[BengalTiger]

just wait and see what happens when China sends a man to the moon, NASA will have a money ocean be long forgotten.

Fixed.

I wish they could siphon off just a fraction of the military budget and put it into NASA. A 1% cut in military spending would triple NASA's funding, and maybe actually capture the public's imagination and get kids excited about science again.

And a 1% cut in social security, Medicare and Medicaid would increase NASA's budget over 7 times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Funny that the DoD isn't listed under 'Mandatory' spendings, it makes an impression that the government doesn't have to defend the borders nor the citizens.

[Kosh]

Funny that the DoD isn't listed under 'Mandatory' spendings, it makes an impression that the government doesn't have to defend the borders

Yeah like the the army has been defending our borders against the illegal mexicans that come across it. Great job.

[Nuclear1]

And a 1% cut in social security, Medicare and Medicaid would increase NASA's budget over 7 times.

Yeah...cut funding for the unwillfully unemployed and the sick, or cut funding for the totally necessary and useful F-35.  Such a tough call there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Funny that the DoD isn't listed under 'Mandatory' spendings, it makes an impression that the government doesn't have to defend the borders nor the citizens.

I love how people can look at a Wikipedia article on the federal budget and find an attack on their way of life.

It's ****ing annoying.

I ask again, when was the last time we had actually had a direct threat to the homeland prior to September 11 that warranted a 12-figure digit Defense budget?

[TopAce]

I ask again, when was the last time we had actually had a direct threat to the homeland prior to September 11 that warranted a 12-figure digit Defense budget?

If you ask me, even weeks or months after 9/11, there was little immediate threat. Al-Qaeda managed to do what they did because no one took reports of possible attacks on US mainland seriously. Now they're the number one threat of the Western world, from a national defense perspective.

All the other post-9/11 attempts on the contiguous US have been foiled.

[BengalTiger]

I ask again, when was the last time we had actually had a direct threat to the homeland prior to September 11 that warranted a 12-figure digit Defense budget?

If you ask me, even weeks or months after 9/11, there was little immediate threat. Al-Qaeda managed to do what they did because no one took reports of possible attacks on US mainland seriously. Now they're the number one threat of the Western world, from a national defense perspective.

All the other post-9/11 attempts on the contiguous US have been foiled.

I think what Nuclear1's trying to say is that Al-Q requires a lot of police work, rather than ultra expensive military tech, and he has a point there.

[General Battuta]

So very true. Terrorism needs to be handled as criminal behavior, not as warfare. Calling them soldiers in a war just glorifies them, which is what they want.

[TopAce]

Because they are actually trained as soldiers, and they're part of the US Military, not Manhattan police officers. Terminology is all right. What we're seeing is an extension (perhaps a redefinition) of our concept of war. It's not that you have a visible enemy driving tanks and controlling air strikes against your bases, tanks, and airports. It's not even guerrillas hiding somewhere in the forest who you recognize on sight. This time you are surrouned by a bunch of civilians who you are tasked to protect, and pinpoint and neutralize dangerous elements from this crowd.

I don't think it's a matter of equipment, either. Sure, high-tech helps a lot, but US soldiers are still trained in the conventional warfare that I described above. It doesn't help them against "invisible" enemies such as al-Q.

[General Battuta]

Terrorists are trained in the US military? 

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, I'm not sure I understood most of that post either.

[TopAce]

It's a misreading from my part. I thought you referred to US soldiers and them being glorified by calling them what they are.

[Snail]

So very true. Terrorism needs to be handled as criminal behavior, not as warfare. Calling them soldiers in a war just glorifies them, which is what they want.

IMHO, certain forms of terrorism need to be stamped out quickly and severely, even if it means 'military' as opposed to 'police' action. A well-organized terrorist group with some form of external or local support often sees more success than a lot of people realize. Think the Winter War, Stalingrad, Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Terrorism has the potential to evolve into conventional warfare, at which point it turns into anything but a criminal infestation.

But really I wouldn't say the current Afghanistan war is anything like these historical precedents, which often ran parallel to an actual conventional war or had substantial external support (Viet Cong fought alongside the conventional NVA and the Mujahideen were supported by the CIA, but I don't believe the Taliban even have the full support of the local people).


I just kinda caution against statements that equate terrorism to criminal activity in such a general sense...

[iamzack]

<.<

[General Battuta]

So very true. Terrorism needs to be handled as criminal behavior, not as warfare. Calling them soldiers in a war just glorifies them, which is what they want.

IMHO, certain forms of terrorism need to be stamped out quickly and severely, even if it means 'military' as opposed to 'police' action. A well-organized terrorist group with some form of external or local support often sees more success than a lot of people realize. Think the Winter War, Stalingrad, Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Terrorism has the potential to evolve into conventional warfare, at which point it turns into anything but a criminal infestation.

But really I wouldn't say the current Afghanistan war is anything like these historical precedents, which often ran parallel to an actual conventional war or had substantial external support (Viet Cong fought alongside the conventional NVA and the Mujahideen were supported by the CIA, but I don't believe the Taliban even have the full support of the local people).

