NO!!!!!!!!!! Pilots shouldn't have to worry about how many bullets their guns have or worry about shooting hijackers....they have enough work flying the plane. We have (or should have) the Federal Air Marshals to carry guns and worry about taking out terrorists and hijackers. When you go on a cruise, does the captain worry about security????? No. He worries about driving the boat or ship. Same with [airplane] pilots. They have enough on their hands.
To answer this question we have to look at some of the laws in the U.S. about carrying firearms and using them. An Airline pilot is not a cop by any means, so that means either we would have to begin hiring cops( or more specifically peace officers) as airline pilots or the current pilots would need to have new training. Then you would have to screen the pilots to make sure that they could pull the trigger if required and make sure they would be strong enough mentally to know that every stewardess on the airplane could be having their throats slit because they won't open the door. There are countless new factors that need to be taken into effect. Not to mention an inexpierenced shooter is more dangerous than the weapon he wields. The pilot could miss and shoot out the side of the plane, one bullet would rip a hole that would expand to thousands of times its size due to the pressure difference from the outside. An inexpierenced shooter can forget to cock a hand gun that isn't double action, or forget to chamber a round, or even take the safety off. There are even cases of home owners pulling a gun on an intruder without even having the magazine in the weapon. The best solution to this terrorists-on-the-airplane threat is bomb/bullet proof doors and sky marshals. The door would work on its own, but a sky marshal won't work just on his own. If he can't subdue the attackers, then they would now have another weapon to take the plane with. A combination would work best, not to mention it would cause the terrorists to plan of their being one or more armed individuals trained to engage targets safely on a plane. The fear factor would be enough to knock down smaller groups, and the fact that there actually would be Sky Marshals on the plane would end a number of take over attempts with a bullet. Most take overs are not by multiple people, it is commonly a single irrational extremist. So to rap it all up, no, arming airline pilots is just a bad idea. They have enough trouble flying planes without worrying about having to whirl around and dispatch a would-be attacker with a precisely aimed handgun shot. Security Doors or Sky Marshals are the best answer combined with tighter ground security. These attempts should be stopped before they ever get airborne.
I think that if Arab nations hold out their oil that it would be hurting their economy more than it hurts ours. But, if they wish to hold out then they can hold out and the US shouldn't do anything. Instead we should start using the oil we do have smarter, more efficently. Maybe if those wives in America (and i'm not trying to bag on anyone's mom) who just sit home, go out and spend their husbands money while their husbands are working all day stopped getting their husbands to buy them those GIANT suv's that get 5 miles to the gallon... we wouldn't have such a high demand for oil. I know you know what i am talking about. Those 32-44 year old wives who just drive around shopping and stay home eating sweets all day. You know the ones in those GIGANTIC white suburbans constantly yapping on their cell phones at every red light. Yeah, those are the ones. How times have you seen one of those juggernaught suv's put in the mountains or driving across rivers. You haven't. Americans are spoiled. We want to use up world resources, and we can. Did you know that here we take clean water for granted. In the country of Iran the only clean water is the kind you buy in a bottle from the stores. It's true. The drinking water from the tap or faucet is so full of toxins and bacteria that you can even smell the ammonia and the disease in the water. THIS IS NOT A LIE OR EXXAGERATION. I personally know someone who just came from Iran 5 months ago and he tells me how bad it was. It was soo bad that even here in the US he was paranoid of drinking water. And you're worried about having enough oil so that you're price per gallon gas stays under 2 dollars so you can fillup your tanks...er suv's. For shame, The US is constantly trying to make a difference and be a world leader. Well why doesn't the US put down it's guns and start being a leader the right way. We can start by helping other nations provide clean water for themselves. But no....Pres. Bush is on a power rush and he won't stop fighting the world until he's started WW3.
-phoamy from Home....Out-
Thanks to the Gasoline/Oil companies' incredible ability buy up and dispose of important fuel efficent as well as alternative fuel copyrights and patents, I'd say we are lining ourselves up to take a gasoline/oil/lubricant-free reaming from the Arab nations. We make very little in the United States and that means it's mostly imported. For all of you who are a bit rusty on your "supply and demand", that means that if the Arab nations cut us off, Demand will sky rocket as supply plummeys and prices will vary directly with demand. That means we are in deep trouble. This makes our position as an Israeli allie very dangerous. Basically we can't handle the oil embargo problem; gas prices will rise because everyone apparently has to drive a Suburban. We can't launch a full out attack against the Arab nations because then we would have to run the oil industry, and a number of countries and treaties won't stand for that. If oil is stopped, the U.S. better get on the alternative fuel source bandwagon or else we are gonna take a major a$$ paddling.
I believe that the United States has absolutely no right in assassinating political leaders such as Saddam Hussein or Yassar Arafat. The United States does however have the right to have that political leader killed if he has committed crimes against the US. For example, Saddam Hussein has done nothing to the US. He has committed no crimes. He didn't allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, But his nation is not a member of the UN. So, where does the UN get off trying to force their way into non-UN countries and order them around? Saddam Huessein does have chemical weapons. Although, if Saddam Huessein was a terrorist, why hasn't he used the chemical weapons against us? Why? Because Saddam Hussein is only utilizing these chemical weapons as protection from the international fascists......the US. On the other hand, Osama Bin Laden was the political and military leader of the Al Qaida Network, which in turn was in allegance with the Taliban, which was in charge of Afghanistan and he did commit a crime. Therefore, Osama Bin Laden should be assassinated. However, Saddam Huessein and Yassar Arafat should not be assassinated; they should be watched closely, but nothing else. The United States has no proof that Hussein will use those chemical weapons, only suspicion. Can we, the US, go around the globe and kill all the military/political leaders that arouse suspicion? A better question, SHOULD we. Do we really want a WWIII? No we don't.......Then why is our country acting like it does?
First off, I'd like to chuckle lightly at the use of the word unsavory. Next up, technically the U.S. has absolutely no right going around killing whomever we please. There were treaties and conventions on the subject a number of times and it was just deemed bad form. Otherwise leaders would be getting assassinated left and right and things would just fall apart. Plus many leaders of small countries have their top general set as the next leader in the case of assassination. That means some major, uh, poo will hit the fan because now you have a military dictator. Can the U.S. assassinate world leaders without anyone suspecting us? Yes. Should we? Personally, I think sometimes it might be in order, but only if we can control what happens next. But the problem is then, once you do it once, why stop there? Why not just whack everyone who hassles the U.S? Thats when things gets dangerous. So unfortunately, the U.S. should not assassinate world leaders, even if they are $h!t heads like Saddam.
When contemplating this question, one must keep in mind: what seperates the denizens of the U.S. from terrorists? Simple. U.S. citizens don't act like savages or animals. We are a civilized people and we treat others with civility, even criminals. We give criminals representation in our court systems. Many will argue that we shouldn't stoop to the terrorists' level-- that we should continue to be the civil people that we are, while many others believe that an act as brutal and sadistic as Sept.11 cannot go unpunished. I believe that we as a nation are biased. What do i mean? I mean that we are so upset and angry from Sept.11 that we need to take it out on someone......why not the terrorists? why not... because then we would be letting our biased attitudes influence our decisions on their punishment. Emotions are ok...emotions are what make us human. But we cannot be a nation influenced by bias. I say let a neutral country such as Germany decide the fate of the terrorists. That way we wouldn't have to stoop down to the terrorists' level and make a biased decision in our anger and haste. An act as horrendous as this will not go unpunished.....even in a neutral nation. Justice will prevail.
Toture is not an option that we should ever consider in any case with almost any criminal. I suppose that if there were some kind of supervillian that did a number of dastardly things then it might be an option, but until that day it isn't and never should be. Torture is a very effective way to get what you want. Nothing spells "where your rebel friends are" quicker than a car battery attached across your ears or smashing your toes with a sledge hammer one at a time. But that degrades the torturer more than the torturee. It lowers us as a race, and as human beings. Although many of us are lower than scum already, like gang bangers that shoot the Firefighters who are trying to save their homes or lives. I know because I have seen. A simple wording is that torture is wrong anyway you slice it. Osama can only hide for so long and it's not like we have a shortage of bombs, so whats the point other than a half-a$$ed vampiric sense of revenge? None.
What are your opinions about Ariel Sharon's apparent contempt for Bush's authority?
So this is what people who watch the news talk about, eh? Well as little as I do, I feel that I am still fairly in tap. Lets look at this from the intelligent (make note not everyone is intelligent) independent person's point of view. Sharon runs his own country the way he feels he should; naturally no one wants to see people's military headquarters and what not attacked by tanks and gun ships, but lets look at this seriously. You're Ariel, and your people are being blown up everyday by suicidal members of your neighboring country. Let me tell you, he's restraining himself. Every boy who has reached the age of 15, and some girls, are combat-trained in the Israeli military, and they are bad a$$ mofo's( i would swear but i have respect for Trent's Site). Sharon could level all of Palestine in one night; they have a massive Airforce, Tank force and ground force compared to other countries of similar size. The fact that he is ignoring Bush is completely right. Once Arafat and the Palestinians lay off, THEN so should Israel. Israel didn't start it, and they could easily finish it. I say that as long as these suicide bombings continue, Israel should keep the heat on. Bush is trying to stick his hands in something that he knows very little about. The war between these two has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years. It won't end soon, and this time it looks like it won't end clean either.