f13.net

If you want to discuss political shit, fine, but educate your damn self before you talk. Google it, or better yet visit this fucking site first.

*snip*

Let's have some educated discussions. Then if we want to call each other cocksuckers, we can at least be EDUCATED cocksuckers.

Though, they seem a little uninformed as to the stances of Bush Jr. (http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNIP9043) and John Kerry (http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=S0421103).  

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH/JOHN KERRY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY
RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE
NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST

Environment and Energy Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding the environment and energy.
a) Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
b) Strengthen the regulation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
c) Require states to compensate citizens when environmental regulations limit uses of privately-owned land.
d) Exempt the military from some environmental regulations.
e) Relax logging restrictions on federal lands.
f) Relax standards on federal lands to allow increased recreational usage.
g) Support increased development of traditional energy resources (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil).
h) Strengthen emission controls and fuel efficiency standards on all gasoline and diesel-powered engines, including cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles.
i) Support opening a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration.
j) Encourage further development and use of alternative fuels to reduce pollution.
k) Support use of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
l) Allow energy producers to trade pollution credits.
m) Support the U.S. re-entering the Kyoto treaty process to limit global warming.
n) Other or expanded principles

Neither Bush nor Kerry agree with all my issues, but I trust Bush more and I think Kerry's proposals would fuck up things more than Bush's.

Bruce

Things couldn't be much more fucked up than they are now.

One must also realize that politicians will say anything they think will get them elected.  See Mr. Bush backpedaling from previous stances, and Mr. Kerry carefully not saying much at all about certain things.

I'm personally loving to see "The American Military should not be used for nation-building" played over and over again.

Sorry, but USA + UK + all the countries that take the short bus to the UN doesn't count as multinational in my book.

I'd grant that have France, Germany, and Canada on board would make it a larger coalition, but it could be stronger still with Russia or China.

Sorry, but USA + UK + all the countries that take the short bus to the UN doesn't count as multinational in my book.

It's just funny to hear Bush in 2000 talk about not sending our troops out to build nations, then in 2003, the rhetoric surrounding the occupation of Iraq is all about building Iraq into a peaceful democracy.

Amazing what one president can excuse because of what 19 terrorists do.

9/11 is not a valid excuse for Iraq. Period. The two are so unrelated as to be not on the same fucking planet.

Therefore, in your opinion, France has an absolute authority and right to veto our Foreign policy for whatever reason they see fit.

As for Canada, though it's an easy mark for a joke, the Canadians actually had a great history of honorable military service in WWII.

Armed Forces

Today: 60,000 military personnel including 9,500 sailors, 19,000 soldiers, 13,000 air men and women and 18,500 administrative and support personnel. There are also 21,500 reservists.

Second World War: 60,000 men and women enlisted in Canada's armed forces in one month (September 1939) after the declaration of war.

First World War: More than 600,000 Canadians enlisted to fight in the First World War from 1914-1918.


Navy

Today: There are 34 warships and 9,500 sailors in Canada's navy.

Second World War: 23 Canadian ships were sunk by German U-Boats in the Battle of St. Lawrence alone.

First World War: During the course of the First World War, Canada's naval service grew to a force of 9,000 men and 100 ships.


Canadians on the front lines

Today: 2,300 armed forces have been deployed to combat terrorism; 1,500 Canadians deployed to NATO peacekeeping in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Second World War: More than one million served and approximately 45,000 died.

First World War: Almost 620,000 Canadians served in First World War and 66,000 died.

France, the cultural birthplace of Canada, is only slightly better.

Thank you Haemish. I am now twitching slightly less than I was after reading Alkiera's post.

*snip useful Canadian military info*




Please note Alkiera - while I am proud of the French culture within my country, it is just a small fraction of the culture this country is based on.  Even if you just look at who "founded" us, we are French, English, and a whole slew of indigenous cultures.

On the west coast where I live, you'll see more influence from local native tribes than you will from France.

Don't make it out like we've got some international mandate, it's just us, the UK and a bunch of wankers whose contributions (and convictions) aren't worth a whole hell of a lot.

My father is a former Canadian citizen, born in Kamloops, BC.  However, most of my experience with Canadians is where I live now, in Rochester, NY... where we see mostly Quebecian 'Frencher than France' Canadians; thus my comments.  I've been into western Canada only once, very long ago.

--
Alkiera

I said that the 'coalition of the willing' is actually the USA and a bunch of chumps who think that they can get political capital or cash out of helping us in Iraq.  Don't make it out like we've got some international mandate, it's just us, the UK and a bunch of wankers whose contributions (and convictions) aren't worth a whole hell of a lot.

So actually, we sort of agree. My point was that there was no way we could have achieved a UN sponsored 'International Mandate' thanks to France, and people kveching about said fact an in effect arguing that France should have veto power over our Foreign policy.

Of course, calling the UK, Australlia et al 'chumps' is a whole other can of worms and fundamentally disrespectful to those nations.

Hussein is no longer in power.  If being labeled a 'chump' is the price for preventing any futher events like Halabja in Iraq, then so be it.

Well, if you can explain France, then please explain to me how Syria got on the security council too.

Because frankly, I can't explain either of them, myself.

For the first time in more than 30 years, Syria, a country listed by Washington as a state sponsor of terrorism, was elected on October 8 to the Security Council as a non-permanent member for a two-year term.

Of course, calling the UK, Australlia et al 'chumps' is a whole other can of worms and fundamentally disrespectful to those nations.

Hussein is no longer in power.  If being labeled a 'chump' is the price for preventing any futher events like Halabja in Iraq, then so be it.

especially as it pertains to NATIONAL SECURITY

second/third tier power

Well, if you can explain France, then please explain to me how Syria got on the security council too.

Because frankly, I can't explain either of them, myself.

Without 9/11, I doubt we would have made an effort to pre-emptively invade Iraq.

It's just funny to hear Bush in 2000 talk about not sending our troops out to build nations, then in 2003, the rhetoric surrounding the occupation of Iraq is all about building Iraq into a peaceful democracy.

to liberate a people

And will Iraq fare any better?

Asia?

Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines, Australia, New Zealand.

I know I will upset Arcadian by posting since I'm supposed to be in "retirement", but...

 
Get over the fact that rebuilding is bloody, long, and tiresome.

I believe the term for this region is Pacific Rim countries.

And the international cooperation should have given the US the finger in all matters concerning Iraq. Yes, unfair to Iraq, but some of these days the USA should learn to clean up their messes, which they never were good at.

Bruce, it's simple, there is a standard for multinational coalitions and that standard is the United Nations.  It may be the only coalition worth anything because it is representative of almost all of the countries of the world.  And the truth is that the administration went to them first because they knew it too.  They couldn’t get the world to agree with them so they just did what they wanted to do anyway.  That shows not only is the Coalition of the Willing a second rate coalition but that the administration knows it and won’t admit it.

Hey, you know what's on the Pacific?

Asia.

I think it's funny to hear Democrats claiming we need to be more sensitive to the foreign policy desires of other nations and then belittling the 30+ other members of the coalition as if they aren't "real" countries.

It seems he wanted us to not invade Iraq if France didn't want to.

It seems he doesn't want to go to war if France, Germany, and possibly other countries don't offer troops.

It seems like he wouldn't ever fight a war during Ramadan, or bomb anything anywhere near a mosque, because that might offend some muslim we aren't fighting.

Well France wanted more solid proof of the WMDs. We are all still waiting on that proof.

Nothing wrong with trying to get other countries to help out. Maybe they could even help pay the bill (and oh what a huge bill it is). I dont remember him stating that he would put the country's safety at risk if Europe said no to a battle.

I know he wouldnt jeopardize our safety just for diplomacy itself, and we are still waiting for the Al-Queda link to Iraq, the footage of the terrorist training camps in Iraq that we were supposed to find, and the WMD proof.

Where did he say that? Not something that got interpreted as that by GOP radio, but specifically that.

The US tried to not bomb hospitals and certain civilian targets in WW II (except certain instances, like the last push into Berlin). Does that mean we were weak? I dont think anyone would call our leaders during World War 2 weak just because they did this.

If Bush thinks that defeating Iraq will stop terrorists, he needs to think again. And no it wont really slow them down either, because they were already living in many other countries planning their next move. Our personal safety lies on another less tangible battle front, not on Iraq's defeat. If we are going to fight the fight, lets focus on the correct targets.

BTW, I'm pretty sure there have been times when hospitals were indeed attacked when they were improperly being used as a base of combat operations for enemy troops (an incident in Afghanistan springs to mind), but I don't know if the enemy ever stooped that low during WW2.

You need to check your news again.  The terrorist links are documented and some WMD was found.  You just don't think it is "enough".

The issue is whether or not we should not go to war when we THINK we are correct

Well, see, that's the problem without having a time machine. We can't leap into the future and see the millions that might have been killed if Saddam had managed to acquire the nukes that he was seeking.

