the Celebrity won an undeserved award

[bltserv_IHB]

My best guess is that Obama pays off the Taliban and uses the same process we are using as we exit Iraq.

Leave a few bases. Support the local government. And get out of country in an orderly fashion.

Looks like the Taliban and Al Qaeda may no longer be linked these days. This is from tomorrows news.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ15Df01.html

[ Edited: 14 October 2009 02:14 PM by bltserv ]

So you are saying Obama was completly wrong with his whole Surge idea during the election. He doesn't know how to deal with the Middle East conflicts

Yes. Our Holy One may be in error.

God forbid the Messiah could be wrong. The world is coming to an end as we know it. Obama was wrong.

Now is the chance for celebration and party by the GOP. He has made a mistake!

This thread is a blast. It really shows the mentality of some of our conservative brothers.

 

[bltserv_IHB]

I'm still waiting for the anti-war people to tell me what do we do to protect ourselves.

You know, I understand not agreeing with why we went to Iraq and why we are still in Afghanistan but I don't get how you think that we don't need to actively protect ourselves from terrorism. I get the whole "Save our soldiers lives and they are dying needlessly" but what's after that?

Let France take care of it? Let Russia handle it? If you don't think a military presence is going to help, then wouldn't you think that zero presence would be worse? How much intelligence would we lose by withdrawing our assets? Even Obama knows that what we want idealistically is impossible.

You guys keep talking about how we should pull our troops... but no one is saying what do we do after that? How do we make sure 9/11 doesn't happen again? Or do we do it bltserv-style and just wait for it to happen and then send the nukes... which would probably end up in a World War III and more lives would be lost in 1 year than the last 8. No insults, no calls for medication... just straight answers.

Keep the Muslim guys off our planes. We made a mistake so it should change the world ?

Look at how El Al controls air traffic and passengers. You dont see any El Al flights having issues do you.

They practice racial profiling. Sorry Nude. It pays to be a racist.

Same thing with controlling Nukes. You need to really screw up to let a large Nuke get smuggled into this country.

But there is a problem here. Its not profitable to eliminate our war on terror. Its big business. We be talking Trillions.

Just think if we spent a 100th of those funds on making sure every container that came here had no high level radiation.

Do you expect the Taliban to magically loft a nuke half way around this planet overnight ?

Never mind they dont have electricity or can read ?

You should worry about keeping track of the weapons that Pakistan and India have.

Making sure that we and the Russians keep track of ours is way more important. 99% of all nukes are between the 2 of us.

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

Okay... so we sort of have an answer from blt:

1. Racial profiling

2. Nuke detection

3. Taliban lack of technology (which I don't believe)

4. Tracking every single nuke on earth

I think you missed quite a few other forms of terror that could circumvent all of the above but it's a start (look at Israel).

So anyone else have an answer?

P.S. Does "conservative" mean "not a racist"?

 

[trrenter_IHB]

My best guess is that Obama pays off the Taliban and uses the same process we are using as we exit Iraq.

Leave a few bases. Support the local government. And get out of country in an orderly fashion.

Looks like the Taliban and Al Qaeda may no longer be linked these days. This is from tomorrows news.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ15Df01.html

[ Edited: 14 October 2009 02:14 PM by bltserv ]

So you are saying Obama was completly wrong with his whole Surge idea during the election. He doesn't know how to deal with the Middle East conflicts

Yes. Our Holy One may be in error.

God forbid the Messiah could be wrong. The world is coming to an end as we know it. Obama was wrong.

Now is the chance for celebration and party by the GOP. He has made a mistake!

This thread is a blast. It really shows the mentality of some of our conservative brothers.

A mistake? Based on what you have said in the past about your conservative brothers this would be war mongering to feed the military industrial complex. So Obama by your past comments would be a war monger.

 

[Nude_IHB]

Will you people please quit quoting bltserv, you are harshing my mellow.

 

[bltserv_IHB]

Will you people please quit quoting bltserv, you are harshing my mellow.

 

[MojoJD_IHB]

I think you missed my point - or ignored it.

He would not have received humane treatment. He would have been tortured and then executed. Torturing is not considered humane treatment and in many states/countries execution is also not considered humane treatment.

And you are basing that large assumption on what?

I think recent history speaks for itself: Guantanamo bay

Camp X-ray was set-up not as a place to torture detainees, but as a place to warehouse combatants that were deemed too dangerous to allow to return to the battlefield because a) we couldn't figure out how to legally try them (military vs civic) because they did not fit under the definition of POW in the Geneva convention and b) because they would almost certainly rejoin the enemy ranks if released, and c) their own countries wouldn't take them. also, and this is no minor point, Camp X-Ray wasn't even a vague thought when we were asking for ObL and AQ to be turned over to us. Neither you, nor anyone else, has any idea what would have happened had they been turned over en masse to the American military, but I suspect that they would have been held and tried at the Hague, if not in NYC.

Incorrect, it was stated that they would be tried on US soil for 9-11 related actions. And who cares if it wasn't set up to torture (allegedly)... that is what ended up happening. The rest of your statements about x-ray "not even being a vague thought" are pure speculation - if they were caught in 2004, they would have UNDOUBTEDLY been detained there.

Look, I'm proud to be an American, but our leaders have done a lot of terrible things and broken our national "code" of generally accepted principles behind our backs in the name of:

(a) perceived need

(b) seeking increased personal influence

(c) appeasement of key constituents (see B)

(d) fear of not being "strong on national security"

(e) objectively utilitarian perceptions on "helping Americans" (utilitarian in the academic/traditional definition)

Its WRONG, but it happens. You dont need to keep making excuses for these bozos on both sides of the fence. Just call it like it is.

 

[trrenter_IHB]

I highly doubt that we would have treated OBL inhumanely simply because of the international publicity.

He was not some low level stooge that would garner almost no attention.

He would get the Plexico Burress, Mike Vick treatment no matter where he went.

You may have valid points that abuse did take place but you are speculating that the exception is the rule.

 

[Nude_IHB]

I think you missed my point - or ignored it.

He would not have received humane treatment. He would have been tortured and then executed. Torturing is not considered humane treatment and in many states/countries execution is also not considered humane treatment.

And you are basing that large assumption on what?

I think recent history speaks for itself: Guantanamo bay

Camp X-ray was set-up not as a place to torture detainees, but as a place to warehouse combatants that were deemed too dangerous to allow to return to the battlefield because a) we couldn't figure out how to legally try them (military vs civic) because they did not fit under the definition of POW in the Geneva convention and b) because they would almost certainly rejoin the enemy ranks if released, and c) their own countries wouldn't take them. also, and this is no minor point, Camp X-Ray wasn't even a vague thought when we were asking for ObL and AQ to be turned over to us. Neither you, nor anyone else, has any idea what would have happened had they been turned over en masse to the American military, but I suspect that they would have been held and tried at the Hague, if not in NYC.

Incorrect, it was stated that they would be tried on US soil for 9-11 related actions. And who cares if it wasn't set up to torture (allegedly)... that is what ended up happening. The rest of your statements about x-ray "not even being a vague thought" are pure speculation - if they were caught in 2004, they would have UNDOUBTEDLY been detained there.

Look, I'm proud to be an American, but our leaders have done a lot of terrible things and broken our national "code" of generally accepted principles behind our backs in the name of:

(a) perceived need

(b) seeking increased personal influence

(c) appeasement of key constituents (see B)

(d) fear of not being "strong on national security"

(e) objectively utilitarian perceptions on "helping Americans" (utilitarian in the academic/traditional definition)

Its WRONG, but it happens. You dont need to keep making excuses for these bozos on both sides of the fence. Just call it like it is.

According to wiki, we're both wrong:

Camp X-Ray was a temporary detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp of Joint Task Force Guantanamo on the U.S. Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The first twenty captives arrived at Guantanamo on January 11 2002.[1][2] It was named Camp X-Ray because various temporary camps in the station were named sequentially from the beginning and then from the end of the NATO phonetic alphabet. The legal status of detainees at the camp has been a significant source of controversy, ultimately reaching the United States Supreme Court.

As of April 29, 2002, the official Camp X-Ray was closed and all prisoners were transferred to Camp Delta. However, the term "Camp X-Ray" has come to be used as a synonym for the entire facility where prisoners from the war in Afghanistan are detained.

[edit] Background

Detainees upon arrival at Camp X-Ray, January 2002

Care of detainees at Camp X-Ray was handled by Joint Task Force 160 (JTF-160), while interrogations were conducted by Joint Task Force 170 (JTF-170).[3][4][5][6] JTF-160 was under the command of Marine Brigadier General Michael R. Lehnert until March 2002, when he was replaced by Brigadier General Rick Baccus. Since Camp X-Ray's closure and the subsequent opening of Camp Delta, JTF-160 and 170 have been combined into Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO).

In accordance with U.S. military and Geneva Convention doctrine on prisoner treatment, soldiers guarding the detainees were housed in tents with living conditions "not markedly different" from that of the prisoners while the permanent facilities at Camp Delta were under construction.[7] This camp was one location where allegations of torture of the prisoners have been made. [8][9]

Camp X-Ray was originally built to house "Excludables" in the mid 1990's when castro allowed any Cuban wishing to, to cross through the Cuban minefields and enter the base. Excludables were held in camp X-ray under post 37 before being sent back to Cuba. Excludables included-trouble makers in the regular camps where CASs - Cuban Asylem Seekers - were being processed to travel to the USA, for example AIDS victims, Rapists, and Murderers. (The USA were at the time allowed access to Cuban records to process these people). Over 100,000 CAS people were processed in the mid 1990s and allowed to enter the USA.

I'm not making excuses for anyone. And you can make any claim you want about what "might" have happened in 2004, but that wasn't the question I was answering which makes what would have happened 3 years after we asked the Taliban to turn over ObL and AQ pointless speculation.

My point was that finding a place to torture people was not the reason for the existence camps @ Gitmo and that events that occured after the commencement of war in Afghanistan cannot logically be used to deduce what would have occurred had they delivered him as requested.

As for torture during interrogation... while I support the ethical treatment of people captured on the field of combat, that support is conditional on reciprocal treatment. Targeting civilians earns an automatic exception to ethical treatment. I'm not advocating we begin targeting civilians in return, but I am not inclined to conform to the Geneva Convention either.

 

[bltserv_IHB]

The one thing that always gives me the chills is I always thought this country prided itself

on the rule of law. And the Laws of Habeas Corpus were some of the cornerstones of American Law as

well as English Law before it. Going way back to the 12th Century. And somehow with Gitmo.

The entire concept of Habeas Corpus has been thrown out the window along with the Geneva Convention Articles.

Holding anybody for over 6 years without any type of due process is inviting great harm

to our troops if they are ever captured in the field. The rules of warfare were created for a reason.

And suspending them was a criminal act in my opinion. The Bush Administration failed America and tarnished its reputation

for decades to come.

 

[gypsyuma_IHB]

Sometimes dropping bombs is a necessary evil.

Does that then also justify any threatened nation/group to launch an attack against its perceived aggressors? This only works when you are on the delivering end of that kind of logic ...

History, all of it, is filled with people killing other people. It resolves any conflict in an absolute and final manner... eventually one side surrenders. In a world ruled by law and order, such resolution isn't needed. When someone ignores the law and disrupts the order, that resolution is usually the only one that works. You focus only on our actions, willfully ignoring the action that provoked our own.

Who`s law ? The United States of America was not voted as owner of this Planet last time I checked.

With your thought process we will make war against the Muslim world until they become Christians or Jews.

Are Soverign Countries allowed to be secure in their borders and laws ?

Should every Muslim Country that has any Al-Qaeda cells be subject to our attack ?

Should the Taliban not be allowed to practice their extreme form of Islam ? As strange as it is.

Last time I checked the Taliban never attacked us. Their crime was to allow Al-Qaeda to exist and be recognized in their borders.

And 8 years later. We are still fighting the Taliban. And not doing too well I might add. We cant kill the Civilians any more.

That eliminates almost all Air Support in the Urban areas.

Further adding...... our bomb dropping and fighting have managed to destroy the entire infrastructure of Afghanistan to the point that all businesses have fled causing massive unemployment. The people there have no choice but to join the Taliban, because they pay, so as to be able to feed their families.

So these are the ememies worth all this death and destruction?

 

[gypsyuma_IHB]

I'm still waiting for the anti-war people to tell me what do we do to protect ourselves.

You know, I understand not agreeing with why we went to Iraq and why we are still in Afghanistan but I don't get how you think that we don't need to actively protect ourselves from terrorism. I get the whole "Save our soldiers lives and they are dying needlessly" but what's after that?

Let France take care of it? Let Russia handle it? If you don't think a military presence is going to help, then wouldn't you think that zero presence would be worse? How much intelligence would we lose by withdrawing our assets? Even Obama knows that what we want idealistically is impossible.

You guys keep talking about how we should pull our troops... but no one is saying what do we do after that? How do we make sure 9/11 doesn't happen again? Or do we do it bltserv-style and just wait for it to happen and then send the nukes... which would probably end up in a World War III and more lives would be lost in 1 year than the last 8. No insults, no calls for medication... just straight answers.

YOur First Question - What to do to protect ourselves: What if instead of spending BILLIONS to obliterate two to three countries we had instad invested that money in fortifying our country against attack.... and our embassies abroad too. What if we spent some of that money to INVEST in those countries we have instead destroyed?

This concept of terrorism is just a huge fallacy - we go and destroy and kill so as to protect Americans, which then makes everyone hate Americans and want to kill them. HUH?

What if we actually had a United Nations that policed the world, and not one country? Then if the United Nations forces were sent in to a belligerent country, who could that country blame and attack? THIS is what the future is - not us being the SUPERPOWER. Maybe if we werent the Superpower we wouldn't be such a target? It is a total Catch-22.

Bottomline - whether you like it or not.... we could be chasing the Al Qaeda ghost till the Apocolypse, and the surivors left in the wake of our path of destruction will want to join in on the mission to kill Americans. So what did you solve? Absolutely NOTHING.

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

I'm still waiting for the anti-war people to tell me what do we do to protect ourselves.

You know, I understand not agreeing with why we went to Iraq and why we are still in Afghanistan but I don't get how you think that we don't need to actively protect ourselves from terrorism. I get the whole "Save our soldiers lives and they are dying needlessly" but what's after that?

Let France take care of it? Let Russia handle it? If you don't think a military presence is going to help, then wouldn't you think that zero presence would be worse? How much intelligence would we lose by withdrawing our assets? Even Obama knows that what we want idealistically is impossible.

You guys keep talking about how we should pull our troops... but no one is saying what do we do after that? How do we make sure 9/11 doesn't happen again? Or do we do it bltserv-style and just wait for it to happen and then send the nukes... which would probably end up in a World War III and more lives would be lost in 1 year than the last 8. No insults, no calls for medication... just straight answers.

YOur First Question - What to do to protect ourselves: What if instead of spending BILLIONS to obliterate two to three countries we had instad invested that money in fortifying our country against attack.... and our embassies abroad too. What if we spent some of that money to INVEST in those countries we have instead destroyed?

Will that make the terrorists stop? Do you honestly believe that the people who wish to see America destroyed will change their minds if we decide to pull back and invest in building up the infrastructure of their country? And we'll spend billions doing what over here? Building a huge wall, investing in racial profiling seminars and advancing our nuke detection technology?

This concept of terrorism is just a huge fallacy - we go and destroy and kill so as to protect Americans, which then makes everyone hate Americans and want to kill them. HUH?

So, you blame America for why the extremists are the way they are? I think you need to read the posts your partner bltserv has provided... it's their religion. So 9/11 was retaliation for what? For Desert Storm? Please educate me about the points in history that has made everyone hate Americans and want to kill them. You actually believe terrorism is a fallacy? So all those people who died on September 11, 2001 was what... an accident? I don't think you can even convince bltserv that terrorism is a fallacy.

