I guess this is a strong argument against yours:
Well you have to give Bush some credit...
- Thread starter gunslinger
- Start date
I guess this is a strong argument against yours:
As another member already posted, Homeland Security releases illegal immigration stats - to the tune of 700,000 per year.
When you do the math, its just under 2,000 a day.
Of course, thats if you trust what Homeland Security has to say
Where to start.
You may (or may not) recall, Bush is the ultimate authority charged with the security of this country.
Thats why he fiercely advocated the creation of Homeland Security, half trillion DOD budgets and the Iraq war.
Curiously, the Bush (and Clinton) administration favor border insecurity over secure borders. In a time of war where small groups of foreign nationals pose a far more egregious threat than standing armies.
As much as you would like to make this a Red vs Blue/Federal vs State issue, its neither.
Its democrats AND Republicans across ALL spectrums, turning a blind eye to illegal immigration.
Why? Because - like you - they care more about money than the security of their country.
Breath taking stupidity.
Yes, these terrorist - who spend years training in stone-age caves (literally) to suicide-bomb Americans - certainly wouldn't 'debase themselves' by swimming across the Reo Grand to strike their enemy undetected.
Hows the Kool Aid today, Pabst? mmmmmm
You are what they call a sheep. A big, fat, stupid one.
Your beloved Posse Commetius has nothing to do with it:
a) Fund enough Border Patrol Agents to do the job
b) Declare Federal Emergency (which it is), win approval from Congress and deploy troops to the Border on a Presidential directive.
c) At the Federal Level (Presidential), petition State Governors HARD to deploy their National Guard and provide adequate funding to support.
You're nothing but a pretender, son.
Pekelo explains the world:
Sure. Here it goes:
Why there wasn't another terrorist attack by foreigners since 9/11?
1. Because the government has been succesfully protecting us.
Although this sounds so well, as it was pointed out earlier (but some idiots didn't get it) if 2000 Mexicans can cross the borders a day without getting caught, sure 1,2,5 terrorists can do too.
Also, as the 2 black snipers proved a few years ago, you can terrorize quite a big area with very limited resources, such as a few rifles and a car.
So if getting into the country is easy and terrorizing people can be done very cheaply, there must be some other reasons, because sure there are plenty of people hating the US.
2. Their bites is much weaker than their barks.
It is much easier releasing videos of threat then actually do something...It is part of PR really (for new recruits), not necesserily a plan...
3. The lack of willingess/knowledge/resources TOGETHER. Some would be terrorists might have the willingness but not the know how, some others might know what to do but lacks money. For a successful attack a group needs all 3...
4. The geographical closeness of possible other targets.
When you can blow up US soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no need to get into the difficulty to come over here and attack SOFT targets. See #5.
5. The main reason: it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
An attack on US soil by Muslim terrorists would be simply counterproductive, specially against soft targets. Just like 9/11 put most of the world behind the US, a similar attack would have the same effect.
Right now the US is doing everything to alienate the rest of the world. An attack against soft targets would cause world sympathy, more volunters for the US military forces, rise patriotism
and generally would piss off the average American, who would be more willing to OK pretty much anything what the government wants to do in the future, let's say military action against ANY country...
An attack against HARD target would make sense, but they have plenty of HARD targets right where they live or in the next door country...
So as a short answer: politically/tactically it is just not a good idea to attack the US on its soil.
Mind you, it doesn't mean it is not going to happen. The point of this post was that there are other reasons beside crediting the government for the lack of terrorist attacks...
Sure. Here it goes:
Why there wasn't another terrorist attack by foreigners since 9/11?
1. Because the government has been succesfully protecting us.
Although this sounds so well, as it was pointed out earlier (but some idiots didn't get it) if 2000 Mexicans can cross the borders a day without getting caught, sure 1,2,5 terrorists can do too.
Also, as the 2 black snipers proved a few years ago, you can terrorize quite a big area with very limited resources, such as a few rifles and a car.
So if getting into the country is easy and terrorizing people can be done very cheaply, there must be some other reasons, because sure there are plenty of people hating the US.
2. Their bites is much weaker than their barks.
It is much easier releasing videos of threat then actually do something...It is part of PR really (for new recruits), not necesserily a plan...
3. The lack of willingess/knowledge/resources TOGETHER. Some would be terrorists might have the willingness but not the know how, some others might know what to do but lacks money. For a successful attack a group needs all 3...
4. The geographical closeness of possible other targets.
When you can blow up US soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, there is no need to get into the difficulty to come over here and attack SOFT targets. See #5.
5. The main reason: it is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
An attack on US soil by Muslim terrorists would be simply counterproductive, specially against soft targets. Just like 9/11 put most of the world behind the US, a similar attack would have the same effect.
Right now the US is doing everything to alienate the rest of the world. An attack against soft targets would cause world sympathy, more volunters for the US military forces, rise patriotism
and generally would piss off the average American, who would be more willing to OK pretty much anything what the government wants to do in the future, let's say military action against ANY country...
An attack against HARD target would make sense, but they have plenty of HARD targets right where they live or in the next door country...
So as a short answer: politically/tactically it is just not a good idea to attack the US on its soil.
Mind you, it doesn't mean it is not going to happen. The point of this post was that there are other reasons beside crediting the government for the lack of terrorist attacks...
