Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Terror Alert Levels

[Larry McDaniel <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

>2)  Furthermore, there's a lot of talk about this threat level or that threat level, but the real arugments are:
>
>   a)  That many of us actually don't want additional security precautions, because having freedom in the first place entails accepting a certain amount of risk, and it's well worth it.  "People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." (Benjamin Franklin)
>
>  
>
Actually, there aren't many who would agree with that statement about 
not wanting additional security precautions.  Additional and very 
appropriate security precautions does not equate with the loss of 
freedom of which Franklin spoke.  Besides, in some instances, his 
statement is incorrect anyway. It would be just as fair to say that 
anyone who doesn't want additional security, has something to hide. 
Although that would be true many times, it certainly doesn't have to be 
that way. But, to be sure, not knowing where the next bomb is going to 
blow because we don't want to be pestered with additional security 
precautions is NOT freedom. I'm not sure what it is ... ignorance, 
foolishness, laziness, ... it may be a lot of things, but freedom isn't 
one of them.

>   b)  No one is talking about what is being done to reduce the *causes* of the threat.  We're just trying to be the strongest, most impregnable country in the world.  But it can't be done.  You just can't defend against everybody, especially if your own citizens and allies are among the suspected.  Some diplomacy is in order here (and it needs to get on Fox, not just p.10 of the Trib.).
>
>  
>
Actually, we are indeed doing much to reduce the causes of the threats, 
and many have died in that effort. Afghanistan and Iraq, of course, are 
two that come to mind.  Additionally, other military operations are 
taking place around globe in an effort to reduce the causes of the 
threats of terrorism.

Regarding becoming the most impregnable country in the world, as it 
relates to terrorists, that is certainly a worthy goal.  Of course we 
can't defend against everybody, but we can sure make it a lot more  
difficult for someone to kill a couple thousand working men, women and 
children in a single day.

This problem of terrorist activity and the sophistication to which they 
have risen, has truly changed the world and the way most countries, 
especially the U.S., will approach issues of national security - 
forever.  As you correctly point out, the enemy is sometimes right among 
us and perhaps even a citizen of this country. As long as they were in 
Afghanistan, none of us gave it a second thought. And we didn't even 
know what the true definition of "security precaution" really was. Most 
of us still don't.  But let "one of them" walk in the Hearnes Center 
during a big event and set off a dirty bomb, and I'll guarantee we will  
become a whole lot more interested in the idea of "security precaution."

I hate what has happened to us. I hate 9/11 and what it will mean 
forever. I hate that it could have been one of my own family in the twin 
towers on that day. But, it is now a fact of life that we are all left 
to deal with. I don't really know who would deal with it the best in the 
White House ... Bush, Kerry ... who knows. I think whoever is there, is 
going to have an extremely complex situation that will require multiple 
approaches, and in the end, some terrorist activity will still get 
through.  As you pointed out, there is simply no way to stop it all. But 
I really don't think Bush or Kerry either one would play political games 
with terrorist activity. If we honestly think our candidates for 
President this year are that despicable, we've got bigger problems still.

larry
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion