Policies are determined by public opinion. The public is willing to fight terrorism at the expense of some liberties so the government does it. Health care was 50/50 in the public so it took a while to pass and was watered down. The public wants to fight terrorism but doesn't want American troops to be killed so airstrikes are increased. The public is scared by a failed terrorist attack on an airplane so security is increased. It's not very cynical, friendly sword, it's just following what the public wants and can tolerate.

And elections are obviously a referendum on policy so if Obama isn't reelected the new president knows what policies the public wants (for the most part).

This whole argument on cost/benefit is ridiculous. There's no way to figure out how many lives will be lost if there is less money spent. Imagine we don't spend the cash, and we lose american lives... Then we'd be calling for blood again in a huge way. Then the cost would skyrocket again, because the american militancy as a whole would increase.

"@RLumley - that is a fallacious argument. Your 9 million is per ptential life saved, not per person in the UD. That would only be $150 per year. So the feds owe you $150 and I suggest you not complain if you lose an arm or a leg to a terrorist bombing at the Mall of America."

I've already demonstrated why this is ridiculous. Let me say it again, very slowly.

The. Probability. Of. Dying. In. A. Terrorist. Attack. Is. Almost. Nil.

Did you catch that? Should I repeat it again? $150 per year doesn't sound like much - which is why you want to couch your argument in those words - but when you consider that you're spending $150 to protect yourself from something that almost certainly isn't going to happen, it's very expensive.

"This whole argument on cost/benefit is ridiculous."

I loled. Yeah. We definitely shouldn't think about what's best.

When taken out of context, it is lol worthy. If anyone would read the reason why the argument is ridiculous, then your comment becomes lol worthy.

I realize it's out of context. But it was funny.

But it's not ridiculous because I'm making assumptions that are ridiculously in favor of the opposing side.

I have a little theory about the REAL reason for the war in Afghanistan. I beleive that those who know about these things have long speculated that Afghanistan was a potential goldmine (pun intended). But to find out they needed to get in there and they needed time to find out. I personally don't care about American Republicans or Democrats as to me they are one in the same. The American world agenda never changes. I'll leave national politics as a debate for those who live there.

This is what I'm talking about although this seems to spark little interest among most people I find completely relevant to understanding what's really going on here.

Guess what the Americans found and when they found it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/10311752.stm

http://www.startribune.com/business/96547624.html

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/06/17/Afghanistan_says_its_untapped_mineral_wealth_is_at_least_3_t/

This is why the Americans are still looking for a couple of thousand "terrorists" who live in caves in the middle of nowhere. While looking for Bin Laden they tripped and fell into a money pit. What luck!

In the words of The Who, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Ass.u.me.

Overdone? Perhaps... Still relevant? I think so.

@ rlumley
You keep on repeating your stat of the day on the probability of dying from a terrorist attack as if it is going out of fashion, and it is a painfully poor argument. Let us look at some other fun stats and some draw similar conclusions.

1) Probability of me dying in a war: Almost nil
Conclusion: Defense spending is a waste of money

2) Probability of dying in an airplane accident: Almost nil
Conclusion: Safety checks are an expensive waste of time

I feel it's also important to point out to our dear rlumley that not only did 9/11 kill a couple of thousand people, but it also had a huge effect on the stock market wiping out billions of dollars. And this is before we even get started on the huge influence it had over foriegn police and the costs that generated. Compared to the huge amount of damage successful terror attacks can cause Homeland Security is a bargain.

@ Oct:

False analogy much? You have not established, as I have, how much money per life saved safety checks cost. If safety checks cost $9 million per life saved, I'd be against them.

As to the War analogy, that's just kind of retarded, because it is a drastically more complex issue. (Although I will say that most of our defense budget is probably a waste, although I can't speak intelligently on that fact.)

As I said, if people had acted rationally in response to 9/11, they would have realized that it wasn't that big a deal (Headline news: Today, 0.001% of the American population died!), and there would have been no real economic damage. Same applies for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yeah but who flew the planes? Americans were given a definite list of the names and photos and even miraculously some passports clearly showing who were the terrorists in question. Didn't they?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html

@ rlumley
No, rlumley, you have not established that. You have completely failed to take into account the full cost of an attack and you have no idea how many attacks would take place if the current defensive measures didn't exist. You are working on a set of figures that exist entirely in your imagined view of how the world should be, and these figures, along with your world view, are wildly inaccurate.

