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
Iraqi Invasion Implications
- Thread starter ch47fe
- 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
EagleRJ
Are we there yet?
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 1,490
There may be some selloffs in the market the first few days of strikes, but I think it wouldn't be too bad. The price of crude would go up, most of which would be OPEC voicing their displeasure. That would affect the smaller airlines whose fuel isn't as heavily hedged.
I think the overall effect on the airlines would be positive, since any step taken to eradicate terrorist states is good for the travel industry. Democratic governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere may even allow opening those countries to trade and let US airlines begin service to their cities.
I think the overall effect on the airlines would be positive, since any step taken to eradicate terrorist states is good for the travel industry. Democratic governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere may even allow opening those countries to trade and let US airlines begin service to their cities.
vja217
Richmond, VA
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 65
Stock Prices
If you look back at companies like AMR, DAL, and UAL, its interesting to note that their stock prices soared before, during, and after the Gulf War. However, that was back when the market was not quite as nervous and volatile as it is now, and the airline industry was significantly better off in general. I think the more interesting thing would be to look at how hiring changes/furloughs/pilot shortages were handled during the War, and whether any changes to those practices were beneficial or detrimental to the industry.
If you look back at companies like AMR, DAL, and UAL, its interesting to note that their stock prices soared before, during, and after the Gulf War. However, that was back when the market was not quite as nervous and volatile as it is now, and the airline industry was significantly better off in general. I think the more interesting thing would be to look at how hiring changes/furloughs/pilot shortages were handled during the War, and whether any changes to those practices were beneficial or detrimental to the industry.
desert pilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 58
Chunk
SkyFuzz
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 496
It's called the Civil Air Reserve fleet (IIRC) and just about everybody is in it. Govt. gives tax breaks or other incentives to carriers who sign up....it's not often they get used, so most companies look at it as a good deal. Even if they do get used, they get paid, so there isn't much of a downside.
I have 18 months left on my contract (I'm IRR - inactive reserves)....I hope I don't get called up. I would serve willingly and honorably if called up, but I still hope it doesn't happen. There's no question we're gonna schwack Iraq...it's just a question of when.
Chunk
I have 18 months left on my contract (I'm IRR - inactive reserves)....I hope I don't get called up. I would serve willingly and honorably if called up, but I still hope it doesn't happen. There's no question we're gonna schwack Iraq...it's just a question of when.
Chunk
Simon Says
New Airbus Regional Jet
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2001
- Posts
- 1,036
Your close Chunk...
It is called Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and instead of tax breaks the airlines that are involved in CRAF receive preferential treatment when applying for non-defense government buiness. The amount of business that is received from the government is in proportion to the number of aircraft made available to CRAF.
As of 2000 there are 38 air carriers involved to include Fed Ex to Delta Airlines to the old Sun Country. With all of these air carriers there are a total of 681 aircraft that can be assighned to CRAF. If all of CRAF aircraft were called for duty they would be able to haul 25 million ton miles a day. That is the same number of what the United States Airforce could also carry. Which equals a total of 50 million ton miles a day.
With this kind of air transport, it would not take long to get our forces on the borders of Iraq.
It is called Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and instead of tax breaks the airlines that are involved in CRAF receive preferential treatment when applying for non-defense government buiness. The amount of business that is received from the government is in proportion to the number of aircraft made available to CRAF.
As of 2000 there are 38 air carriers involved to include Fed Ex to Delta Airlines to the old Sun Country. With all of these air carriers there are a total of 681 aircraft that can be assighned to CRAF. If all of CRAF aircraft were called for duty they would be able to haul 25 million ton miles a day. That is the same number of what the United States Airforce could also carry. Which equals a total of 50 million ton miles a day.
With this kind of air transport, it would not take long to get our forces on the borders of Iraq.
rumpletumbler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,209
Joseph Biden says an attack on Iraq wouldnt happen until at least 2003, probably towards the end of that year, just before an election year. Funny how that works, get the presidents approval rating up with the false patriotism thats spoon fed to us during wartime and let old Dubya keep his job. Remember Bush senior's mistakes, how can a president with one of the highest approval ratings in our countries history during there term not be reelected?
Republican strategists arent going to let that happen again.
What has Iraq really done? I in no way support Saddam but lets look at the facts.
Weapons of mass destruction?
Pakistan and India both threatend and said they would use nuclear weapons {weapons of mass destruction?} if attacked, no sanctions were imposed and were not trying to overthrow there governments. In fact Pakistan is now our gretaest ally in "the war on terror"
UN Inspectors?
Didnt Israel and Ariel Sharon deny UN inspectors into Jenin? no sanciotns from the UN and we still give them Billions of our tax dollars every year. I believe Sharons argument was that the UN inspectors wouldnt be fair. Isnt that Saddams argument?
Iraq hasnt complied with UN resolutions?
Again neither has Isreal but we support them still, no immenint invasion of Israel to force them to comply.
Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction?
Iraq used those weapons while being supported by us during the iran/iraq war, we didnt impose sanctions or stop supporting saddam, it was basically overlooked when it suited our needs at the time.
Democracy would be good for Iraq?
yes of course, and it would be good for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and countless other countries run by monarchs and dictators that we support.
Its these kind of policies that make us look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world and feed the diatribes of the likes of Bin Laden.The Iraqi people need a change to ease there sufferings, but this cowboy mentality is going to do anyone any good. Remeber our founding fathers werent afraid to question, and made sure that there was a system of checks and balances, not a blank check of force that the president can cash when he deeds to.
Republican strategists arent going to let that happen again.
What has Iraq really done? I in no way support Saddam but lets look at the facts.
Weapons of mass destruction?
Pakistan and India both threatend and said they would use nuclear weapons {weapons of mass destruction?} if attacked, no sanctions were imposed and were not trying to overthrow there governments. In fact Pakistan is now our gretaest ally in "the war on terror"
UN Inspectors?
Didnt Israel and Ariel Sharon deny UN inspectors into Jenin? no sanciotns from the UN and we still give them Billions of our tax dollars every year. I believe Sharons argument was that the UN inspectors wouldnt be fair. Isnt that Saddams argument?
Iraq hasnt complied with UN resolutions?
Again neither has Isreal but we support them still, no immenint invasion of Israel to force them to comply.
Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction?
Iraq used those weapons while being supported by us during the iran/iraq war, we didnt impose sanctions or stop supporting saddam, it was basically overlooked when it suited our needs at the time.
Democracy would be good for Iraq?
yes of course, and it would be good for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and countless other countries run by monarchs and dictators that we support.
Its these kind of policies that make us look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world and feed the diatribes of the likes of Bin Laden.The Iraqi people need a change to ease there sufferings, but this cowboy mentality is going to do anyone any good. Remeber our founding fathers werent afraid to question, and made sure that there was a system of checks and balances, not a blank check of force that the president can cash when he deeds to.
Chunk
SkyFuzz
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 496
If you wanna get technical...
Iraq broke the cease-fire agreement by:
1. Kicking out the inspectors in '98.
2. Placing SAM's in the no-fly zone
3. A bunch of other stuff that anyone who flew OSW or ONW knows....
Any one of those gives us the legal and moral authority to commence hostilities.
Chunk
Iraq broke the cease-fire agreement by:
1. Kicking out the inspectors in '98.
2. Placing SAM's in the no-fly zone
3. A bunch of other stuff that anyone who flew OSW or ONW knows....
Any one of those gives us the legal and moral authority to commence hostilities.
Chunk
What has Iraq done?
JTB,
We exert no real influence on Iraq and that's one big problem. they have only commited themselves and their government to the destruction of the US and publicly proclaimed it.
You mention Pakistan and India. Pakistan, we can bargain with them and make deals that control them. India, they are not on the same level of insanity of Iraq nor their leadership, they also do business with the US and could be hurt eceonomically by any deals teh US tries to plot againist them. Both of these countries are not predominately Islamic and do not beleive the infidel should die a slow death.
I think Bush senior screwed the pooch when he let Powell talk him into his plan instead of Norman's drive it home theory. Powell was wrong aboutcalling off the dawgs then and is just a token used to get votes in Bushy's current campaign.
We have been denied the right to inspect Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, an agreement Saddam agreed to.
Hell yes, we should do something. The liberals and peace yippees are going to have a hay day if we attack Iraq short of another attack with Saddam caught dropping the bomb himself with CNN filming it as it happens.
We carry a big stick and it's time we used it in some fashion on the big towel head himself.
Later
JTB,
We exert no real influence on Iraq and that's one big problem. they have only commited themselves and their government to the destruction of the US and publicly proclaimed it.
