• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security

And continue to do...

What do you mean? We're bombing the bejesus out of the area. Well except for places really catering to terrorism, like Saudi Arabia. We love those oil rich bastards.
 
What do you mean? We're bombing the bejesus out of the area. Well except for places really catering to terrorism, like Saudi Arabia. We love those oil rich bastards.

Did bombing, and running when confronted in places like Somalia in the past deter radical terrorists like OBL? No, it emboldened him...
 
Did bombing, and running when confronted in places like Somalia in the past deter radical terrorists like OBL? No, it emboldened him...

So continue doing all the things which encourage terrorism to beat terrorism? Sounds reasonable.
 
So continue doing all the things which encourage terrorism to beat terrorism? Sounds reasonable.

So continue to advocate doing nothing, and I am sure that'll work too...
 
So continue to advocate doing nothing, and I am sure that'll work too...

Humanitarian efforts can be made to fight the propaganda terrorists use for recruitment, but because of the long and violent history we've had in the region, it's long term project. In the end though you'll produce better results building hospitals rather than bombing them.
 
Humanitarian efforts can be made to fight the propaganda terrorists use for recruitment, but because of the long and violent history we've had in the region, it's long term project. In the end though you'll produce better results building hospitals rather than bombing them.

Ofcourse, keep the checkbook open, and hope and pray that they don't take that and still attack eh....These are gold!


*whispers* hey man, we are broke....have you heard?
 
Ofcourse, keep the checkbook open, and hope and pray that they don't take that and still attack eh....These are gold!


*whispers* hey man, we are broke....have you heard?

Yeah we are, yet we're spending trillions on war. Do you understand the meaning of your own statement? War ain't free.
 
Yeah we are, yet we're spending trillions on war. Do you understand the meaning of your own statement? War ain't free.

Neither is trying to buy off your enemies.
 
Neither is trying to buy off your enemies.

Yes, but building roads and hospitals is cheaper and would pay off more in the long term. But if you want to keep bombing us into the poor house, I suppose you have some followers into that.
 
Yes, but building roads and hospitals is cheaper and would pay off more in the long term. But if you want to keep bombing us into the poor house, I suppose you have some followers into that.

Does the US have the means to do this for everyone? I don't think we do, so the consequence to this tact is that you pay off enemies to stop harassing you, while creating new ones that don't receive your help, while teaching them that in order to get the pay out is to start harassing you....Our current enemies have a term for that, it is called paying a dhimmi tax.
 
Fine I'm all for that, but that isn't how it's going to happen regardless of who is president. So given the fact we KNOW they won't be shut down permanently would you rather err on the side of caution and have them closed, or keep them open and risk an attack on one of them where Americans die?

I'd rather have them adequately armed or closed down.
 
So continue doing all the things which encourage terrorism to beat terrorism? Sounds reasonable.

Our country has never done what it should have done to combat terrorism. Trading tit for tat doesn't work. We have to be willing to inflict such devastation on these people to the extent that they will not have the heart to continue their attacks. Anything else is spitting in the wind.
 
Does the US have the means to do this for everyone? I don't think we do, so the consequence to this tact is that you pay off enemies to stop harassing you, while creating new ones that don't receive your help, while teaching them that in order to get the pay out is to start harassing you....Our current enemies have a term for that, it is called paying a dhimmi tax.

Do we have the means to keep bombing everybody and funding rebellion in other countries? No, doesn't stop us though. So if we're going to be spending the money, I'd rather spend it on a feasible long term solution rather than bombing anyone who looks at us cross-eyed and then being forced to have TSA, HLS, aggressive NSA policies, etc. at home.

The war isn't a solution, so it's either spin our wheels and go broke while killing off Americans in foreign lands for battles that are not for our rights and liberties, or address the broken issues and either pull out or switch tactics to something that doesn't consume life and that may met out a stable, long term solution.
 
Our country has never done what it should have done to combat terrorism. Trading tit for tat doesn't work. We have to be willing to inflict such devastation on these people to the extent that they will not have the heart to continue their attacks. Anything else is spitting in the wind.

Yeah, it's totally worth annihilating other countries over low probability events.
 
Yeah, it's totally worth annihilating other countries over low probability events.

That's not what I said. You are reading too much between the lines.
 
