POST SCRIPTS

Speaking of a real threat, the Pentagon has said that global warming vastly eclipses the threat of terrorism.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html#article_continue

Jim, surely you didn't just assume that the Guardian article was the truth did you? It was based on a nightmarish fictional account, a worst case scenario...a what "IF" event done for training similar to those events we used to run on computers for nuclear attacks and fallout drifts.

The article you cite was more tabloid than factoid.

Andrew Marshall, the man who inspired this article is an 81 year old futurist who often creates dire prognostications to test theorhetical responses if that 1 in a million event occurred, like an astroid hit or a nuclear winter. He also had some great works of fiction about China.

The Pentagon plays these games all the time.

Not to worry, the sea isn't going to wash over Florida, England will not become the new Siberia and vast deserts will not replace the middle America farm belt. Nor will the sun will become an orange giant incinerating all life on earth...least not anytime soon.

Thanks for the heads up, Jim. This is what I found telling about the article:

First of all it sounds sort of 007...secret reports suppressed by the pentagon...very Y2K...lots of hype, but where's the report and who gave it up to the Guardian? Mysterious, anonymous sources and all that

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs...abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy...

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall...the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the...(EPA), said that suppression of the report... was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing...The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group,...If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act.'

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem.

Ohhhhhh, I get it, it's all very John Kerry...how old is this report? It's a magic hat moment!

We know these groups contain many people willing to commit extreme acts of violence to advance their personal agendas and they have, but so far their isolated acts of extremism have been far enough apart to give us a sort of false sense of complacency.

And while these dupes and true believers are kept busy waging destructive, murderous acts the truly devious are steadily tearing at the fabric of America with efforts to destroy our family structure, educational institutions, religious and moral underpinnings and civic organizations. It's all for a "brave new world" that they paint with bright colors and pretty glittery promises. Or with scarey unproven scenerios like global warmming..."and the money keeps pouring in"...for those familiar with "Evita".

I tend to agree with you, the Pentagon greatly exaggerates threats. I recall from the 60’s when the pentagon exaggerated the threat of the Soviet Union. We learned how little danger they posed when the dust settled after the cold war. Now they telling us about the threat of terrorism. I feel that terrorism is little more than a nuisance. Our war on terrorism has actually increased the threat.
I feel that we face a much larger threat of economic collapse. With our deficit spending and trade deficit, we face a precarious future. Combine that with the increasing strength of the European Union and the emergence of China. Most people don’t seemed concerned about this at all.

Jim, without a doubt, we did over estimate the Soviet Union militarily, but it was not without good cause. They were powerful. In many areas they were also numerically superior. They were also known to be ruthless. Remember Stalin murdered more people than Hitler and in the 50's Nikita Kruschev said he would bury us!

As a direct result of being unprepared in WWII and now facing this new threat from global communism, we rightly engaged in very high military spending and advanced weapons systems.

The Soviets tried to match us and when they couldn't, they cranked out much larger numbers of inferior products, their T-55, T-62 series tanks for instance, inferior, but they had vast numbers and they could have overrun our best defenses in Germany had the cold war turned hot.

However, over time their system simply couldn't compete no matter how much they sacrificed and we all saw the end result of that one! The cold war directly accellerated their eventual demise. You wouldn't argue that was a bad thing would you?

Now as to the threat from terrorism. You don't think it is as great as many other threats, including global warming? Well, then I have to ask you when in our history have we lost over 3000 American civilians on our own soil in a sneak attack and what else has had such a devestating effect on our economy?

What would another 9-11 sized event do to us ecomonically?

We may be spending too much fighting terrorism and we may be spending some of it on the wrong things. This is all subject to debate and I won't defend everything Bush had done here. In fact, we would probably agree more than we disagree on this part of spending. But, where we differ is on the threat level.

I rate this terror threat as immediate and high risk.

Consider that as extremely unfriendly nations develope and spread WMD technology, it does not take a leap of logic to see how this will impact our security or global economics and stability. One dirty bomb in dowtown LA or NY is almost too horrific to think about, but what if it's a real nuke that goes off? How about weaponized anthrax in the mail.... attack a dozen cities all at once, it would be too easy. How about nerve gas released in a few subways? Each could be done with a minimum cost and manpower, yet the results would be deadly, costly and debilitating.

Any of these events will abruptly change life forever here and there are certainly many more types of threats too with unlimited targets, each posing as great a risk in terms of lives lost and dollars impacted. But, we have to live and we can't become a fortress. Freedom means we take the risks, but we have to be smart about it too. We can't afford to be defensive and close every window of opportunity so we have to pursue the enemy and take the fight to where they are, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq. If we don't, we are wide open on the home front.

Remember the three things necessary to commit a crime are ability, opportunity and motive. Who could argue that there are not hundreds of thousands in this world who would do us harm if they could? There are many rabidly anti-USA fanatics do have the "opportunity" and "motive" to cause use harm, they just lack the "ability". That "ability" could be a key factor in our security and lets remember that "ability" could be provided quite easily by a rogue nation like North Korea, Iran, etc.

It's a dangerous world out there.

The threat is very real and very serious Jim...it is immediate and is growing exponentially as technology advances.

We have a lot of challenges to face in the coming decades. Some are inevietable and we will have to adjust to a changing world. I think global warming is in that catergory. Some things are preventable and could get much worse if we don't address them now...terrorism is in that category.

I recall from the 60’s when the pentagon exaggerated the threat of the Soviet Union. We learned how little danger they posed when the dust settled after the cold war.

Actually, history has shown the Soviet threat was as great as we thought in the sixties. The Soviets were using all of their revenue to make war on the world in the old paradigm of conquering nations and in the case of America, covertly taking over in areas of education, the law, politics. As time went on socialist policies in the soviet Union made uninspired drunks of the populace and left little money for innovation and "progress". Consequently, we in the free entrepreneurial world of democracy, ran rings around them. Then all it took was a big push for "star wars" and some fancy foot work by Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John and they soon realized they could not keep up. Their system fell apart of it's own weakness.

I feel that terrorism is little more than a nuisance. Our war on terrorism has actually increased the threat.

Charactarizing terrorism as a "nuisance" is a gross understatement and, I hate to say it but, also demonstrates a gross ignorance of the facts.

The neighbors dog barking all night is a nuisance. Flies at a picnic are a nuisance. Sand in a wet bathing suit with no place to change and a long drive home is a nuisance...terrorist acts around the globe for decades that have increased in severity and intensity are a huge problem and must be addressed. The enemy is decidedly "outside the box" in terms of warfare but they are absolutely committed. They have clearly stated their goal of complete submission through conversion. Their strategy might be described like this: you're being held hostage, you're blindfolded, and recent experience tells you that sooner or later a very bad guy will come through the door and hit you in the knee cap or on top of the foot, or in the back, or some other vital part with a ball peen hammer. How long till you cry uncle and convert to Islam? Now expand that little scenario out into the greater world and you eventually arrive at global Jihad. If you were they, wouldn't you be looking for ever increasing ways to do greater and greater damage...wouldn't you be recruiting "soldiers if Jihad"? Wouldn't you be looking for a bigger hammer hammer?

We haven't made it worse...we have brought it into the sunshine for anyone brave enough to look at and acknowledge...it is real and they are relentless!!!

Obviously, not every person who takes aim at a GI in Iraq is a devout terrorist who could just as easily be attacking Americans on our soil, but a fair number are. I know this is hard to swallow, but then so was the concept of the earth moving around sun once upon a time.

From personal research and from several trusted sources in Iraq I say that a many Jihadists now fighting in Iraq were also fighting in Kosovo or before that they were in Afghanistan and some before that they were
the Philippeans, the Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Iran or Saudi Arabia.

These are DEVOUT terrorists and clandestine government operatives. Some are there in Iraq fighting for the first time and who knows, the next time they could be America...if we don't kill them first.

I can almost hear the hee-haws coming the left now, then again they have their own agendas, but are you willing to bet your life I'm wrong and they are right? Because thats really what you are doing...think about it.