You mention Pakistan and India. Pakistan, we can bargain with them and make deals that control them. India, they are not on the same level of insanity of Iraq nor their leadership, they also do business with the US and could be hurt eceonomically by any deals teh US tries to plot againist them. Both of these countries are not predominately Islamic and do not beleive the infidel should die a slow death.
I think Bush senior screwed the pooch when he let Powell talk him into his plan instead of Norman's drive it home theory. Powell was wrong aboutcalling off the dawgs then and is just a token used to get votes in Bushy's current campaign.
We have been denied the right to inspect Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, an agreement Saddam agreed to.
Hell yes, we should do something. The liberals and peace yippees are going to have a hay day if we attack Iraq short of another attack with Saddam caught dropping the bomb himself with CNN filming it as it happens.
We carry a big stick and it's time we used it in some fashion on the big towel head himself.
Later
Re: What has Iraq done?
Pakistan is not predominately Islamic? Considering that 97% of Pakistanis are Muslim, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
You said Pakistan is our ally and we can deal with it. Well I suppose that's technically correct. Don't forget that Pakistan became our "ally" because we "forgave" hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and granted many millions more in "aid" to ensure their "allied" status. At some point the US Government may come to realize that you can't buy friendship.
The Pakistani's are Islamic my friend and they are on "our side" because we paid their current dictator to be on our side. He rules that country as the result of a military coup and is no less a dictator than Saddam Hussein. He just happens to be OUR dictator de jour.
ch47fe said:
Pakistan is not predominately Islamic? Considering that 97% of Pakistanis are Muslim, how did you arrive at that conclusion?
You said Pakistan is our ally and we can deal with it. Well I suppose that's technically correct. Don't forget that Pakistan became our "ally" because we "forgave" hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and granted many millions more in "aid" to ensure their "allied" status. At some point the US Government may come to realize that you can't buy friendship.
The Pakistani's are Islamic my friend and they are on "our side" because we paid their current dictator to be on our side. He rules that country as the result of a military coup and is no less a dictator than Saddam Hussein. He just happens to be OUR dictator de jour.
rumpletumbler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,209
My Point
Well, I have not taken surveys but I have worked with many Indians that actually live there told me not everyone is an Islamic extremist. That's were I came up with that statement.
My only point is that we have formal political relations with India and the Pakis.
As far as Pakistan we made our own bed with them so no one should act like they really owe us anything they are dirty like the rest of the Amerihaters in the middle east and we played ball.
Personally, I am waiting for Pakistan to side with the Arabs and dump the US if it really starts flyin' in towel land.
Well, I have not taken surveys but I have worked with many Indians that actually live there told me not everyone is an Islamic extremist. That's were I came up with that statement.
My only point is that we have formal political relations with India and the Pakis.
As far as Pakistan we made our own bed with them so no one should act like they really owe us anything they are dirty like the rest of the Amerihaters in the middle east and we played ball.
Personally, I am waiting for Pakistan to side with the Arabs and dump the US if it really starts flyin' in towel land.
rumpletumbler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,209
Re: My Point
I haven't taken surveys either. The percentage I quoted is statistical.
You keep wanting to confuse the Indians with the Pakistanis. What is now called Pakistan was once a part of India. It became a separate country precisely because of religious conflict between the Indians, most of whom are Hindus, and the Muslims who left India to become known as Pakistan.
Additionally, India is the world's largest democracy. Pakistan is a totalitarian state with a military government run by a dictator army General. There's a substantial difference.
This is true. It is also true, as the other gentleman pointed out, that we also had formal political relations with the Iraqi when it suited our purpose to support them in their war with Iran. We also supported what became the Taliban when that was convenient in our dispute with the Soviets.
If it is necessary that we engage in a war with Iraq in order to protect the interests of the US or defend the American people, so be it. However, I'm not at all willing to declare war on a nation that has not attacked the US in order to satisfy the power plays of George Bush or the oil mongering of Dick Cheney.
The fact that the US has unchallenged military power does not justify hegemony or the invasion of another man's country. In my opinion, our military might is to defend our own country and its interests. Not to dictate the rulers of other countries, no matter how unsavory they may be.
If and when we can prove that the government of Iraq in fact poses and immediate threat to the security of the United States I would support action to protect this country. So far, I have seen no hard evidence of that. A few speeches by George Bush is not enough to risk the life of my grandsons. Neither are the interests of the Israeli state.
Our national interest in the Middle East is oil. When it was threatened by Iraq, we acted to repel the threat. I agreed with that. Not to "defend the freedom of Kuwait" which was and remains non existent, but to protect the economic interests of the USA, i.e., Saudia, from invasion. That I can see, such a threat does not currently exist from Iraq. I'm not alone in that view.
As for the Islamic extremists, they are a serious threat. I keep hearing that not all are extremists, but those that are not are remarkably quiet and have notably failed to denounce those that are, including right here in our own country. That leaves me wondering about which one is extreme and which one is not. Frankly, the enemy within bothers me far more than Saddam Hussein.
I'm probably confused, but upwards of 5 million potential enemy "soldiers" hiding in our midst is a Trojan Horse that frightens me much more than a nasty dictator in a relatively weak country 6000 miles away. Especially one whose every move is closely monitored by our active military presence. JMO
ch47fe said:
I haven't taken surveys either. The percentage I quoted is statistical.
You keep wanting to confuse the Indians with the Pakistanis. What is now called Pakistan was once a part of India. It became a separate country precisely because of religious conflict between the Indians, most of whom are Hindus, and the Muslims who left India to become known as Pakistan.
Additionally, India is the world's largest democracy. Pakistan is a totalitarian state with a military government run by a dictator army General. There's a substantial difference.
This is true. It is also true, as the other gentleman pointed out, that we also had formal political relations with the Iraqi when it suited our purpose to support them in their war with Iran. We also supported what became the Taliban when that was convenient in our dispute with the Soviets.
If it is necessary that we engage in a war with Iraq in order to protect the interests of the US or defend the American people, so be it. However, I'm not at all willing to declare war on a nation that has not attacked the US in order to satisfy the power plays of George Bush or the oil mongering of Dick Cheney.
The fact that the US has unchallenged military power does not justify hegemony or the invasion of another man's country. In my opinion, our military might is to defend our own country and its interests. Not to dictate the rulers of other countries, no matter how unsavory they may be.
If and when we can prove that the government of Iraq in fact poses and immediate threat to the security of the United States I would support action to protect this country. So far, I have seen no hard evidence of that. A few speeches by George Bush is not enough to risk the life of my grandsons. Neither are the interests of the Israeli state.
Our national interest in the Middle East is oil. When it was threatened by Iraq, we acted to repel the threat. I agreed with that. Not to "defend the freedom of Kuwait" which was and remains non existent, but to protect the economic interests of the USA, i.e., Saudia, from invasion. That I can see, such a threat does not currently exist from Iraq. I'm not alone in that view.
As for the Islamic extremists, they are a serious threat. I keep hearing that not all are extremists, but those that are not are remarkably quiet and have notably failed to denounce those that are, including right here in our own country. That leaves me wondering about which one is extreme and which one is not. Frankly, the enemy within bothers me far more than Saddam Hussein.
I'm probably confused, but upwards of 5 million potential enemy "soldiers" hiding in our midst is a Trojan Horse that frightens me much more than a nasty dictator in a relatively weak country 6000 miles away. Especially one whose every move is closely monitored by our active military presence. JMO
Mountain Dhue
I guess we missed your point while our chests were swelling up, preparing to swap blows over this heated topic.
I have to admit Dhue is the best chic on the FOX news cast.
Founding fathers, apple pie, women, and protecting liberals have always been worth risking our lives for.
I guess we missed your point while our chests were swelling up, preparing to swap blows over this heated topic.
I have to admit Dhue is the best chic on the FOX news cast.
Founding fathers, apple pie, women, and protecting liberals have always been worth risking our lives for.
GoingHot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 266
NOT SO!
There was no "Drive it Home Theory". The mission was to remove Iraq from Kuwait which was done. Bush 41 made a promise to the third world types in the UN that we would not remove Saddam form power. Without it, none of the Arab countries would have come on board, nor would other American haters like the French and Germans. It would have been us and the Brits. Bush 41 didn't think we could sucessfully go it alone like that.
Sure, we should have destroyed all of the Iraqi weapons and equipment while we had a chance. We left far too many tanks and heavy weapons untouched, making rebuilding his military easier than it should have been. But, going to Bagdad was NEVER on the table.
There was no "Drive it Home Theory". The mission was to remove Iraq from Kuwait which was done. Bush 41 made a promise to the third world types in the UN that we would not remove Saddam form power. Without it, none of the Arab countries would have come on board, nor would other American haters like the French and Germans. It would have been us and the Brits. Bush 41 didn't think we could sucessfully go it alone like that.
Sure, we should have destroyed all of the Iraqi weapons and equipment while we had a chance. We left far too many tanks and heavy weapons untouched, making rebuilding his military easier than it should have been. But, going to Bagdad was NEVER on the table.
furloboy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 79
furloboy said:
The UN inspectors were denied access to Jenin by Sharon, the report was generated through interviews and the limited media acounts. Just like Saddam has denied inspectors. I know that the UN is not Israel-friendly, my point was that resolutions against Isreal are not enforced (resolutions that are over 30 years old!) yet Iraq is forced to comply through force in the name of the UN.
We are really busy already just with a little talk of Iraq. The C-5's are burning a lot of jet fuel which is great news for the CRAFT fleet. An Iraq buildup would sure help us with the slumping numbers that we have for the fall. War is very good for aviation, especially in the big airplane market.
enigma
good ol boy
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,279
re: s.o.s.JTB
s.o.s.
In reference to your first post in this string. You compared our support of Israel to Iraq a few times. I want to remind everyone that Israel is the ONLY representitive republic/democracy in the region. That is the difference between Israel and Iraq. We as a people/government attempt to support democracies. If ya'll want something to be pissed about; did you know that we also send hundreds of millions to Arafat and his Palestinian Authority?
regards
8N
PS, If any of you have a hard time deciding who is good/bad in the middle east; answer these questions. When was the last time you saw the Israelis celebrating another attack against their enemys? How about the Palestinians? Which side uses legitimate military force and attacks military targets? Which side uses impressionable teenagers to attack civilians? Which side raises their children to hate the other side?
Remember the words of Golda Meir (sp?)Paraphrased because my memory s*cks.
"Peace will not come to the middle east until the Palastenians begin to love their children more than they hate the Israelis".
s.o.s.
In reference to your first post in this string. You compared our support of Israel to Iraq a few times. I want to remind everyone that Israel is the ONLY representitive republic/democracy in the region. That is the difference between Israel and Iraq. We as a people/government attempt to support democracies. If ya'll want something to be pissed about; did you know that we also send hundreds of millions to Arafat and his Palestinian Authority?
regards
8N
PS, If any of you have a hard time deciding who is good/bad in the middle east; answer these questions. When was the last time you saw the Israelis celebrating another attack against their enemys? How about the Palestinians? Which side uses legitimate military force and attacks military targets? Which side uses impressionable teenagers to attack civilians? Which side raises their children to hate the other side?
Remember the words of Golda Meir (sp?)Paraphrased because my memory s*cks.
"Peace will not come to the middle east until the Palastenians begin to love their children more than they hate the Israelis".
enigma
good ol boy
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,279
And another thing.........
There have been numerous posts attemting to equate the Israelis refusal to allow the UN into Jenin with Iraqs refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors.
This one is easy, Iraq agreed to the weapons inspectors as a condition of its SURRENDER after getting its butt kicked in the Gulf war. Israel is not under the terms of a surrender/peace agreement.
Look at it this way, what if the UN decided that they wanted to come into NYC and investigate why we killed 19 innocent hijackers on September 11, 2001? What if the UN decided that they wanted to investigate why the US is oppressing poor immigrant student pilots, would we just roll over and give the UN authority over our sovereignty? I hope not. Neither should Israel.
There have been numerous posts attemting to equate the Israelis refusal to allow the UN into Jenin with Iraqs refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors.
This one is easy, Iraq agreed to the weapons inspectors as a condition of its SURRENDER after getting its butt kicked in the Gulf war. Israel is not under the terms of a surrender/peace agreement.
Look at it this way, what if the UN decided that they wanted to come into NYC and investigate why we killed 19 innocent hijackers on September 11, 2001? What if the UN decided that they wanted to investigate why the US is oppressing poor immigrant student pilots, would we just roll over and give the UN authority over our sovereignty? I hope not. Neither should Israel.
Enigma,
I won't debate the Israeli vs Palestinian question, but in your thinking do not forget the fact that the Israelis have the most powerful military machine in the region. Perhaps more powerful that all the rest combined, particularly considering it's unlimited resupply capabilities from our government.
The Palestinians, have no organize military force, no comparable military equipment and no source of supply or resupply.
The Palestinians also do not have a $100 million plus PR budget to promote their cause in the US. The Israelis do. The Palestinians have no large and powerful lobby of very wealthy American Palestinians to influence US politicians. The Israelis do.
It is not exactly a balanced dispute.
Remember also that when the now Israelis were attempting to establish the Israeli state and fighting the British, they also resorted to acts of terrorism, many perpetrated by subsequent prime ministers. It didn't get the live TV coverage in living color at suppertime and 24/7 that the Palestinian acts of terror get today in this country. For practical purposes, TV barely existed. It is also true that our TV "journalists" are as prejudiced in favor of the Israelis as is Al Jeerez in favor of the Palestinians. We don't get Al Jeerez and as far as I know, it doesn't broadcast in English anyway. However, everyone in the region can see and understand all US news channels.
I condemn suicide bomings, but this is hardly a "fair fight".
I won't debate the Israeli vs Palestinian question, but in your thinking do not forget the fact that the Israelis have the most powerful military machine in the region. Perhaps more powerful that all the rest combined, particularly considering it's unlimited resupply capabilities from our government.
The Palestinians, have no organize military force, no comparable military equipment and no source of supply or resupply.
The Palestinians also do not have a $100 million plus PR budget to promote their cause in the US. The Israelis do. The Palestinians have no large and powerful lobby of very wealthy American Palestinians to influence US politicians. The Israelis do.
It is not exactly a balanced dispute.
Remember also that when the now Israelis were attempting to establish the Israeli state and fighting the British, they also resorted to acts of terrorism, many perpetrated by subsequent prime ministers. It didn't get the live TV coverage in living color at suppertime and 24/7 that the Palestinian acts of terror get today in this country. For practical purposes, TV barely existed. It is also true that our TV "journalists" are as prejudiced in favor of the Israelis as is Al Jeerez in favor of the Palestinians. We don't get Al Jeerez and as far as I know, it doesn't broadcast in English anyway. However, everyone in the region can see and understand all US news channels.
I condemn suicide bomings, but this is hardly a "fair fight".
chawbein
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 689
Surplus,
The Israeli "terrorism" you speak of indeed existed. Ariel Sharon created an elite unit (they wore civilian clothes) of the IDF to kick the crap out of palestinian terrorists who were (even at that time (the 50's) blowing up buses full of civilians). Sharon's group crossed into suspected terrorist camps and proceeded to kill every last person. I just thought I would try to illuminate what you were talking about for those who might not know. Feel free to correct me if I missed something.
The Israeli "terrorism" you speak of indeed existed. Ariel Sharon created an elite unit (they wore civilian clothes) of the IDF to kick the crap out of palestinian terrorists who were (even at that time (the 50's) blowing up buses full of civilians). Sharon's group crossed into suspected terrorist camps and proceeded to kill every last person. I just thought I would try to illuminate what you were talking about for those who might not know. Feel free to correct me if I missed something.
I had no idea!!!
I am enlightened to see so much support for Palestine. It's not a fair fight, the Israleis are terrists too, blah, blah.
Surplus, Chawmain
Please let me know the last time the entire Palestinian race was targeted for extinction?
There is simply no comparasion between the actions of Israel and Palestine.
Jews were targeted for extinction and Jerusalem is the only protector of the people and the Jewish faith in that part of the world. Sharon is a combatant no a politician that's the only reason they have not had their a$$ handed to them in a basket yet. And it helps to have the unlimited arms supply from the US as mentioned earlier with other interesting points.
I am enlightened to see so much support for Palestine. It's not a fair fight, the Israleis are terrists too, blah, blah.
Surplus, Chawmain
Please let me know the last time the entire Palestinian race was targeted for extinction?
There is simply no comparasion between the actions of Israel and Palestine.
Jews were targeted for extinction and Jerusalem is the only protector of the people and the Jewish faith in that part of the world. Sharon is a combatant no a politician that's the only reason they have not had their a$$ handed to them in a basket yet. And it helps to have the unlimited arms supply from the US as mentioned earlier with other interesting points.
chawbein
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 689
I in no way support the palestinians. I was just relaying the historical fact that Sharon did create that group and did slaughter lots of terrorists. I totally agree with the tactic. Take their kind of fight to them and see how long they can stand it. That is how you win a war, not with p*ssified "peace talks". Go Israel, kick the sh!t out of them, they deserve it.
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:
