A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

President Bush is a Miserable Failure



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old May 16th 04, 02:32 AM
David Pugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Not 100% accurate. *If* Saddam managed to export his weapons to Syria (a

very
unforseen event by the way that dems seem anxious to exploit as if they

knew
this was going to happen) their chance of being used probably just got cut

in
half.


The notion that Saddam might flush his chemical/biological weapons was
discussed before the invasion. It doesn't take a lot of foresight to predict
that someone with chemical weapons who was about to go down might -- if they
chose not to use them -- give them away to someone who might. And, while I
agree that any ex-Iraqi weapons under the control of the Syrian government
are relatively safe, I'm not so sure that the Syrian government is the only
recipient (by accident or design).

Allowed? You'll have to show me how we were complicit with the looting of

what
were *suspected* facilities. Ask any democrat, they'll tell you Iraq

didn't
have any WMD; so what exactly was looted?


Check out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3002169.stm.
Basically the US failed to secure know nuclear (not weapon related, but
research and the like) and they were looted. Net result is that radioactive
material suitible for making a dirty bomb are missing.

So, "allowed" as in "had a responsibility to prevent and failed to do so".

tied our hands is a new and more dangerous
threat emerges


I don't follow this one?


Sorry, typo: "hands _if_ a new". Basically what do we do now if, for
example, there is for example an Islamic revolt in Pakistan?

and alienated the entire region


Hardly. If we had alienated the entire region, we would not currently be

hosted
in nearly every country on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf.


Check out: http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=185. It is
a somewhat troubling sign when more people in think Osama is more likely to
do the right thing than Bush.

Uhh, because the closer you are to Iraq the less tankers you need. There

would
have been no way (unless you built a few more airfields in the region) to

put
up the same number of SOUTHERN WATCH sorties every day if most strike

aircraft
had to fly from Al Udeid or even Masirah or Thumrait. There just wasn't

enough
ramp space for all the tankers you would have needed.


How many sorties/day were flown by SOUTHERN WATCH? I admit I'm surprised
that we couldn't have supported it with a couple of airfields, but you are
the expert. Even so, though, how much would it have cost to expand the ramp
space?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
Open Letter to Kofi Annan and George Walker Bush Matt Wiser Military Aviation 2 March 12th 04 04:05 PM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 04:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.