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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with rednecks
On Feb 29, 3:38 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote: WingFlaps wrote: Sounds a bit like the Iraq that existed before the US told Saddam it was OK to bring Kuwait back into greater Iraq doncha think? Cheers Bull$hit myth. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to Saddam Hussein: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America". Yes that's about the core of the problem but this quote is not what was actually said but rather the carefully spun recollections of a (failed) diplomat. Despite this seeming indifference to the rising tension between the corrupt Kuwait and Iraq, in June 1990 General Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions. Some say that the US wanted the war as an excuse to bring the Arab states into line -I doubt we will ever know the real truth. My point was that before Iraq was destroyed, Iraq was a modern, secular state, with most advanced status of women in the region, non- sectarian Universities and extensive religious freedoms, high rates of economic growth, and some of the highest standards of living, health and literacy rates in the Arab world. Free speech was allowed, as long as it was not directed against the regime. Cheers |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with rednecks
On Feb 29, 4:54*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I could be wrong, but this seems plausible to me. Why do something that nails a few thousand people and really ****es off the rest of the people , when you can sit back and let the idiot politicians divide and destroy the country for you? Too right! The only "terror" I see is being generated by the governrnent against it's own citizens. Daily terror alert level? Homeland security? When the UK was under terrorist attacks by the IRA, it was business as usual but with increased vigilance. One should not do what the terrorist wants -which is to disrupt your economy and cause fear and disquiet. Cheers |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
On Feb 28, 1:16*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
As unprepared as American was at that time, if the U.S. had been part of Europe, Germany could have rolled over us as well. *Germany's use of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every other country on the planet at that time. I don't think anyone makes fun of the French for surrendering to Hitler's blitzkrieg. *The Wehrmacht rolled over everything in its path, until Hitler decided that they should winter in the Soviet Union. * Bad move for them, good for us. No, what makes the French the butt of so many jokes was their collaboration with the Nazis after the surrender. * The Vichy government was an abomination. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" Yeah, the collaboration is part of it. But I think the French had an extra-embarrassing surrender because they had invested so much in their "impregnable" Maginot line. When the Germans simply went around it, it really made the French look like fools. Phil |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with rednecks
On Feb 29, 6:48*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
*We're dealing with people who strap explosives to mentally handicapped people Jay, your thinking illustrates why such problems exist. You need to try to understand that these are passionate believers in their cause. No more or less. The suicide bombers are not mentally handicapped and their goal is to enact retribution against their enemy. Wouldn't the US call them freedom fighters if they were were working for your interests? Did you know that your #1 enemy was a US sponsored "freedom fighter" before he was cut off and left out to dry? That might have made him realize something don't you think? Cheers |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
On Feb 28, 1:18*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Phil J wrote: Germany's use of advanced technology and advanced tactics put them ahead of every other country on the planet at that time. Only part of that is true. At the start of the war German tanks were generally regarded as inferior to their contemporaries. It was generally superior tactics and training that won their battles. In fact at the outset of the invasion of Russia, the Russian T-34 was superior in pretty much every way to anything the Germans had. (I wasted part of my youth playing board wargames such as Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" and learned a bit about the equipment and tactics of the era.) Refs:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...ki/Panzerblitz Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. But their combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive- bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat. Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the FW-190. Phil |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with rednecks
Jay, your thinking illustrates why such problems exist. You need to
try to understand that these are passionate believers in their cause. No more or less. The suicide bombers are not mentally handicapped and their goal is to enact retribution against their enemy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/ If strapping explosives to kids with Down's Syndrome isn't sick, I don't know what is. Wing, you really need to keep up here. Your defense of the insurgency is way out of step with the current reality on the ground in Iraq. Two years ago, you may have been correct. Now, however, more and more the people of Iraq have turned against the operatives that have so desecrated and decimated their country -- and Al Qaeda has responded with increasingly desperate (and immoral) behavior. Which has only helped our cause. When the insurgency started violating Islamic law, they lost. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French
"Phil J" wrote in message ... Definitely, not every weapon they had was superior. But their combination of fast motorized infantry supported with armor and dive- bombers and their Blitzkrieg tactics made them pretty hard to beat. Their fighter aircraft weren't too shabby either, especially the FW-190. The Blitzkrieg days were long gone by the time the Fw 190 appeared on the scene. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with rednecks
Jay Honeck wrote:
It's a plausible explanation, except for one thing: We're dealing with people who strap explosives to mentally handicapped people and blow up school buses. These aren't the sharpest sticks in the bunch, and I think you're giving them more credit for strategic thinking than they deserve. Well....don't forget that the strategic thinking doesn't happen at the suicide bomber level. That's a bit above their pay grade I would imagine. The bombers are simply the "tools" of the movement. The "thinking" comes much higher up, and these people are the chess players. I have always believed that 9-11 was devised by the chess players to create the exact result it has achieved. I've never for a moment believed that those buildings were brought down to destroy the buildings or kill the people. That to me was simply the "tool" designed to open the door that the "thinkers" believed would split the United States wide open politically which it and the events post 9-11 certainly has done. Now that the country has been split like it has, the scenario for the "thinkers" has changed. Another attack would undue what they have achieved and re-unite the country against them. In other words, using the immortal phrases of one Kenny Rogers, "You got to know when to hold up!!" To me, the terrorist strategy is glaringly apparent. You first split the country, then you let it destroy itself from within. You sit back and watch. It's the old divide and conquer all over again, only this time it smells of camel crap :-) -- Dudley Henriques |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with the French upgraded to equal opportunity insulter
"Tina" wrote in message ... The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose." Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels. The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy. The old sailors in my workgroup here are roaring. What I'd really like to hear is, what do the other countries joke about Americans. Anybody know any "How many Americans does it take to screw in a light bulb" jokes? Let 'em fly. -c (Oregon) |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Way off topic, but it has do to with rednecks
WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:38 am, Gig 601XL Builder wrote: WingFlaps wrote: Sounds a bit like the Iraq that existed before the US told Saddam it was OK to bring Kuwait back into greater Iraq doncha think? Cheers Bull$hit myth. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to Saddam Hussein: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America". Yes that's about the core of the problem but this quote is not what was actually said but rather the carefully spun recollections of a (failed) diplomat. Despite this seeming indifference to the rising tension between the corrupt Kuwait and Iraq, in June 1990 General Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions. Some say that the US wanted the war as an excuse to bring the Arab states into line -I doubt we will ever know the real truth. Of course Schwartzkopf was war gaming US v Iraq. He was also war gaming US v Iran, US & Israel v just about anyone with a towel on their head. What do you expect the commander of CentCom to do when there isn't a war on? My point was that before Iraq was destroyed, Iraq was a modern, secular state, with most advanced status of women in the region, non- sectarian Universities and extensive religious freedoms, high rates of economic growth, and some of the highest standards of living, health and literacy rates in the Arab world. Free speech was allowed, as long as it was not directed against the regime. I think that last sentence says a bunch. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Off-topic, but in need of help | Alan Erskine | Aviation Photos | 20 | January 5th 07 06:21 AM |
Off-topic, but in need of help | dennis | Aviation Photos | 0 | January 4th 07 10:40 PM |
Almost on topic... | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 22 | January 30th 06 06:55 PM |
French but on topic... | ArVa | Military Aviation | 2 | April 16th 04 01:40 AM |
off topic | Randall Robertson | Simulators | 0 | January 2nd 04 01:29 PM |