What Do I Stand For? Part 4 - National Security
What do you really expect on the national security issue from someone who stepped into office not knowing our who are friends are to the north in Canada and to the south in Mexico? National security should always start at home, not by fighting other countries unless it is really necessary. This is why we are in the trouble we are in now.
Current Events
With more and more light shining on the CIA leak scandal connected to the White House, it appears one of the lesser members of the Bush team is going to take one for the team - a slap on the wrist as the nation is distracted while these people continue with business as usual. "Scooter" will take the bullet by playing the same play dumb act Oliver North did during the "Iran country" scandal - the event that cemented the hatred of the US by both Iran and Iraq. What exactly are they up to now?
If Bush aides took the memo seriously that said we were going to be attacked by terrorists on our soil and actually acted upon that information, this would be an example of why national security begins, not ends, at home. Had they read that memo and consulted with the CIA, FBI, and FAA and picked qualified members from each group to form a team to handle this specific report, they could have done a lot more to prevent 9/11 from happening, or at least reduced the tragedy on that day.
In the case of invading Afghanistan and taking out the terrorists inside, it could be justified. This administration has made that justification invalid. We cannot neglect the fact that the US has trained Osama bin Laden and many who headed Al Qaeda during the war between Afghanistan and Russia. We came into that country to oust the Commies and left them high and dry to defend themselves in the aftermath which brought about ruthless regimes that ended in the Taliban rule that was one of the most oppressive forms of government in the world.
Osama bin Laden was the one who brainwashed, funded, trained, and assisted those misguided young men into doing such a horrible thing. If one is even slightly contributed to a murder, we charge them with a crime and go after them. Osama is more than an accomplice to murder of over 3000 people. Our "noble" president has referred to him as a mere symbol of terrorist organization and was no longer important to pursue. Why?
Wasn't the main point of invading Iraq was to get him and destroy Al Qaeda? Back in the pre-911 days, only a handful of people, myself included, tried to bring awareness of the horrid conditions of the Afghans. Our country did not even really know or care about the plight of those poor people living there, so it was not about liberating them and showing them democracy. They have that opportunity now and that is the only good thing to come out of the war, but it still did not solve the problem we were after.
Unfortunately, we pulled out too many of our soldiers to bring more stability to the country and there are pockets of groups who want to bring disorder and overthrow the government. Drug trafficking is still the main source of national income. They have a long way to go, but by not finishing what we started they are in danger of going back.
Why Start At Home?
It is a matter of logistics and just plain common sense. If our own people on our own shores were more alert and with a reasonable plan of action, we could prevent a lot more terrorists actions. By scaring people with the elevation of the colour chart and telling them there is a danger of an attack at an unknown place during an unknown time by people unknown, merely terrorists, using a method no one really knows for sure is STUPID!!
Yes, we should all be aware of what goes on around us, but we should not live in a paranoid phobia about it. In the 90s, the terrorists did attack us on our soil at the World Trade Center. They attacked then, why was it any surprise they would try it on 911 or again at some other time in the future. Any reasoning person can see that clearly.
Being in the US, we do at least have some protection from an all out battle with Middle Eastern terrorist groups - we are separated by an ocean and they do not have the funds or territory to launch an invasion such as we did with Iraq. However, there are cracks where a few key people can do major damage. If we did not spend all our time and resources invading Iraq, we could have done a lot more to secure our own borders. To secure our borders include the following:
Befriending Our Neighbours
Anyone who looks at a map can see the obvious, Mexico and Canada are our closest countries. If any terrorist wanted to come into our country, those are two large borders to cross. Most people fail to recognize they are not our only neighbours in which we need to befriend. A terrorist cell on a corrupt island nation in the Caribbean, or Central America or even the Northern part of South America full of poor, starving and neglected people could easily look the other way as they launch a nuclear device in our direction.
If we cannot work along with our neighbours, all of them, and see to it their needs are being met, they could just as easily look the other way when we get attacked. Seeing to the needs of the poor and destitute people around us would go a lot further in helping securing our borders than going abroad and starting pointless wars with no real end in sight.
Minding Our Own Business
It is one thing if another nation asks for our help, then by all means give them the help they require. It is an entirely different thing when we interfere with how other countries run their business.
The United Nations has proven to be ineffective in seeing that the desperate areas get the help they need and the United States has been forced into a position as the police of the world with the resentment of the rest of the world. Isn't it time to force the UN to live up to its original ideals and potentials? Either they can get their act together or needs to be history.
The point of the UN was to have a worldwide coalition of representatives from around the world representing the needs of their country in a forum of other diplomats who were supposed to be about offering better solutions for everyone in the world to get along instead of tempting the fate of a World War III.
The problem is the UN relies heavily on the wealthy nations to solve all of the problems of the world. While the wealthy nations could do more to help, the disadvantaged nations need to take steps on their own in order to become more competitive.
Some of those solutions are not exactly expensive, but would require a regime change, introduction to democracy, and free trade on their part while the wealthy nations, instead of exploiting them for cheap labour, could send them more teachers and doctors, help them build a better infrastructure, and assist with loans designed to help people compete in the global market as well as get their lives back together.
Throwing money to corrupt governments to help their people does not actually do much to help the people. The officials at the top always skim the bulk of the money for themselves and give their people crumbs. They have no serious intention of doing anything to advance and help their countrymen with the money. Look at the Oil For Food programme in Iraq as a prime example!
If the nations requesting the money and help from wealthier nations want full cooperation, should we not expect they live up to what they say they are going to do with the money? As this keeps happening, the US has been put in the awkward position to butt into the business of other countries while the key members have used this guise to exploit the people they were supposed to protect.
If we have no real intention of helping others, we need to mind our own business. Helping ourselves on the problems of others only fuels the fire in the minds of terrorists.
Immigration Rules
This country is made from immigrants. The Natives of this land were here first until we had the nerve to relocate them to sh--ty areas of land. We would have some nerve to tell the rest of the world we do not want you here and god forbid if you decide to take a job from someone here!
It may come as a surprise to some here that the terrorists who came into this country for the 911 event were here legally. And since, most of the terrorists who have entered the country have come in from Canada.
When you ask a typical American what they think a terrorist looks like, they will automatically assume it is a Middle Eastern "looking" man with a beard and head covered. There is a big problem with this stereotype.
Many people in the US are ignorant when it comes to figuring out where a person is from by the way they look. Personally, people have confused me with a person from the Middle East and I have no connection with that area of the world whatsoever. Many Eastern Indian men wearing a turban have been assaulted and called terrorists. Even some Hispanics and Native Americans have been attacked because they "looked Middle Eastern".
Terrorists can come in all colours, nationalities and from both sexes.
Tim McVeigh, Ted Kasinsky, Eric Robert Rudolph, John William King and two other men who killed a black man on the back of their pick up truck - all of these are the faces of white terrorists. We have far more attacks by this ilk than of the Middle Eastern ones.
There are reports of American citizens who were born and raised here in middle class white and even Hispanic families who have converted to the radical forms of Islam and have fallen into the spell of the terrorists groups.
There have been reports of suicide bombers in Middle Eastern countries where the perpetrator is female.
If we only go by the stereotype, the MO of the terrorist group is to follow a form to go below the radar of suspicion. Just read the Al Qaeda Training Manual.
It would go a long way to secure our immigration policies. We need an overhaul of the system and to rethink our attitudes about people who come here.
We should not want to harm those who come into the country seeking employment or shelter, particularly from the south of our country. We should try and understand they are not doing it to hurt anyone, but to survive. All agreements like NAFTA AND CAFTA do is to further exploit their poor who still keep coming over the border while taking away jobs from the people who live here. It is not the illegal immigrants who are taking away the jobs we want, but plans like these free trade agreements. The illegals can still make more money working below minimum wage in jobs we won't do than they can in their own countries where our good jobs have gone.
If we want free trade, it also needs to be fair trade. This would create less of the problem with people needing to cross our borders to survive.
As for others coming into this country, we should follow the examples of other nations like Australia that will do a background search before they allow you permission to enter their land. They keep potential unwanted people out before they set foot on soil. Perhaps a background search beforehand on people who want to enter this country would not be a bad idea. Remember, the 911 terrorists came here legally and without a background check to stop them.
Of course, if we did do a background check, terrorists from outside would try to come here from the borders. This is why more focus should be placed on securing the borders. The money spent on fight the war in Iraq would have done a lot more towards securing us from the north and south.
By making friends with our neighbors, it also serves as a good protection because we would be looking out for their best interests and they would be looking after ours.
Travel Safety - AKA Airport Security
It is utterly ridiculous to search little old ladies before they step on a plane. There are famous public figures who get pulled aside for a complete search which is also a useless waste of time and resources. Pulling infants away from their mothers because their names appear on a list of terrorists is just plain wrong.
The men who came into the airport with the intention of using the airplane as a weapon reportedly were acting suspiciously. Political correctness stopped one official who thought they were up to something from preventing them to catch the flight. He had to go against his gut feeling because it would be perceived as not PC to stop Middle Eastern businessmen from catching a flight, even if the alarms were going off that something was not right about them.
The true typical terrorist is male, age 16-45. If people are so worried about being PC about the offending the demographics based on nationality, why not hit the true demographics of the likely terrorist? It is more in the male nature to do these kinds of acts than it is for a woman who would have a harder time in overpowering a flight crew. When it comes to the age factor, people under age 16 have a hard time in planning such things to fruition and would also be overpowered by a flight crew. People over 35 tend to be set in life and generally do not want to throw away what they have done with their lives.
Why not perform a random check on this demographic? And perform a mandatory check on anyone whose name and picture matches a national database of people with ties to terrorist groups? Why not have such a list in the first place so we could check and keep them updated for every national airport? Why not conduct a mandatory search on people who are acting in a suspicious way? Why not use common sense instead of fear based solutions at the airport?
National Awareness
Security always starts at home, literally. We should know our neighbours on our street. We should know who belongs in that area and who does not. When we see people who are strangers in our area AND they are acting strangely, then we should try to team up with our neighbours and find out what's going on. We do not have to attack everyone acting strangely, but at least see if that person is a friend or foe or just someone with mental problems who needs help. Neighborhood Watch is a good programme that more areas should try.
We should show more support for our local and state police. They are the key people who serve as our defense when a problem develops that is beyond our control. They keep law and order. We also need to show the same support and respect to our National Guard who are supposed to be HERE to protect us.
By keeping track of what is going on in your own area, you can do a lot more to aid in the fight against terrorism, but be careful not to become vigilantes in the process. There is no need to have a knee-jerk reaction to everything that might go wrong. This is life, at any time anything could go wrong. There is no way to save people 100%. All we could ever do is reduce our risks in a reasonable and logical manner.
Surviving Disaster
Current Events
With more and more light shining on the CIA leak scandal connected to the White House, it appears one of the lesser members of the Bush team is going to take one for the team - a slap on the wrist as the nation is distracted while these people continue with business as usual. "Scooter" will take the bullet by playing the same play dumb act Oliver North did during the "Iran country" scandal - the event that cemented the hatred of the US by both Iran and Iraq. What exactly are they up to now?
If Bush aides took the memo seriously that said we were going to be attacked by terrorists on our soil and actually acted upon that information, this would be an example of why national security begins, not ends, at home. Had they read that memo and consulted with the CIA, FBI, and FAA and picked qualified members from each group to form a team to handle this specific report, they could have done a lot more to prevent 9/11 from happening, or at least reduced the tragedy on that day.
In the case of invading Afghanistan and taking out the terrorists inside, it could be justified. This administration has made that justification invalid. We cannot neglect the fact that the US has trained Osama bin Laden and many who headed Al Qaeda during the war between Afghanistan and Russia. We came into that country to oust the Commies and left them high and dry to defend themselves in the aftermath which brought about ruthless regimes that ended in the Taliban rule that was one of the most oppressive forms of government in the world.
Osama bin Laden was the one who brainwashed, funded, trained, and assisted those misguided young men into doing such a horrible thing. If one is even slightly contributed to a murder, we charge them with a crime and go after them. Osama is more than an accomplice to murder of over 3000 people. Our "noble" president has referred to him as a mere symbol of terrorist organization and was no longer important to pursue. Why?
Wasn't the main point of invading Iraq was to get him and destroy Al Qaeda? Back in the pre-911 days, only a handful of people, myself included, tried to bring awareness of the horrid conditions of the Afghans. Our country did not even really know or care about the plight of those poor people living there, so it was not about liberating them and showing them democracy. They have that opportunity now and that is the only good thing to come out of the war, but it still did not solve the problem we were after.
Unfortunately, we pulled out too many of our soldiers to bring more stability to the country and there are pockets of groups who want to bring disorder and overthrow the government. Drug trafficking is still the main source of national income. They have a long way to go, but by not finishing what we started they are in danger of going back.
Why Start At Home?
It is a matter of logistics and just plain common sense. If our own people on our own shores were more alert and with a reasonable plan of action, we could prevent a lot more terrorists actions. By scaring people with the elevation of the colour chart and telling them there is a danger of an attack at an unknown place during an unknown time by people unknown, merely terrorists, using a method no one really knows for sure is STUPID!!
Yes, we should all be aware of what goes on around us, but we should not live in a paranoid phobia about it. In the 90s, the terrorists did attack us on our soil at the World Trade Center. They attacked then, why was it any surprise they would try it on 911 or again at some other time in the future. Any reasoning person can see that clearly.
Being in the US, we do at least have some protection from an all out battle with Middle Eastern terrorist groups - we are separated by an ocean and they do not have the funds or territory to launch an invasion such as we did with Iraq. However, there are cracks where a few key people can do major damage. If we did not spend all our time and resources invading Iraq, we could have done a lot more to secure our own borders. To secure our borders include the following:
Befriending Our Neighbours
Anyone who looks at a map can see the obvious, Mexico and Canada are our closest countries. If any terrorist wanted to come into our country, those are two large borders to cross. Most people fail to recognize they are not our only neighbours in which we need to befriend. A terrorist cell on a corrupt island nation in the Caribbean, or Central America or even the Northern part of South America full of poor, starving and neglected people could easily look the other way as they launch a nuclear device in our direction.
If we cannot work along with our neighbours, all of them, and see to it their needs are being met, they could just as easily look the other way when we get attacked. Seeing to the needs of the poor and destitute people around us would go a lot further in helping securing our borders than going abroad and starting pointless wars with no real end in sight.
Minding Our Own Business
It is one thing if another nation asks for our help, then by all means give them the help they require. It is an entirely different thing when we interfere with how other countries run their business.
The United Nations has proven to be ineffective in seeing that the desperate areas get the help they need and the United States has been forced into a position as the police of the world with the resentment of the rest of the world. Isn't it time to force the UN to live up to its original ideals and potentials? Either they can get their act together or needs to be history.
The point of the UN was to have a worldwide coalition of representatives from around the world representing the needs of their country in a forum of other diplomats who were supposed to be about offering better solutions for everyone in the world to get along instead of tempting the fate of a World War III.
The problem is the UN relies heavily on the wealthy nations to solve all of the problems of the world. While the wealthy nations could do more to help, the disadvantaged nations need to take steps on their own in order to become more competitive.
Some of those solutions are not exactly expensive, but would require a regime change, introduction to democracy, and free trade on their part while the wealthy nations, instead of exploiting them for cheap labour, could send them more teachers and doctors, help them build a better infrastructure, and assist with loans designed to help people compete in the global market as well as get their lives back together.
Throwing money to corrupt governments to help their people does not actually do much to help the people. The officials at the top always skim the bulk of the money for themselves and give their people crumbs. They have no serious intention of doing anything to advance and help their countrymen with the money. Look at the Oil For Food programme in Iraq as a prime example!
If the nations requesting the money and help from wealthier nations want full cooperation, should we not expect they live up to what they say they are going to do with the money? As this keeps happening, the US has been put in the awkward position to butt into the business of other countries while the key members have used this guise to exploit the people they were supposed to protect.
If we have no real intention of helping others, we need to mind our own business. Helping ourselves on the problems of others only fuels the fire in the minds of terrorists.
Immigration Rules
This country is made from immigrants. The Natives of this land were here first until we had the nerve to relocate them to sh--ty areas of land. We would have some nerve to tell the rest of the world we do not want you here and god forbid if you decide to take a job from someone here!
It may come as a surprise to some here that the terrorists who came into this country for the 911 event were here legally. And since, most of the terrorists who have entered the country have come in from Canada.
When you ask a typical American what they think a terrorist looks like, they will automatically assume it is a Middle Eastern "looking" man with a beard and head covered. There is a big problem with this stereotype.
Many people in the US are ignorant when it comes to figuring out where a person is from by the way they look. Personally, people have confused me with a person from the Middle East and I have no connection with that area of the world whatsoever. Many Eastern Indian men wearing a turban have been assaulted and called terrorists. Even some Hispanics and Native Americans have been attacked because they "looked Middle Eastern".