Could we trust him not to assist terrorists?

Yes we found a few shells from the mid 80's buried in some hole, that had chemical weapon residue. Maybe a dozen shells or so, that had been buried there for many years.

I feel safer already. At least only a few thousand have died so we could get those rusting forgotten handful of shells. Damn right I dont feel that is enough.

Except some people, even in the US, were doubtful that we were correct.  When you have WMD inspectors in the country, and our government saying "they have WMDs here *points to a satellite pic", and the inspectors can't find a damn thing...

He'd have killed lots of people if he could have gotten them.  That's the catch though - not a chance in hell he could've gotten them, because it requires massive, recognizable structures to refine the neccessary materials.  He had such a facility, once.  Israel bombed it.  The French sold it to him.

Yeah.  He really did not like fanatical Islam, and they didn't like him either.

The Iraqi document itself states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against Crusaders during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as
assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
[...]
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Where the USA tends to fail in its nationbuilding is to wrap itself around a foreign ideology and work with it. You just don't understand people who don't want it your way, you think everybody who doesn't like everything just as you do just has to be made to understand that your way is the best. It may be for you, it certainly is close to what we Europeans prefer, but there are other people who don't like it that way. There you fail when you try to rebuild those nations in your likeness. As well-intended as it may be.

There you fail when you try to rebuild those nations in your likeness.

They copied some western behaviour just like they copied western technology to mass produce it.

Maybe some where the religious leaders don't gave up on behalf of their minions (like the Tenno did after the bombs), but where you suceeded against religious beliefs (like you would have to do in the Middle East obviously).

without a cause of our own?

You do it one step at a time.  If Iraq can stabilize itself and improve its standard of living to the point where moving there would be an attractive option for her neighbors more oppressed citizenry the political pressures will sort themselves out over time.

Move our troops out, watch what happens in the next 12 months, then come talk to me. If Iraq isn't isnt in a mess then I will believe that we did the right thing. It is easy to brag, at the butt end of a gun. Remove our guns, and then brag.

Move our troops out, watch what happens in the next 12 months, then come talk to me.

We STILL have thousands and thousands of troops in Japan. If we do this "right", we'll have troops in Iraq for the rest of your life. What'd you expect?

There was nowhere near the instability and insurgency in those countries post-war than there is in Iraq.  They really aren't comparable.

Typically, military government did not lack critics in the summer and fall of 1945. The New Republic viewed the Schaeffer affair as demonstrating "the inability of the Army to run the civil affairs of an occupied country." 11 Raymond Daniell of the New York Times charged the officers responsible for denazification with having lost sight of the reasons for which the war was fought.12 The Harrison report maintained that military government officers were timid about inconveniencing the Germans and more interested in getting German communities working soundly again than in caring for the DPs; furthermore, Truman told Eisenhower that the proper policies were not being carried out "by some of your officers in the field." 13 In October, during the aftermath of the Patton and Schaeffer incidents, the Army was completely on the defensive. Eisenhower wrote to Marshall about the "growing storm of discontent, even anger, among columnists and editors" that was giving the Army "a bad name when it is doing an overall good job." 14 Truscott talked to reporters about their "questioning the ability of the military mind to conduct civil affairs in occupied territory"; and Smith declared himself convinced that "the American people will never take kindly to the idea of government exercised by military officers." 15

In trouble with the press and publicly rebuked by the President (the White House released the President's letter to Eisenhower and the Harrison report on 31 August), military government's future was indeed murky-and that of the German people even more so. The important question of whether the Army was adequately performing its mission in Germany was being answered emotionally; and the more important question, in human terms, of what was going to happen to millions of Germans, both good and bad, was in danger of not being considered at all. Fortunately, on the day before he released the Harrison report, the President had sent Byron Price, who had been the Director of Censorship and who was an experienced newspaper man and former executive editor of the Associated Press, to Europe to "survey the general subject of relations between the American Forces of Occupation and the German people." After ten weeks in Germany, Price submitted a summary of what the occupation had done and not done since the surrender and a review of the problems ahead: hunger, economic reconstruction, and democratization. Concerning what had been done so far he concluded:

Taken altogether it [military government] seems to me a notable record of progress, whatever may be said by noisy backseat drivers. No one who knows the facts can fail to give General Eisenhower, his Deputy General Clay, and the staff of Military Government generally his continuing confidence and commendation. In no other zone of Germany

[400]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

has greater progress been made toward the declared objectives of the Allied occupation.

As to the future, he warned, "The United States must decide whether we mean to finish the job competently, and provide the tools, the determination and the funds requisite to that purpose, or withdraw." 16 On 28 November, the President released Price's report to the press together with a letter to the Secretaries of State, War, and the Navy in which he directed them to "give careful consideration to this report, with a view to taking whatever joint action may be indicated." 17

The Army in Disarray

Three days before he departed to assume his appointment as Army Chief of Staff, Eisenhower had to tell the troops that the conduct of a "relatively small minority" among them could give the US forces "a lead reputation that will take our country a long time to overcome." He cited reckless driving, poor uniform discipline, and low standards of military and civilian courtesy as the chief shortcomings.62 Two weeks later, Seventh Army's CIC reported, "The general, opinion of the Germans is that ..American soldiers are men who drink to excess; have no respect for the uniform they wear; are prone to rowdyism and to heat civilians with no regard for human rights; and benefit themselves through the black market." 63 While Eisenhower was no doubt right that the troops involved were a minority, reports from Seventh Army CIC and other investigations showed the nature of the misconduct to be more serious than he implied. After V-J Day, what appeared to be almost an epidemic of unprovoked attacks on German civilians and robberies by US soldiers had spread across the zone. The Stuttgart police recorded fourteen acts of unprovoked violence against civilians in the last week of October. During one night in Landkreis Eschwege in the Western Military District, five drunken soldiers heat a local German official, and another civilian had his jaw broken when lie tried to reason with a soldier molesting a woman. In one small town, Boblingen, within five days in November soldiers beat up two civilians, tried to stab another, broke windows, tried to steal dogs, and robbed four civilians of watches and money.64  The Office of Military Government for Bavaria described the death of a German boy in a hunting accident involving soldiers as "a result of such carelessness as to be almost criminal. In Landkreis Burgen, also in Bavaria, three soldiers hunting illegally shot and killed an 18 year-old girl, and in the same Kreis the chief of police told investigators that soldiers had emptied several clips of ammunition at him at various times.65  Nearly all incidents involved liquor or women, often both. The population of vagrant women -which the Army inadvertently increased after November when it released penicillin for treating venereal diseases in German women, thereby shortening for some the "turn around time" from jail or hospital and attracting others who had been deterred by the fear of infection- was often

[421]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at the root of soldier attacks on German officials and police. By December, these attacks had grown so alarmingly frequent that Truscott had to issue what the Office of Military Government for Bavaria called "a public plea" for troop cooperation with the U.S.-appointed German officials.66  Misbehavior was not confined exclusively to the enlisted ranks. In one instance an American officer took an Austrian girl from Linz to Stuttgart, raped her three times, and then transported her to Ulm, where he turned her over to the military police on a charge of having improper papers.67

God, I love it when the far-left places it's ideological theories against reality and reason.  Best entertainment I've had in days.

But most people, even OUTSIDE the US, were not doubtful. That's why the UN passed a resolution, sent in inspectors, etc.

You're willing to risk having a guy who is threatening to kill you go free because you think he won't be able to get ahold of a gun or break through your security system.

Yes, yes, I know... no evidence of a collaborative operational relationship. But your claim was that that Iraq would never have developed one, and the evidence indicates that it was a distinct possibility had to two sides continued talking. It's quite possible they didn't and we don't know it yet. But all I'm saying is you can't say you could have trusted Iraq to NOT develop such a relationship, based on the evidence.

I assumed it was for the beer and sausages.

We had just wiped out a huge chunk of the 18-40 year old male population of a country that is know for tall blondes.

Yes.  Because Liberty and Democracy > Oppression and Dicatorship, no matter what metrics you choose to measure the "good" of the state.  Perhaps you missed the past, oh, 1000 years of history during which Europeans figured this out.  From the Magna Carta to Cromwell to the United States to Napolean to Hitler and Mousslini to Communism, it's all been part of a long process of moral discovery.  What matters is what you believe and what you do to achieve those ideals, not the ultimate outcome of that pursuit.

Your big words confuse me.

Are you saying that even if the entirety of Iraq comes out more fucked up than it is today and was during the days of Saddam, that somehow the Iraqi people are better off because we INTENDED to give them democracy? The ultimate outcome doesn't matter?

So if, say, Iraq falls to a Taliban-esque religious dictatorship that gets voted in by democratic method, that's ok because they chose it? What the fuck are you smoking?

As for Europe figured out about democracies bit, yeah, it wasn't like Europe gave us the Nazis, or Serbia/Bosnia and ethnic cleansing or anything. Oh wait, it was.

Democracy is no shield against oppressive regimes.

1. Iraq is better off because they are given more freedom than they had under their opressor, regardless of the ultimate outcome.  But more specifically I was speaking not of the ultimate outcome of government but of the ultimate outcome of metrics you are using to gauge "good", like number of people starving or the frequency of crime or whatever.  Better to be free and starve than to be a slave and well-fed.

2. We INTENDED to give them Democracy, so regardless of the ultimate outcome, our actions were still morally justified because our intent was noble.  This doesn't mean one can't make mistakes in implementation; it just means those mistakes often pale when compared to the moral value of the intention.  Like when you try to save an injured person from a burning building but you wind up injuring them in the process.

No one claimed it was.  Again, we have to understand the moral distinction: it is morally superior to have a Democracy than to have a Dictatorship, even if that means a choice between an opressive Democracy and a benevolent Dictatorship.  The form of government speaks to the essential nature of a thing; its fundamental principles.  The outcome of that government is simply a matter of details of implementation.

Honestly, the "hating america" query was a general comment, nothing directed at Haemish in particular.  I'm always under the impression, though, that it wouldn't particularly matter who is in office for some people; they actively look for mistakes made by our government or military and then use it to explain precisely why America is run by evil fascists attempting to conquer lesser states and rebuild them in our image.  These are the usually the same people that would openly compare Bush Jr. to Hitler if it wasn't such an obvious tell of their bitter hatred of an individual they know next to nothing about except for what the media has distorted for their puny, fragile minds incapable of nothing but parroting what Alex Jones and Michael Moore tell them to say.  Reread Fahrenheit 451.  Give the minorities and whining extremists what they want and you are left a world without books.

Almost without exception, I cannot stand the Clinton haters.  I'm entirely in agreement with you, stray.

As for you zaph, you might want to take your prepackaged hate to another place and instead pay close attention to what Chief Beatty says to Montag.

We did a serious mindfuck on those guys. Pre and post-war Japan are two HIGHLY different cultures. Oh sure, it's not America Jr. There are regional differences. We certainly accomplished our goal. We came in, we destroyed the existing culture, and we put in place one better suited to our viewpoint.

     So it wasn't meant to insult Haemish in particular, but everyone in general?  And that's better, is it?

    I've read Fahrenheit 451.   I can only assume you listened to the books on tape version read by Rush Limbaugh.   When it comes to fragile minds who parrot misinformation, he is the king.  And you are the pawn.

By early 1812, relations with Great Britain had deteriorated and the Navy began preparing for war, which was declared June 20. Cruising off the Gulf of St. Lawrence on 19 August under the command ofCaptain Isaac Hull, Constitution encountered the Guerriere, , a fast British frigate mounting 49 guns. Twenty minutes later Guerriere was a dismasted hulk, so badly damaged that she was not worth towing to port. Hull had used his heavier broadsides and his ship’s superior sailing ability, while the British, to their astonishment, saw that their shot seemed to rebound harmlessly off Constitution’s hull — giving her the nickname 'Old Ironsides'. It was a dramatic victory for America and for Constitution. In this battle of only half an hour the United States "rose to the rank of a first-class power"; the country was fired with fresh confidence and courage; and union among the States was greatly strengthened.

Still, it's a fairly bad sign when as much as 250,000 Americans find sufficient motivation to walk around on hot streets and raise havoc instead of sit around in front of the TV all day.

Much of new york (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/29/gop.main/index.html) is not happy at the GOP today.   Looks like Jesse Jackson and Moore are being fingered for much of the motivation.  
Still, it's a fairly bad sign when as much as 250,000 Americans find sufficient motivation to walk around on hot streets and raise havoc instead of sit around in front of the TV all day.
So, how big was the protest before the Democratic Party Convention?

<Giant Overreaction>

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the march was peaceful.

"United for Peace and Justice have behaved responsibly, as have most of the marchers," Bloomberg said.

rofl

Anywho, this was a largely peaceful protest.   Only 200 arrests were made, which isn't much considering you can be sure a number of rabble risers would want to join in.

Very impressive for numbers between 100k and 400k, depending on who you ask.

Acting like an overemotional zealot indeed.

You want overemotional zealot, point a finger at our commander in chief.   Him and his buddies would love to start World War 3, the way they're going at it.   Line up all the countries in the world as potential terrorists, and potential terrorists they shall become.  That's not what I call "homeland security."

I highly doubt they surpassed 250k....that's a LOT of people even in a city like NYC.

I'd bet the over on that one.  Good luck getting accurate stats though.