While definitely NOT one of his fans, hafta admire Congressman Paul for standing up against everyone else in the debate... ...especially when everyone else includes a "moderator" and "panelist"s who think that arguing in favor of their own opinions deserves more airtime than the Presidential candidates' answers. Always nice to see such loaded "question"s tossed back as grenades, no matter who does it.
Inregard to FredThompson
MR. HUME: What do you think?
REP. PAUL: Well, I welcome him to the race because, very specifically, he will help dilute the vote for my benefit because he will be pro-war -- (laughter) -- and I’m the anti-war candidate representing the Republican traditional position. (Cheers, applause.)
Inregard to AirlineSecurity and the SecondAmendment
MR. GOLER: ...What do you think it would do to the travel industry of this country if passengers felt others were carrying guns aboard, sir?
REP. PAUL: Well, first off, you’re quoting me incorrectly...I said that responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government, not the passengers. The airline’s responsible for the aircraft and the passengers. If we wouldn’t have been dependent on the federal government to set all the rules, which meant no guns and no resistance, then the terrorists may well have had second thoughts because the airlines would have had the responsibility. But we assumed the government was going to take care of us. After 9/11, instead of moving toward the direction of personal responsibility and private property and Second Amendment, we moved in the opposite direction. We turned it over to the federal government, and look at the mess we have now at airports. I mean, the airlines -- private industry protects their property all the time. People who haul around money in armored trucks protect their -- their money all the time. But here is one example when the federal government was involved and they messed it up. And if we put the responsibility on the right people, respected the Second Amendment, I sincerely believe there would have been a lot less chance of 9/11 ever happening. (Bell sounds.) (Cheers, applause.)
Inregard to Irag, Iran, and alQaeda
MR. WALLACE: Congressman Paul -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? What about protecting the thousands of Iraqis who have staked their lives in backing the U.S.? And would you leave troops in the region to take out any al Qaeda camps that are developed after we leave?
REP. PAUL: The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people -- (interrupted by cheers) -- why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit. Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security. I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this. It’s the policy that is wrong. Tactical movements and shifting troops around and taking in 30 more and reducing by five, totally irrelevant. We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend -- (bell sounds) -- our borders --
MR. WALLACE: So...you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave? (Laughter.)
REP. PAUL: No! (Cheers, applause.) I’m saying -- (laughter) -- I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war -- (cheers, applause) -- we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)
An exchange between candidates Huckabee and Paul
MR. HUCKABEE:..We have to continue the surge...When I was a little kid...I learned don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy...whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we’re there. We bought it because we broke it. We’ve got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve. (Cheers, applause.)
REP. PAUL: The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people. They’re not responsible. We shouldn’t punish them. (Cheers, applause.)
MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America. (Cheers.)
REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake -- (interrupted by applause) -- when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake! (Cheers, applause.)
MR. HUCKABEE: And that’s what we do on the floor of the --
REP. PAUL: No! We’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party! We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.
MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.
REP. PAUL: We’re losing -- we’ve lost over -- (cheers, applause) -- we have lost -- we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in -- we’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home!
Inregard to HomelandSecurity
MR. WALLACE: Perhaps you can tell us. But if you get rid of the CIA, let alone the FBI, how would President Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?
REP. PAUL: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes to fly on but not land in, and they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security is spending more money, doesn’t solve the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information. (Cheers, applause.)
But, you know, just going for increasing presidential powers, as has been discussed, is rather disturbing to me. This whole idea that we’re supposed to sacrifice liberty for security -- we were advised against that. Don’t we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That’s what’s happening in this country today. (Cheers, applause.) We have a national ID card on our doorstep. It’s being implemented right now. We have FISA courts, we have warrantless searches, we’ve lost habeas corpus, we’ve had secret prisons around the world, and we have torture going on. (Bell.) That’s un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.
