targets for terrorists.
It's very very hard to defend against terrorism, we have to protect every point, and they only have to attack at one point. By putting cheap broadband everywhere we can make all their attack points have lower value.
We could then encourage telecommuting to business, education, government, and entertainment. In this way we make ourselves less vulnerable and we reduce our dependence on oil because we won't need to drive as much. The dependence on oil is part of our vulnerability to terrorism.
We improve the quality of everyone's lives by letting them spend their commuting time with their families instead of stressed out in rush hour traffic.
We improve the environment by driving less and reducing air pollution.
Cheap and easily available wireless broadband would stimulate commerce, science, and research and would improve our economy, which would generate more wealth for everyone and increase tax revenues without having to increase tax rates.
It would allow us to distribute better public educational resources to children in areas that that are remote or disadvantaged. I believe that education is one of the few social programs that actually make our society more just by providing opportunity for all.
A nationwide wireless broadband would be valuable resources for connecting and linking security and emergency services allowing them to work in unison and be more effective. It would make their communications less vulnerable during times of crisis and allow better and more distributed command structures.
I don't believe that the government should be involved in running a nationwide broadband service. Frankly they just don't seem to do things without screwing them up. What government could do is encourage the use, development and implementation of cheap broadband by allowing tax credits for research and implementation.
They could even make our ISP fees tax deductible to encourage increased use of the Internet.
This would be the exact opposite of taxing it. It would also be the right thing to do.
I'm not sure I follow everything you're saying but I think we actually agree on a lot.
The money spent in Iraq is a waste. The Iraq war has no economic benefit to the US. The Iraq war was also a strategic mistake, but having made that mistake, backing out now might be another mistake.
Saddam Hussein is scum, but had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. In fact as a secular Arab leader he was a natural enemy of Al-Qaeda. He also apparently had no WMD's.
I have no idea why we went to war with Iraq. It could be that Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad. Also it could be that the neo-conservatives were planning to take on Iraq even before 9/11. It could also be that Saddam was bluffing and pretending to have WMD's with his cat and mouse games with the UN inspectors. His position was always kind of strange. "We have no WMD's but if you attack us we'll use them on you." In fact we know he had WMD's at one time because he used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. He claimed they were all destroyed but would not or could not document their destruction.
The truth is that he was surrounded by enemies, the Kurds to the north and the Iranians to the east and the Shiites to the south. Also Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were not happy with him because of the Kuwait invasion. So Saddam may have felt that he had to a least bluff that he had WMD's. This may go down as the worst bluff in modern history, if it turns out that this is why Bush invaded Iraq.
It's very very hard to defend against terrorism, we have to protect every point, and they only have to attack at one point. As much as possible we have to attack them. I just wish we were smarter about it. The good thing about democracy is that eventually you get rid of bad leaders.
Anyway don't worry too much about terrorism. Do what you can do about things that you can do and don't worry about the rest. Your chance of being killed by terrorists is very low. You are at more risk from just crossing the street, or driving a car. My advice is to look both ways and use your turn signals and don't think too much about terrorists. There will always be the "chicken littles". There are people who kind of want things to get worse because it will shake things up and things are not going so well for them currently so they figure that shaking things up may be better. I've got bad news for them, there will be set backs, but essentially everything is going to be fine, civilization will continue and flourish. Art, science, technology, culture, medicine and even politics and human relationships are all going to undergo continuous wonderful positive transformations and life will be better for everyone.
If not I'll apologize and admit that I was wrong!
Good luck.
If everone's speed is limited to the average then the traffic will get progressively slower and slower till eventually it's barely moving.
What do you recommend that we do? What action should be taken to improve the situation? Do you think it's hopeless?
I do not deny the event or belittle it.
I refer to it as "mass murder of innocent men, women and children".
It is still a moral and public relation failure for the terrorists.
It persuaded no one that they were right.
It also failed to terrorize (except for you apparently). The brave people of London are back to work. The financial markets are recovering.
There will be more and worse attacks, and they are extremely dangerous, but they will not succeed in their goal to undermine our society or to accept their twisted world view.
By the way you really should work on the hostility thing. Do you think you have a right to demand that others not express their ideas? Especially when you don't seem to read them in the first place? I understand that you may not agree with me about something but I also suspect that you are not an idiot. I do not think that calling you an idiot would make your ideas less persuasive. Anyway I wish you well.
Not a bad deal but I still get back aches.
This one goes down as a loss for Al-Quida. With all due respect to those killed and injured, the London attack actually seems weak. There have been three major attacks on western soil, 9/11, Madrid and now London. Each has been progressively weaker. The first killed thousands. The second killed hundreds. This one has killed dozens. But the primary loss for Al-Quida is that they have lost any sense of moral supremacy. When the world is debating Abu Grav and Guantanamo, it is clear that just randomly and deliberately killing people who are uninvolved is far worse. Leaving time bombs on public transport to kill people who are just trying to go to work to provide for themselves and their families is obviously morally bankrupt. The problem originates in a sense of tribalism. The thinking goes like this "If I think someone has done something wrong then it is OK for me to exact my revenge on someone from the same tribe. If I can't punish the person who did the apparent wrong then I will punish someone who looks like him, or lives near him, or has a similar philosophy. This will make me feel better and appease my rage and sense of injustice." There is another way that this represents a loss for Al-Quida. Just when the G8 leaders were going to disagree about aid and global warning (and thus appear weak and uncaring) now they are all in solidarity against terrorism and their differences don't mater. What were they thinking? Did they expect London of all places to be cowered by this despicable type of action? Many residents of London still remember the blitz. In that case the people of London crawled out of the wreckage and collectively gave Hitler the finger. When you see a group of people who are willing to commit mass murder of innocent men, women and children as a way of making a political point, all you can do is steel your resolve to never, never, never let these people win, regardless of the cost and the sacrifice.
You say that: "I truly believe that if we left Iraq tomorrow, the insurgency would collapse in a short time because they'd have no real reason to exist. The true terrorists would have no freedom fighter status in which to cloak themselves, and the nationalist insurgents would likely turn against the terrorists." I think you are wrong; they would triple their efforts because they would feel that victory is at hand. The place would then collapse into civil war, after the Shiites and the Kurds react. No one could govern and it would be bad for the common Iraqis. Eventually it may end up there anyway, but given the current situation, keeping US troops in Iraq is the best chance that Iraq has. (That doesn't mean that going in to Iraq was a good idea in the first place.)
BBC news reported a muslim family upset because a daughter has been missing since the attacks.