I know that the Bush Administration is too dumb to do that. What about the CIA who's doing this with enough experience throughout the last decades on foreign soil?
You've GOT to be kidding me. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in if the CIA were that capable.
They would be able to stage an attack - not in scale of 9/11, but another kind of attack.
"An" attack doesn't cut it. The first world trade center bombing, for example, pretty much had no effect on our politics.
BTW: Who did the "Anthrax" phobia? Terrorists? Are you sure?
I have no idea. But I also know that that attack hasn't had much effect at all outside of postal security - not exactly the path to power, if you ask me.
So they will swim to America to attack you? I'm not kidding - if you secure transportation, the border and the sea, why all the hype?
It's not POSSIBLE to secure all that. Seriously - how the hell do you tell the difference between a jihadi infiltrating the US and a tourist? Well, you can't really.
Oh yeah? What about Pakistans and Koreas real Nuclear weapons?
Pakistan caught the whole world by surprise, and that's quite unfortunate. It also demonstrates the futility of relying on intelligence to prevent proliferation. Now that they
have nuclear weapons, though, what exactly would you propose to do about it? I don't think you have an answer to that question. I think you're just throwing mud at the wall hoping something sticks.
As far as North Korea, well, that disaster was caused by taking the "diplomatic" approach under Clinton (thank you SO much, Jimmy Carter). Again, what would you have us do now? But the North Koreans aren't jihadis. They might SELL weapons to jihadis (which is why we've got the Proliferation Security Initiative, a multilateral cooperation largely accomplished by John Bolton), but they aren't jihadis themselves. They primarily want nukes so they can blackmail us to prop them up. But that same need for support also gives us some leverage over them, leverage which we don't have against any of the oil-rich countries of the middle east.
Iraq was and would have been a "toothless Tiger" without a war.
And on paper, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were even weaker. And yet they struck us, hard, and did half a
trillion dollars worth of economic damage.
So there was time enough to intervene if they had something that poses a real threat.
And how, pray tell, would we have ever known? We couldn't depend on knowing, which is precisely the problem. Just like we didn't know Pakistan was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons until they tested one. Here's a little fact for you: inspections have NEVER uncovered a single clandestine nuclear weapons program. Ever. And it's not because there haven't been any. Did Saddam have one when we invaded? Not an active one, that's true. But would we ever know when he did? No, we couldn't count on that at all.
So you only would define theft as real theft if someone holds a pistol on your head and demands your money, not if someone gets your money using some sneakily methods? Basically it has the same result, doesn't it?
No. Pay attention: I'm saying that the Nazis did MORE than just theft. They killed people. Right from the start. And that violence was an INTEGRAL part of their rise to power.
And I'm not saying that anyone else is a Nazi. I ask:
Would you be able to see the threat or lies?
Hell yes. Like I said: they were killing people. That's not exactly a difficult threat to see. In fact, it was effective precisely because it was visible, and so intimidated people.
