War on Terrorism
This first article deals with the recent request made of Congress for an additional $42.3 billion to help for the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistn. This would bring the total for 2007 to $190 billion.
Increase in War Funding
The second article is an editorial by Matthew Bunn in which he makes his case for why the world must work to stop terrorism. Below is a link to who Mr. Bunn is in case you were wondering about his expertise.
Matthew Bunn
Senior Research Associate Project on Managing the AtomBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs
BIOGRAPHYMatthew Bunn is a Senior Research Associate in the Project on Managing the Atom in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. His current research interests include nuclear theft and terrorism; security for weapons-usable nuclear material in the former Soviet Union and worldwide; verification of nuclear stockpiles and of nuclear warhead dismantlement; disposition of excess plutonium; conversion in Russia's nuclear cities; and nuclear waste storage, disposal, and reprocessing.
Thwarting Terrorists: More to be Done
I guess as I read these 2, I wonder if this is truly the world's responsibility then why are we footing the majority of the bill or does the US have a responsibility for this because of our prosperity relative to the rest of the world?
I encourage you to read both and comment briefly.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 1:31 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
It’s interesting that the request for $42.3 million does not include any money to go into protecting the nation and globe from the issue of nuclear weapons, especially when terrorists are currently trying to get their hands on the materials to create nuclear bombs.
'President Bush should appoint a senior White House official to take full-time responsibility for policing these efforts, overcoming the obstacles to progress, and keeping the issue a priority at the White House.”
As President Bush has said, the nations of the world must do "everything in our power" to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of terrorist hands. We aren't there yet.'
Yet another issue Bush leaves for our next President.
-Karli
"We do not create a democracy at the point of a gun," Byrd said. "Sending more guns does not change that reality."
I think Senator Byrd more or less summarized my entire set of ideas regarding the war in that statement. We are constantly funneling money into the war so that we can continue to oppress the people and keep them from rebelling against a government. Democracy may be great, but it does NOT mean that it is right for Iraq, especially while we are asserting it. To make an analogy to America, it would be as if the French invaded our country soon after we fought off the British; and then, when we finally create a constitution, they run around killing everyone who doesn't like it. So, basically we're trying to create an Iraq where all that is left is people who are either A)American, B)Supportive of Americans, or C)Somehow affiliated with America.
"As President Bush has said, the nations of the world must do "everything in our power" to keep nuclear weapons and materials out of terrorist hands. We aren't there yet."
I find that this statement completely insults my intelligence. They try to "protect" the nuclear weapons from the terrorists, stating that they obviously have heinous motives behind obtaining them. But, to that end, what are we keeping the nuclear bombs for? Is the government going to someday use the nuclear bombs to solve world hunger? Land us on a different inhabitable planet? Find a cure for cancer? These hypocritical comments are just another way of saying "we just want to be able to destroy the entire world if it ever comes to that."
I must say, it makes me feel quite secure. Please, enlighten me as to the HORRIBLE REPERCUSSIONS of ridding the world of all nuclear weapons.
I would be interested in hearing elaborations on several points from the first article.
I'm not so sure on this whole 'splitting Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions' deal. While it would make sense to separate Iraq's more relatively peaceful regions, I would like to know how the resulting government would operate, and if any thought has been given on the impact of this divide on the Iraqi people, or whether we can even presume to divide the country on a whim.
As for reducing troop levels to a long-term force of 40,000, I would like to know how the military intends on decreasing the necessity for a large amount of troops.
And btw krishna, watch 'independence day' and tell me that we don't need some stockpile of nukes.
-Ethan
If the situation arose, I hardly think it would be difficult for us to create more.
it was a joke. Independence day is about an alien invasion of Earth.
Post a Comment
<< Home