Inregard to Iran and NuclearProliferation
MR. HUME: ...a scenario which...concerns Iran... Its nuclear program has continued to advance...Iran has suspended its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear agency and asked the inspectors to leave the country...The U.N. Security Council has imposed some economic sanctions on Iran, but has refused to authorize the use of force against that country. In addition, the threats by Iran’s leader against Israel have become more pronounced and more extreme. What do you do?
REP. PAUL: For one thing, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn’t have the authority to go to war -- (cheers) -- he goes to the Congress.
MR. HUME: What do you do? So what do you do? (Applause.)
REP. PAUL: He goes to the Congress and finds out if there’s any threat to our national security. And thinking back to the 1960s when I was in the Air Force for five years -- and with the Cold War going on, and the Soviets had 40,000, and we stood them down and we didn’t have to have a nuclear confrontation -- I would say that we should go very cautiously. We should back off. We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn’t be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the AEIA (sic/IAEA), cooperating, and by the end of the year they’re supposed to be willing to reveal all that they are doing. So instead of looking for this scenario where it is inevitable that we have to attack, I think we ought to be talking about how do you get along with some people that are deadly like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others. We don’t have to resort to war every single time there’s a confrontation.
MR. HUME: Congressman --
REP. PAUL: They are not a threat to Israel. Israel has 200 or 300 nuclear missiles, and they can take care of themselves. So you shouldn’t assume that we have to jump --
MR. HUME: Thank you, Congressman.
REP. PAUL: -- in and go to war --
MR. HUME: Thank you.
REP. PAUL: -- and certainly shouldn’t do it without the consent of the Congress.
[ September 06, 2007, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
Wow, go Congressman Paul!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not impressed. His arguments for getting out of Iraq are not based on current security concerns.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
With the exception of his comments on post-withdrawel security in Iraq, I'm quite impressed. I think he's right that those people have given us no reason to trust them, but anyone with a bit of sense could reasonably surmise that the violence there would increase dramatically if we left like that and totally abandoned the region.
Other than that, I thought him standing up for himself, against the other candidates and even the moderator was damn cool, and many of his responses to the smirking know it all comments of the moderator were fantastic. Though I have to say I think Huckabee sounded reasonable himself, even if I do disagree with him.
I'll have to read the whole thing later tonight. If it's anything more than the circus we've had so far, where it's basically just a Republican or Democratic pep rally, I'll be extremely impressed. Giving Paul that much face time is already a great improvement. Usually Paul and Gravel never get called on.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I do support Congressman Ron Paul. I am part of a local meet-up group. Thank you for posting the remarks. I was disgusted at how the moderators snickered while asking Dr. Paul questions.
You know he won the phone-in polls with 33%, while the next two combines made around 33%. Hannity said it must be his 3% supporters spamming the phone lines.
I was upset with how Ron Paul was treated at the debates and how he was dismissed after the debates, so I wrote a letter to Hannity.
quote: I was really disheartened to see Your treatment of Ron Paul and his subsequent win at the New Hampshire Republican debate on August 5th, 2005. Instead of posting the results of the phone in poll (on FOX News Front Page), you have chosen to link to user comments.
By all means post what people have written in to "speakout at foxnews," however you should not diminish Congressman Paul's win.
I know Hannity likes to pretend it is a few "Paulites" that are flooding the phones. I know the debate was handled in such a way as to diminish Ron Paul. He got less air time, the hosts snickered when they asked him questions (shame on them), the post debate coverage announced McCain and Huckabee as the obvious winners before they posted the results.
The clips of the exchange between Huckabee and Paul were edited to show Huckabee's excellent point about "loosing honor." Your clips did not shows Paul's equally excellent and more rational conclusion to the exchange when he said:
" We have lost over 5,000 Americans killed in -- we've lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more you want to lose? How long are you going to be there? How long -- what do we have to pay to save face? That's all we're doing, is saving face. It's time we came home."
It almost seemed as if Fox was desperate for Paul not to win.
The truth is that there are more of us Republicans who support Paul then you would like to admit. Paul's support is growing because he represents us republicans who feel disenfranchised with fiscal irresponsibly, expanded executive powers, ignored borders, and an unnecessary war in Iraq that is being funded on borrowed money.
Perhaps the NeoCons think he is a loon, but his vastly superior numbers in grassroots support, his successes in straw polls, his wins in the debates, the amount of money he has on-hand for his campaign and the source of funds, and his success at being elected 10 times as a republican in Congress earns him more respect then you are showing him.
He might not represent President Bush's current agenda, but he does represent a large and growing faction in the Republican Party. Please be more respectful. Please be Fair and Balanced.
Thank You,
My Name My email address Utah
ps. I could not vote in the phone poll because I have text messaging off, but I would have voted for Congressman Ron Paul.
I should note that I am not sure I agree with Paul on border security, but he is certainly in line with the republican base.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
FYI, Ron Paul will be on the O'reilly Factor Monday, Sept 10th. This should be interesting.
EDIT:Fmr. CIA Bin Laden Chief Michael Scheuer has come out and said Ron Paul is the only republican candidate that is not taking marching orders from Al Qaeda.
[ September 09, 2007, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Ron Paul has so much potential but his economic policies kill any possibility of me voting for him. The federal reserve has been effective at curbing inflation and softening recessions (notably since Greenspan), contrary to what his supporters often claim, and I'm having a hard time being convinced that eliminating it would not bring about severe economic instability.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
He seems palatable to Democrats because he wants to pull out, but I'm not actually impressed with these answers on their own merits. I believe we should finish the job/clean up our mistake in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I certainly don't agree with pulling out of the Arabian Peninsula.
I don't have enough context or understanding of Paul's position to comment on his replies regarding the second amendment and airline security. On the face of it, invoking the second amendment in the context of air flight seems like lunacy. He's not saying just what he means in these snippets, though; he's just vaguely referring to the airlines protecting their interests. Incidentally, I don't see any reason to believe that private enterprise would have prevented 9/11 any better than the government did. They would have had less intelligence--which I think is significant in light of his assertion that what intelligence there was was not properly followed-up on--and, hey, banks and armored cars and other private ventures get robbed all the time.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
And when the bank gets robbed, private insurance pays us back while the local police go find the bad guy. That's half reliant on the government, anyway.
I don't see why airlines would be different. Insurance can't give them back what the bad guys would take.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I don't see any reason to believe that private enterprise would have prevented 9/11 any better than the government did.
I wish I had to time formulate thoughts on all the other excellent points. But this one is easy to answer.
Specifically what would have prevented 9/11 is if the pilots had guns. Federal regulation prohibited pilots from owning guns. Paul's argument, as near as I can tell, is that if it was a private enterprise coupled with utilizing the second amendment, then the airlines could of had their own rules that stated pilots are armed.
Since private industry are invested in protecting their own property, then the pilots may of been armed. Armed pilots would have been more difficult to overtake with box cutters.
You can read a lot of his work on ronpaullibrary.org, but I think this sums up his position quite nicely.
quote: More than 20,000 airline pilots presented a petition to Congress last week, demanding the right to carry guns in the cockpit to prevent future terrorist hijackings....
Yet the Transportation department continues to ignore both the wisdom of pilots and federal law by refusing to implement rules allowing firearms in the cockpit.
quote:The case for arming pilots is simple: the fundamental duty of any pilot is to ensure the safe operation of his aircraft. Safety is utterly compromised if a terrorist takes control of a plane or violently attempts to do so. Armed pilots act as a last line of defense for themselves, their passengers, and people on the ground. Firearms in the cockpit also serve as a strong deterrent against hijacking attempts.
