BadDad Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 At the risk of appearing political I offer the following observation. Bush has repeatedly and continually marketed himself at the anti-terrorism president. If that's his identity and self proclaimed mission, why is 9 blocks worth of security necessary in NYC? Yeah, we're real fricken safe! 12320[/snapback] Don't let them chase you away that easily Mike. They repeat over and over again the same BS and talking points day after day on here. Anybody that disagrees with them is jumped on immediately and the personal insults come out ten to one. They accuse you of coming here with the same argument that they've all heard before, and they attack you with the same arguments that they attack everybody else with. Of course they never answer the question.
DC Tom Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 1. Rather than engage in this ridiculous war in Iraq, perhaps the administration could have deployed our troops to secure THIS country. 12571[/snapback] I'd love to hear how that's supposed to happen without people going ape stevestojan over violations of posse comitatus and civil rights. I'd also love to know, in practical terms, what lining troops up at the border is supposed to accomplish precisely. I'd also love to know how fighting terrorists isn't REALLY fighting terrorists if it's done in foreign deployments. And to answer your question about security in NYC...gee, you think maybe that's an anti-terrorism measure in itself? Just maybe? Didn't they already catch two gomers plotting to blow up subway stations? And I'm sure, too, that the REALLY effective anti-terrorism measures you'll never see, they're so deeply hidden.
Mike in Syracuse Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Here's a simple little exercise for you. Look at my post again. Figure out who I was talking about. Now that you are done with that, smack yourself in the fuggin' head for bringing up George Bush when it has ASS to do with the post YOU replied to. Give yourself another nipple pinch for saying I support President Bush or the War in Iraq. When you're done, understand that I am a combat veteran who has seen VERY good men die for this country. I don't need some pissant to tell me how that goes, because I didn't see it on cable from the comfort of a fuggin' LA-Z-BOY. 12587[/snapback] Actually, if you can set your Alaskan sized ego aside, you might realize that my post wasn't actually a response to you. Unfortunately I quoted you in my post and that was my error. The post was really my position statement on this mess the the Bush administration has gotten us into. If you think it was directed at you then I apologize. For what it's worth, you're absolutley right I have never served in the military nor have I seen combat. That doesn't make me have less of an appreciation for life than you do. You don't have to watch someone die to understand the value of life. My point is that there are over 900 dead American men and women. Many of them were just kids. What did they die for? Are we safer because they died? Personally, I don't think so. This "war" has been nothing but a distraction from the real war we need to be fighting. When 9/11 happened I was very happy that Bush was the President and I thanked God that Gore was sleeping somewhere in Tennesee. I don't know what happened to the man that led this country out of that darnkness but the guy running for re-election isn't him.
Alaska Darin Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Actually, if you can set your Alaskan sized ego aside, you might realize that my post wasn't actually a response to you. Unfortunately I quoted you in my post and that was my error. The post was really my position statement on this mess the the Bush administration has gotten us into. If you think it was directed at you then I apologize. For what it's worth, you're absolutley right I have never served in the military nor have I seen combat. That doesn't make me have less of an appreciation for life than you do. You don't have to watch someone die to understand the value of life. My point is that there are over 900 dead American men and women. Many of them were just kids. What did they die for? Are we safer because they died? Personally, I don't think so. This "war" has been nothing but a distraction from the real war we need to be fighting. When 9/11 happened I was very happy that Bush was the President and I thanked God that Gore was sleeping somewhere in Tennesee. I don't know what happened to the man that led this country out of that darnkness but the guy running for re-election isn't him. 13091[/snapback] Silly me, thinking you'd be smart enough to know how to respond or proofread a post - being that you're a moderator and all. The answer to "are we safer because of the Iraq war" isn't likely to be answered for the next 15-20 years. There are simply too many variables involved. As long as these 2 parties are involved, I doubt Joe Citizen is ever going to "safe." That's not really even one of the goals of the politicians - they are far more concerned with perception than reality, as that means power and money. The biggest reason terrorists have decided America is "job 1" has everything to do with our government acting like Gladdys Kravitz with nukes all over the world. Neither of these parties is going to change that mantra.
Mike in Syracuse Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 I'd love to hear how that's supposed to happen without people going ape stevestojan over violations of posse comitatus and civil rights. I'd also love to know, in practical terms, what lining troops up at the border is supposed to accomplish precisely. I'd also love to know how fighting terrorists isn't REALLY fighting terrorists if it's done in foreign deployments. And to answer your question about security in NYC...gee, you think maybe that's an anti-terrorism measure in itself? Just maybe? Didn't they already catch two gomers plotting to blow up subway stations? And I'm sure, too, that the REALLY effective anti-terrorism measures you'll never see, they're so deeply hidden. 12959[/snapback] Do you really believe that post 9/11 anyone other than the ACLU would have a problem with the military providing security at US airports. Personally, I don't give a rat's arse if the 10th Mountian Division is driving humvees around my fricken block with a .50 cal sticken out of the roof. I'd much rather have that then extremists randomly blowing crap up.
Alaska Darin Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 Do you really believe that post 9/11 anyone other than the ACLU would have a problem with the military providing security at US airports. Personally, I don't give a rat's arse if the 10th Mountian Division is driving humvees around my fricken block with a .50 cal sticken out of the roof. I'd much rather have that then extremists randomly blowing crap up. 13651[/snapback] There is that nasty little thing we call the Constitution...
Mike in Syracuse Posted August 31, 2004 Posted August 31, 2004 There is that nasty little thing we call the Constitution... 13669[/snapback] We also have a neat little thing called an "amendment". The constitution wasn't written with any thought of defending the citizens from Islamic extremists.
Alaska Darin Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 We also have a neat little thing called an "amendment". The constitution wasn't written with any thought of defending the citizens from Islamic extremists. 13699[/snapback] Yeah, and if our government actually followed it we probably wouldn't have to. Not to mention the fact that our military isn't exactly trained in such endeavors. We'd probably kill most of them, but there'd be a stevestojan load of broken glass and screen doors to replace. We have a different method of urban renewal.
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 Do you really believe that post 9/11 anyone other than the ACLU would have a problem with the military providing security at US airports. Personally, I don't give a rat's arse if the 10th Mountian Division is driving humvees around my fricken block with a .50 cal sticken out of the roof. I'd much rather have that then extremists randomly blowing crap up. 13651[/snapback] They were...as an interim solution until the FAA (and ultimately the DHS) could take it over properly. I flew a lot for business back then, and saw the National Guardsmen in the airports with loaded M-16s (which I always thought was kind of silly...an M-16 in an airport lounge is bound to do more harm than good.) But that's beside the point...which is, precisely HOW would you deploy the military inside our borders to provide a greater level of protection? All well and good if an armed Humvee cruising your street gives you a warmer, fuzzier feeling at night than your teddy bear...but what's it supposed to accomplish? How do you think martial law is going to keep "extremists from randomly blowing things up?" Please...expound on your idea. Your plan, after all...surely you can give some operational details about how it's supposed to work? Or just maybe...you're creebing about deploying the army on your local neighborhood watch because you don't know how it's supposed to work. Hmmmm...
Alaska Darin Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 They were...as an interim solution until the FAA (and ultimately the DHS) could take it over properly. I flew a lot for business back then, and saw the National Guardsmen in the airports with loaded M-16s (which I always thought was kind of silly...an M-16 in an airport lounge is bound to do more harm than good.) But that's beside the point...which is, precisely HOW would you deploy the military inside our borders to provide a greater level of protection? All well and good if an armed Humvee cruising your street gives you a warmer, fuzzier feeling at night than your teddy bear...but what's it supposed to accomplish? How do you think martial law is going to keep "extremists from randomly blowing things up?" Please...expound on your idea. Your plan, after all...surely you can give some operational details about how it's supposed to work? Or just maybe...you're creebing about deploying the army on your local neighborhood watch because you don't know how it's supposed to work. Hmmmm... 13796[/snapback] That's neat. They actually gave your Guardsman ammunition? I went to at least 5 other airports during that time and none of them even had clips! I asked one of the youngsters if they had anything in the ammo pouch. Nope. All show.
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 That's neat. They actually gave your Guardsman ammunition? I went to at least 5 other airports during that time and none of them even had clips! I asked one of the youngsters if they had anything in the ammo pouch. Nope. All show. 13804[/snapback] The ones at BWI had clips. Saw it myself, and had it confirmed by a Marine friend I was travelling with. Was always torn on the brilliance of that myself. On the one hand, a loaded high-powered assault rifle in a confined, crowded is extraordinarily dangerous. On the other hand, an unloaded gun is worse than useless. And what were they supposed to do, anyway? By definition, they're not getting the first shot off, which means they can't really protect anyone, just try to stop an event already in progress. And if that "first shot" is actually a bomb hidden in someone's carry-on luggage...they going to shoot the guy after he blows up the security gate, along with himself and a couple hundred other people? I always thought having the Guardsmen standing there at airports was a particularly ill-advised stunt.
