dissent
 

Islamofacist?
 

Like all religious fanatcis they are purists. Anyone who is not a fundamentalist, and does not want to set up a theocracy, is part of the enemy. That makes the Saudi and the Egyptian governments the enemy.

Missile Defense
 

It was Reagan's idea. That is why most opposed it. They also thought it would escalate teh arms race.

Islamofacist?
 

Wasn't every attack in SA against Westerns? What attacks occured in Egypt?

Islamofacist?
 

No. There have been attacks against westerners and attacks against Saudis. 88 people did in a blast in Egypt this weekend.

Islamofacist?
 

Exactly, they want to set a different power structure. Who do you think would have control in that power structure?

Missile Defense
 

I agree with this. This is why it was opposed on the left originally, but that doesn't mean that is why there is some opposition today. I was and am a fervent Reagan supporter, and I am an SDI believer. But that doesn't mean that every SDI bill should be rubber stamped, especially when our military resources are being spread so thin.

Missile Defense
 

You are both wrong. They can hit the west coast and they have had that ability for a while.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc.../12/us.nkorea/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...k-warheads.htm

Senator Clinton: This is an area of grave concern to me and I assume, to many others of my colleagues and it's very frustrating. We have been locked into this six party talk idea now for a number of years and all the while, we've seen North Korea going about the business of acquiring nuclear weapons and the missile capacity to deliver those to the shores of the United States and so Admiral let me ask you, do you assess that North Korea has the ability to arm a missile with a nuclear device?

Admiral Jacoby: My assessment is that they have the capability to do that, yes Ma'am

Senator Clinton: And do you assess that North Korea has the ability to deploy a two-stage intercontinental missile, a nuclear missile, that could successfully hit U.S. territory?

Admiral Jacoby: Yes, the assessment on a two stage missile would give capability to reach portions of U.S. territory and the projection on a three stage missile would be that it would be able to reach most of the continental United States. That still is a theoretical capability in a sense that those missiles have not been tested but that is part of the community position.

Senator Clinton: So the two-stage, you are testifying, is already within their operational capacity?

Admiral Jacoby: Assessed to be within their capacity, yes.

Senator Clinton: And that's the west coast of the United States?

Admiral Jacoby: I would need to look at the range arcs, it's certainly Alaska and Hawaii and I believe a portion of the Northwest.

Missile Defense
 

The biggest threat to my personal well being and to my friends and families are terrorist attacks and nuclear missiles. So stopping those two possible scenarios should be the Federal Government Priorities. You guys talk like we are spending significant resources on SDI. Which we are not. Any by signficant I mean tens of billions. With a two trillion dollars bugets tens of billions seems reasonable to me to spend on one of the top two priorities.

Penske
 

Get thee to this Sunday's "Opus" cartoon. The punchline was our (your's and mine) allergic reaction to the Clintons. I laughed.

Hello

Missile Defense
 

On your first point, not exactly, but thanks for playing. On your second, why do they think it would escalate the arms race?

Missile Defense
 

The difference in probability of those two threats is enormous and our relative allocations of resources should reflect that. Let me say this again. I am for SDI spending. Ask anybody on this board, I have argued in favor of it for years and, in fact, post updates on the tests nearly everytime I come across them. But your initial post suggested that anyone who voted against every single SDI bill that came up was an idiot, and that is where we differ.

Islamofacist?
 

I really don't think power is the main priority. The simply want theocratic states. And will do whatever it takes to get that. They want to be in power to institute a theorcratic state. Unlike most power grabbers, most of these fanatics would be happy with a theocratic state in which they did not hold power. The power is a means to end, not the goal itself. They think they have to grab power to institute Gods plan. But I bet if you gave Osama the choice of having power in a non theorcratic state, or dying with all of Islamistan becoming one big theocratic state, he would sacrifice his life in a heartbeat.

If these guys were just cynical power grabbers that were using religion as an excuse to gain power they would be much less of a threat. It is their overwhelming belief in that they are implementing Gods will and that they are fighting for a cause larger than themselves that makes them so dangerous.

It is their religious fanatacism that makes them so courageous and selfless, and therefore so dangerous. Terms like Homicide Bomber and Islamofascist try and hide that reality, and underestimating the enemy is a huge error. Ask Sun Tsu.

Missile Defense
 

It was Reagan's who brought it to the political forefront, but technically you are correct. On the second, I think this is self evident, because militarizing space is an escalation. The Russians viewed it this way as well, and Reagan's refusal to give in on this tanked an arms control reduction pact in Iceland in 1986 (I think that's the year).

Missile Defense
 

Are you really this ignorant, or are you just testing my knowledge? On the chance that you really are this ignorant, the whole point of the ABM treaty was to preserve MAD. If both sides got into missile defense plans, then the other side would have to build even more missiles in order to get throught the missile shield. If missiles were getting shot down then you could never have enough missiles to ensure you could survive a first strike and get enough missiles into the other country to ensure their destruction.

Assuming the logic of MAD, SDI was destabilising and would therefore escalate the arms race.