Almost 5 years since the attack......
POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:07
VIEWED: 4198
PAGE 1 of 3
...and our borders and ports are still
wide open. Anyone who thinks the US gov.
gives one wet turd about its people is a
goddamned idiot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Multiple personality time....
The Neo-Con Chrisisall:
What do you want? We should emasculate our effort in Iraq to rid the world of terrorists to deploy the troops in America to defend it's ports? They'd build up and use their numerous WMD's to launch an even bigger assault on us that we could not repell! Stay the course with GW and love your country, pinko!
The Liberal tree-hugging Chrisisall:
The Bush administration wants us all dead, or in control under a form of fascism cloaked in the garb of 'Democracy'.
The Mal-like perspective Chrisisall:
In The Fifth Element Gary Oldman said that a little destruction caused growth, and a sense of purpose. Look at all the jobs and contracts that 911 (and Katrina) has spawned. They may not be inviting another attack, but it would stimulate more construction, and legitimize more military intervention world-wide.
Growth, after all, is painfull.
Or at least, that's how they see it from the top...
All sides POV Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
...and our borders and ports are still
wide open. Anyone who thinks the US gov.
gives one wet turd about its people is a
goddamned idiot.
Frankly, this is the most reassuring of the various responses of the Bush administration.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chrisisall,
You're a good egg.
SergeantX,
Dammit -you're making me think.
I shouldn't post/read in this section -I get too worked up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I've heard that it would take an anual investment of around 2 billion dollars to secure our ports completely against WMDs. Every year, the U.S. government spends around 98 million for port security. Meanwhile, last year, Bush signed a bill that gave the oil industry $2 billion (the oil industry makes $9 billion in pure profit every quarter; 1 quarter= 3 months)
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
...and our borders and ports are still
wide open. Anyone who thinks the US gov.
gives one wet turd about its people is a
goddamned idiot.
There have been no attacks since 9/11. While securing the ports and borders is an ongoing issue, the failure of the enemy to, as yet, exploit these alleged weaknesses is proof of the effectiveness of the broader strategy in the war on terror.
Its like pulling the goalie in a hockey game. If your opponant can't get a shot off, you don't really need that goalie at all. Sure, its a bad idead to leave the goal unattended, but not that bad.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
...and our borders and ports are still
wide open. Anyone who thinks the US gov.
gives one wet turd about its people is a
goddamned idiot.
There have been no attacks since 9/11. While securing the ports and borders is an ongoing issue, the failure of the enemy to, as yet, exploit these alleged weaknesses is proof of the effectiveness of the broader strategy in the war on terror.
Its like pulling the goalie in a hockey game. If your opponant can't get a shot off, you don't really need that goalie at all. Sure, its a bad idead to leave the goal unattended, but not that bad.
H
It is NOT proof of our border strategy's effectiveness! I have relatives in Homeland Security that tell me that there are always terrorists that make it in through our border, whether it's through our ports, Canada, or Mexico. They have been taking advantage of this weakness. The only reason they haven't attacked is because the FBI has started to pull its head out of its pi-gu and track them down. To use your analogy, it's like letting the hockey puck get two inches from the net before stepping on it. That's a dangerous game, because, someday, they're going to miss the puck. When that day comes, we'll see how "wonderful" you think our border strategy is.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
It is NOT proof of our border strategy's effectiveness!
When that day comes, we'll see how "wonderful" you think our border strategy is.
Lets see. During the American Civil War the Canadian border was completely unguarded. The Confederacy could have marched an army of a million men down from Canada and won the whole thing. Guess that made the entire Northern strategy completely worthless regardless of the fact the circumstances had made such an act impossible and that the South lost the war.
Border and port security are part of the whole thing, like a big machine or 10,000 piece puzzle and as a whole it has been working so far.
Can we improve some parts? Yes. But perhaps a good strategy includes recognizing one's weaknesses and finding ways to carry on despite them or until those weakenesses can be effectively addressed. Thats what Bush has done. Most notably the war is in Iraq, not on America's borders. That situation may not last, but for now thats what's going on.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think we will ever be "completely" secure. Not ever. BUT there are some things we should be doing that we're currently not doing:
1) Get out of Iraq. And stop making enemies unless we absolutely have to.
2) Improve port and border security. Make it a government- not a commercial- function. And give them more $$$ to work with.
3) Require nuclear power plants, chemical plant and other vulnerable commercial targets to improve security. (Very little has been done because it's a bottom line issue. And the administration- ever solicitous to corporations- hasn't pushed.)
4) Improve first-responder funding. As I understand it, the Feds actually REDUCED funding for police and firemen. We still don't have a nation-wide, multi-agency single-frequency emergency system. Our emergency rooms are closing down one after another thanks to insurance companies bleeding our health care system dry. Look at the response to Katrina, and you'll get a good pciture of what the response would be to a major terrorist attack.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
It is NOT proof of our border strategy's effectiveness!
When that day comes, we'll see how "wonderful" you think our border strategy is.
Lets see. During the American Civil War the Canadian border was completely unguarded. The Confederacy could have marched an army of a million men down from Canada and won the whole thing. Guess that made the entire Northern strategy completely worthless regardless of the fact the circumstances had made such an act impossible and that the South lost the war.
Border and port security are part of the whole thing, like a big machine or 10,000 piece puzzle and as a whole it has been working so far.
Can we improve some parts? Yes. But perhaps a good strategy includes recognizing one's weaknesses and finding ways to carry on despite them or until those weakenesses can be effectively addressed. Thats what Bush has done. Most notably the war is in Iraq, not on America's borders. That situation may not last, but for now thats what's going on.
H
Recognizing weaknesses is all well and good, but if you have the ability to fix those weaknesses and you don't, then you are a fool. Oh, wait, that's right, we're talkin' about Dubya and co.
Your Civil War analogy is flawed in that, while the Confederate States of America didn't have the capability to come through different borders, these people DO. They have the ability to hop on a jet liner and go to Canada or Mexico, or (if they want to take a little more of a risk) the U.S. The Confederates didn't (and if they did, you can bet your ass that Lee would have tried it).
As for Iraq, show me how that has made us any safer. If anything, Iraq has made us more vulnerable, because 1) it's sucking up funds that could go to protecting the U.S., 2)our military is now stretched to the breaking point. and 3) Our presence in the Middle East is vindicating the extremists in the eyes of the normal Muslims, creating even more terrorists.
I'm not saying that we should pull out of Iraq, because, now that we're there, we need to finish what we've started for the sake of the people there. Contrary to what the majority of the American Media would have us believe, we have done a lot of good. We've built schools, power plants, roads, and other things vital for a nation's infrastructure. If we pull out now, that all goes down the toilet. What I am saying is that it certainly hasn't made us any safer. However, if we were to put some extra money into our border security, we would be better off.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME