The US SUCKS because...

[Elvis]

Originally posted by Zooropa
OK, a few points...

1. Elvis, you are calling for a "fortified castle" type approach to protect the US, which is physically imposiible. Do you have any idea what that would cost?? during the 90's, the US was shutting down military bases left and right to cut defense spending to use that money for healthcare, education, etc.... Even if we had not cut military spending, it would devistate the american economy to spend billions of dollars to defend in that way.

Would it not devistate our economy if the largest US shipping port was obliterated? Shit... look at what happens when just UPS goes on strike... lol.

Originally posted by Zooropa

2. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Many people (myself included) often assume that we are all observing and all knowing when it comes to political, national, international and national security matters. We are not. I trust that our government is doing all that it can to defend us but it is impossible to defend against every possible attack.

You are telling me to have FAITH in our national security measures? lol. For heaven sake, they crashed a plane into the PENTAGON. I know people (that's as much as I can say) that KNOW more than most... and have little to no faith in our domestic national security measures.

Originally posted by Zooropa

3. Realistically speaking, the threat against us is pretty insignificant to the existence of our country. We are not fighting a war in which we are worried about being invaded and conquered by our enemy. We are fighting terrorists, whose main objecttion to us, is a result of what they perscieve to be a bias toward Israel. We are not in danger as a nation of being destroyed. It may seem harsh, but it is the reality.

You're mislead. If you think this is only about our position with Israel, you're dead wrong. We're not in danger??? They took out a chunk of the pentagon, and the WTC.... last time I checked, that was the largest loss of american life on american soil from a foreign enemy.

Originally posted by Zooropa

4. Elvis, our military and it's technology is most certainly not outdated. Where on earth do you get this impression from??? I may get in trouble for saying this, but wasn't it you who was asking people to read non-fiction, to get a better understanding of the topic and the world around them in general when posting in these forums??? Our military is by far technologically superior to any other in the world. This is not even a debatable fact.

In small scale, I agree. But the reality is that due to budget cuts/spending, seriously advanced technologies are novelties. I know people in various branches of the armed services - in most cases they are still using equipment that was around during vietnam and korea, and they say that's common. The mislead impression in the US is that we are invincible.... that we have SAMs ready and waiting to defend us... or that there could never have an airstrike on the US or that we could never have a threat of an intercontinental missle attack. I believe it was the same misconceptions that allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.

[ouizy]

Elvis:

I have to say I agree with a lot of what you said, and I too would like more security in this country. I just have to ask you this,

are you willing to join the military to help bring about this security?

Wehn you grow up in a country like Israel it is mandatory to serve.


No you may have served - I do not know, I know I haven't, but when I find myself complaining about my own safety here I always go back to that question, because to tell you the truth, I would not want to serv, yet respect whole-heartedly those that do.

I dunno - just a thought...

[DrTeeth]

I'm quite certain terrorists won't try the same old thingt twice. If they ever attack again, it will very likely not be by air.

[Elvis]

Originally posted by ouizy
Elvis:

are you willing to join the military to help bring about this security?

First, let's make something clear.... It's not the military alone that needs to or can bring about the security... many of those decisions are made by our political leaders, not military strategists.

Now to answer your question, I would join an effort to protect our country, although that doesn't leave the military as the only choice. IF a real effort was being made by our gov't in a direction which would actually accomplish true domestic security, I'd be on board. I'd prefer that I use my talents/skills where they could be best used... somewhere on the information technology side of things...

My first 'dotcom' job was working for an Int'l ISP, and I often ended up dealing with local and federal agencies (fbi) in helping them track down hackers, kiddie-porn pushers, etc... I also have been involved in planning the security of several companies, both physical and electronic. For me, using my knowledge and forsight, to protect something is a rush, and rewarding.

Where I currently work... there was a problem with theft, internal and external. It REALLLLLLY annoyed me, people took advantage of the 'system' because they could and there was nothing to detour them from doing so. I PUSHED for the installation of motion activated color cameras throughout the property, as well as motion/heat lights... and a digital recording system, which is also viewable remotely (over the web) - live, and playback. The system is locked up TIGHT, impossible to get into without keys, breaking down doors, locks, and then having to know pass codes..... sounds like I over planned, doesn't it? Now for the result: Since the installation of the new system, there have been no occurrences of theft at the location. The employees know they are being recorded... and possible intruders can easily see the cameras - which on important areas, have multiple cameras from different locations.

