Homeland Security

[owequitit]

regan? its the same ppl that the US goverment helped out to fight the soviets then blacklashed out us. what coulda of regan done?

16 years ago was 1992. Who was President? Not Reagan.

Having said that, this particular President had intel that told him where Osama was at all times, as well as most of his top generals.

Why and how:

We were using their cell phones to track their positions. So here, we know where they are, and yet rather than take the opportunity to kill him, and most of the important people relating to him, we talk about it on national TV. Guess what? They stopped using their phones, and we could no longer track them...

We could have retaliated to the 1st WTC attack, which 1) would have served as a decisive action, which is respected in that part of the world and 2) we would have stopped Al Qaida before it ever got started.

But of course, it is all Bush's fault.

On a seperate note, Al Qaida was formed because during the Iraq invasion of Kuwait (Gulf War I) he wanted the Saudis and Kuwaitis to use the Mujahadeen to repel the invasion. Instead, they chose the US because they thought our capabilities were better suited to the mission. Bin Laden got his frail male ego hurt and vowed revenge on the US, because it was an easier recruiting and philosophical target than trying to take it out on Saudi Arabia/ Kuwait.

[owequitit]

If you wish to have a civilized political debate, I would not mind participating. By liberal president, I assume you mean Clinton. What job did he not do?

I do mean Clinton. And unlike most historically misinformed youth, I actually remember BOTH of his terms. He was nothing special. He was certainly not everything he has been built into.

Also, this is not a political thread, and I will try to keep it that way, but don't make the assumption that just because I am not a Clinton fan that I will argue along party lines with the typical rhetoric.

[IAmTheNight]

To say that we could've stopped Al Qaida before it got started by retaliating for the 1st WTC attack is certainly wishful thinking. Islamic extremism and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East began well before the Gulf War, and any retaliation by America would have been met with the same attitudes as it is today.

By the way, although I do tend to vote for liberal candidates, I am in no way defending the Democratic Party. Personally, I consider both parties to be cesspools for corruption.

[owequitit]

To say that we could've stopped Al Qaida before it got started by retaliating for the 1st WTC attack is certainly wishful thinking. Islamic extremism and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East began well before the Gulf War, and any retaliation by America would have been met with the same attitudes as it is today.

By the way, although I do tend to vote for liberal candidates, I am in no way defending the Democratic Party. Personally, I consider both parties to be cesspools for corruption.

It is less wishful than hoping they would have continued had we done something about it.

The fact is that it takes time, money and resources to pull off an attack like 9/11. There might have been groups that wanted to do it, but very few would have had the resources. For Bin Laden, money wasn't a problem. And yes there was anti-US sentiment in that part of the world. Do you want to know the main reason it persisted?

Because we never did anything decisive about it. We allowed the attacks to primarily continue and escalate without consequences.

The problem actually started with Carter and the Iran captives because rather than do something, we sat around and thought about it.

Believe what you will, you can't just walk into an airport and blow up 4 planes simultaneously. An attack like that takes man power and coordination. That takes money, and lots of it. Don't forget about all of the intelligence gathering, surveillence, room and board, expenses, communications, weapons, and training required to get people to the point where they are ready for it. Such an operation would have cost us multiple millions of dollars, and that is with people who didn't need to be trained on what they had to do.

Besides, even if it did nothing other than eliminate Al Qaida, that was still the biggest threat to security. The whole reason they resort to terrorism, is because they don't have the resources to fight us equally. Most terrorist groups up to that point, didn't even have the resources to pull off such an attack. Besides, your statement is in direct denial of the group of people who pulled the attack off. They not only were responsible for the first attack, but they were responsible for at least 7 Embassy bombings an attack on a US Navy war vessel and the 2nd WTC attack. Had we eliminated them, there would have been no 9/11, because it WAS in the planning stages at that point in time. Cut the head of the chicken, and the body dies.

I never made the statement that it would have eliminated the problem, did I? I didn't. But it would have gone a long way toward making it smaller.

To many people think this stuff is solved with 1 solution. THAT is wishful thinking. In the REAL world, such problems are solved 1 step at a time, with a long and complicated plan of attack, a long term focus, and the understanding that 100 small steps can get you further than 1 big miracle step that isn't going to happen. But Americans are no longer willing to deal with that, which is why we will fall from pre-emminence in the short term. They just expect something for nothing anymore.

[IAmTheNight]

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.

[Pandemic]

My uncle said this to me a couple months ago....spray the cabin of the plane, and I mentioned russia, said it could very well kill people...he had nothing to retort...

Bad ideas in small quantities aren't good ideas, we don't have to be irrationally fearful. It seems like we enjoy finding minute ways we could get injured or sick and then find rediculous ways to shield ourselves from that possibility. What's the new big fear thing today? Sars, west nile, bird flu, hijackings? Exposed electrical sockets? Tainted tomatos? A gas leak combined with a shag carpet combined with brass doorknob equals your house will blow up?
Fuck fear
Turn off the TV

The Spetsnaz pumped too much of the chemical into the room. Children, elderly, and the weak died. You'd have to figure out the best amount to use. Causalities would be kept to a minimum. Plus, knowing the system is in place will be a huge deterrent. Sky Marshals are too high of a risk and are on about 1% of flights.

How do you know she actually needed the wheel chair? Are you sure? You don't think terrorists have mothers or couldn't be recruited if they had lost a loved one at the "hand of the US?"

Give yourself a break...

My first question is, what do you mean by 'give yourself a break...'?

Also, I wasn't at this place where this granny was. Frail was a word used to describe her. Going through her luggage when numerous other machines already have seems redundant. 100% sure she needs the chair, no. But she should be at the bottom of the profiling lists... maybe she was the only person on the flight

There are just too many variables. All you can do is make it as difficult for them as possible. 100 small things, each of which aren't very effective, might be effective when all employeed together, even though you can't understand how, unless you are intimate with the "big picture." Random searches are effective for several reasons, but most of them are for deterrent purposes. Don't forget, that in the wake of something like Sept 11th, you also get the ones that aren't "terrorists" in the normal context of the word, but think that maybe they can get through to do harm. The guy with the bombs in his shoes (the reason you have to take them off now) and the guy who had the chemicals in his carry on (the reason their are restrictions on fluids now). The "random" searches have probably found countless other threats.

Not to pick things apart, but the guy with the bomb shoes successfully boarded the plane. He tried to light it while it was in the air.

It is less wishful than hoping they would have continued had we done something about it.

The fact is that it takes time, money and resources to pull off an attack like 9/11. There might have been groups that wanted to do it, but very few would have had the resources. For Bin Laden, money wasn't a problem. And yes there was anti-US sentiment in that part of the world. Do you want to know the main reason it persisted?

Because we never did anything decisive about it. We allowed the attacks to primarily continue and escalate without consequences.

The problem actually started with Carter and the Iran captives because rather than do something, we sat around and thought about it.

Believe what you will, you can't just walk into an airport and blow up 4 planes simultaneously. An attack like that takes man power and coordination. That takes money, and lots of it. Don't forget about all of the intelligence gathering, surveillence, room and board, expenses, communications, weapons, and training required to get people to the point where they are ready for it. Such an operation would have cost us multiple millions of dollars, and that is with people who didn't need to be trained on what they had to do.

Besides, even if it did nothing other than eliminate Al Qaida, that was still the biggest threat to security. The whole reason they resort to terrorism, is because they don't have the resources to fight us equally. Most terrorist groups up to that point, didn't even have the resources to pull off such an attack. Besides, your statement is in direct denial of the group of people who pulled the attack off. They not only were responsible for the first attack, but they were responsible for at least 7 Embassy bombings an attack on a US Navy war vessel and the 2nd WTC attack. Had we eliminated them, there would have been no 9/11, because it WAS in the planning stages at that point in time. Cut the head of the chicken, and the body dies.

I never made the statement that it would have eliminated the problem, did I? I didn't. But it would have gone a long way toward making it smaller.

To many people think this stuff is solved with 1 solution. THAT is wishful thinking. In the REAL world, such problems are solved 1 step at a time, with a long and complicated plan of attack, a long term focus, and the understanding that 100 small steps can get you further than 1 big miracle step that isn't going to happen. But Americans are no longer willing to deal with that, which is why we will fall from pre-emminence in the short term. They just expect something for nothing anymore.

What do you mean by the Iran captives? Also, replace 'chicken' with 'snake'. It sounds more mean. Who is scared of a chicken?

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.

[owequitit]

My first question is, what do you mean by 'give yourself a break...'?

Also, I wasn't at this place where this granny was. Frail was a word used to describe her. Going through her luggage when numerous other machines already have seems redundant. 100% sure she needs the chair, no. But she should be at the bottom of the profiling lists... maybe she was the only person on the flight

My point was that you have no idea why the profiled her, unless you were the person who did it. Never make the mistake that just because she looks like an old granny, means she is incapable of doing harm. People are stunned by the following statistic. The largest group of shop lifters in the country right behind store employees is elderly people on a fixed income. Nobody wants to accept that is true, but it is.

