Terror over Detroit

83 replies [Last post]
Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

Just had to get this in.
Last nights incident is a great argument for waterboarding. How on earth this guy got past security in Amsterdam is beyond me.
He claimed he was connected to Al Queda. That seems too easy, i wouldnt be surprised if upon further questioning he was just found to be a lone lunatic.
But if thats not the case, he makes a great argument for waterboarding. But no, we will do everything possible to make sure he is treated like any other civil criminal (as opposed to war criminal) we'll read him his rights, get him proper treatment and decide what evidence needs to be thrown out of court becasue it wasnt properly obtained.
America needs to wake up. Its only a matter of time before one of these maniacs blows himself up in Times Square, or on Rodeo Drive and takes hundreds with him (or her) and truly changes the way we live, forever.
 
Lou Dobbs for President. (or at least, John McCain)
 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Of course, Still@jones and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas.

Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys.

The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Still@Jones believes a lone lunatic will eventually cause a mass terror event which will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. Most likely, this will be carried out using a biological or chemical weapon - although, it could be nuclear. Saying that waterboarding will protect us is naive. You can't waterboard enough people in order to reach all the Theo Kaczynskis, Tim McVeighs, and other people who believe they are noble in their pursuit. I absolutely believe our only effective defense is the trust of the friends, families and acquaintances of these unstable individuals. (that's how we caught Kaczynski) We need these acquaintances to call the feds when they think their brother or cousin might be out to cause mass harm. If I were an Arab-American, I would never call the feds even if my brother was clearly unstable. No one would call on their friends or family if they believe he might be tortured. I would call if I thought he would receive the help he needs.    Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don't share your views on the "terrorists" being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn't the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote:    Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don't share your views on the "terrorists" being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn't the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?

I know you don't. The reality is the British bow to world opinion. Much like we are now. It certainly isn't childish.

Why are our soldiers now mirandizing terrorists? We just recently started that. That is an Obama thing. It is obvious from Mr. Obama's speeches that we are becoming candy-assed.

These people are not civilized. They understand power. Violence. And the threat of violence. And don't believe that BS that they are not afraid of torture. I've never seen a bigger bunch of cowards in my life.

I know I will never convince you. Keep living in the dream world.

My hope was that President Obama would realize the gravity of the situation when he took office. However, it appears he cares more about public opinion (world and national) than he does about doing his job. I hope that he will turn that around.

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

a lone lunatic is not getting his hands on nuclear weapons. Organized terrorists with money and tentacles all over the place do that.
I dont think we need the "trust" of the friends and family of these lunatics. Nor will we get it. We can get the same information from the terrorist lunatics themselves, and if the only way to do that and protect those tens or hundreds of thousands of American lives is to torture these people into vomiting up their "collegues" then thats what we should do.
 
I didnt know that iur military is now mirandizing terrorists. This is sad. It is insane. They are war criminals who hate us more than they love their children.
The slippery slope seems to get steeper every day.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Moraen wrote: Still@jones wrote:    Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don't share your views on the "terrorists" being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn't the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?

I know you don't. The reality is the British bow to world opinion. Much like we are now. It certainly isn't childish.

Why are our soldiers now mirandizing terrorists? We just recently started that. That is an Obama thing. It is obvious from Mr. Obama's speeches that we are becoming candy-assed.

These people are not civilized. They understand power. Violence. And the threat of violence. And don't believe that BS that they are not afraid of torture. I've never seen a bigger bunch of cowards in my life.

I know I will never convince you. Keep living in the dream world.

My hope was that President Obama would realize the gravity of the situation when he took office. However, it appears he cares more about public opinion (world and national) than he does about doing his job. I hope that he will turn that around.Then, do you believe Russia would be better off if they were more violent? Demonstrated more power?  If so, then tell me how this did not prevent the Nord-Ost Siege or Beslan?No show of military power will dissuade someone who believes they are Davy against Goliath. ...and in the flat world, Davy has access to some powerful weapons. You should be afraid of that.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote:.Then, do you believe Russia would be better off if they were more violent? Demonstrated more power?  If so, then tell me how this did not prevent the Nord-Ost Siege or Beslan?No show of military power will dissuade someone who believes they are Davy against Goliath. ...and in the flat world, Davy has access to some powerful weapons. You should be afraid of that.

Russia is violent. Look at Georgia.

Russia's issues stem from things other than violence. Nobody wants to fcuk with Vlad. How is Russia any different than most Western countries as far as extremists are concerned? I'll answer that for you. They are afraid of Putin. Terrified of him. They know that if they so much as twitch, he will bring the full power of the Russian Bear upon them. That is, they THINK that he will. Threat of violence.

David and Goliath doesn't apply here (fiction). Goliath was big and stupid. I am afraid of Davy with powerful weapons. Because we are not doing enough to stop it. That's WHY you should be afraid Still.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

You are missing my point. They are very afraid of Putin, yet Beslan and
Nord-Ost still occurred. London was part of the "coalition of the willing" yet the 7/7
bombings occurred. This seems to disprove your logic. My D v. G reference was more to people who aren't afraid to take on a super power no matter how much they flaunt their supremacy. And powerful weapons are no longer difficult to find/make. The atom bomb is old technology. It is from days before color TVs, before central air conditioning, before cell phones, before space travel... There's no reason that a guy who knows the physics behind designing a cell phone can not figure out how to build an atomic bomb. There's no reason why the guy who knows how to develop new pharmaceuticals can not figure out how to develop a new chemical weapon. In the future, the enemy will no longer be armies or nations, the enemy will be individuals. And, the best defense against an individual is to hold ourselves to a high standard. I believe this is what Obama is trying to do. 

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

Still@jones wrote: In the future, the enemy will no longer be armies or nations, the enemy will be individuals. And, the best defense against an individual is to hold ourselves to a high standard. I believe this is what Obama is trying to do. 

The future that you describe, has arrived. That has been clear for some time, and was made CRYSTAL clear yesterday.
 
The answer is not to take the high road. Thats a nice way of saying be politically correct. With all of our power and might, and intelligence, and CIA, and FBI and Special Forces, and intel from our allies, we should be able to do a much better job of taking these people out than we are doing, except we are "taking the high road".
I dont expect that we could eliminate every last terrorist extremist lunatic on earth, but we could be doing a much better job, it seems to me.
 
I am no expert at this stuff, and am not particularly political, but i feel pretty strongly right now, when thinking about my childrens future, that this country is not well served by taking a Liberal, left of center, approach

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

I think we need more information before you can draw these conclusions about yesterday.

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

What is irrefutable is that we are not fighting a nation or an army, we are fighting an ideology and a bunch of fringe lunatics. what is irrefutalbe is that there are more and more "close calls" and incidents, inside the U.S. What is irrefutalbe is that there are soooo many extremists INSIDE the U.S., both homegrown and otherwise.
If anyone told me 10 years ago that today we would be facing the threat to our way of life that we face today, i would have thought that THEY were the lunatics.
They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too.
I dont need any more information....i already know more than i want to,.
 
 
 

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

You actually believe "our way of life" is being threatened? It's sad that you live a life so full of paranoia. Our way of life is as sound as ever...

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

Still@jone, no need to make it personal, do you see me making fun of the fact that your still at jones?>
trust me i aint paranoid. I go about my business, i go to football games, i go to work, and dont worry all day about getting blow iup. I'm not from the canned food and gun crowd. But All its going to take is 1 of them blowing himself up in a subway , heaven forbid, and our lives will change.
Just like it did on 9/11 but to another level.
 
 
Geez, look what happened today - nothing even happened, and within an hour the time you need to check into an airport got a half an hour to an hour longer.
 

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

What's funny is I'm not at jones. that's my irony. Your post reads like you are scared - so, in my opinion, the terrorists have beat you. Sportsfreakbob wrote:They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too.) When I read about a plane almost going down; I think that the deaths aboard one plane is equal to the death toll on American highways for 2 days. The "terrorists" will need to blow up 182 planes a year to match the death toll you and I already accept on our highways. Sure, it sucks when a plane crashes...just like it sucks for the girl hit by a stray bullet, the grandma having a bad reaction to medicine, or the 17 year old girl who was paralyzed in my town this weekend in a car wreck. I do not wish bad things to happen to anyone. But a guy trying to blow up a plane did not effect "my way of life." If it happened every 2 days, it might.

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

I know you aren;t still at jones but i couldnt resist, besides, i made my point. Anyway, in the interest of keeping this thread intelligent, let me respond.
They havent beaten me. Yeah I;m scared, but in a healthy way. They beat me when they change my way of life. So far they havent done that. But i could see it happening if the current trend continues.
I used to travel to Europe 5-6 times a year, thru London, Paris, Frankfurt, Florence and Rome. It was so easy, moving thru airports, changing flights, etc. Now its extremely difficult to even check into the airport for a flight to the Carribean.
It starts somewhere, i sense that this has the POTENTIAL to change our lives in a serious way. Thats why i want my leaders to stop worrying about reading war criminals their miranda rights. I want my leaders to focus on destroying these people.
 
Thats all I'm saying. Our nice-nice ways are innappropriate to the current situation we face.
 
 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote:

What's funny is I'm not at jones. that's my irony. Your post reads like you are scared - so, in my opinion, the terrorists have beat you. Sportsfreakbob wrote:They are gaining a foothold in our country. And it scares me, and it should scare you too.) When I read about a plane almost going down; I think that the deaths aboard one plane is equal to the death toll on American highways for 2 days. The "terrorists" will need to blow up 182 planes a year to match the death toll you and I already accept on our highways. Sure, it sucks when a plane crashes...just like it sucks for the girl hit by a stray bullet, the grandma having a bad reaction to medicine, or the 17 year old girl who was paralyzed in my town this weekend in a car wreck. I do not wish bad things to happen to anyone. But a guy trying to blow up a plane did not effect "my way of life." If it happened every 2 days, it might.

You're worse than 52 - terrorism isn't the same as any of those things. Apples to oranges. It's like comparing indy to wire or Jones.

How about the fact that since 9/11, less soldiers have died in war than in peace the previous nine years. That is a statistical fact. Does that mean we should always be at war to save the lives of our soldiers?

It's a great argument for war.

But no, that isn't the answer. People dying in car wrecks isn't the answer. People who die in car accidents die for various reasons.

