Boyd Prognosticates

[brainhurts]

For all of the people saying Iraq had WMD's.... this is flat out untrue.....according to Former National Defense Secretary and current U.S. Secretary of State Condilizza Rice.... in a Meet the Press Interview she admitted Iraq had no WMD's. Period. I put the whole quote in so you guys don't accuse me of taking her words out of context. Sure, she makes some other arguments for justifying the war... but let's be 100% clear... Saddam didn't have WMD's. Period. Why some people on this forum are saying he did is beyond me at this point. Every time Sean Hannity or others like him say Saddam had WMD's it get sick to my stomach, because it's a lie. Stop lying to yourselves.. He had no WMD's.

Hey D,
Please stop being a whacky head. The sentence you allude to is talking about the specific period just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Apparently, there were not any WMD found, but no one denies they were there. You are allowing NYT think to take over your mind. Saddam killed thousands of Kurds using chem/bio WMD. No one disputes this. UN/Blix and crew documented it. It is part of what Saddam is on trial for now as crimes against humanity. Can you concede this well documented point? The WMD Saddam used were from a WMD program he had as a branch of his military. This was a well funded program. Along with his well documented nuclear program that involved trying to aquire the tools needed to enrich uranium and as the British intellegence pointed out, and is now (in the last 3 weeks) being verified that Saddam had agents trying to buy uranium from Niger.
The question is not did he have WMD, the question has always been "where did it go?" Some feel Saddam destroyed his WMD program without documentation (which was against the UN dictates, because as part of the peace agreement, we needed to see the proof of destruction--seems reasonable, because who would trust Saddam? The thinking is that he destroyed it but did not make it public because the thought that WMD was there was a psy tool he could use. Who knows? Bottom line is we could not take his word for it and he kept interfering with the UN inspectors, so we could not get a clear picture. These were the resolutions that Iraq was in violation of and that is why the UN security council actually voted in favor of use of force. It was not based on flawed intelligence, there was just no denying that Saddam had used the weapons on his own people, that he had a well documented program, and he was not complying with the mandate to show how the WMD was disposed of. There was some bad intelligence like the death drone that looked like a bicycle etc. but he had them, he used them, and where are they now? was the big question.
I feel he shipped them to Syria. Another NYT ilk failure of journalism were the convoys of trucks leaving known WMD storehouses--places today that still have traces of WMD--Radioactive "yellow cake" comes to mind. Also the air bridge to Russia that occoured just prior to the invasion.
DUDE, HE HAD THE WEAPONS AND USED THEM ON THE KURDS. WHERE ARE THEY NOW HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED.

 

[brainhurts]

Quote by Gobucks:
It's gotta feel good to be so enraged and self-righteous all the time, brainhurts. Where can I get some of that medicine? I'm proud of my service too, but I love it how guys with your mind-set think you can be so condescending to someone without time in service. I thought nfg presented his opinion rather well with a couple of good sources, and you start throwing out the tired 'Jane Fonda'-this and 'Barbara Streisand'-thats. I wanted blood just as bad as anyone on 9/11, and I thought our fight was and is with radical, violent Islam. The new regime in Tehran that's developing nuclear weapons fits that bill much better than Saddam did, and it'll be interesting to see if we have the resources to deal with it. There are plenty of military folks of all ranks who agree with the "poorly planned, poor intelligence, poorly manned" that filejw mentioned. That has nothing to do with the folks in uniform, and everything to do with a lack of leadership at the civilian top. Don't expect me to join you thumping your chest, with your arrogant 11th grade retorts stolen from Bill O'Reilly, and that if I don't agree with you that I'm doing so in "in a treasonous manner". Your mischosen words, not mine.

Hey Gobucks,
Thank you for your service to our country. My outrage at the treason really does not seep down to "our" level. I have no problem with normal citizens debating points which ever side they are on. that is the American way. I am just tired of the spin cycle. An example is washed up Willie Nelson. He comes out with anti war anti Bush statements. The (even you will have to admit the press is overwhelmingly liberal) liberal press swarms with glee. Willie is splashed across front pages and news clips everywhere with heart tugging drama. Willie's new songs suck, but he is a national figure again. This is repeated with any has been who wants to come forward. Why is his voice louder than yours or mine? Because the press agrees with him and gives him a lot of press. Now repeat this process with Streisand, the Baldwins, Neil Young, Mick Jagger, blah blah. End result? Bin Laden tells his boys to hang in there keep killing Americans, this is working!--the mullas in A'stan and Iraq tell there boys to keep killing Americans! Listen to Willie Nelson! I just think it is a real bad cycle. How do I stop it? I don't. This is America. Say whatever you want. By the same token, my right of free speech does not compell me to pull any punches. When Fonda and crew do this crap (in my view because they selfishly want to be in the news) I believe I have earned the right to use my small voice to tell it like it is. They are aiding and abeting the enemy and I believe this to be treason. Sorry, but thats how I feel. I hope there was not too much chest thumping or Bill Oreilly stuff thrown in there.

 

[brainhurts]

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post point by point, because I see that it will not get us anywhere. You have your opinion and I have mine. Let’s leave it at that. I do want to respond to this one though. First of all, you don't know me. How you figured out my age, education, and TV show preferences is beyond me. However, you are wrong on all three. You are going to have to explain to me what "the meaning of the word" crowd is, also. I also don't get my news from CNN, like you claim, because I consider them a bunch of yo-yos, too. I try to get my news and my facts from other outlets, like world newspapers and news shows which actually ask and raise some new questions. Any journalist who gets really excited about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes and yawns anytime a new scandal or whatever comes out of the Beltway is, in my opinion, not doing his job. But anyway, here's my last point. You say the American people see the threat. OK, maybe. However, most of that fear comes from the incessant politics of fear coming from this administration. These guys can't come up with a plan to get out. (Neither can the democrats, for that matter, but they are not in power right now) Instead, all we hear is about all the stuff that could kill us. (Mushroom clouds, dirty bombs, etc) And the drones in the media mindlessly repeat whatever comes out of McClelland's mouth, without researching anything. When was the last time we went on orange alert? Sometime before the 04 election? What a coincidence! Somebody a few posts back said they miss Reagan. Now, I didn't agree on many things with him, but he at least practiced politics of hope. Lincoln, FDR, JFK, did the same. Hopefully, someday we'll have somebody in the WH who will actually inspire America again. By the way, thank you for your service. I mean it. I have many friends in Iraq right now, and they are doing a hell of a job under the circumstances. I would just hope for their sake, and the sake of soldiers who will follow them, that they are sent to war adequately equipped and for a worthwhile cause. Finally, brainhurts, don't take this stuff so seriously, this is Flightinfo, for Christ's sake!!

Hey nfg,
You seem like a nice guy but this post takes no point. It rambles around some allusion to Us history from the late 30s and presidental attrubutes and who you are. You kind take a swipe at the politics of fear insinuating this admin is making the threat much worse than it is. How can it be worse? The real politics here is trying to pin this administration between not doing enough to stop the Islamic threat and doing too much to stop the Islamic threat. The reason I take this seriously is because it is serious. I do not mind debating this stuff with you and I do not think you are tratorous. See my above post on the subject. But like I said before, if you want to debate this issue, you are going to have to get in the ring. Once you are in the ring, and the bell goes off--I am coming out swinging on this issue.

 

[inline]

It is worse! We have a needless war based on lies and deceit, and causing the ongoing deaths of thousands of Americans!

I'd much rather take the possible endangerment of an "embarrassment and a willing enabler to third world American hating kooks," who attempts to broker a more peaceful world, rather than the definate murderer of american GIs in a reckless and needless war that creates more terrorists, jihadists, and furthers the image of the imperial USA capriciously enforcing its "correct" vision on the rest of the weak and stupid world...

You tell me what is more dangerous, a citizen working for a more peaceful world, however misguided, or an elected president actively engaging in war based on lies, continuously killing americans, and justified in whatever way the citizenry can be conned into accepting this week?

Carter is ass kissing third world kooks only to embarrass Bush. And Bush isn't creating more terrorists, his superb Marines and soldiers are eliminating these islamofascists. Libya got the message didn't they? You should put down your Micheal Moore books, put down the New York Times, turn off CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., and shop around for your news.

 

[brainhurts]

Carter is ass kissing third world kooks only to embarrass Bush. And Bush isn't creating more terrorists, his superb Marines and soldiers are eliminating these islamofascists. Libya got the message didn't they? You should put down your Micheal Moore books, put down the New York Times, turn off CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc., and shop around for your news.

Amen Bro!!!

 

[Benhuntn]

wait CNN has some hot chics for news....can I just watch it with the mute on?

 

[koko nw]

wait CNN has some hot chics for news....can I just watch it with the mute on?

Yes you can, it's actually a lot more enjoyable that way.
Bye the way MSNBC has got it's share of hotties also.

Bye the way what's a B-720?

 

[nfg]

Hey nfg,
You seem like a nice guy but this post takes no point. It rambles around some allusion to Us history from the late 30s and presidental attrubutes and who you are. You kind take a swipe at the politics of fear insinuating this admin is making the threat much worse than it is. How can it be worse? The real politics here is trying to pin this administration between not doing enough to stop the Islamic threat and doing too much to stop the Islamic threat. The reason I take this seriously is because it is serious. I do not mind debating this stuff with you and I do not think you are tratorous. See my above post on the subject. But like I said before, if you want to debate this issue, you are going to have to get in the ring. Once you are in the ring, and the bell goes off--I am coming out swinging on this issue.

Wow, I thought I was just typing stuff onto a computer, I wasn't aware that I was locked in hand to hand combat with you. You seem to be confused with what I meant. It seems to me that you think that these politics of fear that I was talking about is a method this admin. uses to fight terrorism. I don't think that is true. I think they use it purely to keep and solidify their grip on power. How many times did we hear about imminent threats to some target in the US, just to see it be called off at the last moment? When did we hear about these attacks? They were all in the runup to the last elections. Not one since. They were meant to scare people and show them "see, we can keep you safe. There was this threat and nothing happened, becuase we keep you safe." I think those were meant purely to win that election. That's my opinion, when they actually produce some facts, then maybe I will change my mind. Also, I don't understand how you can say in one post that people have a right to say whatever they want, and then turn around and say that the Willie Nelsons, Streisands, Fondas etc. are traitors. Aren't they just exercising their rights? They are not helping the enemy just by critisizing the president. I am willing to bet that Bin Laden has never even heard of Willie Nelson! Now, if they were actually killing Americans, selling state secrets or whatever, then I would agree with you. But they are not doing that. By your logic, going by the fact that Bush has approximately a 30% approval rating, 70% of Americans are traitors. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't be fighting terrorism. (I sure am not) People just don't agree with the methods. How many reasons for the Iraq war have we heard by now? We should have finished the job in Afghanistan, and not have gone into a war of choice. I think that's all people are trying to say, including the Nelsons, Straisands, and Fondas. Anyway, keep going, maybe we'll agree on something. :laugh: Take care.

 

[brainhurts]

nfg,
You and I will probably never agree on anything because you are a liberal. You will talk on and on about creating dialouges and reaching out to people, letting the UN work ad nausium. The sad thing is that I will win this argument the hard way, WHEN we are attacked with WMD. You are wrong about my concept of the politics of fear. There is a reason to fear. If you think this admin is actually making this stuff up for effect, I think you have the wrong admin.
You are very liberally twisting my post. Nelson, Streisand etc. can say whatever they want. That does not mean that they should use their position to say whatever they want. It is not fair to you and me who's voice seems to be smaller than theirs. If they want to say their piece and it gives comfort to the enemy, then there are consequences. People like me can call them on it and reach the conclusion they are traitors. You are naive to think Bin Laden has no grip on American popular culture. He has an intel unit like any other organization. Does he know who W Nelson is? Who cares? He knows liberal Hollywood is on his side and he sees this as a positive because it is. I think this war in Iraq would have been a different story if we could have at least shown a unified poker face to radical Islam instead of jumping right in with the anti war/anti Bush crap. The average Iraqi is now afraid to come out for freedom because of your crowd who wants to pull out. This is classic in history. We needed a period for this to work and give confidence to the Iraqi people that we would be there for them. They know that our leaders can change quickly, so with your hollywood friends and liberal leadership, it is not a great confidence booster for them to take sides. Who is bearing the brunt of all this? The US grunt. You should feel proud of your sides lip service to him, and then taking actions that hurt his cause. I actually am done debating with you because I think you will be pulling out astrology charts next to defend yourself, and I have learned there is no arguing with a liberal. Feelings are more important than facts.

 

[Ty Webb]

I think this war in Iraq would have been a different story if we could have at least shown a unified poker face to radical Islam instead of jumping right in with the anti war/anti Bush crap. The average Iraqi is now afraid to come out for freedom because of your crowd who wants to pull out. This is classic in history.

Amen, These clowns have no idea how much comfort they give to the enemy when they start their "Tokyo Rose" B.S. . . . . "Me love you long-time, GI Joe".

 

[Focus]

I think he is vascillating back and forth with USAir. USAir pretty much rides the SWA wave. Everytime they raise fares, it incrementally gives a boost to USAir because of the large route overlap. Doug Parkers biggest challenge is melding the two cultures. His tirade on Neeleman is a classic leadership example of building one loyal culture by focusing adversarial thoughts toward the competition in lieu of within.

Oil will go down over the next couple of weeks.....Positon play for traders....As far as the overall effect of oil on the airline industry it surely will be an increased cost on the bottom line going forward. Withstanding hedges and route systems, the airlines with the least cost will survive the next two to three years..Beyond that is anyones guess. In my opinion, those airlines that show loyalty to their employees by profit sharing plans will be well hedged. Keep the price down up front and reap the synergy with increased route structure and employee motivation will undoubetdly make for success. forget the spelling....too long in the Cockpit to care. So now you have it boyz..... How will you use it..????? BE SMART and FOCUS on the dynamics of an era we have never really seen before. Those smart enough to digest the economics we currently live with will reap the rewards within ten years. K no longer than three years. Focus Out................

 

[Focus]

Then again Boys and Girls it may be time to take over the Oil Fields of the World......Are we ready for that....perhaps W is on the right course........God help Us all if we have reached that point.

 

[Focus]

Its amazing how this gentleman from the East Coast can get our blood rising with his editorial on the industry we all work within. I have to admit,,,,its plausible....Wow......I havent typed that word since college.