I formulated my "best" argument against the war on terrorism was when I equated it with the "war" on spam. As everyone knows, spam takes on several different forms. The most familiar of course is spam email. Spam instant messages or Internet pop ups are not uncommon either.
X amount of dollars are poured into combating spam, yet it still comes through. On that note, you could say X amount of money gets poured into the Department of Homeland Security to weed out the next terror attack. It will still be in a reactive mode when it happens. It's not a question of if. "No peace in our time" while bin Laden wannabes go free.
How can we determine the adequate amount of money to produce a desired result? What is that result? A sense of security? How much is too much? How much was wasted on futile leads?
Posted by Michael at March 3, 2004 07:19 PM