So what's my point? hehe... simple. If nothing is done to detour the terrorists, they won't be detoured.

Another example (and perhaps an overly extreme one):
If there were snipers sitting in the freeways signs, you think the lil punks would go out and spray paint all over the freeways? lol.

[Elvis]

Originally posted by DrTeeth
I'm quite certain terrorists won't try the same old thingt twice. If they ever attack again, it will very likely not be by air.

They blow up people in cars, cafes, and outside public areas... almost daily in Israel. Oh, don't forget the countless air hijackings over the years. You think they have some logic that we understand? These people are willing to wait YEARS until they hit their targets.

[STING2]

I understand that domestic security is really often about things other than standard military security. But I will say this, most of the weapons systems in use by the US military are from the early 1980s, not the 1950s or 1960s. To add to that, these weapons that were introduced in the 1980s have been upgraded several times since their introduction. Still things get old rather fast when it comes to technology and I won't go so far as to say that I'm satisfied. The Marines often have most of the older equipment but even there, the upgrades with new weapons and electronics are huge. One of my best friends is a Marine Corp Officer and flies the Cobra Attack Helicopter. It went into production in the 1960s and my friends father actually flew it in Vietnam. While from the outside, the Helicopter that his son flies is essentially the same, the inside is radically different. The Cobra has every combat fire control feature that the Army's Apache does and like the Apache(from the 80s) fires the HellFire Missile and 2.75 inch rockets as well as having a 30 mm auto-cannon. Similar armor protection has been added as well. What makes the Apache better though is its superior speed and mobility. But the Marines have done and excellant Job in updating the Cobra of course it has cost money, but not as much as buying the Apache. The Cobra's have been used to great effect in Afghanistan along side the Apache.

The US may not of updated several of its technologies much since the 1980s, but most of what the Military uses today is from the Reagan build of the 1980s. The fact is, the US has the best major weapons systems in the world and is light years ahead of its peers when it comes to information technology. Are next biggest competition is some of our NATO Allies in Europe. But the distance were ahead of them became embarrasingly obvious during the war in Kosovo in 1999.

This is no arguement for cutting back because were ahead, rather its indication of the fruits of being ahead, and that we should continue to accelerate research and devolopment, and procurement of new weapon systems as new technology becomes available.

[STING2]

When it comes to racial profiling, Israel does it and it works! No Hijackings on their major airline in over 30 years. When it comes to domectic security there is a lot that we can learn from Israel. They have had to deal with terrorist on a daily basis since their independence day in 1948! Also, look at the type of terrorism that was used on 9/11. It is suicide bombing with some type of device or vehicle. Can you name another race besides those of arab or middle eastern decent that engage in suicide bombing so often? Notice that Tim Mcvey got out of the Ryder truck instead of driving it into the building, unlike terrorist that attacked are Marine barracks and Embassy in Lebonon in 1983. There is definitely a case for racial profiling here, especialy when looking at the type of terrorism used.

I'd be willing to submit to a strip search everytime I got on a plane if that would help National Security.

[Zooropa]

Originally posted by Elvis



Would it not devistate our economy if the largest US shipping port was obliterated? Shit... look at what happens when just UPS goes on strike... lol.

No doubt that it would hurt, but like I said, you can't possibly protect against every possible attack. But in the long run, if we did attept to "fortifie" the US, the economic fallout would be much harsher. Not to mention how the increased military prescence would affect foreign business from investing in our nations buisnesses.

You are telling me to have FAITH in our national security measures? lol. For heaven sake, they crashed a plane into the PENTAGON. I know people (that's as much as I can say) that KNOW more than most... and have little to no faith in our domestic national security measures.

Well, that faith is up to you. All I'm really saying is that just because you don't see it, it doesn't me it's not there. Also, it's hard to argue with you someone, when they duck behind the "I know things that I can't tell you". You have to support an arguement with fact, if you can't, your arguement doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You're mislead. If you think this is only about our position with Israel, you're dead wrong. We're not in danger??? They took out a chunk of the pentagon, and the WTC.... last time I checked, that was the largest loss of american life on american soil from a foreign enemy.

