Daedalus
-
Posts
250 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Daedalus
-
-
Ever hear of that thing called the cold war? The arms race? What good did building up our military forces do other than make Russia build up theirs and forcing us to respond in kind?
We won the "Cold" War. The USSR lost -- in fact it's defunct. That's the good of building up our military forces.
-
Daedalus, as Lathanar pointed out the article actually says:
Let's just assume that Rand in fact did say "Pay 80% if you need it for defense." When quoting her you added the word 'taxation' altering the context to suite your argument, i.e., attributing a justification for coercion to Rand.
Not only is this dishonest, but correlating increased spending with higher tax rates begs the question.
I did not add anything. I was simply quoting John Hospers.
-
Ok first, if the biological body does not have a brain, no self-directed action, it can not own anything, let alone a name or it's leg. It is not a person, it is a body. It doesn't even have teeth at that point. Those are irrelevant to the discussion. I merely answered your bringing the example up to show that even in those cases the body is a result of someone's efforts.
Strawman. No one has claimed that an infant without a brain owns its organs. The issue is whether organs are the product of one's efforts. The existence of brainless infants with viable organs is proof that they are not.
My teeth arrived in my mouth the same way organs arrived in the body of a brainless infant. It had nothing to do with effort.Second, I am not trying to prove that a person's body is in every case a product of their effort. I am merely refuting your assertion that your teeth are not a product of your effort by giving you observable proof.Also, if your body is not your own, than you are refuting the whole base of Objectivism. How can you have as a standard of value your life if your body which gives you volition and reason is not your own?Strawman number two. Since I never made such a claim, I am not obliged to defend it.
I’ll refer you to my posts earlier in this thread. My name, like my body parts, is essential to my survival and thus is mine by right.Third, as for the argument that your name is owned solely by you, it's a foolish argument of which the onus of proof is on you, and I have seen no reason put forth that it should be so.Your identity is owned by you, it is a product of your efforts. Your body is a product of your efforts. Your name is not, it is merely a label.My name is an essential part of my identity. If someone uses my name in a way that I do not approve of then he has damaged my identity.
-
The burden is on you to prove that Rand said such a thing. Shoulder it.
I can’t prove it. But then I can’t prove the authenticity of any of Ayn Rand’s posthumously published writings. How does one know that every word in The Journals of Ayn Rand was written by its purported author?
So the best way to dissuade suicide bombers is to threaten them with death?The moral certainty that an enemy's doing so would result in utter obliteration. Do not bother objecting that we would not do such a thing, becuase that is a political problem and not a military one.You proposal then has to be something more than increasing military spending -- we should also declare martial law. How does this have an iota of bearing on military spending?How does imposing martial law on St. Louis and Cleveland improve border security? It is the role of the military to keep foreign enemies from attacking us. It is irrelevant as to whether the invaders are being transported in warplanes or in a pickup truck. If we already have sufficient money and personnel sitting around in the Dept. of Defense to secure our borders, then why wasn’t it done years ago?
We had it on 9/11 and still were attacked.And prior to 1941 (well, really the 50's) we did not have the power to rain down utter destruction and devastation out our attackers without leaving US territory.I don't understand your point. If someone throws an anthrax bomb at us, we can nuke them into submission.Just as we nuked the person who sent anthrax-laced letters to NBC and the National Enquirer in 200I?
If you want a cure for anthrax of the plague, then that's not a military matter, that's a scientific question. The military has its role, and scientific institutions have their rule, and neither of them requires coersive taxation.Defense against weapons of mass destruction is both a military and a scientific matter. How do you expect our troops to perform their duty if they are vomiting and running a high fever? Providing them with vaccines is just as essential to the success of their mission as providing them with helmets.
Fine. Syria, Iran, or North Korea. Pick the one who gets nuked for the 2001 anthrax attack -- which is not an imaginary scenario.Syria, Iran, North Korea... refer to something in reality, not an imaginary scenario.We will find out who, and punish them utterly.Utterly? In October five years will have passed since a photo editor in Florida died from anthrax mailed to his office.
Are you now changing your position to one where we need better intelligence, and that we don't need to give more money to the military?In case you hadn’t noticed, a large part of the nation’s intelligence apparatus is under the command of the military. And even civilian agencies like the CIA may be considered part of our defense. And, yes, there ain’t no such thing as a free intelligence agency.
