Phi for All Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Most of the satellites are in orbit to hit Russia more than other places. We can't change that all. So intelligence needs MORE money to change all that.I'm not arguing that intelligence needs haven't changed since the Cold War. What I object to is using undisclosed budgets for reasons of National Security on one hand, then turning around and saying the funding is inadequate in an internationally available document like the 9/11 Commission Report on the other hand. This is a very common tactic with any government. Secure the funding, which was supposed to be adequate, then when something bad happens they say it obviously wasn't enough, they need more. Sometimes you have to admit that it just isn't possible to prevent every bad thing from happening. Some people say that Reagan outspent the Soviet Union, causing them to ruin their economy in order to compete with the US during the Cold War. Has it occured to you that terrorism is having that same effect on us now? Has anyone heard how much it might have cost bin-Laden to arrange the 9/11 attacks? I'm betting it wasn't in the billions. Bush gave the Taliban $43 million in the spring of 2001 to fight the heroin trade. I bet 9/11 cost them a fraction of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 I don't think opinions on management of the Secret Service are really going to be productive. The thing is nobody actually knows what they are doing, how or why. If they are doing the job properly, you will think you know pretty well what is going on when in fact you know almost nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 The American intelligence services are becoming extremely insular (breaking significant contacts with the UK and Canada, for example) as a result of Homeland Security, which cannot be a good thing. It's just representative of the US's current tendency to paranoia and regression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 This is the most secretive administration there has ever been in the US. Even the president's Texas driving records were locked up in daddy's library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Phi, sorry. I assume (wrongly so) that you were from Europe and trying to tell us how we feel based on what you've seen on the news. However, seeing as you're from the states, you would have a better idea of what the social situation is. I still disagree, but sorry for lashing out a bit :0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 No problem, blike. And don't get me wrong, I love this country. I can't imagine a better place for me to live with my eccentric ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 I for one think that Bush needs to be kicked out of that chair before he does irrevocable damage to your country, if it hasn't already been done. Sorry to change the topic a bit, but I quite frankly cannot believe how much everyone seems to be abusing the "OMG WERE GONNA GET BOMMED BY TERR0RIST LLAMAS FS!!!!!!1112" bandwagon atm, and it has to be said the Bush administration is probably the worst offenders of the lot with the entire Iraq mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 When you have lots of weapons to sell, peace, stability and tranquility are NOT good marketing tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 its really funny to watch leaders sending out mixed messages. like "A terrorist attack on UK is inevitable. its just a question of when" and then government sending out terror leaflets and then saying that there is nothing to worry about . and asking pple to go about their normal lifes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 I know what you're getting at. The entire thing is a complete farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Part of the reason why we act so crazy in the US is because of the mixed messages we keep getting. Secretary of Homeland Security says, "Duct tape up your windows and make sure you can reach every member of your family at a moments notice!", then the President says, "Don't worry, we have everything under control, be alert but don't let it stop you from going out there and spending your money!" The alert level is Yellow. No, it's Orange! No it's Yellow! No, it's Orange! It sure won't go to Blue or Green before November.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 what would duct taping your windows do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Gas attack leik? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 what would duct taping your windows do? Save your life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 3, 2004 Author Share Posted August 3, 2004 Have any UKers had their leaflet/pamphlet yet? we`ve had ours (probably sent alphabeticly, although it only says "To the occupier"). I`ve had a good read and the early info I recieved as to it`s contents are quite accurate. it DOES say to stock up on on a spare batteries a torch, matches and candle, but twice says to the effect of "use no lighters or matches" and "reduce all fire risks" after an incident. I dunno, maybe I`m being particularly picky here? but as the .GOVs way of trying to score "Brownie Points" before an ellection, it certainly doesn`t wash with me! I dunno about you but the speech in the US about the new terror alert/level seems like a similar ploy, esp when you listen to the actual WORDING, thre "Our President" bit, making it sound like HE was the sole keeper/protector of the US! am I cynical or realistic here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 You'll be glad of those candles if there's a sarin attack on a London tube station, mark my words. And etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 3, 2004 Share Posted August 3, 2004 am I cynical or realistic here?Both. And with real reason. I think the only way Bush can win is if he paints himself further as the "tough on terrorism" guy. Which is laughable considering he's done so little to redress 9/11. Which is hilarious because he's turned so much of the world against us in a way it has never been before. Which is scary because so many people over here think he IS effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 I think the only way Bush can win is if he paints himself further as the "tough on terrorism" guy. Which is laughable considering he's done so little to redress 9/11. What do you suggest he does? Rebuild the CIA, blast every country harboring terrorists, etc? That would be even worse. You can't reform the CIA without spending loads of money, get criticized for it, and goof up somewhere. You can't kill all of the terrorists without accidentaly hurting a small child and becoming the world's most evil baby killer that is in power. But that's not really relevant to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 i am quite suprised by how much phi seems to dislike bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Let me ask you this, Cap'n. In the two years of 1997-98 (I believe those were the two), we actually knew the CIA had $52 billion to work with. Prior to that and after that, it's been secret due to national security how much money they had appropriated. If you, you personally, had that much money to work with and were in charge of what the CIA does, do you think you could have kept things a bit more secretive and efficient than they have? I think atinymonkey said it in a different thread, that if an intelligence community is doing it's job right, you won't know very much about their activities. Yet all we hear about the CIA is how many goofs and errors they've made. No one is saying it's a piece of cake job, but don't you get tired of being handed billion dollar excuses that we're supposed to not only suck up, but give even further funding to? If you or I did our jobs in such a manner, no one would hire us again, let alone keep us in the job and give us even more money. Which leads me right back to Bush... i am quite suprised by how much phi seems to dislike bushAlways glad to give bloodhound yet another opportunity to make a gay joke. I'd get help, were I him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 You can't reform the CIA without spending loads of money, get criticized for it, and goof up somewhere. So what? You would actually put a relatively minor dollar value up as a reason not to make your security service workable? What sort of a plan is that? Don't you think the prospect of defending against future criminal and/or terrorist activity is worth a small investment? You think protecting Bush's ego or reputation is more important? You think no organisation ever changes its structure just in case there's a mistake somewhere? Maybe it's the lack of careful consideration in the USA that is the problem, and not the people who point out the problems. When somebody raises an issue, it needs to be looked into. It's not a magic cue for everyone to form up two camps and start arguing about why the other camp is anti-patriotic. You can't kill all of the terrorists without accidentaly hurting a small child and becoming the world's most evil baby killer that is in power. But that's not really relevant to this thread. Moreover, you can never "kill all the terrorists". That kind of thing tends to make more people a bit angry with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Which leads me right back to Bush... Always glad to give bloodhound yet another opportunity to make a gay joke. I'd get help' date=' were I him.[/quote'] WHAT is gay about that!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 Oh come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 As far as I'm concerned, terrorism is successful when people and governments respond exactly the way the US and the UK are responding. It's virtually impossible to defend against small cells of people willing to die because they believe it insures their place in the afterlife. But we have almost a dozen different intelligence gathering agencies spending billions in resources already on the lookout. The terrorists get their funding from places that are less and less willing to leave money trails for fear of reprisal. When we start panicking about duct-tape and flashlight batteries, we help the terrorist's financing go a lot farther. I think the CIA is used as a scapegoat for failure because we've somehow gotten used to hearing about their mistakes, and we somehow don't blame the administration they work under, perhaps because of their clandestine, secretive nature. We've been about as vigilant as we can get for the last three years, and the rest of the terror tactics have been from our own government who seems to like it when we huddle in fear and don't question them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 4, 2004 Share Posted August 4, 2004 and we somehow don't blame the administration they work under, perhaps because of their clandestine, secretive nature Why should we blame the administration? Why don't we blame Clinton, because the majority of planning and training for 9/11 took place under his watch? Sounds like you have more beef with the CIA than with Bush. Whether or not you feel that CIA has had adequate reform under Bush is another issue, I might agree with you on that. I think more could and should have been done to revamp the agency, but I don't think that's as simple as we all think. As far as I'm concerned, terrorism is successful when people and governments respond exactly the way the US and the UK are responding. What is the proper response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now