Air America breaking news: "USA to fingerprint ALL visitors !!!"

Following up to Marie Lewis

Not showing off: there is nothing particularly remarkable about speaking
French.

Millions of people do that.

this is an english language ng.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids wrote:
Following up to Marie Lewis


Not showing off: there is nothing particularly remarkable about speaking
French.

Millions of people do that.


this is an english language ng.

Nonsense. This is a multi-lingual newsgroup. Use
whatever language you like. Or in your case, Marie,
feel free to make pedantic grammar corrections
followed by egregious grammatical errors in any
language you almost understand.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:04:15 +0000, Kid E. Poole wrote:

The Reids wrote:
Following up to Marie Lewis


Not showing off: there is nothing particularly remarkable about speaking
French.

Millions of people do that.


this is an english language ng.

Nonsense. This is a multi-lingual newsgroup. Use
whatever language you like. Or in your case, Marie,
feel free to make pedantic grammar corrections
followed by egregious grammatical errors in any
language you almost understand.

Which newsgroup are we specifically talking about here?

In article , nobody
wrote:

Richard Steiner wrote:
I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

Why then are the media continuing the impression that there is a solid support
for the invasion of Iraq and all of the measures taken with the pretense that
they are to combat terrorism ?

Because most people can understand the difference between "solid
support" and "all lining up behind their leadership."

If there were a significant portion of americans who are against the current
government, why then did the democrats support that government instead of
pointing out all the lies and mistakes/errors prior to the war beginning ?

You haven't been reading any newspapers, watching any TV news, or
reading magazines for the last 30 months or so, have you?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote:
You haven't been reading any newspapers, watching any TV news, or
reading magazines for the last 30 months or so, have you?

I stopped watching US news shortly after the invasion began. Every now and
then, I tune in and watch a bit. While the propaganda isn't as bad it it used
to be, it is still fairly biased in favour of the bush regime.

Normal media would have been calling for impeachement a long time ago. Yet,
they just accept as fact that politicans were just given false information,
even though it is evident to the rest of the world that the politicians knew
perfectly well that they were lying.

Chad Irby wrote:

Most of the ones who have moved here, after the NHS wouldn't cover them
for an illness or couldn't fit them in under six months... we get a
*lot* of expat Brits here, who come in search of better health care then
they could ever get at home.

So if the UK health care system is so awful, it should show up as a
lower average life expectancy of the population. The 2003 figures show
the follow life expectancies, at birth:

US - 77.14 years (Ranked 48th on the list)
UK - 78.15 years (Ranked 36th on the list)

Hmm. The data seems to indicate the reverse.

Canada, that socialist country with government-run medical care has an
average life expectancy of 79.83 years (11th best country). Again a
trend that seems to run contrary to the views of many people who swear
the US system is by far the best in the world. I wonder (rhetorically)
if all those uninsured have anything to do with it?

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs.../2102rank.html

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Beyond that, how do you think the Iraqis feel about the multiple
attacks on their country by the US leaving thousands dead and raining
missiles around their homes? That would be pretty traumatic,
wouldn't it?

Overall, they're pretty good with it.

The biggest question was "what took you so long to help us?"

That's not what they most recent polls say. The Iraqis generally feel
humiliated, and are relatively ambivalent about the US invasion.
Something like 2/3 of the population feel that the US is an occupier,
rather than a liberator. Those of Arab decent have an even greater
dislike of the US invasion than those of Kurdish descent.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/w...ll_040314.html

There's nothing like a battle on home soil.

...except for 40 years of misery caused by a bunch of home-grown
*******s who killed more in a season than the war killed in a year...

That view isn't shared by everybody. Some suggest that the number of
deaths as a result of the invasion and the ensuing chaos have been
higher than under the previous regime.

http://www.news24houston.com/content...=26751&SecID=2

Quantum Foam Guy wrote:

A very important point seems to be left out of this discussion: America is
at war with an enemy that has attacked us on our soil.

So what does that have to do with Iraq? They never attacked the US, and
there was never any evidence to link them with Al Queda.

During wartime, certain rules are established in order ensure our
security as much as possible.

Let's round up all Arabs and put them in camps in Colorado. After all,
you can never be too sure.

Once the war is over, those rules are lifted. If we didn't have
moslem psychopaths trying to kill as many of our citizens as
possible and we were still putting these security measures in
place, I would agree that we shouldn't be doing so. But that's
not the world we live in.

Ahh, that explains why I have to show my photo ID and boarding pass
three times just to get through the security line at Cleveland airport,
and why I have to show them to a TSA flunky in Houston just 20 feet
after I have passed through a computer check at Customs and Immigration
when I connect to a domestic flight. The process isn't out of control,
it's simply that a psychopath might cut into line ahead of me, and by
reading a name on a boarding pass and comparing it to the name on a
photo ID, he won't get away with it.

Stephen Harding wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.

Kind of like how the US left countries like Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile,
Argentina, Grenada, Egypt, and many others, to chart their own course
when they were democracies?

Not certain when most of these listed countries were actual democracies,
but never mind.

They were. In many cases, the newly-elected government was either
hostile to US economic interests, so the US arranged to get rid of them,
or supported US economic interests, so the US helped keep them in
office, even though they were thoroughly corrupt, and the population
wanted to boot them out. The US couldn't help but meddle in other
countries' political systems when it suited the government's purpose.

The policies of the Bush government have only increased that likelihood,
by acting unilaterally, and in continuing the biased treatment of Arab
countries in the region. At one time the US had a moral standing in the
world that was envied. It was the belief that diplomacy was the most
important approach to a problem, and violence was only the last resort,
when all other peaceful avenues had been exhausted. The attack on Iraq
has eliminated that unique position, and lowered the US to the ranks of
other bullies around the world. It was so unnecessary, and it will take
many years to regain the confidence of the rest of the world.

How could this be given "Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile, ..." listed above?

There was a shift in policy over the last 40 years, where the US
intervened less an less on its own, instead working as part of NATO or
the UN. The attack on Afghanistan is a case in point.

The attack on Iraq, being essentially unilateral, without UN sanction,
is a step away from the more global strategy.

Chad Irby wrote:

"AC" wrote:

Osama is getting exactly what he wanted,

Buried in a cave in Afghanistan? Heckuva career choice.

He's been there for many years. Doesn't seem to bother him. In the
meantime, the US population has become exceedingly paranoid, and the
economy took a huge hit in the aftermath, and hasn't fully recovered.
The government is spending millions of additional money, and going into
debt to finance it. Looks like Osama's approach has worked.

the US is seemingly clutching at straws. How would fingerprints have
stopped atta and his friends I wonder.

By letting us confirm that some of his folks were, indeed, on FBI watch
lists, and would let us figure out when they're getting into the country
on bogus passports.

The ones in the US weren't here on bogus passports, and they all had
visas (some expired) that were approved by the government.
Fingerprinting them wouldn't have proven a thing, since they weren't on
any watch lists.

The one person on a list had been refused a visa, and was likely the
20th hijacker. Even though he had been refused entry, it still didn't
point to any overall conspiracy.

Part of the problem we had in narrowing things down, post-9/11, was that
foreign passports are, quite often, bloody useless as a means of
positively identifying people, especially when their home addresses are
in the Middle East.

So how will having the fingerprints of someone who has never entered the
country before help things?