George W. Bush and the climbing community
Ynot ponders.......
You know...after I posted that,I started thinking,maybe the peasants are all too stoned to actually care or get up and revolt.
Actually you have just discovered the conspiricy to keep us down, the last three presidents have only been acting like the war on drugs was real. They actually made the whole thing up to make you want them more and keep you stoned and stupid. Kind of hard to overthrow the guvment if your at krispy kreme all day.......
You know...after I posted that,I started thinking,maybe the peasants are all too stoned to actually care or get up and revolt.
Actually you have just discovered the conspiricy to keep us down, the last three presidents have only been acting like the war on drugs was real. They actually made the whole thing up to make you want them more and keep you stoned and stupid. Kind of hard to overthrow the guvment if your at krispy kreme all day.......
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....
-
bushwhacker
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:58 am
Lemme get this straight... you were in the Army in '93, 2 buds in Somalia, you read debreifings and books and "real time intel you were privy to"...and you call Somalia "Clinton's indiscretion"? When Bush 41 sent the troops there? WTF???gunslnga wrote:
Typical, quoting movies as a source of creditable facts on a subject, thats like watching CNN to get real unbiased news).
I was in the Army in 93, two of my freinds were there with the 10th Mountain
(UN Detachment) also I have read the Debreifings (after declassified in 2004)
as well as the book written by two Rangers directly involved in the conflict.
I will refer to they're experience and the real time intel I was privy to for the true version of the facts....
Bushwacker re-iterates.....
Lemme get this straight... you were in the Army in '93, 2 buds in Somalia, you read debreifings and books and "real time intel you were privy to"...and you call Somalia "Clinton's indiscretion"? When Bush 41 sent the troops there? WTF?
For the second time on this post, I am not stating that Clinton sent them there,
only that when he was Commander in Cheif that his failure to see the mission for what it was caused him to make some greivous errors in the planning that got the Rangers killed. read back a few posts and you will read an article written a little after that incident by the Washington Post on the subject. Bush sent them there in Oct 92, he was voted out in Nov 92, Clinton took over in Jan 93, the Rangers were killed in Jul 93, this is the factual time line, watch your movie again, read the real book, go to the library and get the debreifs and you will be able to verify these dates. Clinton was under pressure to fish or cut bait in Somolia, he refused several requests for air power and armor, he also sped up the planning and sent them in broad daylight, leave war to warriors.......
Lemme get this straight... you were in the Army in '93, 2 buds in Somalia, you read debreifings and books and "real time intel you were privy to"...and you call Somalia "Clinton's indiscretion"? When Bush 41 sent the troops there? WTF?
For the second time on this post, I am not stating that Clinton sent them there,
only that when he was Commander in Cheif that his failure to see the mission for what it was caused him to make some greivous errors in the planning that got the Rangers killed. read back a few posts and you will read an article written a little after that incident by the Washington Post on the subject. Bush sent them there in Oct 92, he was voted out in Nov 92, Clinton took over in Jan 93, the Rangers were killed in Jul 93, this is the factual time line, watch your movie again, read the real book, go to the library and get the debreifs and you will be able to verify these dates. Clinton was under pressure to fish or cut bait in Somolia, he refused several requests for air power and armor, he also sped up the planning and sent them in broad daylight, leave war to warriors.......
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....
Don't really mean to be argumentative here, but I just felt that this needed some clarifacation.gunslnga wrote:However he is solo flight certified to make a carrier landing with only instruments, no visuals, computers and controls only, yeah, alot of people can do that.....
He cannot do that. He was an Air National Guard pilot. A low time pilot at that. The guard is Air Force and therefore Carrier qualifacation is not involved, seeing as how carriers are Navy. Secondly, carrier landings do rely on visual queing in the form of a light bar on the carrier that tells the pilot about his allignment to the intended flight path. Alot of people cannot do that and he is included.
The importance of this probably dosn't make any difference to anyone except me, but there it is.
Walrus Jihad
JS Stated....
He cannot do that. He was an Air National Guard pilot. A low time pilot at that. The guard is Air Force and therefore Carrier qualifacation is not involved, seeing as how carriers are Navy. Secondly, carrier landings do rely on visual queing in the form of a light bar on the carrier that tells the pilot about his allignment to the intended flight path. Alot of people cannot do that and he is included.
That was quoted from an excerpt from an article in the times I read years ago when other people were attacking his intelligence , I should have backed it up.
The visual confirmation you speak of is refered to as the ball, pilots are told to call the ball, usually used at night. So maybe he is'nt that intelligent, just can't stand the name calling from uninformed idiots on here who don't do they're home work before they unload on someone or something. Thanks for the correction.......
He cannot do that. He was an Air National Guard pilot. A low time pilot at that. The guard is Air Force and therefore Carrier qualifacation is not involved, seeing as how carriers are Navy. Secondly, carrier landings do rely on visual queing in the form of a light bar on the carrier that tells the pilot about his allignment to the intended flight path. Alot of people cannot do that and he is included.
That was quoted from an excerpt from an article in the times I read years ago when other people were attacking his intelligence , I should have backed it up.
The visual confirmation you speak of is refered to as the ball, pilots are told to call the ball, usually used at night. So maybe he is'nt that intelligent, just can't stand the name calling from uninformed idiots on here who don't do they're home work before they unload on someone or something. Thanks for the correction.......
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....
I just can't believe there are such gaping holes in his military record. Gunslina, you and I were both were in the military and you know how fastidioius they are about record keeping. If you or I disappeared for an entire year while on duty, what would've happened to us?
I've had just about enough of this shit.
gulliver,
Obviously you felt I meant you, I did'nt but since you asked for the source of the chemical statement, here goes, this is from BBC from around the early 90's.
Funny you had to go so far back in my post's to find one you thought you could disect and use to prove me wrong. I learned long ago, that on here, have proof or shut up, this is'nt personal it's just the internet......
Years ago a European interviewer nervously quoted reports that the Baghdad authorities might, on occasions, have tortured and perhaps even killed opponents of the regime.
Was this true? Saddam Hussein was not offended. Rather, he seemed surprised by the naivete of the question. "Of course," he replied. "What do you expect if they oppose the regime?"
His tactic of imposing his authority by terror has gone far beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents. In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he has systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi'ia in the south he has razed towns to the ground and drained marshland. This fiction of Saddam Hussein as a benevolent ruler was exposed by two major and catastrophic miscalculations of foreign policy for which his country and his people have paid dearly.
Frustrated by his failure to achieve agreement by conventional means, the Iraqi president allowed his long-harboured resentment against the kurds to get the better of him. Saddam is feared as a vicious dictator who threatens the security of the Gulf region as a whole. In 1980, Saddam thought he saw an opportunity for glory - to put Iraq at the forefront of the Arab world. He ordered chemical attacks on Kurdish tribesman and supposed dissidents. Years later, with hundreds of thousands of Kurds killed and the country in turmoil, he agreed to cease the attacks.
Gulf states and Western countries alike have come to realise that his grip is stronger than it seems - and stronger by far than his grasp of reality often appears to be.
He insists that the 1991 Gulf War, which he famously described as the Mother-of-All-Battles, ended in victory for Iraq.
By the same token, Saddam boasts that Iraq can shrug off any Western military attack. The Iraqi people have no choice but to nod in agreement.
So it will go on until the moment comes for bombastic slogans to be replaced by a succinct epitaph to one of the most infamous dictators of the century. For the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, that moment can not come too soon.
Obviously you felt I meant you, I did'nt but since you asked for the source of the chemical statement, here goes, this is from BBC from around the early 90's.
Funny you had to go so far back in my post's to find one you thought you could disect and use to prove me wrong. I learned long ago, that on here, have proof or shut up, this is'nt personal it's just the internet......
Years ago a European interviewer nervously quoted reports that the Baghdad authorities might, on occasions, have tortured and perhaps even killed opponents of the regime.
Was this true? Saddam Hussein was not offended. Rather, he seemed surprised by the naivete of the question. "Of course," he replied. "What do you expect if they oppose the regime?"
His tactic of imposing his authority by terror has gone far beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents. In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he has systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi'ia in the south he has razed towns to the ground and drained marshland. This fiction of Saddam Hussein as a benevolent ruler was exposed by two major and catastrophic miscalculations of foreign policy for which his country and his people have paid dearly.
Frustrated by his failure to achieve agreement by conventional means, the Iraqi president allowed his long-harboured resentment against the kurds to get the better of him. Saddam is feared as a vicious dictator who threatens the security of the Gulf region as a whole. In 1980, Saddam thought he saw an opportunity for glory - to put Iraq at the forefront of the Arab world. He ordered chemical attacks on Kurdish tribesman and supposed dissidents. Years later, with hundreds of thousands of Kurds killed and the country in turmoil, he agreed to cease the attacks.
Gulf states and Western countries alike have come to realise that his grip is stronger than it seems - and stronger by far than his grasp of reality often appears to be.
He insists that the 1991 Gulf War, which he famously described as the Mother-of-All-Battles, ended in victory for Iraq.
By the same token, Saddam boasts that Iraq can shrug off any Western military attack. The Iraqi people have no choice but to nod in agreement.
So it will go on until the moment comes for bombastic slogans to be replaced by a succinct epitaph to one of the most infamous dictators of the century. For the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, that moment can not come too soon.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.....