The arguments against arming pilots are very weak and motivated by an irrational fear of guns. Our pilots are entrusted with the safety of very precious human cargo every time they fly. It is ludicrous to believe that men and women with the skills, temperament, and judgment to fly incredibly complex planes cannot be trusted with simple handguns- and also highly insulting to professional pilots.
quote: Why on earth does our government insist on disarming the same pilots we otherwise trust with our lives?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: Specifically what would have prevented 9/11 is if the pilots had guns. Federal regulation prohibited pilots from owning guns. Paul's argument, as near as I can tell, is that if it was a private enterprise coupled with utilizing the second amendment, then the airlines could of had their own rules that stated pilots are armed.
Thats honestly just mere speculation. Security on airplanes was non-existent to being with, and I find it unlikely that the pilots would have had time to pull a gun on the hijackers. Given the fact that the cockpit doors were unlocked, I would imagine that the pilots first thought that a stewardess was opening the door. By the time they realized that they were being attacked it was probably too late and their throats were slit. Of course its possible that guns could have saved the day however I find the idea rather dubious and it is clearly to strong to claim that 9/11 would have been prevented if the pilots had guns.
Guns would probably be more useful for pilots now because our whole attitude about hijacking has changed.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Maybe there's hope for the republican party after all. If only more of them felt this way:
quote:Don’t we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That’s what’s happening in this country today. (Cheers, applause.) We have a national ID card on our doorstep. It’s being implemented right now. We have FISA courts, we have warrantless searches, we’ve lost habeas corpus, we’ve had secret prisons around the world, and we have torture going on. (Bell.) That’s un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.
It's been a real disappointment for me over the past 6 years to watch the part of "individual liberties and responsibilities" turn into Big Brother. Hopefully, with the help of people like the Congressman, they'll return to their senses. Either that or they'll be elbowed out by the Libertarians. It seems a lot of Republicans are going there.
I agreed with about 98% of what he had to say up there -- probably he should be a little more careful than he's suggesting about pulling troops out but otherwise, sounds good to me.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Thats honestly just mere speculation. Security on airplanes was non-existent to being with, and I find it unlikely that the pilots would have had time to pull a gun on the hijackers.
It is speculation. But it is reasonable speculation.
quote: Of course its possible that guns could have saved the day however I find the idea rather dubious and it is clearly to strong to claim that 9/11 would have been prevented if the pilots had guns.
Well, first off he didn't say it "Would have prevented" 911, he said there would have been a lot less chance.
quote: ...I said that responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government, not the passengers. The airline’s responsible for the aircraft and the passengers. If we wouldn’t have been dependent on the federal government to set all the rules, which meant no guns and no resistance, then the terrorists may well have had second thoughts because the airlines would have had the responsibility...
quote: I mean, the airlines -- private industry protects their property all the time. People who haul around money in armored trucks protect their -- their money all the time. But here is one example when the federal government was involved and they messed it up. And if we put the responsibility on the right people, respected the Second Amendment, I sincerely believe there would have been a lot less chance of 9/11 ever happening.
quote: By the time they realized that they were being attacked it was probably too later and their throats were slit.
Given the content of the tapes from the black boxes, I think it is obvious there was a struggle.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: Of course its possible that guns could have saved the day however I find the idea rather dubious and it is clearly to strong to claim that 9/11 would have been prevented if the pilots had guns.
Well, first off he didn't say it "Would have prevented" 911, he said there would have been a lot less chance.
I was responding to you post where you said
quote:Specifically what would have prevented 9/11 is if the pilots had guns
I'm sure you didn't literally mean 100% chance of prevention, but it is still a very strong claim.
quote:Given the content of the tapes from the black boxes, I think it is obvious there was a struggle.
Yes, but we don't know when the pilots got stabbed. If they got stabbed then the plane was doomed even if they managed to shoot the cockpit perpetrators because there were at least two other hijackers on the plane.
Posted by Liaison (Member # 6873) on :
Come election day I'm writing Paul's name down whether he's on the ballot or not. I've been keeping up with news and media on him for a handful of months now and no other candidate has ever impressed me like he has.
