No, if the general citizenry is at risk and feels a need to be prepared for such an event, common sense dictates they get prepared for such an event.

Since the threat is there, the prudent person would prepare for it. The idiot-hand-wringing-kool-aid drinker would question the policy, which does nothing to prepare him for what can happen...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

You're ex-military. Of all people you should be aware of the historical inability of conventional military forces to defeat guerrilla resistance without totally dominating the entire population supporting that resistance. The US obviously doesn't have that capability and as long as we continue our decades old policy of supporting ME special interests by misusing our military to stomp on parts of the ME population while attempting to keep the USD the dominant world currency with fiscal irresponsibility we're playing a loser's hand. If that's your plan, be prepared to eventually lose lots of blood and our economic strength. The opposition to our policies aren't going to be satisfied for long by maiming and killing our military and their citizenry on their turf. It sounds like you and your family are also in a potential target area, but that doesn't seem to bother you as long as the government keeps warning you of that potential they're unable to resolve.

Preparing a civilian population for someone trying to kill them in an event(s) that can't be avoided is a fool's errand; victim philosophy. The only effective preparedness is to evade or remove the potential threat. Since a majority of the US resides in densely populated metropolitan areas, evasion isn't an option for targeted victims and all we seem to be doing as a nation is increasing the potential threat level rather than lessening or removing it.

How odd.

Something is going to happen; somewhere, sometime.

How is preparing the population for that a "fool's errand"?

Why are you so against people being prepared for disaster?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I'm not. I just think it's a waste of money for this type of potential event. Those with common sense who stay informed will be as well prepared as possible without a government sponsored warning while the majority won't even with a warning. The propaganda is for those who survive so they can say the government did good; they were all warned. Which does nothing for the victims or resolve the still existing problem.

I just don't see a problem with it. It's no different than telling people they should be prepared for any other kind of emergency.

Some people aren't prepared for natural disasters, but just might be spurred to prepare for a terrorist attack. They would then be prepared.

You just seem to have a problem with the means to get people prepared, and that's silly...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

manufacturing fear is a good political strategy. For the most part it probably won't help much in the event of a real disaster, other than making sure you've got a few supplies - whch would be useful in a number of situations.

But it makes the powers that be look like they're doing the right thing.

Is your position, then, that it's a bad thing that the government tells people they should be prepared?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Well ... the last major disaster that happened around here was .... hmmm ... World War II I guess. To a certain extent it's perfectly OK and sensible to prepare for some kinds of disasters that may happen. Having a first aid kid around, smoke detectors, a fire extinguisher, a flashlight, having some water and food in store and some other things. If you live in a dangerous area where floodings, storms, earthquakes or whatever are more likely to happen ... I guess you are well advised to make some more preparations.

But those "end of the world" preparations seem a bit silly. And I guess the safety hysteria over the possibility of danger due to terrorism falls into the same category, at least for most people.

The scary thing is that, in all probability, you're serious...

First, nobody has suggested there are "end of the world" preparations.

But I'm fucking stunned.

"Silly to be prepared".

Stunning...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Steve, try reading full sentences and put them into the context.

But YES, it is silly to prepare for all kinds or thinkable disaster, no matter how unlikely they may happen: Sensible preparations -> wise, hysteria -> silly.

Yes, you are probably the safest person in the world when you live in a nuclear blast-proof bunker, filled with Duct tape, but it's still silly.

I don't think being forewarned is a bad thing, however I would prefer to see governments act to protect their citizens. After all - whats the point of having governments if they don't do that - and if government policies actually work the other way - making ordinary citizens MORE LIKELY to be targets of terrorism?

I'm also wondering how prepared you need to be? What supplies do you need? considering we should all drink 2 litres of water per day, and we need to eat a certain minimum amount to stay healthy, considering a lot of the effects of terrorist attack are going to be way beyond the average first aid kit's capacity .... what exactly does 'being prepared' mean?

I've been through a couple of electricity blackouts that lasted a few days. In one case, since we relied on an electric pump to supply running water in the house this was greatly inconvenient. 'Being prepared' could have meant having several dozen buckets and all utensils not needed for cooking filled with water. Although this would hardly be practical.

Friends in Baghdad during the 91 Gulf war needed to go down to the river to get water (a risky business) - I know before the invasion this time they had stocked up with bottled water, and tinned foods - but for a family you need a lot if its going to last for more than a few days.

I just think most of this 'be prepared' stuff is cosmetic and wouldn't offer much defence against real catastrophe on a grand scale.

And quite frankly if I look at how the US handled Katrina, I don't think that a few bottles of water and some tinned food, along with a torch, batteries, flashlight and a few other essentials is going to be enough to offer more than an illusion that you can hold out 'until help arrives' if a full scale attack is launched against a city.

sorry - but thats the way I see it.

I think all this 'be prepared' stuff is fine for boy scouts - but I'd rather see a government be proactive in reducing threat to its citizens. Otherwise I don't see what the point of government is.

I'll have to assume that you live somewhere which provides you immunity from disaster. Frankly, I'm unaware of such a place.

No one has suggested bunkers and duct tape. You keep leaning towards that degree of preparation, and it makes you look silly.

Tell ya' what: Don't prepare. Don't do a thing...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I hate to belabor the obvious, but your sentence above makes no sense. I gotta' ask: If there's no electricity, how do you get water from an electric pump?

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

That's been my point throughout this thread. The average prepared family in a cookie cutter suburban neighborhood 'might' have enough food/water to last what, maybe a couple of days without utilities or transportation ability to replenish basic necessities? By then they'd be at each others throats and looking for someone, anyone to blame for their plight.
For US public reaction to a true disaster, one only has to review the aftermath of Katrina.

Rather than cheering expensive commercials paid for with their own money warning them of potential attacks, which is basically government stating we can't protect you from our history of mistakes, why aren't they asking their government why it put them in a position of being attacked and why the problem hasn't been resolved? Mind dead, order following sheep is the only logical explanation.