Homeland Security

[Ralphie]

I talked with some german and korean people I've met. It's their first time in the United States and they said they were scared. They hear all sorts of stories about how the Unitied States is tough, "we were told not to go out at night because it's not safe in the U.S.", lol.

But I also saw Sicko where Michael Moore asked locals in europe about their health care systems, taxes and more. Most of them said their image of the United States has gone down recently because of Bush and the "terrorists". German students said it's not even worth coming here because of the "high level of security coming into the U.S." Some are nervous and scared to come here because it's such a hassle.

Well it works both ways.

Most people are slightly intimidated the first time they leave our borders and venture out to a foreign country, and i dont mean the carribean or the bahamas or cruises.

When you fly into Heathrow and actually travel around through Europe or your walking through a market in Israel and your being eyed, its intimidating to anyone becaue your no longer in your comfort zone. Your not on your turf and even though you know there might be an embassy or a fellow American close you know that that might be of little hope if something serious breaks out.

Its normal. It is a shame however that people do not want to visit here because it is a hassle. On one hand that makes me happy because it shows that the deterent is working although i believe that any future terrorist attack will most certainly be through a group of people already living here and established.

But on the other hand we have have a lot of history and culture to offer even though it seems crazy when compared to the history and culture of the rest of the world. Thats because were already Americans but to someone who has never been here and grew up looking at pictures of NYC or Daytona Beach etc it probably seems like an oasis high in the sky.

[Pandemic]

I talked with some german and korean people I've met. It's their first time in the United States and they said they were scared. They hear all sorts of stories about how the Unitied States is tough, "we were told not to go out at night because it's not safe in the U.S.", lol.

But I also saw Sicko where Michael Moore asked locals in europe about their health care systems, taxes and more. Most of them said their image of the United States has gone down recently because of Bush and the "terrorists". German students said it's not even worth coming here because of the "high level of security coming into the U.S." Some are nervous and scared to come here because it's such a hassle.

The UK has been dealing with terrorism for way longer. I'm sure Europeans still traveled there regularly. My Nan (she's from London) went to Heathrow one year and almost had an IRA mortar dropped on her head. I was 14 when I was there and witnessed Police teams of two. One with an MP5 and the other with a German Shepherd A lot of the Bush policy is fear mongering (ie: color coded alerts... wtf?! )

One thing that foreigners dont like is our health care. My gf was uninsured every time she visited. I've had lots of European friends and family visit in post-9/11 time.

Michael Moore is VERY biased.

I had an indian friend in high school. He said all the women are whores. Then we high fived and went to go chase some bitches.

Sounds like something from Harold and Kumar

[IAmTheNight]

I disagree. Groups dont just sprout up like weeds. Eliminating Bin Laden would have cut off leadership and the financial aspects.

We also have to keep in mind that the US sides with Israel. That's another huge reason for the Anti-American feelings. In addition to that, Mid-East culture is just very different from western. It can add fuel to the fire. Lastly, there has always been conflict in that region. The history far out dates the US.

So how does this mean terrorism won't continue? If we took down Al Qaida, terrorism would end? No way. You don't need large groups of people or substantial amounts of money to carry out a small-scale terrorist attack that can do heavy damage. That has definitely been proved in Iraq.

[owequitit]

But what should have been done instead about the Iranian Hostages?

We would have maintained a higher level of "fear" or "respect" in that part of the world. Our lack of action for over a year perpetuated the view of us being weak. In that part of the world, if immediate and proportional action was taken, they would have had much more respect for that. They didn't like us anyway, and it is stupid that they have such a high level of respect for such things, but that is the way their culture is.

Instead, Carter did pretty much nothing substantial for over a year. This weakened our position of strength in that region. When Reagan was elected, he was widely though to be a crack lunatic because of some of his foreign policy stances, and they literally let them go because they didn't know what he would do to them, and they were afraid. Keep in mind that those times were far different than today. The Cold War was at its height (we were still taught how to deal with a nuclear invasion), and he wasn't willing to "negotiate" in the normal sense of the world. From an international relations standpoint, he was a hardass. The Iranians feared him greatly. To avoid conflict, they started letting people go.

[owequitit]

I would also like to point out that a lot of anti american sentiment comes from other countries disagreeing or frowning upon how we live as a country. Sex painted all over the place, kids getting whatever they want(as a whole), all the excess that we have.

Remember in that part of the world women are covered head to toe in dress for most of their life. It is unheard of for anyone but family to see a female out of dress.

She would be stoned for not obeying.

If a married female here decided to go outside naked she would most likely get some numbers and arested/ticketed.

It is an entirely different world over there and obviously we will never change our ways as to us thats freedom and to them their ways are religion and their own way of freedom.

So we might never be friends but we need to decide on how not to be enemys.

Actually it is funny you mention this. Deev and I were talking about this the other day.

The perception of America is what people see on TV or in magazines. Just like we loath a lot of that crap that goes on, so to does the rest of the world. The difference is that we have the ability to seperate them out and understand that the average person isn't like that because we are here. We do it subconciously, while they can't do it at all, because they don't know better. I am sure the majority of the world would be absolutely stunned to find out how we actually are.

Another thing we can thank our grotesque media and Hollywood "royalty" for.

Oddly, Europe is much freer about sex than we are. We were founded by prudes that couldn't handle the sexual freedom, so they fled to America. The average American is much less sexually free than the average European. They have naked news just because, while we are barely allowed to swear.

[owequitit]

So how does this mean terrorism won't continue? If we took down Al Qaida, terrorism would end? No way. You don't need large groups of people or substantial amounts of money to carry out a small-scale terrorist attack that can do heavy damage. That has definitely been proved in Iraq.

Who said terrorism wouldn't continue? So are you saying that is an excuse to not deal with the problem right in front of you?

If you have two threatening people, one holding a gun to your head, and the other standing 10 feet away waving it around talking about how he hates you, which one is the immediate threat?

You can't deal with the second problem if you don't live through the first.

[PUMASTi]

I skimmed through this thread and let me just say.

I work for DHS and that bracelet thing is not going to happen.

Yea the officers are just doing their jobs but there's no reason why people should get sometimes mistreated and we're working on how to make Security Checkpoints a calmer environment for passengers and officers alike. Imagine that in a 8 hour day you have to see more than 1000 people and 800 of them are aggravated and frustrated, the 200 people left might not get an officer that is too happy in my opinion.

Also there's a million factors that can lead to a random search, a simple body movement can determine that, sometimes you were selected for a random search the second you bought your ticket, the officer has no say in that, it can even be a small child or a whole family of travelers. A hassle to many, but do you think a terrorist is going to hesitate in placing a threat in a child??

And about the dropped i-phone in the toilet. To those that know how a dangerous threat looks like knows that whoever reported that followed proper procedures.

[IAmTheNight]

Who said terrorism wouldn't continue? So are you saying that is an excuse to not deal with the problem right in front of you?

If you have two threatening people, one holding a gun to your head, and the other standing 10 feet away waving it around talking about how he hates you, which one is the immediate threat?

You can't deal with the second problem if you don't live through the first.

mchaley said that he/she (sorry I don't know) disagreed with my statement that said, "Until we resolve the socialogical problems that have created hate, terrorism will continue," so I assume he/she believes terrorism would indeed end after the fall of Al Qaeda.

I never said we should not have dealt with the problem of terrorism before 9/11. I believe there could have been a better course of action, though.

My point is that we met violence with violence after 9/11 without truly considering why the attack occurred. They hate us, of course, but why are they willing to give their lives to take away ours? Are they that jealous of us? When considering the motives of the enemy, America should have considered its own actions in the past. But that has not happened. According to our government, we're right and they're wrong. End of story.

[IAmTheNight]

We would have maintained a higher level of "fear" or "respect" in that part of the world. Our lack of action for over a year perpetuated the view of us being weak. In that part of the world, if immediate and proportional action was taken, they would have had much more respect for that. They didn't like us anyway, and it is stupid that they have such a high level of respect for such things, but that is the way their culture is.

Instead, Carter did pretty much nothing substantial for over a year. This weakened our position of strength in that region. When Reagan was elected, he was widely though to be a crack lunatic because of some of his foreign policy stances, and they literally let them go because they didn't know what he would do to them, and they were afraid. Keep in mind that those times were far different than today. The Cold War was at its height (we were still taught how to deal with a nuclear invasion), and he wasn't willing to "negotiate" in the normal sense of the world. From an international relations standpoint, he was a hardass. The Iranians feared him greatly. To avoid conflict, they started letting people go.

A higher level of fear? This is exactly why they hate us. America is already perceived as a powerful global empire in the Middle East trying to remove Islamic culture and force its own onto their society. What would you have suggested Carter done? Invade Iran?

[Pandemic]

We would have maintained a higher level of "fear" or "respect" in that part of the world. Our lack of action for over a year perpetuated the view of us being weak. In that part of the world, if immediate and proportional action was taken, they would have had much more respect for that. They didn't like us anyway, and it is stupid that they have such a high level of respect for such things, but that is the way their culture is.

Instead, Carter did pretty much nothing substantial for over a year. This weakened our position of strength in that region. When Reagan was elected, he was widely though to be a crack lunatic because of some of his foreign policy stances, and they literally let them go because they didn't know what he would do to them, and they were afraid. Keep in mind that those times were far different than today. The Cold War was at its height (we were still taught how to deal with a nuclear invasion), and he wasn't willing to "negotiate" in the normal sense of the world. From an international relations standpoint, he was a hardass. The Iranians feared him greatly. To avoid conflict, they started letting people go.

I understand what you've said but what SHOULD have been done? Military buildup? Air Strike? Invasion?

A hostage situation in our own country is very hard to deal with. The same situation in a foreign country is 1000x more difficult.

mchaley said that he/she (sorry I don't know) disagreed with my statement that said, "Until we resolve the sociological problems that have created hate, terrorism will continue," so I assume he/she believes terrorism would indeed end after the fall of Al Qaeda.

I never said we should not have dealt with the problem of terrorism before 9/11. I believe there could have been a better course of action, though.

My point is that we met violence with violence after 9/11 without truly considering why the attack occurred. They hate us, of course, but why are they willing to give their lives to take away ours? Are they that jealous of us? When considering the motives of the enemy, America should have considered its own actions in the past. But that has not happened. According to our government, we're right and they're wrong. End of story.

And I said that there are tons of reasons why the nations in the Middle East hate the US. We side with Israel. We have a different religion (completely). We sided with Iraq in the Iraq/Iran conflict. We've been sticking our nose in their business for a while. Regardless there are more than just sociological problems.

"so I assume he/she believes terrorism would indeed end after the fall of Al Qaeda."

I'm not an idiot. Don't assume I'm an idiot.

[IAmTheNight]

I understand what you've said but what SHOULD have been done? Military buildup? Air Strike? Invasion?

A hostage situation in our own country is very hard to deal with. The same situation in a foreign country is 1000x more difficult.



And I said that there are tons of reasons why the nations in the Middle East hate the US. We side with Israel. We have a different religion (completely). We sided with Iraq in the Iraq/Iran conflict. We've been sticking our nose in their business for a while. Regardless there are more than just sociological problems.

"so I assume he/she believes terrorism would indeed end after the fall of Al Qaeda."

I'm not an idiot. Don't assume I'm an idiot.

You highlighted one of my sentences and said you disagreed with it. So, that means you agree with the opposite, which is terrorism would end after the fall of Al Qaeda.

[Pandemic]

You highlighted one of my sentences and said you disagreed with it. So, that means you agree with the opposite, which is terrorism would end after the fall of Al Qaeda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IAmTheNight View Post
I stand by my statements. Even if we had eliminated Al-Qaida, another group would have simply taken its place. The anti-American sentiment would've still existed and perhaps American complacency could have paved the way for an even more dangerous group than Al-Qaida to come to power. Then again, maybe not. Who knows? My point is that all we're doing now is cutting the grass. Until we resolve the socialogical problems that have created hate, terrorism will continue.
I disagree. Groups dont just sprout up like weeds. Eliminating Bin Laden would have cut off leadership and the financial aspects.

We also have to keep in mind that the US sides with Israel. That's another huge reason for the Anti-American feelings. In addition to that, Mid-East culture is just very different from western. It can add fuel to the fire. Lastly, there has always been conflict in that region. The history far out dates the US.

*******************************

My disagreement with your statement does not mean I think the total opposite of every point. I explained why I did not agree. There are more than just sociological problems that need to be solved.

[IAmTheNight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by IAmTheNight View Post
I stand by my statements. Even if we had eliminated Al-Qaida, another group would have simply taken its place. The anti-American sentiment would've still existed and perhaps American complacency could have paved the way for an even more dangerous group than Al-Qaida to come to power. Then again, maybe not. Who knows? My point is that all we're doing now is cutting the grass. Until we resolve the socialogical problems that have created hate, terrorism will continue.
I disagree. Groups dont just sprout up like weeds. Eliminating Bin Laden would have cut off leadership and the financial aspects.

We also have to keep in mind that the US sides with Israel. That's another huge reason for the Anti-American feelings. In addition to that, Mid-East culture is just very different from western. It can add fuel to the fire. Lastly, there has always been conflict in that region. The history far out dates the US.

*******************************

My disagreement with your statement does not mean I think the total opposite of every point. I explained why I did not agree. There are more than just sociological problems that need to be solved.

I didn't say you agreed with the opposite of every point I made. You only highlighted one sentence-the sentence that said sociological problems need to be resolved. From your last post, it is obvious that you recognize the existence of these problems and their need to be resolved as I do. That is not a disagreement to that sentence. I never said that's the only obstacle to ending terrorism; it is one of many.

[owequitit]

A higher level of fear? This is exactly why they hate us. America is already perceived as a powerful global empire in the Middle East trying to remove Islamic culture and force its own onto their society. What would you have suggested Carter done? Invade Iran?

Strategic mistake #1:

Assuming that things then were exactly the same as they are now.

Strategic mistake #2:

Assuming that the ONLY response is an invasion. If you actually had studied your history you would know that we attempted to send a team in to retake the embassy, which would not have been hard, widespread or difficult. It was plagued by mechanical failure. Why not try again?

That was pivotal moment in US history because for the first time in that part of the world we were perceived as being "weak." Countries don't have to agree with us idealogically, but the easiest way to keep our people safe is to make others fearful of fighting it. Just like the strongest kid in school, that nobody wants to mess with.

Besides, from a MORAL standpoint, something needed to be done about it.

[owequitit]

You highlighted one of my sentences and said you disagreed with it. So, that means you agree with the opposite, which is terrorism would end after the fall of Al Qaeda.

I didn't say you agreed with the opposite of every point I made. You only highlighted one sentence-the sentence that said sociological problems need to be resolved. From your last post, it is obvious that you recognize the existence of these problems and their need to be resolved as I do. That is not a disagreement to that sentence. I never said that's the only obstacle to ending terrorism; it is one of many.

Yes, you DID say that.

Now, instead of non-committal double talk, why don't you offer up some actual ideas on how things should have been handled differently. Anyone can disagree, not everyone do it better, so lets hear about this better plan of action.