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

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:
Since you missed it, the reason for the fingerprinting is to
enhance national security. You know, that 9/11 thing.

It gives the illusion of enhancing security. Secondly, and more
importantly
GET OVER IT. 9-11 was many years ago. Yeah, 3000 were killed that day and
it
was a calamity. You should remember the human suffering and awfull images
of
the day instead of focusing on revenge.

Secondly, when you look at Irak, the USA invaded the country illegally (UN
definitions are very clear: there are only 2 valid reasons to attack
another
country: if it attacks you, or if there is a UN security council
resolution
granting you the right to invade that country.) Neither of those happened
so
the USA invaded it illegally.

In doing so, the USA has not only added about 700 americans to the number
of
dead as a result of 9-11, but also killed about 10,000 Irakis during the
war.

How many more will need to die before your need for revenge is fulfilled ?


And you
might as well get used to the idea too. Biometric passports
are on the way, as soon as some kind of biometric standard can
be agreed upon. Fingerprints, retinal scans, DNA, whatever.

The keyword here is "can be agreed upon". As soon as the fear mongering
Bush
regime is ousted within the next 4 years, it is far more likely that some
system garanteeing data security could be agreed upon. (for instance, your
prints are not in passport but rather in your home country, and the
receiving
country would send your information to your home country for verification
and
would only get "YES" or "NO" with a garantee that the receiving country
will
NOT hold your biometric information.

The same way that merchants who accept EFTPOS transactions are garanteed
not
to hold/capture your PIN number.

I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
it a rather traumatic event here.

Why then do you consider not dramatic that your own government has
illegally
invaded another country unnecessarily ("we told you so") and has killed
about
700 of your won citizens unnecessarily, as well as ten thousands innocent
Irakis ?

Al Queda made no pretentions about being a civilised organisation. The USA
pretends to be civilised. It must be held to higher standards than Al
Queda.

Isn't the UK supposed to start issuing national ID cards soon?
You must be in a tizzy!

There is nothing wrong with a national ID card. A government already has
all
that information on you. But you are protected as a citizen of the country
that holds your information. You are not protected if that information is
sent
to some foreign antion that has no data privacy laws.

Example: if to launch a nuclear missile, a general must put his thumb on a
reader, do you think that he will agree to have his prints taken when he
travels to a foreign country for vacation ?

Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
US is?

Ever wondered WHY you are such a target ? Hint, it isn't because you
aren't
muslim, as your media like to make you think.

I am no longer reading or answering posts from that idiot Harding, so thank
you for your reasoned and logical replies.
He really is so prejudiced and illogical that one cannot waste one's time on
him. You have the patience to explain to him. I admire that. However,
his knowledge, like so many of his compatriots (thankfully, not all) is
limited and chauvinist. I fear one cannot argue with such people.

Marie Lewis wrote:

I am no longer reading or answering posts from that idiot Harding, so thank
you for your reasoned and logical replies.
He really is so prejudiced and illogical that one cannot waste one's time on
him. You have the patience to explain to him. I admire that. However,
his knowledge, like so many of his compatriots (thankfully, not all) is
limited and chauvinist. I fear one cannot argue with such people.

And this gal feels all we need to do for world peace and harmony
is to discuss our differences and work together and all will be
well? She can't even handle a collision of ideas on a NG!

So much for liberal, honest disagreement and civil discourse.

Much more easily said than done.


SMH

nobody wrote:


Secondly, when you look at Irak, the USA invaded the country illegally (UN
definitions are very clear: there are only 2 valid reasons to attack another
country: if it attacks you, or if there is a UN security council resolution


Uh, no. If is also allowed if an ally of yours is attacked,
in this case, Kuwait. There was no peace treaty after the Kuwait
attack,
so we are still entitled under that rubric.


Doug McDonald

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?

Then why do other countries not need finger prints?

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, 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.

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.

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?


SMH

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.