AirTran emergency lndg.

[CatfishVT9]

I just love the fact that it took 82 posts for the truth to come out. Some idiot decided it would be a good idea to place his MRE heatum up thingy in the seat back pocket. I'll let you all take another 82 posts to explain what happened next.

Sometimes ya'll remind me of a poster I saw once.

"What does arguing on the internet and competing in the special olympics have in common?

Even if you win your still retarded."

Here's a poster idea: "You must be retarded if you can't spell you're"

Oh and for Arkady, you're right, things would be going much better if the Hezbocrats were in charge.

 

[CatYaaak]

So you're saying the invasion was over oil?

First, there's no 1 reason. The world doesn't work like that.

Was there only 1 reason for declaring war on Germany in WW2? They didn't attack us like the Japanese. Was it because Germany declared war on us and we merely responded in kind? Because they were proven agressors in Europe? Because Hitler was a fanatic trying to impose his National Socialism on nations by force of arms? Is there even debate as to whether there was just 1 reason we went to war in Europe?

There were plenty of good reasons to go to war with Nazis. Appeasement had been tried; didn't work. There's no difference in fanatical individuals whether they be National Socialist or Baathist dictators, Imperial/bushido-driven Imperialists, or religious extremists...not in 1939, nor in 2006.

Likewise, there were plenty of good reasons to topple Saddam Hussein and his sons. "Containing" North Korea didn't stop them from developing nukes. "Leaving them alone" certainly ensured Kim Il Sung was free to hand down his regime, which means 56 years after the initial invasion of SK by the North we still have decades of that threat to look forward to. For this nuclear threat you can thank HST because like he said, "the buck" stopped with him.

How many North Korea's do we want our children to deal with? You can't stop technological proliferation, and just like you see satellite dishes and mobile phones in places that won't even provide themselves with clean drinking water or food, seeking the nuclear "Holy Grail" is something that a few will starve their own to obtain. SH was exactly that kind of fanatic.

Carter didn't even begin the job in 1979 when fanatics took over U.S. territory (embassy) and held hostages. That amounts to "appeasment", emboldening them and their ilk, and the susequent "hands off" policy didn't stop the regime from holding rallies every Friday for the last 25 years denouncing the "Great Satan" America. Nobody here ever fired a shot at them, and most of the brainwashed of today weren't even born or out of diapers in 1979.

Bush 1 didn't finish the job in Iraq in 1991, appeasing the U.N. and of course SH by "leaving him alone" after ejecting him from Kuwait. Not desroying his ability to make war during the Clinton years merely provided Saudi-snubbed OBL with his greatest recruiting tool of all...American/Western troops "occupying" the country with the 2 Holy Mosques. That those Western troops were protecting against invasion by Iraq... a secular, socialist-regime even OBL professed to hate...matters not to the religious fanatic. It's an excuse to kill.

They do NOT function on logic, nor are there logical "root causes". Their willingness to indiscriminately kill..even themselves... is the only thing that sets them apart. Not only will they happily blow up a marketplace full of children, they'll also blow up a monument built to memorialize the dead Innocents, like they did last week.

War over oil? Partly, because that's what Kuwait and Eastern Saudi Arabia have that have made them "strategic" for the last 80 years.. You may not have noticed, but we've been willing to go to war "over oil" in the region for decades (since FDR). This willingness is why scenarios of war in SW Asia between the US/USSR were played out more than any other except another Euro-conflict. It's why we sold Saudis F-15s when Israel was the only other country enjoying that export. We lent our AWACs to the defense of Saudi during the Cold War. Oil is no different than any other strategic resource, except that it is by far the most important one in this industrialized age.

But we aren't the first. I'm sure you know that is was "for oil" that the British and Nazis (with their proto-Baathist allies) were fighting over the ex-Ottoman/UK protectorate of Iraq during WW2. "For oil", particularily the British pipeline across Tranjordan terminiting in Haifa, played into Irael being carved out post-war. "For oil" was the primary reason control of the Suez Canal became a flashpoint in the 50's, the UK and France aligning itself against Egypt, war thwarted by the U.S. supporting Egypt. Are those Euro black marketeers oil SH enjoyed during sanctions...in effect supporting and helping to prop up SH's regime....any less guilty than the U.S. is now for deaths in Iraq? Buying black market oil and torpedoing sanctions surely is "appeasement".

Euros get upset when one of their own Socialist dictators like milosevic or Hitler is running amok in their own yard, but turn a blind eye when people they regard as mere, former colonial subjects are the ones being slaughtered by a Dictator espousing Euro-spawned socilaist ideologies like Baathism. It's no accident that France, Germany, and Russia embraced the guy.

The greatest hypocricy of all, of course, is the French admonitions in 2002/2003. Of all Western nations, no country is more guilty of blatently "going to war" over their colonial holdings for resources. French Indochina, half of Africa, Levant/Syria etc etc...all places they have sent their military or paras to force this very thing..and those places certainly weren't on a course to develop nukes like Iraq.

Saying this war was "for oil" sounds conveniently trite, but you could also say we went to war with the Japanese "for resources", of which oil was certainly one in the East Indies. After all, the Japanese Empire needed (in their view) the Southeast Asian Co-prosperity Sphere. They were convinced that their asian neighbours should have asian masters, not the Dutch, British, and French.

The idea of attacking Pearl Harbour was to cripple American influence in Euro-colonized areas they wanted to be their own...they were COUNTING on an American appeasement policy and being "left alone" after attacking. They thought it would be a short war resulting in a stalemate. The U.S. demanding unconditional surrender was something they had not planned on, except perhaps Yamamoto. If you're a cynic, you could easily suggest that we went to war "over oil and rubber", because that's what motivated the Japanese...economics as seen by fanatics.

Atomic bombs were the only thing that brought a fanatical Japanese war ministry...perfectly willing to sacrifice every citizen...to heel and only because the Emperor himself intervened when nukes convinced him national suicide wasn't worth it.

We did appease the Japanese in the respect of allowing him to remain emperor, but then again, they weren't about to go about pursuing nukes themselves. We did not "leave them alone" after the war...quite the opposite.

The key point; the Japanese populace still considered the Emperor to be a Divine being. Their willingness to drop fanaticism was influenced by his word, considered Divine. There was a religous aspect, and therefore, no after-war insurgency which could have easily happened had he not done so.

"Reasons" aren't mutually exclusive. Ethically, SH was a pathalogical, murdering, torturing expansionist a-hole of a Dictator..but there are many of those in the world. Still, some would say that is reason enough. Others would argue his threat in an area of strategic resource-importance (oil) made it necessary. Even without invading, the neccesity to maintain a containing military presence in countries sharing a border with him only served to inflame religious extremists. There's a cause-effect reason that begins through most of the Clinton-era terrorist attacks against American barracks, embassies, ships in the 90's, culminating in 9-11. OBL's rallying-point of hatred wasn't the plight of the Palestinians etc.o....it was our visible, military presence in Saudi.

But even laying aside more minor things like the world's economy collapsing if one despot controls the oil spigot, the main reason for invading the place is to remove the eventual nuclear threat. The Iraelis didnt remove it forever 25 years ago with the bombing of one reactor. The same guy was in charge afterwards..and after him, his sons.

Personally, I think we should have left Iraq after SH was pulled out of his rat-hole, given his sons were dead, and left the country to it's own devices. The road leading to eventual nukes was closed, and a militarily de-fanged Iraq, even one embroiled in internal sectarian fighting, poses no threat to it's neighbours and therefore there's no reason to keep a large military presence in the region.

He may be dumb as a box of rocks, but Bush 2's decision to topple SH was just finishing a job his father didn't, and an ever-growing threat Clinton wouldn't face because HIS only concern was how he looked during his years in office, not the future. "No more North Koreas" should have been our stated reason, IMO.

Ostriches can pretend SH wouldn't have been pursuing them, or can't realize he would have held the Middle East hostage for his pan-Arabic delusions, could you at least understand that with Iran on the verge of obtaining them, he would do everything possible to achieve the same? Iran and Iraq are and were racial, religious, and historic arch enemies. Their war in the '80s took a million lives.

The U.S. with it's few allies took care of the Iraqi side of the equation while the world blew diplomatic hot air. The jury is still out as to whether they will step-up to solve the Iranian one, but I think we all know what it will be. It's in their self-interest to keep America hated...the convenient whipping boy....it makes them feel safe enough to know they aren't the primary target.

Maybe when North Korea begins its nuclear testing the world will wake up that it's 2006, and not 1944. "Leaving the world alone" when referring to these regimes has far graver consequences for the future. Anyone wanting to sit around and let them succeed must be childless.

 

[bestpilot]

All this discourse is making me thirsty... Where does it end..

Awwww Yeeeaahhhh! thirstee tooo bro, yeah, da keeboard be smellin like hops and barleee and weigh!


Duuuude! It all freaking ends when da keg is emptee, my brother from another mother!


Flight att be sayin dat stuff be smellin like way bad.

I be sayin, "smellin bad like ole Uppercrusty and ole Ty Guy????????"

f/a "Naw, like smellin like some freakin bad chemicals and stuff."

"Naw we keep goin, cause like I aint watchin da news, and stufff, and I aint eeeven wantin to take this stuff alll serious and stuff, so like see ya in dat L-G-A!"


Naw bro, I be thinkin dat ole conservative be mo mo mo better, based on what dem pilots been told adn stuff. But, like when it be turnin out to be like nuttin hunney, then like maybe we needs to be getting dem flighteees some like freaking guidance and stuff so dey know what they be needin to look fer. yknow like help me help you.....help me.......help you.


Freaking Jerry Freaking McGuire..........classic.

 

[Lear70]

Jesus, Yaak... Were you a history professor or something before joining the aviation world?

Here's a question for ya': since Japan's cessation of hostiliies was lead by their religious leader telling them to quit fighting AFTER we bombed the tee-total ratsh*t out of them, why wouldn't a similar scenario work in the Middle East?

I mean, we don't really have any allies left to speak of, who are we afraid to piss off if we drop not nukes, but tactical air bombs on every single organized city in the country?

Let them know in advance that we're doing it and we'll continue to do it every time there is a terrorist incident, and stay the hell out of their country while bombing them from afar until their religious leaders pick up on the hint or we kill every freakin' one of them.

It would be cheaper, faster, and probably more effective than this Generation X Vietnam scenario that we've woven ourselves into. No-win scenario indeed.

 

[FN FAL]

Why wouldn't a similar scenario work in the Middle East?

In order to attain what? Cheaper oil?

Last I heard, the Middle East Naval Brigadeer Adjutant General still hasn't got their 50 carrier navy that they wanted, nor has their amphibious assault ship program started. So I think the border is safe for now. They haven't come to Boeing or Antonov with purchase orders for strategic bombers yet either.

So tell me again, what is the deal? People want cheap gas and they won't play the game, so we're going to nuke them?

Oh, I get it, untill they buy a bible and show up at the Assembly of God's house, we're going to murderize them? Suits me fine, just who's paying the bill? Your kids and their kids...I'll be long gone by then.

 

[Ty Webb]

Actually, a better scenario would be to let them know that any further hostilities will result in the following:

First hostility . . . . we destroy their shrine in Medina

Second hostility . . . we destroy their shrine in Mecca

Third hostility . . . . . we destroy their shrine in Jerusalem

fourth hostility . . . . . and so on.

If the consequences of the Islamofascists' actions are the destruction of the holiest sites to Muslims, perhaps the world's Muslims will wake the hell up and put an end to it themselves.

Problem is . . . no one has the big brass clanky ones to make it our stated policy.


.

 

[Lear70]

In order to attain what? Cheaper oil?

As usual, you DELIBERATELY miss my point and try to steer it to some conversational direction YOU want to take.

If you had read Yaak's ENTIRE diatribe (yeah, I know it was long, but still you should try), you would have understood the parallel I was drawing.

Yaak said that, after we dropped the bombs, the Emperor STOPPED HOSTILITIES. His people listened based, not only on fear of more bombings, but because they believed him on a spiritual level. HIS motivations however, were driven by the death and suffering of his people.

SOOO, follow the parallel here, I know it's hard for your feeble mind to grasp, but try anyway: if that kind of overwhelming violence on our part stopped THEIR aggression, why would that not work in the Middle East?

I didn't say jack sh*t about the oil. You did. Don't steer the conversation a different direction based on YOUR misinterpretation of what I said.

I said let's be aggressive and destroy them before they destroy us. They may be doing it in small steps, but a liberty here, a couple hundred or thousand dead there, and their work is done.

Last I heard, the Middle East Naval Brigadeer Adjutant General still hasn't got their 50 carrier navy that they wanted, nor has their amphibious assault ship program started. So I think the border is safe for now. They haven't come to Boeing or Antonov with purchase orders for strategic bombers yet either.

Hmmm... all that they don't have and yet they managed to all but cripple our nation's transportation system for years and instilled fear for generations to come. Imagine what they will be capable of in 20 years if left to continue their aggression. They ARE sending their militant young to the finest universities in Britain and the U.S... You think they're doing that to enrich their own country's education system? ummm... NO.

So tell me again, what is the deal? People want cheap gas and they won't play the game, so we're going to nuke them?

Again, YOU are making this about oil and gas. Not me.

Incidentally, the DEAL is HOW MANY dead from 9/11? Find me a couple of the victims' families and see if they feel like you do about it or if they think bombing the ratsh*t out of them every time they show aggression is a better policy.

Personally, I've never met a bully who backed down to anything but me beating the snot out of him. Same principle.

Oh, I get it, untill they buy a bible and show up at the Assembly of God's house, we're going to murderize them? Suits me fine, just who's paying the bill? Your kids and their kids...I'll be long gone by then.

Again, I didn't make this about religion, YOU did. Try actually READING what I write without adding to it.

You have a really bad habit of stating things people haven't even MENTIONED. Why don't you stick with what I DID say, and don't ASSume something when we haven't said it.

In other words, stick to the facts with your debate. You kind of remind me of a bad politician during a debate who, when backed into a corner, reaches for something that wasn't even said and attacks with it.

 

[BSkin]

I thought that they were doing searches at the gate for this stuff and I do see some of that going on but to have the honor system that you won't buy a bottle once inside security and bring it on is not going to work as demostrated in this example.

Nope, the honor system only works in golf -- sometimes. I highly doubt that they (the gate agents, especially in ATL) are being told to search at the gate. Only thing they are worried about is getting the turn out in the company specified time, or else they get lip service.

 

[CatYaaak]

Here's a question for ya': since Japan's cessation of hostiliies was lead by their religious leader telling them to quit fighting AFTER we bombed the tee-total ratsh*t out of them, why wouldn't a similar scenario work in the Middle East?
quote]

Unfortunately it wouldn't work, simply because the Japanese Emperor was regarded by the populace as a Divine being in the flesh. Until his radio message calling on the nation to stop fighting, most Japanese had never even heard his voice.

OBL and his ilk, on the other hand, are NOT considered Divine by their followers by any means. In fact that would be considered heresy of the worst kind. The various Kings and Emirs in the Middle East have already denounced the extremists as "deviants" and at odds with the teachings of Islam. But those leaders denouncing OBL are considered royalty, not Divine beings like Hirohito, especially by the fanatics who want an excuse to kill someone. They believe they can please their Divine being by NOT following what their leaders say.

If OBL reversed his extremist views on the West tomorrow and called for peace, he would be simply considered a sell-out by his current allies, because that's what his accusation against the Saudi royals has been centered around. He wouldn't be listened to...he'd be marked for death.

Japan's quasi-religion and bushido culture was centered only around Japan, so an atomic a$$-kicking had a focal point, and you only had to change one guy's mind..the Emperor's. If it had been a world-spanning religion based on texts and dogma where any whacko can spring up and "interpret" things in a way that endorses maintaining the fight, we'd still be fighting WW2.

 

[Lear70]

If OBL reversed his extremist views on the West tomorrow and called for peace, he would be simply considered a sell-out by his current allies, because that's what his accusation against the Saudi royals has been centered around. He wouldn't be listened to...he'd be marked for death.

Bummer.

Japan's quasi-religion and bushido culture was centered only around Japan, so an atomic a$$-kicking had a focal point, and you only had to change one guy's mind..the Emperor's. If it had been a world-spanning religion based on texts and dogma where any whacko can spring up and "interpret" things in a way that endorses maintaining the fight, we'd still be fighting WW2.

So what do you think WILL work? We've tried basically everything SHORT of glassing their entire country, including appeasement, and we're STILL getting attacked... Not that I want to create martyrs or become known as the country who chose bombing as the solution to everything, but I don't want my kids to be born, grow up, grow old, and die and we're still fighting this thing and I don't want to convert to Islam either...

Screwed either way, why not try something more direct?

 

[CatYaaak]

In order to attain what? Cheaper oil?

