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

rk wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

There were reports a number of years ago that IRA paramilitary
training was going on a private camp in North Carolina.

Not really a claim. If it was going on, it would not be right and
should not be either supported or tolerated. Have a reference?

No, it was too many years ago. People probably didn't pay much
attention, since the IRS wasn't attacking the US. It was at a time
where the US was training groups from many areas of the world for
various clandestine actions.

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?

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.

mtravelkay wrote:

Gary L. Dare wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

The folks from countries with government-sponsored health care,with
the government knowing the results of their last rectal exams,



Is that the case for US seniors on Medicare?


No. With Medicare, the government pays the bill, it doesn't employ the
doctors.


Most western countries with public health insurance don't employ the
doctors,
just pay them Medicare-style. Public HMO's are the exception ... or
rather, US
HMO's are based on the likes of the UK National Health Service.

gld

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.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:09:13 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

mtravelkay wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

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.

Do you think life expectancy can be tied solely to health care?
What about diet, lifestyles, etc....
Look at it this way, the British are usually more sedate than Americans.

Sedate? Wouldn't that make people fatter?

The point is that many people suggest that the US health care system is
light years ahead of the rest of the world. Technically, they are
probably right, but sociologically, things don't stand up as well.
Maybe it's good because it keeps overweight people alive.

Of course best means different things to different people, but I have
seen it worded: the best health care in the world is available in
America, though not available to all Americans of course. As far as
best health care system goes, France is usually cited at the top of
the list, based on the (high) quality of care provided to a high
percentage (100) of the population.
--==++AJC++==--