On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:17:46 -0400, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

> Representative government
>means just that; *my* Senator or Congressman should reflect
>*my* concerns, not the citizens of France. If he does,
>then he pays the political price for not doing what *I*
>want him to do.

Well, I hope most of his constituents want him not act as if the US is
in a world of its own.

To be more specific, maybe every poster on rta isn't entitled to have
his beliefs stated and considered by the US government but I believe
governments should have a voice in how their citizens are treated at
immigration in other countries. Freedom travel is essential to getting
business done and I personally think it's right up there with other
major human freedoms. In that sense your congressman should indeed
consider the concerns of the gov't of France and a bunch of other
countries.

"tadaa" > wrote in :

>> >> Shooting the crims was a public service.
>> >
>> > Well I think that Government should take more active role in this
>> > to make
>> > the country more secure so there is no need to arm everyone just in
>> > case.
>>
>> And they all realistically admit that they cannot and do not provide
>> individual protection for any citizen.The police cannot be everywhere
>> at all times.
>>
>> So,practically speaking,you are on your own.It's just a matter of
>> what level of defensive weaponry your government allows you to have.
>>
>> Note that the criminals are NOT likewise restricted.
>
> I'm not proposing a bodyguard to every citizen. More in line of making
> the society safer and tackling the source of the problem. Poverty,
> unemployment, drugs etc.

I don't know of any country that has a handle on poverty,unemployment or
drugs.Do you?


> If I lived in Baghdad I would definately get a firearm, but that
> should not be the case in modern western country. If you really need
> firearms to defend yourself there is something to be fixed.


Like there are NO crimes in Finland? No murders,no rapes,no robberies,no
burglaries,no assaults?
Individuals have widely differing security needs.A free society recognizes
that,and allows it's citizens the means and the right to defend themselves.






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

nobody wrote:
>
> But if a government captures your own body's information
> (fingerprints, DNA, eye retina scan etc), then they "own"
> part of your body/identity.

Ahhh, those commies are trying to affect the "purity of my vital bodily
fluids". **

(** General Jack D. Ripper - from Dr. Strangelove.)

Peter Kemp > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik >
> wrote:
>
>>Peter Kemp > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby >
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at the
>>>>wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done
>>>>since).
>>>
>>> Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
>>> mouldering in his grave after being murdered? Or the other one (and
>>> I can't recall any violent convicitons for him either) whose is
>>> admittedly a miserable git?
>>
>>Why are you so concerned about criminals shot while committing a
>>crime,and not for the poor guy who suffered repeated burglaries?
>
> Two reasons, because in the UK burglarly doesn't carry a death penalty

Does the UK have the death penalty for any crime?


> without trial, especially when there was no risk to life or limb, and
> I have not a huge amount of sympathy for someone who shot a teenager
> in the back using an illegal weapon he obtained for that express
> purpose. I have sympathy for his previous burglaries, but consider
> that human life is somewhat more valuable than property. I suspect we
> disagree.

I don't consider ALL human life as being more valuable than -my-
property.Some people aren't worth the air they breathe.


>
>>Shooting the crims was a public service.
>
> Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.

Shooting a person is not always a death sentence,often the criminals are
merely wounded,and apprehended while seeking medical treatment for gunshot
wounds.But it's their choice,their risk.


One has to draw the line somewhere;the guy should not have to suffer
repeated burglaries,and he HAD tried the police with no effect.I don't
believe in "career criminals" either;there should be some point at which
the "career criminal" loses their life,rather than have them continue their
life of crime,or live comfortably in prison,at the citizen's expense.If you
don't want to get shot,don't commit burglaries.Let the criminals bear the
risks,not the ordinary decent citizens.Your way just protects the criminals
in the commission of their crimes,in essence enabling them.When such
burglaries becomes too risky,burglaries decrease,a public
service.Burglaries cost everyone money.

> What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

Kind of hard to hit the target from a moving platform,and stray rounds
would negatively impact others.And 'speeding' is a relative
term,anyways.IMO,not always a crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > "Big Brother" is not restricted to totalitarian regimes. Again, being a
> > democracy, does it make it better that they take photos and fingerprints
> > from everybody?
>
> But I don't see you complaining about the *real* Big Brother problem of
> all of the security cameras in England...

I don't consider that a particular problem, since they aren't
automatically tracking my whereabouts. It is no worse than the systems
already in place in the US. Have you looked at the ceiling in your
local Walmart to see how many cameras they have?

The problem I have with taking fingerprints is that they are
specifically using them to track people, and marry up to central
databases of info on what I read in libraries, who I send Emails to, and
what I purchase with my credit card. That is a much more insidious
agenda than simply replacing the beat policeman's eyes with a camera.

> > Good idea. Let's all pass out assault weapons so the terrorists can get
> > hold of them more easily. And don't register them, so you can't find
> > them.
>
> Another fool who thinks that outlawing and/or registering firearms will
> keep criminals and terrorists from getting them...

My intent was to expose the inconsistency in your argument. You have no
problem with the government tracking peoples movements and maintaining a
database on your activities, but complain about the simple registration
of firearms, when you acknowledge that is a waste of time.

Peter Kemp > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 02:17:41 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Peter Kemp > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 21:47:07 GMT, Chad Irby >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article >,
>>> > Peter Kemp > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >...in the dark, in the wee hours of the morning, in a remote area,
>>> >when the police wouldn't do much of anything...
>>>
>>> Which is a policing problem, not a legal one.
>>
>>So your claim is that people can't police their own homes, but the
>>police don't have to, either? No wonder the crime rate's going up so
>>fast over there.
>
> No, I never claimed the police are not responsible for policing.
>
> For the last time - in the UK you are entitled to use *reasonable
> force* to defend *your life*, not your property, and if you have the
> chance to run, then you should.

No,you should not have to flee a criminal,regardless of whether it's a
property theft or a act of violence.That's simply protecting crimminals
more than ODCs.
>
>>> >Nice of you folks to protect violent burglars like that (look at
>>> >the wonderful followups of what the "victimized" burglar has done
>>> >since).
>>>
>>> Which one - the one without *any* violent convictions who is
>>> mouldering in his grave after being murdered?
>>
>>"Murdered" suggests some sort of innocence.
>
> Not really. If I walk up to a drug dealer and shoot him, it;s still
> murder if it's premeditated and not self defence. The fact he's a git
> has nothing to do with it.

How about if he's shooting up one of your kids? There is such a thing as
justifiable homicide.

>
> In this case it was * very* premeditated (obtaining an illegal shotgun
> for the purpose), and it's hard to claim self defence when you shoot
> someone who didn't threaten you and whom is running away.
>
>>If he didn't want to risk
>>his life, he shouldn't have committed the crime. Ranks right up there
>>with idiots who get killed doing other stupid things, like walking on
>>railroad tracks. I can't believe you're defending a criminal who died
>>while committing a potentially-violent crime.
>
> I'm not, I'm criticising the bugger who shot him. There is a
> difference.
>
>>> Or the other one (and I can't recall any violent convicitons for him
>>> either) whose is admittedly a miserable git?
>>
>>Well, aside from being a drug dealer who *did* have a bad history,
>>there's no particular reason to want that sort of asshole running
>>around. Or do you really think these two saints would have left the
>>old guy alone if he *hadn't* been armed?
>
> No, they would have burgled the house and no one would have been hurt.

And just how does one be certain of that? Until after the burglary is over
and no one is harmed,it's solely up to the criminal.Things can change very
rapidly.Why should a ODC have to take such risks? To protect a lousy
criminal? No.Let the criminal bear the risks.


> I tend to believe that human life is more valuabel than mere
> possesions.

Not all human life.The right to own property is a basic human freedom.
Having to allow others to take that property without due process is anti-
freedom.It's also cowardly.

Certainly nothing I own is worth more than my life.
Except your life -is- at risk during a burglary.There IS a threat implied
by the burglar;leave me to take your possessions or suffer physical
harm.The burglar could decide to not leave any witnesses,could take a
liking to your pretty daughter or wife,or maybe want the ring that will not
come off your wife's finger,and he's willing to hack it off with a knife.

That's
> what is insurance is for.

Insurance costs everyone.
IOW,you're willing to spread the costs of your tolerance for crime to
everyone else.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Peter Kemp > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:01:21 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik >
> wrote:


>
>>Shooting the crims was a public service.
>
> Nice to see you approve of the death sentance for petty criminals.
> What next, drive-by shootings for speeding?

You obviously don't know the difference between a civil traffic violation
and a felony crime.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> Well the US and Europe are going their separate ways. I'm hoping
> the divorce is a rapid one personally, and certainly better for
> both I've come to believe.

There is an old saying that people who fail to learn from history are
destined to repeat it.

In the case of isolationism, the US has tried that numerous times
before, and has thoroughly regretted it each time. You had better
rethink you position.

George Z. Bush wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George Z. Bush wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You might be right if the world was driven only by political idealogies.
>>>Unfortunately, we live in a global economy, like it or not, and it'll be a
>
> very
>
>>>cold day in hell when US corporations divorce themselves from their
>>>international trading partners. Don't hold your breath waiting for it to
>>>happen, 'cause it's not going to happen any time soon.
>>
>>Absolutely true. I was speaking only in a political alliance
>>sense.
>>
>>The business world is global and there's no getting around it,
>>nor should we want to. I'm all for businesses fighting it out
>>around the world, but no American blood or treasure to keep
>>some government in power or feeling secure; that means S.
>>Korea, Taiwan, Japan or even UK if it came to such a thing.
>>
>>It means no NATO, WTF, IMF, World Bank or whatever. UN is OK
>>for debating practice.
>>
>>Back to good old George Washington's admonition, "no entangling
>>foreign alliances".
>
>
> That'd be peachy keen in his day, when it took a couple of months to cross the
> Atlantic, but now it's only a couple of hours via SST. The world has changed,
> and no one has yet discovered how to make the clock run backwards in order for
> us to not have to make adjustments.
>
> George Z.

Not quite that bad. Now that they've junked the SSTs it's a safer
place. Still hours but a reasonable number of them. FFM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> In message >, Stephen Harding
> writes
>>I have no intention of shooting anyone.
>
> Agree fully with Stephen on this: back when I was a pistol shooter I
> cheerfully massacred hordes of cardboard silhouettes with no intention
> of finding live targets, and that applied to everyone I knew who shot:
> we enjoyed socialising while turning live rounds into empty cases, and
> trying to improve our grouping or our course times or both.
>
>> Massachusetts
>>law doesn't let you off the hook if you shoot someone
>>that has broken into your home. You are required to
>>leave the premises if escape is possible.
>
> As a side note, in the UK "duty of retreat" doesn't apply in your home:
> you're allowed to use whatever means are reasonable and necessary to
> defend yourself if attacked there.
>
>

Yes,it's just the definition of "reasonable and necessary" that's
questionable,arbitrary,and vague.

IMO,once they're in my home,they're a threat to my life.
You cannot consider it otherwise,there's always that possibility.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article >,
Peter Kemp > wrote:

> And in case you hadn't noticed, there's a difference in MY doctor
> knowing my medical records and not being able to hand them to the
> authorities without a court order (just like the US in fact), and a
> government not my own wanting my prints in case I someday do
> something naughty.
>
> Too subtle for you?

No, just too paranoid for me.

And that's going some.

I'm still waiting for the Evil Things that you think the US could do
with your prints.

"Well, they could *keep* them! And file them! And... and... someone
could look them up some day and find out that I, er, had *fingerprints!"

....but having your passport number and address, travel dates, video
images (from all of those London video cameras), and the like is no big
deal, for some reason...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tracking people ***doing*** what ??? The real point is being evaded...

Who cares if a policeman observes you cross the street if you're not
jaywalking???

Tim K

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > "Big Brother" is not restricted to totalitarian regimes. Again,
being a
> > > democracy, does it make it better that they take photos and
fingerprints
> > > from everybody?
> >
> > But I don't see you complaining about the *real* Big Brother problem
of
> > all of the security cameras in England...
>
> I don't consider that a particular problem, since they aren't
> automatically tracking my whereabouts. It is no worse than the
systems
> already in place in the US. Have you looked at the ceiling in your
> local Walmart to see how many cameras they have?
>
> The problem I have with taking fingerprints is that they are
> specifically using them to track people, and marry up to central
> databases of info on what I read in libraries, who I send Emails to,
and
> what I purchase with my credit card. That is a much more insidious
> agenda than simply replacing the beat policeman's eyes with a camera.
>
> > > Good idea. Let's all pass out assault weapons so the terrorists
can get
> > > hold of them more easily. And don't register them, so you can't
find
> > > them.
> >
> > Another fool who thinks that outlawing and/or registering firearms
will
> > keep criminals and terrorists from getting them...
>
> My intent was to expose the inconsistency in your argument. You have
no
> problem with the government tracking peoples movements and maintaining
a
> database on your activities, but complain about the simple
registration
> of firearms, when you acknowledge that is a waste of time.

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
> When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
> question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
> what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
> for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.

Kind of like how the US left countries like Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile,
Argentina, Grenada, Egypt, and many others, to chart their own course
when they were democracies?

> > Then why do other countries not need finger prints?
>
> Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
> US is? Every whacko prefers to go after number one, and
> that would be the US.

The policies of the Bush government have only increased that likelihood,
by acting unilaterally, and in continuing the biased treatment of Arab
countries in the region. At one time the US had a moral standing in the
world that was envied. It was the belief that diplomacy was the most
important approach to a problem, and violence was only the last resort,
when all other peaceful avenues had been exhausted. The attack on Iraq
has eliminated that unique position, and lowered the US to the ranks of
other bullies around the world. It was so unnecessary, and it will take
many years to regain the confidence of the rest of the world.

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> Marie Lewis wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> >
> >>I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
> >>incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
> >>it a rather traumatic event here.
> >
> > Far more have been killed in Europe and over a longer period. Somehow, we
> > seem to be able n ot to get our knickers in such a twist as you, who thought
> > you were invulnerable.
> > I am sorry for those who lost loved ones: but I fear the over reaction is
> > both intrusive and useless in catching terrorists.
>
> Crapola! No one had experienced a 9/11 scale event!
>
> The Spanish were quite rightly traumatized by the 3/11
> experience that killed "only" 200, and they have had
> quite a bit of terrorist experience over the past 30
> years.

Let's see. When you consider the 3/11 deaths as a proportion of the
Spanish population, you come pretty close to the ratio of 9/11 to the US
population. It might not be at the same total, but would have a similar
effect on the views of the population. 3/11 becomes their day of infamy.

Beyond that, how do you think the Iraqis feel about the multiple attacks
on their country by the US leaving thousands dead and raining missiles
around their homes? That would be pretty traumatic, wouldn't it?
There's nothing like a battle on home soil.

> Your "long suffering Europe/what's the big deal USA"
> line doesn't carry much weight with me.

Your insensitivity to the effects of two world wars on the European
landscape is pretty obvious. The US has led a charmed existence for the
last hundred years, with no major wars fought on its home soil. It's no
reason to denigrate the people who have survived such things.

"Tim Kroesen" > schreef in bericht
link.net...
> Perhaps those critical to Americans should just 'go away' too...

You still don't get it. Nobody here is "critical to Americans". Many of us
are "critical to the current US government". There is a huge difference
between the two, as 75% of Americans are not guilty of electing the Bush
gang.

Sjoerd

Sjoerd; there's a ring around your eye from using that tired old trick
spy glass again... Do I really need to cite all the posts that don't
meet your own America/American bashing distinction???

Bottom line people; if you don't like America, Americans, or even our
visitation policies; stay home or go somewhere else. You expect the
same conduct from American tourists. Would I object to being
photographed and fingerprinted to visit Amsterdam next month; of course
NOT. Netherlands have the same rights to know who crossed their borders
as America does and I damn well have nothing to hide.

Should I then subsequently be singled out for additional scrutiny as I
cross other European borders if my passport was stamped; possibly; but
that goes with traveling to a well known drug liberal country and
culture, now doesn't it...

Tim K

"Sjoerd" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim Kroesen" > schreef in bericht
> link.net...
> > Perhaps those critical to Americans should just 'go away' too...
>
> You still don't get it. Nobody here is "critical to Americans". Many
of us
> are "critical to the current US government". There is a huge
difference
> between the two, as 75% of Americans are not guilty of electing the
Bush
> gang.
>
> Sjoerd
>
>

john wrote:

>I don't believe that the CIA and FBI had hardly enough Arab
>translators.
>
>

You don't have to believe, I've read that in the NYT, Washington Post,
Chicago Tribune, Daily Oregonian and heard it on CNN, FNC, MSNBC.

gld

In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:
>> As a side note, in the UK "duty of retreat" doesn't apply in your home:
>> you're allowed to use whatever means are reasonable and necessary to
>> defend yourself if attacked there.
>
>Yes,it's just the definition of "reasonable and necessary" that's
>questionable,arbitrary,and vague.

....which is interpreted by a jury of your peers if necessary. It's
worked for the last seven hundred years or so (there's case law going
back to the 1300s). A basic rule of thumb is "hurt them until they run
away, then stop unless they turn back".

>IMO,once they're in my home,they're a threat to my life.
>You cannot consider it otherwise,there's always that possibility.

No problem: you just need to raise a reasonable doubt on those lines in
the minds of the jury. If Fred Barras had been shot in the chest then
Tony Martin would probably have been acquitted.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

nobody wrote:

>It was announced that the guy arrested in Canada was allegedly arrested based
>solely on some USA NSA intercepts in the middle east that did not involve him.
>(i.e. absolutely no evidence).
>
>

I haven't seen an update on this story on cbc.ca/news or globeandmail.ca
since the weekend.

Sounds like somebody had the same name as a criminal ... I read in the
NYT a year ago
about a Canadian man from Montreal, age 55, barred from a niece's
wedding in the US
because he had the same name as a 29 year old convicted car thief from
Vancouver, BC!
And he had a very common name, Ben Harrison or something like that.

>To me, this is in the same league as the famous "intelligence" that forced
>calcellation of AF and BA flights because of 5 year olds having the wrong name.
>
>

And a Welsh insurance agent, and a naturalized French citizen, elderly
woman,
who owns Chinese restaurants in her adopted country.

On top of that, an Indian CEO who booked a frequent flier seat to retain
his points;
his first and middle name, Abdul Haq, is similar to a Taliban figure who
was part of
a 55 person jail break in Kandahar last autumn.

gld

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 01:31:21 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
> wrote:
>
> >"Marie Lewis" > wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>In my country UK) fingerprints mean you are suspected of having
committed a
> >>crime.
> >>That is why we object.
> >>
> >Doesn't your military fingerprint it's members?...they do in
> >Canada...
>
> Yup, all UK military are fingerprinted and DNA'd, to aid in
> identification should you snuff it in the line....
>
> Speaking for myself though, I work for the UK government, carry a
> clearence, and have neither been printed, nor polygraphed, unlike my
> US colleagues, and if I have to give my prints to any government
> without having been even accused of a crime, it'll be mine first. And
> Mr. Blunkett will have to give a damn good reason for it.
> ---
> Peter Kemp


Hurrah! Well said.

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:
>
> > Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
> > extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.
>
> Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just a
> convenient word to make it sound otherwise.
>
> No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.
>
>
>
The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing in the
USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"

ML

Here in rec.travel.air,
"Marie Lewis" > spake unto us, saying:

>The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing
>in the USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"

The majority of people that I know in my area of the US are simply not
in agreement with many of the current administration's policies, and
some are in very strong disagreement.

I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:07:10 -0500, (Richard
Steiner) wrote:

>Here in rec.travel.air,
>"Marie Lewis" > spake unto us, saying:
>
>>The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing
>>in the USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"
>
>The majority of people that I know in my area of the US are simply not
>in agreement with many of the current administration's policies, and
>some are in very strong disagreement.
>
>I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
>as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

It is the impression that one gets. Maybe in other democracies people
express their dissatisfaction with their governments more
vociferously.
--==++AJC++==--

"nobody" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > Since you missed it, the reason for the fingerprinting is to
> > enhance national security. You know, that 9/11 thing.
>
> It gives the illusion of enhancing security. Secondly, and more
importantly
> GET OVER IT. 9-11 was many years ago. Yeah, 3000 were killed that day and
it
> was a calamity. You should remember the human suffering and awfull images
of
> the day instead of focusing on revenge.
>
> Secondly, when you look at Irak, the USA invaded the country illegally (UN
> definitions are very clear: there are only 2 valid reasons to attack
another
> country: if it attacks you, or if there is a UN security council
resolution
> granting you the right to invade that country.) Neither of those happened
so
> the USA invaded it illegally.
>
> In doing so, the USA has not only added about 700 americans to the number
of
> dead as a result of 9-11, but also killed about 10,000 Irakis during the
war.
>
> How many more will need to die before your need for revenge is fulfilled ?
>
>
> > And you
> > might as well get used to the idea too. Biometric passports
> > are on the way, as soon as some kind of biometric standard can
> > be agreed upon. Fingerprints, retinal scans, DNA, whatever.
>
> The keyword here is "can be agreed upon". As soon as the fear mongering
Bush
> regime is ousted within the next 4 years, it is far more likely that some
> system garanteeing data security could be agreed upon. (for instance, your
> prints are not in passport but rather in your home country, and the
receiving
> country would send your information to your home country for verification
and
> would only get "YES" or "NO" with a garantee that the receiving country
will
> NOT hold your biometric information.
>
> The same way that merchants who accept EFTPOS transactions are garanteed
not
> to hold/capture your PIN number.
>
> > I realize 3000 people, largely Americans, killed in a terror
> > incident probably doesn't effect you too much, but we consider
> > it a rather traumatic event here.
>
> Why then do you consider not dramatic that your own government has
illegally
> invaded another country unnecessarily ("we told you so") and has killed
about
> 700 of your won citizens unnecessarily, as well as ten thousands innocent
> Irakis ?
>
> Al Queda made no pretentions about being a civilised organisation. The USA
> pretends to be civilised. It must be held to higher standards than Al
Queda.
>
> > Isn't the UK supposed to start issuing national ID cards soon?
> > You must be in a tizzy!
>
> There is nothing wrong with a national ID card. A government already has
all
> that information on you. But you are protected as a citizen of the country
> that holds your information. You are not protected if that information is
sent
> to some foreign antion that has no data privacy laws.
>
> Example: if to launch a nuclear missile, a general must put his thumb on a
> reader, do you think that he will agree to have his prints taken when he
> travels to a foreign country for vacation ?
>
> > Perhaps because they aren't targets of terror the way the
> > US is?
>
> Ever wondered WHY you are such a target ? Hint, it isn't because you
aren't
> muslim, as your media like to make you think.

I am no longer reading or answering posts from that idiot Harding, so thank
you for your reasoned and logical replies.
He really is so prejudiced and illogical that one cannot waste one's time on
him. You have the patience to explain to him. I admire that. However,
his knowledge, like so many of his compatriots (thankfully, not all) is
limited and chauvinist. I fear one cannot argue with such people.

"The Reids" > wrote in message
...
> Following up to The Reids
>
> >>I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
> >>at least a fairly large subset of them!
> >
> >f*** off out of travel europe then
> >--
>
> sorry, that's excessively impolite, please go away.

On pourrair peut-etre lui dire de nous foutre la paix?

"Tim Kroesen" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Perhaps those critical to Americans should just 'go away' too...
>
> Tim K

Well, that is certainly what your government is after.

Some people cannot deal with any criticism.
In American schools there is far too mush "Show and Tell" and not nearly
ebough "Watch and Listen" I fear.
"Show and Tell" is just show off.

"Richard Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> Here in rec.travel.air,
> "Marie Lewis" > spake unto us, saying:
>
> >The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing
> >in the USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"
>
> The majority of people that I know in my area of the US are simply not
> in agreement with many of the current administration's policies, and
> some are in very strong disagreement.
>
> I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
> as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.
>
I am pleased to hear it. However, most Americans who post here are, indeed
chauvinist. Perhaps you could have a word with them?

And, unfortunately, were we so stupid as to visit the USA at present, it
would be against your elected (?) government's policies that we would
come up.

Following up to Richard Steiner

>The majority of people that I know in my area of the US are simply not
>in agreement with many of the current administration's policies, and
>some are in very strong disagreement.
>
>I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
>as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

the news we get is the election race is 50-50
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Marie Lewis

>> sorry, that's excessively impolite, please go away.
>
>On pourrair peut-etre lui dire de nous foutre la paix?

now, what did Marie just say about showing off?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids wrote:

> Following up to Richard Steiner
>
>>The majority of people that I know in my area of the US are simply not
>>in agreement with many of the current administration's policies, and
>>some are in very strong disagreement.
>>
>>I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
>>as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.
>
> the news we get is the election race is 50-50

The election is indeed looking to be another 50-50 vote, like 2000.

Furthermore, the infamous punch ballots ("hanging chads") are
still very likely going to be present in some voting districts!


SMH

Marie Lewis wrote:

> I am no longer reading or answering posts from that idiot Harding, so thank
> you for your reasoned and logical replies.
> He really is so prejudiced and illogical that one cannot waste one's time on
> him. You have the patience to explain to him. I admire that. However,
> his knowledge, like so many of his compatriots (thankfully, not all) is
> limited and chauvinist. I fear one cannot argue with such people.

And this gal feels all we need to do for world peace and harmony
is to discuss our differences and work together and all will be
well? She can't even handle a collision of ideas on a NG!

So much for liberal, honest disagreement and civil discourse.

Much more easily said than done.


SMH

James Robinson wrote:

> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>>There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
>>When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
>>question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
>>what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
>>for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.
>
> Kind of like how the US left countries like Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile,
> Argentina, Grenada, Egypt, and many others, to chart their own course
> when they were democracies?

Not certain when most of these listed countries were actual democracies,
but never mind.

> The policies of the Bush government have only increased that likelihood,
> by acting unilaterally, and in continuing the biased treatment of Arab
> countries in the region. At one time the US had a moral standing in the
> world that was envied. It was the belief that diplomacy was the most
> important approach to a problem, and violence was only the last resort,
> when all other peaceful avenues had been exhausted. The attack on Iraq
> has eliminated that unique position, and lowered the US to the ranks of
> other bullies around the world. It was so unnecessary, and it will take
> many years to regain the confidence of the rest of the world.

How could this be given "Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile, ..." listed above?


SMH

"The Reids" > wrote in message
...
> Following up to Marie Lewis
>
> >> sorry, that's excessively impolite, please go away.
> >
> >On pourrait peut-etre lui dire de nous foutre la paix?
>
> now, what did Marie just say about showing off?

Not showing off: there is nothing particularly remarkable about speaking
French.

Millions of people do that.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:07:10 -0500, Richard Steiner wrote:

> Here in rec.travel.air,
> "Marie Lewis" > spake unto us, saying:
>
>>The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing
>>in the USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"
>
> The majority of people that I know in my area of the US are simply not
> in agreement with many of the current administration's policies, and
> some are in very strong disagreement.
>
> I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
> as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

The thing is, it appears this administration is trying very hard to make
it that way: either you are with us or else.

Bringing back Mr. McCarthy I suppose?

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:01:28 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:
>>
>> > Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
>> > extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.
>>
>> Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just a
>> convenient word to make it sound otherwise.
>>
>> No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.
>>
>>
>>
> The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing in the
> USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"

That's not really what chauvinism is though.

Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
the universe. A belly button thing. Sure, beside France, there are a
number of parochial places like that, usually realtively large countries,
which the world is perceived as far away from. Among places where I lived
that felt like that, obvious places include Brazil and the US. With
France retaining its benchmark status of course.

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in
message ...
> The Reids wrote:
>
> > Following up to Richard Steiner
> >
> >>The majority of people that I know in my area
of the US are simply not
> >>in agreement with many of the current
administration's policies, and
> >>some are in very strong disagreement.
> >>
> >>I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of
the US are being portrayed
> >>as all lining up behind their leadership.
That simply isn't happening.
> >
> > the news we get is the election race is 50-50
>
> The election is indeed looking to be another
50-50 vote, like 2000.
>
> Furthermore, the infamous punch ballots
("hanging chads") are
> still very likely going to be present in some
voting districts!
>
>
> SMH
>

What's worse is the fact that the new electronic
voting machines are subject to software
manipulation, and the company (Diebold) that makes
the majority of them is a heavy contributor to
George W. Bush. The companies say that the
software is "proprietary" and not subject to
scrutiny. In addition, there is no paper trail in
most cases, so a recount is impossible. You have
to accept what the machines say. There were many
cases of highly questionable results in the
primary elections, like a district where lots of
people went to the polls but no votes were
recorded.

Some saint at Diebold leaked information on bugs
in their system to the media. That information
was posted on the web by others, but was quickly
pulled by Diebold (who acknowledged that the memos
were real.) At least one copy remains at:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1649419_comment.php#1653041

Tom

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:48:40 +0100, The Reids > wrote:

>Following up to Stephen Harding
>
>>I am coming around to absolutely despising Europeans, or
>>at least a fairly large subset of them!
>
>f*** off out of travel europe then

Well, we don't really want any europeans visiting the US, and
I doubt if very many Americans would want to visit europe. It
is therefore not a problem. If anyone visits the US they will
have to play by OUR rules.

Al Minyard

"Marie Lewis" > wrote:

>
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
>> In message >, "Gord
>> writes
>> >"Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>> >Doesn't your military fingerprint it's members?...they do in
>> >Canada...
>>
>
>I did not write this: I would not have put an apostrophe in "its."
>
>Marie Lewis
>
>
Of course you didn't Marie, you should learn how to decipher the
'right wedges' to tell who said what on usenet. If you care to
learn you'll find that a persons speech will have one more right
wedge (>) than his name does.

You're correct about the 'its', that was my error.
--

-Gord.

wrote:

> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>>
>>I did not write this: I would not have put an apostrophe in "its."
>
> Of course you didn't Marie, you should learn how to decipher the
> 'right wedges' to tell who said what on usenet. If you care to
> learn you'll find that a persons speech will have one more right
> wedge (>) than his name does.
>
> You're correct about the 'its', that was my error.

So are you a "lay at one's feet" or a "lie at one's feet"
kind o' guy, Gord?

(Assuming you caught the exchange of course. If you didn't
it really doesn't matter.)


SMH

Marie Lewis wrote:

> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:

>>>Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
>>>extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.
>>
>>Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just a
>>convenient word to make it sound otherwise.
>>
>>No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.

> The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing in the
> USA now: "my leader right or wrong!" ML

You see that mostly in the minority who supported him prior to his
selection. Those who opposed his selection are still pretty ****ed. FFM

AJC wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 04:07:10 -0500, (Richard
> Steiner) wrote:
>
>
>>Here in rec.travel.air,
>>"Marie Lewis" > spake unto us, saying:
>>
>>
>>>The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing
>>>in the USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"
>>
>>The majority of people that I know in my area of the US are simply not
>>in agreement with many of the current administration's policies, and
>>some are in very strong disagreement.
>>
>>I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
>>as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

> It is the impression that one gets. Maybe in other democracies people
> express their dissatisfaction with their governments more
> vociferously.

Oh the comments on Shrub's idiocy are pretty vociferous. Just not in
the streets. FFM

The Reids wrote:

> Following up to Richard Steiner
>
>
>>The majority of people that I know in my area of the US are simply not
>>in agreement with many of the current administration's policies, and
>>some are in very strong disagreement.
>>
>>I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
>>as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

> the news we get is the election race is 50-50

This far out any projections are silly. There are vast numbers of folks
who are working hard to elect anyone but shrub. Unfortunately some of
them support Nader which may let him slip into a tie. FFM

"Tim Kroesen" > schreef in bericht
link.net...
>
> Should I then subsequently be singled out for additional scrutiny as I
> cross other European borders if my passport was stamped; possibly; but
> that goes with traveling to a well known drug liberal country and
> culture, now doesn't it...

I am *from* that "well known drug liberal country and culture " and I can't
even remember when was the last time I even had to open my suitcase at
customs - let alone I had any "additional scrutiny" (and I do about 75
border crossings per year, most of which outside Europe). So I can only
conclude that your prejudices have replaced your brain again.

Sjoerd

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:01:28 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:
>
> >
> > "devil" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:
> >>
> >> > Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
> >> > extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.
> >>
> >> Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just
a
> >> convenient word to make it sound otherwise.
> >>
> >> No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing in
the
> > USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"
>
> That's not really what chauvinism is though.
>
> Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
> the universe..
>
>
Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of Napoleon,
right or wrong.

ML

Stephen Harding > wrote:

>George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>
>>>Sjoerd wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Stephen Harding" > schreef in bericht
>>>>
>>>>>One less anti-American Euro in line at the airport
>>>>>is fine with me.
>>>>
>>>>I am not an anti-American. I am an anti-American-current-government. And I
>>>>won't stay home, there are 100's of beautiful countries in the world to
>>>>discover where they won't fingerprint me. And should I miss typical American
>>>>stuff, I can always visit Canada. :-)
>>>
>>>You may have just insulted some Canadians with that
>>>comment ya know!
>>
>> OTOH, they might just be flattered. Why don't we let the Canadians speak for
>> themselves....I'm sure they can handle it without our help.
>
>Hey George, you're back!
>
>Hope all is well and look forward to arguing
>with you in the future!
>
>
>SMH

I echo Stephen's sentiment George and as to the other matter
above, I don't see a great deal of difference between us 'people
wise', our gov'ts handle some things differently but in general I
think we think pretty much alike...
--

-Gord.

S. Harding wrote:

>no American blood or treasure to keep
>some government in power or feeling secure; that means S.
>Korea, Taiwan, Japan or even UK if it came to such a thing.
>
>It means no NATO, WTF, IMF, World Bank or whatever.

>UN is OK
>for debating practice.
>
>Back to good old George Washington's admonition, "no entangling
>foreign alliances".

The attraction of making the US a large, economy size Sweden or Switzerland is
certainly powerful.
But you must consider that the withdrawal of the US from the world
political/military scene would leave a power vacuum. This would be filled by
another power--and not without serious disruptions and violence. A comparison
might be to what happened with the demise of Ottoman and Austria-Hungary power.
It's very likely the US would be drawn back onto the world military stage by
threats to its own security.
Right now, we are the 800 pound gorilla doing pretty much what we want to
preserve our own civilization, our leaders only worried about what we Americans
think about what they are doing. Bush worries about American voters turning
him out---not the UN or EU.
Also keep in mind the old rule that he who complains is without power. People
with power who don't like something don't bitch about it, they change it.
And remember that everybody carps about the boss.
The US is the boss of the world and has the power to change things it doesn't
like, should it choose to (remarkably, the US is such a benign boss that it
suffers quite a bit it doesn't like and could change--the US is no Soviet
Union, Nazi Germany, or even British Empire).
It's a nuisance being the top dog, endlessly having to go out and fight wolves
and coyotes to keep the sheep safe. But it's a lot better than being the cur
hiding under the porch and barking at every noise it hears, worrying that the
top dog is antagonizing monsters but also terrified that the top dog might get
sick of the whole business and leave it in charge, a responsibility it really
doen't want and can't handle.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:19:21 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews" > wrote:

>Marie Lewis wrote:
>
>> "devil" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:
>
>>>>Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
>>>>extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.
>>>
>>>Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just a
>>>convenient word to make it sound otherwise.
>>>
>>>No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.
>
>> The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing in the
>> USA now: "my leader right or wrong!" ML
>
>You see that mostly in the minority who supported him prior to his
>selection. Those who opposed his selection are still pretty ****ed. FFM

The president of the US was fairly elected in accordance with US laws.
Get over it. The fact that the french dislike us because of our economic,
military, and cultural "power" greatly exceeds theirs is a problem for
the french, not the US.

Al Minyard

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:39:44 -0400, Peter Kemp > wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:00:29 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>
>>Exactly. If you enter my home without my permission or other legal authorization
>>(Police, Fire Dept) you WILL be shot. And I am not stupid enough to "shoot to
>>wound". You will get a "double tap" at your center of mass, and I will "repeat as
>>necessary".
>
>Remind me not to visit you at home Al :-)
>
>Personally, I own 3 pistols, and yet my home defence plan is a
>baseball bat, with which I shall smash the bedroom window and leg it.
>I don;t know if a burglar is armed, so why the hell should I take the
>risk that he's a better shot than me? Call me a coward, but I don't
>like guns pointed in my direction.
>
>---
>Peter Kemp
>
>Life is short - drink faster

Well, I have shot all of my life, and competed in the US Practical
Shooting Association, so my aim is at least fair :-).

Al Minyard

It's not a matter of what you have to do to own a firearm (personal choice,
most would say) being compared with entering a country (a substantial amount
is done by business travellers with no choice...).

It's a matter of how much this will slow down the process, how the govt
intends to guarantee the security of the personal information, etc. etc.

Osama is getting exactly what he wanted, the US is seemingly clutching at
straws. How would fingerprints have stopped atta and his friends I wonder.



"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > James Robinson > wrote:
> >
> >>How do you feel about the registration of firearm?
> >
> > I don't approve of it.
> >
> > Note that over the last couple of years, firearms laws have been
> > *relaxing* across most of the US, with one of the sillier ones going
> > away this September (the Assault Weapons Ban).
>
> I live in Massachusetts, a state with some of the most
> strict gun laws in the country.
>
> I've had a pistol permit for years, and to get one, I've
> undergone background checks from local, state police and
> FBI. My picture and fingerprints are on file at all those
> locations. I have to repeat the procedure every 5 years
> to renew it (now at a cost of $100).
>
> I am automatically considered such a potential danger to
> society because of my interest in "plinking" with a hand
> gun, that even civil libertarians seem to have no problem
> with the procedure.
>
> Yet to filter potential terrorists from entry to the country
> via a 15 second on average, scan of finger prints is thought
> to represent a serious breach of civil liberty.
>
> I think anyone coming from Europe or the rest of the world,
> who truly feels this represents "big brother" or "police
> state America" best just stay home. I don't have much
> sympathy for them.
>
>
> SMH
>

Richard Steiner wrote:
> I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
> as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.

Why then are the media continuing the impression that there is a solid support
for the invasion of Iraq and all of the measures taken with the pretense that
they are to combat terrorism ?

If there were a significant portion of americans who are against the current
government, why then did the democrats support that government instead of
pointing out all the lies and mistakes/errors prior to the war beginning ?


When both the media and the opposition fail to challenge a government, it is
because there is solid support from the population. (and it is a self feeding
loop because the polutaion is then fed stuff the media choose to feed them,
and the media think that they reflect what the people think).

Following up to Marie Lewis

>Not showing off: there is nothing particularly remarkable about speaking
>French.
>
>Millions of people do that.

this is an english language ng.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids wrote:
> Following up to Marie Lewis
>
>
>>Not showing off: there is nothing particularly remarkable about speaking
>>French.
>>
>>Millions of people do that.
>
>
> this is an english language ng.

Nonsense. This is a multi-lingual newsgroup. Use
whatever language you like. Or in your case, Marie,
feel free to make pedantic grammar corrections
followed by egregious grammatical errors in any
language you almost understand.

In rec.travel.usa-canada Magda > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 01:36:48 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, devil >
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

> ... On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:55:36 +0000, Chad Irby wrote:
> ...
> ... > In article >,
> ... > AJC > wrote:
> ... >
> ... >> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:57:38 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> ... >>
> ... >> >...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> ... >> >checks in 99% of the countries in the world.
> ... >>
> ... >> You don't get out very much do you?
> ... >
> ... > I'm sure *you* don't, if you think US Customs and Immigration is bad,
> ... > compared to most places. Try any of the African nations, for example.
> ... > Or Russia.
> ...
> ... If that's the sort of company you feel the US should be compared with,
> ... well OK then.

> Qui se ressemble s'assemble. ;-))


Fait gaffe! Le clown a ta gauche commence a attacker le clown a ta droite! Nex

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 23:04:15 +0000, Kid E. Poole wrote:

> The Reids wrote:
>> Following up to Marie Lewis
>>
>>
>>>Not showing off: there is nothing particularly remarkable about speaking
>>>French.
>>>
>>>Millions of people do that.
>>
>>
>> this is an english language ng.
>
> Nonsense. This is a multi-lingual newsgroup. Use
> whatever language you like. Or in your case, Marie,
> feel free to make pedantic grammar corrections
> followed by egregious grammatical errors in any
> language you almost understand.

Which newsgroup are we specifically talking about here?

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> "Marie Lewis" wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > >
> > > > Still waiting for the high speed trains of USA...
> > >
> > > The distances are too long. Air travel is cheaper for that sort of
> > > range,
> >
> > And pollutes the planet in the usual US way.
>
> Actually, while a lot of people try to claim that, very few trains are
> that efficient. Most UK trains, for example, are *more* polluting, when
> you take electrical generation and coal use into account.

In comparison to aircraft, trains are significantly more efficient. UK
statistics show that aircraft use about 6000 BTU per passenger-mile,
while long distance trains use about 1550 BTU per passenger-mile. Those
are the actual numbers, not claims, and include electric generation
losses.

> All most trains do is *move* the pollution to places outside of the
> cities.

Given that trains are relatively efficient, and move pollution away from
populated areas, is that really so bad?

