Terrorist to hit around election!!!

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Flame On+Oct 24 2004, 10:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Oct 24 2004, 10:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Thanks Dis, thats all i was looking for, a welcome for him. We need more people with views for my side and yours if you allow me to say that around here to even things out because right now its more then 90% for the democrat viewpoint.

90% democratic? Who else sees it this way? Not me, i feel outnumbered here about 4-6 or 7-3 or something in terms of left and right.
By the way sjwalter, telling us how it is? I thought he was telling us his opinion, or did his expansive, uncrossreferenceable and proveable statements convince you so easily? What if I were to breeze on here saying "hi, my name is Fred, I'm in the CIA and I'm telling you Kerry is better due to operating manual a-fb 1". Just cause someone writes it doesn't mean they're telling you how it is.
Bill I welcome you too, and wasn't trying to call you out or anything, but more trying to illustrate that sjwalter might want to think about things from different angles before deciding that one person knows how it is.
I'm awsome at doing that afterall....lol [/b][/quote]
Hey ***hole, if you support Kerry you're democratic and i don't give a sh*t what you have to say about that. And most here support Kerry. Only dumbass's would support Kerry and his lies that everyone has fell for. He doesn't deserve to be leader of the greatest country in the world.

I know Bill is real, i know another site where he posts and i have asked people if he is the real deal and he is. I guess you don't have that ######ing trust do you? Or can't you stand it that his comments is against everything you goddamn supported? Of course i'm not right, never right? No i compared Lanny's article to what Bill said and i believe Lanny was BSing us. You don't know the level of trust among a military level, trusting the man next to you with your life huh? Thats what i live by and will live by in the next future years, and i can tell you right now its sorry to be fighting for freedom for ***holes like you to tell their own damn opinion, or should i call it their lies.

No wonder you always are in a fight with Dis.

And by the way, Bill never convinced me of anything, i was convinced a long time ago that what Bush did was the right thing to do.

But of course i'm wrong now too right?

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 24 2004, 10:23 PM
Even worse than Kerry’s boneheaded ex-prosecutor perspective on terror is that he would let a country like France unilaterally alter what he knows needs to be done.
Boneheaded ex-prosecuter persective. I guess that's worse than failed business man; in the oil business in texas for hells sake when your father is the pres, perspective. Or how about the bumbling imbecile I didn't know I owned a lumber company perspective? You say he would let France do such a thing, I've heard it from his mouth that he would never allow anything like that. I'll believe Kerry over Bill the new board guy sorry.

Flameon you don't know what the ###### you're talking about do you? Can you prove anything you said? France are pussies, remember we had to save their asses in World War 2, so why the hell you sticking up for them?

[Flame On]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 05:27 AM
Hey ***hole, if you support Kerry you're democratic and i don't give a sh*t what you have to say about that. And most here support Kerry. Only dumbass's would support Kerry and his lies that everyone has fell for. He doesn't deserve to be leader of the greatest country in the world.

I know Bill is real, i know another site where he posts and i have asked people if he is the real deal and he is. I guess you don't have that ######ing trust do you? Or can't you stand it that his comments is against everything you goddamn supported? Of course i'm not right, never right? No i compared Lanny's article to what Bill said and i believe Lanny was BSing us. You don't know the level of trust among a military level, trusting the man next to you with your life huh? Thats what i live by and will live by in the next future years, and i can tell you right now its sorry to be fighting for freedom for ***holes like you to tell their own damn opinion, or should i call it their lies.

No wonder you always are in a fight with Dis.

And by the way, Bill never convinced me of anything, i was convinced a long time ago that what Bush did was the right thing to do.

But of course i'm wrong now too right?

Ummmm, oookay....do you work for the US postal service perchance?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 05:19 AM
Hey Lanny you accused me of backing Bush on his stance when the attacks happened, so why not elaborate on what Bill said what really goes on. You said that seven minutes that Bush sat there could have saved alot of lives and IMO you lied. Care to say anything, but don't expect me to believe it because most of what you say is BS anyway. IMO of course.

