“iPad passport” lets man enter the US
I think I'll go with hellz no.
This is a discussion on Are we after 9/11 and after US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Are we safer with the policies that were put in place after 9/11 and our presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, or both? I want to stress ...
Are we safer with the policies that were put in place after 9/11 and our presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, or both? I want to stress this is a Homeland Security/Border Control question. NOT a political question.
It's certainly a valid question. I do believe in keeping my opponent on his heels. However, they have an seemingly endless supply of cavemen and AK's.
One of ours is worth more than 1000 of theirs to me. I'd prefer to see better intelligence gathering and covert operations, vs. undeclared wars.
'Clinging to my guns and religion
I think it is very interesting that we haven't had a successful attack since 9/11. Either we're doing a good job or they people who think that all Muslims are hell bent on killing infidels are wrong.
Of course, these are difficult to assess for those of us on the "outside", but both can be improved significantly most assuredly.I'd prefer to see better intelligence gathering and covert operations
Here's a look at it from another angle. I can fully understand data overwhelming a system: Why America's Spies Struggle To Keep Up : NPR
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
That of course all depends on who you ask, and safer from what?
Do we have to worry about Iraqi fighters shooting missiles at our naval vessels in the area anymore? Probably not.
Do we have to worry about jihadis in rubber boats still? Probably. But we are watching for them now.
Are we safer from terrorists who train at bases in either of these countries? Definitely.
Are they now training in other countries instead? Definitely.
It is kind of like hearding cats.
Part of the problem is we have historically been reactive when it comes to security issues. And a lot of our reactions tend to make people not like us very much. What we have been doing for well over a century, and continue to do as national policy and to maintain the standard of living we as a country expect for ourselves is not viewed favorably by everyone else on the planet. Our open society which is one of our greatest strengths can also be one of our greatest weakensses. Our military technologies have advanced to the point that there are very few players in the world that would realistically consider going toe to toe with us. But that does not mean the others are just going to let us have our way.
On September eleventh Al-Queda did not have access to cruise missiles. So they sort of made their own. Crude but very effective.
There is a lot of stuff that is crude but potentially very effective that can be done to this humongous soft target between Canada and Mexico.
Why take on armored cav when you can take on the soccer moms?
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
My vote was (Not sure).. I'll just say that, ever since 2008 I feel the US has become a weaker nation both at home and in the eyes of the rest of the world; regardless of what some might try to parade and tout.
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson
My personal experience has been that security check points at airports and cruise ship terminals is spotty at best and totally out of the realm of common sense. For example, My 93 yr. old mother-in-law was detained and practically strip searched at Chicago's O'Hare because they claimed they found traces of illegal drugs on her wheel chair. By illegal they obviously meant perscription drugs. The lady practically lives in her wheel-chair and takes so many drugs, when Walgreen's runs low, they call us. Then about half the time, the metal detectors fail to go off when I walk through with my bi-lateral metal hips. Even when it does, they simply ask me what I have that's metal, I tell them it's my hips and they wave me through. That makes me feel safe!
I don't believe that we are any safer with the policies put in place after 9/11. I do believe that our troops mission in Afghanistan has made us safer.
"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)
Nothing can ever guarantee safety, especially in a free society.
Any policy based on such premise is a pretext right from the beginning.
Trust in God and keep your powder dry
"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source
Why are always trading safety for freedom?
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku
I am curious to why some people feel that going into Iraq has made us safer? Without getting into the politics of it, I feel 100 percent that it did not make us safer. Here is why:
-WMD's or not, there was no delivery system for them, no anticipated use of them against the US or US possessions or territories. This isn't hind site on my part. This was also the view of many in the military and at the time
-Any violations of the treaty after Desert Storm were just minutia. Violations of the no-fly zone etc did not threaten the US or its possessions
-By putting troops in Iraq we took focus away from Afghanistan
-With troops in Iraq, we limited our ability to engage in another theatre of operations if needed (N.Korea)
-It harmed the US by draining our economy and putting a severe strain on the military. It also at home divided the nation.
If somebody can tell me how we were threatened by Iraq I would like to know.