Critics call for trains to be rerouted from urban areas

[Anonymous]

Folks, can we stop being so

Getting back on topic, you can forget about doing that in Sacramento, CA. The main lines through the city don't have any alternatives to avoid any densely populated areas.

That's probably true in most US cities - not enough practical space to construct a decent rail bypass.

Ergo, there's really no localized railroad reroute solution in preventing a possible terror attack on a chemical train passing through a city beyond normal precautionary measures.  What can be done though is the idea of not letting a terror attack in one locale causing economic disruption elsewhere via a long term blockage of a vital transportation artery.  That's why a rail network security plan should focus on dispersed redundancy, aka keeping alternative routes up and running for overflow from the disrupted segment.  There's a lot of bottlenecks in our rail system nationwide that, if they are taken out of service for extended periods of time, could cause greater economic damage than the initial terror attack itself.  Most of these are a creation of railroad consolidation that eliminated "redundant" lines which were a sufficient distance away:

Spokane WA - loss of Milwaukee line 20 miles south, loss of UP branch network east and south

Sandpoint ID - loss of GN line west of Newport WA, Milwaukee line via St. Maries

Pocatello ID - loss of Modoc line in CA/NV, loss of UP line from Twin Falls ID to Wells NV

Billings MT - loss of Milwaukee line through Roundup

Shelby MT - loss of Great Falls-Havre line, loss of GF-Helena line

There's probably more out there, I'm only familiar with northwest lines.

 

[Anonymous]

FM
I do not agree with your definition of civil war. SOOOO I went to Wikipedia and I do agree with their definition.

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center,or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.^[1]

^{Sure looks like Iraq is in civil war.}

Then by that same definition the "Civil War" (aka the War Between the States) was not a civil war, since that was a case of the Union trying to bring the Secessionists back into the fold.  The Confederacy considered itself a separate nation after secession.

No problem - time to get back on topic.

[SactoGuy188]

Folks, can we stop being so

Getting back on topic, you can forget about doing that in Sacramento, CA. The main lines through the city don't have any alternatives to avoid any densely populated areas.

 

[solzrules]

FM
I do not agree with your definition of civil war. SOOOO I went to Wikipedia and I do agree with their definition.

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.^[1]

 

^{Sure looks like Iraq is in civil war.}

A few questions in this arena:

Where is the political center of Iraq?  Baghdad?  (Logical answer, right?)  Well, the insurgent attacks at this point are aimed at civillians.  The general idea behind it is to de-stabilize the government to the point where it can be overthrown and an Islamic state based on Sharia law can be declared.  This will not happen as long as the US is present.  The US is currently preventing a full civil war between the warring factions by being in the country.  Certainly I wouldn't try to defend the claim that there is no civil war present, but rather I would state that if the US withrew you would see a real civil war - organized armies fighting each other at will.  Foreign countries would chose sides (much as the French and the Brits did during our civil war) and each side would be in an all-out battle for supremacy. 

If the argument is that the US should withdraw because the US is causing mass civilian casualties then I would suggest those who subscribe to this idea are fools.  If the US withdrew now you would see more casualties then you ever thought possible.  Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Israel, and a few others would begin battle royale.  The battle would be over who controls Iraq. 

If the argument is that the US should withdraw because we are in a situation were the Iraqis are not willing to do what it takes to control their country, then your argument has merit.  We cannot force democracy on a country.  Iraq's history of constant tribal warfare cannot be overlooked.  Saddam was a nutcase, but he did maintain control over the warring tribes by intimidation.  It is in this arena that the current administration's weak policies have troubled me.  We cannot commit to an indefinite war in Iraq.  The clock is definitely ticking with regards to Iraqi self-governance, what ever form that may take. 

[spokyone]

FM
I do not agree with your definition of civil war. SOOOO I went to Wikipedia and I do agree with their definition.

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center,or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.^[1]

 

^{Sure looks like Iraq is in civil war.}

[Anonymous]

If the Iraqis are so big on democracy, why are they currently engaged in a civil war in which the armed forces of the United States are needlessly stuck in the middle of?  After all, it's their country and we're just a bunch of damned foreigners to them.

That's the liberal press spin.  It's not a civil war, it is a case of long standing vengence campaign between the three major groups there for control of the country, aided and abetted by Iran and Syria.  No one is trying to break away to form a new country, which is what a civil war would be about.

I believe we are there because we have other business in the Persian Gulf that will eventually need to be addressed if certain threats remain poised.  That doesn't mean I am in favor of nation building as opposed to a scorched earth policy of destruction and departure.  The State Department and the CIA have a policy of not leaving a power vacuum after the initial military victory.  I say perhaps we should just leave the vacuum in place and see what happens, and if we don't like the looks of that regime, we wipe them out again until they get it right.  At least that way our soldiers are not left to babysit in an attempt to attain stability.

But of course that way is not politically correct for the more spineless members of NATO and the UN, so we have to choose between nation building or premature departure aka defeat aka Vietnam.  Given those choices, I'll stick with a policy of victory, and you can stick with the policy of defeat.

[Datafever]

Ummm... Because there is a minority of Iraqis that don't want a democracy???

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

If the Iraqis are so big on democracy, why are they currently engaged in a civil war in which the armed forces of the United States are needlessly stuck in the middle of?  After all, it's their country and we're just a bunch of damned foreigners to them.

[Anonymous]

It appears that several postings on this thread suggest that anything less than blind loyalty and obedience to the whims of the current inhabitant of the Executive Mansion constitutes treason.  It should be pointed out that once you look beyond the Second World War, there was an appreciable amount of dissent to the wars in which the United States was involved.  The outlawing of dissent is not a practice to be condoned in a democracy.

The so-called "war on terrorism", as defined and practiced by the President of the United States and his supporters, is both eternal and unwinnable short of the mass extermination attempted in The Final Solution.  Violent extremists of all stripes (IRA, ETA, Ku Klux Klan, Al Qaeda, etc.) have been around for a long time and will continue to exist as long as somebody has a complaint or grudge and is willing to act upon it.  Terrorist acts are acts of intolerance and desparation, there isn't much that can be reasonably done to prevent them short of totalitarianism.

Also keep in mind that, by definition, democracy is not a concept that can be imposed on people by somebody else.  If the Iraqis prefer tribalism and authoritarian government of various sorts, there isn't too much that the United States or anybody else can do about it.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said here, just that I don't believe that getting folks in line during a war effort necessarily means we're talking about "blind loyalty".  Just keep the dissent within judicious parameters, not blared out over the world press for all the terrorists to read and become encouraged even more.

Nothing makes the day so perfect for a hate mongering terrorist than to wake up and read the "dissent" as reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, et al as he/she contemplates the possibilities of success or failure of his/her campaign of destruction.  This war would have been over a long time ago if Bush had taken a harder stand on seditious acts.  He was a fool to believe that certain Democrats would put their country ahead of their party. 

You have to be able to understand how the terror networks manipulate the US press to their advantage.  All terror acts are engaged in for the purpose of maximizing press coverage.  In fact, if not for pro-terrorist news coverage, they'd have nothing with which to fight their doomed battles.  It is the US news networks that have kept them alive and kicking.  Otherwise, these guys are all dead enders.

BTW - if polls are to be believed, then a vast majority of Iraqis favor democracy.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It appears that several postings on this thread suggest that anything less than blind loyalty and obedience to the whims of the current inhabitant of the Executive Mansion constitutes treason.  It should be pointed out that once you look beyond the Second World War, there was an appreciable amount of dissent to the wars in which the United States was involved.  The outlawing of dissent is not a practice to be condoned in a democracy.

The so-called "war on terrorism", as defined and practiced by the President of the United States and his supporters, is both eternal and unwinnable short of the mass extermination attempted in The Final Solution.  Violent extremists of all stripes (IRA, ETA, Ku Klux Klan, Al Qaeda, etc.) have been around for a long time and will continue to exist as long as somebody has a complaint or grudge and is willing to act upon it.  Terrorist acts are acts of intolerance and desparation, there isn't much that can be reasonably done to prevent them short of totalitarianism.

Also keep in mind that, by definition, democracy is not a concept that can be imposed on people by somebody else.  If the Iraqis prefer tribalism and authoritarian government of various sorts, there isn't too much that the United States or anybody else can do about it.

[Andrew Falconer]

That will require all urban areas to be entirely rebuilt. That will be expensive. Perhaps this is a sneaky effort at making everything pretty. These government people probably think that trains are too ugly and dangerous to ever be around 'normal' people.

Andrew

[jimrice4449]

In regards to the separation of powers:

Congress has the power to declare war, provide funding (but for only 2 yrs or less), and establish regulations for the governance of the armed forces.   (And also to issue letters of marque which is a dead issue since privateers are no longer a military issue)   See Art.1,sect 8. The president is Comander in Chief.   See Art.2, Sect. 2                                                      For examples of treasonable congressional usurpation of powers delegated to the President by the Constitution see the Congress of 1975 withholding funding (sound currently familiar?) for military operations, enacting legislative prohibitions on military action and canceling financial and materiale support of the S Vietnameese govt thereby rendering futile the deaths of 50,000 Americans                                                                                                                 The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they made 1 person, rather than 535 fractuous, partisan, frequently venal politicians responsible for the actual conduct of war once it's been declared.

[Anonymous]

Quote :

"Bush's biggest failing is that he does not recognize the enemy within, those who continually undermine the victory effort, those who continually stab our troops in the back.  There's plenty of traitors within the halls of Congress, and Bush's failure to deal with them has caused a perception of failure abroad."

 

....and exactly how should a U.S President "deal with them"?

The easiest way to "deal with them" is to simply call them out on it via the bully pulpit - expose these folks to the American public for what they are.  The next step is to go Abe Lincoln on them and suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus during a time of war.  There are also laws against sedition on the books that could be used to keep dissent from morphing into the very things that are simultaneously discouraging our troops while aiding and abetting the enemy.

Don't forget - the Constitution is not a suicide pact.  We are under no obligation to endure acts and words that may threaten this nation's very existence.

Wasn't it Roosevelt who coined the phrase "Loose lips sink ships"?

[carnej1]

Quote :

"Bush's biggest failing is that he does not recognize the enemy within, those who continually undermine the victory effort, those who continually stab our troops in the back.  There's plenty of traitors within the halls of Congress, and Bush's failure to deal with them has caused a perception of failure abroad."

 

....and exactly how should a U.S President "deal with them"?

 

[SALfan]

.but NOOOOOO, poor ol' AG is engendered with an unholy obsession of the DM&E....

Futuremodal, talking about someone else having an unholy obsession about a railroad?  ROTFLMAO, in convulsions.  If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is the poster boy.

[SALfan]

If you are going to worry about terrorists driving a truck into a metropolitan area and then exploding it, well, the terrorists would have to be able to procure the hazmat first.  If a train is trundling through a metropolitan area, the bad guys only have to figure out how to cause extreme damage - they don't need to procure the hazmat because it is already where they want it.

So, trucks don't haul LP gas?  Dynamite? Chlorine? Anydrous ammonia? Many, many other hazardous chemicals or substances?  All a terrorist has to do is steal the right truck.

[Anonymous]

"Traitors within" Congress? 

Apparently Futuremodal has never read the Constitution,

which established separation of powers between the

Executive and Legislative branches of government. 

Or perhaps he rejects the concept of informed dissent

from the citizenry and its representatives in Washington.

 

But then, again, he believes we can impose democracy

on a society where fierce tribal and sectarian loyalties predominate,

whose language and culture are poorly understood if at all by

America.    He also fails to grasp that the spread of democracy

in the Arab and Persian Middle East, by replacing the regimes

in Baghdad, Riyadh, Damascus and Cairo, may not give us the democracy

WE want, but instead facilitates the rise of a hostile Islamic state governed

by the rigid dictates of Sharia. 

 

Of course, I thought the whole philosophy behind

the invasion of Iraq was the threat of WMDs. 

 

Dave 

 

[Yep, there it is all in one post.  Folks who support the idea of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East via the removal of dictators and hate mongers, such are labeled "imbeciles" by dsktc.  If you're not willing to accept the fact that such hatred cannnot be bargained with, cannot be reasoned with, cannot be appeased, only confronted head on, then you live in a pollyanna world.  And if history is any lesson, folks whose creed is such pollyannaism tend to go extinct.

So, what we do is to kill the hatemongers, and nuture those who long for freedom.  That's the whole philosophy behind the Iraq campaign.  Problem is, it can only work with majority support at home.

Bush's biggest failing is that he does not recognize the enemy within, those who continually undermine the victory effort, those who continually stab our troops in the back.  There's plenty of traitors within the halls of Congress, and Bush's failure to deal with them has caused a perception of failure abroad.

[Anonymous]

If you believe that 10,000, 100,000 or a million Islamic terrorists threaten America's survival and the existence of western civilization, then you are deluding yourself and neither understand the history of this country nor its foundation on the rule of law.  Indeed, your comments suggest the gratuitous fear and ignorance of a Chicken Little for whom the sky is raining terrorists over America.

Like the poor, the angry, disenchanted and evil Islamic terrorists shall be with us for generations to come.  The western industrial democracies shall fight them with good Intelligence, coordinated police work and military action, covert and otherwise.

Dave

Then both of you are imbeciles.

Dave 

Great idea.  We could invade a Middle Eastern country.

But we've already done that.

Dave

Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. 

Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this.  We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! 

Just a thought from yours truly. 

I agree with FM.  Maybe if we invaded a few more and actually conducted the invasion as a war and not a police action we wouldn't need to worry about things like this. 

Perhaps Babs could lead the charge in a stretched, pimped-out tank. 

Paris could bring up the rear and scare anyone who may think of a sneak attack.

It's so sad that there are folks like dsktc who would rather drop their pants for their eventual Islamo-fascist overlords than actually to something proactive about the threat to our way of life.  We're in the fight for our country's survival, indeed the survival of the Judeo-Christian Western World, what is so hard to understand about that? 

Oh that's right, I forgot.  When "feelgoodism" is your religion, all you have to do is close your eyes, tap your red slippers together three times, and say "There's no place like home".  Then the big bad terrorists will simply disappear as we all sing "We Are the World"........

Yep, there it is all in one post.  Folks who support the idea of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East via the removal of dictators and hate mongers, such are labeled "imbeciles" by dsktc.  If you're not willing to accept the fact that such hatred cannnot be bargained with, cannot be reasoned with, cannot be appeased, only confronted head on, then you live in a pollyanna world.  And if history is any lesson, folks whose creed is such pollyannaism tend to go extinct.

So, what we do is to kill the hatemongers, and nuture those who long for freedom.  That's the whole philosophy behind the Iraq campaign.  Problem is, it can only work with majority support at home.

Bush's biggest failing is that he does not recognize the enemy within, those who continually undermine the victory effort, those who continually stab our troops in the back.  There's plenty of traitors within the halls of Congress, and Bush's failure to deal with them has caused a perception of failure abroad.

[solzrules]

Indeed, your comments

suggest the gratuitious fear and ignorance of a Chicken Little

for whom the sky is raining terrorists over America.

I rather likened the comments of some of those on this thread to the "lynch mob" mentality.  Hang 'em first, and ask questions later.

But I suppose that if some see a benefit to going back to the ways of the uncivilized "Wild West"... 

Yes because their 'merciful' beheadings on international TV are far more civilized.  I am the last person to advocate war, in part because I know better than most how horrible it is.  But finally you have to understand that there will be evil people in the world who seek to kill to gain power.  I know some just hope that we will evolve past that, but it isn't ever going to happen.  There will never be a war that ends all wars.  It would be great if there was, but it isn't going to happen.  When we are attacked and our fellow countrymen are dying because of the fact they are Americans that should turn a few heads.  That is why we are going after them now. 

Or, we could always plead with them to accept out apologies for buying their oil.  We could promise to never interrupt their dictatorships when they gas their own citizens.  We could all get together and give each other kisses and pat ourselves on the back and say we are all so really really good for the world. 

Fanciful dreams, really.

[solzrules]

If you believe that 10,000, 100,000 or a million Islamic

terrorists threaten America's survival and the existence

of western civilization, then you are deluding yourself

and neither understand the history of this country nor

its foundation on the rule of law.  Indeed, your comments

suggest the gratuitous fear and ignorance of a Chicken Little

for whom the sky is raining terrorists over America.

What's your point?  When did the history of this country spell out how we are to deal with terrorism?  I would agree with you, except for the fact that people have been dying from terrorism in this country since the WTC attacks in 1993.  Maybe Billy-Bob didn't think it was a big deal, but then again he wasn't the one that got killed. 

Like the poor, the angry, disenchanted and evil Islamic terrorists

shall be with us for generations to come.  The western industrial

democracies shall fight them with good Intelligence, coordinated

police work and military action, covert and otherwise.

Dave

Why not have it out and decide now instead of a long protracted battle that will take the lives of our children and our children's children?  Again, the analogies to Hitler are amazing.  We could have 'contained' him, much the same as Billy-Bob contained Saddam, and I suppose to the uninformed it may seem like a good idea.  But when people are going through wood-chippers and he is gassing his own citizens I think there comes a time when we need to take action to protect ourselves.  Americans can be gassed just as easily, you know.  We aren't indestructible. 

 

[wallyworld]

Yes Virginia...there is a Santa Claus. I am still waiting for the tooth fairy. My dad was in the Tank Destroyer Corps and was onboard a ship headed toward Japan as part of first wave in Operation Olympic when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Decades later, it was found that the Japanese knew the location of the landing sites, etc. It is reasonable to conclude that based on the estimates of the loss of life, if the bomb had not been dropped, I would not exist. I was born during the Korean War, went through the absurd grammar school drills of hiding under a desk, the Cuban Missle Crisis, Viet Nam, fill in the blank....a permanent state of war has been woven through the fabric of my life whether justified or not. Long after I am in the ground, there will be other wars, more rhetoric, more veterans struggling with post war lives...and all the king's men cannot put humpty dumpty together again.  

[yippinyahoo]

Like the poor, the angry, disenchanted and evil Islamic terrorists

shall be with us for generations to come.  The western industrial

democracies shall fight them with good Intelligence, coordinated

police work and military action, covert and otherwise.

Dave

 

...or we could train & build up the weaker side (Shia), turn them against themselves (Sunni vs Shia) and let them destroy each other so that their attention is no longer on the big bad West...but that'll never happen....

[Datafever]

Indeed, your comments

suggest the gratuitious fear and ignorance of a Chicken Little

for whom the sky is raining terrorists over America.

I rather likened the comments of some of those on this thread to the "lynch mob" mentality.  Hang 'em first, and ask questions later.

But I suppose that if some see a benefit to going back to the ways of the uncivilized "Wild West"... 

[carnej1]

 On the brighter side of things, after the Islamo-fascists invade and appoint Streisand Queen (or "Shah-ess") maybe they'll establish an open access rail freight system....................

[Anonymous]

If you believe that 10,000, 100,000 or a million Islamic

terrorists threaten America's survival and the existence

of western civilization, then you are deluding yourself

and neither understand the history of this country nor

its foundation on the rule of law.  Indeed, your comments

suggest the gratuitous fear and ignorance of a Chicken Little

for whom the sky is raining terrorists over America.

 

Like the poor, the angry, disenchanted and evil Islamic terrorists

shall be with us for generations to come.  The western industrial

democracies shall fight them with good Intelligence, coordinated

police work and military action, covert and otherwise.

Dave

 

Then both of you are imbeciles.

Dave 

Great idea.  We could invade a Middle Eastern country.

But we've already done that.

Dave

Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. 

Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this.  We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! 

Just a thought from yours truly. 

I agree with FM.  Maybe if we invaded a few more and actually conducted the invasion as a war and not a police action we wouldn't need to worry about things like this. 

Perhaps Babs could lead the charge in a stretched, pimped-out tank. 

Paris could bring up the rear and scare anyone who may think of a sneak attack.

It's so sad that there are folks like dsktc who would rather drop their pants for their eventual Islamo-fascist overlords than actually to something proactive about the threat to our way of life.  We're in the fight for our country's survival, indeed the survival of the Judeo-Christian Western World, what is so hard to understand about that? 

Oh that's right, I forgot.  When "feelgoodism" is your religion, all you have to do is close your eyes, tap your red slippers together three times, and say "There's no place like home".  Then the big bad terrorists will simply disappear as we all sing "We Are the World"........

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It would also be interesting to see what FM would propose to deal with domestic terrorists such as the characters who bombed the Murrah Federal Building.

[Datafever]

So what are you actually proposing, futuremodal?

There are terrorist groups in over 50 countries around the world.  And in only a small handful of cases are those terrorist groups being helped by the government.  What good does it do to wipe out a pro-USA country in a fruitless attempt to knock off a small number of terrorists?

And better yet, at what point do WE become the world's largest terrorist group? 

[Anonymous]

Firstly it would be a Logistics nightmare. Secondly the cities were built up around the trains, stations, and yards not vice-versa!

[Anonymous]

Then both of you are imbeciles.

Dave 

Great idea.  We could invade a Middle Eastern country.

But we've already done that.

Dave

Here's a novel idea, stop me if you've heard it, but let's say we kill the pricks before they have the chance to blow up a cyanide tank car or truck. 

Now I realize this may involve some proactive decisions, but I am confident that if we kill the terrorists before they kill us we won't have to worry about any of this.  We could hold a Barbra Streisand concert in the middle of Houston with a million tanker cars all around have the greatest day of our lives! 

Just a thought from yours truly. 

I agree with FM.  Maybe if we invaded a few more and actually conducted the invasion as a war and not a police action we wouldn't need to worry about things like this. 

Perhaps Babs could lead the charge in a stretched, pimped-out tank. 

Paris could bring up the rear and scare anyone who may think of a sneak attack.

It's so sad that there are folks like dsktc who would rather drop their pants for their eventual Islamo-fascist overlords than actually to something proactive about the threat to our way of life.  We're in the fight for our country's survival, indeed the survival of the Judeo-Christian Western World, what is so hard to understand about that? 

Oh that's right, I forgot.  When "feelgoodism" is your religion, all you have to do is close your eyes, tap your red slippers together three times, and say "There's no place like home".  Then the big bad terrorists will simply disappear as we all sing "We Are the World"........