Hello Dreamers:

I’m constantly struck by the fantasy’s that engulf most Americans lives. Among them are: if we only cracked down, we could win the war on drugs, if we built a fence, we could keep illegal’s out, and the subject of my post, we’re SAFE because the terrorists do NOT yet possess nuclear weapons.

In my view, our very expensive, inept and rights destroying attempt to close the BARN DOOR, is just that. It’s too much, it’s way too late, and it’s aimed in the wrong direction.

Now, I dunno if the terrorists HAVE nukes, or not. But, rather than base my preparations on the assumption that they DON’T, I’d base ‘em on the assumption that they DO.

My assumptions are based on a couple things; 1) in spite of the BEST security the government has to offer, including walls, barbed wire fences, guns and lots of cops, there are tons of drugs in prison; and 2) I highly doubt the integrity of the world’s stockpile of nuclear material. If Saddam had ‘em, where are they now? Plus, I don’t trust the likes of Mushariff, Putin, the N. Koreans, or any number of yokels who HAVE nukes. You do??

What would you do differently, if you KNEW that Al Qaeda had nukes?

excon

Reacher

I'd like you answer your question with another:

You BELIEVE Saddam had nukes?

Fr_Chuck

In many ways all they need to do is use some rocket lauchers on some of our own storage areas, untill about 5 years ago, there was enough weapons grade material sitting in the middle of atlanta ( with almost no security) that a cub scout troup with some rocket lauchers could have taken out 1/2 of Atlanta. ( now they would have all died also but many of them don't care)

There are places that store all sorts of chemcials and the such, dams that can be blown up and the such.

But I see things in the US going the way of what Ireland and Parts of Europe were some years ago. Small groups attacking schools and mall s would be the easiest attacks on America,

excon

Hello Reacher:

Real live nukes??? No. But, he might have, and they're gone.

excon

tomder55

What do you think the Israelis leveled in Syria?

FrontPage Magazine

LOFTUS'S REPORT is consistent with a report published on the Web site of Kuwait's Al Seyassah's newspaper on September 25, 2006. That report cited European intelligence sources and claimed that in late 2004 Syria began developing a nuclear program near its border with Turkey. Syria's program, which was run by President Bashar Assad's brother Maher and defended by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards brigade, had by mid-2006 "reached the stage of medium activity." The Kuwaiti report stated that the Syrian nuclear program was based "on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Uday and Qusai transferred to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains, before and after the US-British invasion in March 2003." Counterterrorism Blog: Syrian nuclear program quite advanced

Do I think terrorists have nukes ;or rather dirty bombs ? No not yet ;but it could be in their hands at the pleasure of their terror masters. I think we need to strengthen our defenses not to attempt to create an impenetrable Maginot line but with the realization that it is but a part of an overall strategy to combat proliferation .

Tell me ;how does having cargo screened or inspected before entering the port become rights destroying
? Seems like a prudent step to me. Is it fool proof ? No ;but we are alot safer still with the step taken.
The problem with your argument is that you make the assertion that if it is not 100 percent effective it should not be tried. Perhaps a border fence could only keep out 80% of the illegals and smugglers . That in itself makes domestic enforcement more manageable in my view. Also perhaps that border fence could keep that mule with a dirty bomb out of the country .

kindj

Believe it or not, I'm largely with you on this one. Let me just ramble for a bit, and hopefully some of it will make sense. My brain isn't working too well this morning in the ol' organization department.

Yes, it's foolish to think we can "win" the war on drugs. Mainly because no one has ever come up with a reasonable definition of "win." Reality altering substances have existed in nature from the very inception of time. The Indians (ahem...I mean Native Americans) have been ingesting peyote forever. The Asians have been growing opium forever. Marijuana grows wild in much of the worlds. Shall we risk offending the mighty warriors of Greenpeace by eradicating these plants and thus altering the earth's delicate and fragile balance?

Since the downfall of the USSR (and possibly before), so many little hillbilly nations have gained possession of nuclear weapons. If not the completed product, then at least all the necessary components. As wealthy as AQ is (was?), it does not take a major stretch of the imagination to consider the likelihood of them possessing one.

Yes, some of these things are "closing the barn door" issues. However, if my horse got out and ran away, I'm going to buy a new horse and do things differently this time. However, learning from mistakes seems to be a deficiency in people worldwide.

Just because we're not "winning" the war on drugs, just because there's a high probability that the terrorists have WMD's despite our desires otherwise, does that mean we should just throw up our hands and quit fighting? Absolutely not! The fear and dis-ease we feel now would be multiplied a thousand times over if we were to give up and let these murderous bastards have their way. We MUST fight, for our own sake, for the sake of the innocent worldwide who only want to leave in health and peace, and definitely for the sake of our children.

So the question is not "Do we fight?" The question has become "HOW do we fight?" No one can argue that there has not been colossal failures and screwups along the way. On the flip side however, no one can argue that there has not been major successes along the way, either. It is always wise to constantly evaluate your strategy, keep using what works, scrap what doesn't, and always adjust, adapt, and overcome.

If I knew for a fact that AQ had a nuke, my feelings wouldn't change. Why do I care if they kill 10 people or 10 million? Either way, it's too many. Either way, innocent people who only want to live happy lives have been murdered. And murderers deserve no quarter, for they shall certainly give none. My line is the same as it's always been: hunt them down like the cowardly animals they are and exterminate them.

Or we could pull back and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

DK

excon

Hello again, Dennis:

I'll answer both you and tom.

Half measures DON'T work. You both think that keeping on doing what you already acknowledge DOESN'T work, is really ok even if it's only 80% successful.

The 20% that GET'S through the borders, is as bad as ALL of it getting in. The 20% represents lots of illegal drugs on the streets at reasonable prices. The 20% represents 15 million or so illegal’s. And, I'm sure the 20% represents WMD's that are floating around in your neighborhood.

I don't think an 80% success rate makes us ANY safer at all.

Do I think we'd be better off if we recognized the futility of our effort and tried something else?? Duh!!

The something else might be destroying them over there, and leaving us really FREE over here. Just like you said, Dennis. It's the only way to be sure. And, I LIKE sure.

excon

tomder55

Your argument is only true if that was the ONLY measure taken . Clearly I wrote : we need to strengthen our defenses not to attempt to create an impenetrable Maginot line but with the realization that it is but a part of an overall strategy to combat proliferation .


And yes ;hitting them over there is a plan . That's why I included the stuff about the Israelis.

N0help4u

I agree with you. Most of the security is eye candy.
Why are the 'Mexican' border guards in jail for doing their job?
Why are the airlines covering up so many dry runs?
Why are they able to ban certain drugs like iawathia(sp?), obigaine(sp?) and absinthe that the majority of America never even heard of and not able to stop the drugs that do come through
The government isn't trying to fix the problems!

They have turned the war into a political thing that has dragged it out way past what it could have been if they let the military just go in and do their job.

excon

Hello again, N0:

Rightareeny. They're trying to LOOK like they're fixing the problems. I dunno. Maybe they do it so they can get elected??? To me, that makes us LESS safe.

When I was in the slam, and somebody misbehaved in the visiting room (they are convicts after all), instead of punishing THAT guy, they took the visiting room away from everybody. Huh?

That same mentality is running the country.

excon