DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Is America's worst threat internal or external?

Does America have a bigger threat from external sources like 911 or internal like the Boston Bombing?

Not fair saying both, because that's too obvious.

Internal.

internal for sure

What's the biggest internal threat?

You're always gonna have extremists religious groups or the possibility of a Timothy Mcveigh.

external, with internal influencing it hard.

the federal government.

I'm still not certain if 9/11 was all an external job or not. I definitely have my doubts.

Unless someome on this board is directly employed and in the know within the government of this country, this question cannot be definitively answered. Even if there was an employee of the government on this board, would we believe him/her? That is what our government wants.

The Federal Governments and the unraveling of our Society into separate camps.

Internal
-Plutocracy

I know rockdawg doesn't want to hear both, but it is. Ever since the cold war ended, so did our patriotism. During the cold war, people were proud to shout USA as we played sports against other countries. Now we're told it's discriminatory. We have lunatics that hate our way of life, both inside and outside the country. BLM and the idiots at mizzou are ticked that a terror attack in Paris has stolen their press, which they were trying to kick out of their 'safe areas'. The president thinks his 'strategy' is actually working in Syria, when hundreds of thousands are becoming refugees and terror attacks continue. He thinks letting Iran have nukes is a good idea, seeing as we have them.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a prepping budget. If I'm wrong, I can still eat freeze dried food after I turn 70 and retire, as I know social security will no longer be there for me.

Internal. We have a government against the people and a liberal left who doesn't give a crap about the rights of the people.

IDIOTS

Neither does the right...

Obviously depends on the point of view.

Yes, but I would say both the extreme right and left fail us, as well as the politicians in general.

The majority of people are moderate and are forced to choose between two crappy sides.

Yep

American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence in one graph

I'm quite sure the majority on the right were for indifference/outright refusal of consenting adults to marry.

A lie doesn't become truth,
Wrong doesn't become right,
and evil doesn't become good,
Just because it is accepted by a majority.

that's funny. I'm part of the liberal left. so are my homeboys. and we joined the army and deployed to defend the rights of the people.

i'll just chalk this up to you throwing mud and hoping it sticks.

Posting political ideology attacks is always fun, but I was actually wondering about terrorist attacks.

I noticed this morning in watching the main stream media, even they are exposing Obama as a threat to the Homeland with his arrogant defense of his ISIL strategy. Feinstein has even called him out, Hillary has to be in panic mode. Slick Willie is just shaking his head and Nancy will read about it later.

we have home grown terrorism, in the name of the War on Drugs and the government.

But people like YTown like to think that these issues are somehow not high on the list, when the fact of the matter it is:

drugs. Specifically the cartels that are destroying communities around this country. Y'all wanna know a big part of the reason why we have such a heroin and other hard drug problems? look no further than south of the border.

which is why legalizing weed IS a big priority, or 4 states plus DC wouldn't had legalized it. because it also takes power away from the cartels.

They lowered the prices in these states, which means that buying it off the street isn't really viable anymore. plus all that tax revenue, it's a win/win.

But our biggest threat is external, funded by internal. The biggest threat to our national security was Reagan.

His war on drugs absolutely devastated our communities and empowered these cartels to no end. People like to cry about islamic terrorism and forget the fact that drugs causes more deaths in one month than terrorism in the last 15 years here in the US.

cartels are making bank, and these elite class and politicians profit on this. our justice system is rigged in favor of throwing the 99% in jail while the 1% get slaps on the wrist.

The government knows where El Chapo is. they just don't care. they know where all these guys are located. they just don't care. Vice news got to meet one of the biggest cartel bosses in Colombia, yet people gonna sit there and tell me on social media that the government can't realistically get to these guys?

Our government is the biggest drug dealers in the world. yet they convinced you scared little souls to be scared of some radical muslims thousands of miles away from the ocean.

Here you go. I got you a fancy one.

whatever. it's the truth,

y'all could live in a bubble all you want, i don't care.

I wasn't disagreeing with your post. I think it's obvious that having more citizens in prison than any other country would indicate there are serious internal problems that could lead to greater serious violence.

I think just about everyone has agreed that a lot of murders are drug related.

Obama has done his very best to follow Bill's model on dealing with terrorists, ignore it, set up a task force, treat it like it's a law enforcement issue, placate it... and hope by the time it comes back to bite us, you are out of office and it's somebody else's problem... unfortunately it seems to be coming home to roost about a year too soon for Barrack.

because Bush methods were so much better, right?

I am not sure why my name was brought into this .... other than to try and drag me into the debate, I guess ..... but anyway .....

We have law enforcement. There are laws against certain activities in this country, and if you don't like those laws, then work to change them. That was what the whole Issue 3 initiative was all about. It was also stuffed full of misinformation, but whatever .... we'll allow that to pass for now.

Possession of pot, up to certain limits, is already decriminalized in Ohio. Can you be cited for possession? Sure. Can you have to pay a ticket? Sure. Does a person go to jail for possession of pot, within the limits of the law? No. It is in the law. Possession of less than 100 grams, for personal use, carries no jail time.

http://norml.org/laws/item/ohio-penalties-2

Ohio law decriminalizes possession of pot up to 100 grams. (roughly 3.5 ounces) According to one site I read, this is about 200 "regular sized" joints. That's a lot of pot for one person to be carrying around for the weekend. Ohio's pot laws are already very lenient, and among the most lenient in the US.

PA, for example, can send a person to jail for possession of 30 grams or more.

In Michigan, possession of any amount is a misdemeanor, and can result in incarceration of up to a year.

In Indiana, possession of any amount can result in jail time.

In West Virginia, possession of any amount of pot can result in jail time up of 60-90 days.

Ohio's pot laws are far from draconian. They are positively easy going with regards to pot.

Here is what Ohio does as far as growing pot.

Cultivation
Penalties for the cultivation of marijuana are identical to the penalties for possessing an equivalent amount, in weight, of marijuana. See the chart above for further guidance.

See

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2925.04 (2015) Web Search
** Ohio provides an affirmative defense for this level of cultivation if the defendant can meet the burden to prove that the marijuana was intended solely for personal use by a preponderance of the evidence. If this defense is successful, the defendant can still be convicted of, or plead guilty to, a misdemeanor violation of illegal cultivation of marihuana.


http://norml.org/laws/item/ohio-penalties-2

In other words, even someone growing pot can defend themselves on the grounds that they were growing it for their own personal use. They might still have to pay a fine, but they aren't going to jail.

So, I ask you, how is Ohio creating these kinds of problems that you speak of? Do you honestly think that the drug pushers who are currently selling pot are just going to stop? Such activity would still be illegal under any law in the nation, and more states call for higher penalties for people who sell pot once "legal" pot moves in. Will those who are selling pot because they can find nothing else to do just going to say "Oh, thank goodness pot is not legal, so I no longer have to sell it! Now I will just retire!"? Really? Or, will they move on to new drug selling opportunities? What happens to the small time dealers, who no longer have pot sales to bring in the money they want? What do they do when they no longer have their income stream from pot? You know dealers better than I do. What happens when this happens?

I do not disagree with you about going after the cartels. I think that we absolutely should do so. Doing one thing does not necessitate the other. We do not have to legalize pot in order to go after drug cartels. We do not have to give up concern about groups like ISIS in order to go after drug cartels. I also have to say that I would be incredibly offended by your flippant manner when discussing Islamic terrorists, when they have already attacked us, and killed thousands of US citizens. Yeah, no need to be concerned about them. (and I don't use the word scared, but rather, concerned)

Further, look at the violence on the streets that is brought about by gangs, many of which have one major source of income ..... that being ... drugs.

I believe that you have a rather naive (maybe willfully naive) outlook for someone who claims to be so worldly.

One other thing ... you deride the war on drugs .... but them say that drugs are a problem, and destroying communities. So, what is your solution?

I still find it naive to think that legalizing pot is somehow going to defund the drug cartels to the point that they are no longer a threat. I have read that 30% of the drug cartels' income is from pot .... so while it is sizable, it is not their primary source of income. I would bet that they still use the people they are currently using, to push their pot into the country, and still sell it on the street at a discount. What do they care if those street dealers are caught, and face stiffer penalties? Further, do the cartels start pushing other drugs into the pipeline at an increased rate? Well, let me answer that.

The World Drug Report found a "large increase" in meth lab seizures on both sides of the border.

The National Drug Threat Assessment shows that meth and heroin seizures have increased dramatically at the border ... while pot has remained stable.

The cartels are not just going to sit still while their business dries up. These are criminal organizations, they routinely murder people who get in their way, and do not care if they hurt anyone on their way to profits. They also, most likely, own a sizable percentage of the Mexican government. That is something we can do very little about.

I say that you have a willfully naive outlook on this issue because you seem to think that legalizing pot will suddenly make the drug cartels go out of business, or something. It will not. In fact, their dealers are still operating in states like Colorado today. It will be a long time before the market for illegal pot dries up, even in those states that have legalized the sale of pot. These cartels will do as they have done all along, and adapt .... and bring in other forms of poison to replace their lost revenue.

If we were going to wipe out the drug cartels, we would need complete cooperation from the Mexican government, at all levels, and I think that you and I can agree that this has not been even remotely close to being the case so far.

