Posts by Destroy All Monsters 16005 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Jun 2008
"The Merlin has indeed had a troubled past, and yet has been chosen by the yanks - as the US101/VH-71 - over Sikorsky's offering, for the Presidential Helicopter ("Marine One"). So I guess maybe it isn't that bad?"
Yes, about that. Rather smells like politicians oiling up their behinds, right?
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/werther.php?articleid=12128
Guy#1: "The military - in essence - do a simple job. We protect those who can't protect themselves."
Only if you are actually under attack. On your home turf. And, I might add, by something more serious than civilans armed with AK-47 and bombs strapped to their chest.
Guy#2: "The old continent currently lives comfortably under Pax Americana, and some think they can spit on those who protect their beef."
Reading The Economist much?
"While I am against all laws of this type, it's no more sinister or draconian than what we have here in the US" .. "Having said that, these types of laws will only catch the stupid criminals"
Nitpick: Note that the USA is not the benchmark against which to compare when trying to decide whether something is acceptable or not. Thus, "no more sinister" is not the expression to use - "about as sinister" is what you are looking for.
Having said that, I would think these types of laws will not catch a lot of criminals. Broad-spectrum search is not about catching criminals but about sniffing out or "discovering" suspects or "potential" law-breakers, i.e. it's a work-procurement program for sparse resources which might be better employed elsewhere. Of course, they make perfect sense if industrial espionage or political surveillance is what you are interested in (yeah, France, I'm looking at you).
Fat Tux because he's from the north too and would not like being probed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