I recognize that. I have established that loss of life is not a significant enough factor to spend so exorbitantly on counter terrorism. So the only other factor is economic. But to be irrationally scared of terrorism because people are irrationally scared of terrorism is incredibly circular.

@ rlumley
I would agree that to live in fear of terrorism is foolish, and relatively speaking it is considerably less likely to have an adverse effect on your life than a traffic accident. But it does not mean we should not be aware of it and spend significant amounts of money to keep its effects minimal. Cars kill thousands each year, but this figure would be far higher if we did not spend vast fortunes on car safety features, educating children to wear seatbelts & look both ways, forcing car owners to take their cars to garages for tests every year etc etc. The money we spend on these tasks is huge, but ultimately worth it. The money spent on countering terror should be seen from a similar viewpoint, and in my opinion is not out of proportion.

My point is not personal fear, it's collective fear. If we, as a society, acted rationally in response to terrorist attacks, they wouldn't have the adverse economic consequences you mentioned.

The only part I really disagree with is the part where Sword calls the dispensaries "legal". I live in California, will be voting for legalization in November, and a I know a good dozen people with medical cards. That being said, even I refuse to label dispensaries as legal. While they may be so under California law, they are not so under Federal law. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution makes it so that Federal Law superceeds state law. This means that any California law which allows for marijuana use is null because it contradicts Federal Law. Enforcement on the other hand is a different issue.

@LJ TYLER DURDEN - incorrect sir. If the pot being dispensed was also grown within California, State law trumps Federal law. The Supremacy Clause only applies to Interstate Commerce. Grown and sold within the state has nothing to do with Interstate Commerce which is why the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of California's Mediacl Marijuana laws.

I woudl go so far as to say the state of California would be well within it's rights to arrest and prosecute any FBI agents who attempted to make a bust against a legally run dispensary or an individual with posession if they didn't have evidence the pot was transported into the state from another location. Could make for an interesting stand-off...

Dear All

Just a timid question... without offending one of you or to minimalize the importance of one of the themes handled in this thread... but sorry, I can not find a connection between Diplomacy and this treath.

Can some one of you help me to understand it?

Many thanks in advance.

Best regards

Angelo

Many of our threads have nothing to do with diplomacy. We like talking about other stuff, too : )

Hell, most of our threads have little to nothing to do with Diplomacy the game, some do have to do with real life politics and diplomacy, and others branch all over the place.

"This is why the Americans are still looking for a couple of thousand "terrorists" who live in caves in the middle of nowhere. While looking for Bin Laden they tripped and fell into a money pit. What luck!" So the US would start a war just to find minerals which will take years to develop and probably will not have any significant impact on the US economy? Give me a break. Maybe you can make the case with oil in Iraq. But not here. It's an insult to say that the war was started because of anything other than 9/11. This report about the mineral deposits is to retain public support for the war even though much of the public in America and Afhganistan is tiring of it. They knew they existeed but the military and gov are hoping this will provide some "light at the end of the tunnel" to the American and Afghan people.

I think we all have to calm down and eat a waffle: http://waffleparty.org/ :)

"This is why the Americans are still looking for a couple of thousand "terrorists" who live in caves in the middle of nowhere. While looking for Bin Laden they tripped and fell into a money pit. What luck!

In the words of The Who, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." "
I'm confused by the final line. Did you just equate the US military to the Taliban?

@Oct - I agree. The problem is not the current risk/cost, but if you stopped them.
Without defence spending there would be a much higher chance of you dying in war, and the same with airline security.
Also, are you prepared to be that statistical anomaly that does die?

@ Fig:

This is why I made such a ridiculous assumption, like a 9/11 scale attack EVERY YEAR. We could have two a year, and we'd still be spending $4.5 million. Ten a year and we'd be spending $900,000. At that point, I think it starts to become debatable. But I don't think it would be remotely possible for them to pull off one 9/11 attack per year.

After all, I'm not in favor of abolishing security all together, just actually doing some cost benefit analysis to see where the best point is.

And no, I'm not prepared to be the statistical anomaly. What I am prepared to do is take the minuscule chance that I am the statistical anomaly.

@abgemacht:

Dear "abgemacht",

Thanks for your explaination. In the meantime I've realized too that there are threads which have nothing to do with diplomacy.

Best regards

Angelo