• 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!

Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2014?

Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2014?

  • Total voters
    35
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

MMC said:
Well.....Sept has arrived. We are down to 10 more days until the Anniversary of 911. We have asked others to up their security and watch for those who have Passports with their Airports. We have had to evacuate our Embassies in Iraq and Libya. We have AQAP threatening and taunting us in their New Magazine. Then we have ISIL who has threatened to come after us if we didn't stop the airstrikes on them. We continued and now they are vocal and probing us.

Last year BO did not set the Nation at the highest level. He didn't do so in 2012 and We lost an Ambassador in Libya. With the way things have been with our relations overseas. Should we take any chances this year? What say ye?
Click to expand...

A wise man once said "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." We already are at a much higher level of readiness than when Benghazi was attacked, or when the embassies were attacked during the Bush administration (though not on the 9/11 anniversary) which resulted in a much higher death toll. If we allow such fear of attacks by terrorists to drive us to ever-higher "states of readiness", then we are allowing the terrorists to play us like puppets on strings. And when does it go too far? When does "state of readiness" because of fear of terrorist attacks become indistinguishable from "police state"?
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

MMC said:
That's because he knows.....someone has to take the Lead and since he can see BO doesn't have what it takes. He now fills the void. While at the same time.....letting the Terrorists know. Now we come for you and in the worse way. There will be no place they can hide. Of course in the UK.....they have people running around with ISIS flags and literature. Using their Free Speech laws.

They will find out.....that's not going to work here in the US.
Click to expand...

The UK and US are about to get a dose of reality-terrorists are back and they have brought their friends.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

Glen Contrarian said:
A wise man once said "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." We already are at a much higher level of readiness than when Benghazi was attacked, or when the embassies were attacked during the Bush administration (though not on the 9/11 anniversary) which resulted in a much higher death toll. If we allow such fear of attacks by terrorists to drive us to ever-higher "states of readiness", then we are allowing the terrorists to play us like puppets on strings. And when does it go too far? When does "state of readiness" because of fear of terrorist attacks become indistinguishable from "police state"?
Click to expand...

Video: Losing Iraq | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video

Those who have the inside scoop say we are in a pre-9/11 situation more now than well, 9/11.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

US Conservative said:
Video: Losing Iraq | Watch FRONTLINE Online | PBS Video

Those who have the inside scoop say we are in a pre-9/11 situation more now than well, 9/11.
Click to expand...

Y'know, it simply doesn't matter what Obama does. He could do everything exactly the way y'all want him to do it...and y'all would still call it wrong/evil/stupid/whatever. Why? Because he doesn't have an (R) behind his name. And how do we know this? Because when it comes to our homeland and our embassies overseas, Obama's got a heck of a lot better record than your boy Bush.

And anyone who is comparing our current national security posture to what we had pre-9/11 is either epically naive or (more likely) being deliberately disingenuous with an agenda of their own. This is not to say that we can't be attacked - we can be attacked and we certainly WILL be attacked. It's only a matter of when. No matter how stringent our national security posture is, we WILL sooner or later be attacked. To make a nation attack-proof is for all practical purposes impossible.

The only question is, can we draw that balance between having not enough security, having too much security, and not allowing terrorists to lead us by the nose by threatening attacks against us?

And the sad thing is, it does't matter how stringent our security measures are, no matter how 'unfree' our lives become because of the FEAR of "well, there just might be a terrorist lurking around that there corner", if there's an attack during Obama's presidency, y'all will once more call for his impeachment, his head, his drawing-and-quartering....
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

Glen Contrarian said:
Y'know, it simply doesn't matter what Obama does. He could do everything exactly the way y'all want him to do it...and y'all would still call it wrong/evil/stupid/whatever. Why? Because he doesn't have an (R) behind his name. And how do we know this? Because when it comes to our homeland and our embassies overseas, Obama's got a heck of a lot better record than your boy Bush.

And anyone who is comparing our current national security posture to what we had pre-9/11 is either epically naive or (more likely) being deliberately disingenuous with an agenda of their own. This is not to say that we can't be attacked - we can be attacked and we certainly WILL be attacked. It's only a matter of when. No matter how stringent our national security posture is, we WILL sooner or later be attacked. To make a nation attack-proof is for all practical purposes impossible.

The only question is, can we draw that balance between having not enough security, having too much security, and not allowing terrorists to lead us by the nose by threatening attacks against us?

And the sad thing is, it does't matter how stringent our security measures are, no matter how 'unfree' our lives become because of the FEAR of "well, there just might be a terrorist lurking around that there corner", if there's an attack during Obama's presidency, y'all will once more call for his impeachment, his head, his drawing-and-quartering....
Click to expand...
It isn't just the R's that are pointing out Obama's incompetence, some of the D's are making their voices heard in the House and Senate. When one realizes since 9/11 our corrupt visa program hasn't been reformed and now 6000 "questionable" students on expired visas can't be located during a time when the threats to this country have been ratcheted up to an all time high, that is sheer incompetence. When you have thousands of teenage boys with no papers walking across our porous borders, a border that was suppose to be secured with a fence that the funds had already been allocated since 2007 and the damn fence still hasn't been built under six years of Obama, that is sheer incompetence. When the very policies of this administration encourages illegals to come to this country without repercussions is absolutely feckless.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

Glen Contrarian said:
Y'know, it simply doesn't matter what Obama does. He could do everything exactly the way y'all want him to do it...and y'all would still call it wrong/evil/stupid/whatever. Why? Because he doesn't have an (R) behind his name. And how do we know this? Because when it comes to our homeland and our embassies overseas, Obama's got a heck of a lot better record than your boy Bush.

And anyone who is comparing our current national security posture to what we had pre-9/11 is either epically naive or (more likely) being deliberately disingenuous with an agenda of their own. This is not to say that we can't be attacked - we can be attacked and we certainly WILL be attacked. It's only a matter of when. No matter how stringent our national security posture is, we WILL sooner or later be attacked. To make a nation attack-proof is for all practical purposes impossible.

The only question is, can we draw that balance between having not enough security, having too much security, and not allowing terrorists to lead us by the nose by threatening attacks against us?

And the sad thing is, it does't matter how stringent our security measures are, no matter how 'unfree' our lives become because of the FEAR of "well, there just might be a terrorist lurking around that there corner", if there's an attack during Obama's presidency, y'all will once more call for his impeachment, his head, his drawing-and-quartering....
Click to expand...

This is you looking for an easy way out. Its easier to blame this on what you'd like to think are the irrational views of those who criticize Obama. Its not that simple. There are very real and legitimate reasons to critique Obama and you aren't doing yourself any favors by not addressing them.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

vesper said:
It isn't just the R's that are pointing out Obama's incompetence, some of the D's are making their voices heard in the House and Senate. When one realizes since 9/11 our corrupt visa program hasn't been reformed and now 6000 "questionable" students on expired visas can't be located during a time when the threats to this country have been ratcheted up to an all time high, that is sheer incompetence. When you have thousands of teenage boys with no papers walking across our porous borders, a border that was suppose to be secured with a fence that the funds had already been allocated since 2007 and the damn fence still hasn't been built under six years of Obama, that is sheer incompetence. When the very policies of this administration encourages illegals to come to this country without repercussions is absolutely feckless.
Click to expand...

Outstanding points, you nailed it. Instead of assigning motives to those pointing out very real issues, its more fruitful to really address this head on.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

MMC said:
That's what was said in 2012 and we lost a US Ambassador.....Its a simple matter and on that Day. All our Diplomats will stay on lockdown in hot areas if the level is raised to its highest.
Click to expand...

True, but we also didn't do it in 2013 and nothing happened. Being a diplomat in a high risk area is risky business anyway. Don't mean to be heartless but if you're the ambassador to one of these places, you have a better idea what you need to do than Obama does.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

rocket88 said:
True, but we also didn't do it in 2013 and nothing happened. Being a diplomat in a high risk area is risky business anyway. Don't mean to be heartless but if you're the ambassador to one of these places, you have a better idea what you need to do than Obama does.
Click to expand...

Heya 88. :2wave: I would agree with they would know the terrain better. But with evacuating Embassies and issuing travel bans. Plus with other countries raising their threat levels. I still think our people overseas in and around those hot areas should be placed on the highest level we have.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

EnigmaO01 said:
So you're not happy either way and no one can do right by you. Got it.

And btw as you criticize the president for not having a handle on this you are all criticizing all our security agencies. They are the ones putting their asses on the line to protect you. If you only knew what has gone on behind the scenes that you will never know about.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming to know what goes on behind the scenes?

Every agency of the U.S. govt is headed up by a person appointed by the POTUS... so yeah, your hero is a big part of the problem. Most of the people working at said agencies have been in their jobs more than 20 years. They do what they're told to do.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

MMC said:
That's because he knows.....someone has to take the Lead and since he can see BO doesn't have what it takes. He now fills the void. While at the same time.....letting the Terrorists know. Now we come for you and in the worse way. There will be no place they can hide. Of course in the UK.....they have people running around with ISIS flags and literature. Using their Free Speech laws.

They will find out.....that's not going to work here in the US.
Click to expand...



There was no void to fill! Britain is Britain and the USA is the USA! There is a history of conflict in England between protesters against Muslim groups and the Muslims themselves, and you are right that that would not work here.
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

Is there something that is accomplished when you change the color on an airport billboard from orange to red?
 
Re: Should the US Raise Security Threat to the Nation at its Highest Level for Sept 2

MMC said:
Well.....Sept has arrived. We are down to 10 more days until the Anniversary of 911. We have asked others to up their security and watch for those who have Passports with their Airports. We have had to evacuate our Embassies in Iraq and Libya. We have AQAP threatening and taunting us in their New Magazine. Then we have ISIL who has threatened to come after us if we didn't stop the airstrikes on them. We continued and now they are vocal and probing us.

Last year BO did not set the Nation at the highest level. He didn't do so in 2012 and We lost an Ambassador in Libya. With the way things have been with our relations overseas. Should we take any chances this year? What say ye?
Click to expand...

Hell no. Should get rid of all that BS anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom