Something I noticed about the Chile mine rescue

If you actually could, and you are not wishful thinking, it seems not for too much longer:

The atmosphere on Parliament Hill may be getting a makeover in coming years, as RCMP guarding the buildings are issued with new automatic weapons. In addition, the Government is considering plans to create an "integrated security system" on the Hill.

In a move said to be inspired by a security breach last December during the Copenhagen negotiations, in which Greenpeace activists scaled Parliament to unfurl climate change banners, RCMP officers guarding Parliament Hill will soon be issued with Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine-guns. The guns will serve as secondary weapons, replacing the shotguns currently used. Officers on the hill normally carry 9-mm handguns.


Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/290214#ixzz13Pv12X00

Bush in happier times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE&feature=fvw"]YouTube - George W. Bush - 9/11 Bullhorn Speech​

 

actually, everyone on those videos was a presidential bodyguard. down in chile, they can't afford fancy suits for their secret service...

because security took care of the situation before anything came of it.

 

No. I was saying the fact that the Chilean president didn't have any visible security around him could possibly be an indication of the collective mentality of Chile.

Relaxed country= relaxed security. i.e- Canada.

I was also insinuating that the fact that the White House is fenced in could be representative of the mentality of that country.

Guns everywhere= uptight security.


If you choose to play connect the dots with what I say fine, but don't tell me I said something I didn't.

 

You actually can. I walk across the front lawn with open alcohol a few times a month.

And for the rest, pffft. They've been talking about that for a year. Their pride was just hurt because of that incident and they were made fun of and so they want to prove they can be tough too. Officers DO NOT walk around with shotguns. The officers that guard the hill drive around in cars (in which their guns are) and do nothing. The guns they carry on their body are normal guns that all cops carry.

If you like you can sometimes walk up and ask to use the washroom. Seriously, I've done it.

Hundreds of people are on the Hill daily.​

 

Perhaps a fairer comparison would be the Canadian Parliament building and the Senate/House of representatives...not the White House.

This looks a whole lot more inviting than the White House:



I don't know the Canadian equivalent to the White house is.

Obviously the White House is going to be more secure, it is the Presidents home, not really a public building.

 

If you were really good with a sling shot, you could stand on Sussex Dr and bean the Prime Minister with it as he leaves home.

Seriously, it is really close to the road.

Do not try this at home.

 

It is

 

Ok, my perception is there isn't too much difference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Sussex_Drive#Staff_and_Security
But, what the hell do I know.

 

No one is saying what we're all thinking, nobody gives a fuck about Canada. Seriously the US has to deal with not only it's own nutjobs, but nutjobs from around the world who know if you want to make a point/be famous/go down in a hail of gunfire doing it to US targets gets you the most media.

Besides, stuff like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(1998)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(1954)

And all the attacks on presidents.

Also sorry about essentially killing your president in 1973 Chile.(This is how you know the president of Chile has security, not only has one been killed in recent memory, it was by us)

 

I do. I live there. This however does not surprise me, it's a typical American response.

 

That is no way to get an invite for a visit.

 

Sorry, nobody cares about America Jr. Go shoot up Ottawa you'll be on the big news services for the day. Shoot up Washington D.C. you'll be on everything from the BBC to Al Jazeera for days and days. Your trial will become international news.

 

Maybe it depends on if the target is the American Embassy?


This is too silly.

 

Your proving my point exactly with all this shooting up talk. So, because Canadian crime doesn't get much coverage on a global scale this means no one cares about Canada? Right.......

It isn't that American issues get so much coverage because the country has their hands in everyone elses pockets.

 

Externally, I think it's a bit like: "What would America say/do"
It really does not matter what the issue, the media always wonder.

As far as I am aware, the US media don't really give a toss about what goes on internationally.

E.g:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/
Apparently "world news" is: Is Obama's economic stimulus a bonus or bogus.

In comparison:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/

 

The US doesn't give two shits about what goes on outside of their country. Unless it's something to do with a country their military is currently destroying...I mean, inhabiting. Also, if it doesn't have fake tits, go fast, make loud noises, or have gun violence, it won't be covered on tv. (This is a typical summation of American media)

 

lol don't use ABC, they're terrible.

Yea, it means exactly that. If someone was going to go on an insane attack in a capital city of a country, the US is going to get you the most attention due to it role as a superpower, especially given there's no country in the western hemisphere that comes close. It gives the US a far unproportional amount of news coverage even in its own region. It's the same with other nations, London, Rome, Berlin, Moscow, Tokyo, Beijing, they'd all get more coverage too. Canada just isn't an international player and news maker. Blame its geography.

 

Typical Canadian response.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/europe/index.html

lol. Not a lot going on in Europe Today.

To be fair, I'm sure I could find a few US mainstream media outlets that do cover international events rather well, such as CNN. But yeah, rather sparse on the whole. And to be fair again, I just looked at our 3 main TV news websites (ITV C4 5), and they are terrible too. I don't know what conclusion I can draw from that. I think it's what the viewers want, on the whole.
It is expensive to cover world news with out just copying AP feeds.