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 They were...as an interim solution until the FAA (and ultimately the DHS) could take it over properly. I flew a lot for business back then, and saw the National Guardsmen in the airports with loaded M-16s (which I always thought was kind of silly...an M-16 in an airport lounge is bound to do more harm than good.) But that's beside the point...which is, precisely HOW would you deploy the military inside our borders to provide a greater level of protection? All well and good if an armed Humvee cruising your street gives you a warmer, fuzzier feeling at night than your teddy bear...but what's it supposed to accomplish? How do you think martial law is going to keep "extremists from randomly blowing things up?" Please...expound on your idea. Your plan, after all...surely you can give some operational details about how it's supposed to work? Or just maybe...you're creebing about deploying the army on your local neighborhood watch because you don't know how it's supposed to work. Hmmmm... 13796[/snapback] How about using the Navy to assist the Coast Guard in patrolling the harbors and interdict shipping to the US. That might help with some of the obscene customs delays that are occuring. Instead of using police officers on overtime (which is costing all of us a FORTUNE) to protect the nuc plants here in Oswego, how about marines? Your in DC, there's military all over that city providing security. Christ they've got Patriot's deployed on the freakin rooftops. The Air Force has multiple airborne sensors and systems. Maybe we could use the 10th to secure this sieve of a border between NY and Canada. I'm not the expert in counter-terrorism but there are numerous uses for the military with our own borders. The think that's really being overlooked in all of this is the cost domestically of all the additional security
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 That's neat. They actually gave your Guardsman ammunition? I went to at least 5 other airports during that time and none of them even had clips! I asked one of the youngsters if they had anything in the ammo pouch. Nope. All show. 13804[/snapback] I think there was a thing called KENT STATE?
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 How about using the Navy to assist the Coast Guard in patrolling the harbors and interdict shipping to the US. That might help with some of the obscene customs delays that are occuring. Instead of using police officers on overtime (which is costing all of us a FORTUNE) to protect the nuc plants here in Oswego, how about marines? Your in DC, there's military all over that city providing security. Christ they've got Patriot's deployed on the freakin rooftops. The Air Force has multiple airborne sensors and systems. Maybe we could use the 10th to secure this sieve of a border between NY and Canada. I'm not the expert in counter-terrorism but there are numerous uses for the military with our own borders. The think that's really being overlooked in all of this is the cost domestically of all the additional security 14068[/snapback] We CAN'T. We're being deployed to Iraq trying to find WMD and find that link to Al-Qaeda... sorry! Do you think the cost would automatically decrease if the burden shifted to the military, even slightly? You are mistaken.. it costs a lot of money to train one soldier or sailor. You'd be suprised.
Alaska Darin Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 I think there was a thing called KENT STATE? 14119[/snapback] Pretty sure Kent State was Guard - which was not controlled by the Federal Government.
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 Pretty sure Kent State was Guard - which was not controlled by the Federal Government. 14294[/snapback] Kent State was Guard...but I think his point was the stupidity of giving Guardsmen loaded M-16s in situations where they're more dangerous than useful...like campus riots. To me, Kent State was never the fault of the Guardsmen at the scene so much as the idiot who thought it would be smart to arm them for battle in the first place.
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 How about using the Navy to assist the Coast Guard in patrolling the harbors and interdict shipping to the US. That might help with some of the obscene customs delays that are occuring. Instead of using police officers on overtime (which is costing all of us a FORTUNE) to protect the nuc plants here in Oswego, how about marines? Your in DC, there's military all over that city providing security. Christ they've got Patriot's deployed on the freakin rooftops. The Air Force has multiple airborne sensors and systems. Maybe we could use the 10th to secure this sieve of a border between NY and Canada. 14068[/snapback] And if that were possible...why is it that the Navy has to call on the Coast Guard for overseas port security? Why, after 9/11, did NATO have to provide the airborne surveillence platforms (yes, look it up. British E-3s were deployed by NATO from Europe to America)? How is the Corps supposed to handle the logistics of splitting all their ground forces into itty bitty little packets and spreading them all over hell and gone? How in the hell is a single division supposed to secure the second-longest border in the world? Do you have any idea of the cost involved in any of these ideas? Or how ineffective they'd be? Do you have any idea how extraordinarily wasteful it would be to deploy a CVBG in a port security mission it's unsuited for supporting a Coast Guard who doesn't need it to begin with? Do you have any idea, if you deployed EVERY division in the Army to the Canadian border, how long they could stay deployed, and how much it would cost? A lot more than the cost is currently...a lot more than the defense budget is currently, in fact. And that's ignoring the fact that to do that, you have to throw training and maintenence cycles out the window, and the additional cost THAT brings on. And there's no Patriots on rooftops in DC. The Patriot system is mounted on a couple of big-ass trucks. I'd like to see the rooftop that could hold them. Hell, I used to live next to the Pentagon...the military security presence THERE wasn't even as great as you seem to think it is in the District proper. DC is not an armed camp...it doesn't need to be, in fact, since the national security forces are deployed fighting terrorists outside our borders with the intent of keeping them out!!! You think the military's vacationing in the Middle East or something? You're right, you're not a counter-terrorism expert. Stop pretending you are.
Alaska Darin Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 So DC is where all the military folks are? Elmendorf now has contract security guarding the gates and patrolling the grounds because almost their entire SP force is deployed. I had no idea it was to DC.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 And if that were possible...why is it that the Navy has to call on the Coast Guard for overseas port security? I was going to mention that... Very good point.
Recommended Posts