This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours.<hr></blockquote>
It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. Nothing wrong with us having opinions that we don't share with a Soviet general, now is there?
OK, let's see, what do generals really know about:
? the economic health of their country?
? the sociology of propaganda?
? the finer points of history?
? politics?
I'd be more inclined to say instead that they know about
? fighting wars (and sometimes only the last wars at that)
Two things. First, I find it odd to defend a Reagan idea with the opinion of a Soviet general. I mean, if we didn't care what their opinions were during the cold war, why should we care about them now?
Second, just 'cause he's a Soviet General doesn't mean he knows why his government fell apart. Sure, there have been some generals with their finger on the pulse of things outside the military (Grant, Eisenhower, come to mind) but there's no guarantee he's one of 'em. In fact, because he's a general, I'd bet he sees history et al in romantic ways -- just the type who would be swayed by stirring words.
I think Reagan turned up the heat on the Soviet Union, yes, but rhetoric had little to do with it. And it was Gorbatchov who let the djinni out of the bottle.
It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's more than a little presumptuous. You mean to say that I never thought that Reagan's rhetoric played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union until I read that story? Wow! That's really assinine.
That's more than a little presumptuous. You mean to say that I never thought that Reagan's rhetoric played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union until I read that story? Wow! That's really assinine.<hr></blockquote>
Whoa there tiger. I make and have made no assertions about what you think; I don't need to: you'll tell me what you think in no time.
Let's go one step at a time.
powerdoc wrote [quote]According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.<hr></blockquote>
You told him [quote]It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours.<hr></blockquote>
I wrote [quote]It's also kinda silly to subsitute his [the soviet general's] "connection" for your [i.e., one's] own thinking.<hr></blockquote>
Seems to me powerdoc's done his homework by suggesting that a number of historians see the break-up of the Soviet Union as resulting from a variety of structural reasons. It a defensible argument and not outlandish. I don't see how he ignores our Soviet General's perspective by merely disagreeing with it.
Unless you think the Soviet General was some kind of infallible knowledge source, in which case he should have bent his considerable brain power towards winning the Cold War.
Seems to me powerdoc's done his homework by suggesting that a number of historians see the break-up of the Soviet Union as resulting from a variety of structural reasons. It a defensible argument and not outlandish. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I disagree with this? All I've done is is put on the table the important role that rhetoric played in what was also a political struggle.
[quote]<strong>I don't see how he ignores our Soviet General's perspective by merely disagreeing with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words.
[quote]<strong>Watch it with the name calling, Bub.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are tou talking about? I didn't call anybody any names. Watch it with the false accusations, Bub.
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:What are tou talking about? I didn't call anybody any names. Watch it with the false accusations, Bub.<hr></blockquote>
Nah, you're right. You merely put words in my mouth ("You mean to say..." -- um, no, I don't mean to say. If I meant to say I would have said it) and then called those words "assinine" [sic]. You labled my assertion that someone might want to make up their own mind rather than take the word of a Soviet General "presumptuous" without demonstrating how. Perhaps it's not name-calling -- but it's still slinging shit around.
I don't agree that "[t]here's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words." I think instead there is a disagreement about what degree his words have had an impact in the political struggle. Perhaps you think they had a great deal of power (another thread somewhere talked about the rhetorical power of "naming evil") or perhaps even you think the efficacy of Reagan's speeches are beyond debate.
I don't agree that "[t]here's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words." I think instead there is a disagreement about what degree his words have had an impact in the political struggle. Perhaps you think they had a great deal of power (another thread somewhere talked about the rhetorical power of "naming evil") or perhaps even you think the efficacy of Reagan's speeches are beyond debate.
I'm skeptical of such claims.
[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not just France, by the way, you guys. The French foreign minister expressed the general feeling of the entire civilized world's leaders, and more importantly our best allies, in his criticisms.
Get used to this sort of thing, because the USA is no longer "the good guy" in the eyes of the world.
Sure France may be "irrelevant" to you, but is France+China+Italy+Spain+Germany+the UK+Every Latin American country+Every Middle eastern country= irrelevant?
Bush is just as much a danger these days to world stability as Saddam Hussein, now that Bush is on his own personal Jihad.
Let's see... Hussein has an increasingly militaristic state, was put into power by democratically illegitimate means, supports summary executions of "guilty" criminals, has possibly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at his disposal and doesn't give a damn about world opinion to how he conducts his business, inside or outside his country.
Sound like anybody you know?
The line between Good and Evil is not as clear cut as Bush would like you to believe. The rest of the world seems to understand that simple fact, and that is why they are frankly worried when the world's most powerful loose canon talks publicly using the Beavis and Butthead "it's cool / it sucks" logic of a third-grader.
(By the way, the poster above keeps saying "axe" of evil not because the event was badly reported, but because "axe" is the French word for "axis".)
(By the way, the poster above keeps saying "axe" of evil not because the event was badly reported, but because "axe" is the French word for "axis".)</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the right explanation, it's because of my "not so good" english.
Here is an another interesting link in the same web site.
Last point, France is not the anti-american state many of you suppose to be, of course you will find anti-american people here, but you'll found them in another country and perhaps a lot more.
I never see an important manifestation against USA in France.
France is not the leader of the Antiamericanism in Europe either, France try like the others states of europe or simply the others states of the world, to be independant for their foreign policy.
I beg your pardon, but speaking of axis of evil is just scaring for me. I was never scared by what did say Clinton, or Georges Bush senior. Anti americanism as nothing to do with this.
I am not antiamerican my self, I enjoy the 2 trips that i made there a few years ago : Four weeks and three weeks. USA is a great and a varied country. But finding nice the US doesn't mean that I find nice everything that came out from it.
Should I be obliged to find nice Windows because it come from US ? (perhaps it's the only exception permitted )
Nah, you're right. You merely put words in my mouth ("You mean to say..." -- um, no, I don't mean to say. If I meant to say I would have said it) and then called those words "assinine" [sic]. You labled my assertion that someone might want to make up their own mind rather than take the word of a Soviet General "presumptuous" without demonstrating how. Perhaps it's not name-calling -- but it's still slinging shit around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, remove my attempt to clarify what you said. This:
[quote]It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. <hr></blockquote>
is still assinine. Who is substituting the Soviet general's thinking for their own? That story is merely a telling anecdote as to the forceful consequence a speech can have.
You found it "odd to defend a Reagan idea with the opinion of a Soviet general." That's not what I was doing. Reagan's description of the Soviet Union was accurate but the point of this thread was to discuss Bush's rhetoric. By telling that story I was showing the power that words can have on a (former) adversary. I was defending the idea of strong oratory.
This is interesting. The power of rhetoric and oratory. Bush fils is reaching back not to his father's model -- who did say things like "This will not stand" -- but to Reagan's model, the "Evil Empire." Looking for the same results, eh?
I would be foolish to discount the power of words...it's easy to see their majesty in, for example, the Gettysburg address (OT: now there's a good Republican).
There are words that powerfully invoke but also there are words that clumsily flatten.
To my ear Bush's "axis of evil" sounds clumsy. If Bush is borrowing rhetoric how 'bout more Teddy Roosevelt and less Ronald Reagan?
Just a note: today a visit to North Korea, that has been planned (and looked forward to by everybody concerned, particularly the South Koreans,) for a long time, by several American Diplomats was cancelled due to the rhetoric of Bush. This was an important meeting that would have allowed closer communication and, yes, more openness therefor more assuredness of what, if anything NKorea is planning and developing.
The people of South Korea are PISSED OFF by the language that Bush has used, and are scared that he will provoke a war where millions of them stand to die but none of them have a say in its provocation.
this after even more news of backfiring in Iran: Iran has nixed a choice of British diplomats for Iran . . . . Someone who had been agreed upon earlier and discussed with Khatami (the moderate) is nixed by the hard liners - - which means their power is consolidating. . . . probably rallied and strengthened by the 'clumsy' diplomacy of Bush's speech. --this doesn't look like a wedge to me....
<strong>Just a note: today a visit to North Korea, that has been planned (and looked forward to by everybody concerned, particularly the South Koreans,) for a long time, by several American Diplomats was cancelled due to the rhetoric of Bush. This was an important meeting that would have allowed closer communication and, yes, more openness therefor more assuredness of what, if anything NKorea is planning and developing.
The people of South Korea are PISSED OFF by the language that Bush has used, and are scared that he will provoke a war where millions of them stand to die but none of them have a say in its provocation.
this after even more news of backfiring in Iran: Iran has nixed a choice of British diplomats for Iran . . . . Someone who had been agreed upon earlier and discussed with Khatami (the moderate) is nixed by the hard liners - - which means their power is consolidating. . . . probably rallied and strengthened by the 'clumsy' diplomacy of Bush's speech. --this doesn't look like a wedge to me....
For the life of me I can't see why you would write this question.
