Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

Alan Minyard wrote:
SNIP
What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself?

There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers
have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not
being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4
Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of
school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind
of defending we are expected to be grateful for?)

NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3%
of pop)

This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000....

Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular
infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry
battalions?

OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more
experienced soldiers....)


Well, you have no air force, no real navy, no effective army, I would say that
is pretty much the definition of defenseless. NZ has given up its status as
a respectable nation. Cowards.

Al Minyard

Hey Al's calling Kiwis cowards...
(And just after ANZAC day too...)

Just how big an airforce, navy and army do you expect a country 1500
miles for the nearest other country to have?

Also... who should we be defending from (that we would have any chance,
even with 10-20% of gdp military spending)?

How many aircraft constitutes a real airforce?
How many warships?
How big an army?

And for that matter... how much is it going to cost?

I mean, NZ has been running budget surpluses for most of the last ten
years... The people really don't like the idea of mortgaging their
children's futures for military spending...

Then of course, we don't have the numbers applying for the military...
they have enough trouble recruiting to maintain the current numbers.

Oh, we don't offer the GI bill, so there is no 'free' university for
ex-soldiers, and being in the territorials doesn't entitle you to no
fees education at state uni.

Jim Yanik wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in news:408d9b76@news-
1.oit.umass.edu:


Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest
application of better security would have more than paid for
itself.

Just some decent border security would have helped.
IIRC,some of those 9-11 guys had overstayed their visas.

Overstayed?, I guess so...wasn't it Atta who was sent a renewal
request for some visa related papers several weeks after 911? (or
was someone jerking chains?).

I for one think it's a God damned shame that we need to change
from the innocent life that we led a few years ago to one filled
with suspicion, security checks, wandings, shoe inspections and
similar personal intrusions just to pay for some religious
zealots beliefs.

I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe
UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay
out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your
fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of
miles away.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in news:408d9b76@news-
1.oit.umass.edu:


Of course the WTC cost $billions and after the fact, even a modest
application of better security would have more than paid for
itself.

Just some decent border security would have helped.
IIRC,some of those 9-11 guys had overstayed their visas.

Overstayed?, I guess so...wasn't it Atta who was sent a renewal
request for some visa related papers several weeks after 911? (or
was someone jerking chains?).

I for one think it's a God damned shame that we need to change
from the innocent life that we led a few years ago to one filled
with suspicion, security checks, wandings, shoe inspections and
similar personal intrusions just to pay for some religious
zealots beliefs.

I certainly have nothing against what some people want to believe
UNTIL IT IMPACTS ME and MINE. You don't like freedom?...then stay
out of free countries. Certainly don't cry when you get your
fingers slapped for forcing your views on others thousands of
miles away.
--

-Gord.


Well,we now know that 9-11 was not the first attack on the US,there was the
first WTC bombing,two US embassies bombed,the Khobar Towers bombing,and the
USS Cole bombing.

Albert Einstein once wrote that "the world is a dangerous place to live,
not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't
do anything about it."

I guess we know where you stand.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Kerryn Offord wrote in
:



Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP
The US military is prohibited by LAW from operating inside the US.
(Posse Comitatus,IIRC)

Bsides,the police SWAT teams,FBI and BATF-troop are all very close to
military capabilities.Now the National Guard (considered today's
militia) could be deployed.
Although,IMO,they are merely part of the ordinary US military.

Which makes one wonder a bit about Delta and SEAL 6. They were counter
terrorism units, but where were they supposed to operate? They
couldn't operate in the US, and a lot of other countries wouldn't let
them through, let alone operate in their country.

Being soldiers,they would be deployed against countries that committed acts
of war against the US.I probably should have qualified the first statement
with "in peacetime",meaning the military could be deployed inside the US
during times of war.Certainly if US territory was invaded,the military
would deploy inside the US. Counter-terrorism may fall under that category.
Especially with the rise of multinational,non-State terrorism groups like
Al-Queda.


Were they available for the olympics (LA and Atlanta)? Or was that
solely an FBI (et al) thing?


I don't know who did security for the Olympics.
Perhaps the National Guard,under those States Governor's authority(as a
militia).


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:08:39 GMT, "tim gueguen" wrote:


And we never will. We live under the rule of law, and have an armed
citizenry that will not tolerate such madness.


Are the WTC bombing , the Oklahoma City Bombing and the
events of Sept 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks supposed
to be examples of successful US counter terrorism ?

Fact is the US was protected by little more than geography.
In 1996 I visited Washington DC and was astounded at
how LITTLE security there was with not even the most basic
precautions in place. I was able to wander around the Capitol
with no scannning or check of bags going in. Planting a dozen
IRA style thermite bombs would have been trivial.

Keith

The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:36:58 +1200, Kerryn Offord wrote:



Alan Minyard wrote:
SNIP
What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself?

There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers
have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not
being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4
Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of
school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind
of defending we are expected to be grateful for?)

NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3%
of pop)

This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000....

Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular
infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry
battalions?

OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more
experienced soldiers....)


Well, you have no air force, no real navy, no effective army, I would say that
is pretty much the definition of defenseless. NZ has given up its status as
a respectable nation. Cowards.

Al Minyard

Hey Al's calling Kiwis cowards...
(And just after ANZAC day too...)

Just how big an airforce, navy and army do you expect a country 1500
miles for the nearest other country to have?

Also... who should we be defending from (that we would have any chance,
even with 10-20% of gdp military spending)?

How many aircraft constitutes a real airforce?
How many warships?
How big an army?

And for that matter... how much is it going to cost?

I mean, NZ has been running budget surpluses for most of the last ten
years... The people really don't like the idea of mortgaging their
children's futures for military spending...

Then of course, we don't have the numbers applying for the military...
they have enough trouble recruiting to maintain the current numbers.

Oh, we don't offer the GI bill, so there is no 'free' university for
ex-soldiers, and being in the territorials doesn't entitle you to no
fees education at state uni.

Let me clarify what was a poorly worded post. I do not, rpt not,
think that the average NZ individual is a coward. The govt of
NZ is another matter.

By the way, in the US most people qualify for a free university
education if they are willing and able to compete for it.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

Jim Yanik wrote:


Albert Einstein once wrote that "the world is a dangerous place to live,
not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't
do anything about it."

I guess we know where you stand.

....aaaand I agree with him, lessee now, if I read you right
you're ****ed that I'm not over there with rifle in hand right
now, right?...well, here's my excuse, I'm 70 years old, half
blind with glaucoma, on oxygen from emphysema, half deaf with
aircraft engine noise...now then...let's turn our attention to
you for a moment...

--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:


Albert Einstein once wrote that "the world is a dangerous place to
live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the
people who don't do anything about it."

I guess we know where you stand.

...aaaand I agree with him, lessee now, if I read you right
you're ****ed that I'm not over there with rifle in hand right
now, right?

As usual,you're off the mark.


I'm 51.5 yrs old. (3.5 yrs in the USAF back in early 1970's.RIF for the
last .5 yr.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Gord Beaman" wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:


Albert Einstein once wrote that "the world is a dangerous place to
live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the
people who don't do anything about it."

I guess we know where you stand.

...aaaand I agree with him, lessee now, if I read you right
you're ****ed that I'm not over there with rifle in hand right
now, right?

As usual,you're off the mark.

Oh...I see...well your one-liner could certainly be taken as an
accusation, but if it wasn't meant as one then it's likely that a
better response would have been "No, you misunderstood me, sorry"
rather than the accusation that you made.

I'm 51.5 yrs old. (3.5 yrs in the USAF back in early 1970's.RIF for the
last .5 yr.)

I forgot to mention that I served in Canada's Armed Forces for 26
years.
--

-Gord.