Do we have the means to keep bombing everybody and funding rebellion in other countries? No, doesn't stop us though. So if we're going to be spending the money, I'd rather spend it on a feasible long term solution rather than bombing anyone who looks at us cross-eyed and then being forced to have TSA, HLS, aggressive NSA policies, etc. at home.

The war isn't a solution, so it's either spin our wheels and go broke while killing off Americans in foreign lands for battles that are not for our rights and liberties, or address the broken issues and either pull out or switch tactics to something that doesn't consume life and that may met out a stable, long term solution.

I didn't give the bullies my lunch money in grade school, and I prefer not to do it now either.
 
I didn't give the bullies my lunch money in grade school, and I prefer not to do it now either.

Except that it's promoting and encouraging bullies to take our lunch money, so it's rather nonsensical. You haven't stopped anything in this decade of war....decade of war. So you get thousands of dead Americans and less lunch money. Not only because the government now takes our lunch money itself, but also because you haven't addressed any of the problems.
 
Except that it's promoting and encouraging bullies to take our lunch money, so it's rather nonsensical. You haven't stopped anything in this decade of war....decade of war. So you get thousands of dead Americans and less lunch money. Not only because the government now takes our lunch money itself, but also because you haven't addressed any of the problems.

I think it is a pendulum that swings back and forth...During Clinton we tried it your way, and Clinton did a soft footprint, treating terror like a crime instead of an act of war, then Bush treated it with a heavy hand and troops on the ground, but never fully, now we have Obama that can't even utter the words 'radical terrorist' and apologizes for America at every turn, and nothing has changed, we are still #1 target of radical Islamist terrorists...So, your approach is IMHO, a fools errand.
 
I think it is a pendulum that swings back and forth...During Clinton we tried it your way, and Clinton did a soft footprint, treating terror like a crime instead of an act of war, then Bush treated it with a heavy hand and troops on the ground, but never fully, now we have Obama that can't even utter the words 'radical terrorist' and apologizes for America at every turn, and nothing has changed, we are still #1 target of radical Islamist terrorists...So, your approach is IMHO, a fools errand.

We've had almost 70 years of uninterrupted interventionism in the area, we never tried it my way. And I think it is more foolish to spend us till we're broke while killing thousands more Americans is well more foolish than the lot of us taking on some small probability.

I just don't see dead Americans and a bankrupt government with no hope of change or resolution being anything close to an intelligent choice.
 
That's not what I said. You are reading too much between the lines.

But that's what would be necessary. You talk about "these people" as if they're some sort of readily identifiable, separated group you can eliminate without mass-murdering innocent people.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how some people don't grasp that fiddling around with who gets to run a different country never makes that population happy with you.
Similarly, when you drop bombs in another country, the people living there don't care why you are doing it and will hate you forever because of it.

Consider this: Nobody flies planes into buildings in Canada.
 
I'd rather have them adequately armed or closed down.

Well that's why they are now closed. Again, this is a case of no matter what Obama does, the right is going to complain. I would rather them err on the side of caution and close them than keep them there without proper security. We don't need to be anywhere we aren't welcome.
 
Our country has never done what it should have done to combat terrorism. Trading tit for tat doesn't work. We have to be willing to inflict such devastation on these people to the extent that they will not have the heart to continue their attacks. Anything else is spitting in the wind.

Yeah, it's totally worth annihilating other countries over low probability events.

That's not what I said. You are reading too much between the lines.

Okay so if Ikari (and myself included since that is the way I took your comment) are incorrect on what we "read" into, please explain your "grand" plan for us.
 
We've had almost 70 years of uninterrupted interventionism in the area, we never tried it my way. And I think it is more foolish to spend us till we're broke while killing thousands more Americans is well more foolish than the lot of us taking on some small probability.

I just don't see dead Americans and a bankrupt government with no hope of change or resolution being anything close to an intelligent choice.


Then it really must irk you that your view politically is on the fringe.
 
Then it really must irk you that your view politically is on the fringe.


I'm not sure that opinion is on the fringe. There are a large amount of people that don't like what the US foreign policy is. But that doesn't matter, the politicians will do what they want. When they say "US interests abroad" they really mean, their interest, not the peoples interest.
 
Back
Top Bottom