Do you think we have to be perfect in preventing terrorist attacks? Is it necessary to spend all

[RB TexLa]

that money to prevent every attack? I think if the cost savings were to be well known to the public they would be willing to accept 5 to 4 attacks a year. After a few they would no longer have the same effect on the stock market or people's emotions. We are talking about saving billions of dollars.






So should we save the money and forget this notion of stopping every single attack?

[stray cat]

1. Of course we won't be perfect - if a 9-11 or worse event occurs its unlikely you will be killed

who cares about those that are if the percentage relative to the population of the US is low. Even if the recent plane had blown up only a little over 300 people would have been killed. :sarcasm:

[lynne]

2. Saving the money would be great -

- until such time that a family member or friend becomes a victim of an attack.

How much would you be willing to pay to save the life of your own spouse or child????

[daninthemoon]

9. what about tornados and earthquakes? How much do we spend

on those? Far less. How much more likely will we be hit by lightning? Where is the cost effectiveness when it comes to running wars in all these places in the name of homeland security? The two most nearly successful airline attacks were both bungled by the operative or their equipment. There are dangers, but how far do we go before we say enough.

[RB TexLa]

18. You can't look at them as individual people.

[lynne]

20. And people don't look at them individually when considering the cost to protect them -

- However, I know the families of two persons lost in the Pentagon on 09/11. I can tell you for fact that those families see their deceased loved ones as very precious individuals.

I thought we didn't want humans reduced to mere numbers but isn't that exactly what we're doing?

[RB TexLa]

21. The money flushed down the toilet is too great to not look at it in terms of numbers

the lives saved are not worth the cost. We replace people every day of the week.

[Paladin]

30. Know What I Wonder About People Like You?

What portion of any given day do you spend contemplating Death, and what portion do you devote to contemplating Life?

A malignant thread like this one gives some significant hints. Pretty sad......

[RB TexLa]

31. Very little, I'm pushing that we shouldn't worry about the deaths. Certainly not to the point that

we currently do.

[theophilus]

3. Your initial question and the one right before the poll graph are different. n/t

[Lisa0825]

6. Yep, I screwed up my answer because of that.

I meant to vote that YES we need to be perfect, not yes that we should save the money.

[NJCher]

7. I did, too

Cher

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rgbecker]

5. We've already handed the "Terrorists" a victory by giving them an entire

week of news coverage, discussion of scanners and hours of footage of people standing in line at airports. These guys are clever to find crazy, depressed guys to try these attacks just to keep the American Media on the edge of their seats. Isn't it interesting they concentrate on Air travel, where it is mostly the well to do that are affected. Meanwhile, you can casually board a train or bus just about anywhere in the US, and never once have to remove your shoes! Who cares if a few working class stiffs get blown to kingdom come?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tomg]

10. While i don't believe it should be calculated

in economic terms (in fact it should specifically not be calculated in economic terms) I don't think it is reasonable to expect that we will never face another terrorist attack. In fact, to expect that to be the case is to live in a kind of infantile denial. The United States has been inordinately lucky in this regard. The only real terrorism we have faced has been the homegrown kind. Other nations have had extensive violence within their borders, either through terrorism or war. "We" wanted a global world and a global economy. Well, welcome to the world (I say this as someone who was at Kings Cross).

At the same time, we should not forget the notion of stopping every single attack - whether here or elsewhere( and by every single attack, I include everything from loons with exploding underwear to drone bombers inadvertently exploding children). Frankly, after seeing the way the Republicans have politicized this ( and played to our most childish fears - the guy got through in Amsterdam in Holland, not Amsterdam, New York)and the way the administration has responded - mostly Napolitano's - who i like - response), i am pretty disgusted.

edit: unclear pronominal referent

[dhpgetsit]

11. Thinking we need to thwart every possible "terror" attack is surrendering to terrorists.

It is by definition "being terrorized".

[Posteritatis]

12. Anyone expecting perfect safety anywhere ever is kidding themselves

On the one hand, I could live with seeing as good and effective a security system as possible. On the other, there's a diminishing-returns point, and I think when it gets to the point of detaining infants or banning books from aircraft or frisking every single passenger we're kind of over that line.

On the gripping hand, I imagine things would be a little better if at least a few people had a basic grasp of risk assessments...

[elocs]

13. There is no perfection, and your OP says nothing specifically only about airlines.

This country has tens of thousands of soft targets that have minimal or no security at all. Trains, buses, shipping containers (a very small % are ever checked), malls, schools, churches, any public area. We have thousands of miles of border all around this country and it is impossible to secure all of it.

It's like the H1N1 flu virus. We know it's out there and that it can be lethal and everything that can be done to try and stop it is done with vaccinations as well as methods to limit its spread. Even with all of those efforts many people have died and many more will die.

Look at our roads and highways where tens of thousands of people are killed and injured each year, yet we accept that risk although we do have laws and safety features that attempt to reduce those numbers. Draconian measures such as reducing the speed limit to 40 mph on highways would seriously cut the number of deaths, but as a society we are not willing to pay the cost of inconvenience as well as the monetary costs for that to happen.

Yes, we might be more perfectly safe from terrorism if we lived in a police state, but even the former U.S.S.R. was not totally safe in that respect.

There is no perfection.

[havocmom]

14. While we are focused on the sexier stories of attempted 'terrorist' attacks

the pols are giving more rule to the corporations who are killing many more than terrorists are, or could.

One can take precautions, but one cannot stop someone who is seriously intent upon killing. Evidently, one can get so focused on preventing the lone assailant that one is blinded to the immense violence done against whole populations by greed on the part of too many corporations and the individuals who run them.

The real terror of terrorist attacks is how much real destruction we are missing while obsessing about the slim chance of 'terra terra terra'.

[havocmom]

15. AH, lookie here at some news that makes the point of evil corporation agendas

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7377689

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/144906/michael_chertoff%27s_pushing_%22full-body_scanners%22_for_airports_but_he_has_a_conflict_of_interest

Since the attempted bombing of a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports.

What he has made little mention of is that the Chertoff Group, his security consulting agency, includes a client that manufactures the machines. The relationship drew attention after Chertoff disclosed it on a CNN program Wednesday, in response to a question.

An airport passengers' rights group on Thursday criticized Chertoff, who left office less than a year ago, for using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.

"Mr. Chertoff should not be allowed to abuse the trust the public has placed in him as a former public servant to privately gain from the sale of full-body scanners under the pretense that the scanners would have detected this particular type of explosive," said Kate Hanni, founder of FlyersRights.org, which opposes the use of the scanners.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[timeforpeace]

17. No one say we have to or can be perfect. On airplanes though we need to try to be.

[JDPriestly]

19. Fighting terrorism is a wonderful distraction from the real problem

which is becoming energy independent over the next 5-10 years. The money we spend on imported oil helps fund the religious fanatics who then incite young men with nothing to do to commit acts of terror.

Stop the flow of oil money and you can change the world in a very positive way.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Stop enabling Israel's Occupation of Palestine

End the colonial wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and bring all the troops home.

This is the first step at draining the swamp of terrorism!

[ThomThom]

23. Can you prevent 100%... No but we should hold the highest

standard. We need to change our thinking, less machines and more trained people and dogs. Why do we fear unions in this work place again? and Stop creating terrorists. I think with the money we have spent we could have bought the damn pipeline and given everyone a kick back.

[RB TexLa]

24. We need to drastically cut what we spend on it and accept a few attacks as a fact of life

We already do with auto accidents and health related death.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. You think people will accept 4 or 5 attacks a year.

[LWolf]

26. What makes you think we'd have 4-5 attacks a year? nt

[anigbrowl]

27. You wouldn't tolerate an 'acceptable' level of terrorism from a GOP administration

I used to live in London, where small-scale terrorism was fairly common, due to the IRA. It was normal to have your commute interrupted about once every week or two due to a bomb scare. I've seen a car bomb go off at close range, , in fact I would have been right next to it if I hadn't been late leaving my office that day.

Yes, it is something you can get used to it, but it will never stop being a political hot potato. It's naive to expect the GOP not to bring it up as an issue (whether you agree or not) and if there was a Republican in the White House the same would be true of the Democratic party.

[anonymous171]

28. End the empire, end the attacks

Not only would it ensure our security, it would also save us tons of money (which is more than I can say for any of the other proposals.)

[DailyGrind51]

29. More people die in car accidents or because they have no health insurance than have been killed

in acts of terror on American soil, yet we invest our national treasure in this unending "war on terror".

[Echo In Light]

33. No. Unrec. Phony War$