OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[League Circles]

Violent crime is at its lowest per capita in US history.

We are the only super power in the world.

Stopping terrorist attacks is difficult, but we've seemingly gotten very good at it post 9/11.

Yet, I read your posts and clearly see fear. That's what the Terrorists want. Republican discourse isn't helping either. They are trying to manipulate you too.

You mistake my sensibility for fear. I'm not afraid to die, that's why I'm not afraid of letting ISIS do what they're gonna do in the ME. I'm also not afraid of getting my car broken into or getting in a car crash, but I've worn a seatbelt and locked my car door every time for as long as I can remember because it doesn't make sense not to. And to me, in this day and age, it doesn't make sense to not lock the door with Mexico.

I also think it would be part of an overall strategy to uplift the American poor as well.

Have we gotten very good at stopping terrorist attacks? Do you have it on good knowledge that there aren't say 400 ISIS troops here right now just waiting for the green light once everything is in place?

No I'm not mistaking your sensibility for fear. Sensible implies you are being reasonable.

Instead, it seems like you are freaking out over anecdotal evidence. Oh and movies you watched where terrorists came over the border. Yeah, real sensible.

ISIS will probably attack us at some point. That doesn't mean you lose your mind.

What anecdotal evidence?

Simple question: do you think it would be difficult to impossible for some ISIS fighters to illegally cross the US border with Mexico? (Or canada). If so, what makes you think it's difficult. If not, do you not think keeping foreign enemy soldiers out of the US should be a priority? If it should, how would you address it differently than by securing the border?

I'm not freaking out at all. I'm just talking about what are the obvious steps the federal government should take to effectively do the most important part of their job. To me, step one of making something protected is to check it's physical vulnerability. We are physically vulnerable. Doesn't mean I'm scared or freaking out about it. I'm just identifying obvious vulnerabilities.

[musiqsoulchild]

The US has a **** ton of troops and assets out in the world as a means to protect shipping routes and trade routes.

Let's get this right - trade and shipping are the ONLY reason why the US has as many aircraft carriers as we have.

It's how we project and multiply power. Even now, NATO looks for naval support from the US. That's where the US easily trumps the rest of the world and that's how we can neutralize war zones that we otherwise would have no business winning.

A by product of aircraft carriers is a limitation of tactics to aerial means only. I think Obama has had no problem spending taxpayer money on weapons/ machines of war. But he won't spend taxpayer money on getting more taxpayers ( soldiers ) killed.

That equation changes when the other kind of taxpayer ( civilians) start losing lives to terrorism. Or if similar loss in other countries can affect the political calculus here.

Ultimately it's all politics.

Why won't Russia come out and say " ISIS bombed out plane and killed 170 Russian civilians" ? It's because Putin will have no political capital left with his voters if they read the situation as " So, our President launched an offensive in Syria against ISIS ... and a week later they hit a plane over Egypt. Man, Putin is an idiot." Politicians don't want that.

Don't for one second think that Hillary isn't talking to Barack about what to do next and how to proceed and timelines.

We don't have leaders anymore - ONLY politicians.

[League Circles]

Even children?

That's an interesting hypothetical. I'm imagining a 30 foot tall, slick on one side wall with heavily armed troops every 650 feet or so on top of it. It's hard for me to imagine kids scaling that wall trying to get in under the circumstances, for the same reason that people don't often try to scale US prison walls. Maybe they wouldn't have to shoot people. Maybe just press the "oil" button to make the 30 foot surface they're scaling under machine gun fire even more slick so they fall down.

There are 6800 banks in the US. We keep them pretty secure. We should b able to secure 2000 miles of dessert border IMO.

This is one of the most ridiculous exchanges I've ever read on this forum.

And I just read a thread where people have still tried to argue that Rose > Butler.

what's ridiculous about it? That it's not mainstream? Too expensive? Too lacking in sympathy? What?

[TheSuzerain]

Gar PaxDorf, you said you were Muslim.

May I ask if you are an immigrant or your parents are?

