jsoceanlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2001
- Posts
- 367
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
CHEMICAL weapons FOUND.
- Thread starter saabcaptain
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
100LL... Again!
youwantapieceofme??
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,533
For the 5 millionth time, we have 45 other countries, yes 45, other countries in support of this action.
(Post edited to remove an insult that was nevertheless deserved)
The absolutely juvenile accusation that this is Bush's "War against the world" is proof that you are anti-American, anti-logic, and anti-humanity. You are beyond hope.
You want to talk about policy? Fine. You have facts, data, a historical parallel? Let's hear it. But to lob grade-school level reasoning around is plain wrong. You don't like war. Bush doesn't either. He might know a few things that you don't. Ever consider that?
While support for this war continues to grow in the UK, Australia AND the US, idiots rail on about how wrong it is.
You are using the war as a false cover to snipe at another political party. That is tantamount to hiding your partisan rage behind the blood of others.
"Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference."
Yeah, but sometimes I can't resist.
(Post edited to remove an insult that was nevertheless deserved)
The absolutely juvenile accusation that this is Bush's "War against the world" is proof that you are anti-American, anti-logic, and anti-humanity. You are beyond hope.
You want to talk about policy? Fine. You have facts, data, a historical parallel? Let's hear it. But to lob grade-school level reasoning around is plain wrong. You don't like war. Bush doesn't either. He might know a few things that you don't. Ever consider that?
While support for this war continues to grow in the UK, Australia AND the US, idiots rail on about how wrong it is.
You are using the war as a false cover to snipe at another political party. That is tantamount to hiding your partisan rage behind the blood of others.
"Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference."
Yeah, but sometimes I can't resist.
Last edited:
skyking1976
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2002
- Posts
- 1,057
Snakum
How's your marmott?
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2002
- Posts
- 2,090
Voicing protest is Anti-American? I beg to differ my good man. Anti-logic? Again ... I think not. We merely disagree, yet you insist on attacking folks personally when they don't share your opinions. The anonimity afforded by the internet seems to bring out the worst in us, doesn't it?
But as I've said previously ... have at it ... flame away. Your right to attack people and their beliefs without fear of reprisal has already been bought and paid for by myself and others who have walked a fence with an M-16, or dug in inside a Bradley in the desert, or flown thru AA from the cockpit of an F-16.
Minh Thong
"Rock of the Marne!"
But as I've said previously ... have at it ... flame away. Your right to attack people and their beliefs without fear of reprisal has already been bought and paid for by myself and others who have walked a fence with an M-16, or dug in inside a Bradley in the desert, or flown thru AA from the cockpit of an F-16.
Minh Thong
"Rock of the Marne!"
flywithastick
Member is: ready
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 684
Yes, it's the EEE-vil white man again out to get everyone else! Kill, rape, pillage, burn... that's all the white man knows how to do!! except for building nations which are beacons of freedom, democracy, inginuity, prosperity and opportunity.jsoceanlord said:
Don't know about you, but I seek no "glory" in war - and I'm a "white guy"!
ATL2CDG
Life's wastebucket
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 243
An opinion...
It is amazing to recognize the ethnocentricity of the American public, in general. From my interpretation of the majority of posts to this thread, many of you call for little to no public dissent of the Administration, censoring of the US press and unconditional acceptance of the President's policies. I beg you - tell mean what conditions plagued pre-war Iraq?
Many of you quote that "45 countries" are supporting our war. Of a world of ~192 independent nations, I would hardly call this a motivating statistic for supporting the engagement. In contrast, when the International Court of Justice treaty was brought before the US Senate, a mere ~12 nations, including the US, refused to take part. This is same court that would theoretically try war criminals - like the Iraqi soldiers possibly mistreating American POWs.
Many Americans believe that democracy and civil freedoms should be firmly planted and take root in the Middle East. I, personally, would love to see the freedoms that I enjoy exist throughout the world, however, I recognize that historical, cultural and religious characteristics unique to various parts of the world, including the Middle East, do not provide for such a realization. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the socio-cultural structure that exists in the Middle East will not allow an American-style republic to be established - and attempting to coerce one through war will definitely not help the cause. We must recognize that while "our way" may be the best way for us, it may not be the best way for everyone else.
Another topic covered in this thread was the Franco-Germanic opposition to the war. I have but one thing to say - they are independent nations and have the right to formulate their own individual foreign policy. Many of you have stated in this and other threads that France should know better considering our aid to them during both WWs. Well, should they be beholden to us for that aid in the same sense that we should be beholden to them for their aid during our fight for independence? Had the French fleet not arrived at Yorktown, we may still have been flying Union Jacks to this day. Just as the US obstained from the ICJ and expected no fanfare, France and Germany have the same right in this case.
The most pressing issue that I see is the complete lack of consistency in applying foreign policy by the Bush Administration. Iraq opened its borders to UN inspectors, provided documentation and evidence as to its weapons program and continuously met demands by the UN (destruction of Al-Samoud missiles and various empty warheads) yet we rush to invasion. On the other hand, North Korea, which we know without any uncertainty had a nuclear program, now ejects UN inspectors, restarts plutonium production, refuses ALL UN and US demands and threatens millions of people, yet the DoS simply says, "We want to open a dialogue." To me, this seems to be an unfair and dangerous double standard.
Is Hussein a saint? Far from it. Does he have WMD? Possibly. Did the UN finish its inspections satisfactorily? Definitely not. Is this invasion in direct violation of UN resolutions? Not sure - kind of fuzzy. Should the US government have allow the inspections to continue? In my opinion, yes. Has the US set a poor precedent for future nations to give the UN a big middle finger and ignore international law? Undoubtly.
All of this being said, I voice my dissent for the decision of the Bush Administration (as I would were it the McCain, Gore or Clinton administraions). But I also respect the integrity of the US Armed Forces in their following the orders of our Commander-in-Chief and wish them a speedy and safe return home.
It is amazing to recognize the ethnocentricity of the American public, in general. From my interpretation of the majority of posts to this thread, many of you call for little to no public dissent of the Administration, censoring of the US press and unconditional acceptance of the President's policies. I beg you - tell mean what conditions plagued pre-war Iraq?
Many of you quote that "45 countries" are supporting our war. Of a world of ~192 independent nations, I would hardly call this a motivating statistic for supporting the engagement. In contrast, when the International Court of Justice treaty was brought before the US Senate, a mere ~12 nations, including the US, refused to take part. This is same court that would theoretically try war criminals - like the Iraqi soldiers possibly mistreating American POWs.
Many Americans believe that democracy and civil freedoms should be firmly planted and take root in the Middle East. I, personally, would love to see the freedoms that I enjoy exist throughout the world, however, I recognize that historical, cultural and religious characteristics unique to various parts of the world, including the Middle East, do not provide for such a realization. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that the socio-cultural structure that exists in the Middle East will not allow an American-style republic to be established - and attempting to coerce one through war will definitely not help the cause. We must recognize that while "our way" may be the best way for us, it may not be the best way for everyone else.
Another topic covered in this thread was the Franco-Germanic opposition to the war. I have but one thing to say - they are independent nations and have the right to formulate their own individual foreign policy. Many of you have stated in this and other threads that France should know better considering our aid to them during both WWs. Well, should they be beholden to us for that aid in the same sense that we should be beholden to them for their aid during our fight for independence? Had the French fleet not arrived at Yorktown, we may still have been flying Union Jacks to this day. Just as the US obstained from the ICJ and expected no fanfare, France and Germany have the same right in this case.
The most pressing issue that I see is the complete lack of consistency in applying foreign policy by the Bush Administration. Iraq opened its borders to UN inspectors, provided documentation and evidence as to its weapons program and continuously met demands by the UN (destruction of Al-Samoud missiles and various empty warheads) yet we rush to invasion. On the other hand, North Korea, which we know without any uncertainty had a nuclear program, now ejects UN inspectors, restarts plutonium production, refuses ALL UN and US demands and threatens millions of people, yet the DoS simply says, "We want to open a dialogue." To me, this seems to be an unfair and dangerous double standard.
Is Hussein a saint? Far from it. Does he have WMD? Possibly. Did the UN finish its inspections satisfactorily? Definitely not. Is this invasion in direct violation of UN resolutions? Not sure - kind of fuzzy. Should the US government have allow the inspections to continue? In my opinion, yes. Has the US set a poor precedent for future nations to give the UN a big middle finger and ignore international law? Undoubtly.
All of this being said, I voice my dissent for the decision of the Bush Administration (as I would were it the McCain, Gore or Clinton administraions). But I also respect the integrity of the US Armed Forces in their following the orders of our Commander-in-Chief and wish them a speedy and safe return home.
ksu_aviator
GO CATS
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,327
I would just like to say that those people in those pictures didn't even have the brains to dress respectably. If you want people to take you serious you don't wear KKK/ninja style clothes, you wear something that makes you look intelligent. Not something that makes you look like you fell out of a Ninja Turtles comic book and into a KKK rally. Did they really think that what they say would be given any respect that way? I don't mean to be shallow or vain but appearance is everything, from cooking to job interviews.
Also, to borrow some logic from Limbaugh, its good to have these wakkos out there showing us just how awful things would be if they where in charge.
Also, to borrow some logic from Limbaugh, its good to have these wakkos out there showing us just how awful things would be if they where in charge.
rightrudder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Posts
- 505
midlifeflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2003
- Posts
- 2,127
- Base airport
- KTTA
- Ratings
- Commercial ASEL, CFI-ASE, CFII
)100LL... Again!
youwantapieceofme??
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,533
Careful how you characterize my post.
You want to talk about policy? Fine. You have facts, data, a historical parallel? Let's hear it. But to lob grade-school level reasoning around is plain wrong. You don't like war. Bush doesn't either. He might know a few things that you don't. Ever consider that?
Remember me saying that?
What I have no tolerance for is the foolish statement made by
jcsoceanlord. This type of idiotic sniping gets us nowhere, and deserves some return fire.
If someone has a genuine opposition to the war, fine. For most, it seems to be a reason to attack Bush - nothing more .
I saw no intelligence or sense of reality in his post.
You want to talk about policy? Fine. You have facts, data, a historical parallel? Let's hear it. But to lob grade-school level reasoning around is plain wrong. You don't like war. Bush doesn't either. He might know a few things that you don't. Ever consider that?
Remember me saying that?
What I have no tolerance for is the foolish statement made by
jcsoceanlord. This type of idiotic sniping gets us nowhere, and deserves some return fire.
If someone has a genuine opposition to the war, fine. For most, it seems to be a reason to attack Bush - nothing more .
I saw no intelligence or sense of reality in his post.
flywithastick
Member is: ready
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 684
saabcaptain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2002
- Posts
- 391
Some "war" comments...
1. A major popular uprising has just begun in Basra against the Iraqi military during the overnight hours and British troops are doing what they can to aid them in the effort but likely will wait till daylight to enter the city. We can only hope the brave civilians aren't killed by the hundreds because the Iraqi military is now attacking them in Basra. Who says they don't want to be free?
2. Turkey is directly causing loss of life for the U.S. with a doubt. Military doctrine says two HEAVY divisions are needed in an invasion like this and we only have ONE because the 4th infantry division was supposed to go through Turkey but now won't even arrive till early in April via Kuwait. This particular division is supposed to be the most elite and now they are on the sidelines while the 3rd division is forced to hold the weight of the battle on their shoulders. It is a shame but they can do it.
1. A major popular uprising has just begun in Basra against the Iraqi military during the overnight hours and British troops are doing what they can to aid them in the effort but likely will wait till daylight to enter the city. We can only hope the brave civilians aren't killed by the hundreds because the Iraqi military is now attacking them in Basra. Who says they don't want to be free?
2. Turkey is directly causing loss of life for the U.S. with a doubt. Military doctrine says two HEAVY divisions are needed in an invasion like this and we only have ONE because the 4th infantry division was supposed to go through Turkey but now won't even arrive till early in April via Kuwait. This particular division is supposed to be the most elite and now they are on the sidelines while the 3rd division is forced to hold the weight of the battle on their shoulders. It is a shame but they can do it.
saabcaptain,
Turkey voted on the issue of letting the Military use their bases and it was voted down. Isnt that what we are fighting for over there???? Democracy? Or is it only democracy that serves our purpose? I have no doubt that we will find chemical weapons. We did give them to him. That being said, I dont think he should have them, but we have chemical weapons. How come we get them and he doesnt?
ATL2CDG,
very well written. I wish I was that eloquent and could have said what you said. I get frustrated with people who tell me that because I am against the choice to go to war, I am unamerican. If you want a country that has 100% support for the government, move to Iraq. If you dont agree they will shoot you. That should make you happy.
Turkey voted on the issue of letting the Military use their bases and it was voted down. Isnt that what we are fighting for over there???? Democracy? Or is it only democracy that serves our purpose? I have no doubt that we will find chemical weapons. We did give them to him. That being said, I dont think he should have them, but we have chemical weapons. How come we get them and he doesnt?
ATL2CDG,
very well written. I wish I was that eloquent and could have said what you said. I get frustrated with people who tell me that because I am against the choice to go to war, I am unamerican. If you want a country that has 100% support for the government, move to Iraq. If you dont agree they will shoot you. That should make you happy.
flywithastick
Member is: ready
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 684
MONKEY
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2002
- Posts
- 150
ATL2CDG
YOU SAID
There are many nations who neither support nor oppose the war. What does this war have to do with Bolivia?
There are many other nations for which we should pay little or no attention to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81153,00.html
You said
Your back up was quick to point out that Turkey is a democratic nation with free elections. Yeah I wish they would back us on this, but they have the right to disagree. In addition to the fact that their is at least one actual example that counters your point, I have one question for you. Would you say that the "historical" and ""cultural... characteristics" of such countries such as the UK, France, and Spain would have supported such change during their period of monarchy?
The rest of you post has as many flaws as the prior, but I will not waste my time pointing them out. I will take comfort knowing that 3/4ths of Americans (yes I do consider the dissenters Americans) understand what is going on
YOU SAID
Should we look into why some of these countries don't support us? Could it be that Russian companies are guilty of violating UN sanctions by selling Iraq GPS jammers? Could it be that France is heavily involved in illegal trade with Iraq?
There are many nations who neither support nor oppose the war. What does this war have to do with Bolivia?
There are many other nations for which we should pay little or no attention to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81153,00.html
You said
Your back up was quick to point out that Turkey is a democratic nation with free elections. Yeah I wish they would back us on this, but they have the right to disagree. In addition to the fact that their is at least one actual example that counters your point, I have one question for you. Would you say that the "historical" and ""cultural... characteristics" of such countries such as the UK, France, and Spain would have supported such change during their period of monarchy?
The rest of you post has as many flaws as the prior, but I will not waste my time pointing them out. I will take comfort knowing that 3/4ths of Americans (yes I do consider the dissenters Americans) understand what is going on
Last edited:
Deftone45075
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2002
- Posts
- 274
Many people want to exercise their right to protest, and that's fine. However, if you choose to do so, do it with intelligence, facts, and respect.
One thing that has become clearly obvious (and the protestors made it so ) is that a very large portion of them are immature, irrational, and lack any real knowledge of what is going on. They are simply jumping on a bandwagon in an effort to draw attention to themselves for no other reason than their own selfish need for it. This group is not worth arguing with, and should just be ignored.
Of the rest, a great many are "anti - Bush", and just want an excuse to attack him. Well, you don't have to like him, and you don't have to like the war (I doubt anyone does), but if you truley believe that there is no reason for us to be over there, than your either deaf, dumb, or blind.
We are one of the largest nations, we are a super power, and we are the poster child for freedom and democracy. Through out history, and especially today, we are affected by all events around the globe. Our economy, our saftey, and our future depend heavily on the people, events, and resources of other countries.
The past few months (perhaps much longer) have been spent trying to avoid war. Through out this time a ton of evidence was ammassed to prove that we have cause for concern, and that if non-military efforts failed, that we would have cause to take action. This is not Pres. Bush' personal issue. Only if you have ignored all of the evidence could you possibly believe so. And if that is the case, and you are protesting without any knowledge or basis to do so against your own country, that is anti-american behavior.
If you want to oppose the war (wich is a bit late to do so now) try providing proof that w shouldn't be over there. You say it isn't right? Well, tell us why? It isn't moral? Why? We have nothing to gain frm it? Why?
The war has started, your not going to stop it with foolish behavior, particularly the defiant protestors in NY. Our troop are already there, support them with all your effort, and hope to god they come home soon.
One thing that has become clearly obvious (and the protestors made it so ) is that a very large portion of them are immature, irrational, and lack any real knowledge of what is going on. They are simply jumping on a bandwagon in an effort to draw attention to themselves for no other reason than their own selfish need for it. This group is not worth arguing with, and should just be ignored.
Of the rest, a great many are "anti - Bush", and just want an excuse to attack him. Well, you don't have to like him, and you don't have to like the war (I doubt anyone does), but if you truley believe that there is no reason for us to be over there, than your either deaf, dumb, or blind.
We are one of the largest nations, we are a super power, and we are the poster child for freedom and democracy. Through out history, and especially today, we are affected by all events around the globe. Our economy, our saftey, and our future depend heavily on the people, events, and resources of other countries.
The past few months (perhaps much longer) have been spent trying to avoid war. Through out this time a ton of evidence was ammassed to prove that we have cause for concern, and that if non-military efforts failed, that we would have cause to take action. This is not Pres. Bush' personal issue. Only if you have ignored all of the evidence could you possibly believe so. And if that is the case, and you are protesting without any knowledge or basis to do so against your own country, that is anti-american behavior.
If you want to oppose the war (wich is a bit late to do so now) try providing proof that w shouldn't be over there. You say it isn't right? Well, tell us why? It isn't moral? Why? We have nothing to gain frm it? Why?
The war has started, your not going to stop it with foolish behavior, particularly the defiant protestors in NY. Our troop are already there, support them with all your effort, and hope to god they come home soon.
midlifeflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2003
- Posts
- 2,127
- Base airport
- KTTA
- Ratings
- Commercial ASEL, CFI-ASE, CFII
flywithastick
Member is: ready
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 684
ATL2CDG
Life's wastebucket
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 243
An abbreviated response...
For those of you noting possible illegal trades between France/Russia et al. with Iraq -- need I point out the Iran/Contra affair of the '80s? Or what about the US aid to the Afghan resistance fighters during the same time period? Interesting that other countries are expected to live up to "US standands" while the US is not. I can assure you that the trading that took place was not to meant to support Hussein's regime, but rather, being capitalism at its worse, was for a quick profit for all parties involved. And let us not forget that the US itself supplied and armed Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Rumsfeld himself met and "danced the friendly danced" with Hussein at this time. We cannot shun those with blood on their hands when it was us that gave them the knife.
What does the war have to do with Boliva? What does it have to do with Bulgaria or any of the other nations that support the US war with Iraq that have no vested interest in Iraq? They are simply seeking US dollars and other aid that the US is handing out fist over fist to its allies. The countries that have the most to benefit from a "regime change," such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and other Iraqi neighbors are offering lukewarm, if any, support at all. They fear, as they rightly should, that once the US is finished democratizing Iraq, they will feel motivated to extend their "message" to Iraq's neighbors. It is not the US's place to morph, change or otherwise modify a sovereign nation's government or social structure. We wouldn't want it done to us, so what makes us think that they want it done to them.
Lastly, Turkey is not Iraq. Both the ethnic makeup, governmental development, relations with the West and religious stance are completely different. Only one ignorant of social/ethnic/historical demographics would assume that the geographical proximity of the two nations would equate to a correlation of socio-governmental similiarity. Also, Turkey was not democratized by any outside force. The Turks voluntarily, on the own timetable, evolved into the quasi-democracy that we see today.
Well, I'd love to ramble further, but my 3-month old daughter is crying and she carries a little more weight that you faceless phantoms. I'll respond to your flames-to-come when I get some more free time.
For those of you noting possible illegal trades between France/Russia et al. with Iraq -- need I point out the Iran/Contra affair of the '80s? Or what about the US aid to the Afghan resistance fighters during the same time period? Interesting that other countries are expected to live up to "US standands" while the US is not. I can assure you that the trading that took place was not to meant to support Hussein's regime, but rather, being capitalism at its worse, was for a quick profit for all parties involved. And let us not forget that the US itself supplied and armed Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War. Rumsfeld himself met and "danced the friendly danced" with Hussein at this time. We cannot shun those with blood on their hands when it was us that gave them the knife.
What does the war have to do with Boliva? What does it have to do with Bulgaria or any of the other nations that support the US war with Iraq that have no vested interest in Iraq? They are simply seeking US dollars and other aid that the US is handing out fist over fist to its allies. The countries that have the most to benefit from a "regime change," such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and other Iraqi neighbors are offering lukewarm, if any, support at all. They fear, as they rightly should, that once the US is finished democratizing Iraq, they will feel motivated to extend their "message" to Iraq's neighbors. It is not the US's place to morph, change or otherwise modify a sovereign nation's government or social structure. We wouldn't want it done to us, so what makes us think that they want it done to them.
Lastly, Turkey is not Iraq. Both the ethnic makeup, governmental development, relations with the West and religious stance are completely different. Only one ignorant of social/ethnic/historical demographics would assume that the geographical proximity of the two nations would equate to a correlation of socio-governmental similiarity. Also, Turkey was not democratized by any outside force. The Turks voluntarily, on the own timetable, evolved into the quasi-democracy that we see today.
Well, I'd love to ramble further, but my 3-month old daughter is crying and she carries a little more weight that you faceless phantoms. I'll respond to your flames-to-come when I get some more free time.
flywithastick
Member is: ready
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 684
Re: An abbreviated response...
The entire sociological discussion smells of the labelling that has millions of school children on Ridlin and promotes class the warfare that's tearing our country apart. I thought all humans were equally intelligent and capable of living in a diverse society!?
How about the Kurds? They've developed a fairly decent democratic existence in Northern Iraq.ATL2CDG said:
The entire sociological discussion smells of the labelling that has millions of school children on Ridlin and promotes class the warfare that's tearing our country apart. I thought all humans were equally intelligent and capable of living in a diverse society!?
Last edited:
midlifeflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2003
- Posts
- 2,127
- Base airport
- KTTA
- Ratings
- Commercial ASEL, CFI-ASE, CFII
Re: Re: An abbreviated response...
Which "class warfare" label are you using?
(a) Those who want to give everything to the rich based on some noblesse oblige theory that went out with "What's good for General Motors is good for the US" and whine "class warfare" whenever someone one has the audacity to complain about it
(b) those who complain about those who want to give everything to the rich.
Just wondering. Using labels to throw a whole disparage a whole bunch of ideas didn't start with the silly political correctness movement.
flywithastick said:
Which "class warfare" label are you using?
(a) Those who want to give everything to the rich based on some noblesse oblige theory that went out with "What's good for General Motors is good for the US" and whine "class warfare" whenever someone one has the audacity to complain about it
(b) those who complain about those who want to give everything to the rich.
Just wondering. Using labels to throw a whole disparage a whole bunch of ideas didn't start with the silly political correctness movement.
midlifeflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2003
- Posts
- 2,127
- Base airport
- KTTA
- Ratings
- Commercial ASEL, CFI-ASE, CFII
AAsRedHeadedbro
Havin' fun at the track!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Posts
- 141
Slapstick said, "Bush lost the election."
Actually, he did win the election.
He lost the popular vote but won the majority of the Electoral College votes. The last time that I checked, that's what wins the presidency - not how many Americans voted in aggregate for a particular candidate. If the popular vote elected a president, we would not have the Electoral College system.
Get over it. The Presidential election is over and has been for two years
Actually, he did win the election.
He lost the popular vote but won the majority of the Electoral College votes. The last time that I checked, that's what wins the presidency - not how many Americans voted in aggregate for a particular candidate. If the popular vote elected a president, we would not have the Electoral College system.
Get over it. The Presidential election is over and has been for two years
The outcome would've been different had his brother not played tricks to dequalify black voters in Florida, had his cousin, running the election coverage at Fox, not reported Bush's victory in spite of the recount, and had the elderly supreme court justices who were worried about being replaced by a democrat not have stopped the recount.
I won't forget it; especially since he has done nothing to make this world a better place for people like you and me. The rich have grown 300-some percent richer during this economic slump. I don't blame it on Bush; I blame it on all us common people letting our government do as it pleases.
I won't forget it; especially since he has done nothing to make this world a better place for people like you and me. The rich have grown 300-some percent richer during this economic slump. I don't blame it on Bush; I blame it on all us common people letting our government do as it pleases.
Deftone45075
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2002
- Posts
- 274
Slapstick,
The only outcome that would have been different would be the popular vote. And it wouldn't have mattered. All your dequalified black voters, elderly judges, and Fox election coverage would not have changed the electoral vote. They elect the president. He won.
I'm not necessarily a fan of Bush, but he won the election. People just don't seem to understand that the popular vote doesn't have that much pull. And Gore whinning like a baby and challanging every re count made the whole country look bad.
The only outcome that would have been different would be the popular vote. And it wouldn't have mattered. All your dequalified black voters, elderly judges, and Fox election coverage would not have changed the electoral vote. They elect the president. He won.
I'm not necessarily a fan of Bush, but he won the election. People just don't seem to understand that the popular vote doesn't have that much pull. And Gore whinning like a baby and challanging every re count made the whole country look bad.
saabcaptain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2002
- Posts
- 391
slapstick,
after the election was over and Bush proclaimed the winner a joint team of newspapers, tv, and magazines formed a joint coalition to under the public information act discover if Bush truly would have lost a recount in Florida. this liberal media spent millions to do this over more than 6 months hoping to show the world that Bush had really lost. they used several methods of determining what the recount would have been using in various scenarios the methods proclaimed by the Florida Supreme Court, the recommendations of Broward (sp?) county, and the methods suggested by disenting US Supreme Court justices. Under each method the vote count was different but one thing remained the same and was reported widely in the New York Times, WP, USA Today, National TV, and almost every other print, voice, and tv media in the world about 6 months later...
Bush would have won any recount in Florida.
He lost the popular vote no doubt but no matter how you shake it he won in Florida and therefore won the electoral vote and the Presidency.
after the election was over and Bush proclaimed the winner a joint team of newspapers, tv, and magazines formed a joint coalition to under the public information act discover if Bush truly would have lost a recount in Florida. this liberal media spent millions to do this over more than 6 months hoping to show the world that Bush had really lost. they used several methods of determining what the recount would have been using in various scenarios the methods proclaimed by the Florida Supreme Court, the recommendations of Broward (sp?) county, and the methods suggested by disenting US Supreme Court justices. Under each method the vote count was different but one thing remained the same and was reported widely in the New York Times, WP, USA Today, National TV, and almost every other print, voice, and tv media in the world about 6 months later...
Bush would have won any recount in Florida.
He lost the popular vote no doubt but no matter how you shake it he won in Florida and therefore won the electoral vote and the Presidency.
saabcaptain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2002
- Posts
- 391
skypine69,
certainly Turkey has every right to vote down the use of their nation for our forces. i never implied they did not have that right.
the fact though is they are considered a close ally and fellow NATO member of the USA though. considering they have failed to support us at this time you have to remember that in the future when they desire aid, support in their own regional politics etc.
point is: in our time of need they did not stand with us, and that decision may likely cost additional american lives. while totally within their right it doesn't make it any less painful for the USA, nor does it make it any less WRONG a decision in my opinion.
certainly Turkey has every right to vote down the use of their nation for our forces. i never implied they did not have that right.
the fact though is they are considered a close ally and fellow NATO member of the USA though. considering they have failed to support us at this time you have to remember that in the future when they desire aid, support in their own regional politics etc.
point is: in our time of need they did not stand with us, and that decision may likely cost additional american lives. while totally within their right it doesn't make it any less painful for the USA, nor does it make it any less WRONG a decision in my opinion.
HueyPilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 207
The real poop
About U.S. support and equipping of Saddam Hussein:
There have been plenty of articles written by anti-war activists saying everything from "The US supplied Iraq with weapons" to "The US gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons". A lot of this stuff is unverifiable, and other information is distorted half-truths bent to support the anti-war (or anti-Bush) cause. I'll address a few sample claims.
1. The US supplied the Iraqi war machine.
No, the US did not. Not a single piece of Iraqi artillery, nor a single Iraqi tank, gun, airplane, helicopter, APC or electronic warfare (EW) piece was made in the USA. Here's a list of what Iraq has owned and does own:
T55/65/72 tanks, Russian-made; MTLB APCs, Russian-made; BTR series APCs, Russian-made; BMP armored vehicles, Russian-made; various Russian-made troop trucks.
SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-8, SA-7/14/16 surface to air missiles, all Russian-made; various calibers of Russian-made anti-aircraft artillery (ZSU series), and various calibers of Russian-made towed artillery pieces. They do have a handful of American-made self-propelled 155MM artillery pieces captured from Iran. Ballistic missiles include Scud models (Russian made), and Silkworm missiles (Russian-designed, but made in China). Also some home-grown missiles (ie al-Samoud).
MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29, Su-17 and Su-19 fighter aircraft. Il-76 transports, and a few various models of Anotov transports as well. All are Russian-made. Also some Mirage F1 fighters made by France.
Mil-3, Mil-8, Mil-17, Mil-24 Russian-made helicopters. Gazelle and Puma helicopters made by France.
Standard issue small arms are all Russian-made weapons. This includes the Kalishnikov rifles, handguns for officers, Russian-made mortars and crewed weapons.
Command-and-control (ie. communications) systems for the massive bunker compounds were provided by German defense corporations.
There was signficant assistance in the form of scientific and research help, sales of chemical munitions, and other support equipment (ie decontamination vehicles) from the USSR in the 1980s.
As you can see, the US played a very small role in the build-up of the Iraqi military machine.
2. The USA provided Saddam with WMD in the 1980s.
No, we didn't. None of Saddam's weapons are US weapons. For one, Saddam can't use a US chemical munition in his Russian-made artillery systems, because they aren't compatible. The one thing anti-war activists latch onto is the sale (from the US) of biological research material that was medical-grade pathogens that US medical facilities use to research disease. This was NOT weaponized biological material. Saddam attempted to turn this into weaponized material, but evidence suggests that his biological program was abruptly halted by the 1991 Gulf War, and he never totally suceeded. Saddam did, however, receive some assistance from the USSR in weaponizing biological pathogens. But again, his bio program is no where near as advanced as his chemical program.
3. The USA has chemical weapons, so why can't Iraq have them?
Actually, the US military has signed a treaty banning the use of chemical and biological weapons. The US stores of these weapons have been in the process of being destroyed by civilian contractors (I have a family member who supervises the destruction of old US chemical plants). As a military pilot and former Army ground-pounder, I have NEVER seen a doctrine that calls for the use of chemical or biological agents. ALL of the US military's doctrine concerning these weapons is focused on force protection from a NBC attack. We keep biological weapon serums around to protect us from an attack, not to develop new weapons. And we have a significant chemical protection system NOT so we can use the weapons, but to protect our forces from attack.
Be careful of what you read. Just because it appears on the internet and seems well-written doesn't mean it's true. And just because they (the anti-war activists) say they are "out for the truth" doesn't mean they won't lie to further their political aims. And always remember this....the protests are backed by ANSWER and Not In My Name, both of which are offshoots and backed by organizations such as the International Socialist Union and the Socialist Worker's Party. So it's fair to say that both of those anti-war organizations have much deeper rooted anti-American/anti-capitalist/anti-establishment mentalities, and they are using the war to provide a greater stage for their political views.
Finally, I find it horribly backwards that the efforts of the anti-war groups often serve to promote Saddam's propaganda and thus protect his regime. Also, many anti-war web sites (such as Indymedia.org) promote the "resistance" as if it was somehow being waged by valiant Iraqi freedom fighters defending their homeland. In fact, the "resistance" is often in the form of Special Republican Guard units and Fedayeen Saddam units using extremely underhanded tactics and deplorable violations of human decency, such as dressing as civilians and luring in Allied troops, dressing as Allied troops and accepting Iraqi surrenders only to execute the regular Iraqi troops, and using places such as hospitals as operating bases.
Pretending that these efforts are somehow valiant examples of self-defense are sickening. If you don't like the US justification of war, fine. But come to your senses....the forces the Allied troops are fighting and taking losses from are far from noble, and are amongst the most brutal military forces in the world.
About U.S. support and equipping of Saddam Hussein:
There have been plenty of articles written by anti-war activists saying everything from "The US supplied Iraq with weapons" to "The US gave Iraq chemical and biological weapons". A lot of this stuff is unverifiable, and other information is distorted half-truths bent to support the anti-war (or anti-Bush) cause. I'll address a few sample claims.
1. The US supplied the Iraqi war machine.
No, the US did not. Not a single piece of Iraqi artillery, nor a single Iraqi tank, gun, airplane, helicopter, APC or electronic warfare (EW) piece was made in the USA. Here's a list of what Iraq has owned and does own:
T55/65/72 tanks, Russian-made; MTLB APCs, Russian-made; BTR series APCs, Russian-made; BMP armored vehicles, Russian-made; various Russian-made troop trucks.
SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-8, SA-7/14/16 surface to air missiles, all Russian-made; various calibers of Russian-made anti-aircraft artillery (ZSU series), and various calibers of Russian-made towed artillery pieces. They do have a handful of American-made self-propelled 155MM artillery pieces captured from Iran. Ballistic missiles include Scud models (Russian made), and Silkworm missiles (Russian-designed, but made in China). Also some home-grown missiles (ie al-Samoud).
MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29, Su-17 and Su-19 fighter aircraft. Il-76 transports, and a few various models of Anotov transports as well. All are Russian-made. Also some Mirage F1 fighters made by France.
Mil-3, Mil-8, Mil-17, Mil-24 Russian-made helicopters. Gazelle and Puma helicopters made by France.
Standard issue small arms are all Russian-made weapons. This includes the Kalishnikov rifles, handguns for officers, Russian-made mortars and crewed weapons.
Command-and-control (ie. communications) systems for the massive bunker compounds were provided by German defense corporations.
There was signficant assistance in the form of scientific and research help, sales of chemical munitions, and other support equipment (ie decontamination vehicles) from the USSR in the 1980s.
As you can see, the US played a very small role in the build-up of the Iraqi military machine.
2. The USA provided Saddam with WMD in the 1980s.
No, we didn't. None of Saddam's weapons are US weapons. For one, Saddam can't use a US chemical munition in his Russian-made artillery systems, because they aren't compatible. The one thing anti-war activists latch onto is the sale (from the US) of biological research material that was medical-grade pathogens that US medical facilities use to research disease. This was NOT weaponized biological material. Saddam attempted to turn this into weaponized material, but evidence suggests that his biological program was abruptly halted by the 1991 Gulf War, and he never totally suceeded. Saddam did, however, receive some assistance from the USSR in weaponizing biological pathogens. But again, his bio program is no where near as advanced as his chemical program.
3. The USA has chemical weapons, so why can't Iraq have them?
Actually, the US military has signed a treaty banning the use of chemical and biological weapons. The US stores of these weapons have been in the process of being destroyed by civilian contractors (I have a family member who supervises the destruction of old US chemical plants). As a military pilot and former Army ground-pounder, I have NEVER seen a doctrine that calls for the use of chemical or biological agents. ALL of the US military's doctrine concerning these weapons is focused on force protection from a NBC attack. We keep biological weapon serums around to protect us from an attack, not to develop new weapons. And we have a significant chemical protection system NOT so we can use the weapons, but to protect our forces from attack.
Be careful of what you read. Just because it appears on the internet and seems well-written doesn't mean it's true. And just because they (the anti-war activists) say they are "out for the truth" doesn't mean they won't lie to further their political aims. And always remember this....the protests are backed by ANSWER and Not In My Name, both of which are offshoots and backed by organizations such as the International Socialist Union and the Socialist Worker's Party. So it's fair to say that both of those anti-war organizations have much deeper rooted anti-American/anti-capitalist/anti-establishment mentalities, and they are using the war to provide a greater stage for their political views.
Finally, I find it horribly backwards that the efforts of the anti-war groups often serve to promote Saddam's propaganda and thus protect his regime. Also, many anti-war web sites (such as Indymedia.org) promote the "resistance" as if it was somehow being waged by valiant Iraqi freedom fighters defending their homeland. In fact, the "resistance" is often in the form of Special Republican Guard units and Fedayeen Saddam units using extremely underhanded tactics and deplorable violations of human decency, such as dressing as civilians and luring in Allied troops, dressing as Allied troops and accepting Iraqi surrenders only to execute the regular Iraqi troops, and using places such as hospitals as operating bases.
Pretending that these efforts are somehow valiant examples of self-defense are sickening. If you don't like the US justification of war, fine. But come to your senses....the forces the Allied troops are fighting and taking losses from are far from noble, and are amongst the most brutal military forces in the world.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
