Drone /terrorists strikes on American soil ?

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 10 years ago

   I for one believe that, that happening would be the first day of an American revolution ,  What kind of President has liberal America elected ?  For all of the anti-war talk early on this administration is one of the more restrictive and violent administrations ever ! Do you miss GWBush  yet ?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Except that it hasn't happened and probably never will and I will remind you the NDAA was signed in by both parties and the Patriot act well...

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Josak - The "Probably never will" part of your comment is not very reassuring.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed the problem is this thread seems to be treating it as if it has.

            replyreport
2. 0

   Old Poolmanposted 10 years ago

   I honestly can't believe I would ever see the day something like this would even be considered.  I doubt that many Americans will be in favor of this type action, but it appears we will have absolutely no say in the decision.  Keep in mind this is being done with no arrest or trial, just a signed death warrant issued by Politicians.  Perhaps in the future they will consider dealing with those who cheat on their taxes in this same manner?

   replyreport
3. 67

   innersmiffposted 10 years ago

   This is what your reliance on government gets you, ladies and gentleman: a war-zone in your own country,

   replyreport
4. 58

   Education Answerposted 10 years ago

   No POTUS should be able to do what Obama is doing with drones.  1984!

   replyreport
5. 59

   sannyasinmanposted 10 years ago

   ...and there is more... could this be related?
   
   WHY did the DHS recently purchase
   
   • 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition
   • 7,000+ assault rifles
   • 2,700+ armored assault vehicles
   
   What are they preparing for?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      For the purposes of protecting "the Homeland"? I believe that is their job and ammunition, rifles and armored vehicles sounds about like what you would need.
      
      7000 rifles is not very many really.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Josak, who will be carrying these guns and riding in the Armored Vehicles?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Coast guard, Customs, Border patrol. I would have thought you guys down south would like border patrol to have as many vehicles and weapons as it needs.

            replyreport
      2. 59

         sannyasinmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         , ,protecting the homeland?  I thought that was what the armed forces were for, with their multi-billion dollar "defence" budget?
         
         This is not the army we are talking about here, this is Domestic Security. Please tell me where the threat is on US soil? From whom?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The department of Homeland security protects from internal threats I believe while the army protects form exterior ones, I imagine it pertains mainly to terrorists domestic and foreign also as I said neither of those purchases is particularly large for  department that employs 250 000 people.
            
            Homeland security also has control over customs and border patrol, the TSA, the Coast Guard, Domestic Nuclear detection etc. etc. all of these groups need guns, ammo etc.
            
            It's blatant fear mongering over nothing scary at all.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               sannyasinmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               None of the functions you mention (TSA, Coast Guard etc) has any need of 2700 armored patrol vehicles, or 1.6 billion bullets.
               Please tell me who they are going to shoot with their bullets, and who they are  going to protect themselves from in their armored patrol vehicles?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  1.6 Billion bullets will mainly be used in training.
                  
                  Armored Vehicles is enough for one every several hundred miles of land border with Mexico where armed Cartel operate transferring drugs into the US. If I was trying to stop Cartel I would sure like to be in an armored vehicle, not to mention crowd control during a terrorist attack and fast response to terrorist actions, say there was another Waco tomorrow would it not be useful to have Armored vehicles? So you need at least one or two per operating sector everywhere in the country.
                  
                  2700 Vehicles is really nothing at all for a country of ten million square kilometers.

                  replyreport
         2. 94

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            How many agents are on the Mexican or Canadian border?  At crossings or otherwise?

            replyreport
         3. 76

            Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Must be difficult to be scared of everything all the time. It's certainly not living.

            replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Have you looked at the budget or usage paperwork?  Is it normal?  Did they get it on sale?  Did they have budget monies at the end of the year - spend it or lose it?  Could be a dozen or more reasons for a purchase that seems very large but may not be.
      
      Somewhere I saw that before, with a comment that it was not unusual.  Don't recall at all whether it was a decent source, though.

      replyreport
6. 82

   sabrebIadeposted 10 years ago

   "Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga . The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises."
   So they are now set for _____ number of years.
   (Too lazy to do the math)
   
   " say there was another Waco tomorrow would it not be useful to have Armored vehicles?"
   They had armored vehicles last time.
   That's how Seventy-six men, women and children died.
   Imagine what they could do with higher tech AND drones.
   The Fatherland...I mean Homeland would be well protected.

   replyreport
7. 72

   cleaner3posted 10 years ago

   If there was a crisis the president has the power to declare Marshall law and thew dept of home land security would be patrolling the streets if the frederal govt. took over , whoever says this can't happen with this president has his head buried in the sand. the current administration is hiding the survivors of the Bengazi fiasco and won't let csenators interrogate them . The current administration has used executive privledge to cover up the killing of border patrol officers, the current administration has  lied and to the American people and used intimidation tactics against the media and threats against  reporters to silence thier critics .  Drones are being used right now for surviellence purposes and it won't be long until the current administration and the dept of homeland security under the direction of Janet Napolitano  will be wanting to keep  this policy of intimidation intact by any means... if you don't believe that you will be sadly mistaken when the govt. comes to get your guns . Remember the first thing Adolh hitler did was disarm the populace and then the Nazi's took over. !

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      History books should be enough to tell us this is a very bad idea, and history really does repeat itself.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Well, the POTUS did say his presidency was going to be the most transparent.  I guess he wasn't talking about his presidency as much as he was talking about our privacy.  Our lives are pretty transparent now, as the government spies on us even more.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Old Poolmanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Your right!  He never did say which direction the transparency was going to work.  Now we know.

            replyreport