US wants to have its own security at the Olympics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/13/us-wo…

So the US don't think the security for their own team is up to it so want to send 1000 personnel over including 500 FBI agents.

Assuming this is true, which I can't make a call either way on, would you guys see that as a right move by the US?

I mean there is a more commonly accepted way of acting when you don't think it's safe for your citizens to go somewhere. it's called issuing a travel warning, or not sending a team.

Before people say: If security isn't up to it we'll send our own, imagine the same going the other way, and the precedent it sets.

World Cup 2062: New York:

Russia is unhappy with the security situation and wants to send in its own agents (not like you dont have enough russian agents in the US already harharhar) You'd hit the roof.

More likely though, I think it's a ploy to get the security budget increased, and its voiced in the only way that would produce an outcome.

however since we're cool, we're protecting our games with missiles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15724639

viva britannia.

10 Comments
 

How large is the US delegation? 500 FBI agents seems wildly excessive.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

Absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe the criticism from the US authorities, especially as they were acutely aware of the level of security the UK was aiming to employ. The Uk authorities really shouldnt stand for it, as 1) its just a case of meddling, the UK are organising, and I'm confident they have done a great job (I live in London so see/hear about measures ever day), 2) it sets a dangerous precedent. If the US are allowed to intervene, who else may claim the UK security is not enough? 500 agents is highly exorbitant and frankly ridiculous, considering the cost involved, which brings me to point 3) security and cost increases to the UK, where extra vetting will have to go into allowing foreign security enforcements to be involved, which brings further burdens on the defence budget.

I mean, its London, not fucking Niger or something.

 
FinancialNoviceIIAbsolutely ridiculous. I can't believe the criticism from the US authorities, especially as they were acutely aware of the level of security the UK was aiming to employ. The Uk authorities really shouldnt stand for it, as 1) its just a case of meddling, the UK are organising, and I'm confident they have done a great job (I live in London so see/hear about measures ever day), 2) it sets a dangerous precedent. If the US are allowed to intervene, who else may claim the UK security is not enough? 500 agents is highly exorbitant and frankly ridiculous, considering the cost involved, which brings me to point 3) security and cost increases to the UK, where extra vetting will have to go into allowing foreign security enforcements to be involved, which brings further burdens on the defence budget.

I mean, its London, not fucking Niger or something.

Easy guy, perhaps if London didnt have so many foreigners and an open door policy, we wouldnt be so afraid for the well-being of our athletes and diplomats.

"Teachers open the door, you enter by yourself".
 
DSKisNOTGUILTY
FinancialNoviceIIAbsolutely ridiculous. I can't believe the criticism from the US authorities, especially as they were acutely aware of the level of security the UK was aiming to employ. The Uk authorities really shouldnt stand for it, as 1) its just a case of meddling, the UK are organising, and I'm confident they have done a great job (I live in London so see/hear about measures ever day), 2) it sets a dangerous precedent. If the US are allowed to intervene, who else may claim the UK security is not enough? 500 agents is highly exorbitant and frankly ridiculous, considering the cost involved, which brings me to point 3) security and cost increases to the UK, where extra vetting will have to go into allowing foreign security enforcements to be involved, which brings further burdens on the defence budget.

I mean, its London, not fucking Niger or something.

Easy guy, perhaps if London didnt have so many foreigners and an open door policy, we wouldnt be so afraid for the well-being of our athletes and diplomats.

This is so retarded, I wont even bother defending my position.

 
Best Response
FinancialNoviceII
DSKisNOTGUILTY
FinancialNoviceIIAbsolutely ridiculous. I can't believe the criticism from the US authorities, especially as they were acutely aware of the level of security the UK was aiming to employ. The Uk authorities really shouldnt stand for it, as 1) its just a case of meddling, the UK are organising, and I'm confident they have done a great job (I live in London so see/hear about measures ever day), 2) it sets a dangerous precedent. If the US are allowed to intervene, who else may claim the UK security is not enough? 500 agents is highly exorbitant and frankly ridiculous, considering the cost involved, which brings me to point 3) security and cost increases to the UK, where extra vetting will have to go into allowing foreign security enforcements to be involved, which brings further burdens on the defence budget.

I mean, its London, not fucking Niger or something.

Easy guy, perhaps if London didnt have so many foreigners and an open door policy, we wouldnt be so afraid for the well-being of our athletes and diplomats.

This is so retarded, I wont even bother defending my position.

Agree with FN, even as an American. Utterly stupid response.
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

When you're the greatest country in the world, you can have as many security guards as you want

I eat success for breakfast...with skim milk
 

Praesentium id porro temporibus amet omnis animi itaque est. Dicta ducimus similique suscipit laudantium qui repellendus non rerum. Aspernatur et porro sequi dolorum et explicabo officiis. Non voluptas illo aut et rem. Beatae asperiores earum reiciendis est nihil quo sunt. Alias consequuntur tenetur qui adipisci facilis possimus distinctio.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.3%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (44) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (78) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
9
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”