'Police action' and 'quickly and severely' are not at all mutually opposed.

What is counterproductive is giving the terrorists the media attention and legitimacy they desire by making them one party in a two-party war. In the process (as iamzack pointed out) you also drive the local population into their arms by killing innocent civilians.

[SpardaSon21]

And GB, we may not be in a conventional war with the terrorists, but it is a war nonetheless.  I honestly can't think of any other term to describe what kind of threat we are facing.  The terrorists are not a bunch of disparate groups independently plotting our downfall, they're loosely allied, and share similar goals and motivations, namely the destruction of the Western world and an establishment of radical Islam in its place.  The war isn't between nation-states, it's a cultural war between freedom and religious tyranny.

However, I do think our best tactic is not invading countries and sending UAV strikes that kill innocents, its the use of elite, well-equipped Special Forces teams to kill them quickly, quietly, and with no collateral damage.

[General Battuta]

It is not a war. The term you are looking for is 'terrorist threat', not war.

The propaganda you're spouting is really disgusting. Please read some CIA reports, analyses of jihadist groups, after-action reports from our soldiers in the field, and material produced by the Pentagon. Read the 9/11 Commission Report in full if you haven't already.

I am incredibly upset that American citizens are so poorly educated. This kind of reactionary fear plays precisely into the agenda of terrorist groups. It's as if people forget the derivation of the word.

Terrorist groups are loosely allied, poorly coordinated, as preoccupied with killing each other and various Middle Eastern governments as with attacking us, and (according to their own statements) fighting for what they perceive as their own freedom. The 9/11 attack, the most successful thing they've ever managed, was a series of pratfalls on both sides, not an insidious and well co-ordinated plot. It was, in short, a criminal heist, not an act of war.

(The entire plot was nearly uncovered because one of the attackers flew home to visit his girlfriend. Seriously.)

It is not a cultural war because Islamism isn't a culture. It is a radical aspect of a culture, in much the same way the Westboro Baptist Church or militia groups are a radical aspect of American culture.

Mischaracterizing the enemy will get you into further disasters. Don't do it.

[Nuclear1]

9/11 is comparable to dozens of people calling in to a police station to give tips about a mass murder about to be undertaken, and the police simply going "eh".  The mass murder, no matter how devastating, is not a masterminded plot.  It's a plot that could've been easily foiled if someone had been paying attention.

In fact, most terrorist plots since 9/11 against the US have been successfully stopped.  About a quarter of the rest of them were missed simply because they're really weren't any warning signs, but the other three quarters had warning signs, but people deliberately/carelessly ignored them (Fort Hood and the Christmas Day bomber being the keen examples).

And you're making the terror cells around the world to be much more capable than they really are.  Al-Qaeda's in shambles, and the only reason they haven't been outright eradicated is because Pakistan is so unstable there's not much fighting them outside of Afghanistan.  Nobody likes Hamas.  Hezbollah is at odds with most of the Muslim world (except Iran and Syria).; hell, most Arab countries were cheering on Israel when they invaded Lebanon.  Abu Sayyaf does nothing more than the occasional kidnapping. 

It's the copycat terrorists that slip under the radar.  People who claim to be inspired by al-Qaeda and other mainstream terror organizations aren't caught onto beforehand.

Also, everything GB said.

[General Battuta]

To spardason:

I'm sorry if I sounded really pissy, but I just don't understand how people haven't been briefed on this.

The bad guys want this to be a war. They want it to be a clash of civilizations. They want us to yell about how it's all about 'freedom' and 'liberty' and whatnot. That puts them on a level with us. It gives them attention, it gives them recruits, and it allows them to poke at our hypocrisy.

They should be ignored, marginalized, isolated, and assassinated, not glorified. So please stop glorifying them.

They aren't soldiers in a war. They aren't The Great Threat to Freedom. They're just a bunch of rotten criminals whose greatest victory was forcing us to sink to their level.

If you put yourself in the mindset of a citizen of another country, we have killed far more people than the terrorists, for the same reasons the terrorists cite. We're making ourselves look no better.

[Scotty]

I'm sorry if I sounded really pissy, but I just don't understand how people haven't been briefed on this.

1.  There a lot of people to brief.
2.  Quite a few of them don't want to be briefed.
3.  When has the U.S. done anything right when it comes to education the first time?

[Snail]

Al-Qaeda isn't really a real threat (on the home front) anymore. It's the people who feel they have been alienated and abused by Western society who are the threat. Once again we're fighting a thought process rather than an organization.

There's a pretty slim chance something like 9/11 could happen again, but that chance is there.


There is no chance that Al-Qaeda will take over America and establish a religious dictatorship. That just won't happen.

[TopAce]

There is no chance that Al-Qaeda will take over America and establish a religious dictatorship. That just won't happen.

It's enough for them to weaken the average US citizens' belief in their country by keeping the illusion (potential?) of another attack coming about. That's why it's called terrorism. It's a desire to shatter a country from the inside.