No War On Terror

Nothing the current leaders are doing addresses the prime need of our country today. They are focused on winning elections and playing partisan politics as usual and completely ignore the Homeland Security needs of our citizens. Obama set the tone to disavow the existence of the terminology “war on terror.” Let’s call it something else and not spend any money on upgrading our homeland security. It’s just not popular with the liberals that elected me he seems to shout at every corner. It was W’s thang after all so it must be wrong. It’s not about rhetoric Mr. President it’s about enforcing the laws that are on the books and allocating budget to provide the proper screening devices. Congress is worse. It’s so funny, we pass a bill for conference that will cover more people for health care than ever before, it has dominated the American Culture (driven by the MSM who have also conveniently downplayed the need for homeland security). Someone tell me how we care for dead people blown up needlessly in aircraft because our leaders have their heads up their arses. If not for defective equipment several hundred innocent civilians would again be dead needlessly. But the President stays in Hawaii and congress stays home. Damn, it’s just maddening.

The system did not work!


8 Responses

  1. > The system did not work!

    No argument from me there. Eight years after 9/11, the same “no talk” between agencies is still there. Doesn’t matter if it is a Repub or Dem in office. The moribund bureaucracy outlasts all reform efforts. I say just abolish the CIA entirely and start from scratch.

    And the “posturing” is worse. Happens all the time but that doesn’t make it any more tolerable. After Pan Am goes down, we were asked “Are you carrying anything given to you by a stranger”? After 9/11, that question stopped.

    After the “shoe bomb”, we had to take off our shoes. And so they just found a different way.

    Now, based on this latest incident, there are “pat downs” which would not have detected the explosives unless they’re grabbing your crotch. But they think the masses will be appeased because they’re “doing something” even if it is is just for show.

    If the past is the future, I believe the terrorists will always be one step ahead of us because they have more motivation. And they just might be smarter.

  2. If the past is the future, I believe the terrorists will always be one step ahead of us because they have more motivation. And they just might be smarter.

    What they can see is that our own laws of personel freedom retard our ability to defend ourselves against civilian terrorists.

    And now it seems that the White house has given freedoms to interpol that our own police and citizens do not have.


    First we must be safe, then government needs to stop the spin and tell us the truth first so that we can hold them accountable.

  3. > White house has given freedoms to interpol

    Not good, to put it mildly.

    But I do not accept the idea that we can be both safe and free. Every percentage increase in “safe” is at the expense of a similar percentage decrease in “free.” if you want 100% safety, then it comes at 100% loss of freedom.

    We rarely have our freedom “taken” from us. We give it up voluntarily, thinking it will make us safer. We end up unsafe and unfree.

    Given the incompetence of our “security” systems from 9/11 to the Delta incident, I am unwilling to give up even one more percentage of freedom. They (CIA, TSA, etc) cannot do the job! Under any circumstance. Exclamation mark! 😉

    Are you happy with Bobby’s final game? Even I, who am no football fan, watched the last half.

  4. I agree that preserving freedom is essential to the American “way of life.”I do not agree that we can not give up freedom to keep it. We have always done so, every war we have fought to preserve freedom has had considerable loss of it to the military and their families and much national sacrifice. We simply can not maintain freedom in a world with evil people. I don’t see that changing in our lifetimes. Evil exists and the lessons of the peacemakers have not stopped it.

    We have both good and evil in our own population and we grant civil liberties to both equally. We do not have to do the same thing to those who try to destroy us, and as long as we blur that distinction we will suffer the consequences. It’s not political so much as practical. That having been said, creating bigger government will not correct incompetency. We have the technology to secure air travel; we need to have a multilateral urgency to get it done.

    Part of the problem is rhetoric that permeates reality and retards action. This administration has utilized much of the systems from the previous one but seems to want to keep secrets from the people. Putting spin on reality only confuses and demoralizes the general population and the agencies that are supposed to collaborate. Leadership must insist on collaboration and set the example.

    Ain’t happening!

    I will write a blog on the Gator Bowl soon I think.

  5. > We simply can not maintain freedom in a world with evil
    > people.

    IF I agreed with the concept of “evil people”, which I do not, then I would also say there never has been, not will there ever be, a world without evil people. And if that is the case….

    But, I think “evil people” is oversimplification and morally arrogant. Is Osama “evil”? if so, then why did we support and aid this “evil” person when he was killing Russians? What does that make us for aiding and abetting an ‘evil” person?

    Then, there is the issue of who “defines” evil? Were Americans not “evil” for allowing slavery? If so, did the abolishment of slavery redeem us of being “evil”? I could cite many other such “evils” in past American society but I think you see where I am going.

    I focus on acts and recognize that folks have reasons for what they do. Whether we agree or not with those reasons is entirely different from whether those acts make them “evil.”

    Because if I simply ask whether the intentional killing of civilians in war is ‘evil”, then how do you answer when you know we intentionally killed millions of Japanese and German civilians in WW2?

    Is it not “evil” if “good” people commit the killing? Of course, most Americans will say it was “justified.” It was war. But that justification for some reason does not apply to Germans and Japanese who killed civilians because… they were ‘evil”?

    So the exact same act is “evil” or not depending on whether the perpetrator is “good” or “evil”? The Japanese and Germans probbaly asked for God’s blessing as they prepared for combat, just as American soldiers did.

    Maybe Hitler was evil. Maybe most of the Nazi leadership was evil. Does that make the entire German civilian population evil? So they deserved to be killed even though they were non-combatants? That is the same thinking Osama is using to justify killing American civilians.

    Better do that Gator Bowl post soon or it will be “stale.” And you may (or may not) want to include thoughts about the NCAA sanctions.

  6. “All human beings have a dark side that can cause the breakdown of individual or community moral standards, if this dark side gains sway over reason and right thinking” (analysis of Lord of the Flies)

    Of course there are good and evil people in the world. I have always been fascinated by the concept of the duality of man. We have the capacity to be both.

    I reference Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness , Robert Louis Stevenson’s Jekyll and Hyde and William Golding’s Lord of The Flies.

    Certainly society has the right and duty to regulate obsessively destructive behavior. it is called the rule of law.

    I would single out Ted Bundy as an example of evil, he was the classic predator. And yes Bin Ladin too….we need not apply civil law to Bin Ladin. He has already bragged to the world of his joy in killing. You may cite chapter and verse “explaining” his rationale and it doesn’t matter at all. He is evil.

    And we ARE in a War on Terror and don’t need to be “politically correct” to savages who threaten non Islamic cultures. It’s not arrogance its just common sense.

    The French, repelled by WWI, had similar cultural backlashes to the horrors of war and fooled themselves into trusting Hitler and relied on the Maginot Line to protect them, not a strong military.

    Didn’t work!

  7. What would you have Obama do? The would be bomber got on a plane in the Netherlands.

    Last year there were 14,000 murders in the United States. Of those 14,000 only 14 were committed by Jihadist. 13 of them happened at Fort Hood and the other at a military recruiting station.

    It appears that Americans are more adept at killing Americans than those cave dwelling knuckleheads.

  8. I want the administration to keep us safe. If you recall my initial objection to Obama was just that concern. It is job 1. And statistics don’t justify failure. Just keep us safe man. Or pay the piper come election time.

    Most people of Islam aren’t terrorists, but most terrorists are Islamic. It ain’t too frigging difficult to figure things out from there. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quack like a duck then it just may well be one huh? So we just need to be good duck hunters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: