If we had hostile Mexican planes controlling the skies south of the Mason-Dixon line, I'd hope to God (or Allah ) that we'd try to establish some semblance of an air defence to the north of that line. If the Mexicans came over that line and blew it up (no matter how many times they've done it in the past), I'd be pissed and want to kill some Mexcians. Have fun being a human target...and remember, "it's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'"
That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that we are killing people that desire to kill us. If they are dead, they can't kill us can they?
The fact that these strikes have been going on for ten plus years might have something to do with it, genius. I don't remember you posting when we hit some sites earlier in the spring. Did you not care then? Trust me, if we invade Iraq, you'll know....
no idea what language. i dont even know if i get to choose. they might say that im learning Farsi/Persian/Arabic, or i might get to pick, in which case, id have a germanic focus. ive got a pretty good foundation in german, and i also know a small amount of spanish (and minimal swedish, but that doesnt really count)
The Telegraph reported that 100 planes (including the support planes) took part in the raid. The Pentagon claims the Telegraph report was too large, and that only a few dozen (what ever that is) took part. Both claim the target was the air-defense control facility resposible for Western Iraq. The airfield in the area is called H-3. John Pike's site posted some images of the area, and I noticed one other intesting thing about the site. It was used to store chemical weapons as a disperal site, during the Gulf War. See this link to view the images. It show the H3 airfield and the site that stored chemical weapons in 1991. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/h-3.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/h-3-main-cib.jpg http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/h-3-ik-br-wsa.jpg quote from John Pike site below. Chemical weapons were stored at the H-3 airfield (main) during Desert Storm according to declassified U.S. intelligence reports which describe Iraqi efforts to disperse chemical weapons by truck to other locations. The S-shaped bunker located at H-3 airfield (main) and the four at the H-3 ammunition storage facilty were damaged or destroyed during Desert Storm. Of the 22 S-shaped bunkers located across Iraq, 10 had been destroyed as of 8 February 1991. It is not known whether the rest were subsequently destroyed.
Also interesting to note: One of the largest Uranium mines in Iraq is located in the area. Quote from globalsecurity.org site below. The Akashat Mine, located 420 km West of Baghdad, is a Uranium ore production facility associated with the Al Qaim site. Iraq has reserves of uranium ore which continue to be mined at Akashat, on the border with Syria. The Al Qaim facility, 100 km to the north east, remains capable of ore refinement. By the mid-1980s Iraq had at least 164 tons of yellowcake, obtained at the Akashat mine and processed in Iraq at Al Qaim, a plant built by a Swiss company http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/akashat.htm
Are you sh!tting me? The Army kills people? Holy Christ! That's devious! I thought the Army was some sort of vocational school. So those scoundrels are just fooling us, huh? Thanks for the tip.
I had an economics professor who always said that the militaries job is to kill people and break things. So killing is not the only thing you get to do, because you get sto blow up stuff as well.
hey. guess what. ************ you. i care. i've known about the attacks for quite some time, but it's pretty obvious there's nothing i can do about it. bush (and blair) are both obviously set on fighting their own vigilante war with no other support because of "suspected" weapons of mass destruction. the attacks in the no-fly zone are the rules. i dont like em, but they're going to happen. what i can't help but notice is the fact that none of this (saddam) really mattered until we realized we couldn't find bin laden. we still needed a threat to national security, apparently, so we focused on the next best thing. a recent AOL poll i read (i know they're not real reliable, but still) ranked hussein over bin laden in terms of threats to national security. how many people has hussein killed on american soil? it seems the only way bush is keeping his ratings up is fighting the good fight against some dark enemy. he failed the first time, and he's set on not failing now. i have the feeling this post is going to be ripped to shreds, but i dont visit this forum real often so i probably wont even see it. so have at it.
Wrong. Check the 2000 presidential debates and you'll find this exchange... "MR. LEHRER: -- how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference? VICE PRESIDENT GORE: I haven't heard a big difference right -- in the last few exchanges. GOV. BUSH: Well, I think -- it's hard to tell. I think that -- you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. I mean, we don't -- MR. LEHRER: With Saddam Hussein, you mean? GOV. BUSH: Yes, and -- MR. LEHRER: You could get him out of there? GOV. BUSH: I'd like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. But we don't know -- there's no inspectors now in Iraq. The coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger; we don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard to -- it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him. MR. LEHRER: Do you feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration? GOV. BUSH: I do." Correct.
Obviously, the important information to gather is "what did the administration do while it was in power and before 9-11"?
If Saddam Hussein "fails to comply [with U.N. inspections], and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction... If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow... Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton, February 18, 1998 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/607rkunu.asp
Last I heard, Clinton hasn't been in power for awhile. If you want to do a compare and contrast, that's a fine academic exercise. I'm more interested in what is going on now. Aren't you?
Well that's how they advertise it. Do you think they would get many recruits if they advertised what the army was really about? You claim it's obvious, but few people truly comprehend this, otherwise they would openly potray the reality in adverts.
I don't know. I think a "Join the Army and you'll get your chance of killing terrorists" campaign might just get lots of recruits to sign up. Afterall they had these types of in your face posters back in WWII. "Uncle Same Wants YOU"
I had plans to join the marines in my country. But seeing how our government is a mere lapdog for the US I'm having serious doubts lately.
oman- i suggest you find a cause you can follow and discuss intelligently. without making blanket statements and not having a solution for a problem you seem to care so passionately about mac- every president has had his dark man to battle and make him look good on the news. alot of what we deal with today however is because people were too worried in the early 90's with the clinton administration more worried about finances and the budget than the ever concerning middle east. much of this could and should have been nipped in the bud then. instead it was left on W's plate and now he is eating it. welcome to american politics 101. we'll start in the 1800's if you'll note W is all over the news when it comes to the middle east because that is what HE is concentrating on. he assembled a great administration and if you'd actually turn on C-Span and watch the daily press conferences you'd learn alot about who handles what. the president gets to pick and choose what he wants his face on. i'm pretty sure if he didn't show up on the news weekly discussing the middle east alot of people would be completely hacked off. i give the bush administration alot of credit for doing something about the terribly hostile middle east and calling out the UN (along with england. i was very pleased with a comment tony blair made concerning the UN ignoring it's own sanctions) also they discussed some issues on support. people aren't going to like it. and it can be said that someone else will take saddams spot later on. and i'm not for rushing into iraq. but something needs to be done and it's being addressed while we have the money and an ideal situation for it to be dealt with. (post 9/11 military budget) just remember that nice military isn't just for show. when you have muscles of course you're going to use them. true the strongest doesn't always win. but brains don't always come before braun either do they?
That and the good probability that you will never see and real action. Even "war hero" Gore can be proud of his service but didn't kill any VC. The GI Bill is a great incentive unless we want involuntary service like many nations have or reuse the draft as last used in Viet Nam. Nnnnn..nineteen...nineteen. Many join the military for many reasons. Like police officers, fireman, etc...many join out of family tradition. Some for college money. Some just want to wear the uniform. Some join after a great disaster, like 9/11. The military had met their recruiting goals for 2002 last August, any many claim the terrorist attacks as a major reason. Maybe they were thinking about it before hand, but single actions can force your hand. Recruiters can and do promise the world, at least promise being based in Hawaii and have been told to represent the reality, not the best options.
Ever heard of containment? Your statement is like saying Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan did nothing about the Soviet Union.
The sad notion is that his won VP Cheaney wasn't allowed to speak to the media, moreover, was hidden from the public and for what? Oh yea, Bush wanted to protect his "great administration" from the corporate scandals they created. This would be like Buddhists monks sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom getting blow jobs from interns, and we all know that could never happen.