Originally posted by bullieblack
Please stop with the "this war is for the protection of our homeland" rhetoric.
1.) If our borders weren't spread more open then a whores legs then maybe I would say: "hey, maybe this is really in the interest of keeping me
safe! awesome!" but instead anyone can walk right in and do whatever they wanted.
2.) Please explain to me how it is safer to occupy a nation deemed a threat (This is hypothetical because iraq was not an immediate threat) and not
protect your actual homeland?
3.) Somehow how our borders are protected by some invisible shield that allows WIDE OPEN ENTRY INTO THE COUNTRY YOU CLAIM THESE TERRORISTS ARE TRYING
TO DESTROY.
4.) If the terrorist threat was extreme don't you think tighting our homeland security would come before invading another country in the name of
defense?
5.) I know I would feel safer knowing our soldiers were home, protecting us here, not building military bases alongside oil pipelines in the name of
protecting the homeland.
I have assigned your questions numbers and will answer them accordingly.
1.) They ARE, even if it is not much, tighter than before 9/11. Maybe a lot more focus is being spend on following suspected terrorist and if they
end up near a border we detain them...This is why I stressed [Foreign] Intelligence gathering. An increased budget allowed better harware and software
to complete this task...
2.) IRAQ was a threat, PERIOD. Sadam invaded Kuwait for oil and could have attempted to seize all near by oil by use of chemical and biological
attacks. First he'd drop nasty chemical bombs then move in on the target area. If America stayed at home Sadam would have amassed much more land and
could have possibly cut supplies to America. Also if middle eastern countries were forced to respond to such a situation it would have lead to nukes
being dropped in panic. This would only lead to more dropped and holy land being decimated. Actively disengaging this threat saves this all but too
real scenario from happening.
3.) Like I stated eariler, exploiting the latest technology can track HVT's [high value targets] and engage them if they pose a national security
threat.
4.) Going off of point 2...Allowing weapons caches to amass instead of eliminating them can only do the homeland injury. Sitting in America does not
destroy the weapons factories running full speed ahead.
5.) If more people enlisted we would have a greater homland force wouldnt we?