Your constant and consistantly simplistic answers to complex issues astounds me
Perhaps that's why you don't see anything wrong with the hyperbole in Bush's rhetoric . .. you want the world to be as simplistic as he. And, perhaps that is something that, apparently, the rest of the world understands and you don't.
Real diplomacy is taking place while Bush name calls.... which appears to others as : "drunken shouts". Well, it was taking place until his blurtings.
Perhaps you think it is a joke that we have any sort of communication with North Korea . .. .well Japan and South Korea certainly do not think so.
Communication does not mean capitulation, nor does it mean legitimation on our part for their form of government. It is important that we know our enemies and we know what they are doing.
Yes and France sell tires for the space Shuttle, you should remove them immediatly !
<hr></blockquote>
Yes we should
[quote]
A question about planes, do you know the name of a plane that have never crashed ? DC 10 , boeing 757, airbus, Antonov , Concorde ...any suggestions ?
accident.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Airbus has a serious design and manufacturing flaw. Just like the rushed to production DeHaveland Comet in the 50's.
It has just recently come to light that you can not move the rudder a certain amount at certain speeds. The American jetliners can be full ruddered at full throttle to the point of inversion with no damage. American jetliners are looped, rolled and inverted recovered before they are ever put into production.
The Concorde accident was not a design flaw and it was brought down by parts falling off the Airbus in front of it.
The 2 DC 10s that came down were from poor maintainance practice.
[quote]
May i suggest you to never take a plane, and to die like everybody in a car <hr></blockquote>
I hold a pilot's certificate and fly an aerobatic American Champion Aircraft Super Decathlon.
I know the reality of turning the fan off, so go pound some pebbles up your ass with a pick axe, ground dweller.
I hold a pilot's certificate and fly an aerobatic American Champion Aircraft Super Decathlon.
I know the reality of turning the fan off, so go pound some pebbles up your ass with a pick axe, ground dweller.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you have practice too many loopings crazy pilot. I would not speak of your ass, because i am not interested in what there in it.
And you forgot to mention what did arrive to the boeing who explode.
No plane are perfect, especially the olds ones, you should know that perfectly if you are a pilot. American companies are not clowns, if they have buy these planes , they have taken in considerations the security point of vue. Unfortunately you cannot control everything, and accident may happens whether it's an airbus or a Boeing. If you detect a problem, you will practice the modifications.
Comments
This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours.<hr></blockquote>
It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. Nothing wrong with us having opinions that we don't share with a Soviet general, now is there?
OK, let's see, what do generals really know about:
? the economic health of their country?
? the sociology of propaganda?
? the finer points of history?
? politics?
I'd be more inclined to say instead that they know about
? fighting wars (and sometimes only the last wars at that)
Two things. First, I find it odd to defend a Reagan idea with the opinion of a Soviet general. I mean, if we didn't care what their opinions were during the cold war, why should we care about them now?
Second, just 'cause he's a Soviet General doesn't mean he knows why his government fell apart. Sure, there have been some generals with their finger on the pulse of things outside the military (Grant, Eisenhower, come to mind) but there's no guarantee he's one of 'em. In fact, because he's a general, I'd bet he sees history et al in romantic ways -- just the type who would be swayed by stirring words.
I think Reagan turned up the heat on the Soviet Union, yes, but rhetoric had little to do with it. And it was Gorbatchov who let the djinni out of the bottle.
[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</p>
<strong>
It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's more than a little presumptuous. You mean to say that I never thought that Reagan's rhetoric played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union until I read that story? Wow! That's really assinine.
That's more than a little presumptuous. You mean to say that I never thought that Reagan's rhetoric played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union until I read that story? Wow! That's really assinine.<hr></blockquote>
Whoa there tiger. I make and have made no assertions about what you think; I don't need to: you'll tell me what you think in no time.
Let's go one step at a time.
powerdoc wrote [quote]According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.<hr></blockquote>
You told him [quote]It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours.<hr></blockquote>
I wrote [quote]It's also kinda silly to subsitute his [the soviet general's] "connection" for your [i.e., one's] own thinking.<hr></blockquote>
Seems to me powerdoc's done his homework by suggesting that a number of historians see the break-up of the Soviet Union as resulting from a variety of structural reasons. It a defensible argument and not outlandish. I don't see how he ignores our Soviet General's perspective by merely disagreeing with it.
Unless you think the Soviet General was some kind of infallible knowledge source, in which case he should have bent his considerable brain power towards winning the Cold War.
Watch it with the name calling, Bub.
<strong>
Seems to me powerdoc's done his homework by suggesting that a number of historians see the break-up of the Soviet Union as resulting from a variety of structural reasons. It a defensible argument and not outlandish. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Where did I disagree with this? All I've done is is put on the table the important role that rhetoric played in what was also a political struggle.