>The attraction of making the US a large, economy size Sweden or Switzerland
>is
>certainly powerful.
>But you must consider that the withdrawal of the US from the world
>political/military scene would leave a power vacuum. This would be filled by
>another power--and not without

>serious disruptions and violence. A comparison
>might be to what happened with the demise of Ottoman and Austria-Hungary
>power.
> It's very likely the US would be drawn back onto the world military stage by

Well this is basicly "the redistrubition of post WWII accumulated wealth" game
but accelerated because of scientific and technological advances.
If you and your potential adversaries have ability today to use HPM weapons as
tectonic and climatic weapons and if you know today that they (HPM) going to
render nuclear weapons useless,then must do something and very fast.
The Martialization of society might be one of the answers to face HPM weapon
threats and natural disasters.

Stephen Harding > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> "Marie Lewis" > wrote:
>>>
>>>I did not write this: I would not have put an apostrophe in "its."
>>
>> Of course you didn't Marie, you should learn how to decipher the
>> 'right wedges' to tell who said what on usenet. If you care to
>> learn you'll find that a persons speech will have one more right
>> wedge (>) than his name does.
>>
>> You're correct about the 'its', that was my error.
>
>So are you a "lay at one's feet" or a "lie at one's feet"
>kind o' guy, Gord?
>
>(Assuming you caught the exchange of course. If you didn't
>it really doesn't matter.)
>
>
>SMH

Yes Stephen, I remember reading where she "corrected" you about
that but I don't remember the context now and I don't see the
post upstream to check it out...
--

-Gord.

Quantum Foam Guy wrote:
>
> A very important point seems to be left out of this discussion: America is
> at war with an enemy that has attacked us on our soil.

So what does that have to do with Iraq? They never attacked the US, and
there was never any evidence to link them with Al Queda.

> During wartime, certain rules are established in order ensure our
> security as much as possible.

Let's round up all Arabs and put them in camps in Colorado. After all,
you can never be too sure.

> Once the war is over, those rules are lifted. If we didn't have
> moslem psychopaths trying to kill as many of our citizens as
> possible and we were still putting these security measures in
> place, I would agree that we shouldn't be doing so. But that's
> not the world we live in.

Ahh, that explains why I have to show my photo ID and boarding pass
three times just to get through the security line at Cleveland airport,
and why I have to show them to a TSA flunky in Houston just 20 feet
after I have passed through a computer check at Customs and Immigration
when I connect to a domestic flight. The process isn't out of control,
it's simply that a psychopath might cut into line ahead of me, and by
reading a name on a boarding pass and comparing it to the name on a
photo ID, he won't get away with it.

Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
>
> > Stephen Harding wrote:
> >
> >>There are many policy differences between the US and Europe.
> >>When you become an American citizen you can indeed ask that
> >>question, and use your freedoms to promote your ideas of
> >>what government should do. Until then, its an internal matter
> >>for the US to decide. Tough luck for you.
> >
> > Kind of like how the US left countries like Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile,
> > Argentina, Grenada, Egypt, and many others, to chart their own course
> > when they were democracies?
>
> Not certain when most of these listed countries were actual democracies,
> but never mind.

They were. In many cases, the newly-elected government was either
hostile to US economic interests, so the US arranged to get rid of them,
or supported US economic interests, so the US helped keep them in
office, even though they were thoroughly corrupt, and the population
wanted to boot them out. The US couldn't help but meddle in other
countries' political systems when it suited the government's purpose.

> > The policies of the Bush government have only increased that likelihood,
> > by acting unilaterally, and in continuing the biased treatment of Arab
> > countries in the region. At one time the US had a moral standing in the
> > world that was envied. It was the belief that diplomacy was the most
> > important approach to a problem, and violence was only the last resort,
> > when all other peaceful avenues had been exhausted. The attack on Iraq
> > has eliminated that unique position, and lowered the US to the ranks of
> > other bullies around the world. It was so unnecessary, and it will take
> > many years to regain the confidence of the rest of the world.
>
> How could this be given "Cuba, Iran, Honduras, Chile, ..." listed above?

There was a shift in policy over the last 40 years, where the US
intervened less an less on its own, instead working as part of NATO or
the UN. The attack on Afghanistan is a case in point.

The attack on Iraq, being essentially unilateral, without UN sanction,
is a step away from the more global strategy.

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> James Robinson > wrote:
>
> > High speed trains are effective in the range
> > of 200 to 500 miles. There are lots of large cities within that
> > distance. Just draw a circle around Chicago or Washington, and see how
> > many cities are enclosed. For that distance, trains have a lower
> > operating cost and aircraft. Don't just think of transcontinental
> > service, where aircraft have the advantage.
>
> But for the 200 to 500 mile range, people over here have *cars*, which
> gives them much more flexibility. And the continental US is 3000 miles
> across.

Nobody seriously suggests that trains would be competitive with aircraft
for 3000 miles.

In the 300 to 500 mile range, people won't necessarily want to drive
their cars if a train can make the trip in two or three hours, and at a
cost of say $50 each way. Europeans also have access to cars, and often
choose to take the train because of the convenience and speed. Between
Lyon and Paris, a distance of about 300 miles, the train has about 70%
of all traffic, including autos and air, even though there is a good
autoroute between the two cities, and ten daily non-stop flights.

> > > Any moron with a chunk of steel can knock a train off the tracks.
> >
> > > ... and as we've found out, trains are far too prone to sabotage.
> >
> > The terrorists just picked trains for their latest attack. Trains are
> > no more at risk than any other place where people congregate.
>
> But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.

Insanely? If they are so easy, why didn't the IRA, Basques, Red Army
Brigade, or Bader Meinhof take more advantage of that weakness?

> > The next attack might be in the lineup for tickets for Disney World,
> > at a shopping center during Christmas shopping, on a ferry boat, and
> > so on.
>
> Small areas, compared to even *one* short-distance train track.

Have you been on the Staten Island ferry lately?

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> Nobody seriously suggests that trains would be competitive with aircraft
> for 3000 miles.

Actually, people in this thread have. Look back a couple of days.

> > But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.
>
> Insanely? If they are so easy, why didn't the IRA, Basques, Red Army
> Brigade, or Bader Meinhof take more advantage of that weakness?

Not as flashy.

Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
high-return operations.

> > > The next attack might be in the lineup for tickets for Disney World,
> > > at a shopping center during Christmas shopping, on a ferry boat, and
> > > so on.
> >
> > Small areas, compared to even *one* short-distance train track.
>
> Have you been on the Staten Island ferry lately?

Nope, but unless they've bought new supertanker-sized ferries, they're
still pretty much limited to hitting them at two places on land, or
trying a water-launched attack (not as easy as it looks).

On the other hand, a 100 mile train track has one hundred linear miles
of potential target. There's no real way to get around that.

And while it takes some work to kill a plane or a ship, all it takes for
high-speed rail is to drop something heavy and solid on the tracks at
the right time, or break the tracks right before the train gets there.
Witness the German attack, which was just some steel pieces bolted to
the tracks (thank goodness the people who tried it underengineered their
fittings).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Richard Steiner wrote:

>I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
>as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.
>
>

You should search CNN.com on their polling data from the past year.
Or even on their broadcasts (notably Aaron Brown's NewsNight).
People pouring out bottles of French wine a year ago ... "freedom
fries" ... "French Laundry" in Sacramento, CA getting defaced (it's
owned by naturalized citizens from Lebanon, where they do speak
French). All those clever and witty quotes of Homer Simpson's
"cheese munching surrender monkeys".

Even now, the NYT and Washington Post articles have a tone that
Paris and Berlin need to make up with Washington ...

gld

Following up to Kid E. Poole

>> this is an english language ng.
>
>Nonsense. This is a multi-lingual newsgroup. Use
>whatever language you like. Or in your case, Marie,
>feel free to make pedantic grammar corrections
>followed by egregious grammatical errors in any
>language you almost understand.

of course, silly me! :-)
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:14:48 -0700, "Gary L. Dare"
> wrote:

>Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>>I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
>>as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.
>>
>>
>
>You should search CNN.com on their polling data from the past year.
>Or even on their broadcasts (notably Aaron Brown's NewsNight).
>People pouring out bottles of French wine a year ago ... "freedom
>fries" ... "French Laundry" in Sacramento, CA getting defaced (it's
>owned by naturalized citizens from Lebanon, where they do speak
>French). All those clever and witty quotes of Homer Simpson's
>"cheese munching surrender monkeys".
>
>Even now, the NYT and Washington Post articles have a tone that
>Paris and Berlin need to make up with Washington ...
>
>gld

Let me get this straight. Washington said we're going to invade Iraq
because of their WMDs, we want you to support us. Paris and Berlin
said, there are no WMDs, so we won't support your invasion. Washington
invaded Iraq, there were no WMDs, and now Washington wants Paris and
Berlin to make up? Americans must be falling off their chairs laughing
at their government!
--==++AJC++==--

Following up to AJC

>Americans must be falling off their chairs laughing
>at their government!

*should* be.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:46:09 +0100, The Reids
> wrote:

>Following up to AJC
>
>>Americans must be falling off their chairs laughing
>>at their government!
>
>*should* be.

How can they not be, given the evidence?
--==++AJC++==--

AJC wrote:
> >>Americans must be falling off their chairs laughing
> >>at their government!
> >
> >*should* be.
>
> How can they not be, given the evidence?

Because they beleive the spin made by the Bush regime and the USA media as
well as the Democrats and conveniently forget what the USA's true allies had
been telling it all along.

Where the UN failed in in the security council trying to pass a resolution
calling the invasion illegal the day after it began. The USA and UK would have
vetoed it, and it could have then gone to the general assembly for general vote.

Kofi Anan could have then gone on USA TV stating categorically that the USA
has absolutely no UN mandate to invade Iraq and that because Iraq had not
attacked the USA, there were no laws that would allow a country to
pre-emptively attack another. Anan may have lost his job next time his
mandante needs to be renewed by members (where the USA has a lot of
influence), but he may have had sufficient impact to make the US media and
the democratic party turn against the Bush regime.

But right now, nothing will be done until the US elections. And unless the
democrats really start to attack the Bush regime for its lies and mistakes on
Iraq, the regime will either be re=elected, or will be thrown out without any
impeachement or legal repercussiosn for their illegal actions and lies.

"The Reids" > wrote in message
...
> Following up to Marie Lewis
>
> >Not showing off: there is nothing particularly remarkable about speaking
> >French.
> >
> >Millions of people do that.
>
> this is an english language ng.
> --

Is it? What about people who do not speak English? Are they barred? Who
says so?

Here in rec.travel.air, nobody > spake unto us, saying:
>Richard Steiner wrote:
<
>> I find it somewhat shocking that citizens of the US are being portrayed
>> as all lining up behind their leadership. That simply isn't happening.
>
>Why then are the media continuing the impression that there is a solid
>support for the invasion of Iraq and all of the measures taken with the
>pretense that they are to combat terrorism ?

That would be an excellent question.

>If there were a significant portion of americans who are against the current
>government, why then did the democrats support that government instead of
>pointing out all the lies and mistakes/errors prior to the war beginning ?

It's one thing to tentatively go along with the initial invasion based
on the information available at the time (and also taking into account
the potential political backlash of not supporting the leader of the
country immediately after 9/11), and quite another to continue to agree
with the subseqent actions taken in Iraq by the current administration.

The actions in Iraq, the stated and perceived contexts in which those
actions were (and are) taken, and the available information about the
situation there both now and before the initial invasion have been in
constant flux over that entire period of time.

>When both the media and the opposition fail to challenge a government,
>it is because there is solid support from the population.

Many of the people I know who are against the current actions in Iraq
were actually supportive of them initially, but as time has gone on it
has become apparent that the current US administration was not exactly
forthright about the information it actually had at the time.

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

Richard Steiner wrote:
> It's one thing to tentatively go along with the initial invasion based
> on the information available at the time (and also taking into account
> the potential political backlash of not supporting the leader of the
> country immediately after 9/11),

Sorry, but the information available before the invasion was totally
worthless. I saw on February 5th, intelligence experts tear apart those
famouns "evidence" pieces presented to the UN by Powell. Now, had the
Democrats watched TV outside the USA, they would have seen those and would
have realised how the USA was embarking on such a false pretense for an invasion.

And all of the USA's shenenigans against the UN, not allowing the UN to
complete its work and going as far as actively discrediting Blix should have
been way enough ammunition for the Democrats to oppose the bush regime.

It would not have been hard for then to point to all the lies, lack of
evidence and the fact that Iraq was no threath to the USA, and most certaintly
not such an immediate threath requiring UN inspectors to widthdraw.

I am sorry, but there was NO EXCUSE for the democrats to support this. Had
there been sufficient opposition to the Bush regime, then those "right wing"
americans wouldn't have been able to label the "few" who opposed it as "unpatriotic".

I read that infamous "dossier" that had been made available on the British
govt's web site. Even I could see a total lack of real evidence in that
dossier which was made up of very old information of what they had found
before the UN destroyed or witnessed/verified destruction of the banned
weaponse during the 1990s. Then they go and pretend they are potentially all
still there ready to be fired within 45 minutes, with absoutely no evidence
that Iraq had actually rebuilt its factories etc.

Sorry, but again, I can't understand how anyone would have believed that this
constituted sufficient evidence that an urgent invasion was required.

The Bush regime may have dismissed its allies opposition to the invasion. But
why didn't the democrast meet with DeVillepin and others who opposed the USA
invasion to hear their side of the story and the french/german/russian
evidence that the USA evidence was faulty ?

No, the democrats didn't want to be labeled unpatriotic and made damned sure
nonbody saw the other side of the coin. Kerry is in a way a liability to the
democrats because he support the war crimes commited by the USA. And lets not
get into Gantanamo bay concentration camp. Where are the democrats in this ?
The whole world outside the USA calls this totally against human rights, and
even the supreme court of the USA has agreed that it has a right to rule on
the constitutionality of this concentration camp. Yet, where are the calls for
impeachement because your current government has broken the constitution's
obligation for due legal process ?

Here in rec.travel.air,
"Marie Lewis" > spake unto us, saying:

>Is it? What about people who do not speak English? Are they barred?
>Who says so?

Most USENET newsgroups tend to have a dominant language in use among
its users.

In the case of rec.travel.air, that language tends to be English.

People are free to post in other languages here as long as it doesn't
violate the charter of the newsgroup (I suspect the character of rta,
if it exists, doesn't specifically specify English, though it could).

However, I would expect a non-English posting to receive fewer answers
here since the majority of the posters here are English-speakers, and I
suspect a minority of those are bilingual.

"Barring" someone from USENET is a fairly difficult task. :-)

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment.
See web site above for resume/CV and background.

"Richard Steiner" > wrote in message
...
> Here in rec.travel.air,
> "Marie Lewis" > spake unto us, saying:
>
> >Is it? What about people who do not speak English? Are they barred?
> >Who says so?
>
> Most USENET newsgroups tend to have a dominant language in use among
> its users.
>
> In the case of rec.travel.air, that language tends to be English.
>

But, this was a cross posting to, among others, rec,travel europe, where
there are often people of different nationalities.

The fact that posts "tend" to be in English does not mean that all have to
be.

ML

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:08:54 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:01:28 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "devil" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> >> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout history
>> >> > extremists on the left and the right have used it to their advantage.
>> >>
>> >> Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is just
> a
>> >> convenient word to make it sound otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing in
> the
>> > USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"
>>
>> That's not really what chauvinism is though.
>>
>> Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
>> the universe..
>>
>>
> Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of Napoleon,
> right or wrong.

Sure. Still, in everyday use, it's what I said above.

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > But for transportation, they're insanely easier to target.
> >
> > Insanely? If they are so easy, why didn't the IRA, Basques, Red Army
> > Brigade, or Bader Meinhof take more advantage of that weakness?
>
> Not as flashy.

You don't think a train filled with people involved in a derailment
wouldn't attract significant attention, given all the media focus when
there is an accident? Especially given the national pride in their high
speed rail systems.

> Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
> in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
> and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
> high-return operations.

Again, my question. Why wouldn't other terror groups have taken
advantage of that, if things are so easy to achieve an end result.

> > > > The next attack might be in the lineup for tickets for Disney World,
> > > > at a shopping center during Christmas shopping, on a ferry boat, and
> > > > so on.
> > >
> > > Small areas, compared to even *one* short-distance train track.
> >
> > Have you been on the Staten Island ferry lately?
>
> Nope, but unless they've bought new supertanker-sized ferries, they're
> still pretty much limited to hitting them at two places on land, or
> trying a water-launched attack (not as easy as it looks).

No, it doesn't have to be that exotic. They simply carry something
aboard in the crowd, like they did on the Madrid trains. No place where
the public gathers is immune from that type of attack, and we can't
protect them all.

> On the other hand, a 100 mile train track has one hundred linear miles
> of potential target. There's no real way to get around that.

Yes, they are exposed, but they don't seem to be the target of choice
for sabotage. Occasionally, they are successful, but it hasn't been too
often, and the results have usually been relatively minor.

> And while it takes some work to kill a plane or a ship, all it takes for
> high-speed rail is to drop something heavy and solid on the tracks at
> the right time, or break the tracks right before the train gets there.
> Witness the German attack, which was just some steel pieces bolted to
> the tracks (thank goodness the people who tried it underengineered their
> fittings).

It's not as easy as it looks, given that it has been tried, and has only
rarely been successful. Trains manage to hit things left on the track
all the time without too much damage in the normal course of their
operation.

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:08:54 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:
>
> >
> > "devil" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:01:28 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "devil" > wrote in message
> >> > . ..
> >> >> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 23:27:54 +0200, AJC wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Patriotism can be a great force for good and bad. Throughout
history
> >> >> > extremists on the left and the right have used it to their
advantage.
> >> >>
> >> >> Excitation of nationalist feelings is always bad. "Patriotism" is
just
> > a
> >> >> convenient word to make it sound otherwise.
> >> >>
> >> >> No matter what, it's an "us vs. them" thing.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > The Frenc have a word for it: chauvinism. That is what we are seeing
in
> > the
> >> > USA now: "my leader right or wrong!"
> >>
> >> That's not really what chauvinism is though.
> >>
> >> Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
> >> the universe..
> >>
> >>
> > Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of
Napoleon,
> > right or wrong.
>
> Sure. Still, in everyday use, it's what I said above.
>
Not in the "everyday use" of those who really know what it means.

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "nobody760" > wrote:
>
> > So the message is visiting the USA is more trouble than its worth so I'll go
> > some place else.
>
> Yeah, that two minute fingerprinting and photo is *sooo* hard after a
> six-hour plane flight...
>
> ...and even with that, it's still going to be faster than most customs
> checks in 99% of the countries in the world.

US Customs lines are much longer than anyplace else I've gone through
customs. The last time through US customs was pre 9-11 and it took
over an hour to clear immigration and customs (and I'm a US citizen by
birth). I spent about 10 minutes in the El Salvador International
Airport processing my tourist card then 2-3 additional minutes going
through customs, 5 minutes in Honduras at the International Airport in
San Pedro Sula processing my tourist card and 2-3 minutes at customs.
Both of these during the peak Christmas travel season 2003.

James Robinson wrote:
> You don't think a train filled with people involved in a derailment
> wouldn't attract significant attention, given all the media focus when
> there is an accident?

In the USA, Amtrak derailments are common place and attract just a mention in
the national newscasts. The terrorists would have to warn of bombs on tracks
in advance so that when it happens, the media would go into a terrorist frienzie.

But if there were a new york subway derailment or fire, people would
immediatly suspect terrorism.

The real question is whether Al Queda want to keep Bush regime in power or
not. If they make an attack against the USA between now and the election, it
would influence the outcome.

But I am not sure how. Would americans wake and and see that all the measures
the Bush regime has done did nothing to protect them, or would they fall back
into the protective custody of their Bush "father figure" who would tell
americans to trust him and that he would work even harder to protect them from
the evil doers ?

My guess is that an attack now on the USA would result in the Bush regime
sending more troups to Iraq and finding some sort of way to tell americans
that this is to prevent further attacks against the USA.

nobody wrote:
>
>
> Secondly, when you look at Irak, the USA invaded the country illegally (UN
> definitions are very clear: there are only 2 valid reasons to attack another
> country: if it attacks you, or if there is a UN security council resolution
>

Uh, no. If is also allowed if an ally of yours is attacked,
in this case, Kuwait. There was no peace treaty after the Kuwait
attack,
so we are still entitled under that rubric.


Doug McDonald

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:47:38 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:

>
> "devil" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:08:54 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:
>>
>> >

>> >> Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center of
>> >> the universe..
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of
> Napoleon,
>> > right or wrong.
>>
>> Sure. Still, in everyday use, it's what I said above.
>>
> Not in the "everyday use" of those who really know what it means.

I guess you are telling the rest of us who don't know then?

:-)

(AKA presomptuous... Oh well.)

How many times have you carried 'goot' Dutch drugs over the border?

Your anti-American and anti_religious "prejudices" are all OK though?

Tim K

"Sjoerd" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tim Kroesen" > schreef in bericht
> link.net...
> >
> > Should I then subsequently be singled out for additional scrutiny
as I
> > cross other European borders if my passport was stamped; possibly;
but
> > that goes with traveling to a well known drug liberal country and
> > culture, now doesn't it...
>
> I am *from* that "well known drug liberal country and culture " and I
can't
> even remember when was the last time I even had to open my suitcase at
> customs - let alone I had any "additional scrutiny" (and I do about 75
> border crossings per year, most of which outside Europe). So I can
only
> conclude that your prejudices have replaced your brain again.
>
> Sjoerd
>
>

"devil" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:47:38 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:
>
> >
> > "devil" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:08:54 +0100, Marie Lewis wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> >> >> Chauvinism is more like a grassroot feeling that "we" are the center
of
> >> >> the universe..
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Chauvinism derives from one Nicolas Chauvin, a devoted admirer of
> > Napoleon,
> >> > right or wrong.
> >>
> >> Sure. Still, in everyday use, it's what I said above.
> >>
> > Not in the "everyday use" of those who really know what it means.
>
> I guess you are telling the rest of us who don't know then?
>


Indeed.

ML
> :-)
>
> (AKA presomptuous... Oh well.)
>

"Tim Kroesen" > wrote in message
k.net...
> How many times have you carried 'goot' Dutch drugs over the border?
>
> Your anti-American and anti_religious "prejudices" are all OK though?
>
> Tim K
>

Exactly what is wrong with being "anti-religious" then?

ML

Marie Lewis muttered....


>
> Exactly what is wrong with being "anti-religious" then?
>

It's simply a prejudice, just like racism. Depends on how anti-religious
you are, I suppose. Vile epithets, OK; but physical attacks on the LDS and
Jehovah's Witness missionaries that come to your front door, not
acceptable (especailly if you poor kerosene on them and threaten'em
with a barbecue lighter).....


TMO

Following up to James Robinson

>> Note the *three* separate attempts at hitting high-speed rail in Europe
>> in the last few weeks (the Spanish bomb, the French extortion attempt,
>> and the German derailing try). All low-dollar, minimal effort,
>> high-return operations.
>
>Again, my question. Why wouldn't other terror groups have taken
>advantage of that, if things are so easy to achieve an end result.

Its worth noting that even adding in terrorist casualties its
still much safer in a train than in a car.

Were we to stop using trains to defeat terrorism, it would just
move somewhere else where groups of people are together until we
just hid alone in our homes.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Marie Lewis

>> this is an english language ng.
>> --
>
>Is it? What about people who do not speak English? Are they barred? Who
>says so?

If non english speakers were to post in another language, that
would be one thing.
You posted in French when you could have posted in English, your
native language.

Polite people in multi lingual environments switch to the
language that they speak that is most easily understood by the
listener. You did the opposite.....
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:10:38 +0100, The Reids > wrote:

>Were we to stop using trains to defeat terrorism, it would just
>move somewhere else where groups of people are together until we
>just hid alone in our homes.

In fact, if you stopped using trains, it would mean that terrorism is defeating
you, rather. One of the keys to fight terrorism is to go on with your lives and
let intelligence handdle the terrorists (yes, intelligence - not a massive
military offensive; you must infiltrate the terrorist organizations and fight
them from within. And after you've taken care of their leaders that way, you
may later mount a military offensive to finish off any isolated pockets of
terrorists that may remain. Remember, many terrorists are terrorists because
they have never been offered a better deal, IOW, they've been brainwashed since
childhood, but the process can be reversed while they're still young enough)

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

Following up to machf

>In fact, if you stopped using trains, it would mean that terrorism is defeating
>you, rather. One of the keys to fight terrorism is to go on with your lives and
>let intelligence handdle the terrorists (yes, intelligence - not a massive
>military offensive; you must infiltrate the terrorist organizations and fight
>them from within. And after you've taken care of their leaders that way, you
>may later mount a military offensive to finish off any isolated pockets of
>terrorists that may remain. Remember, many terrorists are terrorists because
>they have never been offered a better deal, IOW, they've been brainwashed since
>childhood, but the process can be reversed while they're still young enough)

Exactly, the only thing I would add is to eradicate any part of
their grevances which are justified.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Walk-Photo-Wasdale-Thames- Walk-eat-drink-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap