Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. No Confidence

No Confidence

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
agentic-aiquestion
23 Posts 12 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R Offline
    R Offline
    realJSOP
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    The key to suppressing terrorist acts is maintaining tight control over border crossings. IMHO, the U.S. Border Patrol (my sister is an agent for them) is not properly funded, manned, or supplied for this kind of suppression. They simply don't have enough people and can't afford the anti-incursion technologies that can even warn them when someone crosses over illegally into this country. This means that someone could come in along an unused portion of beach, through the mountains, or any other number of routes. They can carry nuclear or biological weapons in something as small as a backpack and sneak right in and continue killing Americans. Is it up to us citizens to make sure that they don't get across the border? Looks like it is to me...

    E L C C J 6 Replies Last reply
    0
    • R realJSOP

      The key to suppressing terrorist acts is maintaining tight control over border crossings. IMHO, the U.S. Border Patrol (my sister is an agent for them) is not properly funded, manned, or supplied for this kind of suppression. They simply don't have enough people and can't afford the anti-incursion technologies that can even warn them when someone crosses over illegally into this country. This means that someone could come in along an unused portion of beach, through the mountains, or any other number of routes. They can carry nuclear or biological weapons in something as small as a backpack and sneak right in and continue killing Americans. Is it up to us citizens to make sure that they don't get across the border? Looks like it is to me...

      E Offline
      E Offline
      Ed Dixon
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      While this is a part of the solution approach, our border is so large that effective control is probably not in the cards. The war on drugs has been trying for years to control this and has had only limited success. Controlling people is probably harder. Ed

      R 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • R realJSOP

        The key to suppressing terrorist acts is maintaining tight control over border crossings. IMHO, the U.S. Border Patrol (my sister is an agent for them) is not properly funded, manned, or supplied for this kind of suppression. They simply don't have enough people and can't afford the anti-incursion technologies that can even warn them when someone crosses over illegally into this country. This means that someone could come in along an unused portion of beach, through the mountains, or any other number of routes. They can carry nuclear or biological weapons in something as small as a backpack and sneak right in and continue killing Americans. Is it up to us citizens to make sure that they don't get across the border? Looks like it is to me...

        L Offline
        L Offline
        Lost User
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        John How would the US cover every inch of their border and coast? What of the threat of potential terrorists already being planted in the US? Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • R realJSOP

          The key to suppressing terrorist acts is maintaining tight control over border crossings. IMHO, the U.S. Border Patrol (my sister is an agent for them) is not properly funded, manned, or supplied for this kind of suppression. They simply don't have enough people and can't afford the anti-incursion technologies that can even warn them when someone crosses over illegally into this country. This means that someone could come in along an unused portion of beach, through the mountains, or any other number of routes. They can carry nuclear or biological weapons in something as small as a backpack and sneak right in and continue killing Americans. Is it up to us citizens to make sure that they don't get across the border? Looks like it is to me...

          C Offline
          C Offline
          Chris Maunder
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          I'm not sure if you guys had been following what's been going on in Australia a couple of weeks ago, but we had a HUGE debate about immigration and border control. Lots of Afghanistan refugees were trying to come into the country illegally and the PM put his foot down and said 'No more'. Huge court case as to whether he was acting illegally in not letting them land. Public opinion was divided as to whether we should treat refugees more leniently and humanely or whether we should really start getting tough. In any case the debate seems to be over now. cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • R realJSOP

            The key to suppressing terrorist acts is maintaining tight control over border crossings. IMHO, the U.S. Border Patrol (my sister is an agent for them) is not properly funded, manned, or supplied for this kind of suppression. They simply don't have enough people and can't afford the anti-incursion technologies that can even warn them when someone crosses over illegally into this country. This means that someone could come in along an unused portion of beach, through the mountains, or any other number of routes. They can carry nuclear or biological weapons in something as small as a backpack and sneak right in and continue killing Americans. Is it up to us citizens to make sure that they don't get across the border? Looks like it is to me...

            E Offline
            E Offline
            Ed Dixon
            wrote on last edited by
            #5

            The key issue for last weeks disaster was how the high jackers got access to the cockpit. I spoke to a UA pilot whose run last month was flight 175. His comments related to this key point. Ed

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • R realJSOP

              The key to suppressing terrorist acts is maintaining tight control over border crossings. IMHO, the U.S. Border Patrol (my sister is an agent for them) is not properly funded, manned, or supplied for this kind of suppression. They simply don't have enough people and can't afford the anti-incursion technologies that can even warn them when someone crosses over illegally into this country. This means that someone could come in along an unused portion of beach, through the mountains, or any other number of routes. They can carry nuclear or biological weapons in something as small as a backpack and sneak right in and continue killing Americans. Is it up to us citizens to make sure that they don't get across the border? Looks like it is to me...

              C Offline
              C Offline
              Chris Losinger
              wrote on last edited by
              #6

              ... : don't do things that make people want to kill you. I know it's an unpopular way to think about it - but it's really the only one that makes sense. You can't hunt them down and kill them or take over their countries or kill their leaders - you'll just breed a new generation of terrorists. It's that simple. And really, it seems that all they want is for the US to stay the hell out of their lives. We've been fucking around in their business for decades, just to keep oil prices low, and now they've had enough. So, if I was running the show, I'd quit worrying about who to kill and how, and I'd focus on getting the hell out of those countries for good - in all ways : military, economic, humanitarian, religious, political, etc.. Let them all kill each other, oppress each other, fight over sand, whatever they want to do. To hell with em. We'll take our ball and go home. If they want to sell us oil on their own terms, great. If not, we can buy from South America. I'm not saying give in to every two-bit terrorist's demands. But this is bigger than someone bitching about political prisoners - we've been pissing in their sandbox for a long time and they have every right to be mad (not to kill thousands of us, but to be mad, yes). -c (american, but reasonable) ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

              T S J 3 Replies Last reply
              0
              • C Chris Losinger

                ... : don't do things that make people want to kill you. I know it's an unpopular way to think about it - but it's really the only one that makes sense. You can't hunt them down and kill them or take over their countries or kill their leaders - you'll just breed a new generation of terrorists. It's that simple. And really, it seems that all they want is for the US to stay the hell out of their lives. We've been fucking around in their business for decades, just to keep oil prices low, and now they've had enough. So, if I was running the show, I'd quit worrying about who to kill and how, and I'd focus on getting the hell out of those countries for good - in all ways : military, economic, humanitarian, religious, political, etc.. Let them all kill each other, oppress each other, fight over sand, whatever they want to do. To hell with em. We'll take our ball and go home. If they want to sell us oil on their own terms, great. If not, we can buy from South America. I'm not saying give in to every two-bit terrorist's demands. But this is bigger than someone bitching about political prisoners - we've been pissing in their sandbox for a long time and they have every right to be mad (not to kill thousands of us, but to be mad, yes). -c (american, but reasonable) ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                T Offline
                T Offline
                Tim Smith
                wrote on last edited by
                #7

                If it was only as easy as that. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

                G 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • T Tim Smith

                  If it was only as easy as that. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

                  G Offline
                  G Offline
                  George Chastain
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #8

                  Agree -- If only it were that easy. I feel that, unfortunately, as long as such fundamental differences exist between our cultures and our religion that there will never be peace. There are those who will not rest until America and the American way of life, as well as Christianity and Judaism, are destroyed. And we have to protect our interests here and abroad. As well as those who request our assistance for we are the only significant power to protect many of the nations in our world. It is our duty as Americans and as human beings. I just hope that we have the stomach for the battles that are before us. WillCodeForMoney

                  C 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • C Chris Losinger

                    ... : don't do things that make people want to kill you. I know it's an unpopular way to think about it - but it's really the only one that makes sense. You can't hunt them down and kill them or take over their countries or kill their leaders - you'll just breed a new generation of terrorists. It's that simple. And really, it seems that all they want is for the US to stay the hell out of their lives. We've been fucking around in their business for decades, just to keep oil prices low, and now they've had enough. So, if I was running the show, I'd quit worrying about who to kill and how, and I'd focus on getting the hell out of those countries for good - in all ways : military, economic, humanitarian, religious, political, etc.. Let them all kill each other, oppress each other, fight over sand, whatever they want to do. To hell with em. We'll take our ball and go home. If they want to sell us oil on their own terms, great. If not, we can buy from South America. I'm not saying give in to every two-bit terrorist's demands. But this is bigger than someone bitching about political prisoners - we've been pissing in their sandbox for a long time and they have every right to be mad (not to kill thousands of us, but to be mad, yes). -c (american, but reasonable) ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                    S Offline
                    S Offline
                    Stan Shannon
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #9

                    Actually, Chris, I agree with you for the most part. We will have to conquer the entire Middle East and hold it to stop this kind of crap. (I don't agree that getting out of their lives will make a difference. We are hated for the goodness in us, not the badness.) If we don't have the will to do that than we should do nothing at all. Anything short of that will be a waste of innocents lives. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • G George Chastain

                      Agree -- If only it were that easy. I feel that, unfortunately, as long as such fundamental differences exist between our cultures and our religion that there will never be peace. There are those who will not rest until America and the American way of life, as well as Christianity and Judaism, are destroyed. And we have to protect our interests here and abroad. As well as those who request our assistance for we are the only significant power to protect many of the nations in our world. It is our duty as Americans and as human beings. I just hope that we have the stomach for the battles that are before us. WillCodeForMoney

                      C Offline
                      C Offline
                      Chris Losinger
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #10

                      There are those who will not rest until America and the American way of life, as well as Christianity and Judaism, are destroyed. note that there are many non-islamic countries in the world that are not being attacked by terrorists. I just hope that we have the stomach for the battles that are before us. given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                      T 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • C Chris Losinger

                        There are those who will not rest until America and the American way of life, as well as Christianity and Judaism, are destroyed. note that there are many non-islamic countries in the world that are not being attacked by terrorists. I just hope that we have the stomach for the battles that are before us. given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                        T Offline
                        T Offline
                        Tim Smith
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #11

                        note that there are many non-islamic countries in the world that are not being attacked by terrorists. Don't fool yourself, these people are even after Saudi Arabia and Egypt (they want Islamic based religious governments). given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. That just doesn't make sense. I guess we should get rid of all police because sometimes people not directly involved in the crime get hurt. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

                        C 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • T Tim Smith

                          note that there are many non-islamic countries in the world that are not being attacked by terrorists. Don't fool yourself, these people are even after Saudi Arabia and Egypt (they want Islamic based religious governments). given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. That just doesn't make sense. I guess we should get rid of all police because sometimes people not directly involved in the crime get hurt. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

                          C Offline
                          C Offline
                          Chris Losinger
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #12

                          given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. That just doesn't make sense. I guess we should get rid of all police because sometimes people not directly involved in the crime get hurt. my statement makes perfect sense. if bush chooses the violent route, given non-violent aternatives, i am (as is every other US citizen) entitled to protest. i say this only because it seems that he's already decided on invading afghanistan (at least according to all of the news reports i've heard). and to me that seems to place our troops and our civilians in unnecessary danger. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                          S T R 3 Replies Last reply
                          0
                          • C Chris Losinger

                            given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. That just doesn't make sense. I guess we should get rid of all police because sometimes people not directly involved in the crime get hurt. my statement makes perfect sense. if bush chooses the violent route, given non-violent aternatives, i am (as is every other US citizen) entitled to protest. i say this only because it seems that he's already decided on invading afghanistan (at least according to all of the news reports i've heard). and to me that seems to place our troops and our civilians in unnecessary danger. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                            S Offline
                            S Offline
                            Stan Shannon
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #13

                            For what its worth, I think an invasion of Afghanistan is sheer idiocy. And I'm otherwise a Bush supporter. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • C Chris Losinger

                              given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. That just doesn't make sense. I guess we should get rid of all police because sometimes people not directly involved in the crime get hurt. my statement makes perfect sense. if bush chooses the violent route, given non-violent aternatives, i am (as is every other US citizen) entitled to protest. i say this only because it seems that he's already decided on invading afghanistan (at least according to all of the news reports i've heard). and to me that seems to place our troops and our civilians in unnecessary danger. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                              T Offline
                              T Offline
                              Tim Smith
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #14

                              What doesn't make sense is the idea that action guarantees death and non-action prevents it. More Americans are going to die, no matter what course of action is taken. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

                              C 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • T Tim Smith

                                What doesn't make sense is the idea that action guarantees death and non-action prevents it. More Americans are going to die, no matter what course of action is taken. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

                                C Offline
                                C Offline
                                Chris Losinger
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #15

                                What doesn't make sense is the idea that action guarantees death and non-action prevents it. do you seriously believe rounding up and sentencing a handful of people to some kind of Western justice is going to teach those all of those nasty Islamic heathens a lesson they'll never forget? "Oh no! The Great Satan is displeased! Run for your lives!" if so, i've got some nice land out on Israel's west bank that i'd like to sell ya. More Americans are going to die, no matter what course of action is taken. says who? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                                T 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • C Chris Losinger

                                  What doesn't make sense is the idea that action guarantees death and non-action prevents it. do you seriously believe rounding up and sentencing a handful of people to some kind of Western justice is going to teach those all of those nasty Islamic heathens a lesson they'll never forget? "Oh no! The Great Satan is displeased! Run for your lives!" if so, i've got some nice land out on Israel's west bank that i'd like to sell ya. More Americans are going to die, no matter what course of action is taken. says who? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                                  T Offline
                                  T Offline
                                  Tim Smith
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #16

                                  do you seriously believe rounding up and sentencing a handful of people to some kind of Western justice is going to teach those all of those nasty Islamic heathens a lesson they'll never forget? "Oh no! The Great Satan is displeased! Run for your lives!" if so, i've got some nice land out on Israel's west bank that i'd like to sell ya. Hmm, I don't remember ever saying that. say who? LOL, Bin Laden Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • C Chris Losinger

                                    given non-life-threatening alternatives, i hope g_wBush has the stomach for having his own people protest his actions, if what he does ends up killing more US civilians. That just doesn't make sense. I guess we should get rid of all police because sometimes people not directly involved in the crime get hurt. my statement makes perfect sense. if bush chooses the violent route, given non-violent aternatives, i am (as is every other US citizen) entitled to protest. i say this only because it seems that he's already decided on invading afghanistan (at least according to all of the news reports i've heard). and to me that seems to place our troops and our civilians in unnecessary danger. -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com

                                    R Offline
                                    R Offline
                                    Richard Stringer
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #17

                                    "i say this only because it seems that he's already decided on invading afghanistan (at least according to all of the news reports i've heard). and to me that seems to place our troops and our civilians in unnecessary danger. " As an ex military person I would ask the question "Whay have the troops if you are not going to use them?" The civilian population is already at risk and the more we capitulate and cater to the terrorists the greater risk we put them in. I agree: Lets dialog with the terrorists but first lets get their undivided attention. I think LBJ had the correct idea: "Get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow"

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • E Ed Dixon

                                      While this is a part of the solution approach, our border is so large that effective control is probably not in the cards. The war on drugs has been trying for years to control this and has had only limited success. Controlling people is probably harder. Ed

                                      R Offline
                                      R Offline
                                      Roman R
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #18

                                      Soviet Union used to have an even larger border before it split up, I believe, but was able to have it protected.

                                      E C 2 Replies Last reply
                                      0
                                      • R Roman R

                                        Soviet Union used to have an even larger border before it split up, I believe, but was able to have it protected.

                                        E Offline
                                        E Offline
                                        Ed Dixon
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #19

                                        Their approach to civil liberties are somewhat different than in the US. They may also have a much different pattern of consumers entering/leaving the country from other souces. At both teh Canadian and Mexican borders we have thousands every day that cross. I'm not sure they have that option there. Ed

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • R realJSOP

                                          The key to suppressing terrorist acts is maintaining tight control over border crossings. IMHO, the U.S. Border Patrol (my sister is an agent for them) is not properly funded, manned, or supplied for this kind of suppression. They simply don't have enough people and can't afford the anti-incursion technologies that can even warn them when someone crosses over illegally into this country. This means that someone could come in along an unused portion of beach, through the mountains, or any other number of routes. They can carry nuclear or biological weapons in something as small as a backpack and sneak right in and continue killing Americans. Is it up to us citizens to make sure that they don't get across the border? Looks like it is to me...

                                          J Offline
                                          J Offline
                                          Jonathan Gilligan
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #20

                                          Which borders would you have closed to stop Columbine or Oklahoma City?

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups