1. Searching for suspects on a foreign turf is harder than watching out for people illegally crossing the boarder (who are suspect by default). If the teleporter was a reality, I think I'd opine with you.
9/11 proves that waiting for the bad guys to show up at your door step doesn't work by itself.
They had already been here for months. We were all caught off guard that day and that is the only thing that 9/11 proved. Many of the terrorists had a history of 'evil doing' and should not have been let into the country in the first place. The replacement for the INS, the BCIS, seems to be making serious progress. Intelligence is the key to stopping terrorism; not brute force. It is my opinion that relational databases, satellite imagery, border listening posts, data mining and collection, interception and apprehension, are better tools than uprooting an entire foreign government on vague suspicions.
2. 9/11 and acts of similar intention were performed with common consumer objects. Is a passenger jet or fertilizer a WMD? Obviously it depends on who, why, what, where, AND when.
BCIS and HLS are addressing this, no?
3. Throwing out all foreigners on expired visas is doing something.
How many of the 19 were here legally? Waiting for visas to expire is not doing something.
#3 is only a piece of the solution. The government realizes this.
"All 19 hijackers who carried out the attacks arrived in the U.S. legally, with visas. Three had invalid visas by Sept. 11. " source
They entered the US on valid VISAs but the government was not prepared to intercept 3 of these individuals for many reasons. HLS and BCIS are the answer as long as it is accountable to us.
4. Current maintenance on 2 countries, and a war on 5 or more other countries will spread our military resources thinly. That could make us vulnerable to opportunistic superpowers to be.
Difficult but not impossible. No one said asymmetric warfare was "easy".
War against Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba while pacifying Afghanistan and Iraq will spread our resources thinly and it will make us vulnerable to more credible powers like China, the EU, and Russia. It isn't easy and it isn't wise to engage open war on 4 or more continents and subcontinents especially when there are alternatives.
5. War is damn serious business. We are the best at doing it with the fewest casualties but it doesn't change how disruptive it is. I wish to conserve the good image of the USA.
War is disruptive? If you are referring to those who threaten our existence, lets hope so.
Fighting on 3 - 7 fronts will be a burden to our economy. Friendly trade routes will be disrupted. Lives are put into peril (i.e.. our warriors, friendly, neutral, and the enemy). that is 3-1, not something to scoff at.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We're just getting started. Our enemies better get used to it.
I don't disagree at all with that.
My advise to you is "take the blue pill.."
I am the blue pill. ; )
Then for you the story ends. Thanks for playing Mr. Anderson...