Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO the "war on terror" is not in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a waste of time,lives and money. All of our resources should be directed at strengthening our domestic security and and borders. The terrorist on that flight was from Nigeria (we are not fighting there) and went through security in another country. We need to protect from within and not from the outside in. We have home grown terrorists and we need to put more effort into finding them.
Again, agreed.... We need to pull OUT of the Middle East, let these loose republics fight it out with EACH OTHER and get the f*** out of the way and stop giving them an excuse to attack us...
We are wasting too much money on nation-building in the fruitless hope that if we prop up a Pro-U.S. government that somehow Al Quaeda will disappear. I think it's safe to say that this strategy isn't effective. Even if it works in one nation, they simply move to another. So IF we ever get done "stabilizing" Afghanistan, does this mean it's on to Yemen? I mean we can't keep doing this!!!
The solution is to pull back and defend OUR borders and use these resources for this purpose. As I've stated before, let Israel loose on them as well for all I care with the expressed understanding that they are on their own and will face any repercussions for their actions alone.
It seems you're off track regarding the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS was a consolidation of already-established Agencies under one roof. The only new component is the Transportation Security Administration.
Further, you are incorrect in your assertion that "supposed conservatives" were the reason for the new Cabinet-level office, when in fact the Senate vote was 90-9-1. Only 9 Democrats voted against the creation of DHS. The House voted a top-heavy 299-121. In other words, its clear that your leftist bent has clouded your ability to seek out the facts surrounding the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Your disgust should be really be with TSA, not DHS, and you should reconcile your opinions with facts regarding who supported the creation of such.
First off, this grand consolidation of all under one roof is bull chips. Each one of those agencies listed have their own buildings, their own personnel, their own function and area of expertise. The purpose was to consolidate intelligence and information and the flow between them, and judging by recent events, doesn't look like they did a very good job, or do you think so?
Please provide evidence then of how things are more efficient, consolidated, and or smaller with the advent of this new department called, Homeland Security.
As to my comment on alleged conservatives, I said I couldn't believe they agreed, I didn't say THEY were the reason. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension is in order. This monster was created in nothing less than absolute fear and both Republicans and Democrats drank from this well of fear laying on their spineless bellies.
I'm surprised supposed conservatives who often tout smaller government, less spending blah blah, supported the creation of this behemoth, although I shouldn't as there are few actual conservatives in government today. Right wing militant authoritarian isn't conservative, that is known as neoconservative and they look just like their militant neoliberal counterparts.
First off, this grand consolidation of all under one roof is bull chips. Each one of those agencies listed have their own buildings, their own personnel, their own function and area of expertise. The purpose was to consolidate intelligence and information and the flow between them, and judging by recent events, doesn't look like they did a very good job, or do you think so?
Please provide evidence then of how things are more efficient, consolidated, and or smaller with the advent of this new department called, Homeland Security.
As to my comment on alleged conservatives, I said I couldn't believe they agreed, I didn't say THEY were the reason. Perhaps a course in reading comprehension is in order. This monster was created in nothing less than absolute fear and both Republicans and Democrats drank from this well of fear laying on their spineless bellies.
I'm surprised supposed conservatives who often tout smaller government, less spending blah blah, supported the creation of this behemoth, although I shouldn't as there are few actual conservatives in government today. Right wing militant authoritarian isn't conservative, that is known as neoconservative and they look just like their militant neoliberal counterparts.
Sweet Mary, Mother of God. I can't get past the first sentence of your post simply because you took me as literally meaning under "one roof."
No need to read any further if this is the intellect i'm dealing with.
I'm still amazed at the tone of those here who are all agitated by terrorists. If you somehow ever represent America, I will understand why the rest of the world hates us.