You misinderstood, I never said there wasn't a threat, but in the big picture, our nation is not a threat from being destroyed. Will there be more loss of life due to terrorist attack? More than likely, yes. I also didn't say that it was ONLY about our bias towards Israel, I said that it was their PRIMARY objection. Big difference.

In small scale, I agree. But the reality is that due to budget cuts/spending, seriously advanced technologies are novelties. I know people in various branches of the armed services - in most cases they are still using equipment that was around during vietnam and korea, and they say that's common. The mislead impression in the US is that we are invincible.... that we have SAMs ready and waiting to defend us... or that there could never have an airstrike on the US or that we could never have a threat of an intercontinental missle attack. I believe it was the same misconceptions that allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.

Regardless of whether technology is still be used from the Vietnam era or not, we are still more technologically advanced then any other nation. I know several people that fought in the Gulf War and Afghanistan, and the technology we used, was by know means old. Do we still use old guns? Sure, these as well as other technologies, aren't really outdated.

Who exactly are you so afraid of?? China? Won't happen, the last thing they need is a confrontation with the West. Iraq, Saddam will be 6-feet under by this time next year. Who else?? Like I said before, we are not at war with another nation(s), we are fighting terrorists. It's a whole different ballgame.

Also, as the US recognizes that it is necesaary to help the palestinians, I do believe that a lot of the tension will be eased. Unfortunately, the actions of a small group of palestians, are often represented as being the majority. Israel also needs to back off a little, their responses our often extreme. Hopefully, with the January elections, a new leader of the PLO will be elected, a man that IS interested in peace. Cross your fingers my friend....

[z edge]

Originally posted by STING2
I understand that domestic security is really often about things other than standard military security. But I will say this, most of the weapons systems in use by the US military are from the early 1980s, not the 1950s or 1960s.

MOST. The M1 Abrahms Main battle tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicles used by the army are a good example of 80's technology. As are the B2 Stealth bomber and the F117 Stealth Fighter. Although they both are as ahead of their time today as they were when we pounded Iraq the first time they have replacements in development.

However, the B-52 Stratofortress (still our enemies worst nightmare) was first tested in the late 1940's while the production ranged from 1954 to 1962. And they fly every day, four decades into their life of harsh use. Ironically we have had 50 years with the air force's "workhorse," constant upgrades notwithstanding, we will use this beast at least until the year 2025.

One of my best friends is a Marine Corp Officer and flies the Cobra Attack Helicopter. It went into production in the 1960s and my friends father actually flew it in Vietnam. While from the outside, the Helicopter that his son flies is essentially the same, the inside is radically different. The Cobra has every combat fire control feature that the Army's Apache does and like the Apache(from the 80s) fires the HellFire Missile and 2.75 inch rockets as well as having a 30 mm auto-cannon. Similar armor protection has been added as well. What makes the Apache better though is its superior speed and mobility. But the Marines have done and excellant Job in updating the Cobra of course it has cost money, but not as much as buying the Apache. The Cobra's have been used to great effect in Afghanistan along side the Apache.

In my army days I spent 2 years in the Air Cavalry. We had the Cobra's as well, and they were our "premier' bird even though Apaches were already well into use in other more prominent units. I am suprised that the Commanche (supposed to take the place of the Apache) project has not surfaced or been put into use. I wonder if that program is still going on???

The US may not of updated several of its technologies much since the 1980s, but most of what the Military uses today is from the Reagan build of the 1980s. The fact is, the US has the best major weapons systems in the world and is light years ahead of its peers when it comes to information technology. Are next biggest competition is some of our NATO Allies in Europe. But the distance were ahead of them became embarrasingly obvious during the war in Kosovo in 1999.

This is no arguement for cutting back because were ahead, rather its indication of the fruits of being ahead, and that we should continue to accelerate research and devolopment, and procurement of new weapon systems as new technology becomes available.

I was wondering if you had heard of the Joint Strike Fighter, of which we will get very soon a replacement for the F-15 known as the F22 Raptor? This fighter employs unprecedented technology that makes the F-15 look like the Red Baron.

Well not really But the F22 is one to watch.

[Elvis]

Originally posted by STING2
The US may not of updated several of its technologies much since the 1980s, but most of what the Military uses today is from the Reagan build of the 1980s. The fact is, the US has the best major weapons systems in the world and is light years ahead of its peers when it comes to information technology. Are next biggest competition is some of our NATO Allies in Europe. But the distance were ahead of them became embarrasingly obvious during the war in Kosovo in 1999.

This is no arguement for cutting back because were ahead, rather its indication of the fruits of being ahead, and that we should continue to accelerate research and devolopment, and procurement of new weapon systems as new technology becomes available.

Unfortunately some of our military branches such as the US Navy employ the use of Windows NT to run nuclear subs.... networks and systems that are embarrassingly taken-over with computer viruses. Now this isnt an attack on NT... this is an attack on the pathetic system administration that's done on NUCLEAR subs. You'd be surprised... a lot of our gov't is like this... it's NOT like they portray it on TV though..

[ouizy]

Good point Elvis, but can you prescribe to an "offense-first" type of defense? Do you think it is right to go and attack someone like Saddam Hussein without celar evidence that Iraq has perpetrated anything against the US?

How about Korea, or any other "Axi of Evil" country - do we go in and take out their leadership if we don't like them so they cannot do things to us?

I am not sure what my answer is on this question, I just know that if we start taking out the leaders of countries who is to say that the people of that country wil lfall in line with our ideologies?

----just thinking out loud

[z edge]

Big diference in N. Korea and Iraq though Ouizy. Iraq has repeatedly violated the conditions placed on them by the UN, which is an act of war in itself.

In 1994, Iraq amassed over 75% of their troops on the Kuwaiti border again. I went over there with an untold number of other troops to find they had retreated before we even landed. Yet we stayed there for 90 days (another Christmas in the desert lol) regardless to study them and play games of our own.

N./S. Korea are still at a cease-fire, in which the war never offically ended. And the North is in chaos and starvation too, yet they have a large army. Should we try and send them food and aid, do we assume it goes to the people or to the army?

My answer to your question that i have seemed to stray from, is in the case of Iraq they yes.

Iraq is:
Guilty of genocide of it's own people
Guilty of developing weapons of mass destruction with intent of terror
Guilty of violating UN Resolutions and expelling UN weapons inspectors
Guilty of funding/promoting suicide bombers in Israel
Guilty of Funding and/or Planning terrorist acts against the USA

Iraq needs a Regime change
very soon

[Elvis]

Originally posted by ouizy
Good point Elvis, but can you prescribe to an "offense-first" type of defense? Do you think it is right to go and attack someone like Saddam Hussein without celar evidence that Iraq has perpetrated anything against the US?

How about Korea, or any other "Axi of Evil" country - do we go in and take out their leadership if we don't like them so they cannot do things to us?

I am not sure what my answer is on this question, I just know that if we start taking out the leaders of countries who is to say that the people of that country wil lfall in line with our ideologies?

----just thinking out loud

This is NOT an easy question to answer..
personally I think I could answer this from 2 or more positions, at least.... think about this:

If those that are violent refuse to settle disputes non-violently, how else besides by using violence can the violence be stopped?

I'm not saying that violence is my first choice as a solution, but when an animal is backed into a corner, it usually has 2 choices... die... or fight its way out. I'm not saying we are dying, as a society/country, yet.. but a priority of ours is and must be to proactively insure the future of our way of life.

As for the terrorists... they are the minority in the world, they are hostile, irrational, and unwilling to settle for anything less than everything they want. You can NOT bargain with terror.

So what choices do we have? Pick them off one by one AFTER they kill thousands? or stop them in their tracks? Hitler could easily be compared to a terrorist... or dont you think so? Hitler and his army killed 12 million. Do you think the terrorists now wouldn't love to just wipe out Israel and all Jews? or.. even Americans?

[z edge]

Originally posted by Elvis


I'm not saying that violence is my first choice as a solution,

last choice after all possible diplomacy has failed

but a priority of ours is and must be to proactively insure the future of our way of life.

for us and the rest of the world too, but applicable to everyone who can read this in the tense of their own nation and it's leaders

You can NOT bargain with terror

Do you think the terrorists now wouldn't love to just wipe out Israel and all Jews? or.. even Americans?

While I have highlighted some statements I agree whole-heartedly with you on Elvis, I only have one question for you given your take on this matter and yet your "love" of our current administration. If not President Bush then who? And I mean who in your opinion is capable of fullfilling the above quoted visons?

[Elvis]

Originally posted by z edge
While I have highlighted some statements I agree whole-heartedly with you on Elvis, I only have one question for you given your take on this matter and yet your "love" of our current administration. If not President Bush then who? And I mean who in your opinion is capable of fullfilling the above quoted visons?

Boldly I will say.... NOT politicians.

[ouizy]

This was/is an interesting topic.

I have not given my opinions as they tend to be ultra-violent and rather Zionist, yet I do agree fully with the Nazi-era analogy, but will take it a step further and say there is a very fine line between the religion of Islam and the philosophies of National Socialism.

That said, I think terrorism is an epidemic that has been brought on by years of poverty, and that the acts of terror are being masked by the religion of Islam.

No religion = no war, but that cannot be proven ever if there ever is a religion.

We are in a quandry, and I fear the only choice is that of violence, and it would have to stretch much further into Palestine than just Iraq. We have to be strong and be brave, at least stronger and braver than the suicide/homicide bombers that feel like they have nothing to live for (I scoff at the martyrdom excuse, and I do not believe these people even believe it.) When you live in the dirt and have no food - there isn't much to live for. Being fed lies of paradise under the veil of religion, many people feel like they are doing good by blowing themselves up - even if they do not believe in their outcome at all. I do not believe these people are fanatics - I simply believe they have run out of options.

very sad.

[STING2]

Why do we need clear evidence that Iraq was involved in terrorism against the USA to go after them. After all the only reason that we stopped in 1991 technically was because the signed a ceace-fire agreement that had a number of conditions they had to meet. They have failed to meet all those conditions, and continue to violate others so technically were still at war.

More important than this is why wait when your actions could prevent massive loss of life in this country in the future. I ask the people that do not want to go after Iraq with out "clear" evidence what will you say if there is a more devistating attack in the future than 9/11 by a terror organization that is later found to be aided and supplied by Iraq. The fact would be that if we had gone after Iraq earlier, we could have prevented the terrible event.

Israel took surprise action in the 6 day, 67' war which saved the country from possibly being overrun but its Arab enemies.

In 1998, if Clinton had invaded Afghanistan, there is the chance, that we could of prevented 9/11. Instead, they just fired Cruise Missiles and failed to get their intended target. Are embassies had just been bombed, and in my opinion, more needed to be done. Easy for me to say in hindsite of course.

[STING2]

The level of poverty I assume you discribe for Palestinians is not nearly to that degree. Palestinians have, cars, supermarkets, and nice homes relative to most people who live in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thats where the people do not have enough to eat and live in the dirt. But they don't strap themselves with bombs and go blow up kids listening to U2 in Disco's.

Why they do it I say is a combination of a perversion of their religion, and although not to the degree you suggest, limited options to achieve a good standard of living, but most importantly an unobjective history of the events and reasons that led to the conditions they currently live in. Economic development, education, communication with the outside world, international travel, will help to solve many of these problems, and get the large mass of youth in the Arab world away from the extremist. Of course this will take a very long time, and is easier said than done.

I don't think religion is the problem at all. In fact, if the Muslims simply remained true to the core beliefs of their religion, there would not be any suicide bombings.

[z edge]

Originally posted by STING2

I don't think religion is the problem at all. In fact, if the Muslims simply remained true to the core beliefs of their religion, there would not be any suicide bombings.

and there you have it:

I remember Bono saying something about "...shrinking GOD down to their own size..."

to you STING2

[STING2]

Hey Z Edge,
I'm going to check out the site you mentioned for the F-22. I am saying this here, because I'm not sure if my message thing is working. Did you recieve are response?