I've heard concerns about him flushing a bunch of departments, cia, fbi, federal reserve, etc, and I have them too. I don't mind them, however, because from listening to him talk and seeing how much personal research he has done into the economy I trust him to try something new and if it doesn't work he'll change it. I think that's key for me. I trust him. I never thought I'd say that about a politician. He's not the kind of guy who would change things, have them fail, and be so stubborn that he would keep it going just to save face. My impression of the man is that he genuinely cares about the welfare and future of average Americans. He wants to figure out and fine-tune a system that will really work for the long-term.
No, I don't agree with his personal views on everything. I'm of a pretty far left, liberal, bent. BUT the things that we disagree on are things that he doesn't want to dictate to the whole country. He wants to leave those choices up to local government. That's the way it ought to be; in line with the Constitution.
Wikipedia article on Paul This Wiki article is a pretty good compilation of his views drawn from his speeches, debates, website, etc.
Above all, I like that he doesn't fluff. Politicians seem to be insistent on over-the-top fluffing. Most of it seems to be pretty-sounding words that get applause out of the present audience, but don't actually mean anything. In the very least, Ron Paul really says stuff. He's intelligent and it's refreshing to me.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I was responding to you post where you said
Good point. Could would have been a better word choice on my part.
I do think his logic is sound, his intentions are pure, and his research scholarly.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
And how many passengers would die due to stressed-out, sleep-deprived, drunk, or just plain crazy pilots? I doubt 3000+, but I also doubt it would be zero. And you could conceivably cause a shortage of pilots if enough don't want to use weapons for the above reasons, or just out of principle.
-Bok
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: And how many passengers would die due to stressed-out, sleep-deprived, drunk, or just plain crazy pilots? I doubt 3000+, but I also doubt it would be zero. And you could conceivably cause a shortage of pilots if enough don't want to use weapons for the above reasons, or just out of principle.
-Bok
Why, exactly, would we be arming pilots? Their job is to fly the plain. You hire security guards to protect it and they get the weapons.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I was responding to lem, who was suggesting we arm the pilots. In particular, this sentiment:
quote:Specifically what would have prevented 9/11 is if the pilots had guns.
-Bok
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: And how many passengers would die due to stressed-out, sleep-deprived, drunk, or just plain crazy pilots? I doubt 3000+, but I also doubt it would be zero. And you could conceivably cause a shortage of pilots if enough don't want to use weapons for the above reasons, or just out of principle.
I guess I am not seeing why the pilots would be "stressed-out, sleep-deprived, drunk, or just plain crazy" because of guns in the cockpit.
Especially considering:
quote: More than 20,000 airline pilots presented a petition to Congress last week, demanding the right to carry guns in the cockpit to prevent future terrorist hijackings....
Yet the Transportation department continues to ignore both the wisdom of pilots and federal law by refusing to implement rules allowing firearms in the cockpit.
There is a difference between allowing and mandating. If the option was up to the airlines and some companies opted to mandate it for that specific airline, then pilots could try a different airline. That is different from the government mandating guns.
It does seem strange the government disallows firearms in the cockpit. It is not illogical to thinks guns could have been used by a pilot or co pilot to defend against the terrorists.
Everything I have read makes it sound like the pilots want the guns.
quote:Why, exactly, would we be arming pilots? Their job is to fly the plain. You hire security guards to protect it and they get the weapons.
The pilots should at least have the option to arm since the plane, as we learned on 911, is already a potentially giant weapon. Allowing pilots to have a smaller weapon as a last resort to protect the bigger weapon from being used by terrorists does not seem wrong.
Secure dead bolted doors would also be a good idea. I actually like that better then guns, even tho I think guns would be good in the pilot’s hands. My life and trust is already in their hands.
The main argument isn’t about guns, it is about who is responsible for the safety of the passengers. Letting companies decide the best policy, in my opinion, would lead to better safety measures. If they are reckless, they will either be sued into improvement or better companies will compete and win the customers.
