| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
What about North Korea? What do we do? It looks like the Bush administration, with their foreign policy "brilliance" is on the same path the Clinton administration was on. I see two likely outcomes right now.... A) the US will finally give in, one way or another, signing a non-aggression pact it has no intentions of honoring to get them to halt their nuclear program. B) we hem and haw and all the while N. Korea is nuclear in a matter of a few months. Then South Korea and Japan start looking into nuclear weapons based on defensive arguments and bingo, you have a nuclear East Asia. More sanctions are not only ineffective, but they are cruel and target the wrong people. Just look at Saddam. the only suffering is by the general populus. So unless you have proof sanctions will work, lets not even go there. Everything says they wont work. As you can see, stopping oil shipments simply thwarted them to the recent developments. I heard a discussion last night and i heard an interesting proposal to the solution. Pull our military out of S. Korea all together. A nuclear N. Korea poses the greatest threat not to the US, i think, but to their immediate nuclear neighbors Russia and China. It upsets their sphere of influence than ours and thus far those two pussies have somewhat sat on the sidelines offering lame rebukes when N. Korea ups the anny. S. Korea has stirred in recent years against the American military presence. They wants us out, or so the population protests. I think they dont want us out as much as the press may lead us to think. fuck em. lets pack up and go home. This will force China and Russia into the fray and hopefully with more influence because right now, N.Korea just keeps on shit-talking. Any attempt to get them to halt their current course just results in an anti-American response. Russia and China sit back because of the American presence, expecting us to handle it because of the very immediate threat to American troops. I say pull of ouf South Korea, maybe not entirely, but as much as 80% and force Russia and China to take a more proactive role, because N.Korea clearly has no intent on respecting the US or its initives. Bush secured this approach with the 'axis of evil' comment Im sure. So....thoughts? Ideas? |
nuclear Asia of no interest. fine. next topic. I saw the most amazing smorgas borg of musicians perform this weekend. Slash, Jackson Brown, Some dude named Dimagio from Deep Purple (i think), some dude from Prince's band all serenaded thousands of us after a march down the theater district on Broadway. it was a beautiful day. Martin Sheen gave one of the most amazing philosophical speeches on the notion of peace I've ever heard. Thousands came out to say the way it is, wont stand. The elderly, children, I saw middle school organizations for peace, boy scouts, blacks, whites, asians, muslims, jewish organizations...every breed under the god damn sun came out. It was beautiful. i *BELIEVE* (before attending and even more so now) that in the next year the movement will pick up. Bush is on the fast track to alienating the right and as well as the left. Once Iraq starts becoming a bloody bloody mess I firmly believe more will take to the streets. If i could I travel to SF next weekend for the big protest there too, but I cant. Platy will you go? Question: Are we a nation of complacency? |
|
oh and take to the streets next time a rally is organized in your area. its time to get off our super-sized asses and do something.q |
Nah, it ain't working for me. sorry. |
this is exactly what Im referring to: ***** Middle-Class Dissent on Display at War Protest Antiwar rallies tend to draw the usual suspects, and Saturday's in downtown Los Angeles was no exception. You had your socialists, anarchists and various professional protesters among a rag-tag, bang-the-drums throng of several thousand. But there were baby buggies and suburbanites in khaki shorts mixed into the crowd, some of them looking as if they'd taken a wrong turn on their way to the mall. "They're the very people who are being hurt the most by national policies," said Craig Frey, 48, a software engineer from San Diego. Frey held a sign that neatly expressed his middle-class dissent: "Saddam Didn't Steal My 401(k)." "They say Iraq is such a threat to the U.S.," he said. "But there are people in the Cabinet who've done more harm to us by protecting corporate criminals." Another sign in the crowd borrowed from the same theme: "Iraq Never Closed My Health Clinic." Only a few hundred people had gathered at Olympic and Broadway by 10:30 a.m., and I feared the rally would be a bust. But within an hour, thousands had fallen into line, with more on the way. My guess is that they bolted from their cereal and raced downtown after reading the morning newspaper. Current events these days can really get the blood boiling. We're on the verge of war against a country that hasn't threatened us and has no nukes anyone can locate. And do you remember those mysterious aluminum tubes that got the White House worked into a lather about an Iraqi nuke program? Looks like it was all a mistake. Meanwhile, North Korea's leader gets a little more like Yosemite Sam every day. He's kicking President Bush around as if George were the schoolyard wimp, and Bush has shrunk into a corner with his legs crossed. Kim Jong Il is rolling out his missiles and writing Bush's name on them, practically taunting the world to come get him. Our response? We're sending 62,000 more troops to the Persian Gulf to keep an eye on Saddam. If it sounds batty to you, maybe Craig Frey can explain. "North Korea doesn't have oil," he said. Well, it's a little more complicated than that. But I still like the button worn by Frey's wife, Heather Smith, a textiles artist. "Are you Willing to Die for Exxon?" Alexis Robinson's answer is no. Robinson and her husband, Roy, along with their 6-month-old daughter, Emma, and Roy's brother David, took the train from Claremont to save gas. About 10 others had the same idea, said David, all of them boarding at the Claremont Metrolink station. "We wanted to make a statement," said Alexis, a young mother who had never before attended a political rally. If the Iraqis had nukes, Alexis said, she might feel differently about the march to war. If they had threatened the U.S. or been linked to Al Qaeda, that could put her in line behind the president, too. "But without that, are we going to war just because Bush and Cheney want to? What's happening in North Korea makes it all the more hypocritical," Alexis said. "The Democrats in Congress have no backbone," said her husband, Roy, a studies-abroad counselor at Claremont McKenna College. "The NRA, the Republicans, they stand up and say they're proud of who they are. But isn't there one Democrat who will challenge this?" Ismael Alsharif, a Web engineer who lived in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, fears that a strike on Iraq will be a gift to those who recruit terrorists. He and three friends from West Hollywood -- Pat Amirault, a TV producer; Mark Zecca, a film producer; and Pat McFadden, an administrative assistant at Disney -- came to the rally with a simple objective. They hoped a sufficiently large crowd would send the message that reasonable people have legitimate questions about where the United States is headed. Questions about the cost of war, the motives, the benefits, the risks. Look, the awful truth is that Saddam is scary. Kim Jong Il is, too. But Bush is no slouch in that department, and if we sit here waving a flag over everything he says, the planet could blow. It's a complicated world and there are no easy answers, said Canoga Park's Merilie Robertson, 74. But she came to the rally with friends from her Presbyterian church and asked a perfectly sensible question: Why not continue a policy in Iraq that has worked reasonably well to date? Good question. The situation isn't perfect, but why war, and why now? The one event that set in motion all this brinkmanship and saber-rattling seems, at times, to have been forgotten. Frey, the software engineer from San Diego, brought it back into focus. "Why not just go after the terrorists?" Oh yeah, the terrorists. I leaned in closer to Frey so I could hear him over the drumbeat, and here's what I read on one of his buttons: "If you're not totally p-----off, you're not paying attention." * based on what i saw, myself and what im reading...im ecstatic! |
it was so cold that day. And they blocked the American Consolate building off from us, with horses and everything, but we still go to march around downtown. on the way there i remembered that during the Gulf War i had seen a guy, some punkass dude, on the subway going to Queen's Park with a sign, on his way to a protest rally. I was too young to really understand or care. So ten years or so later there i am, some punkass chick, going to Queen's Park with MY sign ("war IS terrorism"), on the way to protest the same damn war and some guy with the same last name. freaky. |
some of the ones i recall "Wanted: Smoking Gun -GW Bush" "Im Sad" *that was my fav!* "War is dumb" "Kill Bush First" *ouch!* "Axis of Weasles " and a hilarious well done image of Cheney, Bush and Rummy "Iraq never closed my healthcare clinic!" as the article mentions. Since i was packed with my camera gear...I could hold any signs so I drew peace symbols on my cheeks and occasionally held my fingers up in peace signs. To show you how out of shape I am, my arms are actually sore from holding them up like that on and off. Can you believe some Indian dude on the sidewalk, gave me the thumbs down when he saw me with my peace symbols? People are fucking weird! |
wisper- you should have carried the "big yellow sign" |
im not a pacifist, but i oppose what is going on right now, at this very minute with such conviction. the problem is who decides when we are threatened. |
we haven't declared war on Iraq. there is no indication that we will declare war on Iraq without the backing of the UN. (unless you believe all of Bush's posturing?) so.. to demonstrate now against war in Iraq is to indicate that it would not be necessary. yet, saddam is an irrational man (hey, ask his good friend Qaddafi!) saddam has significant power in the middle east. saddam could be a threat to the US. so, it would seem to me, war could be justified? |
I can't beleive all of these people demanding that it be shown. THERE IS A SMOKING GUN. It has been chosen to not reveal it. Why? Think about it. One of the things they are trying to do is get the scientists out of Iraq for an "Interview". Problem is, families are still in Iraq. If you are building chemicals and bombs and someone is coming to look for them, and you know they are coming, are you going to leave them lying around where you KNOW they are going to look? As far as North Korea goes, they are throwing a spoiled brat shit fit. The last time they started to throw a tantrum they got 500,000 gallons of oil and money out the ass to build nuclear power plants, and we even taught them how to build the plants, as long as they promised to behave and leave the nukes alone. So now they come up and say "Ha-Ha, we've got bombs. Were gonna burn your citys if you impose sanctions on us"... Why are they being so nasty this time around? We are not rushing over to promise aid like we did back in 1994. We have said "You broke your promise, no more soup for you!" and now they are having a shit fit. That's why you cannot throw money at a problem and hope it goes away. Carter helps this deal with NK back in '94 and gets a noble peace prize. Reagan ends the cold war with Russia and he gets what? |
|
One of my new favorite pics |
|
|
the pope called for appeasement. |
hey, the pope ended WWII too! |
Would you go willingly into an open-ended period of detainment which could lead to your execution without trial, or would you like to know what the evidence is against you ? |
|
we are pre-emptively protesting nate. trace there is no smoking gun as of yet, so any talk of war, any mobilization, any deployment is pre-mature and aggressive. unless of course you believe the White House doublespeak. Your cute lil picture there trace is exactly why I speculated it makes you warm and fuzzy when you hear our forces are being deployed. You get tingles watching CNN bomb footage don't you. It looks like the Bush administration is handling N.Korea just like previous administrations have. Oh no....they "won't negotiate", yet they'll toss in some energy aide just like previous administrations as bait. Gee...that tactic sounds fucking familiar. |
|
waiting for the smoking gun to mobilize or deploy doesn't make good sense. |
I'm not so sure though. |
you can stick your head in the sand and pretend there is no such thing as evil people, but all you'll do is make it easier for evil people to remove your head from your shoulders. |
I know your playing devil's advocate homeboy but yuur teetering on the edge of absurdity. |
|
Who is putting their ear to the ground right now? |
It makes good sense if you are the one who pulled the trigger. There is a smoking gun. |
Because i forgot to make my sign the day before i had to run to the dollar store that morning and get bristol board for it, and all they had left was day-glo pink and day-glo yellow. I got the yellow, but i still felt like a totall tool carrying it around. There's just something about day-glo bristol board that screams "I'D RATHER BE IN CHYNA". |
i have this pic of you holding your yellow sign in this giant doorway. |
the peace cheerleaders fucking rocked. |
i keep a little collection of the funniest wrestling signs i see on tv. I spend more time watching the crowd than the matches, but of course i'm the girlfriend of a smark, so what else can i do? My favs include- *I LOVE BACON *CAN YOU SMELL WHAT THE SPOCK IS COOKIN?! *GENERIC SIGN *MY SIGN = RATINGS *I HAVE NO LIFE *IM @ RAW! CALL ME:(cell phone number) *FINISH HIM!! *QUE'? *PORK *BEER ME |
What is the smoking gun, Trace? |
|
|
Sadam will then be given a very short time to comply with the UN resolutions. Then he will be taken out. Sadam suports what will benefit Sadam. He doesn't care even the sligthest for the people of Iraq. I saw on the History channel last night he even has professional rapists in his secret police to intimidate and torture his political rivals. He's a real sweetheart isn't he. And, his sons are even worse than he is. If you can believe Newsweek. |
Hard evidence. Look, all he is being asked to do is produce the people who destroyed the crap. He has not done that. After Blix's latest report, he asked about the March report. Rice's answer was short, "Don't Bother". |
so the fuck what watcher? you think he is unique in this manner. Further SaDDam is no different in progressing his own agenda by any means possible. American politicians do it all the time. In not-to-distant US history the FBI and CIA had agents deployed domestically and abroad using such tactics. Ever heard of the School of Americas at Fort Benning GA.? If not, go do some homework and report back. If Saddam has produced chemical and biological weapons recently why hasnt the UN found any information? Why are we witholding the intelligence? Why are we wasting everyone's time? The only benefit I can see to that is perhaps timing, that is, some sorta timetable to coincide with elections. I find it hard to believe you have any insight as to evidence that the rest of the public world does not trace. |
uh, maybe this is part of the Plan? |
I think I remember that being a goal. |
if the option is disarmament, why don't we let the inspections take their course? are we so cruel as to deliver death and destruction to thousands of innocents just because of these miniscule breeches? of course Iraq is going to lie. How much faith do we have in the inspection process to solve the problem of disarmament? We are learning of these breeches BECAUSE the inspections are working. I just dont see the need to use force at this time, unless the goal is nation-building, a goal Bush cited he wouldnt do, control over natural resources, and petty revenge. The inspection system appears to be considerably more hard-assed than before. It appears, if armed with proper intelligence, the goal of disarmament can be attained....that is IF thats the real goal. |
I have not heard of the FBI or CIA employing rapists and torturers domestically. What is your source for these alogations? |
If you think that the FBI or CIA have never employeed human rights abuses domestically than you're a blind fool. J Edgar Hoover ? HELLO! |
Human right abuses - most definately. Torture and rape - not to my knowledge. |
human rights abuses can include torture & rape. To differentiate is pointless. |
But the White House described the discovery as "troubling and serious." The warheads, Blix said, were empty. "There are no chemical weapons inside them. However, clearly they were designed to carry chemical weapons. I think we should destroy them, that's the rules," Blix said at a press conference with French President Jacques Chirac and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei." This established how fairly clueless Blix is about his job. The weapons inspector's job has been for 11 years to verify that Iraq has destroyed the chemical and biological weapons. Not find them and destroy the weapons themselves. It has been up to Iraq to provide evidence that the shit has been destroyed. Where is that proof? |
But the White House described the discovery as "troubling and serious." The warheads, Blix said, were empty. "There are no chemical weapons inside them. However, clearly they were designed to carry chemical weapons. I think we should destroy them, that's the rules," Blix said at a press conference with French President Jacques Chirac and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei." This established how fairly clueless Blix is about his job. The weapons inspector's job has been for 11 years to verify that Iraq has destroyed the chemical and biological weapons. Not find them and destroy the weapons themselves. It has been up to Iraq to provide evidence that the shit has been destroyed. Where is that proof? |
please. The job of the UN IS verification a sovereign nation protecting its interests is living up to its word. We'd never allow inspections on our soil, and if we did, you think we'd be fucking honest? Are you saying the US would account for every dusty-cob-webbed box of warheads designed to carry anthrax? Give me a fucking break. granted this is not about the US, but lets keep proper frame here and realize this is nothing earth shattering. A) There were no chemical weapons found B) they are at least 8 years old, found in a bunker made in 94. Did Iraq fuck up? Yes. Is it cause for thousands of dead Iraqi civilians killed at the hands of American smart bombs while our health care costs rise, our education systems teeter on collapse, our budget and trade deficits skyrocket? NO! We expect Iraq to lie, and we expect the UN to prove their lying and see to it that disarmament happens. Blix is not clueless about his job, he's just not seeing this as you blood thirsty, war-mongers see it. so keep your missle in your pants and go find something productive to do other than waiting on the edge of your seat for CNN war coverage to begin. |
the werent "chemical warheads". they were warheads designed to carry chemicals. "chemical warheads" implies there were chemicals in them, of which there werent. |
your a weapons expert now? and an expert on the weapons inspectors job? It was a warhead made for the specific reason of carrying chemical weapons. jesus patrick, stop the clinton-esqe legal hair splitting excuse making for Saddam, would you? Did you watch the history channel the other night? Did you see how a CIA OPPERATIVE was ordered back in 1995 to go to Iraq and assist a coupe to overthrow saddam? did you see how when it failed, the CIA called this opperative to come back to the US, because the president had ordered the FBI to arrest him and charge him with conspiracy to overthrow a foreign government, and millions of legal defense dollars later and after clinton left office the FBI dropped charges against him and gave him a medal instead? Stop making excuses for a dictator who kills his citizens in broad day light because they disagree with him. Or do you follow the hysterical liberals who now claim there is a Vast Right Wing Media conspiracy, and that it includes the history channel (by the way, most of the shit they were showing that he did was in the late 90's). You are paranoid, aren't you? |
do i claim expertise? no. i cite nothing that isnt readily available in the current press. "and an expert on the weapons inspectors job?" I repeated what you said dumbass. pay attention. "It was a warhead made for the specific reason of carrying chemical weapons." What did i say trace? You repeat exactly what I said!!! Im not making excuses for Saddam. Im calling out for US hypocrisy to be no excuse to continue in Saddam's tradition and kill thousands of civilians because thats exactly what will happen US bombs start falling dumbass! I don't make excuses for dictators, but if we are going to make such a fucking stink about Saddam, i expect us to be knocking on N. Korea's door. Libya's door, Iran's door, Saudia Arabia's door and countless other brutal regimes' doors. Stop acting as if the US is on some mission from god to rid the middle of east of this brutal dictator. I dont follow a left or right wing ideology trace. I have said this you how many times? You get your daily dose of Rush and thats all you can slobber about...right or left, right or left. Thats your peabrained way of viewing things in simplistic terms. Its us vs. them. You're either A or you're B. Im neither. Im not paranoid. If anything, its been established time and time again, you're the sorabji alarmist, not me. Let me simplify todays posts on this matter for you: What they have found in Iraq is not justification for bombing the living shit out of Iraq. The only people to suffer will be Iraqi civilians. You know this. You cannot deny this. We have not been able to find Osama and that other one-eyed fuck so what in the hell makes you think using this as some sort of justification for war will result in serving justice to the one who deserves it the most.....Saddam? You think we'll be able to get Saddam? You think the cave network in Afghanistan is tricky? Wait till they try and find Saddam in the network of bunkers, tunnels and shelters and safehouses in Baghdad. HA! That motherfucker will be in Khadafi's backyard eating dates and sipping whisky before we find him. God damn, sometime i just want to bitchslap you with your stupidity. |
You are demonstrating YOUR paranoia. What has been the stated US goal all along? Removing saddam from power. Yes, I think we can. I am wondering if the iraqi army is not just going to let us walk in and take control of Bagdad within 72 hours. Get off of the "America is Evil" stance for once, would you? Pay attention to the facts. And expect more of these discoveries between now and the 27th. You asked for proof, it is provided, and as expected, you scoff at it, and put your own anti-bush, anti-war, pro-saddam spin to it. |
"Did you see how a CIA OPPERATIVE was ordered back in 1995 to go to Iraq and assist a coupe..." Funny, you're bitching about the fact that the Clinton administration was trying to uphold the law and prosecute an agent for breaking it, and you think the Bush administration is all kewl 'n' shit for ignoring the law. If Bush got his dick sucked in the Oval Office would you think it was OK too? "You asked for proof, it is provided, and as expected, you scoff at it, and put your own anti-bush, anti-war, pro-saddam spin to it." Proof hasn't been provided yet. We have 12 empty warheads, no chemical residues detected yet. This is not enough to attack Iraq. "Pay attention to the facts. And expect more of these discoveries between now and the 27th." Why don't you pay attention to the facts? Expecting anything is, by definition, speculation, not fact. You cotradict yourself so fast I get whiplash. |
|
