"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:39:36 +1100, OzOne wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:12:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:14:08 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:



Eaxactly my point.
Every non US citizen is subject to the most rigorous scrutiny yet 95%
of containers are left untouched....homeland security is a sham.

Let me play the devil's advocate here for a moment: So we've
established
that examining incoming containers is not feasible. For that reason,
is
it
reasonable to simply ignore all other aspects of homeland security that
ARE
feasible, such as clearing individuals for entry?

Max

T's feasible....just look at the number of people employed to check
baggage, people and crdentials at every airport in the US.
Thing is, putting that same number of people into checking containers
has little political advantage because Joe Public won't see the work
being done and be able to wrap himself in that warm fuzzy security
blanket.


Have you ever looked at a shipping container packed full of, say, boxes
with
electronics? There might be literally hundreds or thousands of cardboard
cartons in a single container packed wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling. How
does an inspector check each carton to be sure it contains what the label
specifies? A single carton could contains plastique or the makings of a
dirty bomb. Are you going to open each and every one? Some containers
are
packed with loose items, and would be even more difficult to inspect.
From
a cost effectivity standpoint, it isn't feasible to inspect the contents
of
every container entering this country.


Ever thought that the level of personal inspection has lulled most
passengers into a very false sense of security so they are now not on
the lookout for stuff happening onboard?

I think about it every time I fly. But there is little or nothing the
average passenger can do if he spots something or someone suspicious once
airborne. Getting lulled into a false sense of security has obviously
helped the airlines avoid a plunge into the abyss of financial ruin.
Most
of them, anyhow.

If, however, we abandon the personal inspections, what prevents a repeat
of
9/11?

Max


Max that's my point...smoke an mirrors and personal inspections are
there to make Joe Public feel as if there's something happening..where
in fact there is no way of protecting the US against an attack


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Max has a very short and overly selective memory. The U.S. had hundreds or
thousands of Russian missles aimed directly at it for 40 years and we
didn't
need a "War on Terror", a "Patriot Act", or any other such nonsense.

Max's memory is has greater longevity and is far less selective than you'd
like to believe. What you have conveniently overlooked is that your analogy
is entirely inappropriate for several reasons: 1) Our enemy (USSR) was
easily identified and nicely compartmentalized. Al Qaeda is neither. 2)
Dealing with the Soviet missle threat was simple--MAD, or mutual assured
destruction, kept both sides from pushing buttons for almost half a century.
We have no such arrangement with Islamist terrorists.

Our war with terrorists is more like a war against rodents. A population of
rodents can be virtually invisible, but inflicting constant and persistent
damage. You can't threaten rodents, and you can't simply aim a bunch of
missles at them and expect them to cease and desist. You take the war to
them, with traps, poisons, and by blocking their entry into your zone of
occupation. You attempt to anticipate their movements in the hope of
cutting them off at the pass. If you simply ignore them, you'll end up
knee-deep in rat and mouse **** by dinner time.

Oprah-zation has made the US into an overwrought bunch of handwringing
ninnys.

Fear mongering is a whole new industry in this country. Universities engage
in it, the various media base their annual profits on it, and it's the topic
of the moment over coffee and Oprah. Personally I worry less about
terrorism than about toenail fungus, and I don't worry about that at all.

The 400 billion Dollars spent so far in Iraq could have done quite a bit
to
solve real problems at home. 400 Billion Dollars... and counting.

Yup.

The entire "War on Terror" is a sham. Every last bit of it.

That's a rather blanket statement for someone attempting to pass himself off
as a pseudo-intellectual. I'm more than willing to listen to your
alternatives to the so-called "war on terror." But I'm guessing that you
have none. You're rather typical of the current genera of complainers--no
ideas of your own beyond whining about those who are doing something, if
ineffective and mis-guided. I'll take mis-directed action any day over one
whining while doing nothing more than urinating in his drawers.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote
Max's memory is has greater longevity and is far less selective than you'd
like to believe. What you have conveniently overlooked is that your analogy
is entirely inappropriate for several reasons: 1) Our enemy (USSR) was
easily identified and nicely compartmentalized. Al Qaeda is neither. .....

On the contrary, while al Qaeda - Islamic Extremism - is more spread out it is
just as easily identified and dealt with.

Dealing with the Soviet missle threat was simple--MAD, or mutual assured
destruction, kept both sides from pushing buttons for almost half a century.
We have no such arrangement with Islamist terrorists.

The Soviets were rational, religious zealots are not, so one must deal with them
more directly. Saddam was doing an excellent job of that in Iraq - he simply
killed them out of hand! In the short term we should follow his example rather
than making life harder for our own people. In the long term we must replace
"schools" that teach radical Islamists to kill "infidels" with moderate schools
that teach the three R's - right after we hang the mullahs running them.

Our war with terrorists is more like a war against rodents. A population of
rodents can be virtually invisible, but inflicting constant and persistent
damage. You can't threaten rodents, and you can't simply aim a bunch of
missles at them and expect them to cease and desist. You take the war to
them, with traps, poisons, and by blocking their entry into your zone of
occupation. ....

True, but as you have pointed out there is NO effective way to block their
entrance, so we'll have to accept a few rats in the house til they can be killed
while we take the war to them with traps, poisons and more. I gotta believe that
a few flame-throwing tanks would help but I'm an amateur - we otta consult
Saddam and Chemical Aly.