[quote]<strong>I don't see how he ignores our Soviet General's perspective by merely disagreeing with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words.
[quote]<strong>Watch it with the name calling, Bub.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are tou talking about? I didn't call anybody any names. Watch it with the false accusations, Bub.
I hope your right.
Nah, you're right. You merely put words in my mouth ("You mean to say..." -- um, no, I don't mean to say. If I meant to say I would have said it) and then called those words "assinine" [sic]. You labled my assertion that someone might want to make up their own mind rather than take the word of a Soviet General "presumptuous" without demonstrating how. Perhaps it's not name-calling -- but it's still slinging shit around.
I don't agree that "[t]here's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words." I think instead there is a disagreement about what degree his words have had an impact in the political struggle. Perhaps you think they had a great deal of power (another thread somewhere talked about the rhetorical power of "naming evil") or perhaps even you think the efficacy of Reagan's speeches are beyond debate.
I'm skeptical of such claims.
[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</p>
<strong>
I don't agree that "[t]here's been a consistent attempt in this thread to minimize the impact of Reagan's words." I think instead there is a disagreement about what degree his words have had an impact in the political struggle. Perhaps you think they had a great deal of power (another thread somewhere talked about the rhetorical power of "naming evil") or perhaps even you think the efficacy of Reagan's speeches are beyond debate.
I'm skeptical of such claims.
[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks Timo, that's exactly what i think
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1810000/1810615.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1810000/1810615.stm</a>;
Get used to this sort of thing, because the USA is no longer "the good guy" in the eyes of the world.
Sure France may be "irrelevant" to you, but is France+China+Italy+Spain+Germany+the UK+Every Latin American country+Every Middle eastern country= irrelevant?
Bush is just as much a danger these days to world stability as Saddam Hussein, now that Bush is on his own personal Jihad.
Let's see... Hussein has an increasingly militaristic state, was put into power by democratically illegitimate means, supports summary executions of "guilty" criminals, has possibly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons at his disposal and doesn't give a damn about world opinion to how he conducts his business, inside or outside his country.
Sound like anybody you know?
The line between Good and Evil is not as clear cut as Bush would like you to believe. The rest of the world seems to understand that simple fact, and that is why they are frankly worried when the world's most powerful loose canon talks publicly using the Beavis and Butthead "it's cool / it sucks" logic of a third-grader.
(By the way, the poster above keeps saying "axe" of evil not because the event was badly reported, but because "axe" is the French word for "axis".)
<strong>
(By the way, the poster above keeps saying "axe" of evil not because the event was badly reported, but because "axe" is the French word for "axis".)</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the right explanation, it's because of my "not so good" english.
Here is an another interesting link in the same web site.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1804000/1804281.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_18040 00/1804281.stm</a>
Last point, France is not the anti-american state many of you suppose to be, of course you will find anti-american people here, but you'll found them in another country and perhaps a lot more.
I never see an important manifestation against USA in France.
France is not the leader of the Antiamericanism in Europe either, France try like the others states of europe or simply the others states of the world, to be independant for their foreign policy.
I beg your pardon, but speaking of axis of evil is just scaring for me. I was never scared by what did say Clinton, or Georges Bush senior. Anti americanism as nothing to do with this.
I am not antiamerican my self, I enjoy the 2 trips that i made there a few years ago : Four weeks and three weeks. USA is a great and a varied country. But finding nice the US doesn't mean that I find nice everything that came out from it.
Should I be obliged to find nice Windows because it come from US ? (perhaps it's the only exception permitted
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
Nah, you're right. You merely put words in my mouth ("You mean to say..." -- um, no, I don't mean to say. If I meant to say I would have said it) and then called those words "assinine" [sic]. You labled my assertion that someone might want to make up their own mind rather than take the word of a Soviet General "presumptuous" without demonstrating how. Perhaps it's not name-calling -- but it's still slinging shit around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, remove my attempt to clarify what you said. This:
[quote]It's also kinda silly to subsitute his "connection" for your own thinking. <hr></blockquote>
is still assinine. Who is substituting the Soviet general's thinking for their own? That story is merely a telling anecdote as to the forceful consequence a speech can have.
You found it "odd to defend a Reagan idea with the opinion of a Soviet general." That's not what I was doing. Reagan's description of the Soviet Union was accurate but the point of this thread was to discuss Bush's rhetoric. By telling that story I was showing the power that words can have on a (former) adversary. I was defending the idea of strong oratory.
