It's exactly like bowing - we went to "respect their soveriegnty" in the same way Iraq is Respecting their sovereignty, fear of the consequences if we don't, despite it not being in our best interest.
No, you're not getting this. Respecting their sovereignty in this case means not invading their airspace. We don't do that to anyone, other than nations we're at war with, and it has nothing to do with fear - it has to do with well established protocols regarding the way nations behave towards each other. You don't go around sending aircraft into other nations without first getting permission. You do that to North Korea and they'll shoot down your civilian airliners. Do it to the US and they'll probably just order the aircraft to land, imprison the aircrew, and deport the passengers. Either way, it's a bad idea.
Which shows how ridiculous it is - I don't even have to fly to the US to hijack a plane and fly it into a US building.
The other guy already addressed that point, so i won't go into detail. The US is enforcing it's rules within it's own airspace, and respecting our right to do as we see fit in our own. If our government was ready to "bow to them" - as you suggested - we'd be scanning all domestic flights, too.
Moreover, you're essentially saying "a kevlar vest won't stop a rifle round, so we shouldn't bother buying them for cops". That's poor logic irrespective of questions of sovereignty. The inability to eliminate all threats is not an argument against attempting to minimize the risk.
They weren't against it when it happened, but now that they can see the consequences, they can change their mind.
Sure. And if they do, the laws will change. I just don't think there's likely to be that much opposition to it.
but the fact that enough Americans said "We want out" showed that they even had to THINK of US Withdrawl instead of continuing occupation and possibly moving into Iran next
Heh. Well, yeah, sure if "they" had been considering such grandiose plans, the lay of popular opinion would have swayed them. But if you honestly think that any major part of the US government had any interest in maintaining an indefinite occupation, you don't really understand what happened in Iraq. The people who claim that the US is an eeeeeevil empire intent on crushing the globe under it's boot-heel have been lying to you. Don't believe the hype.
Now that the issue has arisen and body Scanners are in Canadian Airports... wait who approved that? My Government? My government bowed to your government.
Eh, no. The US has laid out a set of requirements for passage through their airspace. Unless you're suggesting that our government should have said "screw you, we're sending our planes there anyway", we had no choice but to comply with those regulations. It's got nothing to do with bowing - it has to do with respecting the sovereignty of other nations. The only other alternative is to stop sending aircraft to (and through) the US entirely.
Really, there should be another method to handle those flights if they are really concerned (segregrated runway, new terminal, etc).
Yeah, because a segregated runway will stop someone from hijacking an airliner in flight, and crashing it into a building. That sounds reasonable.
but if there's ANYTHING I could ask from you guys, it's to create enough of an outcry over issues such as this that BOTH parties take a negative stance to it
If both parties really were opposed to it, it would never have happened.
like how it was important for the US to have a "Pull out of Iraq" plan for the last election even if not completely implemented or immediately soon, it pushed some steps in the right direction.
It didn't push anything anywhere - the successful "surge" strategy was what finally made a US withdrawal feasible. Obama hasn't really done things any differently than McCain would have. He campaigned on the idealism of his supporters, but the realities of global policies quickly forced him to drop much of what he initially promised.
I don't really care if you leave America unprotected, and I doubt that you do either. The more pertinent point, though, is that you're obviously not willing to put your assumptions to the test, so your views about the TSA are likely based on the same flawed logic and lack of data as your beliefs about your rock:)
would be that this thing might just be another piece of equipment that has to be lugged around the battlefield by foot soldiers, further weighing them down, making them slowoer, easier targets for a light, fast moving enemy
The wonderful thing about modern combat is that no matter how fast the other guy might be, it's pretty unlikely that he's faster than a radio signal, an artillery shell, or a hellfire missile.
Minefields aren't exactly common in Iraq. I'd say your military doctor was either talking out of his ass, or maybe he was talking about a different war and you misunderstood. The scenario you're describing is more common when dealing with sniper fire, or just a regular engagement.
No, you're not supposed to ask if they're gay. Asking if they're openly gay would just be a way of confirming whether they're keeping up the "don't tell" side of the bargain:)
With over 25% unemployment, you'd think the government could hire people to take them off the unemployed statistics, and for a lot cheaper than the cost of a UAV + salary of its remote pilot.
Yeah, right. Do you have any idea how many people you'd need in order to cover the same area as just one UAV?
Hey, here's another way they can save money: instead of buying supercomputers for research projects, just hire a bunch of guys with abacuses.
never-ever missed a shot (because bullets were expensive and scarce),
Those two statements are contradictory. Being a good shot requires lots of practice. If bullets are scarce and expensive, you won't get lots of practice. Ergo, one of the two statements are false.
There's plenty of exaggeration in the rest of your comment, too, but the general narrative seems accurate enough.
tyranny/trni/ Show Spelled[tir-uh-nee] Show IPA –noun,plural-nies. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. 2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler. 3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler. 4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler. 5. undue severity or harshness. 6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.
It's not the airlines that are pushing for this shit. They can do trend-analysis just fine, too. If their numbers suddenly take a nosedive after the implementation of operation anal probe, you can bet your sphincter that they'll figure out the cause real fast.
Please allow a simple example about war - something we can all pretty much say is "bad" and "wrong":
No, we can't. War isn't inherently wrong - if you start with the assumption that it is, then all your follow-up reasoning is completely irrelevant. As I said, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "wrong".
You went pee-pee in the washroom, and then you flushed, and your pee went into the water supply, and one of the H20 molecules in that pee eventually ended up inside a glass of water which I poured out of the tap. I'm sorry for taking something that you didn't give me. Who shall I make the cheque out to?
Slashdot Mirror
One word: dentistry.
If that were relevant, the UK would have mortality rates comparable to Sub-Saharan Africa.
"rightwingspeak" seems to be retard for "you disagreed with me!".
It's exactly like bowing - we went to "respect their soveriegnty" in the same way Iraq is Respecting their sovereignty, fear of the consequences if we don't, despite it not being in our best interest.
No, you're not getting this. Respecting their sovereignty in this case means not invading their airspace. We don't do that to anyone, other than nations we're at war with, and it has nothing to do with fear - it has to do with well established protocols regarding the way nations behave towards each other. You don't go around sending aircraft into other nations without first getting permission. You do that to North Korea and they'll shoot down your civilian airliners. Do it to the US and they'll probably just order the aircraft to land, imprison the aircrew, and deport the passengers. Either way, it's a bad idea.
Which shows how ridiculous it is - I don't even have to fly to the US to hijack a plane and fly it into a US building.
The other guy already addressed that point, so i won't go into detail. The US is enforcing it's rules within it's own airspace, and respecting our right to do as we see fit in our own. If our government was ready to "bow to them" - as you suggested - we'd be scanning all domestic flights, too.
Moreover, you're essentially saying "a kevlar vest won't stop a rifle round, so we shouldn't bother buying them for cops". That's poor logic irrespective of questions of sovereignty. The inability to eliminate all threats is not an argument against attempting to minimize the risk.
They weren't against it when it happened, but now that they can see the consequences, they can change their mind.
Sure. And if they do, the laws will change. I just don't think there's likely to be that much opposition to it.
but the fact that enough Americans said "We want out" showed that they even had to THINK of US Withdrawl instead of continuing occupation and possibly moving into Iran next
Heh. Well, yeah, sure if "they" had been considering such grandiose plans, the lay of popular opinion would have swayed them. But if you honestly think that any major part of the US government had any interest in maintaining an indefinite occupation, you don't really understand what happened in Iraq. The people who claim that the US is an eeeeeevil empire intent on crushing the globe under it's boot-heel have been lying to you. Don't believe the hype.
Now that the issue has arisen and body Scanners are in Canadian Airports... wait who approved that? My Government? My government bowed to your government.
Eh, no. The US has laid out a set of requirements for passage through their airspace. Unless you're suggesting that our government should have said "screw you, we're sending our planes there anyway", we had no choice but to comply with those regulations. It's got nothing to do with bowing - it has to do with respecting the sovereignty of other nations. The only other alternative is to stop sending aircraft to (and through) the US entirely.
Really, there should be another method to handle those flights if they are really concerned (segregrated runway, new terminal, etc).
Yeah, because a segregated runway will stop someone from hijacking an airliner in flight, and crashing it into a building. That sounds reasonable.
but if there's ANYTHING I could ask from you guys, it's to create enough of an outcry over issues such as this that BOTH parties take a negative stance to it
If both parties really were opposed to it, it would never have happened.
like how it was important for the US to have a "Pull out of Iraq" plan for the last election even if not completely implemented or immediately soon, it pushed some steps in the right direction.
It didn't push anything anywhere - the successful "surge" strategy was what finally made a US withdrawal feasible. Obama hasn't really done things any differently than McCain would have. He campaigned on the idealism of his supporters, but the realities of global policies quickly forced him to drop much of what he initially promised.
But I can't predict the weather! :)
That's ok, he probably can't either. It's called confirmation bias.
The Coalition Forces haven't removed the Taliban in 9 years, and show no signs of doing so.
That is, in a word, retarded. I didn't bother reading the rest.
I don't really care if you leave America unprotected, and I doubt that you do either. The more pertinent point, though, is that you're obviously not willing to put your assumptions to the test, so your views about the TSA are likely based on the same flawed logic and lack of data as your beliefs about your rock :)
Are you and your rock willing to travel to Afghanistan? Because, if so, I can think of a fairly foolproof way to falsify your theory.
In his defense, I'm pretty sure he considers your 'nads "unclean".
would be that this thing might just be another piece of equipment that has to be lugged around the battlefield by foot soldiers, further weighing them down, making them slowoer, easier targets for a light, fast moving enemy
The wonderful thing about modern combat is that no matter how fast the other guy might be, it's pretty unlikely that he's faster than a radio signal, an artillery shell, or a hellfire missile.
Minefields aren't exactly common in Iraq. I'd say your military doctor was either talking out of his ass, or maybe he was talking about a different war and you misunderstood. The scenario you're describing is more common when dealing with sniper fire, or just a regular engagement.
Nonviolence works better than guns.
If your goal is to provide medical assistance, sure. If your goal is to remove a government, not so much.
What, you didn't know that the annual burned offering of turkey was a Christian religious ceremony??
No, you're not supposed to ask if they're gay. Asking if they're openly gay would just be a way of confirming whether they're keeping up the "don't tell" side of the bargain :)
With over 25% unemployment, you'd think the government could hire people to take them off the unemployed statistics, and for a lot cheaper than the cost of a UAV + salary of its remote pilot.
Yeah, right. Do you have any idea how many people you'd need in order to cover the same area as just one UAV?
Hey, here's another way they can save money: instead of buying supercomputers for research projects, just hire a bunch of guys with abacuses.
Now if only we could come up with a good application of commenting technology. You know, one that doesn't involve being a complete asshat.
never-ever missed a shot (because bullets were expensive and scarce),
Those two statements are contradictory. Being a good shot requires lots of practice. If bullets are scarce and expensive, you won't get lots of practice. Ergo, one of the two statements are false.
There's plenty of exaggeration in the rest of your comment, too, but the general narrative seems accurate enough.
Good point. Let's call ourselves "Fuzzy Bunnies".
Your comment hurt me deeply. I hope you get locked up forever.
tyranny /trni/ Show Spelled[tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.
YW!
If you're not flying through US airspace, the "enhanced security" doesn't apply.
It's not the airlines that are pushing for this shit. They can do trend-analysis just fine, too. If their numbers suddenly take a nosedive after the implementation of operation anal probe, you can bet your sphincter that they'll figure out the cause real fast.
Please allow a simple example about war - something we can all pretty much say is "bad" and "wrong":
No, we can't. War isn't inherently wrong - if you start with the assumption that it is, then all your follow-up reasoning is completely irrelevant. As I said, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "wrong".
Do you actually speak English, or are you just running this stuff through google translate?
FYI, "copyright" doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.
You went pee-pee in the washroom, and then you flushed, and your pee went into the water supply, and one of the H20 molecules in that pee eventually ended up inside a glass of water which I poured out of the tap. I'm sorry for taking something that you didn't give me. Who shall I make the cheque out to?