I think waggies concerns are more than legit...I dont think he is refering to a tanker blowing up in our ports, but more about what these tankers may or may not bring into our borders...either way I agree with him.... I'd much rather spend money securing our ports, air, train , cars , computers...then trying to rebuild a country 10k miles away, which may or may not have been a threat to our country...our borders are a threat... not to mention our lack of attention to our neighbors in central and south america.....this should be a real concern to most of us....they dont like us so much any more....
Im not saying its not important....but unfortunately where their is a criminal mind there is a way....and we are all vulnerable whether we know it or not...thats why i pointed out the daytona.
I really don't think our borders are a threat. And whichever ports you target your spending on, they'll just use other ports if they really want to. Are we going to patrol the Canadian border? All 5k miles of it? Are we going to secure every single port in the US all the way up and down both the east and west coast? You guys are falling right into their trap. That's exactly what they want us to do. Spend all of our money by being afraid and then crippling our economy. I say let them come in. Only then will we have the whole world including Germany, France and Russia backing us. Then I would love to see where they are going to hide. Right now they have a lot of the world on their side. But that will change real fast if they attack us again on our soil. Also, something else you guys are missing. Do you guys realize how easy it is to make explosives? I can make a bomb that could blow up half of San Francisco out of things you can buy at walmart. And guess what? Al Qaida members are already living in this country!!!!!! So why would they go through all the trouble to import explosives when the terrorists are already here and can make these explosives in their apt? Ever heard of Timothy Mcveigh? Hello people!
I hear what you are trying to say, but we are not going to cripple our Economy by spending a mere $3.7 billion on Airport Security ( which we are currently doing ) and an equal amount on Port Security ( which we are currently not doing ), and also giving the U.S. Coast Guard our full financial and technological support. As I'm sure that you would agree, our borders have been a total joke, INS has been a total joke, and it is high time that we spend some money in these areas . . . besides, improvements in some of these areas has already netted some big time drug trafficing, and that is a huge plus!
Waggie although I agree with you, the fact is that the US, like any large country, cannot defend its borders no matter how much money it spends. A few years ago some people flew a small radio-controlled model aeroplane across the atlantic into US airspace below radar coverage. These were just amateurs. A well-funded terrorist group or nation state could easily design and build a fleet of 1000 of such planes, arm them with NBC weapons and fly them into America from all directions. Even if they were all spotted by satellite tracking, and known to be dangerous, it would be impossible to hit them all reliably with missiles or fighter planes, or anything else. What good would port security, sky marshalls, or the world's strongest military be then? The only hope would be the CIA getting wind of the attack and being able to stop it in advance, and we have seen how competent they are. It would be pitifully easy to kill millions of people via such an approach. Combine this with simultaneous poisoning of metropolitan water supplies, gas attacks on subway stations, vials of biological agents smashed in football stadiums etc, and you wouldn't stick a chance. Let's face it, 9/11 was basically an incredibly ineffective and amateur job by a bunch of jokers who got lucky. A *real* attack would make the WTC attacks look like a village picnic. I guess my conclusion is that you must attack the root of the problem. Security can buy you time but is not a permanent solution. Either you get ultra-aggressive and wipe out Al-Queda and similar groups totally, or you just get out of the Middle East entirely and wash your hands of the whole affair. The latter option is completely at odds with US foreign policy since WWII, so unless there is a huge sea change, it is going to be the former. IMO the US has been following a half way house policy, and attacking the wrong targets (e.g. Iraq) whilst being way too lenient to others (Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, N Korea).
Border patrol is a joke....that's why they should shoot all people trying to come across illegally...what do you say? Imagine the strong message it would send? I saw a 20/20 piece once where literally 100 Mexicans ran across the boarder all at once knowing that out of 100 only a handful could be apprehended....and the ones that were caught all said they would try again tomorrow night....why not mow em all down with some machine gun action and plant land mines??? I think you would see a sharp decrease in illegal immigration
how much has been spent, cumulatively, on the "war on drugs?" and the opportunity costs of such a misallocation of resources? hundreds of billions? trillions? and after 30 (?) years of federal agencies, millions of convictions, the most technologically advanced police system in the world, xray machines and drug-sniffing dogs at the border, etc. -- anyone in the US that wants drugs can still get them just as easily as they could 30 years ago. the only effect of more funding has been an increase in the size of the enforcement and incarceration industries.
weird isn't it????? yet when they really want to stop something they can......what's easier to get: an ounce of Pot or a Box of Cuban Partegas??????? If i gave ten people two hours and 10 grand to come back with Pot or Cubans.....i bet the majority would have pot
around here if you gave 10 people 10 grand each for an ounce and i bet none of them would come back..