If a guy blew up a school in your neighborhood, it would affect your way of life.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote: You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.

I'm not. They died in peacetime training exercises.

Here's an easy one:

1980-1985 13,807 deaths

2003-2008 10,011 deaths

Would you agree that 1980 to 1985 was peaceful?

My source is the CRS - liberals.

Also according to the CRS, there have been a total of 5015 deaths COMBINED from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Compare that to the 7500 that were killed from 1993 to 2000.

Here so you can check:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote: You are manipulating statistics. From 2003-2008, we lost 2% of our soldiers in Iraq (about 5% of our fighting force). I challenge you to show me any time period since 1976 (excluding Vietnam PTSD casualties) where the death rate even came close to this.

By the way, 2% of our soldiers would be 30,000 troops, considering that we have 1.5 millions troops.

That's six times the amount that were actually killed.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Thanks for the information. I like getting hard facts and this is a great source. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
I was referring to losing 2% of the soldiers stationed in Iraq based on the estimated number of people on site; not, 2% of our entire military. I believe this number is still accurate. Iraq is a dangerous place. War doesn't make our soldiers safer. But, I think you know that.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote: Thanks for the information. I like getting hard facts and this is a great source. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
I was referring to losing 2% of the soldiers stationed in Iraq based on the estimated number of people on site; not, 2% of our entire military. I believe this number is still accurate. Iraq is a dangerous place. War doesn't make our soldiers safer. But, I think you know that.

Like I said, more died in training. A paper written by Economist Alex Goldblait broke it down. That the training succeeded.

We have had over 2 million soldiers rotate through Iraq since the inception of the war. It is NOT 2%. And then you said 5% of our fighting force. Your numbers are confusing. Please elaborate.

The conclusion to draw from the statistics is that soldiers are safer at war than at home. Whether that is the reality is another story.

IRAQ is dangerous?! Homicide stats in Chicago from 2001 - 2008 were 4227, only 800 less than died in BOTH wars.

And that is ONE city. Not two countries torn by strife. I wonder if we looked at murders across just eastern seaboard states (approximately the size of Iraq and Afghanistan).

So it is nearly safer to be a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan (Afghanistan for sure!) than it is to be an ordinary citizen in Chicago - a city.

I will guarantee you that less Americans have died in Baghdad.

And yes, this time I am manipulating statistics.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

At least you know you are getting carried away with some of your comparisons. If you have an average of 250,000 soldiers for 5 years, that's 1,250,000 soldier*years in Iraq. (The equivalent of 1.2MM soldiers in Iraq for one year).If you have 2.8 million people in Chicago for 5 years, you have 14,000,000 resident*years. (The equivalent of 14MM people in Chicago for one year) - more than 11.2X the exposure. To compare death rates, you need to divide (or multiply) by this factor. 5,000 people died in Iraq & Afghanistan vs. 377 people in Chicago (4,227/11.2). This proves soldiers are significantly more at risk at war...which is already obvious. 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote:
At least you know you are getting carried away with some of your comparisons. If you have an average of 250,000 soldiers for 5 years, that's 1,250,000 soldier*years in Iraq. (The equivalent of 1.2MM soldiers in Iraq for one year).If you have 2.8 million people in Chicago for 5 years, you have 14,000,000 resident*years. (The equivalent of 14MM people in Chicago for one year) - more than 11.2X the exposure. To compare death rates, you need to divide (or multiply) by this factor. 5,000 people died in Iraq & Afghanistan vs. 377 people in Chicago (4,227/11.2). This proves soldiers are significantly more at risk at war...which is already obvious. 

Wrong. Over 2 million soldiers, sailors and airmen have rotated through. In 2005, 1.4 million had already rotated through. My guess is it's closer to 3 million at this point.

Your 2% number is completely false. I still want to know where you get this number from.

As for the Chicago/Iraq comparison, keep in mind that Chicago is only one city and NOT the most violent in the nation. Chicago has a more static population than soldiers rotating through, so the comparisons are a lot closer than you paint.

Airmen rotate every 4 months, Marines every 7, National Guard varies between 9 and 15, Army between 12 and 15. And usually by Brigade (5000 troops or so).

Look who is manipulating statistics now.

But, if you look at the CRS statistics, you already know that it is safer for our troops to be at war, according to numbers. If that is the standard you will use.

Are you going to count the soldiers killed at Ft. Hood as Iraq/Afghanistan, or stateside deaths?

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

I have a background in statistics...I'm trying to be as objective as possible. Look at it this way, my number 1.2MM soldier*years. If the average tour is 1 year that means 1.2MM soldiers have been in Iraq. If the average tour is 6 months, 2.4MM soldiers have been in Iraq. I don't know the real time frame, but this is the best way to compare. Although, we haven't even gotten into the fact that those who die in
Chicago are wearing street clothes - those who die in Iraq are wearing
body armor.but even then, i bet there are neighborhoods in Chicago that are equally dangerous to Iraq.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Still@jones wrote:Still@Jones believes a lone lunatic will eventually cause a mass terror event which will cost tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. Most likely, this will be carried out using a biological or chemical weapon - although, it could be nuclear. Saying that waterboarding will protect us is naive. You can't waterboard enough people in order to reach all the Theo Kaczynskis, Tim McVeighs, and other people who believe they are noble in their pursuit. I absolutely believe our only effective defense is the trust of the friends, families and acquaintances of these unstable individuals. (that's how we caught Kaczynski) We need these acquaintances to call the feds when they think their brother or cousin might be out to cause mass harm. If I were an Arab-American, I would never call the feds even if my brother was clearly unstable. No one would call on their friends or family if they believe he might be tortured. I would call if I thought he would receive the help he needs.    Moraen, as much as I respect most of your opinions, I just don't share your views on the "terrorists" being afraid of one administration and emboldened by another. To me, it almost sounds childish. If Bush-style aggression really works, why couldn't the English suppress the IRA? Why was there a bombing in London?
The father of the person who attempted to bomb the plane from Amsterdam alerted authorities that his son might try to do something. Yet this person was still able to board a plane with an explosive device. The Homeland Security Department is CRAP!!! Why the f*** do I have to take my shoes off at airports when they don't even investigate tips??? WTF!!!

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

The father of the person who attempted to bomb the plane from Amsterdam alerted authorities that his son might try to do something. Yet this person was still able to board a plane with an explosive device. The Homeland Security Department is CRAP!!! Why the f*** do I have to take my shoes off at airports when they don't even investigate tips??? WTF!!!
 
This above quote by Moraen is the essence of my point in starting this thread,,,,The way we are handling this threat, and its a real threat to our way of life, call me paranoid if you want, but it is....anyway, the way we are handling this threat, is a joke.
 
Still@jones, no disrespect meant, but i dont even understand your posts. WTF does a little girl getting hit by a stray bullet, or a grandmother having a bad reaction to medicine, have to do with a terrorist blowing up an airplane or a subway train? You are talking about random, unintentional acts, vs a deliberate attempt to hurt a large amount of people.
 
In fact, what do all these statistics mean? If i am on a train, and the guy next to me pushes a button strapped to his d*** and vaporizes me, i dont care about statistics.
If you think that is far fetched, then you are naive.
 
 

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Sportsfreakbob wrote:still@jones wrote:The father of the person who attempted to bomb the plane from Amsterdam alerted authorities that his son might try to do something. Yet this person was still able to board a plane with an explosive device. The Homeland Security Department is CRAP!!! Why the f*** do I have to take my shoes off at airports when they don't even investigate tips??? WTF!!!
 
This above quote by Moraen is the essence of my point in starting this thread,,,,The way we are handling this threat, and its a real threat to our way of life, call me paranoid if you want, but it is....anyway, the way we are handling this threat, is a joke.
 
Still@jones, no disrespect meant, but i dont even understand your posts. WTF does a little girl getting hit by a stray bullet, or a grandmother having a bad reaction to medicine, have to do with a terrorist blowing up an airplane or a subway train? You are talking about random, unintentional acts, vs a deliberate attempt to hurt a large amount of people.
 
In fact, what do all these statistics mean? If i am on a train, and the guy next to me pushes a button strapped to his d*** and vaporizes me, i dont care about statistics.

If you think that is far fetched, then you are naive.Thank you! You just quoted me.

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

So i did, my bad. At least thats the way i take your quote (which i thought was Moraens-too many quoters quoting quoters quoting quoters)
 
 So i guess we agree. The government is screwing this whole thing up. The way i take your quote, why bother taking my shoes off, if the govt is acting like it doesnt matter and they are letting the real bad guys on the planes.
They dont want to profile, its politically incorrect. They mirandize war criminals, they again, are more worried about being politically correct than catching the bad guys.
Or did i take your quote out of context?

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

I guess what I'm saying is that before we start torturing Muslims as they board the plane - let's get the basic crap right. How many times during the past 8 years did a plane turn back, in mid air, because there was someone on board who was on the terrorist watch list. (note: the plane is already in the air)Now we have this guy whose father gave a tip 4 weeks ago that he may be involved in terrorist organizations and DHS missed him. There is no excuse for this. This is what makes me angry. Profiling, political correctness and Miranda rights are minor issues to me...the fact that this guy got on a plane with an explosive really makes me angry.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Ok.  I'll agree with you on this.  DHS is crap. I will say the reason that he wasn't on the watch list is because we are afraid of denying a person with a Muslim name a spot on a plane.  Imagine the backlash against the administration.  THAT is what should make you angry.  Once again, we will not do what it takes because we are afraid of other peoples' opinions.

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

Still - i 100% agree with everything in your last post except the last sentence. And the reason is that the stuff in the last sentence is why these guys get away with the crap that they do
Overall i think we are on the same page.

army13A's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

For the record, the administration had nothing to do with the boarding procedures in Nigeria and Amsterdam.  To say that our current administration was afraid of negative publicity of letting on a Muslim passenger who was on a watch list would be valid if the flight originated in the US. 
 