Not to pick things apart, but the guy with the bomb shoes successfully boarded the plane. He tried to light it while it was in the air.

That was a semantic error. He did board the plane, but the fact remains that your shoes now go through the scanner because his didn't...

What do you mean by the Iran captives? Also, replace 'chicken' with 'snake'. It sounds more mean. Who is scared of a chicken?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

You can use snake if you want, but the concept is the same.

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.

This is true. Unfortunately, there is an overly simplistic view of the world as sold by certains powers, parties, politicians and companies. The same kinds of people who made fortunes by selling little pink pills to pale people in the early 1900's.

If it were as simple as someone else ascending to power, where are they? I mean we have done severe damage to Al Qaida, in fact we have done so much damage that they can no longer carry out attacks, and yet no group has taken their place... Why?

Because the truth of the matter is that Osama Bin Laden isn't just a McDonalds employee. While some people would like to have you believe that some other dude could just be hired to fill his shoes, it just isn't true. Same for his top generals. Just like some random dude couldn't fill the shoes of OUR top generals. Also, if you understand Al Qaida, you understand that it is actually a conglomerate of terrorist organizations that have all pooled their resources together and deferred control to Bin Laden. As soon as the overall agenda or direction of Al Qaida no longer suits their direction, you can count on their withdrawal. No honor among theives so to speak.

And how do you replace Bin Laden's BILLIONS of dollars? Contrary to popular American myth, the stuff doesn't just grow on trees. Especially in those parts of the world.

I also point out that part of the reason that Al Qaida can't function on a large scale is because they are busy hiding themselves and protecting THEIR homes. Why? Because we are all up their grill. Contrary to popular myth, they are human, they do need to eat sleep, and survive, and they must do it in the same physical plane that we do. If they are busy keeping us from shooting them, then they can't be busy figuring out how to attack us.

Also, Mchaley is right. People seem to think that if we just elect someone different that the anti-US sentiment will just go away. I have real world news for you. As long as we support Isreal, as long as we have troops on the Arabian peninsula, as long as we buy middle eastern oil (on an open market I might add) there is going to be anti US sentiment in that part of the world. As long as leaders like Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, Hu Jintao, etc, exist in power, there will always be anti US sentiment. Why? Because our ideals can NOT coexist with people who do not want to give power to the people. To those people, we will always represent the enemy.

As much as I would like to say, "Oh, if we just move this little tank, they will all love us," it just isn't true. Anybody who thinks so is fooling themselves.

[Pandemic]

Hostage situation in the homeland of the hostage takers is an extremely dangerous situation. Ever see black hawk down? That wasn't even a hostage situation! I'm not sure what could have been done for the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

At the same time that that crisis was going on, there was another hostage situation in London at the Iranian embassy. SAS neutralized that one.

[owequitit]

Hostage situation in the homeland of the hostage takers is an extremely dangerous situation. Ever see black hawk down? That wasn't even a hostage situation! I'm not sure what could have been done for the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

At the same time that that crisis was going on, there was another hostage situation in London at the Iranian embassy. SAS neutralized that one.

Exactly what was done. A proportional and IMMEDIATE response that brought them home. We didn't have to invade. In fact they let them go because of the upcoming inauguration of Ronald Reagan and the mere threat of war.

[Pandemic]

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

[Ralphie]

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.

[Pandemic]

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.

Agree. I was friends with an Indian exchange student who went to my high school. He came in saying all american women are (more or less) whores. Yeah... he had a tough year.

[Ralphie]

Agree. I was friends with an Indian exchange student who went to my high school. He came in saying all american women are (more or less) whores. Yeah... he had a tough year.

Yea its a shame because in some ways he is correct. Obviously not every single female here is sleeping with 20 different guys, but sex is a lot more free and open here then probably most places in the world.

I can't believe how much it has changed though.

Life 50 years ago here(yes i know i wasnt around but from reading and pictures) and today is like a full 1080 lol.

The most you might have seen in the 50's was some stocking maybe or some thigh.

Now there are sexually charged ads on our buses, bilboards, and tv commercials.

Am i complaning not really i have nothing against beautifull women but it makes rasing children harder. How do you tell a 12 year old girl that dressing like Mariah Carey isnt ok when Mariah Carey is on the side of a bus in nothing but lingerie.

I dk i think some things were taboo for so long that they have went the other direction maybe a little too much.

[coletrain]

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.

[accordaffair]

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.