user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : No, it is reactive, ineffective, and too costly
Great ballot.
by mojo on Mon Aug 14, 06 9:01am
[+]
IMO, some level of security does help stop the stupid/ sloppy attempts ... but we'd be deluding ourselves if we believed it was sufficient to 'secure the homeland.'
We can never be %100 safe but these measures help reduce the risk of another terrorist attack.That being said without racial profiling these measures are useless;they can only be effective if we are searching the people who are most likely going commit these attacks and not 80 year old jewish women.
Voted : Yes, stay the course
Surely you aren't advocating doing nothing?
Maybe you should contact HS with your better ideas. Hm... Just a thought.
I advocate 'profiling', btw.
dazzle, you are correct -- deriding the current practice is not the same as 'doing nothing.'
How fortunate that we have more than two choices!
Corrupt ... so remaining in 'reactive' mode and spending millions on each new tactic is fine -- as long as we also implement racial profiling?
Yes Cathexis that is correct we have to do something to combat new possible threats that arise.These measures serve to cut down on the possible options the terrorist have when planning an attack.
Also aren't all security measures "reactive" Cathexis?Your not suggesting taking preemptive actions are you?
Some posters on this site come across SO anti-American.
Now, before you rebut, I know you will throw out your "but, Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc," blah. Can you never separate USA from politics?
No, didn't think so.
Corrupt: Ha ... ya sly dog!
I am advocating sane security (banning all liquids, for example, does not fall under this category) and the pre-emptive Patch22us Foreign Policy Ppproach (tm). 
dazz: Some posters? Am I among that select crowd?
If so, I do have a word of advice -- always separate 'our country' from 'things our leaders do in our name.' Otherwise, you'll be waking up one morning wondering which Brown Short to wear today.
Voted : No, it is reactive, ineffective, and too costly
This is sorta what I was thinking of the other day, the reaction.. of course it's what's natural to do, but where should we draw the line? To be really safe shouldn't we strip search everyone or just stop flying altogether?
I don't exactly want "too costly" to be part of my answer because safety is worth anything, IF it's some measure that'll actually make us safe, and I don't know how we're supposed to figure that out right now.
by Jyl on Mon Aug 14, 06 2:11pm
[+]
Voted : No, it is reactive, ineffective, and too costly
THis again brings me to analogizing this effort to World War I, a modern conflict micromanaged by dinosaurs. These clowns need to get on the edge and learn to think like the opposition, then a step ahead, if they have any hope of success.
Corrupt- so we ought to consider aya as a potential terrorist?
Well Truthseeker I'm affraid aya is going to have to be pulled asided when at airports.We can't stop everyone and still be able to effectively provide security.
Just for the record if racial profiling was ennacted I would be pulled over too because I fit the profile;olive color skin,curly dark hair and am a young guy.I would rather be stopped everytime I go to the airport then allow another 9/11 to happen.
So we shouldn't do these things because they cost money?
A planeful of people is worth, what a couple million tops? Throw in the cost of the plane and that's a pretty hefty sum, but less than we're spending, so I guess economically we should allow those people to die to save a few bucks.
Seems pretty callous cath.
I think we should spend what we need to to save lives.
The current measures aren't working as well as they should because we're being politcally correct in our approach, which is doomed to failure.
I have some serious issues with the current situation. However, I must admit there have been no attacks and plots have been foiled. The key is to anticipate what the terrorists might do next. Advertising your approach is a very good way to fail to protect people.
Yes, small shifts in tactics are necessary even if it costs a lot of money. There really isn't a better way unless more effective intelligence gathering is added.
I'm not sure that I understand the intent of this ballot. Unless maybe you are speaking of what may be more effective ways of combating terrorism.
herz: We shouldn't do thes ethings becaus ethey are expensive, ineffective, and ultimately will be worked around and/or avoided -- since we stay only in reative mode regarding security.
Looking out for safety doesn't necessarily equate to "fiscal irresponsibility."
I remember a time when "Conservatives" would have known that.
FF: There have been no asteroids hitting the Earth since I turned 21, either.
Naturally, using your logic, I take full credit.
|
|