What if we actually had a United Nations that policed the world, and not one country? Then if the United Nations forces were sent in to a belligerent country, who could that country blame and attack? THIS is what the future is - not us being the SUPERPOWER. Maybe if we werent the Superpower we wouldn't be such a target? It is a total Catch-22.

If this were so easy... don't you think it would be done by now? Lofty idealism is not reflective of actual reality.

Bottomline - whether you like it or not.... we could be chasing the Al Qaeda ghost till the Apocolypse, and the surivors left in the wake of our path of destruction will want to join in on the mission to kill Americans. So what did you solve? Absolutely NOTHING.

Like it or not, we can pull back all of our troops, hole ourselves up in North America, hope the the UN polices the rest of the world and still find ourselves on the end of constant attacks from extremists... and worse... we'll have no idea what they're doing because we won't have a presence abroad.

You haven't given me a viable solution, just rhetoric that doesn't speak to reality. All I hear is that being there accomplishes "nothing" but I haven't heard a single response from anyone that proves that pulling out will accomplish anything either.

Terrorist: "Oh look, the Americans are leaving, no need to plan any more attacks on them, all is forgiven."

Look... I want to save our troops too... but at what cost and to what effect? People tend to look at the short term... the solution has to encompass more than that. Tell me why our President hasn't been able to do what he had promised?

 

[bltserv_IHB]

People tend to look at the short term

And thats exactly what your doing. Thinking short and small.

The real threat to this country is not by WHOM but by WHAT.

And that threat is a IND. "Improvised Nuclear Device". If by some chance a few Kilos

of enriched Uranium are smuggled in this country undetected and somehow a detonation

device is rigged. You could see an event that will really ruin everybodys day.

The most important thing this country can do on the war on terror is to control the

fissionable material on this planet. And 99% of it is either Russian or American.

It easily detectable and requires significant sheilding to be transported properly.

We need to get our technology working to protect ourselves from this threat.

The billions we are spending attempting to root out a few remaining Taliban or Al Qaeda

is not money well spent at all. Unless your going to fight a war against all of Islam

picking away at the "sore" is not the answer. Terrorist exist. You not going to eliminate them all

by sending troops. Kind of like stopping World Communisum in the Jungles of Viet Nam. It aint going to work. Ever.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

Well you dodnt want to be around in the next 10 years when the terrorist succeed in making and delivering

a IND to this country. It could have a yeild similar to Hiroshima and the death toll? Unimaginable.

We need to protect our ports and our borders from these materials entering this country and its

technically very feasable.

Start thinking long term. Running around the world trying to put our finger on every potential threat

is not sustainable long term or economically.

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

@blt:

I'm not the one thinking short and small... if you remember... I was the one who asked the question about what to after we pull them back. Maybe you're thinking bigger, but your cohorts are not... as exampled by the fact that at least one thinks terrorism is a fallacy (which you do not) and that if we stop "attacking" them, they will cease their efforts.

And why do you keep thinking that I'm for a war against Islam? I'm not for a war against anything, I'm for being able to have a presence in dangerous areas abroad so that we are able to protect our homeland with proper intelligence, deterrence and preparation. I don't care if it's Islam, North Korea, Russian or Chinese... threats are threats, independent of source. You still haven't responded to my query about your local police, do you want them to stop patrolling your neighborhood and just sit in their station working on gun detection technology? Sometimes, deterrence by physical presence is very good at preventing crime/terror. They don't actually have to put a "finger" on every wannabe criminal, they just need to let them know they can respond if they try to do anything. Using your "solution", should our police no longer investigate possible criminals? Just let them run around planning crimes and just work on creating unbreakable locks, infallible alarm systems and anti-gun/knife shields? Now, I'll admit to being hyperbolic based on scale but the concept is similar.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

With all due respect, there are people who had loved ones killed in those events and would consider them extreme terrorist acts. It doesn't matter how small or large it is... an attack of any size needs to be prevented. If you think that we should only be concerned about nuclear terrorism... than I am not the one thinking short and small (I would think biochemical would be just as devastating and much harder to detect).

 

[trrenter_IHB]

People tend to look at the short term

And thats exactly what your doing. Thinking short and small.

The real threat to this country is not by WHOM but by WHAT.

And that threat is a IND. "Improvised Nuclear Device". If by some chance a few Kilos

of enriched Uranium are smuggled in this country undetected and somehow a detonation

device is rigged. You could see an event that will really ruin everybodys day.

The most important thing this country can do on the war on terror is to control the

fissionable material on this planet. And 99% of it is either Russian or American.

It easily detectable and requires significant sheilding to be transported properly.

We need to get our technology working to protect ourselves from this threat.

The billions we are spending attempting to root out a few remaining Taliban or Al Qaeda

is not money well spent at all. Unless your going to fight a war against all of Islam

picking away at the "sore" is not the answer. Terrorist exist. You not going to eliminate them all

by sending troops. Kind of like stopping World Communisum in the Jungles of Viet Nam. It aint going to work. Ever.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

Well you dodnt want to be around in the next 10 years when the terrorist succeed in making and delivering

a IND to this country. It could have a yeild similar to Hiroshima and the death toll? Unimaginable.

We need to protect our ports and our borders from these materials entering this country and its

technically very feasable.

Start thinking long term. Running around the world trying to put our finger on every potential threat

is not sustainable long term or economically.

Last time I checked it would be hard to do this while you are being chased into holes in the mountain and dodging bullets.

After the USS cole had we thought to chase these dogs into the holes and anywhere they ran it is completely possible that we would have disrupted their planning of 911.

Clinton had Bin Laden in his cross hairs and didn't act.

 

[bltserv_IHB]

@blt:

I'm not the one thinking short and small... if you remember... I was the one who asked the question about what to after we pull them back. Maybe you're thinking bigger, but your cohorts are not... as exampled by the fact that at least one thinks terrorism is a fallacy (which you do not) and that if we stop "attacking" them, they will cease their efforts.

And why do you keep thinking that I'm for a war against Islam? I'm not for a war against anything, I'm for being able to have a presence in dangerous areas abroad so that we are able to protect our homeland with proper intelligence, deterrence and preparation. I don't care if it's Islam, North Korea, Russian or Chinese... threats are threats, independent of source. You still haven't responded to my query about your local police, do you want them to stop patrolling your neighborhood and just sit in their station working on gun detection technology? Sometimes, deterrence by physical presence is very good at preventing crime/terror. They don't actually have to put a "finger" on every wannabe criminal, they just need to let them know they can respond if they try to do anything. Using your "solution", should our police no longer investigate possible criminals? Just let them run around planning crimes and just work on creating unbreakable locks, infallible alarm systems and anti-gun/knife shields? Now, I'll admit to being hyperbolic based on scale but the concept is similar.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

With all due respect, there are people who had loved ones killed in those events and would consider them extreme terrorist acts. It doesn't matter how small or large it is... an attack of any size needs to be prevented. If you think that we should only be concerned about nuclear terrorism... than I am not the one thinking short and small (I would think biochemical would be just as devastating and much harder to detect).

Good discussion.

Your Police analogy is a little too simplistic. Try being a police officer in the inner city. Are you going to openly

patrol the inner city projects ? Absolutly NOT. They will ambush you and your not doing anybody any good hanging in the hood. Your going to patrol places that are safe and have good donuts. You dont want to get your azz shot for nothing.

Ask any LAPD. 77th Street is not the division of choice. Besides. The jails are too crowded and they will be out in a couple weeks anyway.

Lets take your Police analogy to the next step.

Why don't the Israeli Troops Patrol the Gaza Slums ? Instead they just wall them off.

Why do the Pakistan`s let the Taliban have their Tribal Regions like Wazeristan ?

Why don't we expel all the illegal aliens out of the United States. They are breaking into our country ?

Trying to Police some situations is unattainable and impractical.

Note:

Biochemical is one of the most difficult to acquire and deliver effectively. Dispersion is only acheived with

significant technology. Like Helicopters or in the water system which is pretty well controlled and monitored.

As the attacks of 9/11 were regrettable and tragic. Is it even more tragic that we dont learn from our mistakes

and take corrective actions to protect ourselves from potentail attacks.

Again. Troops on the ground may give you some "Sense of Security". Its not the proper way to deploy our resources

effectivly and over a long term.

Funny thing about foreign countries. They dont like another countries armed forces walking the streets.

After awhile those "Liberators" become unwelcomed. And guess what happens next ?

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

Your Police analogy is a little too simplistic. Try being a police officer in the inner city. Are you going to openly

patrol the inner city projects ? Absolutly NOT. They will ambush you and your not doing anybody any good hanging in the hood. Your going to patrol places that are safe and have good donuts. You dont want to get your azz shot for nothing.

Ask any LAPD. 77th Street is not the division of choice. Besides. The jails are too crowded and they will be out in a couple weeks anyway.

I did admit the hyperboly of scale but in the same vein, I think you are exaggerating on your part. I wish Trooper was still here to confirm but I believe police still patrol areas as dangerous as inner city projects. Maybe not as often as an Irvine police officer would patrol El Camino but in a car, with a partner and working communication, the possibility of getting jumped is low. Did you read some story where this is happening? I would think that would be newsworthy.

Lets take your Police analogy to the next step.

Why don't the Israeli Troops Patrol the Gaza Slums ? Instead they just wall them off.

Now who's being simplistic? Let's wall off the Middle East!

Why do the Pakistan`s let the Taliban have their Tribal Regions like Wazeristan ?

Why don't we expel all the illegal aliens out of the United States. They are breaking into our country ?

Trying to Police some situations is unattainable and impractical.

I agree, but only to what degree. There are no absolutes, it's not feasible to pull back everyone... as much as it's not feasible to try to hunt out every single terrorist abroad.

Note:

Biochemical is one of the most difficult to acquire and deliver effectively. Dispersion is only acheived with

significant technology. Like Helicopters or in the water system which is pretty well controlled and monitored.

It doesn't have to be country wide. Infecting a small city or even a building of people will still be a devastating act of terrorism. Or do you not remember anthrax mail?

As the attacks of 9/11 were regrettable and tragic. Is it even more tragic that we dont learn from our mistakes

and take corrective actions to protect ourselves from potentail attacks.

Haven't we? When was the last terrorist attack on U.S. soil? Now, whether or not we can say it was due to a change in our domestic safeguards or our presence in terrorist nations is unknown... but I would like to think that the lives lost in our "war on terror" has something to do with the fact that I can fly to the East Coast without having to worry about ending up as part of a banzai plan.

Again. Troops on the ground may give you some "Sense of Security". Its not the proper way to deploy our resources

effectivly and over a long term.

Again... I somewhat agree with you... but we can't pull them ALL back. Wouldn't Obama have done that by now. Everyone preaches this "Let's pull them out"... but when they go to do it... they realize there are way more factors in play and it's easier said than done.

Funny thing about foreign countries. They dont like another countries armed forces walking the streets.

After awhile those "Liberators" become unwelcomed. And guess what happens next ?

Funny thing about terrorist. They don't care if you have armed forces walking their streets or not. As long as America exists, we will be unwelcomed. And if we pull all of our assets back and leave nothing there to monitor them, guess what happens next?

Again... what do you think is easier... preparing for a nuclear attack... or preventing one?

 

[bltserv_IHB]

I would suggest doing some Google searches on Wazeristan and the Tribal Regions.

Understanding the nature of this part of the world and its many tribes and languages and long

history of holding back any invading forces.

Looking up the History of Hamid Karzai and his brothers.

They used to own Restaurants in New York.

Also consider his Brother. Ahmed Wali Karzai. It appears he is in control

of most of the Opium coming out of Kandahar. We be talking 100`s of Millions of dollars in drug money.

This is the last place on earth we should be sending our fine troops.

To support a puppet government involved in the trade of Heroin with our blood and money.

Ever see the movie. "Air America" ?

Adding the link.

Looks like this article is right on target with the situation in Afghanistan.

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/16/2101236.aspx

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

Again... not into the whole hunting them down one by one thing... but not into the turning tail thing either.