The growth of an American Surveillance Society

[Guest]

Paul,Let me first say that I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with many of your assertions of fact. You also missed my point on a number of issues, that would be my fault, I am a poor communicator.I have listed my responses in Bold to make this discussion of ours easier for others to follow. >One of the things that impressed me most about the 80s and >90s were what a relatively quiet period they were when >compared to the norms of continual distress of one form or >another experienced throughout the earlier decades of the >century. Regardless, while there certainly always appears >to be calamity of one kind or another around every corner (I >agree with you there, with those decades as relative >exceptions)I disagree. If you study U.S. history you will see that the period you speak of was actually a very busy time for our military when compared with prior random 20 year spans from the 20th century:1981 - Libya Conflict1982~84 - Intervention in Lebanon1983 - Invasion of Grenada1987~88 - Tanker War (Iran) OP- "Earnest Will"1989 - Invasion of Panama1991 - Persian Gulf OP- "Dessert Storm"1992~94 - Somalia Intervention1994 - Haiti (Intervention)1994~95 - Bosnia (NATO)OP- "Deliberate Force"1998 - Iraq - OP "dessert Fox"1999 - Kosovo (Intervention)>September 2001 marked the first massive attack >of this kind (terrorism) to occur within the US, and in that >sense it's a new threat that must now be faced.I disagree, but I will not list out all the terrorist attacks on US soil as I did for US conflicts above. This information is readily available. Yes, 9/11 was the largest, but certainly not the first. Some, although not I, would also argue that Pearl Harbor was the worst "terrorist"/"surprise" attack perpetrated on U.S. soil.>And it's >not only a new threat within the US of course; if you've >read the recent reports from England and Spain you'll know >that this new form of terrorism is making its appearance >elsewhere.What is this "new form" of terrorism you speak of ? >>>>Weapons of mass >>destruction ? Is not an invading army a "weapon of mass >>destruction" to those being invaded ? >>>Well I could write a lot on this subject, since you've asked >such a provocative and open-ended question, but let me see >if I can get to the point here.................>The point is, whose army are you referring to? Here is where you completely missed my point. I was referring to "WMD" as being used more as a sales pitch, than a substantive phrase. My point was that anything that could destroy your country, be it a nuclear weapon or invading army would be considered a "weapon of mass destruction" when taken as a whole. >opinion an individual such as Carl Sagan had a very typical >(and typically vocal) liberal opinion on these matters >wherein all wars and all armies are treated without >distinction as badYou will notice that I marked the last paragraph of my post with an * . I then marked the post script with an * , referencing one to the other. If you read it you will see that the comments I referenced to Sagan were concerning our founding fathers, not the above WMD quote (Is not an invading army a "weapon of mass destruction" to those being invaded )-that one is mine. I made no mention of Sagan's feelings toward war and the like, I am well aware of Sagan's propensity for a liberal bent, but I only made reference to his intelligence, which I think is hardly debatable. >I wondered if I'd be taken to task for daring to imply that >in our age and time we might have a better handle on the >appropriate actions.....................O.K , you got me there, I went overboard... point Paul :-lol >I think these critiques have merit, at least from our >vantage point in this day and age. But on the other hand I >respect the fact that circumstances were different then, and >that there were struggles and no easy answers all the way up >to the Civil War.Agreed. Hmm, that's all I have time for right now. Good debate Paul. And sorry for de-railing your thread Elrond :-lolCheers,Roger

[Guest]

Hi Roger,I appreciate your kind sentiment, but this is most certainly not my thread. I initiated it in the hopes it would foster debate on these extremely important topics - from all sides. The fact that these issues are being discussed in an open and (almost always) thoughtful manner here makes me happy to no end: the lack of discussion and debate about these issues is, in my belief, one of our most dire problems today.The mass media seems bent on keeping us focused on one main, national subject to the near exclusion of most everything else outside the economy: WAR. At the same time, this country is being led down a path it has never been challenged with, almost completely unaware. This results in far, far too few public questions that keep all political processes like these in check. Outside of those very few who are keen to watch closely and/or motivated to implement political and social change (from both the right and the left), the vast majority of this country have been led and settled into a myopic view of the national issues facing us today. This state of affairs is *not* democracy in action.In that vein I more than appreciate your discussion here, specially as it delves deeper into further debate.Thanks,Elrond

[Guest Paul_W]

Hi Roger. Yes, I certainly appreciate the discussion too, though I've been too busy for a couple of days to get back here.While I agree with your list of military engagements during the 1980s and 90s, in my opinion there is no way they add up to anything remotely approaching the seriousness and desperation of earlier times during the 20th century, especially if we take any 20-year span as a reference. With two world wars, a great depression, the ongoing Cold War standoff (featuring, among other things, the Berlin Airlift, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the invasion of Czechoslovakia), a Korean War, a Vietnam War (each of those costing 50,000-plus US lives), and the social upheavals of the 1960s, the earlier part of the century was without a doubt a dangerous and insecure stretch for the most part. During the 1980s though we literally won the Cold War: The Iron Curtain is no more, East Germany's gone (and with it those huge drug-assisted tallies of Olympic Gold medals!), and the Soviet Union has imploded. And now economic Globalization has taken hold, and people are working where there wasn't too much going on before; why, people are even returning to the Emerald Isle for the opportunities that can be found there now.So from my perspective the last generation has seen a definite and welcome break from the desperate patterns of the recent past. We don't know if it will or can continue in that vein, but history indicates it's unlikely, and I think we agree broadly there.The new kind of terrorism might be summarized this way: As Reagan told the British Parliament during the early 1980s, while the US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons during the late 40s and early 50s, the world was a safer place, but since other nations started to acquire these weapons the peace has been threatened once again. Still, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the Russians, British, French, Indians and others were seen--and in practice were, since they haven't been used offensively (with the exception of 1945 obviously)--as deterrents. But now we're facing an enemy that apparently is actively engaged in trying to obtain nuclear, biological and chemical means to kill people in the tens of thousands, and with an intent to actually use those weapons. I'm referring to the al-Qeada terrorists primarily, and Hussein secondarily; I guess no one knows what Hussein would actually do if he got his hands on weapons with that potential for mass slaughter, but then this administration doesn't want to be faced with that prospect. In the case of North Korea I really don't think there's an intent to threaten anyone with their nuclear activities; I believe they just want food and gas in return for being quiet.I see you used the term "sales pitch" regarding weapons of mass destruction. I don't think Londoners needed much convincing about the dangers of these kinds of weapons in the wrong hands in late 1944/early 1945 when V2 rockets--forerunners of ICBMs--were being launched at them. Those things could wipe out a city block without warning; the Allied attacks on bases and rail lines in northern France delayed the use of those weapons long enough to avoid much greater damage. My point is that the dangers of weapons of mass destruction in the wrong hands shouldn't require much selling. And getting back to what this thread was originally about, if surveillance can do anything to stop the madmen who want to do us in via these or other means, then may it be so.Thanks Roger. I must get a cup of tea and get to work.