Last I heard, the Middle East Naval Brigadeer Adjutant General still hasn't got their 50 carrier navy that they wanted, nor has their amphibious assault ship program started. So I think the border is safe for now. They haven't come to Boeing or Antonov with purchase orders for strategic bombers yet either.

So tell me again, what is the deal? People want cheap gas and they won't play the game, so we're going to nuke them?

Oh, I get it, untill they buy a bible and show up at the Assembly of God's house, we're going to murderize them? Suits me fine, just who's paying the bill? Your kids and their kids...I'll be long gone by then.

I think Lear70's question was with regard to convincing them to quit targeting/attacking us, and getting the fence-sitters to "take care of their own".. not getting cheaper oil.

My most important reason isn't oil, but to stop them from getting nukes. Oil comes into play because with petro-dollars, despots (secular or religious) with nuclear aims can get them a lot quicker and more easily than a backwater like North Korea, which despite their poverty and Stalinist, isolated regime, suceeded anyway.

You're mistaken on one major point FNFAL, with regards to "paying the bills". It's only now that we're going to begin paying the bills for the misapplied policies of containment/appeasement towards despotic regimes like North Korea and Iran while all along we knew their aims.

You'll still be living in the world when they develop the delivery systems to at least lob one in our general direction. Frankly, I'd rather have 20,000 Soviet warheads trained on me for reasons of paranoia, than a handful controlled by madmen in Tehran and Poynang wanting to be Mice that Roar.

 

[CatYaaak]

Bummer.


So what do you think WILL work? We've tried basically everything SHORT of glassing their entire country, including appeasement, and we're STILL getting attacked... Not that I want to create martyrs or become known as the country who chose bombing as the solution to everything, but I don't want my kids to be born, grow up, grow old, and die and we're still fighting this thing and I don't want to convert to Islam either...

Screwed either way, why not try something more direct?

I don't think anything will unilateraly work completely. and the only thing I can see is to get the world on board in a common goal. Until nations that keep pretending to be our allies grow some cajones, or at least begin to accept their part of the responsibility they have for the conditions in that part of the World they deliberately created, we're going to be the goat. If those countries can't send force, they could at least not torpedo the U.S. diplomatically and through state-run media at every turn in an effort to conceal their cowardice while making a play to lead some sort of neo-Europe with themselves at the helm.

Remember the movie the Caine Mutiny? Fred MacMurray played a sh1t-stirrer who would play the Naive against the Insane, and then lie back and watch from the periphery, reaping benefits from the resulting drama. Well France has been that character on the world stage not only for the current situation but most of the last century, with half the world acting as a Peanut Gallery.

If I were unlimbering nukes, I'd begin with Paris. Their antics after WW1 gave rise to Hitler, their ideology spawned Hussein, post-war French Indochina, Algeria, etc. etc. and despotic African Francophiles are still butchering people. As a Cause, France was a bigger threat to "Peace" than Iraq was...and that's saying a lot. Even during recent events Lebanon, they had to be arm-twisted again to merely commit to a promise made a week prior. Like I said, "sh1t-stirrers", but unlike the movie lots of people have died from it.

When the U.N is nothing more than a pick-and-choose-your-intervention circle-jerk...avoiding tough places like Rawanda and Iraq....but keeps acting as it it were a World Government, it needs to get back to concentrating on things like eradicating malaria or disband. When people use phrases like "Illegal War" and "World Court" with a straight face, you know the propoganda has taken hold. When the media plays along with staged "Protests" and manufactures "news", it's nothing more than an arm of Propoganda designed to inflame the Arab Street..no better than Hitler's staged parades and SS-produced movies. When a son of colonial previledge like Kofi Annan begins to moralize and people actually take him seriously, you know it's time to dismantle the entire facade of the U.N. as a place to resolve problems.

It's time to reasses that whole U.N. membership situation. Why attend a party where you're reviled and even your so-called "friends" aren't? With no USSR around, that's the way it's becoming, no matter what we do. It's become a useless body with inflated self-importance.

I'd say lets begin with those two subjects.

 

[BSkin]

Frankly, I'd rather have 20,000 Soviet warheads trained on me for reasons of paranoia, than a handful controlled by madmen in Tehran and Poynang wanting to be Mice that Roar.

Amen to that! What we're facing now makes the Cold War seem like child's play -- at least we knew what we were up against then, now?

 

[CatYaaak]

Bummer.


So what do you think WILL work? We've tried basically everything SHORT of glassing their entire country, including appeasement, and we're STILL getting attacked... Not that I want to create martyrs or become known as the country who chose bombing as the solution to everything, but I don't want my kids to be born, grow up, grow old, and die and we're still fighting this thing and I don't want to convert to Islam either...

Screwed either way, why not try something more direct?

It should also be noted that within countries like Saudi Arabia, the tolerance for the extremists has dropped enormously after the spate of internal attacks a few years ago and the divide between non-Muslim and Muslim victims was erased. They see the extremists as a threat just as we do, and in Saudi alone a couple hundred of their security forces and police have died attempting to root them out. Those are the people considered martyrs with streets named after them, not the OBL's. They've also tried to address the religous side, re-aligning and tempering the more inflamatory mullahs and such. Slow progress is being made.

In Jordan the Zarquawis are reviled for killing Jordanians except maybe in his home town, and in Egypt the extremists assasinated Sadat, and incidents like those at Luxor where you have dozens of machine-gunned tourists only serve to destroy their tourism based economy. Even the very poor don't want that. Half of Lebanon would like to see Hezbollah disappear and the Lebanese Army replace them in defense, and of course they also hate Syrian interference. The U.S. does have nominal allies in the region...strong allies if you compare them to France.

A lot of Arab Middle Eastern countries won't come out and say it, but they are breathing a sigh of relief that Hussein is gone. Shiite-Persian Iran with nukes would be one of their worst nightmares. They CERTAINLY don't want Iranian nuclear aspirations to come to fruition.

 

[Lear70]

A lot of Arab Middle Eastern countries won't come out and say it, but they are breathing a sigh of relief that Hussein is gone. Shiite-Persian Iran with nukes would be one of their worst nightmares. They CERTAINLY don't want Iranian nuclear aspirations to come to fruition.

Then they'd better get off their collective butts and DO something about it, 'cause the Iranian nuclear program is getting closer every day to having weapons-grade plutonium in medium-range missiles at their fingertips.

I don't disagree *completely* with your assessment of France's part in all this, although I think it's a bit strong even though they DO bear a large responsibility for their past actions.

But, conversely, I don't know what getting Europe united behind us would help do against religious millitants. There's only so much that economic sanctions and non-military action can do.

Additionally, there are so MANY middle-Eastern ethnic groups scattered throughout Europe, that the lines are WAY too blurred for any kind of meaningful internal action. Same problem we have here in the States, you don't know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, so what kind of "action" can you take without turning it into a police state?

Don't get me started on the U.N. I haven't seen a positive thing out of them since I was in early High School.

 

[Lear70]

Oh yeah... any more news on the emergency landing?

lol - talk about a thread hijack...

 

[CatYaaak]

Then they'd better get off their collective butts and DO something about it, 'cause the Iranian nuclear program is getting closer every day to having weapons-grade plutonium in medium-range missiles at their fingertips.

I don't disagree *completely* with your assessment of France's part in all this, although I think it's a bit strong even though they DO bear a large responsibility for their past actions.

But, conversely, I don't know what getting Europe united behind us would help do against religious millitants. There's only so much that economic sanctions and non-military action can do.

Additionally, there are so MANY middle-Eastern ethnic groups scattered throughout Europe, that the lines are WAY too blurred for any kind of meaningful internal action. Same problem we have here in the States, you don't know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, so what kind of "action" can you take without turning it into a police state?

Don't get me started on the U.N. I haven't seen a positive thing out of them since I was in early High School.

Arab countries can't do a lot about Iran, even collectively without help. They couldn't do anything about Hussein after he gave up attacking Iran and began attacking them. And Hussein couldn't take out Iran in an 8 year war. Besides Baathist Iraq, Syria, and Israel, most Middle East countries have very small military forces, and even then they are geared for defense and internal security rather than waging an offensive war.

Before GW1, close to 40% of Iraq's GNP was used for military spending. Except for the two others mentioned, no other Middle East countries come close to that. I don't think we'd want them too either.

But Iran getting nukes might just spur them to historic action in some way. By now most of them I think realize that Israel probably won't use theirs unless given good reason. Most have learned to live with that nominal nuclear threat. My guess though, is they think Iran probably WILL use them if they get them, for duplicitous reasons involving Israel dovetailing into an attempt to dominate the Muslim world. And China..with long ties to Iran.. might just like to see it all happen.

