• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

TSA Saves San Francisco

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Rogue
Soldiers almost always carry their weapons with them on the aircraft. They certainly will not have the time or resources to load and unload all those weapons and match them up soldier to serial number in an efficient manner. Furthermore, these are usually chartered flights, meaning the airline supplies the aircraft and the pilots, but the aircraft is essentially treated just like a military craft for all intents and purposes. Besides, as was stated after the government bailout of the airline industry after 9/11, the government should own the entire airline industry at this point anyway.
Click to expand...

Aircraft may be treated as military craft, but an airport is not a military base. I think the best solution would be to unload them outside the terminal using stairs.
Click to expand...

Who cares if the airport isn't a military base? It isn't as if a group of soldiers is going to grab guns and take over. Besides, the soldiers have more weapons training than the TSA ever will.

(Psst, Die Hard 2 was only a movie.) :roll:
 
Originally posted by: mhillary
Is TSA really that awful??
Click to expand...

The TSA is a cruel joke on the citizens of this country. They paw and man handle passangers, steal valuables from luggage, and provide a false sense of secruity.

Test have proved that the secruity is a joke and non-existant. It took outcrys from the public to force the TSA to complete background checks and clear out all the convicted felons that the TSA had already hired.

It is a good jobs program, hire the normally un-enployable, and give them the feeling of satisfaction that they now have the authority to grope, interrogate, harass people, and justify it by calling it secruity.

Yet consider US Troops as a "security risk" A cruel and expensive joke at the expense of the traveling public and the taxpayer.
 
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: dahunan
I may not agree with why our soldiers are there.. but I respect the job they are doing and respect their courage and bravery and sacrifice from the depths of my heart and soul.
Click to expand...
Honestly I have no idea what you mean by that, but whatever floats your boat.

How can you be for the troops fighting the war, but not the war itself?

I think a lot of people are just scared to admit that there really is nothing to support the troops for if you disagree with the Iraq War.
Click to expand...

People like you scare me very much. It's funny that I happen to be reading Brave New World at the moment. I can't believe that someone "honestly has no idea" how one can support troops and not a war. The troops don't sign up for the war (well some do but most are already enlisted); rather, the political system sends them to fight. Most people in this country support the troops (only radicals don't), while the country is pretty damn split regarding the actual war.

They hope that the soldiers are safe, and wish they weren't in Iraq in the first place.

That is what he means by "supporting troops w/o supporting the war"

Thanks for scaring me about the future of our nation 🙁.
Click to expand...

The problem here stems from the broad meaning of "support." In some ways, Proletariat is right IF you believe supporting means hoping that they win, have success. If US soldiers win/succeed it is pretty much coming at the detriment of innocent Iraqis, some of whom are trying to keep an illegal foreign occupation out of their country. In this sense, you are supporting the war. However, if you define it like NJDevil, then obviously it's not inconsistent. You may oppose the war but hope the soldiers return safely.
 
Ah, yes, let us see, American troops, trained to kill by American taxdollars, supplied by American firearms makes (well, and Belgian) and sent to Iraq by the American President somehow present a security risk?

I'm sorry, but after 9/11, wasn't it the National Guard that were sent to airports, WITH WEAPONs, to act as a security force?

It isn't America if you can't trust your all-volunteer Armed Forces with the guns you bought for them.

But, of course, there is probably a far more complex story we are not aware of.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: dahunan
I may not agree with why our soldiers are there.. but I respect the job they are doing and respect their courage and bravery and sacrifice from the depths of my heart and soul.
Click to expand...
Honestly I have no idea what you mean by that, but whatever floats your boat.

How can you be for the troops fighting the war, but not the war itself?

I think a lot of people are just scared to admit that there really is nothing to support the troops for if you disagree with the Iraq War.
Click to expand...

People like you scare me very much. It's funny that I happen to be reading Brave New World at the moment. I can't believe that someone "honestly has no idea" how one can support troops and not a war. The troops don't sign up for the war (well some do but most are already enlisted); rather, the political system sends them to fight. Most people in this country support the troops (only radicals don't), while the country is pretty damn split regarding the actual war.

They hope that the soldiers are safe, and wish they weren't in Iraq in the first place.

That is what he means by "supporting troops w/o supporting the war"

Thanks for scaring me about the future of our nation 🙁.
Click to expand...

The problem here stems from the broad meaning of "support." In some ways, Proletariat is right IF you believe supporting means hoping that they win, have success. If US soldiers win/succeed it is pretty much coming at the detriment of innocent Iraqis, some of whom are trying to keep an illegal foreign occupation out of their country. In this sense, you are supporting the war. However, if you define it like NJDevil, then obviously it's not inconsistent. You may oppose the war but hope the soldiers return safely.
Click to expand...

I support them in that I do hope that they succeed in their mission so they could get home as fast as possible and so that the Iraqis can maintain their own country. However, I still think the war was a bad idea. Most people I know hope we succeed there as soon as possible whether or not they are for the war.

 
Originally posted by: Farmer


But, of course, there is probably a far more complex story we are not aware of.
Click to expand...

I really doubt it, create an agency, hire misfits and others that can't hold a normal job, and give them a trememdous amount of authority, this is what you get.

Government agency's at best are barely functional and littered with incompetence. The TSA is the poster child for incompetence, and a cruel joke on the American people that believe that they provide some level of security.
 
Originally posted by: Yellow Dog
Originally posted by: Farmer


But, of course, there is probably a far more complex story we are not aware of.
Click to expand...

I really doubt it, create an agency, hire misfits and others that can't hold a normal job, and give them a trememdous amount of authority, this is what you get.

.
Click to expand...

sounds to me more like the real military... :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
good, and they can still keep their nuke subs out of the bay too.
We get enough military postureing for people here. we do not have a redeployment center
and if they need such accomodations they need to let people know.
Click to expand...

I don't understand you San Francisco freaks. You totally put down and disrepect the military for doing nothing but fighting for our country. What an asshole.
Click to expand...


If the military were fighting for our country they would be occupying
DC, not baghdad.
 
Whether you agree with or disagree with Viet Nam police action the true shame of the period of time was the way American troops were treated by Americans upon their return.

Is history repeating itself?
 
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
good, and they can still keep their nuke subs out of the bay too.
We get enough military postureing for people here. we do not have a redeployment center
and if they need such accomodations they need to let people know.
Click to expand...

I don't understand you San Francisco freaks. You totally put down and disrepect the military for doing nothing but fighting for our country. What an asshole.
Click to expand...


If the military were fighting for our country they would be occupying
DC, not baghdad.
Click to expand...

So the military wasn't fighting for our country in WW1, WW2, or the Korean War? Who are the fighting for then? (and don't give one of your smartass remarks they are fighting for oil companies or Osama or some lame BS)
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
good, and they can still keep their nuke subs out of the bay too.
We get enough military postureing for people here. we do not have a redeployment center
and if they need such accomodations they need to let people know.
Click to expand...

I don't understand you San Francisco freaks. You totally put down and disrepect the military for doing nothing but fighting for our country. What an asshole.
Click to expand...


If the military were fighting for our country they would be occupying
DC, not baghdad.
Click to expand...

So the military wasn't fighting for our country in WW1, WW2, or the Korean War? Who are the fighting for then? (and don't give one of your smartass remarks they are fighting for oil companies or Osama or some lame BS)
Click to expand...


so you told him/her they weren't allowed to tell you the truth because you are afraid of the truth?

it isn't really the companies we are fighting for.. but the oil is the american way of life.. oil is the only way we stay powerful... no oil... no economy...

the strength of the US dollar also depended on keeping oil at a dollar standard... etc.. Saddam was going to change that too.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
good, and they can still keep their nuke subs out of the bay too.
We get enough military postureing for people here. we do not have a redeployment center
and if they need such accomodations they need to let people know.
Click to expand...

I don't understand you San Francisco freaks. You totally put down and disrepect the military for doing nothing but fighting for our country. What an asshole.
Click to expand...


If the military were fighting for our country they would be occupying
DC, not baghdad.
Click to expand...

So the military wasn't fighting for our country in WW1, WW2, or the Korean War? Who are the fighting for then? (and don't give one of your smartass remarks they are fighting for oil companies or Osama or some lame BS)
Click to expand...


who brought ww2 and 1 into this? you did. vietnam and iraq were colonial actions for someone elses profit, nothing less
 
Originally posted by: Yellow Dog
Whether you agree with or disagree with Viet Nam police action the true shame of the period of time was the way American troops were treated by Americans upon their return.

Is history repeating itself?
Click to expand...

as far as what? being lied to that the antiwar = against our soldiers?
then yes, you got lied to again if you believe that crap sadly.
But then being mislead and lied to should be pretty normal considering the course of this war so far.
The support the troops types are the betrayers leaving them out there for so long for a lie and being too cowardly to speak out and say enough is enough.
 
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
good, and they can still keep their nuke subs out of the bay too.
We get enough military postureing for people here. we do not have a redeployment center
and if they need such accomodations they need to let people know.
Click to expand...

I don't understand you San Francisco freaks. You totally put down and disrepect the military for doing nothing but fighting for our country. What an asshole.
Click to expand...


If the military were fighting for our country they would be occupying
DC, not baghdad.
Click to expand...

So the military wasn't fighting for our country in WW1, WW2, or the Korean War? Who are the fighting for then? (and don't give one of your smartass remarks they are fighting for oil companies or Osama or some lame BS)
Click to expand...


who brought ww2 and 1 into this? you did. vietnam and iraq were colonial actions for someone elses profit, nothing less
Click to expand...

Uh, Vietnam was about stopping the spread of communism. Had nothing to do w/ "Colonial actions."

Edit: I believe I misunderstood your post about occupying DC. I thought you meant they are only fighting for our country if they are on our soil, but I just realized you meant they should remove Bush from office. Both are pretty stupid notions however.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Rogue
Soldiers almost always carry their weapons with them on the aircraft. They certainly will not have the time or resources to load and unload all those weapons and match them up soldier to serial number in an efficient manner. Furthermore, these are usually chartered flights, meaning the airline supplies the aircraft and the pilots, but the aircraft is essentially treated just like a military craft for all intents and purposes. Besides, as was stated after the government bailout of the airline industry after 9/11, the government should own the entire airline industry at this point anyway.
Click to expand...

Aircraft may be treated as military craft, but an airport is not a military base. I think the best solution would be to unload them outside the terminal using stairs.
Click to expand...

A simple solution is to make them go through a metal detector when they disembark the aircraft. As a pilot who flew charters we often times picked up people in small cities and flew them to major airports. we were able to let the passengers out in the main terminals, but they keep them seperated until they are screened. These soldiers were probably jonesing for a hamburger and soda or a quick call home. They could have easily been accomodated at any airport.
 
Originally posted by: Yellow Dog
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The Way It Should Be
Click to expand...

That should be show to every TSA agent in SFO during their exit interview when they have to turn in the ID and uniform, write a letter of apology and collect their last pay check.
Click to expand...

The Airport should install and run a monitor in front of the TSA screening areas and run the clip 24/7.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top