With that being said, racial profiling absolutely needs to happen.  Every Arab/Muslim looking person with a funny name (myself included) should go through extra security measures and there shouldn't be a problem about it.  But the real solution is proper security checks before boarding a plane and here is the reason why.  AQ is actively recruting non Arabs to do their dirty work and they easily go under the radar than I would.  If we just profile, they slip through.  If proper checks are done, they don't slip through.  The way to properly check is to have actual military/law enforcement conducting checks and not fat overweight rejects like TSA who have no clue what they're doing.  People should expect to wait for HOURS to get properly screened and if they complain and moan, get them the hell out of the airport.  Very limited carryon bags (only diapers for babies, medicine for old people, no laptops, etc). 

army13A's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

And instead of wasting money on raising the salaries of Congress and pork projects,spend billions to hire qualified Air Marshals so that every US flight has at least two trained Marshals with M4's and 9mm's to put hot lead in anyone that even moves funny.  Not these stupid rules that they can't get up for the last hour of the flight; that is just so idiotic.   

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

army13A wrote: For the record, the administration had nothing to do with the boarding procedures in Nigeria and Amsterdam.  To say that our current administration was afraid of negative publicity of letting on a Muslim passenger who was on a watch list would be valid if the flight originated in the US. 
 
With that being said, racial profiling absolutely needs to happen.  Every Arab/Muslim looking person with a funny name (myself included) should go through extra security measures and there shouldn't be a problem about it.  But the real solution is proper security checks before boarding a plane and here is the reason why.  AQ is actively recruting non Arabs to do their dirty work and they easily go under the radar than I would.  If we just profile, they slip through.  If proper checks are done, they don't slip through.  The way to properly check is to have actual military/law enforcement conducting checks and not fat overweight rejects like TSA who have no clue what they're doing.  People should expect to wait for HOURS to get properly screened and if they complain and moan, get them the hell out of the airport.  Very limited carryon bags (only diapers for babies, medicine for old people, no laptops, etc). 

That's not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy's dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That's a problem with the administration.

Whether it was done because they were afraid of pissing someone off, or simply because they are incompetent (I'm 50/50), I don't know. What I do know is that when you create an environment that we are willing to do ANYTHING to stop terror, people become afraid.

Like someone said, in our business you have to be willing to do anything. When you go around apologizing and talk about how we're going to play nice and talk and have tea, then you create an environment that allows people to maybe get a little bold.

Just like my wife's ex-husband. He thought he could continue to bully her for months after we were married. When I had a nice aggressive conversation in which I told him that I would NOT tolerate him even raising his voice slightly to her, we haven't had a problem.

As for Congress - pay raises and campaign finance reform. Here is my idea to get them to change:

Start a fund where everybody contributes $5. Which would be over a $1 billion. Lobby Congress to pass a good campaign finance and lower their pay. Here is the catch. If it does NOT pass, the $1 billion goes to the political party that has the highest percentage of votes in FAVOR of the bill.

I will bet anybody $1 million dollars that you can get it passed if you do that.

army13A's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Moraen wrote: That's not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy's dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That's a problem with the administration.

His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss.  I don't think it had anything to do with the administration.  It's the lazy government workers who don't give a rats ass about anything and who don't take their jobs seriously.  For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers.  We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer.  He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue.  He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven't had any Hooah action since my Army days.  Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we're off sh*t in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station.  We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF???? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway.  Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq.  But these guys were lazy as snails.  That's government workers for you.  When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation. 
 
You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years.  When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that's a problem.  It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans.  Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived.  But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety.  I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well.  So when we sh*t on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn't cool. 
 
I don't blame this administration for this.  When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I'm not a big Obama fan but I don't blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn't blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends. 

Hey Kool-Aid's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-03-30

Moraen wrote: Still@jones wrote:.Then, do you believe Russia would be better off if they were more violent? Demonstrated more power?  If so, then tell me how this did not prevent the Nord-Ost Siege or Beslan?No show of military power will dissuade someone who believes they are Davy against Goliath. ...and in the flat world, Davy has access to some powerful weapons. You should be afraid of that. Russia is violent. Look at Georgia. Russia's issues stem from things other than violence. Nobody wants to fcuk with Vlad. How is Russia any different than most Western countries as far as extremists are concerned? I'll answer that for you. They are afraid of Putin. Terrified of him. They know that if they so much as twitch, he will bring the full power of the Russian Bear upon them. That is, they THINK that he will. Threat of violence. David and Goliath doesn't apply here (fiction). Goliath was big and stupid. I am afraid of Davy with powerful weapons. Because we are not doing enough to stop it. That's WHY you should be afraid Still.
 
Yeah....maybe so...but the dang dog was so damned cute!
 
 

Sportsfreakbob's picture
Offline
Joined: 2008-08-24

If the administration bears no burden for this incident, then thats a problem right there.
I can't believe the U.S. Government has no say, or influence over flights that come into our country. Sure maybe not all the fault lays at our door, but we have to be able to control who crosses the border into our country.
 
As for your idea of the military taking over the jobs of the retards that inspect our shoes at the airports, i think thats an awesome idea. Something i would HAPPILY pay higher taxes to pay for. What a novel idea, the military protecting our homeland in wartime!
Kudos for that one.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

army13A wrote: Moraen wrote: That's not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy's dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That's a problem with the administration.