Terrorists can come in all colours, nationalities and from both sexes.
Tim McVeigh, Ted Kasinsky, Eric Robert Rudolph, John William King and two other men who killed a black man on the back of their pick up truck - all of these are the faces of white terrorists. We have far more attacks by this ilk than of the Middle Eastern ones.
There are reports of American citizens who were born and raised here in middle class white and even Hispanic families who have converted to the radical forms of Islam and have fallen into the spell of the terrorists groups.
There have been reports of suicide bombers in Middle Eastern countries where the perpetrator is female.
If we only go by the stereotype, the MO of the terrorist group is to follow a form to go below the radar of suspicion. Just read the Al Qaeda Training Manual.
It would go a long way to secure our immigration policies. We need an overhaul of the system and to rethink our attitudes about people who come here.
We should not want to harm those who come into the country seeking employment or shelter, particularly from the south of our country. We should try and understand they are not doing it to hurt anyone, but to survive. All agreements like NAFTA AND CAFTA do is to further exploit their poor who still keep coming over the border while taking away jobs from the people who live here. It is not the illegal immigrants who are taking away the jobs we want, but plans like these free trade agreements. The illegals can still make more money working below minimum wage in jobs we won't do than they can in their own countries where our good jobs have gone.
If we want free trade, it also needs to be fair trade. This would create less of the problem with people needing to cross our borders to survive.
As for others coming into this country, we should follow the examples of other nations like Australia that will do a background search before they allow you permission to enter their land. They keep potential unwanted people out before they set foot on soil. Perhaps a background search beforehand on people who want to enter this country would not be a bad idea. Remember, the 911 terrorists came here legally and without a background check to stop them.
Of course, if we did do a background check, terrorists from outside would try to come here from the borders. This is why more focus should be placed on securing the borders. The money spent on fight the war in Iraq would have done a lot more towards securing us from the north and south.
By making friends with our neighbors, it also serves as a good protection because we would be looking out for their best interests and they would be looking after ours.
Travel Safety - AKA Airport Security
It is utterly ridiculous to search little old ladies before they step on a plane. There are famous public figures who get pulled aside for a complete search which is also a useless waste of time and resources. Pulling infants away from their mothers because their names appear on a list of terrorists is just plain wrong.
The men who came into the airport with the intention of using the airplane as a weapon reportedly were acting suspiciously. Political correctness stopped one official who thought they were up to something from preventing them to catch the flight. He had to go against his gut feeling because it would be perceived as not PC to stop Middle Eastern businessmen from catching a flight, even if the alarms were going off that something was not right about them.
The true typical terrorist is male, age 16-45. If people are so worried about being PC about the offending the demographics based on nationality, why not hit the true demographics of the likely terrorist? It is more in the male nature to do these kinds of acts than it is for a woman who would have a harder time in overpowering a flight crew. When it comes to the age factor, people under age 16 have a hard time in planning such things to fruition and would also be overpowered by a flight crew. People over 35 tend to be set in life and generally do not want to throw away what they have done with their lives.
Why not perform a random check on this demographic? And perform a mandatory check on anyone whose name and picture matches a national database of people with ties to terrorist groups? Why not have such a list in the first place so we could check and keep them updated for every national airport? Why not conduct a mandatory search on people who are acting in a suspicious way? Why not use common sense instead of fear based solutions at the airport?
National Awareness
Security always starts at home, literally. We should know our neighbours on our street. We should know who belongs in that area and who does not. When we see people who are strangers in our area AND they are acting strangely, then we should try to team up with our neighbours and find out what's going on. We do not have to attack everyone acting strangely, but at least see if that person is a friend or foe or just someone with mental problems who needs help. Neighborhood Watch is a good programme that more areas should try.
We should show more support for our local and state police. They are the key people who serve as our defense when a problem develops that is beyond our control. They keep law and order. We also need to show the same support and respect to our National Guard who are supposed to be HERE to protect us.
By keeping track of what is going on in your own area, you can do a lot more to aid in the fight against terrorism, but be careful not to become vigilantes in the process. There is no need to have a knee-jerk reaction to everything that might go wrong. This is life, at any time anything could go wrong. There is no way to save people 100%. All we could ever do is reduce our risks in a reasonable and logical manner.
Surviving Disaster
posted by Callen Damornen at 12:46:00 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home