i am sure the joint chiefs of staff didnt want to do anything to prepare to stop hitler before pearl harbor. its called being prepared. russia is on the rise again and so is iran. we need to be prepared. if we can spend billions of dollars wasting money on bailouts stimulus cash for clunkers, and free healthcare for illegals, i think we can afford to protect americans.
so, the justification is that because we spend a lot of money on some things, its ok to spend a lot of money on other things too. some conservative.
so, the justification is that because we spend a lot of money on some things, its ok to spend a lot of money on other things too. some conservative.
I don't know, I think he's falling right in line with the stereotypical and hypocritical neo-conservatives. Constitution is really important, but don't separate church and state. Welfare for the poor is wealth redistribution, but welfare for corporations is not. Arguing with the President is treasonous, and then it's a patriotic duty.
Can we find the sane, smart, principled conservatives and help them take their party back? I liked both Doles, for example. Fitzgerald from Illinois was far better than I expected. Heck, even Forbes was at least consistent.
i am sure the joint chiefs of staff didnt want to do anything to prepare to stop hitler before pearl harbor.
The Joint Chiefs of staff didn't exist in their modern form until about 7 months after Pearl Harbor. So... you're right. The non-existant JCoS didn't want to to anything to prepare for anything. They also didn't NOT want to do anything to prepare for anything either. It wasn't really formally created until 1947.
But here's my question: if you do not trust the Joint Chiefs of Staff on military issues, who do you trust? They have been picked because of their specific advanced education and personal leadership experience in military issues. Are there other people who have managed to gain more, somehow better education, leadership experience, general experience? Who are they?
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
Can we find the sane, smart, principled conservatives and help them take their party back? I liked both Doles, for example.
Elizabeth Dole wasn't so effective once elected, and wasn't especially wonderful in the last election cycle. Obviously in my opinion.
I used to like McCain before this cycle too. Not so much that I would have voted for him, but I used to thoroughly respect him.
Rhode Island is still in love with Lincoln Chafee, despite voting him out of the Senate. I would be VERY surprised if he didn't cruise to victory for the Governor's race despite him now being classified as an independent (he promised his father he would never be a Democrat.) Had he run as an independent who promised to caucus with the Dems in the Senate race, he probably would have won.
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
i am sure the joint chiefs of staff didnt want to do anything to prepare to stop hitler before pearl harbor. its called being prepared. russia is on the rise again and so is iran. we need to be prepared. if we can spend billions of dollars wasting money on bailouts stimulus cash for clunkers, and free healthcare for illegals, i think we can afford to protect americans.
Besides being impossible because the Joint Chiefs didn't exist yet (great catch, MP!), this is an unpatriotic attack on our military.
Also it's ignorance of history: America's conservative kept America isolationist, under-armed, unprepared, and uninvolved in the fight against Fascism and Nazism. It was their arch-enemy - the liberal FDR - who worked around them to try to support France and England.
Spending billions on ineffective but flashy technology (the military often falls in love with it - or the Congressional representatives in districts with defense contractors) does not protect our country. It makes us less safe by diverting defense dollars from things that protect us better. Illusion of safety is not safety, and calling for flashy but ineffective military toys is not patriotism.
__________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different."
....... The reason it's not incredibly important for seniors to get the vaccine is that most of them are immune to something remarkably like the current H1N1,
One tiny problem: Influenza viruses mutate, sometimes radically. This is why we keep having to immunize against fresh strains of the same viruses year after year. That a senior had something like H1N1 once is no guarantor against getting a new strain of it this winter.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
One tiny problem: Influenza viruses mutate, sometimes radically. This is why we keep having to immunize against fresh strains of the same viruses year after year. That a senior had something like H1N1 once is no guarantor against getting a new strain of it this winter.
But that would require a belief in <gasp> Evolution...
As a side note: The H1N1 type is the one that was responsible for the 1918 Spanish Flu (50-100 million deaths)... Fun thoughts.
One tiny problem: Influenza viruses mutate, sometimes radically. This is why we keep having to immunize against fresh strains of the same viruses year after year. That a senior had something like H1N1 once is no guarantor against getting a new strain of it this winter.
My understanding is that for H1N1 specifically, it was more likely that the elderly HAD been exposed to a near enough variant.
It's also my understanding that immunizing children, health care workers, and others in contact with the elderly thus preventing exposure through those paths would do more to prevent flu deaths than immunizing the elderly.
But I'm not certain. I have to go look up where I got that from. I'm not advocating one policy or another.
One tiny problem: Influenza viruses mutate, sometimes radically. This is why we keep having to immunize against fresh strains of the same viruses year after year. That a senior had something like H1N1 once is no guarantor against getting a new strain of it this winter.
The last I heard, people may only need one dose instead of multiple doses, so they're talking about expanding the list, and possibly including elderly in the priority group.
However, what the expect this virus to be is very much like the virus that lots of the seniors have already been exposed to, and if it mutates enough so that THAT wouldn't be helpful, neither would the vaccine.
So, yes, seniors might be screwed, but if they are, they're probably screwed with or without the vaccine.
__________________
Visit my non-fencing blog, mostly about food, at Coset The Table!
The last I heard, people may only need one dose instead of multiple doses, so they're talking about expanding the list, and possibly including elderly in the priority group.
However, what the expect this virus to be is very much like the virus that lots of the seniors have already been exposed to, and if it mutates enough so that THAT wouldn't be helpful, neither would the vaccine.
So, yes, seniors might be screwed, but if they are, they're probably screwed with or without the vaccine.
Also to expand on why this situation is somewhat distinct from the normal flu season:
One of the other concerns with this particular H1N1 is that unlike traditional seasonal flu it could be actually harder on people who have strong immune systems than it could be on the usual victims of the flu. Same kind of deal with the 1989 flu, the thing that ends up killing healthy people is a secondary pneumonia infection caused by a feedback loop in the immune system. Young children and the elderly who are usually at a higher risk of flu related death would presumably be at no greater risk from the H1N1 than normal, but the bulk of the general population would be at a much greater risk of dying than the edges, which is unusual.
It's also possible that this is y2k all over again. I feel like I've lived through too many "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!one!!!!" moments to be really that prone to agita over this one
A note that ties this back into the measles defense / missile defense concept, a strong and robust health care infrastructure that covers everybody is also the first line of defense against bio-terror in addition to wild pathogens. The US is incredibly vulnerable to biological weapons due to our disproportionately high number of uninsured / underinsured people. A well-crafted pathogen released into the right population centers could spread to most of the country quite quickly if it mimicked flu-like symptoms for a few days before it became ebola or something.
__________________
Does it sound logical that I would talk about the mother of a big white guy with a gun?
Besides being impossible because the Joint Chiefs didn't exist yet (great catch, MP!), this is an unpatriotic attack on our military.
Also it's ignorance of history: America's conservative kept America isolationist, under-armed, unprepared, and uninvolved in the fight against Fascism and Nazism. It was their arch-enemy - the liberal FDR - who worked around them to try to support France and England.
Spending billions on ineffective but flashy technology (the military often falls in love with it - or the Congressional representatives in districts with defense contractors) does not protect our country. It makes us less safe by diverting defense dollars from things that protect us better. Illusion of safety is not safety, and calling for flashy but ineffective military toys is not patriotism.
The last I remember reading was that we weren't stopping work on missle defense, but had decided to deploy a ship based system at sea to avoid all the conflict of having to put missle systems on the ground in Europe. Did anyone else see that? I'll have to look for more info.
If anyone wants to say the Russians are complaining to much, I don't think we especially liked it when they wanted to deploy missles right outside our borders either.
__________________
- Wisdom is the knowledge of how much you don't know.
The last I remember reading was that we weren't stopping work on missle defense, but had decided to deploy a ship based system at sea to avoid all the conflict of having to put missle systems on the ground in Europe. Did anyone else see that? I'll have to look for more info.
{snip}
Here is the most recent (9/17/09) statement from the White House on the future path of missile defense.
AIUI, it's not that the plan is to give up on ground-based interceptors per se--but rather that development will focus on the SM-3--which is a sea-based missile--and the current ground-based interceptors will essentially languish. Ground-based versions of the SM-3 are planned (I don't believe any are now operational).
i am sure the joint chiefs of staff didnt want to do anything to prepare to stop hitler before pearl harbor. its called being prepared. russia is on the rise again and so is iran. we need to be prepared. if we can spend billions of dollars wasting money on bailouts stimulus cash for clunkers, and free healthcare for illegals, i think we can afford to protect americans.
There's a lot going on here, for sure. If the objective is to protect Americans (I think you mean European NATO and prospective NATO members?) then what is the best way to do this?
Probably not installing ground-based anti-ballistic systems such as Patriot. It's a technological and strategic option, but despite the media-coverage during the first Gulf War, not an effective one.
Given that the Putin/Medvedev/Zubkov/Gazprom movement has been well-established at the top of the Russian state for nearly a decade now, a bit of statesmanship by President Obama can go a long way.
The ex-Soviet block states are almost entirely reliant on Russian state-controlled gas and oil. The pipeline transit states of Belarus and Ukraine (NATO prospects, various volte-faces) are in the process of being bypassed by the Nord Stream pipeline and so EU states like Poland and Czech Republic will be potentially cut off, soon enough.
Russia is active in Africa, specifically the OPEC state of Nigeria, which exports nearly half its oil to the US.
Russian heads of state are enjoying strong support at home through a bit of tough talking and walking.
We could describe the missile-defense system as a bluff never intended to be called unless as a misplayed hand by domestic politicians at home in the US. A warning made to Russia regarding its assistance in the Iranian nuclear program.
If anything, this makes President Obama appear the international gentleman willing to consider options at the table and a recognition of Russia's resurgence. Probably quite useful.
Last edited by Cheap_Lame; 09-21-2009 at 08:52 PM..
Linear Mode
