Why does Obama need a 'civilian national security force'?

[a_propagandist]

I have a question, if the world thinks America is a force of good and helps the little countries, are we going to get attacked less than when the world thinks we are a bunch of pompous, haughty and trifling monsters?

I am going to bet holycannoli will ignore this excellent point.

 

[Phlegmak]

Burying our heads on the sand will only do so much good. I think a bit of fear is a good thing to have in times like these, friend.

What do you intend to do with your fear?

 

[mrt144]

Burying our heads on the sand will only do so much good. I think a bit of fear is a good thing to have in times like these, friend.

I'm afraid of you. Does that count?

 

[LucyDuke]

Burying our heads on the sand will only do so much good. I think a bit of fear is a good thing to have in times like these, friend.

I'm not your friend, guy.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It must be tough to live in such fear.

Yep.

Nah, the bill to be concerned about is the one that would mandate that IT workers become federally certified and that the administration could order the shutdown of private networks in an undefined "emergency" provision.

Right... I can't possibly begin to count the number of boneheaded bills that never got to the floor of the house that initiated them, much less became law.

And I don't remember any provision about IT employees having to be federally certified. You got a source?

 

[BSmith1068]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Why does Obama need this 'civilian national security force' that is just as powerful and well-funded as the army?

Where will recruits be coming from?

Where will the money come from?

Why do we need a 'civilian national security force'

And what will they do when this 'civilian national security force' is established?

Ahh… the dangers of sound bites. Who needs context anyway?

It's a White House spin that's been used for the last couple decades. Better living conditions = less people trying to kill each other = more security. Call it spin all you want, but it's used by both sides quite frequently, although obviously the neocons don't like it.

There is one too many equal signs in your equation for the neocons. Everything is either black or white. On or Off. Direct cause/effect. And everyone knows the only way to get less people trying to kill each other is to kill them first.

I am going to bet holycannoli will ignore this excellent point.

Indeed.

 

[Masquerouge]

That website has a liberal bias

says the guy with a youtube video in his opening post

and even if what they are saying is accurate Obama's statement is a VERY scary one.

Fearmongering is what's truly scary these days.

 

[Holycannoli]

I have a question, if the world thinks America is a force of good and helps the little countries, are we going to get attacked less than when the world thinks we are a bunch of pompous, haughty and trifling monsters?

We got attacked in 1993 when Clinton was president and we weren't thought of as pompous, haughty, trifling monsters. We lost a lot of people over Lockerbie in 1989. The USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers in 2000.

It doesn't matter what we do to these terrorists, unless we get rid of the state of Israel (and even then they'll come up with some reason to attack us, like "we didn't do it early enough"). The whole notion of "if we are nice to them they'll be nice to us" simply does not apply.

It's not "the world" attacking us. It's extremist groups who are all too happy to lay down their own lives to kill innocents. And we aren't going to stop them by suddenly being nice. That's naive thinking that can get us in a whole lot of trouble. We aren't talking about nations here. We are talking about extremist groups with their own perverted ideals who don't care about diplomacy and being nice. In fact they'll brand any nation who plays nice with us as a traitor to whatever they believe. They're nuts.

I mean what exactly do you guys mean by being a force of good helping the little countries? You mean not enaging the Taliban in Afghanistan? Not intervening in Bosnia? Actually intervening in Darfur? Not sending help for devastating tsunamis? What do you mean? If all those things make us pompous, haughty, trifling monsters then the world doesn't understand what we do do they?

Everyone keeps saying the US is seen in a very bad light, but what can the US do to be seen in a positive light? Give more aid away? Let countries like Afghanistan that harbor terrorists (intentional or not) just do it? Simply stay out of world affairs, including aid (can't expect the US to stay out of world affairs and yet keep shipping aid everywhere, that's a little demanding don't you think?)

Seriously, anyone who thinks if we're nice to terrorist groups and the middle east in general we won't be attacked by terrorists is naive. Being nice changes nothing.

 

[Miles Teg]

It's not about the extremist groups, it's about cutting off these groups air. Poor people are easily radicalized. This can be used for good obviously, but often enough, it's used to further some insane man's cause. By alleviating poverty and educating the populace, you eliminate the number of potential recruitees for these organizations. You obviously can't eliminate them, because some people are simply born radicals. There's also relatively little to be done about these group's current numbers, since these people are already indoctrinated. But you make things easier for the next generation.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Poor people are easily radicalized.

Is this so hard to understand?

 

[Holycannoli]

It's not about the extremist groups, it's about cutting off these groups air. Poor people are easily radicalized. This can be used for good obviously, but often enough, it's used to further some insane man's cause. By alleviating poverty and educating the populace, you eliminate the number of potential recruitees for these organizations. You obviously can't eliminate them, because some people are simply born radicals. There's also relatively little to be done about these group's current numbers, since these people are already indoctrinated. But you make things easier for the next generation.

So what I'm hearing is "give them money and build nations for them?" So it's our duty, in the interest of national security, to give millions if not billions in aid to poor countries, else we get attacked by terrorists in the future?

How about cutting off their air by slashing their throats and bringing the fight to them, instead of giving them money and building them nations? I don't want one cent given to any terrorist organization or country that harbors them, unless they're fighting them off. If they're impoverished and uneducated, that's not our fault.

This has nothing to do with a "civilian national security force" though.

Is this so hard to understand?

Not for me. I've seen ACORN and the Black Panthers in action.

 

[civ_king]

So what I'm hearing is "give them money and build nations for them?" So it's our duty, in the interest of national security, to give millions if not billions in aid to poor countries, else we get attacked by terrorists in the future?

How about cutting off their air by slashing their throats and bringing the fight to them, instead of giving them money and building them nations? I don't want one cent given to any terrorist organization or country that harbors them, unless they're fighting them off. If they're impoverished and uneducated, that's not our fault.

This has nothing to do with a "civilian national security force" though.



Not for me. I've seen ACORN and the Black Panthers in action.

what's ACORN's problem, I've meet them and they are nice people

 

[Miles Teg]

How about cutting off their air by slashing their throats and bringing the fight to them, instead of giving them money and building them nations?

Because that's just as expensive and not as effective?

 

[Riffraff]

Because that's just as expensive and not as effective?

It's actually a lot more expensive aswell.

 

[Luckymoose]

He is going to do this to take our guns and bibles.

 

[BSmith1068]

I mean what exactly do you guys mean by being a force of good helping the little countries?

Here is some good reading that will help answer that question:

http://www.newamerica.net/files/AmericanRespectTerrorismReport.pdf

I know it is 48 pages and all, but do me a favor and actually read it.

It's not about the extremist groups, it's about cutting off these groups air. Poor people are easily radicalized. This can be used for good obviously, but often enough, it's used to further some insane man's cause. By alleviating poverty and educating the populace, you eliminate the number of potential recruitees for these organizations. You obviously can't eliminate them, because some people are simply born radicals. There's also relatively little to be done about these group's current numbers, since these people are already indoctrinated. But you make things easier for the next generation.

This is absolutely correct. No one here is saying that we shouldn’t attack al Qaeda or other terrorists. We are saying that we need to do what we can to prevent them from getting as much support as they do now. Simply being militant bullies gives them more support, not less.

It is also not black or white. I don’t think we can eliminate all potential terrorist attacks against us simply by foreign aid or other programs. But it is a good long term strategy for reducing them.

 

[innonimatu]

We got attacked in 1993 when Clinton was president and we weren't thought of as pompous, haughty, trifling monsters. We lost a lot of people over Lockerbie in 1989. The USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers in 2000.

So your country gets attacked because it meddles, militarily, in the affairs of other countries, and keeps meddling because it gets attacked with the occasional bomb?

That's a great example of circular logic you got there!

 

[Cutlass]

what's ACORN's problem, I've meet them and they are nice people

There is nothing wrong with them. They're just community organizers and activists. They're hated because they try to get generally disenfranchised people to vote. And those people, once they are voters, do not vote Republican.

 

[Miles Teg]

No, they're bad because they pay people to register voters, and then some of those people register fake names (Ima Doofus, Mickey Mouse, etc.) to collect on the money. The less obvious ones aren't rejected, and these people sit on the voter roles, and then the Ultra Evil Conspiracy of Liberals, Communists, Nazis, Socialists, and Allies takes these votes, and uses them to promote candidates that were secretly born in Kenya as the lovechild of Malcolm X.*

*Part of this post was written on drugs. Can you tell which?

 

[JtheJackal]

Yes why should we win people's hearts when we can just kill them instead.