At the very least, the government should not disallow a policy the airline and it's workers want to implement to increase safety.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think pilots should be allowed to carry guns, however I don't think it would be very effective. Terrorists know that they cannot hijack a plane without a fight to the death, so they'll probably just use bombs. Link Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: And how many passengers would die due to stressed-out, sleep-deprived, drunk, or just plain crazy pilots? I doubt 3000+, but I also doubt it would be zero. And you could conceivably cause a shortage of pilots if enough don't want to use weapons for the above reasons, or just out of principle.
-Bok
Why, exactly, would we be arming pilots? Their job is to fly the plain. You hire security guards to protect it and they get the weapons.
Because it would increase airline costs to recruit and train armed security personell. It makes more sense for the pilots who are at the controls to be able to defend themselves. Security personell outside the secure cockpit is much easier to deal with then a pilot behind a sealed door.
Even if terrorists started resorting to bombs as a means to get the pilots to open the door it would still place terrorists in a disadvantaged position.
What I am not so sure about is should a pilot intentionally try to land the plane in the best reasonably reachable location if hijackers attempt to take the plane or should he try and dispatch the hijackers? I would think the former with the later only being an option if it looks like the hijackers will compromise the security of the cockpit.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Even if terrorists started resorting to bombs as a means to get the pilots to open the door it would still place terrorists in a disadvantaged position.
The bombs would be used to blow up the plane. I doubt we will see any more attempted hijackings for a long time (at least in the U.S).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I tend to agree, for a couple reasons. One, I believe most all planes have reinforced cockpits now, so I don't think they'd make it to the controls. And two, hijacking a plane requires a lot of complacency from the people on board. If they do it, it'll probably by with makeshift shivs, and I think after 9/11, at least for the next decade, no one is going to allow themselves to be used as a weapon again. If someone manages to get control of a plane, I don't think people will sit by any longer and pray for the situation to resolve itself, they'll take action like Flight 93, fully expecting that if they don't, they'll die anyway.
That's my opinion, and my guess, but it's what I would do. I think terrorists actually shot themsleves in the foot with that one (well, in the long run they got a LOT more out of it than they lost), but whereas people used to treat hijackings as hostage situations, I think now they assume from the get go that they will die, and they might as well take the bad guys down with them.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
lem, you confused cause and effect. Flying is a stressful job, one where pilots can work long and awkward hours. There are known instances of drunk flying, and there's always the chance of someone unstable becoming a pilot, or someone becoming unstable due to issues in their life.
As Lyrhawn said, almost (only because I'm never willing to ignore the ingenuity of human beings) all hijackings 9/11-style are pretty much impossible with reinforced cockpit doors. And you get all that benefit without opening up the chance of pilots using/misusing their guns.
-Bok
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I'm voting for Ron Paul.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I should say, that as cool as I think he's been in the debates, I wouldn't vote for him in a million years. He's a great spoiler, and I like that he is challenging the current popular wisdom in the Republican Party, but his plans for government are crazy to me. He wants to to get rid of half the departments of government, if not more. The fact that he's the only real anti-war Republican (well, he's not even really a Republican, he's just running on their ticket) up there is why he gets so much attention. But I suspect that when it comes to the actual primary, Paul will get little more support than Gravel will get on the Democratic side. Well maybe that's not fair, I wouldn't be surprised to see Paul get 5%-9% in the primary in any given state, but I'd be surprised to see Gravel get more than 1% anywhere.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"It is ludicrous to believe that men and women with the skills, temperament, and judgment to fly incredibly complex planes cannot be trusted with simple handguns- and also highly insulting to professional pilots."
Try serving in the military -- where most American commercial pilots came from -- to hang around with the dudes, then decide whether it is insulting. And sure enough, a gun's been fired in the control cabin of a USAirways passenger jet.
[ March 25, 2008, 03:12 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)