O.K.,

I've been monitoring this board and contributing to it for well over a year. I've hesitated about posting the following, but the time has come.

Have any of you considered the idea that by cautioning the American public to prepare for more than "three days," the United States would be sending a message that we are a weak squirrel that can be easily crippled because of our weakness?

Hello? Anybody out there who understands global politics? Hello?

-- Aunt Bea (not@in.Mayberry), December 02, 1999

Answers

I think that the thoughtful individual is one thing that makes the United States powerful. If we were to all be prepared, it would make it harder for for those who want to attack an unprepared people.

-- Reporter (reporter_atlarge@hotmail.com), December 02, 1999.

Kind of hate to upset you, but our weaknesses are absolutely no secret to our enemies. If you read enough military analysts reports, from whatever source is your favorite (conservative or liberal), you will soon find acknowledgement that Russia/China and the rest already know we're "a weak squirrel" in many ways ---- only American citizens have been fooled.

In "The Andy Griffith Show" Aunt Bea was always sweet but not overly bright(no offense intended).

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), December 02, 1999.

Hanoni Hannah, the three days, speak more than you know.Call to Arms!

-- Call To Arms (Fool in @ourmist.com), December 02, 1999.

Yes, I am a lot like Aunt Bea, (all of the positive qualities--none of the negative) and I am not a troll.

Think. Think.

What is the message that America must send to those who would seek to harm us?

Strength.

That is the only underlying motive that might remotely explain the "three day storm" message.

Further, it is the only message that would have credence if things go "south."

Think. Think.

I'm not as dumb as you might imagine.

-- Aunt Bea (not@in.Mayberry), December 02, 1999.

Me and Opie are not hollering at you from "Troll land."

Me thinks I must try this question on another thread, or privately with those who understand the point.

Too many new names. If you knew me, you would trust me. I shall move on.

-- Aunt Bea (not@or.nearMayberry), December 02, 1999.

Note: Someone appeared to be trolling here, and calling others trolls. (Not any more).

A prepared people can withstand more than a weakened people, Aunt Bea. Keep the pantry's full.

Better strategy.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 02, 1999.

Most people CANNOT handle the truth, and TPTB/governments know it. That is unfortunate for those of us who have a little more "tolerance" for it. But, hey, we're a minority, so tough titties (TT). The U.S. federal, state, local governments, and those of the rest of the world CANNOT protect their citizenry against a dedicated attack or system wide meltdown. The governments know this, but the sheeple don't. For the government to admit to more than the possibility of a "three day inconvenience" is to admit to the sheeple the truth, that they (gov) can't protect them (sheeple). Perhaps the government fears that if they tell the truth the sheeple might start thinking "what do we need those bozos (government) for?" and get uppity. Personally, I think the government's concern that the sheeple will possibly wake up is of insignificant probability.

-- A (A@AisA.com), December 03, 1999.

WELL DUH, BEA. sure, let's look good to the rest of the world by telling 'em we only need three days of supplies but it sure isn't going to take long for the other countries to see the chaos once Jan 1 and beyond hits.

a better deal would be to say up front to prepare "in the event" and possibly limit how much chaos has to take place after the fact.

-- tt (cuddluppy@nowhere.com), December 03, 1999.

Hi Aunt Bea, thanks for the post. You're quite right, it's just not good politics to announce unpreparadness. Look at Japan, their Prime Minister is in a world of hurt after doing so.

But... er, so what? If there's no problem, fine, applause to Clinton and Co. for keeping a lid on unnecessary worry.

But if there is a hiccup in the food chain, a lot of people are going to go hungry. If the water goes for a week, or the food goes for longer than that, people are going to die.

"People" includes your DGI friends and relatives. How many of them would you watch starve for the sake of America's pride?

We don't know yet either way. Which means the politicians are gambling. And remember, they don't have a good track record in dealing with "geek stuff".

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), December 03, 1999.

bea, time to get out of the either/or box.

A year ago Clinton could have made a speech and said: "Our number one priority as a nation is to lead the world in preparation for potential Y2K disruptions."

Now does that suggest national weakness? No way.

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), December 03, 1999.

Let's see if I have this straight, Aunt Bea....let's not tell the Russkies, chinese, etc...that we have some "problems" in the Y2K scenario by not telling our people to prepare...What do we gain strategically?

1. If they have no intelligence whatsoever, there is always the internet filled with information that requires no "network" of savvy intelligence experts to decipher.

2. If we lie to our people, they remain unprepared, thus fulfilling the probability of our being unprepared and therefore "weak" to the enemy...in this scenario, one might wonder just "who" the enemy is? Perhaps the folks in government who are lying and keeping us weak??

3. If we tell our people to prepare, with enough advance time (which we had), say, a couple of YEARS in advance...then we were at full strength and our folks are prepared for shortages and we can devote our resources to bolstering the "weak" areas that might cause others to assault us at critical rollover....naw that would have made too much sense....After all, it is difficult albeit impossible to PANIC an entire population YEARS in advance of something.

Nope, I think you need to rethink your global perspectives, Aunt Bea...makes no sense to me at any level at all.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), December 03, 1999.

Hello Aunt Bea?

Remember Chernobyl?

The Russkies and Chinese are TOAST.

Water and food are the things you should concern yourself with.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 03, 1999.

-- kk (d@k.n), December 07, 1999.