Palau (Who?) to Take in 17 Uighurs

Our local radio opened this to the public and everyone that responded were against the spreading of the danger. To be humanitarian is to be considerate of the tiniest population not equipped to safely keep this highly skilled cowards. Suggestions to my beloved President Obama, it's more humane to protect the world than to worry about how the detainees are handled. Leave Gunatanamo Alone..admit it's not a good idea and move on. V

One needs to be an idiot to support this Marxist.

For $200 million, I'd go to Palau. Who wouldn't?

This action by Obama to dump these terrorist training camp veterans on a tiny nation of 20,000 souls is a TOTAL DISGRACE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TOTAL

DISGRACE

We dump our unwanted garbage by bribing a tiny country that we owe a defense to anyway"?

PATHETIC

TOTAL

DISGRACE

Getting back to the 17 Uighurs, that's approximately $11,800,000 per Chinese Muslim sent to Palau.

Heck, I'll take one (as long as I get to pick which one) if that is the payoff.

"Great news everyone! President Obama has ordered the military to start mirandizing any terrorists they catch on foreign battlefields!"

Will that put the terrorists on the fasttrack for US citizenship? /s

"I guess until terrorists are killing more people than our roads, we should appropriate funds proportionately. Totally logical is a sick twisted way."

Insults and sarcastic hyperbole aside I think a lot of you army guys think that you're the only ones who are protecting our citizens in a meaningful way. Well it's baloney! Our government protects us from many more threats than just foreign militants.

To more directly address the subject of the original post, it seems clear that there is a quid-pro-quo between Palau and the US that does indeed connect the aid money and the taking of the detainees. I'm not opposed to all foreign aid, and think it is an important investment in American defense around the world (not just in the military sense). But to give that much aid to such a tiny, isolated country is ludicrous, given our current economic circumstances.

" Is it really an accident if the person or organization that caused the accident was purposely negligent of existing laws? Isn't that an attempt to overcome [legal] countermeasures?"

Whatever, its the same, you win. 911 should have been ignored and more money spent on speed limit and seat belt enforcement. Why anyone would be upset over 911, who knows. Stupid people I guess. Scrap the DOD, stupid people on the roads need more government involvement.

I guess until terrorists are killing more people than our roads, we should appropriate funds proportionately. Totally logical is a sick twisted way.

Oh and since not very many people are murdered, we should downsize our prisons until the number of people murdered reaches the level of fatalities on the road.

Yup, no moral equivelance rationale here.

You're evaluating danger based on culpability. Is it really an accident if the person or organization that caused the accident was purposely negligent of existing laws? Isn't that an attempt to overcome [legal] countermeasures?

Not to mention, what government program out there can prevent stupid people from doing stupid things? Even with laws and regulations in place, people do stupid things or don't adhere to them.

I guess we are going to regulate and tax the air we breathe, might as well regulate stupidity.

"It has nothing to do with morality. It's about objectively evaluating risk to the public."

You cannot equate the prevention of accidents to the prevention of an deliberate attack. One is designed to overcome countermeasures, the other is not. One is calculated and planned, the other is not. One is malice, the other irresponsibility.

Then equate funding needs for each based on risk. That is (and I am trying really really hard not to result to name calling) against rational logic.

"Cannot believe anyone has this moral equivelancy arguement. I'm done, I can't take it anymore."

It has nothing to do with morality. It's about objectively evaluating risk to the public.

"FAA, EPA, FDA, etc etc... Do you really want a compete list?"

What? What is the equate again? You are putting the role of the EPA, or FAA, or whatever, as a comparable role to the DOD?

So wait a minute, public safety regulators.... what the hell are we talking about??

Terrorists, of foreign lands, want to attack and kill Americans, for which the DOD has the role and responsibility to tackle... compared to...

the FDA who ensures our food is safe through inspection and regulation? How the @#%#$% is this simular?

The whole point of it is this..

ONE IS AN ATTACK
the other..
AN ACCIDENT or NEGLIGENCE.

Cannot believe anyone has this moral equivelancy arguement. I'm done, I can't take it anymore.

Is that $200 million per year or ???

FAA, EPA, FDA, etc etc... Do you really want a compete list?

"Do we have government programs/agencies to prevent or reduce a threat to its people?"

OSHA?

"(paying out millions to build intricate machines that are literally blown up; paying highly trained men to literally walk in circles all day; etc.). If you want to blow money,"

I'm sorry you have that perspective of our military. Most of the world's great leaders knew that, if you desire peace then prepare for war, from Rome to our own founding fathers, to Presidents in the cold war. It is also one of the key elements that gives our nation "super-power" status. It is also what makes our diplomats influential, like it or not. The second half of that is our immense economic power, however that economic power would be vulnerable without the military power beside it.

And I'll have to disagree too in that the workforce that the military both creates and helps. Most people with a degree or high school diploma have no experience, making it difficult getting that first job. Those who join the military get experience (through literally hundreds of different types of work), as well as leadership qualities and discipline, both attributes employers look for. Not to mention the nature of a highly technical defense structure, the thousands of scientists and engineers that innovate new technologies that often translate to the public sector.

Alchemist, are you in the health care field yourself? One of my dear friends is a doctor, and she is not happy about the requirement to shift to electronic records. Yes, in hospitals, they can prevent tragic mistakes. Yes, they are not inherently evil. But as usual, this "one size fits all" approach is not as simple as it seems.

My doctor pal says her practice will make the switch because they must "or else we don't get paid." However, she worried about training her staff adequately so that mistakes are not made in this system-- it is not foolproof you know and mistakes in an electronic system are often harder to weed out than those in a paper system. She pointed out that all information must be encoded and that some info that does not easily reduce to "yes" or "no" or a simple short description will be lost because doctors will stick to the templates and protocols provided.

Also, she cited surveys and anecdotal evidence that doctors using electronic systems are less likely to spend as much time interacting with their patients, because they are busy inputting data and focusing on the computer screen; she sees this as another step toward depersonalizing medical care. My own experiences of late seem to bear that out-- one of my specialists has begun using electronic records and during a recent visit, the nurse and the doctor both spent more time interacting with their medical screen than they did with me. I mentioned, jokingly, to the physician that he had not been on the same side of the room that I was on for the entire visit, and he replied, quite seriously, "All the information I need is on this screen, so I didn't need to come over to the exam table." Yikes!

Technology like electronic medical records usually has an up side and a down side. I appreciate that my records could be easily sent from one place to another if, for example, I were injured away from home. I appreciate that busy hospitals need to be careful about mix-ups and like the regularity of electronic records. However, I also appreciate that electronic records are still subject to human error and are not the be-all and end-all.

KR can disagree with you without being a neanderthal, you know. As can I.

" We don't have a threat on par with Communism any more"

Again, defense structure should be based on requirements, not on threats.

Take the Navy for example. Just being a counter to the Russian fleet wasn't their most important purpose. The Navy has existed for the express purpose of keeping our sea lanes of trade secure (also travel years ago). So while there are traditional threats, such as the reconstitution of the Russian Navy, China pursuing a blue water Navy, there are also asymetrical threats such as piracy and illicit trafficking of drugs, persons, and arms. This is just an example but the defense picture is connected and overlaps all elements of national power, from Diplomatic, Information, and Economic.

So before you can take a stance of cutting defense, you have to decide what requirements are dropped. It is simply too much to ask of a limited military to keep the same requirements and cut spending. Clinton did that and I unfortunately suffered through it.