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

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

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.

....aside from the fugitive al-Qaeda member who participated in the first
WTC bombing who was living in Baghdad, and all of the meetings with
Iraqi intelligence by AQ operatives. Not to mention the years and years
of Hussein supporting many different terror groups over the years (cash
payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, for example).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:

Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
US is? Every whacko prefers to go after number one, and
that would be the US.

The policies of the Bush government have only increased that
likelihood, by acting unilaterally,

(with about 70 other countries that apparently don't exist in your world)

Oh get real. Countries that were recruited after the fact, with
promises of economic support, and who have never committed a single
soldier or dollar to the task. I believe the total was more like 48,
which is well less than 1/2 the countries in the world, and included
such notables as the Marshall Islands, Palau, Tonga, El Salvador, etc.
Not really a powerhouse group.

The US chose to act in spite of objections from other members on the UN
Security Council, which is a demonstration of the lack of support for
the actions.

and in continuing the biased
treatment of Arab countries in the region.

We can see how that "biased treatment" is going...

Yes, just look at the polls of the attitudes of the population of the
middle east. More than ever they consider the US to be an enemy of
their countries and religion. The mighty show of force has not won many
converts to the US, in fact it has polarized a good proportion against
the US.

Meanwhile, about 1% of the people in Iraq are supporting the cleric
who's causing a lot of the trouble in Fallujah, and want people like him
to shut up and let them get on with rebuilding...

The polls suggest that something like 20% of the population support the
killing of US soldiers to push the US out of the country. That's
somewhat more than the 1% you suggest.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:51:48 -0400, Stephen Harding
wrote:

AC wrote:

It's a matter of how much this will slow down the process, how the govt
intends to guarantee the security of the personal information, etc. etc.

The fingerprint scanning was claimed to have slowed down entry
processing an average of 15 seconds according to NPR report a
couple days ago.

Concerns over what a government does with such data is entirely
warranted. But I want *something* in place and working ASAP and
we can figure out the abuse prevention as it occurs.

Osama is getting exactly what he wanted, the US is seemingly clutching at
straws. How would fingerprints have stopped atta and his friends I wonder.

Lots of interpretations over "what Osama wants". Getting into
the US has definitely toughened up and I'm certain he's not too
happy about that.

As to whether OBL would be happy about loss of civil liberties
of US or other Western citizens, I have serious doubts he even
really understand the concepts involved. He wants to kill Americans
of any type, size or gender, in as large a number as he can. He
doesn't even care if he kills fellow Muslims in doing so. I think
the status of civil liberty in the US is an irrelevancy to him.


I disagree. He is clearly an extremely intelligent individual, he
knows exactly what he is doing, he is out to disrupt the 'Western' way
of life. Of course he doesn't care if Muslims are killed along the
way, his sole goal is to wreak some sort of revenge on Western
society, at any cost. He knows very well how to go about that, and so
far he has been remarkably successful. His greatest success has been
goading Bush in to taking the lid off Iraq, something OBL couldn't
have achieved without Bush's help.
--==++AJC++==--

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:43:36 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

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


This point has been raised several times in the past. The US has a
very poor healthy life expectancy figure compared with other developed
countries. Top of the list of countries are usually Japan, France, and
Australia.
--==++AJC++==--

James Robinson wrote:
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.

What is of greater concern is whether the Hussein government's tight grip on
citizens will have to be re-instated in order to maintain order. And if
citizens are unhappy, they will throw away government after government leading
to unstable country until there will be a military coup that will put back
order by force.

You can't radically change a country overnight. It needs to evolve.

James Robinson wrote:

Canada, that socialist country with government-run medical care ...


Government-funded a la US Medicare (provincial health plans funded federally
similar to highway grants in the US). Doctors are private ... my friend
in Toronto
opened his third office last year.

Since 80% of the billings are to the provincial health insurance fund,
then yes
the government does have a lot of sway ...

Also, pharmacies are private. Pharmacie Jean Coutou was a third of the deal
to buy Eckard's from JC Penney today, along with CVS. That doesn't sound
like a Sovietic people's dispensary to me ... (-;

gld

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.



You should search CNN.com on their polling data from the past year.
Or even on their broadcasts (notably Aaron Brown's NewsNight).
People pouring out bottles of French wine a year ago ... "freedom
fries" ... "French Laundry" in Sacramento, CA getting defaced (it's
owned by naturalized citizens from Lebanon, where they do speak
French). All those clever and witty quotes of Homer Simpson's
"cheese munching surrender monkeys".

Even now, the NYT and Washington Post articles have a tone that
Paris and Berlin need to make up with Washington ...

gld

Following up to Kid E. Poole

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.

of course, silly me! :-)
--
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

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:14:48 -0700, "Gary L. Dare"
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.



You should search CNN.com on their polling data from the past year.
Or even on their broadcasts (notably Aaron Brown's NewsNight).
People pouring out bottles of French wine a year ago ... "freedom
fries" ... "French Laundry" in Sacramento, CA getting defaced (it's
owned by naturalized citizens from Lebanon, where they do speak
French). All those clever and witty quotes of Homer Simpson's
"cheese munching surrender monkeys".

Even now, the NYT and Washington Post articles have a tone that
Paris and Berlin need to make up with Washington ...

gld

Let me get this straight. Washington said we're going to invade Iraq
because of their WMDs, we want you to support us. Paris and Berlin
said, there are no WMDs, so we won't support your invasion. Washington
invaded Iraq, there were no WMDs, and now Washington wants Paris and
Berlin to make up? Americans must be falling off their chairs laughing
at their government!
--==++AJC++==--

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:07:28 GMT, devil wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:56:44 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:

In article , nobody
wrote:

It gives the illusion of enhancing security. Secondly, and more importantly
GET OVER IT. 9-11 was many years ago.

Two and a half is not "many."


The real distinction is between before and after the US attack on Iraq.

The day the US invaded Iraq, the "war on terrorism" was dead. The Bush
adminstration showed its true colors. It sowed the world what its real
agenda was and that the "war on terrorism" never went beyond a cheap
excuse. Crookery really.

Rather, the opposite. The US crusade agaisnt the Muslim world has palced
all of us unwillingly and unnecessarily at risk. Most of us do not see
the world in black and white. Most of us are stronlgy opposed to the Bush
crusade. Yet we end up being put in the same bag in the Muslim world
unfortunately. Only way out is to take a clear stance, as they did in
Spain.



Out of interest what is this week's explanation from Bush as to why he
invaded Iraq? We know it was nothing to do with WMDs, as everyone knew
there never were any. We know it was nothing to do with the 'war on
terror' as we all knew invading Iraq would only stimulate terrorism.
We know it was nothing to do with liberating an opressed people,
otherwise the US would have in popped in to Zimbabwe and Burma by now
to liberate the poor souls there, in both cases guaranteed to be an
easy job, and sure of a warm welcome. So what is the current
expanation for invading Iraq?
--==++AJC++==--