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

What Has Gone Right In Iraq

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
How convenient that 350 driver forgets the large group that believe that he had weapons prior to the war.

Among those who professed that he didn't:

The French
American Liberals
The Germans

Real credible group.


He needed to be stopped before he began developing them, even if they were not there to begin with.

As far as the deaths of innecents go, don't forget that Clinton sent quite a few cruise missiles their way during his term in office.

After clinton spends 8 years pluggin up the toilet, Bush comes along with a plunger, and now you blame him because the house stinks?

A lesson in logical cause and effect is in order here.

Liberalism is a religion, I have determined, since proof is never necessary to believe what they believe. Blind faith is all that is needed. We need to separate their religion from our state...
 
was comparing the invasion and occupation of one soverign nation by another. The principle is quite basic and has little if anything to do with one's political party affiliation.

The basic tenet of democracy is self-determination. Only the "people" of a particular nation-state have the "right" to remove its government when they do not "like" its policies. There are two methods by which this may be accomplished: 1) Through the ballot, 2) By revolution/ civil war. Both are an internal processes and do not include invasion and occupation by a foreign nation.

One cannot logically subvert democracy as a means by which to install demoracy. That's an oxymoron.

The United States is currently imposing its will upon the people of Iraq by military force and against their collective will.

I understand your logic, however you are being too philosophical and not practical.

By your logic, we had no business occupying Japan and Germany, either. And if you haven't been paying attention, the Iraqis have tried numerous times in the past 30 years to stage a revolution in Iraq, and have been mercilessly squashed each time. The previous Iraqi government was a regime that had invaded two of its neighbors, financed terrorism (not speaking of al Qaeda, but Hussein financed the Palestinian terror organization for many years), and was a general threat to everyone in the region.

There were three options to consider. We could continue the sanctions, which were obviously not working and only punishing the average Iraqi.

We could remove the sanctions and let Hussein go about his business, which anyone with a head on their shoulders would know that in 10 years we'd be right back to where we started when Hussein invaded Iran and Kuwait.

Or, we could finish the original Gulf War, considering that it never really ended. USAF and USN aircraft were constantly engaging in combat operations over Iraq on a daily basis. And Hussein had not lived up to the terms of the cease-fire. Gulf War I was never really over.

The first option isn't sustainable in the long run, and we'd eventually be forced to consider options 2 and 3.

Option 2 wasn't a smart idea, which leaves us with Option 3. Clinton probably wanted to exercise Option 3, but didn't because it would quite likely mean dealing with the very same political firestorm we have today with the current Administration.

Some folks indicate that we should have helped the Shi'ites fight the revolution that budded shortly after the Gulf War fighting ended. But to do so would require involving at least some military units, and no bare-bones resistance could stand to crush the heavily armored Republican Guard divisions. So, at some point, had we pursued this option we would likely have been drawn into combat.

There have been plenty of situations where a "sovereign" nation was invaded for the good of the world. Germany is one. Had we gone by your logic, we would have been required to stop the invasion at the Rhine. Japan is the same story. After kicking Japan out of the Pacific Islands and Eastern Asia, going by your logic we had no right to invade Okinawa, nor did we have any right to invade the mainland. Mission accomplished, we had rolled back the Japanese Empire to its own borders, so therefore we had no right to pursue farther.

In Bosnia and Kosovo, the US and NATO had no right to occupy what was once part of the Yugoslav nation. Australia had no right to enter and occupy East Timor. And the list goes on.
 
Re: Tony Rumsfeld is that you?

mar said:
Tony, Tony, Tony...

...

YOU'RE BUSTED!!

WOO HOO!!!

<Dances a sarcastic little jig while taunting Tony the whole time>

HAH!

I caught you in a spelling error! Am I the first *ever* to correct Tony? Am I? Is there a prize?



:) :D :cool:
LOL :) :D ;)

As a matter of fact, that irate ACA MX fella caught me in a typo earlier today. I make plenty of mistakes, believe me.... :)

Ask my kids -- they know more!


BUT.... ask A Squared about the "prize" he got from me this evening. I'd be happy to treat you to the same if you were in ANC. A small token of congratulations on the Type Ride and upgrade was consumed at "F" Street Station, and my Captain and I enjoyed tales of the DC-6 from a consummate gentleman, namely A Squared, over dinner at Humpy's. Wish you'd been here!
 
Drats! Foiled again!

Ah, bummer man.

I'm really beginning to despise FAI. I feel like I'm on detention or something.

Everyone else is out having fun and I'm just sitting in the corner.

Sucks to be me. :(
 
Re: Drats! Foiled again!

mar said:
Ah, bummer man.

I'm really beginning to despise FAI. I feel like I'm on detention or something.

Everyone else is out having fun and I'm just sitting in the corner.

Sucks to be me. :(
Aww, hush your whinin' and fix your profile! We'll make it another day.
 
Guilty pleasures

I feel so *dirty* but hijacking this thread is giving me such pleasure.

Tony, it's a deal. No more belly aching but my profile is essentially correct.

I'm *still* just an FO.

Asquared got the full-time Capt gig. I got a reserve Capt spot.

I suppose I could add the type--and a few hundred hours to my total time...

...man, I'm so bloody bored. Consider it done.
 
Typhoon

My question is this: there is a dictator out there who is torturing his own people in horrible ways and has real nuclear technology and offensive weapons. If it is now our goal to spread Democracy throughout the world, why aren't we working to put Kim Chong-il in the same cage Saddam's in? Saddam may have been a bastard, but at least he was relatively rational. Kim's crazy! Is George waiting for the N.K.'s to kick us in the nuts before he does something?

1. The answer to the first and partial second question is very simple. It comes from military schools and the War College. It was not something that Fox news dreamed up. It is extremely simple and to the point. He has NOT attacked two countries, gassed hundreds of thousands of people (let alone his own), violated years of UN mandates, nor has he had a UN resolution allowing the use of force against him. Is he a bad man, Yes! Has he threatened and vowed to take back South Korea, Yes! Has he done it yet, No!. Does he have the capability to do what he says he can do? Maybe! Is there another country that might be a greater problem if the US intervened? You bet! China. The current and past administration has taken the usual PC protocol approach to dealing with China and N Korea. This has been going on for years. Nothing new here.

2. The rest of the answer to the second question is that our goal is NOT to administer Democracy to the rest of the world. Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Haiti are but a mere by product due to their own political problems.

3. The NK's aren’t going to kick anyone’s but. Although your are correct that Kim is a nutcase, China will intervene if NK does something ridiculous. They can not afford to let NK screw up their whole economy by attacking Japan, Australia, or any other part of the world. China is NK's only friend a present.



350 wrote: 100LL and those alike, you truly continue to crack me up so keep those posts coming. It must really make you bitter that there is so much outspoken anti-bush people that continue to speak up. You have bought into this "flawed" administration's hogwash and propaganda but fortunately the International community and world leaders will continue to be outspoken and continue the attacks on this flawed and "joke" of an administration. Bush has made more mistakes than anyone could have thought possible and ultimately these screw-ups will allow him to follow in his father's footsteps this november. Sad sad that you buy into this joke. What is even more sad is the new administration is going to have years of work to correct all these fuc$ ups that bush has been capable of doing.





Lowlead, Tony, Dubya, Huey Dood, et al

I wouldn’t waste my time on the likes of 350 and the 4-5 other liberals that agree with him. I am not really sure where the “so much outspoken anti-bush people” are, but I guess 350 feel’s that they exist. He sounds like a little kid that screams “la,la,la,la” when he does not want to hear what is going on around him. The deals with guys like him are that they are not concerned for the well being of the U.S., but more the political game. They could care less who was in the White House, just as long as it was the party that they belonged to. In other words, it is a big football game, and understandably they want their side to win. Al Sharpton could be the nominee and they would be happy, just as long as a Dem was in office. They make up things to justify their mantra “Bush lied about WMD”. But when confronted with information that Clinton stated the same things, no reply. Bush went off of the same info that every other Foreign Nation and the previous administration went off of. It was flawed, it was wrong, but Bush had to act on the info he had. Anything else would have been a disservice to the American People. They also state that Bush only went in to Iraq to finish what his Dad failed to do. The Dem’s have a very short and convenient memory. Go back to the Gulf War and re-read history. You will find that Bush I did try to get SH, but the Democratic majority REFUSED to let him go into Baghdad (you know, the same ones that would not let the Bush administration hire the TSA agents as civilians instead of GS workers. Now those same individuals are complaining that Bush created the biggest Government in history). I remember the wait as we were only a few miles from Baghdad and were told that Congress denied the request. They are also more concerned what the UN thinks than what is best for the U.S. Appeasement is the norm, rather than the rule. Look where that got us, 911. Oh ya, that was the Bush administrations fault for hiding and ignoring warnings so we could focus on Iraq. After all, Bush was in office 8 months and knew EXACTLY what was going to happen. Surely if a Dem was in power, 911 would not have happened! :rolleyes:
 
The saddest thing is that Bush is making a joke about his inability to find any WMDs in Iraq while four American contractors are being burned alive and hung in Fallujah, other American and "coalition" soldiers are dying on a daily basis, and an untold number of our soldiers are losing arms, legs, you name it. Bush's joking around like that is sickening. He might as well have been spitting on our dead and injured countrymen.
 
Are you for real?

The saddest thing is that Bush is making a joke about his inability to find any WMDs in Iraq while four American contractors are being burned alive and hung in Fallujah, other American and "coalition" soldiers are dying on a daily basis, and an untold number of our soldiers are losing arms, legs, you name it. Bush's joking around like that is sickening. He might as well have been spitting on our dead and injured countrymen.

The joke came well (weeks) before the Fallujah incident. What is your point. Some of those soldiers you talk about are freinds of mine, and they unequovocally do NOT share your twisted view. Fortunately, the major majority of servicemen or sevicewoman family members do not share your views. Those proud soldiers serve our great country for the very reasons that you hate. They also would give their eye teeth to meet President Bush. :mad:
 
Bush joke

I do not share your view that Bush was "spitting" on servicemen and women. I am one of those people. I was in Iraq this past summer, and will likely be going back within the year. And I am not offended by Bush's joking.

I almost choked on my drink when I saw some lady on a news talk show say "I think I speak for all veterans of the Iraqi conflict that Bush's joke is an insult". Hey, nice to know I have people to "speak for me"...when is it cool to hijack someone's opinion?
 
TonyC said:
Now, just how did you twist that to "anyone who disagrees with the President is a moron and a coward?"
Okay, let's see. 100LL wrote: "Therefore Bush was justified. Besides, it needed doing anyway. Final score, Bush did the right thing, and you only hate him because in your cowardice you fear that angering these arab nutcases further will disturb your pleasant little life. Cowards. I bet there is nothing you would be willing to die for."

In other words, if you disagree with Bush's decision to go into Iraq, you're a coward. (The 'moron' thing just came from 100's overall tone. :D )
Feeling a little paranoid, are we?
No, just frustrated. You're an intelligent guy--and an airline pilot, no less--who likes George Bush. :confused: That's like a fitness buff that only eats at McDonalds.

I don't get it.
 
As for Bush's jokes on WMD:

The Wall Street Journal asked for reader reactions on the WMD jokes -- specifically, readers with military connections. They received 101 replies. Three of the replies were negative, although none of the 3 were active military (former, parent, and ROTC iirc). The remaining 98 responses, including LOTS of active military folks, including some in Iraq & Afghanistan, were all favorable. Many VERY favorable about Bush's use of humor concerning WMD.

It's convenient for the "we know best" liberals to claim that Bush dishonors our servicemen with his jokes, but they sure don't see it that way!
 
Thanks, Tony,

Was a great evening. Loved the stories about the Paris air show. Folks, if I ever go to Paris for the air show, I'm going with TonyC. THIS man really knows how to work the perks. I'm talking about front row seats on the flightline, unlimited free booze. Musta kissed the Blarney stone somewhere along the way!
 
100LL... Again! said:
How convenient that 350 driver forgets the large group that believe that he had weapons prior to the war.

Among those who professed that he didn't:

The French
American Liberals
The Germans

I've got to disagree. I don't even remember those three groups claiming that Saddam was clean. They were only saying that we should let inspectors find them.


Bush lied to the American people, bottom line and he needs to be held accountable for his actions.

Okay, this is a myth. It is a charge that is being bandied about with no basis whatsoever. If George Bush lied, then so did the following people:


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction
and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens
there matters a great deal here. For the risks that
the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our
allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a
mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his
cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov.
10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery
systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit
missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham
(D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein
is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of
the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United
Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his
country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter and we should assume that
it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to
disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly
arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is
working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and
will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five
years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution
that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear
capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has
worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a
number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
 
blueridge71 said:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction
and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom
line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Tell me, blueridge, where is the lie in these two statements? In both cases, Clinton spoke of the importance of preventing Saddam from acquiring these weapons.

That's a far cry from insisting that Saddam actually had the weapons. I don't deny Clinton's a liar. All presidents are, to a certain degree. But let's not take 'mission statements' like the two above and try to twist them into lies.
 
Simple view for me and bottom line.

Regardless of your party affiliation I do not want to deal with more terrorist action here in the US. I feel if we do not deal with it at the source in some manner we will not be able to go to a mall or park without living in fear of an attack.

I realize it is a possibility for an attack today but I feel it is less likely if we kill the ba$tards over there instaed of letting them migrate over here to cause more trouble.

For those that believe non military actions will do more good(sanctions, buying friends with US money, trade deals) in the long run you must have gotten your A$$ kicked often when you gave your bully the lunch money everytime.

Terrorists are playing a big game of life and death bully. Whether they are Muslim, Irish Catholic or Christians every religion understands that dead is dead and you will find out what your religious beliefs are all about after you are DEAD.

I personally think it's a bad policy to make deals and pacify murderers to not create havok with us.

Casualties happen in war but the service of our soldiers is held in honor in my heart. It could be me or you once drafted(will never happen again)with blown off limbs, suffering severe burns, or dead leaving wifes and children behind but this fight is not unjust by my view. I thank those brave enough to defend me and my family on their watch. Every soldier in any service VOLUNTEERED to go where ANY ELECTED PRESIDENT decides to send them not just who they like that term.

God bless the daily wounded or KIA in the middle east and let's hope they can come home alive.

For me pulling out now is a bad idea as the Spanish government has already sent messages to terrorists around the world a message of if you $hit on me hard enough I will submit to your desires. God help us friends if we ever decide to accept this attitude in our country. At some point you have to stand up and protect yourself.

That's a simplistic view in my opinion. It's not all that complicated.

I agree with huey pilot on the invasions occupations of Japan and Germany. It worked out there but they weren't radical muslims either.

I look forward to any reasonable response.
 
The gas price at my local Wall-Mart went up. I am outraged. I want my cheap gas and a bigger SUV. I don't give a @#$#@ about all that Irak staff. OPEC doesn't do their job????? We have Irak, 10 more to go.
They want peace???? They will have all the peace they want when the oil will be gone. I go to buy another SUV and better the gas price will go down.
 
Re: Simple view for me and bottom line.

ch47fe said:
Every soldier in any service VOLUNTEERED to go where ANY ELECTED PRESIDENT decides to send...
What about Supreme Court APPOINTED PRESIDENTS? :D

(Relax, I'm not one of those Gore nuts. I think there's definitely a 60% chance our last election was valid.)
 

Latest resources

Back
Top