"We'd never allow inspections on our soil, and if we did, you think we'd be fucking honest?" We have had weapons inspectors on US soil, here for the purpose of verifying our compliance with international weapons reduction treaties. I know it's true because I heard it on Fox News last night. Of course, Scott Ritter said it, and we all know that Ritter is a lying sack of shit...except when he's criticizing the Clinton administration, right trace? |
Trace, you really come off as someone who won't be happy until bombs are shattering the lives of countless families who never did you any wrong. If that's not evil, than what is? |
Everyone knows only bad and evil people die during wars. "Smart-bombs", you know. |
|
Where do you think the order came from? Do you think the CIA agent took it upon himself? DO you think that if we all just play nice for another 11 years, this man who kills his own people will just keep in his own little country and leave everyone else alone? What would the two of you propose? I know, give him money, right? Pay him off. It worked with North Korea, right? Reagan's "Peace through Strength" obviously failed, didn't it? We still have a wall splitting Berlin in half, right? Maybe if we just minded our own business it would have fallen down from old age. Maybe Saddam will not sell a bioligical weapon for someone to release in the subways of New York, or London, if we just pay him off. If we all just hold hand and sing it's a small world after all, all religious fanatics will realize the folly of thier ways, and put down thier guns and crosses and torture devices, right? No more female genetailia mutilation, right? No more Palistinians blowing themselves up on busses or in pizza parlors, right? No more isreali's bulldozing neighborhoods, no more russia bombing chechnia, life will be just hunky dory. Or are we going to say 11 years is enough. America AND THE UNITED NATIONS has lost credibility for the last 11 years because we have said over and over and over again "Prove to us you have destroyed the chemical and biological weapons you agreed to get rid of when we pushed you out of Kuwait", and you have failed to do so, and we drew up a new resolution and another one and another one. Why don't we just write another resolution? North Korea, Russia, China, Libya, Pakistan, India, they all will see our huge display of weakness and say "We need to leave the United States alone"... right? Yes, we manipulate. You bet. National Security. But arm chair critics like you second guess the government all the time, and say we are being mean to the poor little dictators. Do you want a one world government? Seriously, is that what you want? A global, nationalist government??? |
<trace enabled="false" requestLimit="10" pageOutput="false" traceMode="SortByTime" localOnly="true" /> maybe that's your problem, trace ol' buddy. someone disabled you. |
trace you make no sense. there's nothing "pro-Saddam" about what I say. No one has said give Saddam money. No one has said let Saddam off the hook. In fact, we're all in agreement that Saddam is one evil motherfucker. But there are lots of evil motherfuckers in the world, who do all kinds of evil shit. To say we are going to war to liberate Iraq is a farce. Genocide has been committed on our world clock and we did nothing. So dont give me this shit that we're some kind of god damn liberation army. To say we are ridding his WMDs toi protect America is also a farce because there are far more threatening nations with WMDs out there than Saddam. Thats a farce as well. Tell me trace, what makes us any different than Saddam if we start dropping bombs? You repeatedly ignore the reality of war and make retarded attempts at philosophical support for this war effort. This war is so full of contradictions, the sooner you realize how hypocritical, cruel and downright evil it is, the sooner you can start seeing truth in whats really happening. Right now, you are being spoon-fed like the Gerber baby and you sound silly in doing so. War monger. |
if you think this war is about anything but oil, you;re a tool. |
|
Tell me. If it is about oil, why did we not take it 1991? If it is about oil, why did we help Kuwait, and not take thier oil? Because it is not about oil. |
|
|
|
|
farsighted powerbrokers knew that the time for iraqi conquest wasn't yet upon them. or they didn't have enough time to prepare for implementation. so for the next decade they, jedi knight-like, honed their powers of persuasion and unleashed upon the voting public a truly fucking amazing, sleight of hand, geopolitical mindfuck -- all the while hammering out the details of managing iraq as a field office. and they have joe and jane public footing the bill and manning the thin, desert drab line. look, hussein's humanitarian record speaks for itself. kill that fucker. today. but do not ever expect me to swallow the weapons of mass destruction shit. i don't care what flavor the administration is: when the sales pitch is one thing and the product delivered is quite a different thing, it boils down to fraud. last i heard, fraud was a federal crime. |
I do not in any way think the number of murders in Iraq commited by the Ba'ath party come any where near the numbers at the hands of the Nazi party, but the parallels are striking. What the protestors are saying about Iraq is exactly what was said of Germany in 1940-1941. |
fucking irrelavent. you know, the more i thought about your comments trace, the more i simmered. you came damn close to questioning my patriotism (which is a typical pea-brained response to anti-war protest). By my dissent you not only assume A)i support theories of right wing agenda's but B)I support Saddam and his reign of power . Asshole. How unpatriotic can you be? Being anti-war doesnt mean anti-American, so what if there are similarities between what protesters said in the 40s (of course I question your knowledge of anti-war dissent of the 40s) and what they are saying now. anti-war is anti-war. hindsight is always 20/20 so using that in ytour pro-war argument is pussy. further, a lot of god damn WW2 veterans don't support this war so who cares about the war protests of 60 years ago, its irrelavent. this war will tear this country apart. this war will destroy countless of innocent lives. this war will not make us safer, but in fact make the world more dangerous for americans by spurring more fuel for terrorist movements. thanks a lot assholes. |
yeah, and we sided with stalin in that one. stalin made hitler look like jigglypuff. there again, the public was sold something that wasn't exactly what really went down. |
all these protesters over the weekend, what were they saying? they weren't anti-war protests, they were anti-bush protests. they were people saying "i like saddam better than i like bush." simple as that. anti-war my ass. you can have an anti-cancer protest- everyone hates cancer. everyone hates war. |
The hour is late. By NR Editors The ominous feeling of drift in American foreign policy at the moment is, we hope, the product of two failed policies — inspections in Iraq and appeasement of North Korea — coming to the end of the line, in one final whimper. The time for President Bush to separate his administration from these policies is rapidly approaching, especially in the case of Iraq. If he doesn't, the consequences for America's standing in the world and for his own presidency will be grave. The case against renewed inspections in Iraq was always strong. Indeed, Bush administration officials have in the past made the case themselves. Inspections were designed to verify that cooperative states were complying with international standards — not to ferret out the truth from recalcitrant regimes. As Vice President Cheney noted last fall, we have learned more about Iraqi weapons programs from defectors than from inspections. David Kay, former nuclear inspector for the United Nations, said that the only "inspections regime" that would work in Iraq would be indistinguishable from an occupation. If the inspections of the 1990s were dubious, the new round of them now is even more so. For one thing, the Iraqi regime has had years to arm and to hide its weapons. For another, the chief inspector today, Hans Blix, is a man who is unwilling to report bluntly about Iraq's weapons offenses since that might prompt the West to go to war — and indeed was chosen for his job by Baghdad's patrons in the U.N. for that very reason. Blix is now acting as though his chief imperatives were bureaucratic, and no revelation — the discovery of undeclared chemical warheads Thursday being an example — seems likely to jolt him from this mode. He wants more staff and he wants his mission to extend further into the future, perhaps indefinitely. The administration knew that going to the U.N. and resuming inspections was a risky course, one that could build international support for its campaign to overthrow the Iraqi regime but could also bog it down. The latter possibility is now coming to pass. None of our allies is going to commit to action when we ourselves appear to hang back. Allowing Blix to continue his work beyond the Jan. 27 report to the Security Council stipulated in Resolution 1441 would be an unacceptable concession to further delay and inaction. The situation in North Korea is still more alarming. The Bush administration says it is willing to discuss aid and a non-aggression pact and that it does not contemplate using military force. *****Thus is provocation rewarded, and invited. ***** Several points may be adduced in Bush's defense. Foremost among them is that the troop build-up in the Gulf continues, and the time now occupied with Blix's meanderings may simply be necessary to complete it. The administration has also cut off aid to North Korea, and is seeking to build international support for sanctions on it. For every worrying rhetorical feint, there is a tougher one — President Bush's complaint that he is "sick and tired" of Iraqi deception being one of the latter. Finally, the administration can reasonably plead that, especially in the case of North Korea, it has no good options. Removing our troops from the peninsula might force China and South Korea to confront the regime, and the mere possibility of it may already have improved relations between Seoul and Washington. But actually going through with it, now, would be interpreted by everyone as a huge reward for Pyongyang. Going to war with North Korea could involve massive casualties, and neither the public nor our allies may have the stomach for simultaneous engagements with two regimes. (Whether we have the military resources to fight Iraq and North Korea at the same time is a different question. Everyone in Washington seems to be worried about that except, oddly, for the Pentagon.) It should not surprise us that a happy course of action is hard to find. One of the marks of bad policy, of the sort that Clinton bequeathed to Bush in North Korea, is that it narrows our options to the unpalatable. But that is all the more reason not to continue such policy. The goal of the U.S. on the Korean peninsula should not be cutting another deal with Pyongyang, in which support for the regime is exchanged for more empty promises, but ending the totalitarian government there. While the build-up around Iraq continues and the administration — one hopes — formulates a new North Korea policy, the administration can obviously be forgiven for temporizing. It often has its place in international politics. It also, needless to say, has its limits. President Bush famously said that "time was not on our side," and thus implicitly was on the side of the axis. We have reminded him often of those words, while also deferring to some extent to his judgment. The hour is getting late. |
|
what logic or policy/agenda could you possibly apply to justify invading Iraq that, in being consistant, wouldnt justify us moving into a dozen other nations? Angry sam was right, 3 years ago, when he predicted Bush would win, it would be one of the greatest events for the left, peaceniks, artists and the like. He would give them all an excuse. He is the focal point for grievances from a wide spectrum, and he plays the part well. Of course the protests are about Bush, as much as they are about peace, he's the dipshit that should take the fall. |
Sadam is hiding a whole lot more than a few empty warheads. The government knows this. And, I'm sure that the President will release a lot more information prior to any actual action taken against Iraq. He is giving Sadam his very last chance to come clean. Once all the troops and equipment are in place that will be the end of it. Sadam and the Bath party most be made history. They can either go into excile or be destroyed. Don't expect the UN to do anything. Any organization that elects Libia to headup it's Human Rights Commission should be ignored. No government that either voted for Libia or abstained from voting gives a damn about Human Rights. They just want to protect their little dictatorships or keep their trade profits coming. |
|
I saw that program on the History channel too. You forgot a few minor details in your arguements. The CIA agent was actually sent by the Clinton administration to help set up a coupe. It was the administration that got cold feet. They told him that the "operation was compromised" and brought him home. It was after he was brought home that the same administration brought charges against him for trying to arange the assasination of Sadam. Isn't that wonderful? It was his fault for taking the administration's orders seriously. Can you imagin someone believing that they were sent to actually acomplish what they were ordered to do? |
Further, as dave pointed out, if you think this is about weapons, your a fucking idiot. Its not about weapons any more than its about oil. |
|
*defense establishment payola. *geopolitical positioning. *executive brance adventurism, restablishing the big swinging dick in the oval office. Iraq is an easy target. N. Korea is not. i think oil and natural resources are a consideration just like they are anywhere we play a militaray and political role, but its not the sole reason we are there. and if it were really about weapons, why did we sell them the chemical and biological ingredients to begin with? further, why arent we applying the same standards to Pakistan, N.Korea, Iran and the Ukraine...places that have WMD and are havens for anti-Americanism and potential hotbeds of terrorism. "To keep America safe" these places should be in the cross hairs too. |
"Do you want a one world government? Seriously, is that what you want? A global, nationalist government???" It's funny that you're asking these questions, because a preemptive war in Iraq (and, down the line, in other places) will probably lead to a more unified world government, one way or another. Years ago, during Bush I, far right folks were paranoid that Bush the Elder was was pushing the US into a one world government, black helecopters and all. Now, with the Shrub, those same paranoids are the main cheerleaders of the new administration, giving them any powers necessary to "get the job done" and whatnot. |
the various UN resolutions that came out of saddam's surrender, which saddam has repeatedly violated. by your logic, we should do nothing because there is too much to do. silly. the opposition to a war that has not even begun, for reasons that aren't even factual, heavily laced with lefty falsehoods and doublespeak, is ridiculous. |
i've never ever advocated doing nothing. |
I think you are only advocating getting rid of Bush. |
|
i have stated before that the inspections should continue. the prospect that thousands of innocent lives could be lost with a US war and considering that even the god damn CIA agrees that terrorist threats at the US would rise with an attack on Iraq.... these are more than enough reasons to let the god damn inspections work to ensure disarmament. If the goal is disarmament then the let the fucking UN do its job. yes the UN slacked off in recent years but they seem to have a rekindled fire under their ass right now, so let it work for a year, then take stock to see where we are at. there is no established threat that saddam poses to us with these so called WMD. He has not vowed to attack america on its soil and there is no established proof that he has aided terrorists with WMD. the threat is not as the Bush administration says it is. |
