Us To Fingerprint & Photograph All Visa Travellers

[Biggles]

I have to say I am surprised with regards the amount of confusion and hostility created by this move on the part of the US.

The proposals do appear patchy and I have some sympathy with the Brazilians who appear to have somehow got enmeshed in this (when was the last time Brazil gave us anything other than truly beautiful football). Whilst Brazilians are queing other nations who could potentially spawn terrorists still appear to be free to travel.

If the US administration is guilty of anything in this rather minor issue it is muddled thinking.

With regards further attacks in the US, the probability is that the next set of assailants are already there and simply awaiting the signal - although I hope I am wrong on that score.

A point I think worthy of note is that if we end up unable to conduct normal daily business for fear of terrorism then they have won.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc+9 January 2004 - 02:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 9 January 2004 - 02:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@9 January 2004 - 01:21

The UK, which is one of the most advanced in this area cannot produce them before the middle of 2005. Most other countries will be unable to produce such passports before 2006. Can you really see a family of 4 queueing at the US embassy for hours, paying £60 each, plus travelling costs, just to go for a couple of weeks in Florida? In any case, the US embassy could not possibly cope with the demand, even if only 10% decided it was worth it.

I suggest it is time to think about the real implications of this ludicrous piece of legislation.

has the US embassy re-opened to the public again ? as i thought they were all cordoned off after 9/11....i know in london the only way to get a visa was by post.
regardless you make a very valid point on the deterent of people holidaying in the states.

that said if some of the posts here are true none of those visitors would bring any benefit to us and we don&#39;t need you. ( not my view )
finally disneyland paris will have someone on the rides..just like they always wanted [/b][/quote]
You people are clearly not reading the threads. I am not talking about tourists, tourism comes from the Visa-waiver countries mostly.

Tourism is big, I have clearly stated that I am not talking about that, sheesh.

[lynx]

Originally posted by vidcc+9 January 2004 - 00:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 9 January 2004 - 00:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-lynx@9 January 2004 - 01:21

The UK, which is one of the most advanced in this area cannot produce them before the middle of 2005. Most other countries will be unable to produce such passports before 2006. Can you really see a family of 4 queueing at the US embassy for hours, paying £60 each, plus travelling costs, just to go for a couple of weeks in Florida? In any case, the US embassy could not possibly cope with the demand, even if only 10% decided it was worth it.

I suggest it is time to think about the real implications of this ludicrous piece of legislation.

has the US embassy re-opened to the public again ? as i thought they were all cordoned off after 9/11....i know in london the only way to get a visa was by post.
regardless you make a very valid point on the deterent of people holidaying in the states.

that said if some of the posts here are true none of those visitors would bring any benefit to us and we don&#39;t need you. ( not my view )
finally disneyland paris will have someone on the rides..just like they always wanted [/b][/quote]
You obviously haven&#39;t been keeping up. The requirement for a visa is to have a (pre-arranged) interview. Cost £60. That&#39;s going to be a little difficult if the embassy isn&#39;t open. And it is inevitable that they won&#39;t be able to cope with demand, so most people will go elsewhere.

And I don&#39;t care, not our loss.

But you miss the point that once again poor US foreign policy increases the risk of terrorist acts.

[lynx]

Originally posted by hobbes+9 January 2004 - 00:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 9 January 2004 - 00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by vidcc@9 January 2004 - 02:34
<!--QuoteBegin-lynx

@9 January 2004 - 01:21

The UK, which is one of the most advanced in this area cannot produce them before the middle of 2005. Most other countries will be unable to produce such passports before 2006. Can you really see a family of 4 queueing at the US embassy for hours, paying £60 each, plus travelling costs, just to go for a couple of weeks in Florida? In any case, the US embassy could not possibly cope with the demand, even if only 10% decided it was worth it.

I suggest it is time to think about the real implications of this ludicrous piece of legislation.

has the US embassy re-opened to the public again ? as i thought they were all cordoned off after 9/11....i know in london the only way to get a visa was by post.
regardless you make a very valid point on the deterent of people holidaying in the states.

that said if some of the posts here are true none of those visitors would bring any benefit to us and we don&#39;t need you. ( not my view )
finally disneyland paris will have someone on the rides..just like they always wanted

You people are clearly not reading the threads. I am not talking about tourists, tourism comes from the Visa-waiver countries mostly.

Tourism is big, I have clearly stated that I am not talking about that, sheesh. [/b][/quote]
Hobbes, you are obviously not reading the posts properly either.

The current "visa waiver" areas will not be able to operate effectively under that system after October.

[leftism]

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lefty, I meant to say "Billy", not "boy".[/b]

With all due respect I really think your pushing it by expecting me to believe that.

(btw why &#39;Billy&#39;?)

Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I&#39;m sure your interest in our forum is earnest and I just wanted to give you a few pointers on how to engage in a discussion and avoid a name calling rant. Probably just a neophtye mistake on your part.[/b]

Thats ridiculous and quite offensive. My post was not aggressive in any way shape or form.

Originally posted by leftism
Lets apply a little logic.

The 9/11 terrorists didnt use false ID&#39;s. Even if they had been fingerprinted and had their DNA taken it wouldnt have changed a thing.

These measures wont guarantee your safety, they will however guarantee an illusion of safety. Surprisingly, this seems to be more than adequate for many people.

If your referring to the minor altercation with j2k4, I was provoked and I firmly believe in the right to defend one&#39;s self.

I might take one pointer from you though you f***n whore, sorry I meant to type &#39;friendly hobbes&#39; (j/k)

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@
To many on this board, "fingerprinting" is an over-reaction to 9/11, what would they think of your bottom line?[/quote]

I would imagine they would think it is an over-reaction too. However I did not say I supported that strategy, I simply pointed out that it is the only way the USA can be anywhere near secure. My problem with the fingerprinting was it&#39;s effectiveness or rather the lack of it.

I also think dividing foreign nationals into those who are exempt from carrying Visas and those who need them is a pointless and perhaps even a dangerous distinction to make. What would be the point of fingerprinting people from Brazil while the next Richard Reid walks onto the plane quite happily? (finger printing him wouldnt help either of course). Then you also have to take into account the factor of people with false passports from &#39;safe&#39; countries. Even letting tourists in is taking a pretty significant risk.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
I think we should have spent all of our time and effort since 1980 or so investing in alternative sources of energy to make our country self sufficient in this regard. But I firmly believe that government corruption, lead by the oil cronies, undermined these efforts. So now we interfere in politics across the seas and dethrone uncooperative leaders so that we can secure a pipeline of oil. Had all these resources been funneled into becoming energy self-sufficient, I think many problems could have been avoided.[/quote]

I cant help but agree 100% with you on that one. I&#39;ve noticed many of your fellow countrymen explode at the idea of oil and American foreign policy being connected, (this seems to be pretty universal on all the forums I visit). I&#39;m not sure if you&#39;ll be exempt from the usual wrath one incurs but good luck anyway

[Busyman]

Originally posted by 1234@9 January 2004 - 02:03
Not visiting is fine with me, that is not really the point of my post.

My point is that terrorism on that scale is not new, and is often US financed. The hypocrisy of the US position and it&#39;s "war on terror" is what I am referring to. The issue of US border controls are really of utmost indifference to me. Oh and for the record, I have been to the US before.

Those attacks on the US were long overdue really. If you have the foreign policies that the US has had for decades, eventually it will bite you. On 9/11 (I wonder if the hijackers knew the significance of that date) it bit back. It is people like you and others here that let the US off the hook for it&#39;s terrorist record and defend it&#39;s ludicrous "war on terror".

That is where you dismiss the suffering of millions. So I feel comparing you to whats left on a piece of toilet paper is quite apt. Not quite as apt as applying it our next poster though, I grant you that.

If Brazil wanted to stick probes up foreigners asses for stool samples we Americans would just say, "Oh well, can&#39;t go to Brazil".

The US State Dept has demanded that Brasil stop it&#39;s actions against US citizens. Doesn&#39;t seem like "oh well" to me.

Maybe you would be the first in line though.

Hoho, gay jibe. I am, once more, crushed.

If you want to come here, get your damn picture taken; it won&#39;t steal your soul.
If you don&#39;t want your picture taken, stay the fuck home.

Yep, those are the options. I have no problem with choosing to go or not.

If you don&#39;t want to come here then you are blowing a tremendous amount of smoke and there is concise need for you to STFU.&nbsp;

Nope, I am dealing with the background issues and the US&#39;s endless agression.

Second off, please step outside of your third world mind for a moment.

Third world mind? Can we add racism to your CV then? Are only US citizens allowed to have views on world events?

The NY/Washington attacks were very unique AND world shattering to US and that is why WE are taking security measures that benefit US.

Only unique in the fact that you were the victims not the perpretators. It is one of those coincidences of history that 9/11 is the anniversary of the US led coup in Chile that killed .... yep over 3000 people. The last 2 centuries are full of US mass murders in countries you can&#39;t even find on a map. Ever heard of the SOA? US&#39;s own terrorist training camp responsible for some of the worst dictators in recent history. It is still open while Bush waffles on about a war on terrorism. Heres a clue, start looking in your own damn country.

So while you want bring up all the sufferings of millions worldwide, that has very little to do with the thought process behind OUR government trying to take care of the USA.

As just shown, the suffering of millions worldwide is directly due to US govt policies both before and after 9/11. You reap what you sow. Or rather, those poor sods in the WTC reaped it while the people responsible sat in bunkers in the middle of Nevada or wherever.

If you lived in NY you wouldn&#39;t have said (after 9-11), "but what about the car bombing in Israel"
It was the worst terrorist act committed here. Do you understand?

I live in the UK, we have had US financed terrorist attacks here for decades. Members of your damn govt publically helped finance those attacks. Are you going to arrest those sponsors of terrorism? Anyway, like I said, the US is responsible for much worse atrocities than 9/11.

We here are not used to the terrorism that you might have grown up training for.

You really have no clue do you. The US is the worlds largest exporter of terrorism, and has been for decades. Want me to pull out some choice Kissinger quote

Maybe your post would have made more sense if you called the American government hypocrites.

I do, and anyone who supports them.

Then again if we sponsored all this terrorism is it wrong to protect ourselves against it?

Sure, since even the terrorists that are attacking you were created by your own country. You must have been proud seeing the WTC go down, thinking - "damn thats some efficent terrorists we have created".

EDIT: Damn dodgy tags

WTF does alllll that shit you are sprouting about basically paying homage to worldwide terrorism have to do with OUR security measures.
Who the fuck is "letting the US off the hook" as you say?

What am I supposed to do say

"Awww man well it&#39;s our governments fault that the 9-11 hijackers blew up the WTC and the Pentagon."
"I&#39;m not mad at the hijackers. I&#39;m mad at the US"
"Due to security breaches we should not beef up security but instead please 1234-69 with a pole in the ass and, so we don&#39;t piss off anyone else, allow those same breaches so we can let someone blow up the WTC when it is rebuilt."

Furthermore, RIF (Reading is fundamental)
It&#39;s obvious there&#39;s an itch in your ass about some shit you think we&#39;ve done in the UK. Either way:

We ARE not used to terrorism. Once again step outside of your third world mind.

If you read carefully. I said THE WORST TERRORIST ACT COMMITTED HERE.

The average American is NOT used to terrorism.
Knowing of terrorism abroad does not make you used to it.
America has been buffered by a huge separation of water. The UK in contrast does not have the same separation (as well as most of the other countries).

9-11 was probably less unigue to YOU because it happened abroad (and you&#39;re used to it). Get it?

Then again if we sponsored all this terrorism is it wrong to protect ourselves against it?

Sure, since even the terrorists that are attacking you were created by your own country. You must have been proud seeing the WTC go down, thinking - "damn thats some efficent terrorists we have created".

With that end post sir I mean bitch, you didn&#39;t even answer the question (well you did say sure; all the other shit didn&#39;t make sense). You just took a jab at making light of a horrible act. Your explanation is "well there have been other acts of terrorism".

btw I don&#39;t know your race and my post never alluded to it.
I do know you are troller who is wayyyyyy off topic.

I apologize to anyone else for obliging this "member" with his history lesson in regards to "Us To Fingerprint & Photograph All Visa Travellers". I not will reply to this bastard again seeing that, to quote 1234, "Those attacks on the US were long overdue really".

Damn you&#39;re an idiot&#33;&#33;&#33;

(wouldn&#39;t be surprised if 1234 is an alias for another member anyway)


1234 BLACKLISTED

[J'Pol]

Night, Night Troll.

Another time perhaps. I tire of your tedious repetition.

Please try to put a bit more effort in, it is just getting boring now. You may wish to try copying and pasting ideas from someone else. It will almost certainly enliven your pathetic efforts.

Can I recommend google as a source.

[leftism]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol
Night, Night Troll.

Another time perhaps. I tire of your tedious repetition.
.

Well said. Busymans constant barrage of "dipshit", "idiot" and "bitch" was getting a little dreary.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+9 January 2004 - 03:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 9 January 2004 - 03:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol
Night, Night Troll.

Another time perhaps. I tire of your tedious repetition.
.

Well said. Busymans constant barrage of "dipshit", "idiot" and "bitch" was getting a little dreary. [/b][/quote]
I did apologize lefty. I shouldn&#39;t have obliged.
Interesting that you assumed he was talking about me. (maybe you agree with 1234 hmmmm..)

Fortunately he was not talking about me.

Nice try anyway. It does seem me and J&#39;Pol were thinking along similiar lines (at least by the END of my post)

[hobbes]

Hobbes, you are obviously not reading the posts properly either.

The current "visa waiver" areas will not be able to operate effectively under that system after October.

Not referring to your post, lynx. I was referring to a comment made by Vidcc. We will see what adjustments are made in October in regard to you point. The plural "you" was to include others, but not you. I was going to post a clarification, but I thought I would just quote his thread to direct the comment. Kind of forgot that his post contained a quote from you.