GAO Report: GA Security Threat

That, while true, is irrelevant. The important message is STOP IT!

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...

"Bob and Mary Beard" wrote in message
...
The following individuals apparently feel that this site is for their
personal bickering.


This is not a "site."

"Fr. John Elledge" wrote in message
...
That, while true, is irrelevant. The important message is STOP IT!


I guess it's a "slow news day."

Ian,

Well, hell, Thomas, there's no proof that YOU exist . . !


Yeah, but no one would start a war over my non-existance and kill a lot
of people.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

We could pick on Michael Jackson. He did fly home in a private plane. Is
that on topic?

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
t...
"Fr. John Elledge" wrote in message
...
That, while true, is irrelevant. The important message is STOP IT!


I guess it's a "slow news day."

Ian Graeme wrote:

Martin Hotze wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:


Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
stranger definition of 'winning.'


at best there will be a corrupt democracy, at worst it will be a
religious led country. The outcome will be more terrorists and more
terrorist attacks. And you will enforce more "security" and "defend your
country" in other parts of the world because of the rising terrorist
attacks. And then you will sit back and will wonder why less people like
the way you are acting.

NOT defending our country against terrorist attacks didn't work, so what
do you suggest is the solution?

Defending it using tactics that will actually result in a the reduction
and/or elimination of terrorist attacks.

Tactics like...
- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
the military.
- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
Afghanistan.
- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
speech.
- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
"have to".
- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
countries/peoples of that.
- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.
- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.
- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
just dollars spent.

None of these tactics require the military. That's not to say that we don't
need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.

Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
of Democracy.


--
Frank....H

Frank,

nice post!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:00:39 -0600, Frank
wrote:

Tactics like...
- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
the military.

-- Which is why it's being fought with the whole govermental
apparatus, and not just the military, y'know.

- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

-- I don't think we should ever become neutral in a conflict where one
side makes a point of attacking noncombatant children, and then hides
behind their own noncombatant children, and then claims that their
opponents are killing noncombatant children they happen to be hiding
behind.

- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
Afghanistan.

-- Good point. What other option is there? Bring in non-corrupt and
kind rulers to take the place of the ones we depose?

People the world over have had a rash reaction to us doing that in
Iraq.

- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
speech.

-- Always a good idea, provided our enemies don't use our own sense of
justice against us.

- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
"have to".

-- Y'mean, like the cold fact that 3000 innocent dead were snuffed in
the space of one sunny morning?

- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
countries/peoples of that.

-- "Freedom" and "Democracy" is not in the best interest of every
human being? (A tad jingoistic, to be sure, unless it's the truth!)

- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.

-- We would be fools not to recognize that.

- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.

Which set of morals, now that we're a tolerant multicultural
politically correct nation of relative morals?

- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
just dollars spent.

Hear hear. That's a good point.

None of these tactics require the military.

Too right. Other necessary tactics in the war *do* require the
military, and you haven't listed them.

That's not to say that we don't
need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.

One thing I think is true is that it's difficult to call a unique
situation ineptly handled, if something like it has never been
encountered before. We all differ on the details of how to take care
of the terrorists, and prevent another 9/11.

Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
of Democracy.

So spake George W. Bush, regarding Muslims, right after the attacks.
That not every American is a pillar of Democracy is nearly
self-evident, if one watches the Congress.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Email to Ian Graeme bounced (of course).

I replied in

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

where this subject is NOT off-topic.

--

FF

If unguarded airplanes parked in the open are a security threat,
I wholeheartedly support the construction of such hangars as are
needed to alleviate that threat (with Government subsidy). It
would be money well spent IMHO.

I am well acquainted with 10+ year waiting lists, controlling
agencies who stall and fart around for decades over the issue
of hangar construction (and play games with with waiting lists),
and sales of existing hangars in some areas for prices that would
buy you a mansion in others.

Wouldn't it be nice if all this crap could be swept away in one
fell swoop.

In article ,
(David Johnson) wrote:

If unguarded airplanes parked in the open are a security threat,
I wholeheartedly support the construction of such hangars as are
needed to alleviate that threat (with Government subsidy). It
would be money well spent IMHO.

I am well acquainted with 10+ year waiting lists, controlling
agencies who stall and fart around for decades over the issue
of hangar construction (and play games with with waiting lists),
and sales of existing hangars in some areas for prices that would
buy you a mansion in others.

Wouldn't it be nice if all this crap could be swept away in one
fell swoop.

The environmentalists and other anti-aviation groups would have cardiac
arrest! It would also help reduce maintenance costs and improve
reliability and safety of our planes.