[League Circles]

And how much do you honestly believe a 600+ mile 12 ft tall, X ft deep, Z ft wide wall would actually cost? More than a few billion. How much to maintain? How many electronic sensors will be involved? How many border guards will be required and what will the response time be? Or will we just go east Germany and be sure to have towers to shoot any and all that attempt to come over or under the wall?

Until those that hire illegals are truly punished, you won't stop the flow of illegals coming to try to support their families. If you do build that wall and stop all that cheap labor from coming in, those that hire said cheap labor will go where the labor is.

Why would it only be 12 feet high? I think a lot higher than that makes most sense.

If you left 20000 us troopsin **** Germany, you could have an armed US military soldier every 1/8 of a mile along the border. And yeah of course they should shoot people trying to scale over the wall.

Yes it would be expensive but to me it would be among the most sensible and least egregious things these two moron political parties spend on.

So full on military state. Awesome.

Who said anything about a military state? I want a military controlled border IF necessary so that we can actually have a free country inside. Is it better to have 50000 troops in japan than have say 15000 along he border in our own country actually protecting it?

It's always odd to me that every crime committed by an illegal is met with the same folks screaming about the need for change to keep us safe, but crimes of a violent nature are always met with a "it's not the time for talk of political change" "they're just politicizing a trajedy". The biggest danger to Americans comes by the hands of other Americans...no wall will change that.

Edit: a 30 ft wall? A 3 ft fence cost 2.5 billion, I'm sure the conservatives that want that wall have no problem with the tax increase that would come to cover said 30 ft, oil slicked, machine gun mounted, soldier every 1/8 mile (not to mention the support structures to take care of soldiers) wall. While we're at it, why not sharks with laser beams?

What on earth are you talking about? I never mentioned crime committed by illegal immigrants. I never mentioned anything about whatever you're presuming I believe.

You're perhaps too closed minded to realize that you don't have to be a pro-gun anti immigrant republican to want a wall. For the record, I'm a liberal muslim American, married to a legal immigrant. And want a wall not to reduce mexican crime in america, but as an obvious security measure and to protect against the class system that has developed in our country.

[League Circles]

Gar PaxDorf, you said you were Muslim.

May I ask if you are an immigrant or your parents are?

No, I'm not, nor were my parents. All my ancestors have been here since the industrial revolution or longer.

[johnnyvann840]

Yeah.. the statement that "We've gotten really good at stopping terror attacks" is a dangerous one to make. To many of these groups a few decades is just a blip in time. I'm not afraid nor do want to sound like I'm trying to spread fear. But, I know better than to be fooled by a decade of what could be dormancy. Do I feel like our leaders have intelligence and they are good at finding and stopping these things.. yeah.. do I think that makes us safe? hell no.

[AKfanatic]

Why would it only be 12 feet high? I think a lot higher than that makes most sense.

If you left 20000 us troopsin **** Germany, you could have an armed US military soldier every 1/8 of a mile along the border. And yeah of course they should shoot people trying to scale over the wall.

Yes it would be expensive but to me it would be among the most sensible and least egregious things these two moron political parties spend on.

So full on military state. Awesome.

Who said anything about a military state? I want a military controlled border IF necessary so that we can actually have a free country inside. Is it better to have 50000 troops in japan than have say 15000 along he border in our own country actually protecting it?

It's always odd to me that every crime committed by an illegal is met with the same folks screaming about the need for change to keep us safe, but crimes of a violent nature are always met with a "it's not the time for talk of political change" "they're just politicizing a trajedy". The biggest danger to Americans comes by the hands of other Americans...no wall will change that.

Edit: a 30 ft wall? A 3 ft fence cost 2.5 billion, I'm sure the conservatives that want that wall have no problem with the tax increase that would come to cover said 30 ft, oil slicked, machine gun mounted, soldier every 1/8 mile (not to mention the support structures to take care of soldiers) wall. While we're at it, why not sharks with laser beams?

What on earth are you talking about? I never mentioned crime committed by illegal immigrants. I never mentioned anything about whatever you're presuming I believe.

You're perhaps too closed minded to realize that you don't have to be a pro-gun anti immigrant republican to want a wall. For the record, I'm a liberal muslim American, married to a legal immigrant. And want a wall not to reduce mexican crime in america, but as an obvious security measure and to protect against the class system that has developed in our country.

That wall would accomplish a trillion dollar budget and more jobs shipped out. As for needing troops in Japan...I'm an ex Air Force vet. I was stationed in Japan, Crete, and Alaska. If you believe we should go full isolationist across the planet....good luck. Troops are a necessity across the globe for a multitude of reasons that I'm assuming you are intelligent enough to know. A wall to keep out bad guys is never going to work. We have smugglers coming in by air and sea daily, we have a massive northern borders that's a lot easier to get across than most realize. Spending near a trillion on construction costs and maintenance for a 30 ft wall does nothing but show the utter paranoia that many have been fed by fear preaching politicians.


Edit: and apologies if I come off as insulting toward you in any way at at all. Truly not my intention. (go Bulls)

[League Circles]

So full on military state. Awesome.

Who said anything about a military state? I want a military controlled border IF necessary so that we can actually have a free country inside. Is it better to have 50000 troops in japan than have say 15000 along he border in our own country actually protecting it?

It's always odd to me that every crime committed by an illegal is met with the same folks screaming about the need for change to keep us safe, but crimes of a violent nature are always met with a "it's not the time for talk of political change" "they're just politicizing a trajedy". The biggest danger to Americans comes by the hands of other Americans...no wall will change that.

Edit: a 30 ft wall? A 3 ft fence cost 2.5 billion, I'm sure the conservatives that want that wall have no problem with the tax increase that would come to cover said 30 ft, oil slicked, machine gun mounted, soldier every 1/8 mile (not to mention the support structures to take care of soldiers) wall. While we're at it, why not sharks with laser beams?

What on earth are you talking about? I never mentioned crime committed by illegal immigrants. I never mentioned anything about whatever you're presuming I believe.

You're perhaps too closed minded to realize that you don't have to be a pro-gun anti immigrant republican to want a wall. For the record, I'm a liberal muslim American, married to a legal immigrant. And want a wall not to reduce mexican crime in america, but as an obvious security measure and to protect against the class system that has developed in our country.

That wall would accomplish a trillion dollar budget and more jobs shipped out. As for needing troops in Japan...I'm an ex Air Force vet. I was stationed in Japan, Crete, and Alaska. If you believe we should go full isolationist across the planet....good luck. Troops are a necessity across the globe for a multitude of reasons that I'm assuming you are intelligent enough to know. A wall to keep out bad guys is never going to work. We have smugglers coming in by air and sea daily, we have a massive northern borders that's a lot easier to get across than most realize. Spending near a trillion on construction costs and maintenance for a 30 ft wall does nothing but show the utter paranoia that many have been fed by fear preaching politicians.


Edit: and apologies if I come off as insulting toward you in any way at at all. Truly not my intention. (go Bulls)

Not insulting, though thanks for that thought.

Do you have any evidence or explanation behind the trillion dollar estimate? Seems awful high.

I don't advocate full isolationism around the globe. I actually think we should double or triple our forces in international waters while decreasing our presence on land in most countries amd eliminate it entirely in some others.

I also said I support strengthening the canadian border as well for the same reasons.

I generally don't even follow politics and certainly don't listen to them or their fear mongering. I'm probably not even going to vote anymore and embarass myself participating in the charade. But I still have a mind and an opinion and I think pretend borders is very very dangerous for a country like ours in this day and age when so much of warfare is small scale, covert and unannounced an unprovoked. It's a different world from the time when having these pretend borders was sensible and acceptable IMO.

Our weaknesses by sea and air don't mean we should igore our weaknesses by land. We should greatly strengthen all fronts.

I kmow that means things will get more expensive. There will be less international trade and travel. And as someone who likes imported stuff and international travel, that would suck. But most problems in modern civilization can be substantially helped or even solved by simply having less, consuming less, reaching less. But zero politicians want to tell people that the answer to our problems is to live a life that would be perceived or measured to be a lower standard of living.

[TheSuzerain]

Yeah.. the statement that "We've gotten really good at stopping terror attacks" is a dangerous one to make. To many of these groups a few decades is just a blip in time. I'm not afraid nor do want to sound like I'm trying to spread fear. But, I know better than to be fooled by a decade of what could be dormancy. Do I feel like our leaders have intelligence and they are good at finding and stopping these things.. yeah.. do I think that makes us safe? hell no.

I mean define "safe" for me? By pretty much any actual empirical measure, we are extremely safe.

Yeah we should continue to be vigilant, but we don't need to start doing ridiculous things in the name of security. The only thing that I've really changed my opinion on is the continuance of the mass internet surveillance.

[kyrv]

People are on garpaxdorf, but doesn't the US have among the most miles of unsecured borders? I don't know about a wall, but tossing ideas on the table isn't wacky. And not like walls between countries is unheard of.

[Rerisen]

What I am saying is that repeating the failed policies of the past is not the solution, yet it is constantly hailed as the only solution.

What failed policies are being hailed in this discussion? Certainly not the US invading or massive boots on the ground such as was done in Iraq.

Only that our power and influence will likely be needed in a leadership role if a path to peace is ever going to be worked out. And that will probably have to involve not just us, but also Russia and Iran in facilitating a transition away from Assad.

But yes, someone is going to have to go in there and get rid of ISIS - likely an Arab coalition but with technical, special ops and logistics support from us, because I really don't see ISIS joining up to a coalition government do you?

[kyrv]

Yeah.. the statement that "We've gotten really good at stopping terror attacks" is a dangerous one to make. To many of these groups a few decades is just a blip in time. I'm not afraid nor do want to sound like I'm trying to spread fear. But, I know better than to be fooled by a decade of what could be dormancy. Do I feel like our leaders have intelligence and they are good at finding and stopping these things.. yeah.. do I think that makes us safe? hell no.

I mean define "safe" for me? By pretty much any actual empirical measure, we are extremely safe.

Yeah we should continue to be vigilant, but we don't need to start doing ridiculous things in the name of security. The only thing that I've really changed my opinion on is the continuance of the mass internet surveillance.

Right, basically pretty safe, but not invulnerable? I know safe is kind of a lightning rod term.

[Rerisen]

Why is it not possible, or even likely, that a total change in the foreign policy of the nations they target would lead to a change in their goals and grand vision?

Because... religion.

Trying to be nice isn't going to cause fanatical clerics to rewrite their thousand year old interpretation of their faith, or of wrongs committed against them that will only be righted with bloodshed and conquest.

The mistake is believing this kind of extremist mindset just wants their own little nation to quietly obey their teachings in. Check out their maps of how vast the 'caliphate' is that they have envisioned. Most of the ME would have to fall including Turkey. And then pushing up into Europe and beyond.

This isn't just about the last 15 years, Iraq, Al-Qaeda, or even cozying up to the Royal Family. The timeline of thier motivations goes back centuries, it is not without meaning when they talk about defeating the 'forces of Rome'.

[GetBuLLish]

What I am saying is that repeating the failed policies of the past is not the solution, yet it is constantly hailed as the only solution.

What failed policies are being hailed in this discussion? Certainly not the US invading or massive boots on the ground such as was done in Iraq.

Only that our power and influence will likely be needed in a leadership role if a path to peace is ever going to be worked out. And that will probably have to involve not just us, but also Russia and Iran in facilitating a transition away from Assad.

But yes, someone is going to have to go in there and get rid of ISIS - likely an Arab coalition but with technical, special ops and logistics support from us, because I really don't see ISIS joining up to a coalition government do you?

I am making the well-founded assumption that any "coalition" that includes the US will inevitably become the "US doing 90% of the work and putting in 90% of the resources."

And good luck having an Arab coalition doing this. Heck, Saudi Arabia funds most of these terrorists anyway.

The middle east is just one gigantic cesspool of crap. I don't understand how many times we have to screw up there to figure out that our involvement just makes things work and makes us weaker.

[Rerisen]

I am making the well-founded assumption that any "coalition" that includes the US will inevitably become the "US doing 90% of the work and putting in 90% of the resources."

And good luck having an Arab coalition doing this. Heck, Saudi Arabia funds most of these terrorists anyway.

The middle east is just one gigantic cesspool of crap. I don't understand how many times we have to screw up there to figure out that our involvement just makes things work and makes us weaker.

I mentioned not being hopeful for any near term solution, whether we engage or not. I expect this state of affairs, in some form or another, to last for decades. Maybe when the rest of the world gets off oil, the mideast will have no choice but to reform internally and develop their people's skills, including woman, beyond just relying on pumping black gold out of the ground.

The sad and ironic thing is we in the US could do without energy from there if we wanted, and yet with a globalized economy, will still remain invested in the outcome, as if the ME blows up, the shockwave can still impact us a great deal.

[johnnyvann840]

Yeah.. the statement that "We've gotten really good at stopping terror attacks" is a dangerous one to make. To many of these groups a few decades is just a blip in time. I'm not afraid nor do want to sound like I'm trying to spread fear. But, I know better than to be fooled by a decade of what could be dormancy. Do I feel like our leaders have intelligence and they are good at finding and stopping these things.. yeah.. do I think that makes us safe? hell no.

I mean define "safe" for me? By pretty much any actual empirical measure, we are extremely safe.

Yeah we should continue to be vigilant, but we don't need to start doing ridiculous things in the name of security. The only thing that I've really changed my opinion on is the continuance of the mass internet surveillance.

I agree in general... we are talking about threat of a terror attack. I don't think there is a quantifiable level of safety at any given moment. The bottom line is that there are evil people out there and if they want to hurt other people really badly and they are smart and plan, we are probably not going to stop them. It's like GarPaxDorf's analogy about the wall... I'm not sure about a wall right now, but, it's like this... if somebody really wants to break into my house and rob me or kill me... and they were smart and planned it... they could do it. But that doesn't mean I leave the door open or do anything to make it easy for them.

When you talk about being safe, you are coming from a position of (exaggerated of course) ... "well, we haven't been hit in years and we catch people so we must be so great at it that nobody can hurt us". We are safe because there really had not been any serious attempts that have gotten close enough. That doesn't mean much though.

[Rerisen]

If we can't afford a wall, we should just take some of the 38000 troops we have in Germany, or some of the 49000 in Japan, and station them every 1/8 mile along the border. But no, we can't get by in Germany with only 20,000 troops, can we?

The rest of NATO needs to start paying their way no doubt.

The biggest reasons the Germans want US troops to stay nowadays is because if they left it would crush the local economies in the area.

[TheSuzerain]

People are on garpaxdorf, but doesn't the US have among the most miles of unsecured borders? I don't know about a wall, but tossing ideas on the table isn't wacky. And not like walls between countries is unheard of.

It's a medieval idea completely detached from how people enter this country in the year 2015.

The number of terrorists who illegally entered the country by foot over the border is incredibly small. The only example I could actually find came from over the Canadian border.

But yeah, lets waste an incredible amount of money to combat an imaginary threat.

[bentheredengthat]

People are on garpaxdorf, but doesn't the US have among the most miles of unsecured borders? I don't know about a wall, but tossing ideas on the table isn't wacky. And not like walls between countries is unheard of.

I think it's wacky when anyone can do a 5 minute google search and discover that the cost would be astronomical and the risk/ reward is silly. I believe they built a 600 mile fence (not 30 foot high Teflon sided greased daily wall) in the easiest, flattest section of the border and had budget, political, logistical, and environmental problems with that (sorry to be so vague didn't want to google )

Maybe OT but the only reason Trump gets away with this crap is because the average Republican voter must be approaching 70 years old at this point and probably thinks google is a dirty word.