Sunday News Show Factoid

[RickSp]

I heard an interesting factoid on a Sunday news show. One of the talking heads commented that for every dollar spent on homeland security, we spend three on Iraq.

So there is no real security in Iraq and completely inadequate security at home. Osama's gotta be chuckling about now.

[macnpat]

Besides Homeland Security, our tax dollars going into the U.S. Dept. of Defense budget is totally geared to our Nation's security. I think if you factor that in, we are spending a pittance on Iraq.

Sorry. I know Dems are desparate for bad news as the election nears.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by RickSp, I heard an interesting factoid on a Sunday news show. One of the talking heads commented that for every dollar spent on homeland security, we spend three on Iraq. So there is no real security in Iraq and completely inadequate security at home. Osama's gotta be chuckling about now.

Is that $3 for Iraq only on Iraq's security?
Even if it is, comparing the amount of money spent on Iraq's security needs(post war) with the amount of money we spend, on a country that was not ravaged by war and does not generally use the military to enforce security, is pretty irrelevant.

Also, I was curious as to what the difference between a fact and a factoid is, and well, I was surprised to see what a factiod is -
FACTOID

A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition

IMO, I think we could do without the "unverified or inaccurate information", don't you?

[RickSp]

Is that $3 for Iraq only on Iraq's security? Even if it is, comparing the amount of money spent on Iraq's security needs(post war) with the amount of money we spend, on a country that was not ravaged by war and does not generally use the military to enforce security, is pretty irrelevant.

IMO, I think we could do without the "unverified or inaccurate information", don't you?

You neo-cons keep me amused. Money for Iraq's security? What security? You may have noticed, there is very little security in Iraq outside the Green Zone. As for unverified and innaccuare information, I would have thought you were very fond of it, as that is what King George fed to us all to justify an uneccessary war. To call it unverified and innacurate is so much more polite that tell the truth - Bush lied us into war. So lets be polite - verified and innacurate, it is.

Get a calculator, the $3 for Iraq versus $1 is easy enough to confirm. I came up with figures between 2.5 and 4 to 1 depending on what you assume.

And macnpat, since when is invading a country that never attacked us part of our "nation's security?" Defending the country is one thing, wars of empire quite another. And in the mean time, thousands of shipping containers cross our borders daily without proper inspection in part because the Department of Homeland Security is underfunded. Invading other countries is a higher priority for King George than defending the homeland.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by RickSp, And macnpat, since when is invading a country that never attacked us part of our "nation's security?"

You brought up money spent in Iraq compared to our defense budget, not I. Now you are changing the subject because I shot your factoid down.

Defending the country is one thing, wars of empire quite another. And in the mean time, thousands of shipping containers cross our borders daily without proper inspection in part because the Department of Homeland Security is underfunded. Invading other countries is a higher priority for King George than defending the homeland.

What in the world does all this have to do with your original factoid?

[RickSp]

You brought up money spent in Iraq compared to our defense budget, not I.

Say what? Where did you dream that up? I specifically compared the cost of our occupation of Iraq as compared to the cost of Homeland Defense. I never mentioned the defense budget.

My point was that we are neglecting homeland security while pouring money down a Mesopotamian rat hole, which leaves us less secure, not more.

[bishop]

heh.. money for iraq is being funded by separate appropriation bills. there's already too much waste in the defense budget as it is.

a pointless war in iraq vs. securing our borders.. the wise man could've continued containment on iraq AND secured our borders. too bad the boy king can't handle something easy - like thinking.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by RickSp, Say what? Where did you dream that up? I specifically compared the cost of our occupation of Iraq as compared to the cost of Homeland Defense. I never mentioned the defense budget.

Homeland Security is part of our Defense.

My point was that we are neglecting homeland security while pouring money down a Mesopotamian rat hole, which leaves us less secure, not more.

What makes you think that we are neglecting homeland security?

[RickSp]

What makes you think that we are neglecting homeland security?

Well, if you think things are going just great in Iraq, you might be happy with homeland security.

Airport Screening is still a joke:
Newspaper: Airport screeners missed guns, knives
Airport security failures persist

Port Security is close to non-existent:
Customs Fails to Detect Depleted Uranium — Again
Ports remain a weak link in homeland's security

And in general:

"We need a system that treats us like adults — identify the threats, the cost to fix them and the risk if we don't," he said. "In the three years since 9/11, we haven't even inventoried our vulnerabilities. Once that is done, we can pick our priorities and move forward."

Security expert sees America still vulnerable to terrorists

Then there is the side issue of Bush completely abandoning the hunt for AlQueda and Bin Laden so he could launch the invasion of Iraq. Homeland security is not a high priorty for the mad king.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by RickSp,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RickSp,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Is that $3 for Iraq only on Iraq's security? Even if it is, comparing the amount of money spent on Iraq's security needs(post war) with the amount of money we spend, on a country that was not ravaged by war and does not generally use the military to enforce security, is pretty irrelevant. You neo-cons keep me amused. Money for Iraq's security? What security? You may have noticed, there is very little security in Iraq outside the Green Zone.[/b]

Could it be that they don't need security out side of the green zone?

Allawi said -

“We could hold elections tomorrow” in 15 of 18 provinces, he said, even though terror operatives hope to disrupt them. “The insurgency in Iraq is destructive but small, and it has not and will never resonate with the Iraqi people,” Allawi said."

The elections part doesn't have to do much with the security topic, but it does point out interesting information, that 15 of 18 provinces are basically not having in a problem. The second line tells you that the insurgency is small and not nearly what the media makes it out to be...

Originally posted by RickSp,@ As for unverified and innaccuare information, I would have thought you were very fond of it, as that is what King George fed to us all to justify an uneccessary war. To call it unverified and innacurate is so much more polite that tell the truth - Bush lied us into war. So lets be polite - verified and innacurate, it is.

Nice change of subject there. Basically you said - If my info is wrong then so is this info here - what does that have to do with you orginal "unverified and innaccuare information"?
<!--QuoteBegin-RickSp,

Get a calculator, the $3 for Iraq versus $1 is easy enough to confirm. I came up with figures between 2.5 and 4 to 1 depending on what you assume.[/quote]What #'s did you use?

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by macnpat, Homeland Security is part of our Defense. What makes you think that we are neglecting homeland security?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5934537/

"Of those nearly eight million containers, only about six percent get close inspection. That’s a low number, say terrorism experts, who warn that this is where the United States is most vulnerable — and it may be the easiest fix."

“I'm afraid it's just a question of when, not if, terrorists will exploit maritime containers to do harm in the United States. There's no question the system is open and vulnerable," says Steven Flynn, an expert on ports who sits on the Council of Foreign Relations."

[RickSp]

Could it be that they don't need security out side of the green zone?

You are joking right? Baghdad is one of three provinces that Allawi says are violent. Do you know where Sadr City is located?

The elections part doesn't have to do much with the security topic, but it does point out interesting information, that 15 of 18 provinces are basically not having in a problem. The second line tells you that the insurgency is small and not nearly what the media makes it out to be..

You believe Allawi? Bought any bridges lately? Allawi's only "three provinces" is obviously wrong. Check out Juan Cole and the Washington Post's comments on Allawi's "15 of of 18" lie. From the Washington Post:

Reports covering seven days in a recent 10-day period depict a nation racked by all manner of insurgent violence, from complex ambushes involving 30 guerrillas north of Baghdad on Monday to children tossing molotov cocktails at a U.S. Army patrol in the capital's Sadr City slum on Wednesday. On maps included in the reports, red circles denoting attacks surround nearly every major city in central, western and northern Iraq, except for Kurdish-controlled areas in the far north. Cities in the Shiite Muslim-dominated south, including several that had undergone a period of relative calm in recent months, also have been hit with near-daily attacks.

Alawai can't count
Here is a map showing areas of heavy combat and other security problems. Obviously Allawi can't count.


In the last year the US spent somewhere over a $100 billion in the occupation of Iraq and spent roughly $30 billion on homeland defense. The numbers can vary based on when funds are appropriated versus when they are spent, but the story is the same - the US is spending far more to invade other countries than to defend our own.

[Dieval]

You got me...I guess Juan Cole knows what's happening in Iraq better than their current leader...

[RickSp]

Juan Cole is a respected scholar not a thug who worked for Saddam, the CIA and then Bush.

Both Bush and Allawi are like Chicco Marx in "Duck Soup" who asked "who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

If you read the news reports and bother to look at a map, it is pretty obvious that Bush and Allawi aren't telling the truth. Since the phony "handover" of soveriegnty 194 American soldiers have died, or 55 more than died in the early part of the war when Bush declared the "end of major combat operations." (A total of 913 have died since that photo-op farce.) If the insurgency is weak and withering I wonder who killed all these fine soldiers.

You want to believe Allawi, go ahead. But I'll repeat my previous question - bought any bridges lately?

[macnpat]

Originally posted by RickSp, Well, if you think things are going just great in Iraq, you might be happy with homeland security. Airport Screening is still a joke: Newspaper: Airport screeners missed guns, knives Airport security failures persist

How does this prove homeland security is being neglected?

Port Security is close to non-existent: Customs Fails to Detect Depleted Uranium — Again Ports remain a weak link in homeland's security

Once again, does this show neglect or an area for reinforcing? And can you say why it is one or the other?

And in general:

Security expert sees America still vulnerable to terrorists

I agree with the security expert. This is the M.O. of terrorists. They seek out the vulnerable spots without which terrorism would not be effective. America will always be vulnerable to terrorism.

Then there is the side issue of Bush completely abandoning the hunt for AlQueda and Bin Laden so he could launch the invasion of Iraq.

He didn't abandon the search, but that's another discussion.

Homeland security is not a high priorty for the mad king.

How do you know that?

[RickSp]

How does this prove homeland security is being neglected?

Three years after terrorists hijacked airplanes to use as missles, and aircraft screeners fail routinely to detect guns and bombs being smuggled aboard aircraft by FAA investigators and you don't see any signs of neglect?

Our ports are invitations to terrorists to smuggle weapons through because only a miniscule percent of shipping containers are ever inspected and you see no problems?

I see no need to continue this discussion. You seem impervious to concern. So don't worry, be happy, I guess.

[macnpat]

Originally posted by RickSp, Three years after terrorists hijacked airplanes to use as missles, and aircraft screeners fail routinely to detect guns and bombs being smuggled aboard aircraft by FAA investigators and you don't see any signs of neglect?

No, I don't see signs of neglect. I see areas of vulnerability. We have sky marshalls now and 9/11 was accomplished with box cutters. We are much more alert and you have not demonstrated to me that willfull neglect is the problem. Why is that asking too much?

Our ports are invitations to terrorists to smuggle weapons through because only a miniscule percent of shipping containers are ever inspected and you see no problems?

There are problems. But, how does this prove neglect?

I see no need to continue this discussion. You seem impervious to concern. So don't worry, be happy, I guess.

You seem very concerned but I need you to prove that neglect is our problem because we are more interested in Iraq monetarily than our homeland security.

Can you prove neglect or is that simply your subjective analysis on the limited hearsay you have?

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by macnpat, Can you prove neglect or is that simply your subjective analysis on the limited hearsay you have?

Direct links to documented news sources are nothing but "limited hearsay"?? Seems to me that NOTHING can shake your faith in the massive government bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security. Well, that's good. One can only hope that you live in a large metropolitan area, it would be Justice served if you learned directly from your mistakes.

[bishop]

heh... easier to show how our ports/borders are being neglected than it is to prove that saddam had wmd...

[Dieval]

Originally posted by RickSp, Juan Cole is a respected scholar not a thug who worked for Saddam, the CIA and then Bush. Both Bush and Allawi are like Chicco Marx in "Duck Soup" who asked "who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" If you read the news reports and bother to look at a map, it is pretty obvious that Bush and Allawi aren't telling the truth. Since the phony "handover" of soveriegnty 194 American soldiers have died, or 55 more than died in the early part of the war when Bush declared the "end of major combat operations." (A total of 913 have died since that photo-op farce.) If the insurgency is weak and withering I wonder who killed all these fine soldiers. You want to believe Allawi, go ahead. But I'll repeat my previous question - bought any bridges lately?

You'll forgive me if I take Allawi's word over your map from http://www.antiwar.com/(I'd bet that someone living there, in charge of the country, and dealing with it day in and day out, probably knows a bit more than an anti-war web site)........why don't we give it some time, see how the elections go, and see what happens?