|
the UN has done its job. saddam has yanked us around for a decade. what will change now? |
last i checked they are still working. per those same resolutions, there is nothing to authorize war either. can't exactly continue the verification process of god damn bombs are falling. |
|
|
they've already proved that iraq hasn't disarmed- the job is over. |
perhaps this is the fundamental difference. i expect them to be devious in their accounting of weapons. most nations would. i also expect the UN to be as vigoruous as they have thus far to see to it the goal if disarmament. however the considerable loss of life from a US war is reason enough to continue the inspections. I believe the people of Iraq, after 12 years of brutal sanctions and 30 years of Saddam deserve the time, not bombs. N.Korea has violated international agreements about its disarmament yet we are willing to offer them food and oil to disarm. we offer iraqi's bombs and sanctions. fucking hypocrites. |
the 12,000 page report that has not disclosed the destruction of said weapons. the rest is just extra crap |
blame the pain of the sanctions on saddam, and you have one more reason to remove him. more time, and the people of iraq suffer. are those shells the only thing that iraq has done that violate the resolutions that iraq agreed to? how about iraq's importing of chemicals and materials disallowed? we only know about the instances in which they were caught- what slipped by? and that they attempted at all indicates that the production of WMDs continues. so..? he's not going to get nicer. saddam wants more time to plan, produce, dig in. he wants time. and he is playing the europeans and scattered american liberals to get more time. |
BOMB THE FUCKERS! |
BOMB THE FUCKERS! |
a war you yourself have criticized as unjust. a one sided war based entirely on US aggression. further, that is irrelavent in comparing the situation. we were at war with N.Korea in the last 50 years. A peace treaty was never agreed, just an armistice. So you COULD say we're still at war with N.korea and have been for 50 years. So what. Thats irrelavent and makes Desert Storm 2 anymore justified. N.korea has gone beyond Saddam by not only kicking monitors and related devices out, but have flat out thumbed their nose at the US and the world seeking non-proliferation. They've violated agreements they too have signed, bluntly, and make no bones about it. However we arent rushing to war with those motherfuckers because they could actually give us a run for our money. Iraq is a pussy war, staged to make dickhead a "hero" in time for re-election. I blame the pains of cruel sanctions not only on saddam, but on the US and other world leaders who imposed them but failed to realize the inefficacy and unnecessary cruelty of them. as you say he's imported many items banned by treaty anyway, so the sanctions were futile and clearly did nothing but punish the innocent populus. Im all about removing from Saddam, but how many Iraq civilians have to die to get Saddam out? We can't even find bin Laden and that one-eyed motherfucker. there are plenty on the right and in the military establishment who don't support the up-in-coming war. its not just a liberal notion to stop this war about to break. |
|
if you look at it from the big picture, the iraq war _may_ be justifiable. war sucks, but is sometimes necessary. i fully expect that before anything starts bush will be a strong case for war. i expect that there will be at minimum a strong, international backing if not a full UN action. the plan to extract saddam is not new. we would have gone to war with north korea several times, and haven't because south korea has asked us not to. that is the difference. find someone in the middle east doesn't want us to nail saddam, other than saddam himself. saddam needs to go, no one argues this- so what are the other alternatives? have 12 years of UN inspections brought anything? iraqi defectors have testified before congress that no level of inspection short of occupying iraq will remove the threat of WMDs. inspections won't work, not 100%. not ever. so what is the alternative? it's like having a fish hook stuck in your leg. you going to leave it there for the rest of your life just because you don't have the balls to push the barb back out? it sucks, but sometimes you have to do shitty things to cure bad situations. |
What if he doesn't? What if we get fully deployed over there and no proof comes? Who could stop him from going to war? More important, would you still support the war, then? |
*gasp* A US President lying? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo the alternative nate? that depends on what the real goal is. its not clear if disarmament is the goal or removal of someone we simply don't like. |
What if....What if.....What if.... What if I grow a penis? What if my tits become inverted? What if a female libertarian is elected president in the next election? What if Elvis comes out of hiding and dances naked on the tonight show singing a song about how stupid we were thinking he was dead? What if is getting old. It's debating things that aren't facts. I can come up with plenty of what if's for this situation, but it won't help. It won't change anything. What if won't do shit but make you wonder more about what is wrong with the other side. If you have to base your arguments on "What If's" then you don't have an argument to begin with. |
|
|
"our enemies?" |
|
im taking bets on how many of those bad ass "Daisy Cutters" they drop on Iraq. I'm thinking between 5-6 all aimed at Saddam. Thats a weapon of mass destruction in ever fucking sense of the phrase. |
You mean, like attacking and occupying other countries? |
|
the UN inspectors have found iraq in material breach. what do you propose, patty? |
And, how about "Gulf War Syndrome," eh? |
|
its been recently cited the great examples of disarmament in South Africa and in the Ukrain however those countried disarmed with no gun pointed to their head, they we not being dictated to under the premise of defeat, such as Saddam did after Gulf War 1. I propose the inspections continue for another 6 months to a year in an even more vigorous fashion. We get scientists and their families out of the country, get hard, concrete evidence, complete UN Security Council support with resolutions if we are to go to war. The problem is, the doesnt fit into Bush's re-election schedule. Moreover the American people deserve to give peace every possible chance because a war with Iraq will increase the terrorism threat to US. weak diplomacy with a war torn, impoverished nation with a maniacal leader is ineffective. to say there is no option but war is pussy. there are and there are enough brilliant minds to find one. the people of Iraq deserve that. |
See, the problem with Daddy's war was that it ended too soon. Bush Sr. had fantastic approval ratings, but they peaked and then fell before the election. If the Shrub can play it right he'll ride the war right until the New Hampshire primary. |
"International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei, due to brief the council in New York on Monday along with chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, will give Iraq "quite satisfactory" grades despite the need for improvement, spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said." |
They are in material breach. Why? Because UN Resolution, passed without a single vote of dissent, calls not for the inspectors to find the crap, but rather Iraq lists all weapons still in possession, or provide evidence they have destroyed them. This resolution merely backs up 16 previous resolutions that Iraq has failed to comply with. The only other thing Iraq can do to become even more in breach is to actually use a chemical weapon. Hell, his son just today said if the US were to attack, then Iraq was prepared to launch chemical weapons in self-defense. What more do you need? Thousands dead of VX or sarin? The investigation of the anthrax attacks last year in Washington is starting to point towards Iraq as the point of origin. And we have not even released that "smoking gun" I was talking about last week. The warheads were just a clue the CIA gave the inspectors. Daschel knows what the smoking gun is. He was in the classified briefing in September. Right after the briefing he still accused GWB of not releasing enough evidence. He never denied that we have proof, he accused bush of not releasing it. We will. Next week. Maybe at the State of the Union Address. I know what it is, and it will scare you. It is a direct threat to the United States, the actual continent itself. Anyone who thinks Hussein has been sitting on his arse doing nothing over the last four years is a fool. He's not a fool. It's underground. Underneath normal appearing buildings. Lost and lots of construction has been documented underground. Lost of excavation, lots of earth being removed, and concrete and steel moved in. The dems called for a debate before the November elections. They got the debate, they voted on a resolution authorizing the President to act as he saw fit, and it was overwhelming approved in the house and the senate. The time for debate is over. They had the chance in October. All this brouhaha is an attempt to make the president withdraw from Iraq. The architects behind the opposition do not doubt that Iraq has ICBM capability. They hope gwb will bow to the tremendous pressure and pull back. Then Iraq will strike, and then the dems will blame an indecisive president for it. You people who are protesting a war that has not yet started are tools. The same tools that the "Ecological Protectors" use, and the "Social Security Protectors" use. Someone who does not really care about the cause they are getting you worked up about is manipulating you. Power is the goal, not protection. I do not question your Patriotism. I question your wisdom. |
"The investigation of the anthrax attacks last year in Washington is starting to point towards Iraq as the point of origin." says who? "They hope gwb will bow to the tremendous pressure and pull back. Then Iraq will strike, and then the dems will blame an indecisive president for it." what a ridiculous bunch of rush limbaugh-inspired speculational bullshit. trace....last time you claimed inside knowledge you mgade a remark that our 'soldiers would not be havin figgy pudding if you know what i mean' implying we would be at war before christmas. good call. saying you "know what it is" doesnt hold a lot of water. im not convinced saddam would use chemical weapons against the US because it would result in his nuclear annihilation. This much im sure of, whether he has the balls to do it, i doubt. he used chemical weapons in a stalemate war with a non-nuclear nation. |
the troops started deploying before christmas. war has not started yet, but they have been there for quite a while. I should know, I support their network communication security out there. |
the largest deployments happened after christmas and thus far in the month of jan. what you said was fairly meaningless. |
|
No my little freaky friend, you are incorrect. The ANNOUNCED deployments stared after christmas. The "others" that I refer to arrived Dec 13th. That's the day they set up my servers over there. |
Do you have facts to back that up? |
Lost and lots of construction has been documented underground. Lost of excavation, lots of earth being removed, and concrete and steel moved in. The 120mm warheads were nothing. yes, they pointed towards intent, and yes, they do help make a point. They were in perfect condition. They are built to carry chemicals. They are nothing compared to what's underground. |
Power is the goal, not protection." Funny, I'd say the same thing about you and the other war hawks. The point of going to war with Iraq is control. The whole WMD thing is just a sideshow, and a weak one at that. The Bush administration, and those who control it, just want control of Iraq. They're just too pussy to admit that to the American people. |
Do you have facts to back that up? |
I've said too much already |
He should not have been left in power. we knew what he was like when we helped him fight Iran. |
how come you "know" the smoking gun and the UN inspectors don't? |
|
The additional time is a ruse. |
even if saddam came clean tomorrow, they'd still find an excuse to bomb. |
and the inspectors are not there to find the shit. their inspections this time around have been useless, and not mandated by 1441. 1441 dictates saddam to declare his weapons, and provide access to the weapons so the inspectors can inventory them. saddam has not done that. |
compartmentalizing the goal of disarmament is pussy. so what if its not specifically our job. the goal is peaceful disarmament right? RIGHT? you tell that "it wasn't our job to help the UN in anyway we could" to families of the the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. what a pussy response. "its not my job" so fucking American of you trace. |
The inspectors are not ours. they belong to the UN. Sure, i bet we have some of our guys in the team, as i am sure france, russia, german and iraq do as well. Iraq's big. Twice the size of Idaho. You want to go poking around Idaho looking for weapons of mass destruction? you think you can find any? Don't forget to look underground as well. The first time we had designated places to inspect, now that list has grown to the size of the entire country, and I would be willing to bet there is some of it's shit outside it's borders. And this is not his first second third forth fith sixth seventh eight nineth tenth eleventh twelveth thirteenth fourteenth fifteenth or sixteenth chance, it is his SIXTEENTH chance. Most people never get a second chance. Would you quit apologizing for him or making excuses or blaming us or blaming the un or blaming the inspectors or blaming the military or blaming me or blaming the president. 12 years of this shit. 8 years clinton was at the helm. what he has now he had most of it durring the clinton years. and clinton knew it, and started a food money for oil trade with the fucker knowing full well that the money was not going to feed the population, but rather to build 28 palaces and buy state of the art cancer scanners (hmm, fear of cancer from radiation?) and cancer medication. But his population cannot even get asprin. So would you mind getting on the right side here? so fucking Asshole of you patrick |
oy vey. back to clinton. i AM on the right side warmonger. i don't speak for the side of saddam, i speak for the side of innoncent civilans that will die at the hands of america very very soon. the only *POTENTIALLY* reasonable argument that you have never made, and seem incapable of making, is one that nate made that perhaps, we can shorten the suffering, in the long term, of the Iraqi people by going to war now. all you can harp on is the dog and pony show of weapons. hey trace..... not my job buddy. not my job. |
"I have said too much already" i don't know about you guys, but i'm fuckin STOKED to see whatever the hell trace is talking about. Is it James Cameron big? Are they gonna get Celine Dione to write a tearful balad about it? It's Mothra, isn't it?????!!! |
thank you. |
|
|
|
That in itself says he doesn't have the same "knowledge" as those who are actually doing the work for the government. Duh. Patrick, I realize that you find it hard to believe that my husband would have access to information that you, or obviously General Schwartzkofp, haven't seen, but remember that he works for the DOD and NSA and has been promoted in the past couple of months and has had to get new security clearances based on his promotion, and is up for 3 more promotions running his own place in the next 3 years. He has access to things you don't know about and does things that you don't know about and the specific work that he does is frequently on CNN news and other news channels. I see it all of the time. Can he give you too many details of his work? NO. Why? You don't have the clearances and aren't allowed to know, and neither am I. The thing that I find funny is that in spite of his JOB and what it entails and what you know of it, you still think he doesn't have access to jack shit. You would be surprised of what has happened that he has had to clean up because you aren't allowed to know. Sometimes your ignorance related to your inflated self importance, or your idea of how the military and DOD and NSA think (which is so way off base it isn't even funny) is extremely amusing. All you ended up doing in the end was pointing out that Schwartzkofp doesn't have access to the amount of information we thought he did. |
being retired doesnt mean you don't get briefed on matters. ex-presidents, generals, and high level gov't employees can still be in the loop. If trace has intelligence that someone like Swartzkopf doesnt, then something is seriously wrong. It has nothing to do with my ignorance or intelligence and everything to do with a reasonable amount of faith in our government that i have in its security clearances. i believe our gov't would not let someone like trace have the knowledge he claims to have. its not based on anything factual but rather my opinion...ok fine...so disagree if you like. and this has nothing to do with "inflation of slef-importance", whatever that means. |
Patricks cynicism is well founded. Everyone at every job likes to think they know more than they do. I've had more than one boss who made up stories to make others think he's a hotshot. Its also possible that trace has co-workers that think they're in the loop and are just spreading rumors around as fact, and it just made its way around to him. |
|
That SAYS something don't you think? That motherfuck has been to war...in Iraq, in the last 15 years. How many assholes in the Bush administration can say that besides Powell, who is one of the most dovish in the cabinent who has clearly been bitch-slapped in line? NONE! the only assholes who are totally pushing for war are mostly fuckholes who have never been to war, and/or had nothing to do with the first one. |
hans blix came back and said they are in material breach. you can't prove the negative. what is the point, if iraq isn't cooperating, they aren't cooperating. the gravest danger facing america and the world is outlaw regimes seeking nuclear weapons. |
by Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON (AFPN) — All the military services are facing readiness problems directly tied to allowing aircraft, equipment and infrastructure to age, Defense Department officials said. The average age of aircraft, tanks, infantry-fighting vehicles, ships, light-armored vehicles and many other pieces of equipment is increasing. As they age, they become more costly and difficult to repair and maintain. This is a direct result of a “procurement holiday” the last administration took following the Cold War. “They started drawing down after the Cold War and instead of stopping, they overshot the mark and went way too far,” said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “So, we haven’t been buying new equipment. That means the older equipment is getting quite old and when things get old ... they sometimes take a lot more time for repairs. “It just takes longer to get things operable,” he said. “One of the things you can do is buy more and retire the stuff that’s costing you more than it ought to. And DoD will do some of that.” Another move might be to change the mix. In aircraft, “if you shifted your weight to some extent toward (unmanned aerial vehicles) you have a different need than with the manned aircraft,” Rumsfeld said. “It’s conceivable you could retire some things and start dropping the age down and have less repairs. Those decisions will be wrestled with during the Quadrennial Defense Review.” The problem runs across the services. In the Air Force the average age of the air fleet is 22.2 years old. The average age of the B-52 Stratofortress is 39 years. The average age of the B-2 Stealth bomber is six. In airlift, the average age of C-141 Starlifters is 34 years. The average age of the C-17 Globemaster III fleet is four. The average age of the Navy’s air fleet is 18 years. This breaks down to 21.1 years for helicopters and 17.2 years for fixed-wing aircraft. And this will only get worse. The average age of the Air Force air fleet will be 25 years old in fiscal 2007, DoD officials said. In fiscal 2010, the average age of Navy F- 14 Tomcats will be 41 years. In fiscal 2021, the Air Force F-15 Eagles will be 51 years old and the granddaddy of the Air Force, the B-52, will be 90 years old in 2040. “Clearly, we have to modernize,” said a DoD official speaking on background. Issues with aging military equipment are not limited to air systems. In the Army the “deuce-and-a-half” truck will be 67 years old in fiscal 2017. “When do people trade in their cars — every six or seven years?” the official asked. “These vehicles and systems have the same problems the family car has. There’s fatigue and corrosion that you cannot see.” If something breaks on old systems like these, spare parts may be hard to find. “Parts obsolescence is a problem,” the official said. “If you have a system designed in the 1950s, it’s tough to get parts for it in 2001.” All this increases the time it takes to keep these systems working. “It takes time from operations, it takes time from training, it takes time from other far more important aspects of the mission,” the official said. “We need to solve this problem.” |
"The average age of all planes in service right now in the US Air Force Fleet is 43.2 years." This thread: "In the Air Force the average age of the air fleet is 22.2 years old." "And this will only get worse. The average age of the Air Force air fleet will be 25 years old in fiscal 2007, DoD officials said." Congrats, Trace, you just posted contradictory statistics! For a guy who values facts so much, you sure do have a hard time keeping track of them. |
|
|
bullshit. these parts are made for the gov. and gov only. its not like looking for a part for a 57 chevy. the only market for parts for an f16 is the US gov and the people we sell those planes to and we are more than happy to sell them parts. and again, using rummy's language, you don't compare airplanes to automobiles. airplanes have a longer shelf life. "There’s fatigue and corrosion that you cannot see.” there is also far more stringent maintainence standards for military aricraft, fuck, aircraft in general. A jet engine gets inspected and overhauled way more frequently so this cry for modernization by dumping our current fleet is bullshit. Fucking defense industry lobbyists....they are just trying to sell more fucking planes to compete with.....who exactly? when you line this defense industry bullshit up against a dismal, rusty national education system that is only getting worse and rising healthcare....you can take your next generation multi-billion dollar super jet fighter and shove it up your ass. |
|
|
|
I haven't had a good Pea in a long time!! |
wow! |
"The average age of all planes in service right now in the US Air Force Fleet is 43.2 years." You seem to think anything you read from the military is fact, when its been established they are some of the biggest liars in US history. |
|
sometimes tennessee tuxedo and ratso rizzo argue about the cigarette butts by the way, i realize that it's creative license or whatever, but i'm pretty sure that no aircraft has a "shelf life." jets don't sit on shelves awaiting purchase before an expiration date. as far as i know, anyway. although one of the aircraft/weapons/diplomacy/film/childrearing/vehicle design/energy/engineering/military experts here might know otherwise. back to the regularly scheduled honk. |
|
Besides, that's not where my expertise is. It's in spellin' and grammar! |
|
|
we're a fucking superpower, joe! and there aren't any others! we could fight the rest of the world put together... and win!! yea democracy! |
|
|
Note to humor-impaired - That's a JOKE, son. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