I should have been clearer about getting people on board. You're right, there's only so much non-military pressure and sanctions can do. But I was referring more to tacitly sanctioning, appeasing, and sometimes handing those wanting to kill us ready-made propoganda that furthers their cause and helps their recruiting.

France's very-public, pack-leading anti-American stance in the U.N. is something that emboldens terrosists and served as an attempted whipsaw tactic against new entries coming into the EU in 2003. They make no bones about wanting to be it's unofficial heavyweight. We know they did it for oil and oil contracts for Total/Elf/Fina. We know German construction firms were busy making money designing and building Saddam's bunkers and palaces. We know Russia loved him as a military hardware customer. Their backpedaling tactics, torpedoing support, and encouragement to resist our endeavors has a cost. They don't care about American soldier's lives...not in the least. It's a huge mistake to think they do.

Very public, diplomatic treachery by our supposed allies does sanction those wanting to harm us. The Arab street are TV news, and more importantly, conspiracy and rumor junkies. I hate to tell you this, but the Euro-media and press, along with even some of our own, serve as bigger propoganda tools than even their own for the extremists. They don't need OBL making videos when they have The Guardian to read. I personally experience, hear, and read far more Anti-american vitriol in Europe than I do in the Middle East.

I certainly come across more smug, ignorant types who believe themselves to be geopolitical experts by birthright rather than education and experience simply because they're European, and therefore "sophisticated". Certainly they believe this relative to "Dumb Americans". This overinflated sense of self-importance is something I've never experienced in all my contacts with Arabs in the middle East, who in that respect are far more honest.

I think I've gone easy on France, and would ship the Statue of Liberty back to them tomorrow without blinking an eye.

The U.N....if airliners were being driven into buildings, that was the appropriate target.

 

[FN FAL]

Japan was an island nation...not a religion.

Japanese were easy to find...they wore uniforms and looked Japanese.

There were fronts and theaters in WWII.

You could blow up all of Iraq and Iran with A-bombs and still face hoards of terrorismodromic Islam people. Maybe even people who aren't Islamic, but don't like A-bombings.

 

[CatYaaak]

Japan was an island nation...not a religion.

Japanese were easy to find...they wore uniforms and looked Japanese.

There were fronts and theaters in WWII.

You could blow up all of Iraq and Iran with A-bombs and still face hoards of terrorismodromic Islam people. Maybe even people who aren't Islamic, but don't like A-bombings.

The Japanese were, if anything, more bloodthirsty and fanatical than our current terrorists. Ask anyone from a nation occupied by them. They were certainly more numerous and could do more damage. They even invented planned, suicidal attacks with airplanes. They loved beheading prisoners when they didn't use them as slaves. The Rape of Nanking was not just a metaphor. They regarded everyone not like them as subhuman.

And yes, there was a quasi-religous aspect to why they acted as they did, and why they were pacified so abruptly.

The Japanese Empire was a far, far bigger problem than handfuls of Islamic terrorists. To compare the two in terms of being an actual threat to our nation is silly.

The terrorists big mistake is this. If they ever DID become a real threat to the very survival of our nation, and we really DID move to a true, war footing, raise and equip an army of millions like in WW2, and concentrate on wiping them out and anyone associated with them....we could. And if it ever came to that, with "terrorist hordes" attacking us, we will.

And if that STILL didn't work, we'd begin to nuke whatever we thought was necessary and go the "total war" route, instead of nitpicking and worrying about collatoral damage as we are now.

Therin lies their lack of understanding us, and their stupidity. The Japanese were once that way too.

Why on earth would we nuke Iraq now? Hussein is gone. Killing insurgents (especially foreign ones) trying to destablize the country and giving a new government breathing rooom is the name of the game, not wiping it out. I don't neccesarily agree with this, but they are quite capable of destroying themselves without our help.

We don't need to nuke Iran either, just take out thier nuke-bomb making capability. Of course it would be a good idea to let them know that if they unleash terrorists in retaliation we'll just add them to the list of nuke-able spots. Certainly we'd actively work to destroy the regime, and let's not even pretend we'd get into nation-building afterwards. Any new one could not be more dangerous than the one they have.

If there was a way to attack Israel and plausibly frame France for it, I'd add that to the mix. It would be fun to sit back and watch it escalate out of control. As a bonus, they both have nukes, and we're upwind from both of them.

 

[PanPan]

Here's a poster idea: "You must be retarded if you can't spell you're"

I have an idear for ya Catfish. Wy donts ya take isue with an idear of mine, rather than nit pick my typin/spelin skils.

Ya, your write. that might take thinkin. Opps, I meen think'ne.

One last thing. Shudnt their be a period at the end of that sentence? Welcome to the retard club!

 

[BSkin]

The Japanese were, if anything, more bloodthirsty and fanatical than our current terrorists. Ask anyone from a nation occupied by them. They were certainly more numerous and could do more damage. They even invented planned, suicidal attacks with airplanes. They loved beheading prisoners when they didn't use them as slaves. The Rape of Nanking was not just a metaphor. They regarded everyone not like them as subhuman.

And yes, there was a quasi-religous aspect to why they acted as they did, and why they were pacified so abruptly.

The Japanese Empire was a far, far bigger problem than handfuls of Islamic terrorists. To compare the two in terms of being an actual threat to our nation is silly.

The terrorists big mistake is this. If they ever DID become a real threat to the very survival of our nation, and we really DID move to a true, war footing, raise and equip an army of millions like in WW2, and concentrate on wiping them out and anyone associated with them....we could. And if it ever came to that, with "terrorist hordes" attacking us, we will.

And if that STILL didn't work, we'd begin to nuke whatever we thought was necessary and go the "total war" route, instead of nitpicking and worrying about collatoral damage as we are now.

Therin lies their lack of understanding us, and their stupidity. The Japanese were once that way too.

Why on earth would we nuke Iraq now? Hussein is gone. Killing insurgents (especially foreign ones) trying to destablize the country and giving a new government breathing rooom is the name of the game, not wiping it out. I don't neccesarily agree with this, but they are quite capable of destroying themselves without our help.

We don't need to nuke Iran either, just take out thier nuke-bomb making capability. Of course it would be a good idea to let them know that if they unleash terrorists in retaliation we'll just add them to the list of nuke-able spots. Certainly we'd actively work to destroy the regime, and let's not even pretend we'd get into nation-building afterwards. Any new one could not be more dangerous than the one they have.

If there was a way to attack Israel and plausibly frame France for it, I'd add that to the mix. It would be fun to sit back and watch it escalate out of control. As a bonus, they both have nukes, and we're upwind from both of them.

CatYaak, you missed your calling. You should be teaching world history

 

[jstarav8r]

Wow! If anybody remembers what this thread is originally about I'll be surprised.

If anybody cares, I asked the chief pilot (TL) what happened here. I was curious if the crew called to confer with dispatch on the divert. They apparently did not because this dude decided to heat up his MRE and it produced some heat and odor so they got the airplane on the ground, if anybody cares.

And now back to our ongoing political debate.

 

[BSkin]

Wow! If anybody remembers what this thread is originally about I'll be surprised.

If anybody cares, I asked the chief pilot (TL) what happened here. I was curious if the crew called to confer with dispatch on the divert. They apparently did not because this dude decided to heat up his MRE and it produced some heat and odor so they got the airplane on the ground, if anybody cares.

And now back to our ongoing political debate.

When did TL get the promotion? Pretty sure it's FP.

 

[atafan]

Actually, a better scenario would be to let them know that any further hostilities will result in the following:

First hostility . . . . we destroy their shrine in Medina

Second hostility . . . we destroy their shrine in Mecca

Third hostility . . . . . we destroy their shrine in Jerusalem

fourth hostility . . . . . and so on.

If the consequences of the Islamofascists' actions are the destruction of the holiest sites to Muslims, perhaps the world's Muslims will wake the hell up and put an end to it themselves.

Problem is . . . no one has the big brass clanky ones to make it our stated policy.

I apologize for the continuation of the hijacking of this thread but I couldn't let this quote go without commenting on it. Ty may have the answer. The fanatics may not be afraid to die or care if their family does but maybe the threat of destruction to all their "Holy" shrines might make the masses uprise and finally take control of their "peaceful" religion.

 

[jstarav8r]

[qYuote=BSkin]When did TL get the promotion? Pretty sure it's FP.[/quote]

Well this is why I don't ever post. Somebody always looking to skewer what you say. Did not think it would be one of my own.

I stand corrected, I asked the "Manager of Flying - 717" (TL). How's that!