On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 19:06:36 -0700, Howard
wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:25:19 GMT, David wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:36:33 -0700, Howard
wrote:
snip
David,
Put aside the Homeland Security aspect and think of the advantage of
multiple agencies learning how to coordinate their activities. As
someone who lives in So-Cal you are probably aware of the issues that
have arisen when city, county & state agencies of several flavors
respond during earthquakes, fires & flooding/mudslides. Whatever the
catalyst for a response - natural disaster or large-scale industrial
incident being the most likely such catalyst, the agencies need much
more practice in interagency communications & coordination and we, as
those served by those agencies, stand to gain from exercises such as
these.
Howard
So why not just make it an industrial accident they are drilling on.
Why the comic book drama?
A few reasons:
1) A terrorist attack, regardless of what probability of happening
any of us in this group assign, is one of many things DHS is tasked to
respond to
2) The "War on Terror" , again regardless of the opinions of those on
this group, is considered a real possibility by our government
institutions and as such they are preparing for such an eventuality
3) A terrorist attack on this nation need not come from outside this
nation and has always been a consideration of our government agencies
and in fact they did occur. 9/11 just shifted how we address things.
4) FEMA, noted for response to natural disasters, is now under the
umbrella of DHS so even if done as a FEMA drill - it would still
ultimately be a DHS drill.
Your and my perception of terorrist threat to America, involvement in
the mid-East and I'm sure a few other political topics are undoubtedly
different. However, I do hope that you do not "throw out the baby
with the bathwater" and lose sight of the fact that there is some good
that is coming from our government's actions post 9/11. Not
everything our government is doing is wrong or evil; some of what this
administration - as well as many others before it - are doing is
objectionable to a great many people. In the end though, this isn't
such a bad place to be - at least in my opinion. Through our
representational democracy we have the opportunity to vote against
those who do not truly act on our behalf as citizens; it is a duty we
all share to vote for those who will protect the interest of us as a
nation and then to monitor their activities and take action to
prevent the loss of our democratic process (vote them out of office).
I give you credit for not doing the "my candidate didn't win so I'm
moving to Canada" routine and that is why I am taking the time for
such a verbose response. All I ask of you, as a fellow citizen, is to
be as objective as you can when assessing our form of government and
our politicians and to vote (regardless of how much we may feel our
vote counts or doesn't count) based on reason and not political
rhetoric.
Apologies to all for a lengthy post, just felt compelled to speak my
mind.
Howard
That looks good on paper, anyway.
Truth is we are free only to the extent that corporate interests are
allowed to brainwash us and force us to do what's best for them, even
if it gets us attacked.
The Government got 52 FAA warnings about airplanes being used for
terrorist attacks in 2001, prior to 9-11; several FBI memos about
suspicious activities at flight training schools; etc. and did
nothing.
They knew something was coming and they let it happen so they'd have
an excuse to clamp down on our civil rights and suck our wallets dry.
If they were serious about protecting our cities they'd inspect cargo
containers at the ports. They'd protect nuclear power plants and
refineries. Not set off tire fires in the middle of Jersey.
|