![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... C J Campbell wrote: BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction put in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has not gone far enough? He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a fact of life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the effect on businesses and individuals is minimized." You have to just LOVE these ambigious statements from politicians that say nothing....achieve nothing....and insult your intelligence if you let the statement go unchallanged :-) "Tell us Mr. Politician, how MUCH increase....and increased over what base value? And define "minimized" please Mr. Politician.......minimized to what level........against what base value? Exactly how much domestic security is in place now over what was there before, and how effective is that security? Define the exact effects on businesses please? The plain simple fact that people seem to either ignore or forget when getting all fired up about national security issues and who's "right's" will be trampled on is the fact that in a totally free society, there is no such thing as national security. It's impossible by definition...period! Any viable action taken by a government authority that even remotely begins to address a WORKABLE scenario in a national security context will mean that government control will replace individual "rights". It's the classic "you can't have it both ways" thing. You either have total freedom or you have national security. Right now in the United States, what we have are politicians desperately caught between a public they are sworn to defend and who are screaming at them 24 hours a day to take action that will protect them, and the same public screaming at them 24 hours a day that the actions they absolutely must take to even begin to address the national security issues are violating their individual rights. The result has been the Patriot Act good or bad, wide open borders, an attempt at airport security that seems to hassle old ladies more than it guarantees the capture of terrorists, and a whole gaggle of people on these newsgroups who, just like the rest of the country, don't understand that national security and individual rights can't exist on the same page at the same point in time in a free society. Argue on for all the good it will do :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Friendly fire" | Mike | Naval Aviation | 3 | April 6th 04 06:07 PM |
"Friendly fire" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | March 19th 04 02:36 PM |
B-52 crew blamed for friendly fire death | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 0 | March 16th 04 12:49 AM |
U.S. won't have to reveal other friendly fire events: Schmidt's lawyers hoped to use other incidents to help their case | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 18th 03 08:44 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |