Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fox anchor makes great point


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#16 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:00 PM

Because the G20 is not made of allies and it sends a bellicose message.

How would you feel if our President had to go spend several days on a Chinese military base? How bout if we were on bad terms with the Chinese?

Also, what does that say to the world when we're so scared of terrorist, we have to hide our leaders in secret bunkers? Wanna talk about looking wimpy?

NYC is fully capable of security in this case.


Well honestly I'd feel safer with him on a military base than in...say...downtown Beijing. But I see your point.

#17 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:17 PM

Somewhere like Guam couldn't handle the security or the crowds, unless they held it on a military base, and a military base would be a horrid site for a multitude of reasons.


Having been to Guam, I think they could handle security quite easily. Easier in fact than New York or London. Since its Guam, they wouldn't have to worry about crowds as much. How many protestors are going to fly to Guam to protest? And for those that do, they are a US territory, and would get assistance from the US government. The FBI, the Secret Service, and the US Coast Guard, Navy, and the Guam national guard (1700 members) would likely handle most aspects of security. Points of entry are relatively few, so its easier to know who is coming in and out. Very little land to watch, and not much in the way of air traffic except for aircraft actually coming to or leaving Guam. Not much traffic, so no traffic jams to worry about.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 02 April 2009 - 06:23 PM.


#18 engine9

engine9

    shoota muhfukkaina minute

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:25 PM

Well if you'd prefer all the world leaders perish in one terrorist act...


8 out of 9 engines surveyed preferred all the world leaders were to perish in one terrorist act.



Having been to Guam, I think they could handle security quite easily. Easier in fact than New York or London. Since its Guam, they wouldn't have to worry about crowds as much. How many protestors are going to fly to Guam to protest? And for those that do, they are a US territory, and would get assistance from the US government. The FBI, the Secret Service, and the US Coast Guard, Navy, and the Guam national guard (1700 members) would likely handle most aspects of security. Points of entry are relatively few, so its easier to know who is coming in and out. Very little land to watch, and not much in the way of air traffic except for aircraft actually coming to or leaving Guam. Not much traffic, so no traffic jams to worry about.



...oh what the hell do YOU know :rolleyes5: I read a pamphlet and saw a youtube on Guam.

#19 The Link

The Link

    Satire Enthusiast

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,990 posts

Posted 02 April 2009 - 11:06 PM

Wow. Fox news actually made a good point for once. :biggrin:

#20 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:03 AM

8 out of 9 engines surveyed preferred all the world leaders were to perish in one terrorist act.






...oh what the hell do YOU know :rolleyes5: I read a pamphlet and saw a youtube on Guam.


:)

#21 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,431 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:31 AM

Having been to Guam, I think they could handle security quite easily. Easier in fact than New York or London. Since its Guam, they wouldn't have to worry about crowds as much. How many protestors are going to fly to Guam to protest? And for those that do, they are a US territory, and would get assistance from the US government. The FBI, the Secret Service, and the US Coast Guard, Navy, and the Guam national guard (1700 members) would likely handle most aspects of security. Points of entry are relatively few, so its easier to know who is coming in and out. Very little land to watch, and not much in the way of air traffic except for aircraft actually coming to or leaving Guam. Not much traffic, so no traffic jams to worry about.


Exactly. Guam couldn't handle the security. They'd have to bring in a largely military force for security whereas NYC could do the job with their civilian police units. Add on the fact that the NYPD is both one of the world's greatest crowd control details AND one of the elite anti-terrorism units, it's a no brainer.

#22 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:26 PM

Exactly. Guam couldn't handle the security. They'd have to bring in a largely military force for security whereas NYC could do the job with their civilian police units. Add on the fact that the NYPD is both one of the world's greatest crowd control details AND one of the elite anti-terrorism units, it's a no brainer.



Actually, they wouldn't have to bring one in, its already there. They would bring in FBI and Secret Service, but then so will New York.

Irt New York handling crowd control, thats a relative thing. Its not that they are better at it, its that traffic and crowds are already so screwed up there, that no one notices the difference.

Doesn't matter really, they aren't going to Guam. Actually they would be better off going somewhere like Hawaii imo. More accesable so that it doesn't seem like they are hiding, but with enough controlled access points to have a better idea of who is coming and going.

#23 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 08:12 AM

Actually, they wouldn't have to bring one in, its already there. They would bring in FBI and Secret Service, but then so will New York.

Irt New York handling crowd control, thats a relative thing. Its not that they are better at it, its that traffic and crowds are already so screwed up there, that no one notices the difference.

Doesn't matter really, they aren't going to Guam. Actually they would be better off going somewhere like Hawaii imo. More accesable so that it doesn't seem like they are hiding, but with enough controlled access points to have a better idea of who is coming and going.


In my experience, the NYPD is extremely effective in handling crowd control as it's something they have to deal with on a daily basis. All the protests and celebrations I've been to in NY have ultimately been peaceful because of the NYPDs ability to divide and control the crowd. It's actually pretty impressive to watch. And the mounted police in riot gear are intimidating as all fug.

#24 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 08:30 AM

In my experience, the NYPD is extremely effective in handling crowd control as it's something they have to deal with on a daily basis. All the protests and celebrations I've been to in NY have ultimately been peaceful because of the NYPDs ability to divide and control the crowd. It's actually pretty impressive to watch. And the mounted police in riot gear are intimidating as all fug.


I was at Fleet Week in New York, it was a CF. I then visited New York several times after that, and realized its always a CF, so in that regard, you are correct. :)

Best crowd control I saw was New Orleans at at the close of Mardi Gras. Police got in a line and cleared the crowd off of the street in a matter of a few minutes.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.