Comments on: Terrorism Index Released http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/08/21/1396/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:22:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Homeland Security Watch » Where Are We Six Years After 9/11? http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/08/21/1396/#comment-77832 Homeland Security Watch » Where Are We Six Years After 9/11? Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:18:58 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/08/21/1396/#comment-77832 [...] the terrorists are unlucky — or at least unsophisticated.  Both of these mitigating factors are due to change, and so is the venue.  This puts the “we fight’em over there so we don’t have to [...] […] the terrorists are unlucky — or at least unsophisticated.  Both of these mitigating factors are due to change, and so is the venue.  This puts the “we fight’em over there so we don’t have to […]

]]> By: nicholas http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/08/21/1396/#comment-76376 nicholas Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:17:38 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/08/21/1396/#comment-76376 America has more voices than most countries but continues to find only two acceptable political voices: conservative and liberal? That is indeed a narrow political spectrum. Most democracies float on a wider range of views. I think debate is too focused on elections, as the two major political forces jostle for position anything by conservative or liberal views are stymied. The American Democratic party seems closer to more right wing parties in Europe then the left wing parties as the Republican party is enacting totalitarian policies. The survey shows political loyalty extends towards the center - but politicians seem to have learned the value the extremes. It is a very dangerous situation. America has more voices than most countries but continues to find only two acceptable political voices: conservative and liberal? That is indeed a narrow political spectrum. Most democracies float on a wider range of views.

I think debate is too focused on elections, as the two major political forces jostle for position anything by conservative or liberal views are stymied. The American Democratic party seems closer to more right wing parties in Europe then the left wing parties as the Republican party is enacting totalitarian policies.

The survey shows political loyalty extends towards the center - but politicians seem to have learned the value the extremes.

It is a very dangerous situation.

]]> By: William R. Cumming http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/08/21/1396/#comment-76325 William R. Cumming Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:15:58 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/2007/08/21/1396/#comment-76325 But what does the survey mean? Helpful background info and clearly many of the surveyed have access to info that the general public does not. Question--How will the US be impacted by the next large scale event? Will the country be resilient and keep the event in proportion or will it again generate renewal or expansion of current efforts that were more emotional than intellectual. What if no event? What would the survey members conclude if after another decade no new large-scale event occurs domestically? Could it be that the targets are softer and more likely to impact domestic US attitudes outside the US? What about the lessons being learned by the NATO countries and Western Europe from current events. Will they foster closer or more distant relationships with the US? Should we care? If we look at the issue beneath the horizion-namely energy-and what would happen to a Presidential candidate that said energy not terrorism is the biggest threat to Western culture-what would be the result? Suppose we announce to the world that yes it is about cheap energy and those who want to end the period of US dominance since the Spindle Top discovery in the early 1900's are going to have to recognize that energy is as announced by President Jimmy Carter in his single-term the issue that most impacts US national security and means a fight to the death over the mid-east. By the time of the election of 2008, Russia, Iran, Venzuela, will have moved to the top of the terrorism list because of their insistence on high energy prices. The sister seven or their remainder actually are more important that the Pentagon. By the way why is there no Assistant Secretary or Under Secretary in DOD for Energy Related National Security issues. DOE and its labs never took detection of radiation sources seriously (basicaly the cupboard is bare) nor with respect to energy shortfalls. By the way their is no current DOE authority or Presidential authority to allocate or apportion energy in the US as discussed in detail in a 1982 DOJ-OLC opinion produced under mandate from Congress. So where does that leave us. No candidates with either Homeland Security or Energy policies. No candidates that truly believe unilateral military solutions may not be the only or best option and no candidates willing to rebuild technical expertise in the Executive Branch, or at a minimum allow the government to have honest statistical info. This is going to be interesting to watch. Between religions sponsoring terrorism and energy rich states sponsoring high energy prices care to bet on the greater threat. Get ready for the new dark ages. But what does the survey mean? Helpful background info and clearly many of the surveyed have access to info that the general public does not. Question–How will the US be impacted by the next large scale event?
Will the country be resilient and keep the event in proportion or will it again generate renewal or expansion of current efforts that were more emotional than intellectual. What if no event? What would the survey members conclude if after another decade no new large-scale event occurs domestically? Could it be that the targets are softer and more likely to impact domestic US attitudes outside the US? What about the lessons being learned by the NATO countries and Western Europe from current events. Will they foster closer or more distant relationships with the US? Should we care? If we look at the issue beneath the horizion-namely energy-and what would happen to a Presidential candidate that said energy not terrorism is the biggest threat to Western culture-what would be the result? Suppose we announce to the world that yes it is about cheap energy and those who want to end the period of US dominance since the Spindle Top discovery in the early 1900’s are going to have to recognize that energy is as announced by President Jimmy Carter in his single-term the issue that most impacts US national security and means a fight to the death over the mid-east. By the time of the election of 2008, Russia, Iran, Venzuela, will have moved to the top of the terrorism list because of their insistence on high energy prices. The sister seven or their remainder actually are more important that the Pentagon. By the way why is there no Assistant Secretary or Under Secretary in DOD for Energy Related National Security issues. DOE and its labs never took detection of radiation sources seriously (basicaly the cupboard is bare) nor with respect to energy shortfalls. By the way their is no current DOE authority or Presidential authority to allocate or apportion energy in the US as discussed in detail in a 1982 DOJ-OLC opinion produced under mandate from Congress. So where does that leave us. No candidates with either Homeland Security or Energy policies. No candidates that truly believe unilateral military
solutions may not be the only or best option and no candidates willing to rebuild technical expertise in the Executive Branch, or at a minimum allow the government to have honest statistical info. This is going to be interesting to watch. Between religions sponsoring terrorism and energy rich states sponsoring high energy prices care to bet on the greater threat. Get ready for the new dark ages.

]]>