I would be foolish to discount the power of words...it's easy to see their majesty in, for example, the Gettysburg address (OT: now there's a good Republican).
There are words that powerfully invoke but also there are words that clumsily flatten.
To my ear Bush's "axis of evil" sounds clumsy. If Bush is borrowing rhetoric how 'bout more Teddy Roosevelt and less Ronald Reagan?
__
__
Oh, and "asinine" has one "s".
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: Timo ]</p>
The people of South Korea are PISSED OFF by the language that Bush has used, and are scared that he will provoke a war where millions of them stand to die but none of them have a say in its provocation.
this after even more news of backfiring in Iran: Iran has nixed a choice of British diplomats for Iran . . . . Someone who had been agreed upon earlier and discussed with Khatami (the moderate) is nixed by the hard liners - - which means their power is consolidating. . . . probably rallied and strengthened by the 'clumsy' diplomacy of Bush's speech. --this doesn't look like a wedge to me....
[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>
To my ear Bush's "axis of evil" sounds clumsy. If Bush is borrowing rhetoric how 'bout more Teddy Roosevelt and less Ronald Reagan?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why TR instead of Reagan?
<strong>Just a note: today a visit to North Korea, that has been planned (and looked forward to by everybody concerned, particularly the South Koreans,) for a long time, by several American Diplomats was cancelled due to the rhetoric of Bush. This was an important meeting that would have allowed closer communication and, yes, more openness therefor more assuredness of what, if anything NKorea is planning and developing.
The people of South Korea are PISSED OFF by the language that Bush has used, and are scared that he will provoke a war where millions of them stand to die but none of them have a say in its provocation.
this after even more news of backfiring in Iran: Iran has nixed a choice of British diplomats for Iran . . . . Someone who had been agreed upon earlier and discussed with Khatami (the moderate) is nixed by the hard liners - - which means their power is consolidating. . . . probably rallied and strengthened by the 'clumsy' diplomacy of Bush's speech. --this doesn't look like a wedge to me....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is this post a joke?
Your constant and consistantly simplistic answers to complex issues astounds me
Perhaps that's why you don't see anything wrong with the hyperbole in Bush's rhetoric . .. you want the world to be as simplistic as he. And, perhaps that is something that, apparently, the rest of the world understands and you don't.
Real diplomacy is taking place while Bush name calls.... which appears to others as : "drunken shouts". Well, it was taking place until his blurtings.
Perhaps you think it is a joke that we have any sort of communication with North Korea . .. .well Japan and South Korea certainly do not think so.
Communication does not mean capitulation, nor does it mean legitimation on our part for their form of government. It is important that we know our enemies and we know what they are doing.
Is this your idea of a fun evening in front of your mac Scott? *hehe, I wonder how those frogs will react to THIS one... hehe*
<strong>
Yes and France sell tires for the space Shuttle, you should remove them immediatly !
<hr></blockquote>
Yes we should
[quote]
A question about planes, do you know the name of a plane that have never crashed ? DC 10 , boeing 757, airbus, Antonov , Concorde ...any suggestions ?
accident.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Airbus has a serious design and manufacturing flaw. Just like the rushed to production DeHaveland Comet in the 50's.
It has just recently come to light that you can not move the rudder a certain amount at certain speeds. The American jetliners can be full ruddered at full throttle to the point of inversion with no damage. American jetliners are looped, rolled and inverted recovered before they are ever put into production.
The Concorde accident was not a design flaw and it was brought down by parts falling off the Airbus in front of it.
The 2 DC 10s that came down were from poor maintainance practice.
[quote]
May i suggest you to never take a plane, and to die like everybody in a car <hr></blockquote>
I hold a pilot's certificate and fly an aerobatic American Champion Aircraft Super Decathlon.
I know the reality of turning the fan off, so go pound some pebbles up your ass with a pick axe, ground dweller.
<strong>
I hold a pilot's certificate and fly an aerobatic American Champion Aircraft Super Decathlon.
I know the reality of turning the fan off, so go pound some pebbles up your ass with a pick axe, ground dweller.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps you have practice too many loopings crazy pilot. I would not speak of your ass, because i am not interested in what there in it.
And you forgot to mention what did arrive to the boeing who explode.
No plane are perfect, especially the olds ones, you should know that perfectly if you are a pilot. American companies are not clowns, if they have buy these planes , they have taken in considerations the security point of vue. Unfortunately you cannot control everything, and accident may happens whether it's an airbus or a Boeing. If you detect a problem, you will practice the modifications.