McCain-warns-there-will-be- war

[Plane]

Are you approveing the wars that have occured during Democratic administrations?

===================
After Vietnam, the Democrats learned their lesson. Now all the wars are started by Republicans, who still think that Vietnam was some sort of "noble cause".

I am against all wars started by the US. We should not start wars.

So you slept throgh the whole Clinton administration period?

[Plane]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<<Should we enact restrictions on our transportation and imports and immagration to the point that we are safe from 19 guys that don't have criminal records?>>

Nice straw man.  Who built him?  You should have, and Bush should have, instituted tighter airport security.  Very simple.  Very easy.  Bush didn't do it.  Had eight months to act, and did jack-shit all that time.  Fails miserably, and then you ask a question that has absolutely nothing to do with anything?  Instead of pretending that the problem is of such huge magnitude as to be insoluble, why don't you just admit that the attacks could have been avoided with relative ease and that Bush fucked up miserably?

Didn't this actually happen? What makes an actuall event a straw man?

Tighten the security of airports all you want ,there isn't anything that you can actually do at the airport that would have stopped Mohammed Atta and company. and there especialy was nothing to do that the public would have accepted without the 9-11 attack in the past.

[Michael Tee]

<<Didn't this actually happen? >>

Of course it didn't.  If it had happened, nobody could have boarded the flights armed with box-cutters.  Especially not four to a plane, on four planes.

<<What makes an actuall event a straw man?>>

I said Bush failed to protect the planes and the passengers.
You said, it would have been tough to set up security that would have screened out 19 young men with clean criminal records.
That was the straw man - - should Bush have been able to prevent the entry into America of the 19 hijackers?   That wasn't in issue.  Bush's failure was not that he failed to prevent these guys getting into the country or even getting to the airport.  That's the straw man.  Bush's failure was that he had 8 months to enhane airline safety and failed miserably.  Simple X-ray screening would have detected the box-cutters.  Procedures now in place which Bush never gave a minute's thought to would have prevented all the hijackings.  And the Air Force failure to shoot down the jets - - I spoke to an air traffic controller who says that in the first five minutes of take-off  it would have been apparent the planes were deviating from their courses and could have been challenged and shot down.  No one scrambled the fighters until way too late.

<<Tighten the security of airports all you want ,there isn't anything that you can actually do at the airport that would have stopped Mohammed Atta and company. >>

Ridiculous.  Absurd.  Guys with box-cutters shouldn't be able to get on now, and if they CAN, it just means that Bush is still fucking up almost eight years into the job.

<< . . . and there especialy was nothing to do that the public would have accepted without the 9-11 attack in the past.>>

The PUBLIC?  The public doesn't accept the war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop Bush and Cheney.  What the fuck would the public have to do with it?  The leader leads.  Period.  He sells it to them like he sold the war.

[Plane]

<<Didn't this actually happen? >>

Of course it didn't.  If it had happened, nobody could have boarded the flights armed with box-cutters.  Especially not four to a plane, on four planes.

The attack happned afer Mohammd Atta wandered the country for months searching for vunerable targets , soon er or later he was going to find something.

<<What makes an actuall event a straw man?>>

I said Bush failed to protect the planes and the passengers.
You said, it would have been tough to set up security that would have screened out 19 young men with clean criminal records.
That was the straw man - - should Bush have been able to prevent the entry into America of the 19 hijackers?   That wasn't in issue.  Bush's failure was not that he failed to prevent these guys getting into the country or even getting to the airport.  That's the straw man.  Bush's failure was that he had 8 months to enhane airline safety and failed miserably.  Simple X-ray screening would have detected the box-cutters. 

Not really the box cutter is a very small peice of metal a dangerous shiv can still be hidden on a person even in an environment as controlled as a state prison

Procedures now in place which Bush never gave a minute's thought to would have prevented all the hijackings.

 Tell me which procedure you mean , I am not aware of one that couldn't be spoofed some way. I would feel bad to tell you my ideas for circumventing seach , instead I would gogle up the reports of news orginasatons tht have smuggled pistols and faux bombs onto planes recently just to prove it still possible.

And the Air Force failure to shoot down the jets - - I spoke to an air traffic controller who says that in the first five minutes of take-off  it would have been apparent the planes were deviating from their courses and could have been challenged and shot down.  No one scrambled the fighters until way too late.

I have been working in avition for two decades almost all of it for the USAF. Let me assure you that this air traffic controller was pullng your leg.

<<Tighten the security of airports all you want ,there isn't anything that you can actually do at the airport that would have stopped Mohammed Atta and company. >>

Ridiculous.  Absurd.  Guys with box-cutters shouldn't be able to get on now, and if they CAN, it just means that Bush is still fucking up almost eight years into the job.

And things were perfect when? I would bet that if you yourself were tasked with sneaking a box cutter past the best ecurity personell in the world you could find a way to do it. A box cutter is just a realy small peice of metal

<< . . . and there especialy was nothing to do that the public would have accepted without the 9-11 attack in the past.>>

The PUBLIC?  The public doesn't accept the war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop Bush and Cheney.  What the fuck would the public have to do with it?  The leader leads.  Period.  He sells it to them like he sold the war.

I don't know how it is in Canada , but in the USA the public is infuential on political decisions. Public tolerance for security measures increased a lot in the 9-11 aftermath.

[Michael Tee]

<<The attack happned afer Mohammd Atta wandered the country for months searching for vunerable targets , soon er or later he was going to find something.>>

The fact is that he DID "find something" and that something, thanks to the moron Bush, was inadequately unguarded.

<<Not really the box cutter is a very small peice of metal a dangerous shiv can still be hidden on a person even in an environment as controlled as a state prison>>

The box cutter is a metal blade with a distinct outline which would show up on any routine X-ray.  Had the X-rays been supplemented with U.S. marshalls or other on-board security, the entire attack would have been easily foiled.

 <<Tell me which procedure you mean , I am not aware of one that couldn't be spoofed some way. I would feel bad to tell you my ideas for circumventing seach , instead I would gogle up the reports of news orginasatons tht have smuggled pistols and faux bombs onto planes recently just to prove it still possible.>>

Yes, thank you for proving my point that even now the idiot is fucking up and leaving the planes unprotected.   Makes me feel real good every time I catch a plane to or from the U.S.  Maybe some of that cash blown away in Iraq would have purchased some more sophisticated equipment, but first things first, eh, gotta bring democracy to the Iraqis.

<<I have been working in avition for two decades almost all of it for the USAF. Let me assure you that this air traffic controller was pullng your leg.>>

With all due respect, I don't believe you worked as an air traffic controller and what this guy told me sounded very logical and very clear.

<<And things were perfect when? I would bet that if you yourself were tasked with sneaking a box cutter past the best ecurity personell in the world you could find a way to do it. A box cutter is just a realy small peice of metal>>

It's not so small.  Some have a short blade maybe two cm. or less, and they're virtually useless as weapons.  The one on my desk now has 66 mm. that I can see and about 1 cm. that I can't.  They'd both show on an X-ray.  Besides, Bush's failure was total - - goes beyond detecting the box-cutters, it should have included marshalls on the planes and cabin security for the pilots, plus shoot-down procedures for any plane with a rogue pilot posing a danger to thousands of people.  He fucked up in more ways than I can count.

<<I don't know how it is in Canada , but in the USA the public is infuential on political decisions. Public tolerance for security measures increased a lot in the 9-11 aftermath.>>

If Bush had even TRIED to increase airport security, and had failed due to popular pressure, you might have a point.  You could argue that he tried.  You'd have to admit to some piss-poor leadership if he couldn't convince the public, but the sad fact is that he didn't even try.  He was asleep at the switch.  And you can leave Canada out of this discussion, it's U.S.A. all the way, and I know this is one "President" who doesn't give a shit about public opinion.  If he did, he'd already have been out of Iraq.  Nice try though.  Very imaginative.

[Plane]

<<The attack happned afer Mohammd Atta wandered the country for months searching for vunerable targets , soon er or later he was going to find something.>>

The fact is that he DID "find something" and that something, thanks to the moron Bush, was inadequately unguarded.

So Mohammed Atta should have wandered the country for months and found everything guarded? This is my point we don't have that many guards .

<<Not really the box cutter is a very small peice of metal a dangerous shiv can still be hidden on a person even in an environment as controlled as a state prison>>

The box cutter is a metal blade with a distinct outline which would show up on any routine X-ray.  Had the X-rays been supplemented with U.S. marshalls or other on-board security, the entire attack would have been easily foiled.

  I don't know about Canadians , but Americans that get too many X-rays get cancer.

 <<Tell me which procedure you mean , I am not aware of one that couldn't be spoofed some way. I would feel bad to tell you my ideas for circumventing seach , instead I would gogle up the reports of news orginasatons tht have smuggled pistols and faux bombs onto planes recently just to prove it still possible.>>

Yes, thank you for proving my point that even now the idiot is fucking up and leaving the planes unprotected.   Makes me feel real good every time I catch a plane to or from the U.S.  Maybe some of that cash blown away in Iraq would have purchased some more sophisticated equipment, but first things first, eh, gotta bring democracy to the Iraqis.

Bush is not doing it wrong , it is working , he just isn't doing it your way , which would be x-raying everyone.

<<I have been working in avition for two decades almost all of it for the USAF. Let me assure you that this air traffic controller was pullng your leg.>>

With all due respect, I don't believe you worked as an air traffic controller and what this guy told me sounded very logical and very clear.

In Atlanta they have a take off and an landing one per minute all day 24 -7 none of these is followed by an F-16 . This guy does not sound logical at all to me , I think he was either not in avaition  or he was joshing you.  Do you think the USSR kept up with their airspace? Mathias Rust discovered that the defense of airspace is more difficult than anyone was letting on. There are not as many fighters in existance world wide as there are aircraft in the air in the US at any given moment , not even close. There is no fighter exastant that can scramble fast enough to prevent the entry of our airspace by an aircraft already in our airspace.

<<And things were perfect when? I would bet that if you yourself were tasked with sneaking a box cutter past the best ecurity personell in the world you could find a way to do it. A box cutter is just a realy small peice of metal>>

It's not so small.  Some have a short blade maybe two cm. or less, and they're virtually useless as weapons.  The one on my desk now has 66 mm. that I can see and about 1 cm. that I can't.  They'd both show on an X-ray.  Besides, Bush's failure was total - - goes beyond detecting the box-cutters, it should have included marshalls on the planes and cabin security for the pilots, plus shoot-down procedures for any plane with a rogue pilot posing a danger to thousands of people.  He fucked up in more ways than I can count.

<<I don't know how it is in Canada , but in the USA the public is infuential on political decisions. Public tolerance for security measures increased a lot in the 9-11 aftermath.>>

If Bush had even TRIED to increase airport security, and had failed due to popular pressure, you might have a point.  You could argue that he tried.  You'd have to admit to some piss-poor leadership if he couldn't convince the public, but the sad fact is that he didn't even try.  He was asleep at the switch.  And you can leave Canada out of this discussion, it's U.S.A. all the way, and I know this is one "President" who doesn't give a shit about public opinion.  If he did, he'd already have been out of Iraq.  Nice try though.  Very imaginative.

Canadians are evidently invunerable to X-rays , I am sorry to report that Americans don't want to be x-rayed that frequently.

President Bush didn't institute a system of local invunerability , which would not have worked , he made his defense of offence and it seems to be largely working. President Clinton will have an oppurtunity to reverse this and Osama will finally have a chance to really tick us off.

[Michael Tee]

<<So Mohammed Atta should have wandered the country for months and found everything guarded? This is my point we don't have that many guards .>>

"Terrorists"  have been hijacking planes for decades.  Whatever else should have been given tightened security, the planes were an obvious place to start.  I'm just amazed that anyone can excuse such a miserable failure.    I don't even know how we got onto this ludicrous discussion of Mohammed Atta "wandering the country" in the first place.  He sure as hell didn't have to wander very far.  He probably knew about airplanes from Terrorism 101.

<<I don't know about Canadians , but Americans that get too many X-rays get cancer.>>

Canada's much more advanced medically, I guess.  Up here, it's the carry-ons that get the X-rays, the passengers only get wanded.

<<Bush is not doing it wrong , it is working , he just isn't doing it your way . . . >>

Your problem is trying to suck and blow at the same time:  "people are still sneaking stuff onto planes," "Bush isn't doing it wrong."  Two statements, only one of which can be true.

<<In Atlanta they have a take off and an landing one per minute all day 24 -7 none of these is followed by an F-16 .>>

According to my friend, the planes are tracked from take-off for a fixed period of time or a certain distance, I forget which of the two it is.  Maybe both.  Each plane has a flight plan which cannot be deviated from, it's direction and altitude are given to it before it takes off.  The air traffic controller knows if the plane is where it should be and it's very serious business when they deviate.  It's an emergency.  All hijacked flights were coast-to-coast.  A deviation towards New York took place early enough in the flight for ground stations to know there was a serious problem.

<<President Bush didn't institute a system of local invunerability , which would not have worked ,>>

Well, that's a clear point of disagreement.  I think it's painfully obvious that enhanced airport security could and did make all the difference. 

<< . . . he made his defense of offence >>

the problem I find with that was that Osama went on the offence first, and Bush's defence was a little too late to help the folks in the towers.  "Better late than never" might be a good way of dealing with Bush's National Guard "duties," but it was clearly inadequate for the President of the United States.

<< . . . and it seems to be largely working. >>

What's "largely working" if anything is, are the relatively simple and painless measures taken to improve airport security.  The attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq are total disasters which have already killed almost twice as many Americans as the "terrorist" attacks, wounded 25,000 of them and killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

<<President Clinton will have an oppurtunity to reverse this and Osama will finally have a chance to really tick us off.>>

I don't think Clinton would do anything to stop the war because she doesn't when she has the chance now.  Osama can try his hand again.  Personally, I think there's an excellent chance that the revenge will come from some really pissed-off Iraqi or Afghan.  Osama's done enough.  His problem is that if he pulls off anything less than another 9-11, he'll look like a punk and a has-been.

[Plane]

In prison a prisoner has no privacy at all , every time they search the prisoners they find improvised wepons , and of course don't find all of them.

There is a severe limit on how well searching people can work, and we are near that limit now. hideing a box cutter is not such a great challenge , it is knowing that displaying a box cutter on an airliner now would instantly invlve one in a desprate fight for life with fifty or two hundred highly motivated people, as Richard Reed found , that isthe challenge.

Terrorists are created all the time, it is most effecient to go to the sorce an kill them where they are plentyfull preventing them from organiseing expidition like Mohammed Attas.

Your problem is trying to suck and blow at the same time:  "people are still sneaking stuff onto planes," "Bush isn't doing it wrong."  Two statements, only one of which can be true.

They are both true , you are over estimateing the effacacy of personal and luggage search. Lets sit a group of airport secrity persons through the Steve McQueen calssic "Papillon" just before you get your search.

[hnumpah]

The box cutter is a metal blade with a distinct outline which would show up on any routine X-ray.  Had the X-rays been supplemented with U.S. marshalls or other on-board security, the entire attack would have been easily foiled.

Ever see the display of an airport x-ray of a carry-on bag (which is where I suspect you expect him to carry the box cutter, since people don't get x-rayed)? Let's see, throw in an electric razor, MP3 player, batteries, toiletries, CD player, CDs, travel alarm clock, et cetera and so on and so forth, and it makes for a pretty messy picture on the screen. Now imagine the very slim outline of a six inch long box cutter turned on edge and how difficult that would be to spot on the display...

It's not as easy as you would think.

[Amianthus]

Ever see the display of an airport x-ray of a carry-on bag (which is where I suspect you expect him to carry the box cutter, since people don't get x-rayed)? Let's see, throw in an electric razor, MP3 player, batteries, toiletries, CD player, CDs, travel alarm clock, et cetera and so on and so forth, and it makes for a pretty messy picture on the screen. Now imagine the very slim outline of a six inch long box cutter turned on edge and how difficult that would be to spot on the display...

It's not as easy as you would think.

And, of course, what Mikey fails to mention is that weapons were found stashed on board other airplanes on 9/11 (Time magazine, 9/22/01 - no longer available online). So, apparently there were a number of accomplices working in secured areas who could stash weapons on board a number of different flights, and the terrorists just had to know which flights already had weapons stashed on board, and where they were located. They didn't have to smuggle them through security, because they were already on the planes.

[The_Professor]

<<Didn't this actually happen? >>

Of course it didn't.  If it had happened, nobody could have boarded the flights armed with box-cutters.  Especially not four to a plane, on four planes.

<<What makes an actuall event a straw man?>>

I said Bush failed to protect the planes and the passengers.
You said, it would have been tough to set up security that would have screened out 19 young men with clean criminal records.
That was the straw man - - should Bush have been able to prevent the entry into America of the 19 hijackers?   That wasn't in issue.  Bush's failure was not that he failed to prevent these guys getting into the country or even getting to the airport.  That's the straw man.  Bush's failure was that he had 8 months to enhane airline safety and failed miserably.  Simple X-ray screening would have detected the box-cutters.  Procedures now in place which Bush never gave a minute's thought to would have prevented all the hijackings.  And the Air Force failure to shoot down the jets - - I spoke to an air traffic controller who says that in the first five minutes of take-off  it would have been apparent the planes were deviating from their courses and could have been challenged and shot down.  No one scrambled the fighters until way too late.

<<Tighten the security of airports all you want ,there isn't anything that you can actually do at the airport that would have stopped Mohammed Atta and company. >>

Ridiculous.  Absurd.  Guys with box-cutters shouldn't be able to get on now, and if they CAN, it just means that Bush is still fucking up almost eight years into the job.

<< . . . and there especialy was nothing to do that the public would have accepted without the 9-11 attack in the past.>>

The PUBLIC?  The public doesn't accept the war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop Bush and Cheney.  What the fuck would the public have to do with it?  The leader leads.  Period.  He sells it to them like he sold the war.

"The PUBLIC?  The public doesn't accept the war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop Bush and Cheney.  What the fuck would the public have to do with it?  The leader leads.  Period.  He sells it to them like he sold the war."

Agreed. However, sometimes the public has a nasty habit of deciding for itself what is appropriate. Anything other than what happened to Afghanistan, for example, would not have been tolerable. People wanted BLOOD.

[sirs]

Ever see the display of an airport x-ray of a carry-on bag (which is where I suspect you expect him to carry the box cutter, since people don't get x-rayed)? Let's see, throw in an electric razor, MP3 player, batteries, toiletries, CD player, CDs, travel alarm clock, et cetera and so on and so forth, and it makes for a pretty messy picture on the screen. Now imagine the very slim outline of a six inch long box cutter turned on edge and how difficult that would be to spot on the display...It's not as easy as you would think.

And, of course, what Mikey fails to mention is that weapons were found stashed on board other airplanes on 9/11 (Time magazine, 9/22/01 - no longer available online). So, apparently there were a number of accomplices working in secured areas who could stash weapons on board a number of different flights, and the terrorists just had to know which flights already had weapons stashed on board, and where they were located. They didn't have to smuggle them through security, because they were already on the planes.

But....but....It happened on Bush's watch, so it's his fault.  It just is

[Michael Tee]

<<But....but....It happened on Bush's watch, so it's his fault.  It just is>>

Well, if it isn't Bush's responsibility, whose is it?  Mine?  These arguments against his obvious fuck-up are becoming increasingly lame.  First by pretending that stashed razor blades as opposed to passenger-smuggled blades are impossible to guard against.  Total security on the planes would have envisaged access to the planes by all persons, passengers just being a part of the total equation.  Guarding against other persons accessing the planes is even simpler than passengers, since the workers can be surveilled and subjected to stricter controls than the passengers.  Regular pre-flight sweeps of the planes with X-rays or other metal-detecting devices, controlled access by workers who are subject to 24-hour video surveillance, controls requiring them to shower and don controlled uniforms before accessing the planes, etc.  And on-board marshalls, early detection and shoot-down procedures for rogue aircraft, etc.

The buck stops with the Chief Executive and the Chief Executive fucked up.  End of story.

[Plane]

<<But....but....It happened on Bush's watch, so it's his fault.  It just is>>

Well, if it isn't Bush's responsibility, whose is it?  Mine?  These arguments against his obvious fuck-up are becoming increasingly lame.  First by pretending that stashed razor blades as opposed to passenger-smuggled blades are impossible to guard against.  Total security on the planes would have envisaged access to the planes by all persons, passengers just being a part of the total equation.  Guarding against other persons accessing the planes is even simpler than passengers, since the workers can be surveilled and subjected to stricter controls than the passengers.  Regular pre-flight sweeps of the planes with X-rays or other metal-detecting devices, controlled access by workers who are subject to 24-hour video surveillance, controls requiring them to shower and don controlled uniforms before accessing the planes, etc.  And on-board marshalls, early detection and shoot-down procedures for rogue aircraft, etc.

The buck stops with the Chief Executive and the Chief Executive fucked up.  End of story.

It is the responsibility of the guys that did it , and those that supported it , and those that approved of it.

President Bush has been doing the right thing , not meeting an impossible standard ,but doing practcal things that have been effective.

It really is impossible to make anywhere totally secure , but to show that the rsult of a successfull attack is a return attack with plenty of interest is quite doable.

[sirs]

<<But....but....It happened on Bush's watch, so it's his fault.  It just is>>

Well, if it isn't Bush's responsibility, whose is it?  Mine?  ....

It is the responsibility of the guys that did it , and those that supported it , and those that approved of it.

BINGO !!