-
Yes I am stating as clearly as I can, I believe enough proof exists to assert that we provoked Japan into attacking us to give us a clear entrance politically into the war. If we had been a rational society at the time, we would not have needed to. We would have ramped up and been over before the English were kicked out of France. . .
So if “ramping up” was the rational policy in the 1940s, why isn’t it the rational policy today?
Is there any way we can say we’re sorry?As for Bin Laden, we provoke him by our existence.I blame no one but the US for Bin Laden. The CIA trained and supplied him to fight a jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.And some say we actually blew up the WTC ourselves.
If we’re going to fight Russia, we’re going to need a bigger army.If we as a country had simply had the balls to go in and do what needed to be done instead of fighting wars by proxy, but then we knew Russia would retaliate and had the force to back it up... hmm.. pretty decent detterent.Five children and a wife that need me more than the country needs another fighter.I guess that means you’ll have to use a proxy.
-
Since you love to bring up Pearl Harbor, we were NOT the dominant greatest army and navy in the world at the time. Japan had been fighting China for 10 years up to Pearl Harbor and winning. The Nazis were storming Europe, we were sitting on our hands because of the isolationist whiners.
So was sitting on our hands not the proper policy? Hmm, would beefing up out miltary not have been in order? Or is there some principle in Objectivism that forbids kicking up military readiness a notch?
Oh, I see we provoked the Japanese into bombing us. And I also suppose we provoked bin Laden into using our airliners as missiles against us. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Blame Us First School.We had in fact been ramping our war effort at the time by saying we were simply supplying arms to Britain, but the elements within the public and government that felt that the war in Europe and Asia had nothing to do with us stopped us from entering the war like Roosevelt wanted to. Provoking the Japanese into an attack was the perfect way to swing the public pressure. Do you not see how this has NOTHING to do with military readiness?Where have I stated I am a pacifist? If we're going to up military spending, I'd rather it be going to use in squashing these other governments that we perceive to be a threat. I'll go and shoot them myself.Who's stopping you?
-
If a man did not make an effort to survive he would die. If he is dead what value could he possibly attach to his body.
Granted. But I was responding to your claim that "I would definitely consider my teeth a product of my efforts."
Given that there are stillborn, brain-dead and brainless infants and fetuses with vital organs, we must question the idea that body parts are a product of the effort of the individual holder of those parts.
Life does not simply exist. People are created through the joint efforts of the mother and father, mostly the mother. Until they learn how to reason for themselves and survive on their own, they must survive due to the efforts of those looking after them, this is why children must be represented by an adult. If the baby has no brain, it's not exactly what we would term a 'man' as it has no volitional capabilities or reasoning capacity and rights over the body parts would belong to the parents. It would only survive through their efforts.Very well, then someone other than the brain-dead human owns its body parts. In any case, you have not proven that in all cases "body and body parts [are] the product of [one's] greatest effort" And you have not refuted the argument that my name, which is not the product of my efforts but of my parents’ efforts is still, by their will, my property.
-
Given that the 9/11 hijackers were all here legally, border security is a red-herring.
No, the fact that the 9/11 hijackers, who shared a common background in a Islamic jihadist mosque in Hamburg, were let into this country is a testament to just how pathetic our border security/immigration apparatus is.
Why the dichotomy? Screening out threats to national security = border security.Before dealing with border security, the U.S. has to figure out an effect way to screen those who present themselves at a port-of-entry and come in legally.On the topic of the thread, though, I agree with those who have said that more money will not fix anything. If the budget for the Iraq-war doubles, I doubt the result will change at all. Right now, what is missing is the moral certainty and the will to use resources effectively.Really? Then would cutting the budget for the Iraq War in half change anything?
After the United States was attacked by Japan in 1941, was it wrong to throw more money at defense? Should we have just gotten by with the same 1.7 percent GDP allotment that the Department of War had in 1940? And after the Soviets stole our A-Bomb technology and exploded their first atomic device in 1949, should we have just gotten by with the same 3.5 percent GDP allotment that we had given defense in 1948? And ignored the fact that the Soviets had the bomb and intended to outpace us in nukes?
Question: Is there any stage in a nation’s history where citizens should do more than say to their government, “Just use your existing resources more effectively”?
-
All very good examples of fear-mongering.
If calling for government to fulfill its obligation to protect its citizens is fear-mongering, then make the best of it.
Dominance of military power does not prevent aggression in every case. The ability of the United States to field the greatest army and navy on earth did not prevent the Japanese pre-emptive attack of Dec. 7, 1941. If our government has the means to build a system of intercepting U.S.-bound missiles (and it does), then refusal to do so is nothing but a confession of cowardice and appeasement.What will stop a nuclear-tipped missile? Our current dominance of military power. If China continues to ramp up military forces as they are, perhaps then I would say we need to up ours too. We only need to have enough military power to repel what is out there and retaliate, not 100% stop every conceivable type of attack. That is impossible.Good politics and the fear of retaliation is the only thing that is a real detterent. If it's a suicidal group that has no fear of death, well, the only detterent is to give them a helping hand and kill them first.Giving a policeman a good handgun is a deterrent. Giving him a bullet-proof vest is protection for when the deterrent does not work. The same policy applies to missile defense, a rational system consisting of both offensive ICBMs and anti-ballistic missiles. As for the policy of killing suicidal groups first, easier said than done.
So you would have opposed any pre-9/11 launches of cruise missiles at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and the Sudan? And was there any point in our armed forces going into Afghanistan after 9/11?9/11 I believe was a preventable event. We had opportunity to stop that before it happened, and it was not by military defenses or military spending.With Pearl Harbor there exists very good proof that the US government knew about the attack and let it go as a means to force the isolationists into going to war. The preemptive strike against us was caused by our political manuevering which threatened Japan's oil supplies among other things.Regardless of any foreknowledge by our government, the fact remains that our potential military might was insufficient to serve as a deterrent against Japanese aggression.
-
That was a fascinating essay. I am familiar with Stanislovski's approach to acting and the profound influence it has had on American theatre and cinema. I wonder if you have considered the effectiveness of variations of the Method, such as Lee Strasberg's emphasis on affective memory? And what about non-Method techniques in acting, such as the work of Don Richardson?
-
When I quote Ayn Rand, I actually quote what she said, not what other people said. Read the writings of Ayn Rand: she never said such a thing.
As a matter of logic, the absence of a particular statement from a author's collected works does not prove that the statement was never made by the author. Ayn Rand made statements to Edwin Newman, Mike Wallace, Phil Donohue and Johnny Carson that are not in her collected writings.
I’ve given several examples. But let’s focus on one: what will stop a nuclear-tipped missile from entering U.S. airspace and detonating over a large U.S. city?I don't need to. You have not shown that our military is weak and needs strengthening.There is no threat of invasion of US soil by any foreign power, and it is not the function of the military to prevent Mexicans from entering America.The 9/11 disaster did not require an invasion. And just how do we know that a truckload of migrant workers from Tijuana does not contain an agent of al Qaeda?
And prior to 1941 Pearl Harbor had never been bombed.Despite this imminent threat of long-range missile attack that you refer to, we have never been attacked by any missle.Biological R&D is not within the purvue of the military (you should be arguing for massive tax increases to fund public universities, if you want a cure for the plague).Really? It is legitimate to protect a population against enemy missiles but not against enemy germs?
We do have the means to respond to any attack, and that means exists in tens of thousands of megatons. If you want to whine about America's weakness, direct your whine at the politicians who will not use the means that we possess.What country do we bomb with these tens of thousands of megatons if a virus is secretly introduced into our dairy supplies?
-
D'kian wrote:
I respectfully disagree. Clearly, we are only treading water in Iraq and not making significant progress towards shutting down the terrorist groups there that keep that country in a state of perpetual anarchy. Yes, we need more airstrikes (including nukes), and, yes, we need to disregard altruistic disabling concerns about the deaths of "innocents." But airstrikes and blockades won't cure the disease.Now, back on topic, I am concerned about the rather low levels of military spending in the West. But the money needed depends on the objective to be accomplished. If we're going to occuppy and rebuild other countries, then we'll need a lot of money. Imagine doing in Iraq and Syria what we're doing in iraq and Afghanistan.On the other hand, if we were to deal with Iran by means of airstrikes, raids and blockade (or any combination of these), I think current spending levels are adequate.
We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation.--Dr. Leonard Peikoff,http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635Dr. Peikoff was speaking of Iran, but the same considerations apply to Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Once a country is softened by a series of nuclear strikes against its military and urban centers, we will still have to send in a large occupation force to subdue the surviving population and perform the equivalent of a de-Nazification program. Considering that this service will have to be performed in about a half dozen countries in the near future, there is no way that we can avoid an increase in defense spending.
As for the border situation and responses to biological attacks, that money would be in the Dept of homeland Security, would it not? Rather than Defense. What are the amounts allocated to it?As an aside, having a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security is an absurd and costly redundancy. In any case, the steady flood of illegal immigrants and the absence of a credible system to contain and combat biological warfare means that we are as vulnerable to attack today as we were in 1940.
-
This seems like a contradiction. 'John Smith' isnt an original name, so you cant trademark it. It doesnt matter whether youre John Smith the plumber or John Smith the world-famous novelist - the name is still not original and hence cannot be registered as your trademark. I dont really have a problem with you preventing people from discussing the work of "John Smith of 435 West 34th St., New York, NY", but if they referred to you as just "John Smith" then they arent violating your rights.
Please note that I never said property rights in one's name is a matter of trademark law. So the question of originality does not come into play here. John Smith, noted author of Making Your Heaven on Earth, does not have the right to regulate the use of the name of John Smith, plumber. But he certainly has a moral right to require that those who mention Author John Smith's name and ideas in public forums obtain permission to do so.
-
His line in that letter is this
First, I'd hesitate to rely on something "someone said at a party" 40 years before, especially without collaboration. Second, I'd love to hear what context she said that in, what it was really in response to and what the conversation was completely about.
To respond to your second point first, the context was given by Hospers: a complaint by some people at the party that taxes were too high. As for the authenticity of the quotation, Hospers kept notes of his meetings with Ayn Rand. So we cannot easily dismiss it as an instance of poor memory.
But for the sake of argument, let us suppose Ayn Rand never made the statement. As Toolboxnj said in the quotation at the top of this thread, Objectivism is not concerned with the particular level of government revenue collection. Objectivism is concerned with the proper role of government, which includes protecting its citizens from foreign invasion. If a government's military is too weak to ensure the continued freedom of its people, then it is neglecting a fundamental responsibility.
-
Considering the fact that man's life is the ultimate goal and that part of that goal means keeping your body alive, I would consider my body and body parts the product of my greatest effort of all., my survival. I would definitely consider my teeth a product of my efforts, just as my arms and legs are.
Let me see if I understand you. If a human did not make an effort to survive, would he have no body parts? Hardly. Consider that there are babies born without brains but who nonetheless have vital organs that can be transplanted into other infants. (See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C1A961948260 ) We could hardly claim that these organs are the product of the brainless babies’ "efforts."
-
Do you have the page number for that quote?
The source is John Hospers in "An Open Letter to Libertarians," an essay that appeared on several websites during the 2004 election. You should be able to Google it up.
Your question presumes that increased military spending means increased inefficiency, which is not a given. In any case, if more waste is an inevitable byproduct of more spending on national security, then it may be viewed as one of the necessary costs of protecting Americans from foreign aggressors. That does not make my post an argument for increased inefficiency any more than calling for more police cars is an argument for increased air pollution.So what? Are you arguing for increased inefficiency?Give me the evidence that America is being invaded because we are not taxing people enough.Since I never claimed that America is being invaded (present tense), I am not obliged to defend that position. However, there is considerable evidence that our nation is no safer than it was on 9/11.
- Our borders are not secure
- Despite much "Star Wars" R&D during the Reagan era, we are still vulnerable to long range missile attack
- We lack the means to respond to and contain a biological warfare attack
- Threats posed by China and terrorist nations (some with the help of Russia -- see http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000718.html ) remain unchecked
Feel free to show how we can have more military strength by spending the same amount of money.
- Our borders are not secure
-
From an earlier thread:
Generally speaking, a moral government would have just enough resources (raised by user fees, tolls, lotto, donations) to protect individual rights. If $10 billion or $10 trillion is required to accomplish this task is anyone's guess and it's not what Objectivists are concerned with. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ndpost&p=115856Ayn Rand once said, "Accept 80% taxation if you have to, in order to preserve a free society." It is clear to many who are concerned about keeping America safe that we are not doing enough. (See, for example http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm ) Even if we eliminated all waste in the Department of Defense, we would still need dramatic increases in our military budget to ensure our freedom in the future. We have not secured our borders, built a shield against missile attack, taken adequate measures towards ending the many states that sponsor terrorism, nor countered the growing threat from China.
Fiscal Year Military spending as percent of GDP1940 1.71941 5.61942 17.81943 37.01944 37.81945 37.51946 19.21947 5.51948 3.51949 4.81950 5.01951 7.41952 13.21953 14.21954 13.11955 10.81956 10.01957 10.11958 10.21959 10.01960 9.31961 9.41962 9.21963 8.91964 8.51965 7.41966 7.71967 8.81968 9.41969 8.71970 8.11971 7.31972 6.71973 5.81974 5.51975 5.51976 5.21977 4.91978 4.71979 4.61980 4.91981 5.11982 5.71983 6.11984 5.91985 6.11986 6.21987 6.11988 5.81989 5.61990 5.21991 4.61992 4.81993 4.41994 4.01995 3.71996 3.51997 3.31998 3.11999 3.02000 3.02001 3.02002 3.42003 3.7Source:http://www.truthandpolitics.org/display-su...php?topicId=400As you can see from the chart, in terms of our wealth today we are spending only a fraction of what we spent on the military during the last world war. In 1945 we spent 37.5% of our GDP on defense. In recent years we have spent only about 4%. Imagine the kind of weaponry and fighting forces we could have if we were spending $3 trillion per year instead of $400 billion!
I'm all in favor of dismantling the welfare state and instituting a system of voluntary taxation. But we must first make sure that the United States stays around long enough for those reforms to be enacted.
-
Does this mean that if I copyright "John Smith" I get to sue anyone who uses that name for their child?
No, because (as you seem to recognize below) it is not a unique name. Similarly, "The dog barked" is not a unique combination of words in the way that the text of Atlas Shrugged is.
Private conversations are entirely different than public forums. You can read Atlas Shrugged aloud to your children without the copyright holder’s permission. However, reading it over the airwaves requires prior consent.And if I meet my friend in the street and say "hi Paul", would he be able to sue me if I had never asked for permission to use his name?edit: you cant trademark common language words anyway. Theres no difference between claiming ownership to "John Adams" and trying to create a company called "The" and demanding royalties for anyone who uses this word in their speech. Copyright/trademarks have to be original - maybe if you wanted to call yourself "Zikozklauxa" you'd have a chance of making an IP claim.I can call myself John Smith of 435 West 34th St., New York, NY to distinguish myself from others with the same name. Furthermore, if I become a best-selling author, those who wish to discuss John Smith and his book Making Your Heaven on Earth in print or in a public forum would have to obtain my permission first. After all, they are not discussing the words of John Smith the bartender of Brooklyn Heights.
edit: And if you did copyright your name, I assume most other people would just collectively agree to call you something else instead (and theyd probably decide on something fairly rude).Agreed. We can discuss "the junior senator from New York" without violating her property right in her name.
-
Even if one concedes that your name is your property, it does not follow that no one many mention it. If someone points to my arm and says, "nice arms", or "look at his arms" or "softwareNerd has arms", what's wrong with that. Similarly, someone might say "look at that house". Just because it is my property, does not mean that none may mention it or look at it.
Nothing is wrong with complimenting (or criticizing) a person's arms and legs. In doing so, you are not using that person's limbs. However, when you write "Ayn Rand," you are using words that belong to someone else. Using "Ayn Rand" without the rightful owner's permission is the same kind of rights violation as staging Night of January 16th without the copyright holder’s permission.
-
You are trying to dodge the issue by falsely comparing a name and a body part. The are completely different. My leg is a part of me -- it is me. To use my leg you necessarily must use coercion against me. A name is NOT part of me -- it is a identifier, a string of text pronounced by anyone who can read or speak. Because a name exists totally apart from it, the use of a name involves no coercion. I can sit here and say your name a thousand times without your life being impacted one bit.
You could also sit there and broadcast songs over your radio station without paying the songwriters a penny in royalties. And what would be wrong with that? The songs are not a part of the songwriters, are they? Can’t we then say that use of a song without permission or compensation involves no coercion?
So you say. In China movies and CDs are regularly duplicated and sold without the permission of or compensation to the companies that hold the copyright. The fact that this piracy occurs with the consent of law enforcement authorities in China does not mean that no moral law is being broken. Similarly, the fact that some publications, such as The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, are permitted to use Ayn Rand’s name in the most disgraceful ways does not means that they are acting morally.Again, you are trying to dodge the issue: a novel is property, a name is not.A novel is a product of the effort of an individual, a value created by him. A name as such is not, and thus does not warrant any protection under property rights.My effort did not create the teeth in my mouth. They are nonetheless a value to me and one that should be protected by the legal code. The same is true for one’s name.
Please answer this question: under your proposed system, can I or can I not write, print, and distribute of my own effort and at my expense a pamphlet detailing why "Rob Henson" is badly mistaken when he claims that a person's name should be subject to property rights (without your permission)? If I can, then you have no property right to your name. If I can't, then my freedom of speech is subject to your veto even though I'm innocent of coercion in any form.Morally, you can only use my name with my permission. Saying that requiring you to get my permission is the same as vetoing speech is no different than saying that having to get Mel Brooks’s permission to stage The Producers is a veto of free speech.
-
The only thing one has the right to control is his *property*. Property must be earned.
By that criterion we would have to rule out the human body as belonging to the individual who inhabits it. How does one earn the teeth in one's mouth, the hair on one’s head? We would also have to exclude hereditary wealth from the category of legitimate property. How did the Kennedy children earn their fortunes?
To state that one has ownership over both his name and reputation is not to conflate the two concepts. But it is obvious that if a writer associates my name with immoral activities or absurd beliefs, my reputation will suffer.In speaking of identity, you are attempting to conflate name and reputation. Your name, as such, is simply a symbolic identifier of you as an individual.It is arbitrary in that you were designated "Rob Henson" at birth by your parents -- you did nothing to earn this name and it in no way constitutes property.The arbitrariness of my parents' name selection is irrelevant to my ownership of that name. By comparison, it is arbitrary that I was given a red rather than a blue bicycle on my eighth birthday. The choice of color has no bearing on my ownership of the bike.
See my earlier post: by the same means by which one acquires ownership of one's arms and legs.You seem to be suggesting that your name, the object, the string of text "Rob Henson", is your property. If so, please give a derivation of how your name becomes your property, based on the Objectivist ethics.Under your proposed system, criticism and free speech would be ended. It's a good thing your system isn't in place, or else I suppose you'd have me hauled off to prison for this post.Not at all. Do we say we have no free speech today because we are prohibited from reproducing novels and plays without the authors' permission? Furthermore, there is no reason why forums such as this one couldn’t require participants to waive proprietary rights to their name during the course of discussion. Similarly, academic journals might require scholars submitting articles to permit free use of their name and writings by respondents to their opinions.
-
According to David Harriman, editor of The Journals of Ayn Rand, "Ellsworth Toohey's manner of combining architectural criticism with collectivist propaganda was taken in part from the writings of Lewis Mumford and Bruno Taut." (p. 118) As for Toohey's appearance and style, British socialist Harold Laski, was the model. She said in a 1961 interview, "Laski was the soul of Ellsworth Toohey in the flesh. . . I drew a sketch during the lecture, with the narrow cadaverous face and glasses and big ears, and I gave it all to Toohey." (p. 113)
-
I suppose he means that there is no such distinction made there, not that no men have sex with women
Hmm, no distinction made between homosexuals and heterosexuals? Would that make it a bi-sexual country?
-
I'm writing from a non-western, non-heterosexual country . . .
I give up. I can't think of any countries, Western or otherwise, that could be described as "non-heterosexual."
What's the national population growth rate there?
Are We Spending Enough On Our Defense?
in Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
Posted
Would you be in favor of ramping up for an attack on the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower in Chicago? Who's minding the store? Who's making sure people entering our country now (as the 9/11 terrorists did in the previous decade) are not bent on mass destruction?