It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RomanMaroni
Those people we are killing in Iraq, they aren't terrorists or insurgents, they are people who see a foreign enemy on their land and they are defending it, just like we would do if the situation was reversed.
First, I would like to completely eliminate the CIA
the CIA has done next to nothing for the benefit of the American people and, as 9/11 showed us, is a complete waste of money.
If no one is attacking us
Haven't we learned our lesson about meddling in the Middle East.
Gutting our military budget didn't result in our unconditional support for Israel
our sanctions on Iraq
or our creating radical Islam to fight the Soviets
It's like you have a one track mind that says "war, war, war." Try to remember who dies in war.
Those people we are killing in Iraq, they aren't terrorists or insurgents, they are people who see a foreign enemy on their land and they are defending it, just like we would do if the situation was reversed
I'm at a loss for words that you would refer to $290 billion as "pittance."
I don't think you can even understand that the majority of people who die in war, didn't even want the war in the first place. The Middle East isn't full of terrorists. It's full of everyday people with families.
Im sorry are 14 fighter jets not enough to intercept a couple of airliners?
You telling me they couldn’t afford arms with a $300,000,000,000 budget but they could afford to run exercises burning jet fuel on a few dozen planes all day?
See, the problem is that you get some national guards man who works in a protected environment trying to make it seem like his deployments make him some sort of expert
Get boots on the ground, watch your buddies die and shoot an innocent Iraqi caught in the line of fire and THEN see how easy it is to justify the war.
you will answer for it someday. Every knee shall bow.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
14 jets over the continental US? not adequate for defense.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
A few false assumptions there.
Been there, done that (with the exception of taking out an innocent), have the scars to show for it stretching back to being a doorgunner the first go around over here. So, any other assumptions you care to make?
So, why isn't anyone going after Clinton for this stupidity?
Any fool could have told you 14 jets over the continental US was inadequate. And you people make how much again?
I wish I could be as incompetant at my job and not only keep my job but get a pay and position raise every year
And why wheren't you complaining then about this inadequate protection?
BTW, it must be a slow day on the battlefront today for you to be posting all day long. What time is it again in Iraq?
What false assumptions? you were asked repeatedly what you do for the military and stated that you work on avionics for f-16s
Again with the assumptions statement. You lied to us about your military experience, and your lies were all I have to go off. Not assumptions, just a trusting nature I guess. Dont worry, Ill be more careful next time.
You suppose that you got the real feel for things from way up there, huh? And in the first gulf war. The war that lasted a day and didnt even see urban combat
You know exactly what is going on in Iraq because a decade ago you sat in a bird and (maybe) engaged uniformed OpFor?
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Another assumption...tsk tsk...
I would say that you have confirmation bias problems.
Gutting the military had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Iraq, and had nothing to do with Bin Laden. The CIA didn't seem to know anything and the FBI couldn't seem to notice the terrorists right under their noses. All this despite a $290 billion budget.Your answer: more spending for the military. And you say I have comprehension problems.
The cost of the post-Cold War “peace dividend” was that during the 1990s our intelligence community funding declined in real terms, reducing our buying power by tens ofbillions of dollars over the decade. We lost nearly one in four of our positions. This loss of manpower was devastating, particularly in our two most manpower intensive activities: all-source analysis and human source collection. By the mid-1990s, recruitment of new CIA analysts and case officers had come to a virtual halt. NSA was hiring no new technologists during the greatest information technology change in our lifetimes. Both Congress and the Executive Branch for most of the decade embraced the idea that we could surge our resources to deal with emerging intelligence challenges, including threats from terrorism.During this time of increased military operations around the globe, the Defense Department was also reducing its tactical intelligence units and funding. This caused the Intelligence Community to stretch its capabilities to the breaking point, because national systems were covering gaps in tactical intelligence.
Throughout the Intelligence Community during this period we made difficult resource reallocation decisions to try to rebuild critical mission areas affected by the funding cuts. Source
Boone, your link is to a cover your a** report. Much like the 9/11 Commission Report. It seems so simple. Nobody is to blame for failure to prevent 9/11.
It was just a simple case of lack of funding. $290 BILLION just wasn't quite enough. Weird how the 9/11 Commission reached the conclusion it was a "lack of imagination" when it was clearly that measly $290 billion. Wasn't the CIA, they didn't have enough money. Wasn't the NSA, they didn't have enough money. Wasn't NORAD, they were caught off guard. Wasn't NEADS, they were caught off guard.
Wasn't the FBI, they were allowed to communicate. Pre Iraq war intelligence, wasn't anyone's fault either. They were just repeating what someone else told them.
Regardless of the circumstances, it is NORAD's job to defend, and they failed. It is the CIA's job to track these threats overseas, and they failed. It is the FBI's and NSA's job to track these people at home, and they failed.
Weird how we rewarded the biggest intelligence failure in history, and no one one held accountable, because I guess no one was actually to blame.
The US spent $583 billion lat year in defense. Israel spent $9 billion. According to your argument, Israel doesn't have enough money to properly defend itself. So why do we not see major attacks in Israel? By your logic, Israel doesn't have nearly enough money to hire officers/analysts to gather and interpret data. Their national security agency clearly doesn't have enough money to upgrade their equipment and hire analysts.
So why, if the budget was cut, was it the terrorism area that suffered? We know Bin Laden and Al-Queda attacked us in '93, the embassies, the USS Cole, and declared jihad on the US. But for some reason someone felt we'll just cut back on terrorism intelligence
You said GW "should have said the hell with it on Jan 20,2001 and turned the military loose on a few places." Instead he went on vacation, where he spent most of his time at the beginning of his term.
The CIA has done far more harm than good to the US. Right now in the Middle East we are creating many problems to come. For every citizen we kill, we create at least 5 family members that blame the US. Those people then become willing to kill US soldiers in retaliation, and some will harbor even deeper hatred.
And this is in a country that wasn't even involved with 9/11.
I know I'm not getting through to you Swamp because you are all about the military.
What if our reaction to 9/11 would have been to become fully independent of foreign oil? If we would have said ok, we will no longer send our money to the Middle East where these terrorists come from?
Try to step back Swamp and see the bigger picture.