Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Re: "Politics........" (I didn't get my say!)

Author
Message
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:12
Link
@Dark Llama

Wanna try that again?

Why? Was I unclear?

You sure are arguing against it a whole bunch...

Only because there is a pre-dominance of Pro-Gun view points. If Gun Control proponents were to show up in reasonable numbers than I'd fade into the background. I'm not that interested in gun control.
Back to top
Profile PM
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:18
Link
Quote: "They're surrounded by about ten people (just regular people, the passengers on the plane) all with guns drawn and pointed at them... and not looking very happy."


Think about the end result of someone actually firing - especially at a high altitude. Chances are, you've just killed everyone on the plane anyway. Way to go. Net result, hijackers win regardless.

I understand the angry sentiments that might have lead to the drawing of that cartoon, but the concept is slightly flawed.

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:28
Link
Neophyte:Ok, but I also see:
Quote: " @Dark Llama

My point wasn't to comare the U.S. to Somalia. It was to show that the reasoning that More Guns = Less Crime is flawed. This is not always the case as I demonstrated with Somalia."


Quote: "This is where the data becomes scarce. I'm not sure that there is any reliable evidence out there that points to such a conclusion. The problem is that violent crime has been more or less declining ever since we started recording it. If guns became more acceptable and violent crime decreased it would be difficult to prove that guns becoming more acceptable was a result. Correlation does not equal causation."
Scarce, yes. Non-existent, no. The Kennesaw thing for instance. And there is evidence in the other direction.

Quote: "Unfortunately, if anyone actually fired their guns in that plane they would all be dead. The bullets would puncture the hull of the plane and the side of the aircraft would probably blow out due to the extreme pressure drop that would have just occured taking quite a few people if not the whole plane with it."
Not necessarily true. Air Marshals do it. And besides, it's a cartoon!

Quote: "But the advantage would definately be in favor of however drawed first."
Usually true.

Quote: "Why? Was I unclear?"
Yes. Would you mind rephrasing it?

Quote: "Only because there is a pre-dominance of Pro-Gun view points. If Gun Control proponents were to show up in reasonable numbers than I'd fade into the background."
It's currently two for (actively); and three against. Bye bye!

Quote: "I'm not that interested in gun control."
Mhm.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:31
Link
See above: Air Marshals and it's a cartoon.

They wouldn't have won the same way anyway. They wouldn't have gotten The Towers, now would they?
Back to top
Profile PM
Rob K
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Sep 2002
Location: Surrey, United Kingdom
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:34
Link
Quote: "Maybe he wasn't referring to gun control"


I think it would be wrong to say that gun control is *the* answer, but I do believe that it would help. These issues are never as simple as black and white.

Anyhow, I see the results are finally rolling in, and I'm off to sleep


BlueGUI:Windows UI Plugin - All the power of the windows interface in your DBPro games.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:35
Link
@Dark Llama

Air Marshals do it

No, they don't.

Quote: ""For a start we don't believe that guns and air travel mix," he said."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3353375.stm

Yes. Would you mind rephrasing it?

Sure. The point I was trying to get across is that it didn't reduce crime among user's who carried a permit because they weren't likely to commit a crime to begin with. Better?
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:36
Link
I haven't found those numbers for you yet Neophyte, but here are some other interesting ones:
Quote: "...they [guns] are involved in only 1.6% of deaths nationwide (National Center for Health Statistics) and are used for self-protection approximately 2.5 million times annually (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, 1997), 77 times the annual number of firearm-related deaths (National Center for Health Statistics) and up to five times the number of firearm-related violent crimes. (FBI)"
From www.nraila.org.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:38
Link
Quote: "No, they don't."
I didn't neccesarily mean that they are currently firing guns aboard aircraft, I meant that they are able to do it with blowing the plane to bits.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:40 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 09:41
Link
Besides, that article that you posted from BBC didn't (as far as I saw, I didn't read the whole thing -- I skimmed) say that they weren't currently firing guns aboard aircraft. At the bottom it even says that the US is using them.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:44
Link
Oh! Another interesting article that I found!
Back to top
Profile PM
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:45
Link
Quote: " See above: Air Marshals and it's a cartoon."


I'm not sure that's totally accurate - well, it is a cartoon, but I am pretty sure AMs don't carry high calibre weapons, they don't have a death wish afterall. But then I'm not an AM and neither are you, so this could go on for hours I could easily picture them using tazer style devices however.

Yes it's a cartoon, but the sentiment it displays is one of "it wouldn't have happened if we'd been armed". Except I bet it would have, it wasn't the choice of weapon, it was the fact it was a TOTAL surprise that sadly no-one knew how to react to.

Quote: "They wouldn't have won the same way anyway. They wouldn't have gotten The Towers, now would they?"


You don't know that. If everyone else on the plane was carrying a piece, they wouldn't have boarded with package cutters. It's a catch 22 (and hypothetical from both of us).

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:54 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 09:56
Link
Did I say that the cartoon had them carrying high-caliber guns? Actually, I saw an article on them in Air and Space a year or so ago, and they showed the different types of training that they did, including firing from a sitting position to a few rows ahead or behind. And they were definitely using guns! Don't remember what type though.

Quote: "it wasn't the choice of weapon, it was the fact it was a TOTAL surprise that sadly no-one knew how to react to."
I'm not so sure. If you had people who knew what they were doing, they could take them.

Quote: "You don't know that. If everyone else on the plane was carrying a piece, they wouldn't have boarded with package cutters. It's a catch 22 (and hypothetical from both of us)."
True, I can't see into parallel universes, (contrary to popular belief!) but I can also then assume that if they wouldn't have carried box-cutters that they wouldn't have high jacked a plane to use as a ram.


But it's all besides the point. You're arguing about a cartoon that you've never even seen. Let's just drop it.
Back to top
Profile PM
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:57
Link
@Dark Llama

At the bottom it even says that the US is using them.

You are right on that part. I must have missed that when I initally read it. However, I wouldn't feel too safe with our Air Marshals carrying guns.

Quote: "USA Today reported Thursday the air marshal program is in disarray and that as many as 80 air marshals have resigned. It also reported that air marshals no longer have to pass a critical marksmanship skills test."


Quote: "In one, a manager stopped an air marshal from boarding a flight in Washington because he smelled of alcohol. In two incidents, air marshals accidentally discharged their guns -- one in a hotel room.

In addition, the Transportation Department said one air marshal left his gun in an airplane bathroom on a United Airlines flight from Washington to Las Vegas. A passenger found the weapon. The air marshal was suspended. "


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/15/marshals.dissatisfaction/

@Jane Galt article

Interesting article, but she lost my trust when she mentioned "More Guns, Less Crime". I'm familar with Lott and his...less than honest approach to gun control and his shady statistics. If her assertion that "The possibility that their victims might be armed demonstrably has some effect on the propensity of criminals to commit violent crime" is based on Lott's data I'd call her conclusion's into question.
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:58
Link
Ok, G'night y'all. Rest assured that I will be safe tonight.
Back to top
Profile PM
kenmo
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2002
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 09:59 Edited at: 27th Jun 2012 06:20
Link
...
Back to top
Profile PM
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 10:00
Link
That article was quite interesting, I liked the summary:

Quote: "Gun control isn't stopping criminals from getting guns in Europe"


It isn't *increasing* it either.

If all citizens carrying weapons is the only way to decrease violent crime, then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the installed government / policies / capability of the police / general economics of the region / etc etc etc.

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 10:02
Link
Quote: "Ok, G'night y'all. Rest assured that I will be safe tonight."


Dream on.

(pun intended)

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 10:08
Link
@kenmo

Here is some Bush flip-flops as well.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 13:10 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 13:10
Link
Quote: "yet you are allowed to be carrying a high precision device manufactured for one thing - killing people."


But that's the problem--- millions of people in the U.S. (and here in Canada) use guns for hobby sport (i.e. target shooting, hunting, or plain old collecting). Their guns weren't manufactured for "killing people". That's akin to saying hunting knives were designed for "killing people".

Why take away the honest hunters' livelihoods because guns are used to kill people? That is like taking away chefs' livelihoods because butcher knives *can* be used to kill people (and they're quite concealable I might add).


--[Gang Wars of New Canada]-- ^^^ banner generously designed by TheBigBabou
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 13:34
Link
Not to mention favored by slasher movie villains everywhere. There goes the neighborhood!


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 21:35
Link
Quote: "But that's the problem--- millions of people in the U.S. (and here in Canada) use guns for hobby sport (i.e. target shooting, hunting, or plain old collecting)."


Then you don't need to be carrying it down the street if it's for sport. I thought the debate wasn't about the guns themselves, but the carrying of them? I don't believe the anti-gun people are saying people shouldn't use them for sport. Hell, even here they are allowed to do that and we have a zero tolerance attitude towards them.

Quote: "Their guns weren't manufactured for "killing people". That's akin to saying hunting knives were designed for "killing people"."


Guns don't dual-purpose, they have no other reason for existing other than to inflict damage. Be it on a human, animal (just as sick imho), range target, whatever. At least you could just about argue the merits of a hunting knife re: the preperation of food or similar, when used as intended.

I'll ask it again - isn't it illegal over there to carry the likes of a machette down the street? Yet you can have a concealed gun. If the gun itself isn't the problem, surely anyone should be allowed to walk around carrying anything? An AK47, a rocket launcher, meat cleaver, etc. Why draw the line? After all, apparently it'd just reduce neighborhood crime rates.

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Eric T
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Apr 2003
Location: My location is where I am at this time.
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 21:44
Link
I'll tell you my opinion on 9-11.

3 out of the 4 planes we're full of wimps. These we're only 5 people on each plane with box cutters. You wouldn't of needed a gun, or any weapon at all. Atleast that 4th plane had some balls.


http://www.liquidzsnake.dbspot.com/StairwayToHell.txt
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 21:48 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 21:51
Link
Neophyte:
Quote: "You are right on that part. I must have missed that when I initally read it. However, I wouldn't feel too safe with our Air Marshals carrying guns."
I would.

Quote: "Interesting article, but she lost my trust when she mentioned "More Guns, Less Crime"."
Well why don't you e-mail her and ask if she meant that she believes that that is always the case, or if there are exceptions? My guess is, is that especially if you present her with your Somalia example she'll agree that there are exceptions. I'd also assume that she's referring to the majority of cases in the US, not extreme cases out of the US. And of course, she could have made a mistake; I've yet to meet someone who was always correct.

Quote: "If her assertion that "The possibility that their victims might be armed demonstrably has some effect on the propensity of criminals to commit violent crime" is based on Lott's data I'd call her conclusion's into question."
I've actually never heard of Lott before, but even if it is, the Kennesaw thing is evidence, no?

Richard Davey:
Quote: "It isn't *increasing* it either."
Evidence, please. I'm not disagreeing with you, but neither am I agreeing.

Quote: "If all citizens carrying weapons is the only way to decrease violent crime, then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the installed government / policies / capability of the police / general economics of the region / etc etc etc."
Hey, did I say that increasing gun ownership is the only variable? "There are many other factors." (I need to put that in my sig or something. It sure comes in handy a lot!) Besides, there are problems with the "installed government / policies / capability of the police / general economics of the region / etc etc etc."

Quote: "Dream on."
About what? That you would rest assured? That I would sleep safely tonight? I'd be disgusted if you'd actually hope that I wouldn't, and I'm still here. Had to stay up most of the night shooting people as they came through the window, but I'm here! :p
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 21:50 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 21:55
Link
Eric T: You sick... I don't know what word to use! Rgh! You've got me so angry right now I can't put it into words!
Back to top
Profile PM
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 22:13
Link
Quote: "Quote: "They're surrounded by about ten people (just regular people, the passengers on the plane) all with guns drawn and pointed at them... and not looking very happy."

Think about the end result of someone actually firing - especially at a high altitude. Chances are, you've just killed everyone on the plane anyway. Way to go. Net result, hijackers win regardless."


If the situation would have been like that and someone did fire it would have still saves the lives of all thouse in the buildings and brought the plane down in a probably far less populated area. The plane could not have killed that many people unless it hit those particular buildings. Almost any other target would have been far less casualties. That is why I say it is the governments fault. You have a small area, with that many people in it, that stucks up above the rest of the city, and that our economy depends on and there is no air defense. Makes no sense to me.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 22:22
Link
Quote: "If the situation would have been like that and someone did fire it would have still saves the lives of all thouse in the buildings and brought the plane down in a probably far less populated area. The plane could not have killed that many people unless it hit those particular buildings. Almost any other target would have been far less casualties."
That's what I said. Thanks for backing me though.

Quote: "That is why I say it is the governments fault. You have a small area, with that many people in it, that stucks up above the rest of the city, and that our economy depends on and there is no air defense. Makes no sense to me."
It's not the government's fault that so many people live there. That's one thing that I don't like, when people just blame the government for their problems and expect them to fix it.
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 22:31
Link
well, unfortunately the people, as in without the government, can't just go about setting up air defenses

[center]
Come write!
Yarr join LoGD, and defeat other coders!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 22:37
Link
Did I say that the solution was to construct air defenses?
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 22:44
Link
Quote: "It's not the government's fault that so many people live there. That's one thing that I don't like, when people just blame the government for their problems and expect them to fix it."


sorry just assumed, how would you go about protecting high population areas from air attacks?

[center]
Come write!
Yarr join LoGD, and defeat other coders!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 23:09 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2004 23:10
Link
First off, I personally wouldn't "go about protecting high population areas from air attacks" because I'm still in high school. Second, the solution to the problem is not necessarily to protect it. What about not living there? If no one lives there then it's not much of a target, is it? I'm not necessarily saying that New Yorkers should all move, (They can stay right there! Not here please!) but I'm also saying that I don't know what the solution is. I was just saying that I dislike when people expect the government to take care of them.
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 23:20
Link
If people move then terrorists would attack elsewhere

Humans are a herding species, we don't all want to spread out^_~ We get the best work done when we work together..

And why should we spread out because of terrorists?

Build up air defenses and we've got nothing to worry about when we look up

I personally think terrorism is far overly dramatized.. but I do think we should set up basic protective measures.

[center]
Come write!
Yarr join LoGD, and defeat other coders!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 23:27
Link
Three things:

1. I didn't say that spreading out was the answer, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't exactly sure as to what to do.

2. Do you really think that air defense guns would be allowed to shoot down any air liners that looked suspicious?

3. Tell:
Quote: "I personally think terrorism is far overly dramatized.."
to the people who've died because of it.
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 3rd Nov 2004 23:36
Link
Quote: "1. I didn't say that spreading out was the answer, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't exactly sure as to what to do."


my apologies

Quote: "2. Do you really think that air defense guns would be allowed to shoot down any air liners that looked suspicious?"


who said anything about air defense guns? And what's wrong with researching?

Quote: "3. Tell:
[quote]Quote: "I personally think terrorism is far overly dramatized..""

to the people who've died because of it. [/quote]

Tell that to the families of the people who died in iraq..

Tell that to the people who've fallen victim to the patriot act.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious of terrorism, but I AM saying that we don't need to make it our daily worry.

[center]
Come write!
Yarr join LoGD, and defeat other coders!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Richard Davey
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Apr 2002
Location: On the Jupiter Probe
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 00:56
Link
Quote: "That I would sleep safely tonight? I'd be disgusted if you'd actually hope that I wouldn't, and I'm still here."


It was a sarcastic dig at the assumption you're somehow safer, nothing more.

"I am not young enough to know everything."
- Oscar Wilde
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 01:54
Link
Quote: "my apologies"
Accepted. Simple misunderstanding.

Quote: "who said anything about air defense guns?"
Ok, not guns. Whatever! It doesn't matter if their guns or missile launchers or whatever! You were promoting "air defenses" and the first things that popped into my mind were guns!

Quote: "And what's wrong with researching?"
Beg pardon? What do you mean? That seems a little out of context.

Quote: "Tell that to the families of the people who died in iraq..

Tell that to the people who've fallen victim to the patriot act."
That makes little sense. The people who've died because of terrorism (most likely) would have preferred that we had paid more attention to terrorism, don't you think? Would you refer to let the terrorists take us out without us putting up a fight?

Quote: "I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious of terrorism, but I AM saying that we don't need to make it our daily worry."
And I'm saying that we need to make it part of our daily concern until it is gone! Granted there will still be disgusting creatures out there that will attempt it, but they would be much fewer than there are now.

Richard Davey:
Quote: "the assumption you're somehow safer"
If someone was to break into my house then yes, I would be safer. Thank G-d it's never happened, but if it did...
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 01:58
Link
i hate to break it to you, but there's always been and always will be terrorists...

as for researching air defense.. I'm not against it.. that's what I meant..

And I doubt those who died in Iraq would've died at all, let alone terrorism had they not gone, (at least, until they lived to a ripe old age)

[center]
Come write!
Yarr join LoGD, and defeat other coders!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 02:14
Link
Quote: "Granted there will still be disgusting creatures out there that will attempt it, but they would be much fewer than there are now."


And then you said

Quote: " i hate to break it to you, but there's always been and always will be terrorists."


Read other peoples' posts completely


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 02:23
Link
Thanks Mouse.

Jerico2day:
Quote: "as for researching air defense.. I'm not against it.. that's what I meant.."
You're still not making sense. Sorry!

Quote: "And I doubt those who died in Iraq would've died at all, let alone terrorism had they not gone, (at least, until they lived to a ripe old age)"
Actually, soldiers have a lower life expectancy than the average person, and while they may have lived longer, their job is to do what their doing anyway! If they didn't want to, they shouldn't have signed up! As for the civilian casualties, they would have been killed, or worse, tortured anyway. There are now more who will live than would have otherwise.
Back to top
Profile PM
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 02:35
Link
Quote: "Quote: "That is why I say it is the governments fault. You have a small area, with that many people in it, that stucks up above the rest of the city, and that our economy depends on and there is no air defense. Makes no sense to me."
It's not the government's fault that so many people live there. That's one thing that I don't like, when people just blame the government for their problems and expect them to fix it. "


I agree that the government shouldn't be responsible for every place civilians may live somewhat populated by that was not a place where people "lived". It was the world trade towers. Our economy relied on those towers heavily and there were way too many people in them (working for our economy) not to be protected. Anytime you can take out 1 or 2 buildings and kill that many people the government should at least look into protecting instead of just ignoring that they are there. Football/baseball (or any other highly populated dome) stadiums is another place I think should be protected. I do not like football or baseball but I wouldn't mind them spending money protecting them. There should be a structure limit and any structure with over X (what ever limit is set) amount of people who regularly attend the structure should be protected. If one plane crash can kill that many people it should be protected. This is just my opinion.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dung Beetle
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location:
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 02:45
Link
I mostly agree I think. I don't know what your political affiliations are, but if the Bush Administration should have foreseen high jacked airliners being flown into buildings, then why didn't the Clinton Administration (who most of you Liberals obviously consider to be better and smarter) foresee it and do something about it?
Back to top
Profile PM
bitJericho
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 03:32
Link
the bush administration from what I understood left documents warning of those very dangers, they didn't know about the towers, but they knew there was an impending danger.. at least, from what I understand..

ok.. let me start over::
People shouldn't have to move because of terrorism.. this is bush's whole philosophy right? *Not supposed to be scared* .. well what exactly has invading Iraq really done for us? We found no WMD.. we've killed nobody that would really be a threat to the US..

We let osama run wild in the mountains and whatnot..

Now why didn't he use some of that cash to research and build better defenses.. I'm sure he is doing that.. but if we hadn't invaded Iraq we could've done much more.

[center]
Come write!
Yarr join LoGD, and defeat other coders!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Ian T
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Sep 2002
Location: Around
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 03:37
Link
I'm beginning to feel similarly about the war. Our focus should be on bin Laden.


Here we go again!
TRANSGRESS AND I SHALT BAN YE! (Just kidding...)
Back to top
Profile PM
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 05:52
Link
Agreed. If they have proof It was Bin Laden (and since he pretty much claimed the attack) I believe we should concentrate all of our forces on him and his pack rats. Saddam did not need to be over Iraq, this is very clear to me. But we cannot win that war totally. As soon as they elect someone and we leave ... someone will take back over (with force) and we'll be right back over there fighting another war. That way of life has been with them since birth. Thats the way they belive it should be (not the civilians as much as the armys). We need to start teaching their children new ways to live and let the future sort it out. You can't move a mountain over night. It takes time. That is too much change too fast for them.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neophyte
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Feb 2003
Location: United States
Posted: 4th Nov 2004 06:50
Link
@Mouse

I'm beginning to feel similarly about the war. Our focus should be on bin Laden.

I'm glad you do. This whole Iraq fiasco has drained our resources and diverted a lot of troops away from Afghanistan. What's worse is that now we can't provide a credible deterant against our enemies since our military is so over streched.

Al Qaeda is in a much greater position of strength now than before we started the Iraq war. I fear we are losing the war on terror.
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-09-22 22:30:32
Your offset time is: 2024-09-22 22:30:32