Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (147422)	10/9/2004 8:09:09 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

What IF the $200+ Billion spent on the Iraqi adventure had instead been spent on homeland security and targeted economic aid to developing countries all around the world...? Would the United States have a better reputation and more credibility...? Be careful on spending more money on "Homeland Security". We've spent a lot of money on Homeland Security. It's hard to see what we've gotten for it. 3 million illegals crossing the border; 95% of cargo containers enter the country unchecked; it's not any more difficult to get a knife on board an airplane; "tests" of the security improvements of persons coming from the caribbean islands flying into Miami are no better. Other tests at other points of entry aren't any better. They hired a ton of security personnel at airports and have been recently laying them off. If you're a security consultant, you're raking it in. Compassionate conservatives don't want to increase foreign aid, unless it goes to Israel. They are willing to throw some millions around for a crisis in a particular country, but overall they would rather use the money to subsidize US corporations so they can be "competitive" with the underdeveloped countries. jttmab