Someone needs to make this into a t-shirt. Seriously. And bumper stickers. They’ll sell “like hot cake”. (Home Movies)

[ Image from ilkeryoldas.com ]

<

p style=”text-align: center”> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/214/503047437_69c6d7f1c0.jpg

In other words, Iran is involved in killing Americans. That gives us permission.

This is so obvious it’s painful to look at. Fortunately for the government the American public is too stupid to even notice they’re being manipulated.

By now we’re all quite familiar with the Bush administration’s stance on security. It essentially boils down to the best defense being a good offense. Or, to put it less philosophically, people can’t attack you if they don’t exist. The problem with this line is that it gives insufficient weight to reality.

Let us start with a formula for calculating risk in the information security world. Risk, in it’s most basic form, is the chance of something bad happening. It can be calculated in the following way:

Risk = Threat x Vulnerability x Asset Worth

As I said, this is an information security formula, but it translates quite well to security in general. When we evaluate the variables here they materialize in the following way:

Threat = Bad Guys x Weapon Power Vulnerability = How Easy It Is To Attack Us Asset Worth = How Important The Targets Are To Our Livelihood

What Effect Is Bush Having On This Formula?

To make positive change we have to accurately gauge the effects of our actions on reality. Unfortunately, this is the part that the current administration is getting wrong. Let’s assign arbitrary numbers to these variables in order to demonstrate the difference between what they think they are doing vs. what they are actually doing. I’ve removed asset value since it stays relatively constant.

The Neocon Viewpoint

Pre-Bush: Threat (5) x Vulnerability (9) = 45% Risk Post-Bush: Threat (5) x Vulnerability (5) = 25% Risk

(-40% risk)

Basically, they think they’ve reduced Al-Quaeda’s ability to commit acts of terror against us, while they’ve simultaneously hardened our critical assets against attack. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

Reality

Pre-Bush: Threat (4) x Vulnerability (9) = 45% Risk Post-Bush: Threat (10) x Vulnerability (8) = 80% Risk

(+ 45% risk)

The truth of the matter is that we’ve massively increased the number of people who want to do us harm in the world (threat). This adds to the threat against us infinitely more than we can possibly hope to reduce our vulnerability.

In short, we live in a free and open society that is vulnerable by its very nature. In such a society it is impossible to keep people who want to hurt us from doing so. There are too many malls, too many children, and too many ways to cause us harm.

The only way to stop people from hurting you is to make it so that they don’t want to.

Conclusion

The solution is for us to become a better country. We have to treat people with respect and stop intruding in their affairs. This is not isolationism, it’s common courtesy. Only once we’ve started down that path — a new path — will we be able to positively effect the operative variable in the risk equation (threat).

In other words, the crucial point here is the sheer number of people with the will to cause us harm — not specific measures aimed to stop how the attacks will occur. The current policy is failing because of this misunderstanding, and I hope someone figures this out sooner rather than later.:

If this information were understood by the American people, we would not be in Iraq right now.

[ Link: What Every American Should Know About Iraq ]

I wish I was joking.

There are currently over 35,000 non-US Citizens serving in our military, and the immigration bill currrently being considered would open the door for tens of thousands more to jump to the head of the line if they join.

Sickening.

[ Link: Immigration Bill Has Military-to-Citizenship Loophole ]

Here’s an alternate way of viewing the issue — one that isn’t heard very often.

1. Israel = Palestine. They are the same. All of the land belongs to both groups of people. The Israelis cannot throw out a group of people who lived there before Israel was formed, and the Arabs cannot ask the Jews to leave for the same reason. Like it or not, they are intertwined within a single land.
2. Since the land belongs to both people, so does the government. One government. The Israeli government is NOT a foreign government ruling over a Palestinian one. The Israeli government IS the Palestinian government. In other words, what we have here is not two countries fighting about borders. What we have is one country with a dominant group in power (Jews) that is oppressing another group (Palestinians).
3. The situation is not like France and Germany fighting for borders; it’s more like the United States putting tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans into camps because they thought they were dangerous. In Israel’s case the Palestinians have actually proven to be dangerous on numerous occasions, but you may wonder if they would be so if they were treated as equals in their own country.
4. The two-state solution is not one that benefits the Palestinians. It is instead an elaborate deception designed to further the goals of the Jews in Israel. It does this by creating a separate place where Arabs can be sent in order to maintain the Jewish majority (see purity) of the Israeli state. The Jews are deathly afraid of being legally overthrown from within by the Arabs who reproduce far faster than they do. The only solution is to create a second state and force the Arabs into it — leaving only Jews behind in Israel.

I find this perspective to be quite refreshing. I am not sure if it is correct or not, but if it isn’t I’d like to hear what’s wrong about it. Your opinions would be most appreciated.:

This group of Iraq veterans uses street theater to bring the impact of the war home to New Yorkers:

It struck me recently that Pakistan is perilously close to being a Muslim theocracy, and that Musharaf (who seems to be keeping it from happening) will almost inevitably be removed soon — one way or another.

I’m aware of the dangers of fear-mongering, but at the same time I can’t help but fret over the notion of a nuclear-enabled country in the hands of Holy warriors. My problem isn’t so much with Pakistan doing something themselves, but what happens when some hard-line Muslim faction takes over the country and then gets approached by Al Quaeda?

What force will restrain them — hardliners who share many similar views — from accepting millions of dollars in exchange for a couple of nuclear devices? I just don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t help Al Quaeda. Of course they could fear retribution and that good stuff, but if there was insufficient evidence to lead back to Pakistan the U.S. would have nothing to go on in trying to respond.

This is especially true given how much proliferation has taken place. There are just so many potential sources (mostly former Soviet) that without solid proof it’d be impossible to do a full strike without major evidence. The world wouldn’t stand for another major attack on a country based on shoddy evidence (see Iraq).

The Islamists in charge of Pakistan could essentially get the benefit of attacking the U.S., but not have to do the work themselves. And Al Quaeda could get the blame (which they want) while not having to work too hard to get the ultimate weapon.

So, what I’m looking for is why this isn’t a problem given Musharaf’s tenuous hold on his country.