Okay, I'll play. I think Bill provides some interesting information but I think there's some flaws in what he says. From what he is saying the President would not be left sitting in the school room like he suggests with an obvious threat. The Secret Service would have had him out of there and into a safe room isolated from everyone else, and not sitting for a photo-op while the Secret Service revised the route, which was not revised according to the papers. If five minutes was the key time frame, why was the President still sitting there seven minutes later? What he says has some merit, but other things don't add up to support the theory. If this was the fact that information would have come out and put an end to all the BS floating around about indecision. The Secret Service protecting the President would be a very good and believable story for the delay at the photo-op. Unfortunately no one, until right now, has suggested this.

[BillW]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 24 2004, 09:07 PM
It is kind of wierd though. To be talking about politics on a Calgary Flames messageboard, and then suddenly a new member arrives who happens to work for the Secret Service. It's a little wiggy.

Not that it matters or anything, but how did you come to find this board? There must be a million messageboards out there with these types of conversations. Don't get me wrong, you're perfectly welcome around here. Are you going to hang out for hockey talk too?

I’ve done plenty of crazy things in my life from flying search and rescue in the treetops with crazy Columbians shooting at me to testifying before joint Senate-House hearings, but I’m not near crazy enough to take on the job my friends at the Secret Service have to put up with everyday.

I’m recovering from a 2 day marathon on 6 hours sleep where I had to help out a batch of retired Generals and Admirals that are campaigning for the President and I’m looking for a new message board software for another application. I like the way Invision software works so I’m checking out a few boards that use it. I haven’t been active in hockey since I left Nebraska years ago and at my age would prefer to play polo and let the horse do some of the work, but I do like to catch an occasional game and I find it to be an interesting sport that probably ties Canadians and Americans together more than any other.

Since I probably won’t get any free time until the election is over, I will probably disappear for a while on the road, but I’ve book marked this place and I’m sure I’ll drop in for some great insight during the playoffs.

[sjwalter]

Come on man, i seriously don't get it.

I said democratic viewpoint if you would have read what i really said. And if you support Kerry's viewpoint isn't that a democratic viewpoint? Why is that so hard to understand?

[Moderator]

Okay guys. No more personal insults.

We can discuss things civilly.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 24 2004, 10:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 24 2004, 10:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 05:19 AM
Hey Lanny you accused me of backing Bush on his stance when the attacks happened, so why not elaborate on what Bill said what really goes on. You said that seven minutes that Bush sat there could have saved alot of lives and IMO you lied. Care to say anything, but don't expect me to believe it because most of what you say is BS anyway. IMO of course.

Okay, I'll play. I think Bill provides some interesting information but I think there's some flaws in what he says. From what he is saying the President would not be left sitting in the school room like he suggests with an obvious threat. The Secret Service would have had him out of there and into a safe room isolated from everyone else, and not sitting for a photo-op while the Secret Service revised the route, which was not revised according to the papers. If five minutes was the key time frame, why was the President still sitting there seven minutes later? What he says has some merit, but other things don't add up to support the theory. If this was the fact that information would have come out and put an end to all the BS floating around about indecision. The Secret Service protecting the President would be a very good and believable story for the delay at the photo-op. Unfortunately no one, until right now, has suggested this. [/b][/quote]
Because we all took what you wrote as what really happened. And it has been stated before, because every possible scenario has been tried through and through to figure out why Bush never moved, you just ignored it thats all.

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by Moderator@Oct 24 2004, 10:34 PM
Okay guys. No more personal insults.

We can discuss things civilly.

Sorry, getting a little tensed up on my side.

Can't wait for the election to be over, then we can all agree on something.......we want hockey back.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by "BillW"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("BillW")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Fundamentally the approach Kerry has outlined (as far as anyone knows) is to revert back to the Clinton, Reno, and Richard Clark model regarding terrorism. Kerry has repeatedly stated that he thinks the war on terror should be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue.[/b]

You mean the model that operated WITHOUT a 9/11-level attack against? I'm not going to make the fallacy of saying that just because 9/11 happened after Clinton's watch that Clinton's watch effectively staved it off -- I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows. But it's worth noting that 9/11 happened after W. drastically cut the funding for counterterrorism and essentially ignored the intelligence which labeled it a possibility and/or likelihood.

