how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to wifi4milez
Re: Don't expect anything to really change said by wifi4milez:I am not sure if I am following you, as the terrorists have dramatically increased their attempts since 2001. I assume by your comments that you arent aware of how many terrorist attacks have been foiled over the past 8 years. The publicly available data (news bureaus, papers, tv, etc.) lists multiple accounts of this happening. One can only imagine that there are countless other events that have occurred that are still classified. Real simple: if you've got a better than 60% failure-rate at finding bombs, then it's pretty safe to say that the only reason a jet hasn't been blotted out of the sky is because no one has bothered to try. There's similar failure rates for detecting objects that could be used to hijack a plane. It's a number that hasn't exactly been improving, in spite of "remedial training".
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell | |
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by nixen:said by wifi4milez:I am not sure if I am following you, as the terrorists have dramatically increased their attempts since 2001. I assume by your comments that you arent aware of how many terrorist attacks have been foiled over the past 8 years. The publicly available data (news bureaus, papers, tv, etc.) lists multiple accounts of this happening. One can only imagine that there are countless other events that have occurred that are still classified. Real simple: if you've got a better than 60% failure-rate at finding bombs, then it's pretty safe to say that the only reason a jet hasn't been blotted out of the sky is because no one has bothered to try. There's similar failure rates for detecting objects that could be used to hijack a plane. It's a number that hasn't exactly been improving, in spite of "remedial training". I totally agree that the TSA is a bunch of bumbling morons, and I agree that with regards to airline safety we have been largely lucky. I was referring to larger scale terrorist attacks that have been disrupted, I should have clarified that. I personally think that the TSA should be disbanded, all the employees fired, and the airports should instead be staffed with military personnel (national guard, etc.) who are carrying M16's. This would have numerous benefits, all of which are good. First, terrorists would think twice about pulling anything when they are faced with armed men in camo at the baggage screening area. Secondly, it would save the country millions (billions?) as we are already paying the soldiers/guardsmen/etc. for their services.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
 bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly SkiesPremium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | I admire and praise your general sentiment, but must rain a little on your parade. You will never see Federal Military (ie. Active Duty/Reserves) in that position as it is illegal and against the intention of the military and Constitution. You MAY see Nat'l Guard as their job (as stated by Constitution) is to defend the home front. As to them already being paid, they are not paid unless activated, like training weekends or deployed worldwide. So, you aren't saving any money there, unless you pull them back from "over there". and if you do THAT, then you place more stress on an overly stressed military trying to cope with 2 war fronts and overseas basing requirements.
As for the intention of Pres. Obama bringing the troops home? I believe that if it is done too quickly (ie. not listening VERY closely to the Generals on the ground) then we will just be going back over there or facing another Afghanistan(Taliban moved in after Russia moved out and we didn't support any pro-capitalism factions)
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | said by bear73:I admire and praise your general sentiment, but must rain a little on your parade. You will never see Federal Military (ie. Active Duty/Reserves) in that position as it is illegal and against the intention of the military and Constitution. You MAY see Nat'l Guard as their job (as stated by Constitution) is to defend the home front. As to them already being paid, they are not paid unless activated, like training weekends or deployed worldwide. So, you aren't saving any money there, unless you pull them back from "over there". and if you do THAT, then you place more stress on an overly stressed military trying to cope with 2 war fronts and overseas basing requirements. I am not so sure about that. It is illegal for the military to do police duties, however I dont think working in the airport constitutes that. There are always a few troops in the airports now, I wonder what status they have (active, reserve, guard, etc.). In either case, I would rather pay a reserve to man the baggage screening machine at the airport (in camo with a gun) any day over the idiots the TSA employs.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
|