His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss.  I don't think it had anything to do with the administration.  It's the lazy government workers who don't give a rats ass about anything and who don't take their jobs seriously.  For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers.  We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer.  He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue.  He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven't had any Hooah action since my Army days.  Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we're off sh*t in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station.  We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF???? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway.  Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq.  But these guys were lazy as snails.  That's government workers for you.  When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation. 
 
You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years.  When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that's a problem.  It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans.  Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived.  But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety.  I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well.  So when we sh*t on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn't cool. 
 
I don't blame this administration for this.  When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I'm not a big Obama fan but I don't blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn't blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends. 

As a military officer you know that sh^t rolls down hill brother. But lazy government workers = lazy leadership.

Squared away battalions usually have squared away BCs.

imabroker's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-12-22

Moraen wrote: army13A wrote: Moraen wrote: That's not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy's dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That's a problem with the administration.

His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss.  I don't think it had anything to do with the administration.  It's the lazy government workers who don't give a rats ass about anything and who don't take their jobs seriously.  For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers.  We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer.  He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue.  He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven't had any Hooah action since my Army days.  Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we're off sh*t in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station.  We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF???? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway.  Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq.  But these guys were lazy as snails.  That's government workers for you.  When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation. 
 
You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years.  When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that's a problem.  It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans.  Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived.  But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety.  I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well.  So when we sh*t on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn't cool. 
 
I don't blame this administration for this.  When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I'm not a big Obama fan but I don't blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn't blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends.  As a military officer you know that sh^t rolls down hill brother. But lazy government workers = lazy leadership. Squared away battalions usually have squared away BCs.
 
Yeah!  This never would have happened under Republican rule.  Um, except... that it did.  Oh wait, never mind - that was Clinton's fault. 
 
You can't blame an idiot for not knowing he's an idiot.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Moraen wrote:Start a fund where everybody contributes $5. Which would be over a $1 billion. Lobby Congress to pass a good campaign finance and lower their pay. Here is the catch. If it does NOT pass, the $1 billion goes to the political party that has the highest percentage of votes in FAVOR of the bill.

I will bet anybody $1 million dollars that you can get it passed if you do that.I love this idea, except I am ok with what they get paid. Campaign finance is where priorities and incentives are completely out of order.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

imabroker wrote:Moraen wrote: army13A wrote: Moraen wrote: That's not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy's dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That's a problem with the administration.

His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss.  I don't think it had anything to do with the administration.  It's the lazy government workers who don't give a rats ass about anything and who don't take their jobs seriously.  For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers.  We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer.  He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue.  He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven't had any Hooah action since my Army days.  Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we're off sh*t in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station.  We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF???? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway.  Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq.  But these guys were lazy as snails.  That's government workers for you.  When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation. 
 
You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years.  When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that's a problem.  It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans.  Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived.  But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety.  I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well.  So when we sh*t on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn't cool. 
 
I don't blame this administration for this.  When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I'm not a big Obama fan but I don't blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn't blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends.  As a military officer you know that sh^t rolls down hill brother. But lazy government workers = lazy leadership. Squared away battalions usually have squared away BCs.
 
Yeah!  This never would have happened under Republican rule.  Um, except... that it did.  Oh wait, never mind - that was Clinton's fault. 
 
You can't blame an idiot for not knowing he's an idiot.Bush is to blame for a lot.  I will even blame him for 9/11.  However, we didn't have terrorists coming out of the wordwork when he was in office after he began to lay the smack down.  And I also say that bringing the war to Iraq was a stroke of genius, unlike most others.  I was in the hills and cities in Iraq.  There was al Qaeda, Hamas, al aqsa Martyrs brigade.  Who do you want fighting these folks?  Kids on planes, or soldiers who know weapons and tactics?You know, I was in France in 2006, where I was the typical American.  Not only did I discuss my service, but most of the people in France were admiring.  I realize had I been in Paris, it would have been different.I was in the country.  It is interesting that people in the cities often don't "get it" when it comes to having to do what is necessary.  People that work hard understand sacrifice.  People in cities do not, for the most part.Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don't know sh!t. 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote:

Moraen wrote:Start a fund where everybody contributes $5. Which would be over a $1 billion. Lobby Congress to pass a good campaign finance and lower their pay. Here is the catch. If it does NOT pass, the $1 billion goes to the political party that has the highest percentage of votes in FAVOR of the bill.

I will bet anybody $1 million dollars that you can get it passed if you do that.I love this idea, except I am ok with what they get paid. Campaign finance is where priorities and incentives are completely out of order. You are ok with what they get paid?  Are you ok with their pensions?  One term and a nice fat pension?They get paid too much.  As if they don't have enough privileges.  They are servants of the public.  $100k would work.I think I'm going to start a non-profit and ask for donations for campaign finance reform. 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Moraen wrote:Of course, Still@jones and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas. Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys. The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.
 
They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration thus they are no longer afraid? You are kidding, right? Or did i misunderstand the part about this guy trying to blow himself up?
 
Terrorist aren't afraid of dying in horrible ways, yet they are afraid of George Bush? Unbelievable that people actually believe this!
 
That the terrorist aren't afraid to die is what makes them diabolical. That you fail to see the fallacy in your reasoning is scary. Earthly consequences don't factor into suicide.
 
 
 
 

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

BondGuy wrote:Moraen wrote:Of course, Still@jones and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas. Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys. The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.
 
They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration thus they are no longer afraid? You are kidding, right? Or did i misunderstand the part about this guy trying to blow himself up?
 
Terrorist aren't afraid of dying in horrible ways, yet they are afraid of George Bush? Unbelievable that people actually believe this!
 
That the terrorist aren't afraid to die is what makes them diabolical. That you fail to see the fallacy in your reasoning is scary. Earthly consequences don't factor into suicide.
 
 
 
 Torture is different than choosing your own way to die.  It makes little sense to you or I, but I've been with these people and spoken with them.  They will run from a fight because they are frightened and the next day strap on a bomb.  It makes little sense, but that is the way of things.  Army13A has likely experienced the same things.  BondGuy, like I said before.  I like your posts and respect your opinion.  But I believe that my experience in this matter is greater than yours.  I have arrested, interrogated dozens of these people.  Iraqis, Afghanis, Suadis, Yemenis.  It is a different culture and different way of thinking.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Morean is it possible for me to respect your service to our country, but not hold you up as the be-all end-all expert on terrorism? I believe it is.  After-all, not one of George Ws closest advisors served in the military. Well, there was Rummy, and you see where that went.
 
Still, I do respect much of what you have to say, and you bring up a good point; failure to know your enemy. And your point on it being a different culture, a different way of thinking, also true. Not that stopped Bush Incorporated from trying to impose western democratic values on this different thinking culture.
 
Yet, it is not this culture we speak of. It is an aberration from this culture, a cancer from this culture that is the problem. You know first hand that the average Iraqi is a decent person. At least, I assume that you know that. After-all, many of our countrymen, your comrades,  died to free these people from oppression. So, please tell me that was for a good cause?
 
As decent as they are the cancer grows. Why? because of our failure to understand these people. We lose the battle for hearts and minds. That's Afghanistan today. As we lose that battle, the one you can't win with an Army the cancer grows. The hate forments, more terrorist are created. They are taught that their reward waits not in this world but the next. They are as sure of that as our children are of 2 plus 2 equals 4.  They fear failure not for the consequense of torture or detainment but for the humiliation of not doing God's will. Cutting off the arms of their children will only make them more determined that we are the evil they were born to destroy. You can't fight a twisted ideology with a gun.
 
There is an army of them awaiting their chance to be the passenger in seat 19A. Failure to understand that fact will get many americans killed.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

BondGuy wrote:Morean is it possible for me to respect your service to our country, but not hold you up as the be-all end-all expert on terrorism? I believe it is.  After-all, not one of George Ws closest advisors served in the military. Well, there was Rummy, and you see where that went.  Agree.  The war was mismanaged on a strategic basis.  I am NOT the be-all-end all expert.  However, before I was in this business I was a Security professional (Board certified in Security Mangement) and actually served on a team to present guidelines on airport safety after 9/11.  As for Bush, he served as an Air Force officer, Rummy was in the military, and Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.  Rummy was an arrogant prick.  They should have crucified him.  While I am not THE expert, I do have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject.  More than say, even Tom Ridge or Rudy Guiliani (who thinks he is a security expert because he presided over the attack of his city.  More than James Carville (who I think is awesome, even though I disagree with him a lot).  Even more than some generals.  I would say that knowledge of terrorism and security qualifies me as an expert at least. 
Still, I do respect much of what you have to say, and you bring up a good point; failure to know your enemy. And your point on it being a different culture, a different way of thinking, also true. Not that stopped Bush Incorporated from trying to impose western democratic values on this different thinking culture.  This was a HUGE mistake IMHO.  Those who value democracy in Iraq are in the minority.  It is the arrogance of ALL Americans that our way is the right way for everybody.
 
Yet, it is not this culture we speak of. It is an aberration from this culture, a cancer from this culture that is the problem. You know first hand that the average Iraqi is a decent person. At least, I assume that you know that. After-all, many of our countrymen, your comrades,  died to free these people from oppression. So, please tell me that was for a good cause? Those few who died, did die for a good cause.  I feel in my heart and know in my mind that many innocent Americans were saved from their sacrifices.  My brother was one such.  Most Iraqis are "decent" people.  We may not agree that they like to screw goats, but hey.  You are right that it is an aberration.  And in my capacity as a warrior, I dealt with the scum more than with the goodly people.
 
As decent as they are the cancer grows. Why? because of our failure to understand these people. We lose the battle for hearts and minds. That's Afghanistan today. As we lose that battle, the one you can't win with an Army the cancer grows. The hate forments, more terrorist are created. They are taught that their reward waits not in this world but the next. They are as sure of that as our children are of 2 plus 2 equals 4.  They fear failure not for the consequense of torture or detainment but for the humiliation of not doing God's will. Cutting off the arms of their children will only make them more determined that we are the evil they were born to destroy. You can't fight a twisted ideology with a gun.
 