But now that Bush is a big Anti-Terrorist Cowboy after the fact his methods are the benchmark? What? Did I miss a memo?

Originally posted by "BillW"@
The Secret Service also deals with the most criminals that are not deterred by the prospect of getting caught such as Oswald or Hinckley.

Of course Oswald wasn't deterred by the prospect of being caught. He didn't even know what he was doing.

I do agree with you that punishment often doesn't serve as a deterrent. You stated crimes of passion, and those are a good example. Terrorism is certainly a "crime" of passion, if you want to call it that -- such that it is an act that has little to no regard for the consequences of the perpetrator. For a terrorist, the act of terrorism far outweighs their own life much less the posibility of life imprisonment or execution. (They can't be negotiated with, etc. etc.)

But where has Kerry stated it should be relegated to law enforcement rather than military action? I can't recall him saying that and I'd like to know if that's something of a direct quote or your interpretation. I do know that he wants to internationalize the counter-terror efforts, and that certainly doesn't equate with shifting it into the realm of law enforcement.

<!--QuoteBegin-"BillW"
Even worse than Kerry’s boneheaded ex-prosecutor perspective on terror is that he would let a country like France unilaterally alter what he knows needs to be done. This despite the fact that he understood that France had a huge vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo no matter what the consequences to the US or the UN’s respectability.[/quote]

This is classic Bush bullheadedness. It doesn't matter what anybody else in the world thinks about possible solutions, possible targets, and possible methods. Somehow Bush has declared the US the sole arbiter of counter-terror methodology and then says "if you're not with us, you're against us". I'm actually quite surprised you "know" what Bush "knows" needs to be done. First, I question if you know Bush's or Kerry's counter-terror plans as I doubt they're made available to the public like the plans to create jobs. Secondly, I'm not so sure Bush really knows what his counter-terror plans were in the first place. And, considering that 9/11 happened and the perpetrator has not yet been caught leads me to believe that they were half-cooked ideas if there were any there at all.

You're a classic neo-conservative just as much as some of us are classic lefties. You refuse to acknowledge that it was your actions in the first place that have created this anti-America terrorism. And don't for a second tell me that it's terrorism in general that Bush is concerned about stopping, as it's ONLY anti-America terror: he's pretty much completely ignored the Israel-Palestine situation, effectively destroying any gains Clinton made during his tenure; he made no reply to the situation in Russia; but he's started two wars since America was hit by it. You, nor him, nor any other neo-conservative imperialists will EVER acknolwedge that it's your haphazard cowboy foreign policy that's created this Anti-Americanism in the first place, nor will you acknowledge the irony of fighting this Anti-Americanism with the same kind of foreign policy that put you in this situation in the first place.

Terrorism is not just an evil of the world that's always been there and has to be dealt with. Terrorism will always exist if that's the only means of a people to express their resentment and despair at their societal conditions. You can't stamp it out unless you stamp out the reasons for its existence. You've got the chicken/egg thing completely wrong here and your solution can't ever work unless you correct your view of the situation.

Just my thoughts. Hoping to hear your reply.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by BillW+Oct 24 2004, 10:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BillW @ Oct 24 2004, 10:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Oct 23 2004, 09:44 PM
I've got a question:# Why is the Bush/Cheney pair seen as such an obvious "stronger" pair in regards to fighting terrorism?# It's always mentioned on the US news, they run ads (with wolves now) portraying themselves as really tough, the polls show Bush ahead on the issue, it's seen as a "strength" for them. Why?

Is it because "liberal" is such a dirty word?# Is there some sort of conception that they've had fabulous success fighting wars over the past three years?#

On a related note, I don't think I'll ever understand how Kerry gets painted as an anti-war wimp when Bush and Cheney were so obviously anti-war as well.

Fundamentally the approach Kerry has outlined (as far as anyone knows) is to revert back to the Clinton, Reno, and Richard Clark model regarding terrorism. Kerry has repeatedly stated that he thinks the war on terror should be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue.

The flaw in that thinking is obvious to anyone that thinks about the primary tool used by law enforcement, which is punishment. Law enforcement works as a deterrent against crime because of the threat of punishment if the perpetrator is caught. The simple fact that more people are arrested after they commit a crime than before they have committed a crime is proof, and why crimes of passion are so difficult to prevent. Even the FBI is limited in preventing crimes and is considered the worlds best crime investigation unit – after the fact. The only major law enforcement type organization in the US that operates strictly on preventing a crime before it can happen is the Presidential and Executive Detail of the Secret Service. The Secret Service also deals with the most criminals that are not deterred by the prospect of getting caught such as Oswald or Hinckley.

Where this law enforcement model falls apart in the war on terror is that most terrorists go into their action intending to die anyway. How can you use a punishment deterrent model against a dead perpetrator? Incarcerate his remains after the fact? Common criminals worry about getting caught and plan accordingly, but terrorists plan on getting caught.

This is why the military model is so necessary at this time when you need to round up the suspects before they can plan and commit an act of terrorism. I had to laugh when Kerry stated that he would round up the terrorists around the world if he was President, but he never suggests how he would do that. President Bush and the UN gave the Taliban many opportunities for them to offer up OBL and the other al Qaeda members known to be in Afghanistan and they refused to cooperate in any way. Saddam has been harboring the 1993 bomber of the WTC for many years and refused to assist the US or the UN in apprehending him or even limiting his involvement in other terror activities. Maybe someone who watched one too many Tom Clancy movies might think that we could just send some covert operation into Afghanistan or Iraq and arrest the bad guys out from under Omar or Saddam’s nose, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.

Even worse than Kerry’s boneheaded ex-prosecutor perspective on terror is that he would let a country like France unilaterally alter what he knows needs to be done. This despite the fact that he understood that France had a huge vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo no matter what the consequences to the US or the UN’s respectability.

Everyone is anti-war, but there comes a time when war is the only road to peace. Too many on the left today equate lack of war to the same thing as peace and that is far from the truth. No one, including Kerry and the UN, could claim that the people of Iraq or Afghanistan were living peacefully even though they were not formally at war before the liberation. The key is making that decision when war is necessary to bring about peace. In 1971, I was shocked when Kerry told the US Congress that a withdrawal from Vietnam would result in a maximum loss of life or liberty to 5,000 South Vietnamese citizens. He was wrong then by a factor of close to 200 with over one million innocent citizens dieing at the hands of the communists, 500,000 being incarcerated, and several million fleeing as refuges. He has yet to admit his mistake then and he is even more mistaken today about the human suffering that would occur under his current plans – whatever they may be this week. [/b][/quote]
Billy said:

The simple fact that more people are arrested after they commit a crime than before they have committed a crime is proof, and why crimes of passion are so difficult to prevent.

Laugh. Yeah, you really got me there. You ever see that movie "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise? Check it out. I know it'd be right up your alley because the last time I recommended it to a 70-year-old fighter pilot/Secret Service Agent/FAA Chief confidant from Florida, he really liked it.

[sjwalter]

Hey fivehole,

couple remarks,

You mean the model that operated WITHOUT a 9/11-level attack against?

I guess all the terror attacks against the US during Clinton's term never meant anything right?

as it's ONLY anti-America terror:

Thats the whole problem, you left wing radicals don't realize that this terrorism threatens the freedom both our countries are based upon. They can't stand our freedom, can't stand our way of life, and everything else we have better then them. The only reason they haven't gotten to Canada is because we haven't shown we can stand up for ourselves, and we let the terrorists be harboured in our country. Even the Nazis have been known to find refuge here.

completely ignored the Israel-Palestine situation,

Thats because America doesn't need to take care of Isreal, they are capable of it themselves.


but he's started two wars

He may have started the war in Iraq, but didn't the terrorists who we know some were based out of the Afghan region attack America first?

[sjwalter]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 24 2004, 10:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 24 2004, 10:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Fundamentally the approach Kerry has outlined (as far as anyone knows) is to revert back to the Clinton, Reno, and Richard Clark model regarding terrorism. Kerry has repeatedly stated that he thinks the war on terror should be treated as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue.

The flaw in that thinking is obvious to anyone that thinks about the primary tool used by law enforcement, which is punishment. Law enforcement works as a deterrent against crime because of the threat of punishment if the perpetrator is caught. The simple fact that more people are arrested after they commit a crime than before they have committed a crime is proof, and why crimes of passion are so difficult to prevent. Even the FBI is limited in preventing crimes and is considered the worlds best crime investigation unit – after the fact. The only major law enforcement type organization in the US that operates strictly on preventing a crime before it can happen is the Presidential and Executive Detail of the Secret Service. The Secret Service also deals with the most criminals that are not deterred by the prospect of getting caught such as Oswald or Hinckley.

Where this law enforcement model falls apart in the war on terror is that most terrorists go into their action intending to die anyway. How can you use a punishment deterrent model against a dead perpetrator? Incarcerate his remains after the fact? Common criminals worry about getting caught and plan accordingly, but terrorists plan on getting caught.

This is why the military model is so necessary at this time when you need to round up the suspects before they can plan and commit an act of terrorism. I had to laugh when Kerry stated that he would round up the terrorists around the world if he was President, but he never suggests how he would do that. President Bush and the UN gave the Taliban many opportunities for them to offer up OBL and the other al Qaeda members known to be in Afghanistan and they refused to cooperate in any way. Saddam has been harboring the 1993 bomber of the WTC for many years and refused to assist the US or the UN in apprehending him or even limiting his involvement in other terror activities. Maybe someone who watched one too many Tom Clancy movies might think that we could just send some covert operation into Afghanistan or Iraq and arrest the bad guys out from under Omar or Saddam’s nose, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.

Even worse than Kerry’s boneheaded ex-prosecutor perspective on terror is that he would let a country like France unilaterally alter what he knows needs to be done. This despite the fact that he understood that France had a huge vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo no matter what the consequences to the US or the UN’s respectability.

Everyone is anti-war, but there comes a time when war is the only road to peace. Too many on the left today equate lack of war to the same thing as peace and that is far from the truth. No one, including Kerry and the UN, could claim that the people of Iraq or Afghanistan were living peacefully even though they were not formally at war before the liberation. The key is making that decision when war is necessary to bring about peace. In 1971, I was shocked when Kerry told the US Congress that a withdrawal from Vietnam would result in a maximum loss of life or liberty to 5,000 South Vietnamese citizens. He was wrong then by a factor of close to 200 with over one million innocent citizens dieing at the hands of the communists, 500,000 being incarcerated, and several million fleeing as refuges. He has yet to admit his mistake then and he is even more mistaken today about the human suffering that would occur under his current plans – whatever they may be this week.

Billy said:

The simple fact that more people are arrested after they commit a crime than before they have committed a crime is proof, and why crimes of passion are so difficult to prevent.

Laugh. Yeah, you really got me there. You ever see that movie "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise? Check it out. I know it'd be right up your alley because the last time I recommended it to a 70-year-old fighter pilot/Secret Service Agent/FAA Chief confidant from Florida, he really liked it. [/b][/quote]
If only it would be like that eh Rouge, then everything we argue about would be irelevant.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 24 2004, 10:27 PM
Hey ***hole, if you support Kerry you're democratic and i don't give a sh*t what you have to say about that. And most here support Kerry. Only dumbass's would support Kerry and his lies that everyone has fell for. He doesn't deserve to be leader of the greatest country in the world.

I'm so shocked...a Republican seeing things in black and white!

None of you seem to understand that there are shades of grey to EVERY situation. There's no such thing as an absolute. I support Kerry, but I also loathe Bush just as much. As such, there's just as much reason to vote for Kerry to oust Bush as there is to vote for Kerry on his own merits. So don't call me a Democrat, because I'm not one -- both in definition and in philosophy.

Let me show you a revolutionary concept: I can support Kerry on the whole while disagreeing with some of his policies. You know this is possible, right? Maybe you like Bush (though I can't fathom why). But you know that just because you like Bush doesn't mean you don't have to like everything he does, right? You CAN disagree with him while still being a patriotic, card-carrying Republican. IT IS POSSIBLE. Try it some time.

Also, on that last sentence of yours, I'd like you to tell me why Bush DOES deserve to be the leader of the greatest country in the world (which I don't think is an incredibly popular statement to be making on a board largely populated by foreigners -- but again, I'm not exactly shocked by such an attitude.)

I'd also like you to address this entire post rather than one tiny sentence that you're going to fly off the handle about so you can conveniently ignore the rest of. You seem to fight only the fights you can win and pretend nothing else is there. (Again, so shocked.)

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 24 2004, 11:45 PM

Thats because America doesn't need to take care of Isreal, they are capable of it themselves.

I'm guessing Superman BillW is really appreciating your endorsement of him when you say stuff like this.

[Moderator]

Again, gentlemen.

There's some interesting discussion going on here. Let's not veer off into name calling.

The Neutral Moderator Guy.

[BillW]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 24 2004, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 24 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BillW@Oct 25 2004, 03:05 AM
The above delays in response to an unanticipated scenario in multiple bureaucracies is why there is no way NORAD could have responded any faster unless they would have gone out and shot down 100 innocent aircraft. NORAD was not notified sooner because there was no hijack or emergency code transmitted prior to the aircrafts transponders being turned off, and the individual controllers involved had no way of knowing that any given aircraft was anything other than a transponder, radio, or electrical system failure and the aircraft were turning, as they should have, to the nearest place of landing and repair.

To pull a Cowperson here...

So let me get this straight? You're saying that all commercial flights in the US do NOT have a transponder and this is not required by the FAA? You're also saying that NORAD (not no radio) does not track every single piece of traffic in the air and does not have a series of protocols that they follow in regards to loss of transponder signals and norad situations? (Wow, I guess those F-16's that escorted Payne Stewart's jet to where it crashed were just fighter jocks looking for an autograph?) I just want you to clear these points up so I know where you're coming from. What you say does not jive with the information available nor standard procedures that happen daily. Care to elaborate on those? [/b][/quote]
Only scheduled airline flights, flights in instrument conditions, flights through an ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone), or flights above 18,000’ are required to be on a flight plan. Flights in the above conditions or within Class B airspace or what’s called the 30NM Mode C veil around Class B airspace and within Class E airspace above 12,000’ and more than 1,200’ above the ground, or turbine powered aircraft and those over 12,500 pounds gross weight are the only aircraft required to have a transponder. That leaves about 2/3 of the aircraft in the air at anytime out.

Prior to 9/11, NORAD did not have an easy way to tap into national radar coverage below about 40,000’, above most airline traffic, and they only control traffic above 60,000’. Since there is not much traffic that high, we used to laugh about the times the SR71 would pop in and out of FAA space and surprise the controller with a Mach 3 traffic advisory. The primary contact most FAA controllers have with the military consists of TRACON control with military bases within their Center or Langley and former Scott AFB for search and rescue functions. NORAD spends most of their time tracking 40,000 lose nuts, bolts, and discarded wrenches floating around in low earth orbit so the shuttle or a satellite doesn’t slam into them and making sure no missiles or enemy aircraft are approaching from outside the country.

I believe in the Payne Stewart incident NORAD only got involved because the controller requested help from the local AFB and when it appeared they would need to coordinate with other bases outside the range of the original intercepting base they contacted NORAD – not the FAA. In the Stewart case you had an aircraft that was continuing to transmit the assigned discrete transponder code, would not respond to radio, continued climbing above the assigned altitude as indicated by mode C on the transponder, and flying in a straight line past a point it should have turned at. The first thing the controller did was clear the airspace above and ahead of the craft to avoid any traffic conflicts, then the controller contacted his local AFB for assistance. You can see how such a pre 9/11 system fell apart with multiple hijackings and hijackings that were to become missiles instead of hostage situations.

I’ve been flying since 1968, and I’ve literally had hundreds of transponder failures whether they were complete failures or just an ATC request to “recycle” the transponder because it dropped off radar for some reason. It is so common that most aircraft flying above 24,000’ are required to have two transponders though only one is turned on at a time. Because of the way transponders are built it was the only piece of avionics that was not solid state until just a couple years ago and the cavitron tube that drives them is subject to sudden failure.

It’s been a while since I’ve taken an instrument flight or commercial flight exam, I don’t remember all of the no radio or transponder loss procedures, only the ones I’m likely to encounter. If I’m on an instrument flight plan, the controller typically has no idea if I’m in the clouds, above some clouds, or in the clear since they have no way of overlaying weather on their screen in most locations. If I lose all contact and I continue on my assigned course the controller will assume I’m in the clouds and continuing as planned until I can get out of them. If I divert from my planned course, the controller will assume I’ve found an area of visual flight conditions and I am looking to land as soon as practical (the rules actually say practical and not possible). Without any other suspicious circumstances that happens dozens of times a day around the country and works very well. Another thing many people don’t understand is that Air Traffic Control does not really control aircraft but they control the airspace to make it operate more efficiently. If all radar were lost across the country at one time, air traffic would continue on safely but very delayed, as the spacing between aircraft would have to be increased. I still fly into hundreds of airports and many places in the country where there is NO radar coverage and we just go back to the old rules of increased spacing and some times working things out with the other pilots on the radio rather than with ATC.

[BillW]

Originally posted by Moderator@Oct 24 2004, 10:57 PM
Again, gentlemen.

There's some interesting discussion going on here. Let's not veer off into name calling.

The Neutral Moderator Guy.

Thank you all for the welcome here and I’m sorry if I stirred up some intense feelings. I just happen to have been fortunate in my life to have been in the middle of many things that are rather interesting after the hairy stuff stops for a while.

I do have a tendency to be an old curmudgeon that has an opinion on too many topics sometimes and I have been a bit of smarta$$ and offended people. I just also happen to be a person that has been slandered by John Kerry too many times since 1971, and now it’s beginning to get a little personal. This country has been at war, whether we admit it or not, since November of 1978 with the same enemy – just a few different division of that enemy. It started when Carter reneged on our treaties with the Shah of Iran and it’s people, it escalated in January of 1979 when he began negotiating with Saddam to fight as our proxy against the Islamists in Iran, and it has gone downhill ever since.

BTW: If you’re interested, politically I’m more of a Constitutional Constructionist which would make me an old school liberal Republican if I lived with Abraham Lincoln. Now it probably makes me more of a Republican since too many Democrats talk about giving people rights from the government when the Constitution never gave those rights to the government to give back to me in the first place.

I hate to see so many freedom loving people fight among themselves about details when they first must admit that they have a common enemy that would love to destroy what we cherish.

[BillW]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 24 2004, 10:42 PM
Billy said:

The simple fact that more people are arrested after they commit a crime than before they have committed a crime is proof, and why crimes of passion are so difficult to prevent.

Laugh. Yeah, you really got me there. You ever see that movie "Minority Report" with Tom Cruise? Check it out. I know it'd be right up your alley because the last time I recommended it to a 70-year-old fighter pilot/Secret Service Agent/FAA Chief confidant from Florida, he really liked it.

Actually that movie terrified me, because it reminded me of how we have attempted to mold hate crime legislation. It’s pretty scary to think that a misdemeanor crime could be escalated to a serious felony on the grounds that someone claims to know exactly what the criminal’s motivation and thinking before the crime was.

[arsenal]

Yes, Welcome Bill.
Hope you enjoy your stay. Although I don't Mr. Moderator was referring to you.