So, I would ask you, how does legalizing pot "take power away from the cartels", when they continue to sell pot, even in states with legalized pot ..... and when they are changing their drug "product mix" to deadlier, and potentially more profitable forms of poison, to sell in the US?

I admit that this is a very complex issue, but I think that you have done exactly what you have accused me, and others of doing, and over-simplifying it. You want pot to be completely legal. I get that. However, for all intents and purposes, for the vast majority of people in Ohio, it pretty much already is.

I think it's fair to criticize Clinton and Obama, but there's not many countries willing to do more and I'm fine with waiting where we are until some other country's boots hit the ground.

As far as Bush; even his dad thought Romsfeld and Cheney were awful and I'm not alone in thinking they should be charged for war crimes.

The bottom line is the invasion of Iraq created the intensity of al queda and isis.

So if we're talking about roosting make sure the roost is spacious.

So slanted, so silly.
Fact- Bush may have created the grenade but Obama pulled the pin when he deserted the region. Luckily Obama has learned his lesson and is leaving troops in Afgan.

Like you weren't going to comment anyway...

Not surprising that my point went flying over your head.

it's fine that you think i'm naive. I think you're blindly ignorant, so consider it a wash.

decriminalizing and legalizing isn't remotely the same. you're blindly ignorant.

also, if you think my point was about pot and not drugs in general, again you're blindly ignorant.

man, what a pattern already, right?

that you think i'm somehow only talking about Ohio means you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

that you think i said ISIS shouldn't be a concern is laughable. the point was that we have bigger concerns than ISIS, i never said we shouldn't concern ourselves.

but hey, maybe you're willfully ignorant? it's ok. nobody's perfect.

you can take all the shots you want about me being naive. but at the end of the day, yes, i am worldly, knowledgable on society and different cultures and problems around the world.

and i don't apologize for making that known. you and others don't like it? there's an ignore feature.

It's not simplifying a problem if you already know the solution.

it's easy to follow the paper trail of illegal drugs. they lead back to cartels. why do i want not only decriminalization of all drugs across the board, but legalization of all drugs? because yes, we DO hit them right in the pockets.

you cut off cash flow, they're vulnerable, and thus easier to destroy. You take away their profits, and they'll lash out, and thats when you bomb the dog crap out of them and take over.

See that's why your ignorant YTown. we can get cartels to do whatever we please when we control the thing they want the most: power and money.

for example, i can kill you YTown, but what will that do? nothing.

but if i take your family, you'll do whatever the hell i tell you to do.

same concept, you take away their avenues of profit, they are powerless. yes, they could go to other ways of illegal activity, but by then they've already been lured into a choke point.

i dunno if you know what a choke point is, cause you're ignorant. but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

this idea of needing the mexican government to combat cartels is dumb. first off, they wouldn't do a damn thing to the US military.

second, we didn't need pakistans permission to go grab osama and execute him. we shouldn't be asking permission from these governments either. they either comply, or we take away any funding we currently give them. period. that includes embargo's or higher tariffs on any goods being exported from them.

that will shut them up real quick.

But thats the problem, our government works hand and hand with these cartels and other drug pushers.

instead of treating drugs as a health problem like Portugal decided to do, we still treat it as a criminal problem.

an illegal activity raises the drug prices YTown. decriminalizing and legalization draws the price down. it's why in colorado the number of street sellers have gone down. the state is now in control, instead of the cartels pushing the products and prices.

but i'm naive though, right? or is it that you're just blindly ignorant?

The smartest man in the building was Colin Powell. Powell plainly told Bush that if you overthrow the government in Iraq, you own it. He explained what the void of leadership in the region would lead to.

Bush invaded anyway. Our choices were to stay there forever, or leave. It appears you believe that staying in a war forever is a legitimate strategy. The stage was set in an unnecessary war the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld entered into and the outcome was obvious to anyone that knew anything about the region.

Twist it any way you wish. This outcome was unavoidable from the moment we toppled Saddam.

So you back Obama leaving our troops in Afgan in that case?

We had more than just troops on the ground in Iraq when Bush left office, we had Cabinet advisers to help them straighten out their government. Obama gutted the place and his JV team became a World threat!
Now Obama has put thousands of boots back in Iraq as he learned another lesson at our expense.

Once again I'm a moderate willing to look at both sides. I backed the war Afghanistan 100%. The war in Iraq was unneeded and uncalled for. We spent years training their troops and officers to defend their own country to no avail. We spent years and huge expense in establishing elections and a democracy. You really need to do some fact checking on that. We spent years and years trying to do exactly what you are saying and it simply didn't work.

Instead of splitting a volunteer army into two separate wars, one of which was not needed, we limited out troop strength into two separate war fronts, dividing our strength in half. This proved to be fruitless and a very poor war strategy.

According to your line of thought, we'd still be in Vietnam.