There is an army of them awaiting their chance to be the passenger in seat 19A. Failure to understand that fact will get many americans killed. You don't attack their children.  This is where economics comes into play.  When their marginal cost exceeds their marginal benefit, they will stop.  While applying rationality to irrational people can be difficult.  I think that the cost must be high for them.Once again, radicals do not VALUE their children like we do.  So it would be a mistake to blow them up.  What they value is their lives and souls.  I also like to think of it as similar to string theory.  String theory states that there are more than 3 dimensions.  Possibly eleven.  We only see 3, because that's what we KNOW.However, that is not to say there are not other dimensions.The same goes true for knowing our enemy, as you so eloquently put it.  Just because we don't see a difference in dying as a suicide bomber and dying before you get a chance to kill Americans, doesn't mean it does not have value for them.  My point is that it is difficult to get inside the enemy's head.  Twisted religion can twist minds.  Twisted culture can twist minds.  I understand your point of view.  And I know it makes sense to you.  I will backtrack here and say that I do NOT think your point of view is scary or even ill-informed.  My point of view is that when you make it so terrible to commit terrorist acts, you destroy the incentive to commit those acts.  I have probably been way too holier-than-thou on this subject, and for that I apologize to everyone.  But I still feel that you cannot talk your way to winning a war. 

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Moraen, I tend to believe there are intelligent, rational people in Iraq who are directing the "twisted minds" you speak of. The people you keep mentioning are the foot soldiers - and you are right, these people can not be changed (just like we can't change the people in Operation Rescue, Greenpeace and the like..) The resistance in Iraq is most likely being driven by the people who will benefit if the US fails (I'm not sure who this is). These people are probably intelligent, resourceful, wealthy and have advanced knowledge of warfare. I believe Obama is trying to change the tone of the occupation so that these people will stop directing these "twisted minds" to kill American soldiers. Whatever it is worth...it looks like we will lose about 150 soldiers in Iraq in 2009. This is much less than the 800-900 per year we lost up to 2008. I believe this is a good thing. Really, I believe that!

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote:
Moraen, I tend to believe there are intelligent, rational people in Iraq who are directing the "twisted minds" you speak of. The people you keep mentioning are the foot soldiers - and you are right, these people can not be changed (just like we can't change the people in Operation Rescue, Greenpeace and the like..) The resistance in Iraq is most likely being driven by the people who will benefit if the US fails (I'm not sure who this is). These people are probably intelligent, resourceful, wealthy and have advanced knowledge of warfare. I believe Obama is trying to change the tone of the occupation so that these people will stop directing these "twisted minds" to kill American soldiers. Whatever it is worth...it looks like we will lose about 150 soldiers in Iraq in 2009. This is much less than the 800-900 per year we lost up to 2008. I believe this is a good thing. Really, I believe that!

I remember riding in the back of a Bradley to Balad Air Base with a Princeton educated Saudi national. His family was wealthy, and in fact knew some of bin Laden's sons.

Most of the people in Iraq are indifferent. A small minority love us and a small minority hate us.

Changing the tone will not help. They are like predators. When they sense weakness, they attack.

Like I said, once the war ends, training deaths will rise considerably. Here is why it is safer: 90% of your time you are not engaging the enemy (and that's if you are combat arms - if you are not, it's closer to 100%). When you are training for war, you constantly running exercises that can kill you. What does this mean? It means training works. But it also means it is more dangerous to train for war, than to actually BE in a war.

Still@jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-03-22

Moraen wrote: I remember riding in the back of a Bradley to Balad Air Base with a Princeton educated Saudi national. His family was wealthy, and in fact knew some of bin Laden's sons.

Most of the people in Iraq are indifferent. A small minority love us and a small minority hate us.

Changing the tone will not help. They are like predators. When they sense weakness, they attack.

Like I said, once the war ends, training deaths will rise considerably. Here is why it is safer: 90% of your time you are not engaging the enemy (and that's if you are combat arms - if you are not, it's closer to 100%). When you are training for war, you constantly running exercises that can kill you. What does this mean? It means training works. But it also means it is more dangerous to train for war, than to actually BE in a war.

Your logic saying soldiers are safer at war than at peace just does not make sense. From 1993-2000 there were an average of 1,469,441 soldiers in the military and an average of 938 deaths per year - One death per 1,567 soldiers.From 2001-2008 there were an average of 1,395,119 soldiers in the
military and an average of 1,643 deaths per year - One death per 849
soldiers. Or, almost twice as many as during the most recent period of peace. Finally, in Iraq from 2004-2007, there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag. That is significantly more dangerous than peacetime. Maybe this is something they tell the troops to keep morale up...but it is simply not true.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Go look in the 80's.

It is true. The study was conducted by three very well-respected economists. Nobody tells soldiers war is safer - that would be stupid and actually BAD for morale.

But if you strip the opinions and emotion out of it - it is true. Sorry buddy, you are wrong on this one.

You are skewing numbers and not using the statistics correctly.

Look at amount of active duty time in 2001-2008 vs. 1993 - 2000. Also, what are called "training days". Most of the non-combat zone deaths occurred during the "training calendar". This is a period where there are many live-fire exercises, large scale exercises (JRTC, etc.).

When troops rotate home, they get some time off and then back into the training calendar (where most of the deaths occurred between 2001 - 2008.

Moraen's picture
Offline
Joined: 2009-01-22

Still@jones wrote: there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.

This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.

That's a little over 1%.   

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×