[Gymnfacymoota]

Would someone please define 'national security.'

Again this is NOT a GZ mosque threat. It is about the rhetoric that is being bandied about these days...rhetoric like I have never in my considerable number of years heard.

Example:

"Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it." Under God: Imam Rauf: National security hinges on mosque debate - Elizabeth Tenety

To WHAT is this referring. Terrorists knocked out two sky scrapers and it didn't destroy our 'national security' did it? I mean, does 'national security' refer to a feeling, a fact, or God forbid, overthrowing our government?

National security is one helluva a big term to be thrown around so casually if it is merely referring to whether or not we feel safe. I recall being told that Americans have nothing to fear but fear itself. Well, has the time come that fear itself will destroy us?

Our WWII boys had top cope with Tokyo Rose. What is going on that our current military cannot cope with a display of freedom of expression? Am I the only one who wonders about this stuff.

[VarenHokalos]

9/11 didn't threaten national security??????????

[blackjackblax]

9/11 didn't threaten national security??????????

Maybe it did. In what way? (I said it didn't DESTROY our national security.) I think that goes to the question I have asked here. Exactly what is 'national security?' It seems to be a term that is thrown around pretty loosely these days.

[citalopram]

9/11 didn't threaten national security??????????

guess not , I mean it just effected us financially almost ruined the airline business and hit us in the pocket book pretty hard in many areas

The more i read about this imam the more i do not like this dude i dont care about whether the bush admin made him someone or not, both admins should get double arm interval off this toad IMO

[secondmortgages]

Maybe it did. In what way? (I said it didn't DESTROY our national security.) I think that goes to the question I have asked here. Exactly what is 'national security?' It seems to be a term that is thrown around pretty loosely these days.

Um...something that threatens our nation's security.
And that is not limited to militarily.

As an example, our nations debt is by faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr the greatest threat to national security that everything else put together.

By 2020, we will spend more on dent interest than defence.

[InsManKV]

Um...something that threatens our nation's security.
And that is not limited to militarily.

As an example, our nations debt is by faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr the greatest threat to national security that everything else put together.

By 2020, we will spend more on dent interest than defence.

OK, that's fair. This is going to what I am looking for.......a good working definition of 'national security.' I mean, are we all on the same page as to exactly what national security is? I don't think we are.

[NarhozNic]

guess not , I mean it just effected us financially

More than the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts cost us?

[casinobonuswer]

Would someone please define 'national security.'

Again this is NOT a GZ mosque threat. It is about the rhetoric that is being bandied about these days...rhetoric like I have never in my considerable number of years heard.

Example:



Under God: Imam Rauf: National security hinges on mosque debate - Elizabeth Tenety

To WHAT is this referring. Terrorists knocked out two sky scrapers and it didn't destroy our 'national security' did it? I mean, does 'national security' refer to a feeling, a fact, or God forbid, overthrowing our government?

National security is one helluva a big term to be thrown around so casually if it is merely referring to whether or not we feel safe. I recall being told that Americans have nothing to fear but fear itself. Well, has the time come that fear itself will destroy us?

Our WWII boys had top cope with Tokyo Rose. What is going on that our current military cannot cope with a display of freedom of expression? Am I the only one who wonders about this stuff.

This sounds more like its going to be a debate over word meaning than substance. But:

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. National Security

No, its not about feeling safe. Its about BEING safe.

[hs6KnlcW]

As an example, our nations debt is by faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr the greatest threat to national security that everything else put together.

Right. And from that perspective, our reaction to 9/11 was actually a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr greater detriment to national security than the attacks themselves.

[syncFisee]

Right. And from that perspective, our reaction to 9/11 was actually a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr greater detriment to national security than the attacks themselves.

How is that distinguishable from the national debt? It would seem to me that it is part of the national debt.

[draigenia]

How is that distinguishable from the national debt? It would seem to me that it is part of the national debt.

I think he's saying the debt is the biggest threat. Our response to 9/11 was massive spending on two wars and cutting of taxes - which feeds right into our biggest threat ... the national debt. Other than a few billion dollars of lost assets and businesses, we could have continued after 9/11 without bankrupting the country. Yet bush and the congress decided to blow TRILLIONS of dollars in response to a billion dollar problem.

Bin Laden's belief is/was that the US economic strength is built like a house of cards. Push on it hard enough and it will collapse easily. Our spending and lack of fiscal responsibility after 9/11 might actually lead to the situation that Bin Laden envisioned, not because of the cost of rebuilding after 9/11 but because of our politicians spending ridiculously beyond our means.

[staisacic]

I think he's saying the debt is the biggest threat. Our response to 9/11 was massive spending on two wars and cutting of taxes - which feeds right into our biggest threat ... the national debt. Other than a few billion dollars of lost assets and businesses, we could have continued after 9/11 without bankrupting the country. Yet bush and the congress decided to blow TRILLIONS of dollars in response to a billion dollar problem.

Bin Laden's belief is/was that the US economic strength is built like a house of cards. Push on it hard enough and it will collapse easily. Our spending and lack of fiscal responsibility after 9/11 might actually lead to the situation that Bin Laden envisioned, not because of the cost of rebuilding after 9/11 but because of our politicians spending ridiculously beyond our means.

Um, the tax cut was before 911. Id also like to see your source for blaming national security spending for debt. I know for a fact it wasnt the main cause, so Id like to see why your facts disagree.

[Phywhewashect]

"Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it." No sir it doesn't. YOUR personal financial security depends on how YOU negotiate that real estate deal. It has absolutely nothing to do with our national security.

[chadnezzrr]

I think he's saying the debt is the biggest threat. Our response to 9/11 was massive spending on two wars and cutting of taxes - which feeds right into our biggest threat ... the national debt. Other than a few billion dollars of lost assets and businesses, we could have continued after 9/11 without bankrupting the country. Yet bush and the congress decided to blow TRILLIONS of dollars in response to a billion dollar problem.

Bin Laden's belief is/was that the US economic strength is built like a house of cards. Push on it hard enough and it will collapse easily. Our spending and lack of fiscal responsibility after 9/11 might actually lead to the situation that Bin Laden envisioned, not because of the cost of rebuilding after 9/11 but because of our politicians spending ridiculously beyond our means.

So national security is only a financial construct.

[aaafluochugh]

So national security is only a financial construct.

It has a number of components, but if we're bankrupt then it might just all go to shit. Bush and his pals played a MUCH greater role in harming America than bin Laden could have ever hoped to play. Your fears would be better placed if you worry about the threats in the government rather than about some old guy who might be dead or might be in a cave in a foreign nation. But Osama is the certified US government bogeyman and too many dumbass cowardly Americans have fallen for the misdirection.

[first_pr]

Right. And from that perspective, our reaction to 9/11 was actually a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr greater detriment to national security than the attacks themselves.

If this were the case, why did the Islamic extremists attack us in the first place?

The theory is, our presence in the M.E. is what makes them grow disdain for our country, but in my opinion, that is a cop-out.

Radical Islam will attempt to destroy the United States regardless of what we as a nation do or do not do, internationally.

[ashleyjoseph]

If this were the case, why did the Islamic extremists attack us in the first place?

You mean on 9/11? In hopes of provoking a suicidally stupid and misplaced response (financially) maybe.
The theory is, our presence in the M.E. is what makes them grow disdain for our country, but in my opinion, that is a cop-out.
Some of them might hate us regardless of our presence, but killing Iraqis over there surely isn't going to give their family members warm, fuzzy feelings inside when they think about America.
Radical Islam will attempt to destroy the United States regardless of what we as a nation do or do not do, internationally. Then it's certainly stupid of us to waste our money in a manner that harms America.

[nTDsD0aU]

It has a number of components, but if we're bankrupt then it might just all go to shit. Bush and his pals played a MUCH greater role in harming America than bin Laden could have ever hoped to play. Your fears would be better placed if you worry about the threats in the government rather than about some old guy who might be dead or might be in a cave in a foreign nation. But Osama is the certified US government bogeyman and too many dumbass cowardly Americans have fallen for the misdirection.

I thought that was Terry Jones.

[SDorothy28]

How is that distinguishable from the national debt? It would seem to me that it is part of the national debt.

It's part of it, there's definitely overlap, but that's not really what I was getting at. My point is that the changes in our attitudes and institutions that we've made in response to 9/11 have been more damaging than the attacks themselves - the massive expansion in domestic surveillance and the over-the-top Guantanamo crap, for example.

If this were the case, why did the Islamic extremists attack us in the first place?

To provoke exactly the kind of response we've "graciously" provided. Terrorism isn't designed to overcome an enemy, but to trigger their undoing from within - via panic and fear.

[VipInoLo]

Um, the tax cut was before 911. Id also like to see your source for blaming national security spending for debt. I know for a fact it wasnt the main cause, so Id like to see why your facts disagree.

The tax cut was before 9/11, but keeping tax cuts active when we're at war is stupid. Bush/congress should have rescinded those cuts and raised taxes to fund the war. When we're at war we're far more effective when the entire nation gets behind it as happened during WWI and WWII. During Vietnam we had tax cuts, and we see how well that went.

National security spending is as much a part of the debt as welfare, SS, medicare, DoE, NASA and every other penny spent by our government. Its obviously just one piece of a giant amount of spending our government does. But by increasing spending for national security after 9/11 instead of re-allocating funds was a mistake. We spend roughly ~1 - 1.5 trillion on intelligence and military every year. Re-allocating some of that 1.5 trillion dollars would have been a far better option than just making government even bigger via no cuts anywhere else but homeland security being formed from scratch and the wars not even being fought out of the defense budget.

Someone did the calculation and I don't want to spend the time to look it up, but terrorists spend roughly $0.10 for every $1,000 we spend to 'prevent' them. I don't recall the exact numbers but its an enormous disparity along those lines. One of the GOALS of bin laden is to precipitate our economic collapse, why should we give him exactly what he wants?