That's a quaint way of putting it "agitated".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
I don't live in fear of terrorism. It sickens me that we yield our freedoms to keep us "safe". How many commercial flights have occurred since 9/11? Probably around a million. And this one guy goes a little crazy (and again our security apparatus fails us miserably, curious isn't it?) and now we have to subject the tens of millions of airline passengers to more humiliating and draconian security measures? Isn't it odd that the first ten minutes of the nightly news was dominated by this small action? That they also provided the man's internet history and postings so quickly to demonize him? Doesn't it seem almost manufactured?
I can assure you, if the airports did nothing to screen passengers then we would have had more death from above.
I can sympathize with part of your argument, that every time a person tried to sneak explosives onto a plane, it causes more of our freedoms and dignity to be chipped away at, but what are we to do, where do you draw the line on saving the lives of the innocent? Should we draw the line by refusing to inspect checked baggage, out of respect for people's privacy? What if we have confirmed information that terrorists have been blowing up commercial planes by planting explosives in checked baggage, are we to ignore that and let planes to continue to fall from the sky?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
The real terrorists are those who place you in fear and take your security away, not the lone nut who's blown out of proportion for emphasis. Can anyone here independently verify that al Queda claimed responsibility? Of course not! We have no option here but to submit to our official sources.
And yet you have stated numerous times in your post that it was a lone, crazy person and not a real terrorist. It seems like you have no need for "official sources" in order to tell us what the truth is.
The leaders and members of al Qaeda do not need to personally direct the actions of people, all they need are Mosques and internet chat forums to spread words of encouragement and draw people into their community. All they need to do is tell people who to talk to, where to go to learn how to make bombs. That's how Muslim American citizens find the encouragement to fly to Pakistan or Somalia to join a terrorist training group, or buy guns to shoot people or strap on a bomb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
You can be distracted by silly things like religion or ideology, but you would be wise to realize that they are diversions designed to divide you amongst yourselves, to keep you guessing, and afraid. And angry, like so many on this thread, who I imagine would love to have their finger on the red button. You will be as guilty as all the others for participating in this charade.
You don't create peace by focusing all your energy on its opposite. But then, is that even your goal?
Is their goal for all this really that silly; engaging in suicidal terrorist acts murdering thousands and thousands of people all across the world, with the sole objective dividing the American people and make them fearful?
She's made it clear who the real threats to the citizens of the US are.
Anti-abortionists, returning servicemen, Tea Party members and 2nd Ammendment supporters.
Is that not the icing on the cake? I recall her mentioning that they will be considering returning military potential terror suspects and would be monitored. She is a daisy. I really do think Obama should fire her now.
You can't equate war with a nation with a conventional army to a "war on whatever". Our government bans drugs yet turns around and tests people with drugs without their consent and allow drug shipments in to fund a rebel army.
We are at war, but the terrorists are not soldiers, they are war criminals and many are just criminally insane. We are at war, we are not fighting a crime spree.
And, by all accounts, we are fighting a war on all fronts - intelligence, military, diplomacy with nations that house terrorists, etc...
But if calling it something other than war hurts the enemy's recruitment and morale, seems like a pretty good strategy to me.
What does it matter to us what it's called? A rose is still a rose by any other name. I think Jim Belushi said that.
And, by all accounts, we are fighting a war on all fronts - intelligence, military, diplomacy with nations that house terrorists, etc...
.
No, it is not all fronts. There is no draft, no requirement for American citizens to fight this war, not even to pay taxes for it (presently). If we were really fighting a war on all fronts, we would confront Saudi Arabia over their support for, and refusal to, allow the FBI to investigate terror links and terrorism funding. But we haven't, because... we aren't fighting a war on all fronts. If we were really fighting a war on all fronts, we would mandate and fund explosive-detecting machines at all airports both withing and embarking to America. But we haven't, because... you got me, if it's a war on all fronts, that should be the first thing we do. Instead, we have inane procedures like taking our shoes off. We are definitely not at war on that one. If we were fighting a war on all fronts, we would interrogate Israel over their American spying programs as vigorously as we do the Chinese. If we were fighting a war on all fronts, our returning veterans would have all the support they need.
If we were fighting a war on all fronts, it wouldn't be this war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
