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
US/Iraqi relations
- Thread starter datafox
- Start date
- Watchers 3
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
bart
Decader
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 861
Boy, that was informative. Seems we were very involved during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. Seems like a pretty big gap in our involvement from '68 until we decided it would be a good idea for Iran and Iraq to inflict as much damage on each other as possible.
Sure we wanted to inflict harm on Iran, you must not have been alive during the Carter Administration. So anyway, just curious, what is your take on it? Do you have a point in posting it, or did you just think it was cool someone went to the trouble to make a little movie?
Sure we wanted to inflict harm on Iran, you must not have been alive during the Carter Administration. So anyway, just curious, what is your take on it? Do you have a point in posting it, or did you just think it was cool someone went to the trouble to make a little movie?
Tim47SIP
Serving for the USofA
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,157
Whatever
You know, there are always two sides to a story. I have already heard the other side, and frankly, this side is very skewed. It conveniently leaves out the why and how. Just like the current news media, reports are manipulated to pursuade the common citizen. I don't think it is going to work.
P.S. Times change, regimes change, and interest change. Sadam changed! What is your point!
You know, there are always two sides to a story. I have already heard the other side, and frankly, this side is very skewed. It conveniently leaves out the why and how. Just like the current news media, reports are manipulated to pursuade the common citizen. I don't think it is going to work.
P.S. Times change, regimes change, and interest change. Sadam changed! What is your point!
C
Chas
info about the creator of video....
Eric Blumrich :
"I'm a 33-year-old freelance illustrator/animator/web developer residing in the beautiful town of Montclair, New Jersey with two cats, and a roomie. Although I have no formal education in political affairs, I have been studying history, politics, and sociology for the past 16 years. While it's not much, it's more experience than Rush Limbaugh, Michael "Savage" Wiener, and Sean Hannity had, combined, before they began spewing their filth into the vox populi.
Somewhere in the middle of March, moved by the anger and frustration I felt at the unelected government that currently runs the show here in the United States, I created a little piece of flash called antiwar2. Within days, it had been featured on Buzzflash. The next thing I knew I was getting hundreds of e-mails, and my webserver was overloaded to the point that I had to move it to a new host.
Since then, I've been creating further animations, and building a new site to house them.
When I'm not married to the computer, I spend my time reading, drawing, and trying to stay sane in a country gone mad. "
Obviously a skewed anti republican who as the previous posters brilliantly point out "leave a large time frame missing " He still believes Bush is the "Unelected" President
Guys like Blumrich are self hating Americans IMHO Chas
Eric Blumrich :
"I'm a 33-year-old freelance illustrator/animator/web developer residing in the beautiful town of Montclair, New Jersey with two cats, and a roomie. Although I have no formal education in political affairs, I have been studying history, politics, and sociology for the past 16 years. While it's not much, it's more experience than Rush Limbaugh, Michael "Savage" Wiener, and Sean Hannity had, combined, before they began spewing their filth into the vox populi.
Somewhere in the middle of March, moved by the anger and frustration I felt at the unelected government that currently runs the show here in the United States, I created a little piece of flash called antiwar2. Within days, it had been featured on Buzzflash. The next thing I knew I was getting hundreds of e-mails, and my webserver was overloaded to the point that I had to move it to a new host.
Since then, I've been creating further animations, and building a new site to house them.
When I'm not married to the computer, I spend my time reading, drawing, and trying to stay sane in a country gone mad. "
Obviously a skewed anti republican who as the previous posters brilliantly point out "leave a large time frame missing " He still believes Bush is the "Unelected" President
Guys like Blumrich are self hating Americans IMHO Chas
CLCAP
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2003
- Posts
- 967
Does his political preference really matter? If the video is untrue - great! If it is true - maybe the "citizen" does not have the whole picture.
BTW Chas - your signature "Love it or Leave it" is about the most stupid thing i have read on this board this far. Don't we live in a democracy where you actually have the right to criticize and try to change things?
BTW Chas - your signature "Love it or Leave it" is about the most stupid thing i have read on this board this far. Don't we live in a democracy where you actually have the right to criticize and try to change things?
FN FAL
Freight Dawgs Rule
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2003
- Posts
- 8,573
CLCAP, is that a Stuka getting the "whole 9 yards" in your avatar?
http://forums.flightinfo.com/avatar.php?userid=9761&dateline=1063517046
http://forums.flightinfo.com/avatar.php?userid=9761&dateline=1063517046
ShawnC
Skirts Will Rise
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Posts
- 1,481
CLCAP said:
Because of his bias:
He is obviously going to twist the facts, and leave out parts of the truth that would put the action into context and make sense.
A good example, lets say you are departing as Captain of a 777-300, suddenly both engines go dead, and they only place to crash land it would be in a field where kids are playing. Three kids die, and the news reports "Pilot kills kids playing in a field." And that is all they report. Though factually correct it doesn't report, as Paul Harvey would say, "The rest of the story."
CLCAP
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2003
- Posts
- 967
Bart,
Maybe you should look into your knowledge of the English language:
"Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
democracy
\De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.]
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. --Milton."
I think number two would apply here.
And even if you were right - how does that detract from my argument??
Maybe you should look into your knowledge of the English language:
"Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
democracy
\De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.]
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of government. --Milton."
I think number two would apply here.
And even if you were right - how does that detract from my argument??
Last edited:
CLCAP
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2003
- Posts
- 967
Shawn C,
You are right! He is obviously very biased!! But so are 90% of the people posting here!! I still have to read a political argument here where people would take their time to look at the facts with an open mind BEFORE deciding who is right and who is wrong.
Unfortunately - not unlike our current administration - people have their convictions - and they are only looking for arguments to support those while ignoring the ones that contradict them.
You are right! He is obviously very biased!! But so are 90% of the people posting here!! I still have to read a political argument here where people would take their time to look at the facts with an open mind BEFORE deciding who is right and who is wrong.
Unfortunately - not unlike our current administration - people have their convictions - and they are only looking for arguments to support those while ignoring the ones that contradict them.
bart
Decader
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 861
CLCAP,
Thanks for the lesson, I now have a better understanding of the meaning of democracy.
What would better support your point is to quote the source of information that describes the United States as a democracy. I myself go by the verbiage used by the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers and the Constitution which continually describe the US as a Republic, a nation ruled by law and not popular sentiment and in the case of the Federalist Papers warns of the dangers of democracy.
I would urge you to read some of the Federalist Papers. They are most enlightening into the insights the framers of the Constitution had about government. You will also come to understand their now substantiated fears of democracies.
Federalist Papers
Thanks for the lesson, I now have a better understanding of the meaning of democracy.
What would better support your point is to quote the source of information that describes the United States as a democracy. I myself go by the verbiage used by the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers and the Constitution which continually describe the US as a Republic, a nation ruled by law and not popular sentiment and in the case of the Federalist Papers warns of the dangers of democracy.
I would urge you to read some of the Federalist Papers. They are most enlightening into the insights the framers of the Constitution had about government. You will also come to understand their now substantiated fears of democracies.
Federalist Papers
Last edited:
Just thought it was an interesting movie and I appreciate the opinions of those on this board.
What did I get out of it? I guess three things:
1) It seems as though Iraq/Saddam have more or less been our bia-tch for the last 40 years. I assume there are many other covert operations going on in second, third world countries that we don't hear about because they aren't as crucial to our international relations and wealth as Iraq is.
2) History is a lot different than what I learned in high school.
3) I also found it interesting that Iraq was removed as a terrorist country when it did what our (the U.S.) government wanted, even though Saddam was still killing plenty of Iranians and his own people.
An oversimplification, but it seems:
TERROR COUNTRY = one that doesn't support the U.S. gov't
NON-TERROR COUNTRY = One that supports the U.S. gov't, even though they could very well be involved in terrorism (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, etc.).
I'm finding that regardless of political belief (democrat, republician, libertarian, indepedent) our government is almost entirely corrupt.
I think Bush obviously lies through his teeth to scare the public into getting public support for things they would normally be critical of. Kerry? Another liar. He is not the working class hero he portrays...he has his hands in more international banks and corporations than one can count.
I'm not certain about the alternatives, but I think democracy (or our republic, whatever you want to call it) is more corrupt than I could have ever imagined...many of you probably knew that, but it is new to me.
Taking a stance of non-involvement,
Datafox
What did I get out of it? I guess three things:
1) It seems as though Iraq/Saddam have more or less been our bia-tch for the last 40 years. I assume there are many other covert operations going on in second, third world countries that we don't hear about because they aren't as crucial to our international relations and wealth as Iraq is.
2) History is a lot different than what I learned in high school.
3) I also found it interesting that Iraq was removed as a terrorist country when it did what our (the U.S.) government wanted, even though Saddam was still killing plenty of Iranians and his own people.
An oversimplification, but it seems:
TERROR COUNTRY = one that doesn't support the U.S. gov't
NON-TERROR COUNTRY = One that supports the U.S. gov't, even though they could very well be involved in terrorism (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, etc.).
I'm finding that regardless of political belief (democrat, republician, libertarian, indepedent) our government is almost entirely corrupt.
I think Bush obviously lies through his teeth to scare the public into getting public support for things they would normally be critical of. Kerry? Another liar. He is not the working class hero he portrays...he has his hands in more international banks and corporations than one can count.
I'm not certain about the alternatives, but I think democracy (or our republic, whatever you want to call it) is more corrupt than I could have ever imagined...many of you probably knew that, but it is new to me.
Taking a stance of non-involvement,
Datafox
RVSM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 143
If you really want to bust your illusions of our "do gooder" republic read the "Managua Lectures" by Noam Chomsky.
Obviously he is on the left but sadly what he discusses is factual.
It is a sort of a history lesson on US foreign policy and what motivates it. The book is scary, enlightning and very timely given our current entanglements. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
Also it you want some perspective on US interventions in sovereign foreign governments go read some history on the various bannana wars of the early/mid 20th century.
Obviously he is on the left but sadly what he discusses is factual.
It is a sort of a history lesson on US foreign policy and what motivates it. The book is scary, enlightning and very timely given our current entanglements. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
Also it you want some perspective on US interventions in sovereign foreign governments go read some history on the various bannana wars of the early/mid 20th century.
Last edited:
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:
