It's Just Not Fair!!!

[Westy]

"...hear from the Democrats"

 I've no association nor liking to either political party.  To me thier literally indistinguishable.  Thier membership cards all look the alike.  "Peoples' Popular Front of....."   and  "Popular People's Front...."    That kind of thing.

 Toad.   I'm back from a nice long, relaxing weekend. Although this topic has moved along quite a bit since our posts a few days ago I'll can try to get back into a discussion frame of mind.  But besides not having the oomph to get back into a debate this morning I also don't have a lot of time to today.  So till later week....  

 But.   FWIW I saw in another topic you'd bought personal armour for a close family friend.  That was one hell of a nice thing to do. I can't shake you hand to show you how much that impressed me so I'll have to settle for giving you a  "" for the time being.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Westy
you'd bought personal armour for a close family friend.

Well, now let's link this. The young reservist getting the Interceptor vest is "well connected" in a way. The rest of his unit is going to be wearing the old PASGT "flak jacket" that's good for pistol rounds but not AK rounds.

Should he "take the ethical path" and just wear the PASGT? Will most folks believe this is "appropriate behavior" if he does not?

He's actually wondering about this; I told him not to be foolish.

That's it in microcosm. I'd buy every kid one of those vests if I could but I can't.

You know, I volunteered 4 year ROTC in 1968; took all the tests, got a scholarship.You know my "pilot aptitude" score isn't part of my permanent record? I don't remember what I scored but I got the "1P" rating so I was guaranteed UPT. Had to get a college degree, did that and went off to UPT in 1973.

At UPT there was ONE Guard guy; ONE. The other 54 of us (two POW's, lots of ROTC and a bunch of OCS grads) were simply amazed to find out that he had merely walked into his local C-141 Guard unit, got hired and sent to UPT. IIRC, he had some sort of "IN" with that Guard unit, of course. If/when he graduated, it was then off to C-141 training and right back to his Guard unit with something like a TWO YEAR committment.

I had a SIX YEAR committment. To top it off, he was "just a week-end warrior" and could have a "regular" job as well. I stayed in touch with Jim over the years. Eight months after he finished C-141 school and was back at his unit, he got hired by Flying Tiger. In later years he was merged into FedEx with good seniority.

Was his an "appropriate behavior"? Should he have taken a "more ethical" path?

I'll tell you this; after the rest of us heard THAT tale at UPT, the ROTC and OCS guys were all kicking themselves in the rear because we hadn't tried hard enough to find a "Guard" route to UPT. I know I wished I had. It's pretty cool knowing what airplane you're going to fly and where you'll be based before you ever start. In fact, with careful planning YOU get to pick the aircraft instead of letting MPC in San Antonio assign you to one.

CROW:

Yeah, I've seen "25 percent" in print. I think we all have. What I've NEVER seen is any "official source" for it. I mean, if Bush says "BS. I scored a 90." where's the document?

I don't know what he scored. I'd just like to see it documented.

I think it's a bit of a red herring anyway. If your father is a US Rep, you can probably get into any Guard unit you want, now or back then. Think about it; what CO WOULDN'T want a Congressman's son? A guy that will probably visit your unit and chat. "Say, Colonel, how's it going? Anything you need here?"  Colonel "Yeah... maybe I'll hire a Congressman's son!"

To paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald's attributed line ""The very rich (and powerful) are different from you and me." Hemingway supposedly replied ""Yes, they have more money (and influence)."

I can tell you this though: I took that exact test and passed. It was fairly long, delt with mechanical aptitude and spatial relationships. I took another similar one after my Air Force career when I got my airline job. IMO, neither one had much to do with telling who'd be good behind an instrument panel. They thought it did and they used it to "sort" but it was a pretty rough screen. I understand they've made major changes in it since the good old days.

[Rude]

Just viewing from a distance, it's such a joke how the folks who were not even born yet or were 5 years old during the VW, sit here and tell the ones who served and were there, whether in the US or in country, what it's all about.

I wish those here against Bush would at least be honest....you don't like the guy....it's that simple.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Rude
Just viewing from a distance, it's such a joke how the folks who were not even born yet or were 5 years old during the VW, sit here and tell the ones who served and were there, whether in the US or in country, what it's all about.

I wish those here against Bush would at least be honest....you don't like the guy....it's that simple.

I certainly will be honest and say I dont like him. I see no strenght in him so it is probable that I have missed some value under all the issues.

Will you admit that you see no issues when they are obvios and blatent? That you ignore your own common scense to grasp at any excuse or lie he tells you?

[Rude]

Originally posted by Pongo
I certainly will be honest and say I dont like him. I see no strenght in him so it is probable that I have missed some value under all the issues.

Will you admit that you see no issues when they are obvios and blatent? That you ignore your own common scense to grasp at any excuse or lie he tells you?

I can respect your opinion and dislike of the man...at least your honest enough to say it.

As for issues regarding Bush, I have them....do they equate to the dislike of him and the desired removal of the man from the White House...no, they do not.

The difference between you and I seems to be this....I realize the solutions offered and taken are not perfect ones....this world is dangerous...more so than I believe you realize.

I agree with Bush in that I believe those who wish to harm us have all too long been allowed to prosper and direct their mandates towards the US without account.

While you prefer the staus quo, which has brought not one single solution to the problems of the middle east, NK and others, I feel it's time to correct these issues and guard the safety of the US and it's citizens.

Clintons dealings with NK brought us a nuclear NK...if you like that, then fine...just don't feel that we all must agree with you.

Bad folks are hellbent on inflicting bad things on the world...mostly towards the US...it's time to deal with those folks on a level they will, if not understand, at least fear.

Bin Laden purchased 4 suitcase nukes in 94(reported as fact)....one of his favorite verses in the koran(sp) is about patience...I point to the attempt on the towers in 93...eight years pass before the next attempt.

To believe it's all Bush's fault, while ignoring the past history of terrorist assaults on US targets here and abroad is reckless and irresponsible.

Pulling US Marines out of Beirut in 82 sent the wrong message....the dems want to send that same message again....if that happens, we'll soon see an event so terrifying as to make 9-11 look like a non-event.

What will you and others say to me then...oh wait....I forgot....you'll blame Bush:)

[Torque]

"Bad folks are hellbent on inflicting bad things on the world...mostly towards the US...it's time to deal with those folks on a level they will, if not understand, at least fear."

Ironic statement considering American foreign policy has been exporting coups, assassinations, and terrorist for decades.

[Pongo]

Rude
I must have missed the part where people did wrong to the US and got away with it.
Why are you not screaming from the hills for retribution against Saudi Arabia. The center of islamic terrror in the world and the base of operations for the SUPRISE saudis that blew up the WTC.

I thought you and George would be stomping some saudi but for sure.
But it has absolutely nothing to do with Terrorism and US security and WMD at all. Does it.
Can you honestly say that you think the President had a single concern about Iraqi WMD?
About Iraqi support of terrorism?
About the Republican Guard over running Canton Ohio?

There was no threat Rude.  And the "evidence" they presented at the US before invading made it pretty clear that they had no evidence at all.
Are you not even ashamed of yourself for trying to say this is something to do with the security of the US?
the only justification for this is that the US can invade other countries quite succesfully and your proud and supportive of that. Your glad you have a president that takes what he wants and lies and cheats to try to cover it up.

I accept that the guy is a life time politition from a family of polititions and that is what they do. But really, invading other coutries? Getting 1000s of people killed for a lie?

And yes I would hold GWB for any breach of security that made it through his world wide web of weapons and his department of homland security and his patriot act.
I blame him for 9/11. For a guy thats so clued in on matters of defence they sure blew that one.

[Kieran]

I blame him for 9/11. For a guy thats so clued in on matters of defence they sure blew that one.

*Swish* Moved from the "sane" file to the "wow" file.

[Rude]

Pongo...

You've made up your mind....nothing will change it.

I'm a big picture guy....you seem to be lost in the forest. Destablizing the worlds oil supply by attacking the Saudi's is not a smart tactic....is that what you would suggest we should have done after 9-11?

You also assume much...like you know the truth and who is guilty of what....the world is complicated....the Middle East even more so.

Can you understand the method of a message sent?

I believe Bush thought WMD's were present in Iraq...I guess since it's Bush it's a lie, but Clinton, who spoke the same speak regarding WMD and warned us of the same, well, he's ok with you I guess as is the entire intelligence machine of the US, France, GB and Isreal.

Yup...Everyone was wrong, however, you condemn only Bush.

Dishonest perspective at best.

While I pretend to know nothing of fact, as I'm not there on the inside, I do know folks who are alot closer to the truth than I....the threat is real. Unfortunetly, folks like yourself will need more proof, more dead Americans, more innocent deaths....at that time, you'll blame the same man for not doing enough, or doing the wrong things.

I don't worship GB....his only real quality which earns my loyalty is that he really cares and takes the war on terror seriously....protecting this country means something to him.

You, enjoy your hatred of him....well, quite possibly Kerry  could win it all....then you'll begin to understand what Bush is doing....then you might realize that appeasment is not the answer...being popular does not bring peace nor protect the innocent.

Enough said.

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by Torque
Ironic statement considering American foreign policy has been exporting coups, assassinations, and terrorist for decades.

Agreed and let's not forget that it was Bush Senior's CIA who trained Bin Laden how to be a terrorist!

They turned him into a "Freedom Fighter" in order to fight the commie Russians occupying Afghanistan.

Why did the Saudi Dog turn on it's American Master?

Why do Iranians and Lybians hate Americans?

Have anything to do with CIA meddling into their internal affairs?
Taking their resources?
Raping their sheep for pleasure!
Addicting their children on Coke, McDonalds, and XBox... Consumerism... destroying the morality of their Islamic Culture?

Or is it that they hate Americans because it's just happens to be Homeland of Street Walker Barbie?

[Pongo]

Its now insane to hold the President accountable for acts of terror that were not impeded at all? You have a very very interesting definition of sanity. How could you have gotten the idea that its impossible to hold the president accountable for national security? It seems to fly in the face of reason.


Rude.
"Destablizing the worlds oil supply by attacking the Saudi's is not a smart tactic."
So you are now being at least a smidge honest. The big picture of oil supply and control is more important then little issues like punishing the source of the attack on the US.
Better to invade Iraq. Thats the big picture answer.
Yet there is comparitivly massive evidence agianst Saudi Arabia vs Iraq.
The perpetrator were Saudis. thats one clue.
Their leader  is a Saudi.
The moslem schools all over the world that are teaching this stuff are paid for by the Saudis.
Saudi Princes pulled thier mony out of the US airlines involved days befor the attack.
Saudi intelligence agents paid the room and board for the hijackers while in California.

While against that you pile the evidence against Iraq, whom you invaded.

.....hear the crickets anyone.

The path to reason doesnt start with
"whom can we blame for this other then the Saudis."

Hiding behind Clintons skirts wont help either. As it has turned out the Iraqi WMD programs and stockpiles where destroyed during his watch.  He kept up the retoric against Iraq probably to justify the continued US overflights and military presense. Which is dishonest but well short of occupying the country.


then final act of delusion.
"being popular does not bring peace nor protect the innocent.
"
you are appeasing the Saudis as we speak. They are untouchable when any reasoned look at 9/11 would have very hard questions for them. You punish the Iraqis for what was done by Saudis.

could you imagine the uproar if even one of the 9/11 terrorists was Iraqi or associated with them. The whole thing was a saudi operation and you dont care cause George has told you not to care.

Canada has recieved more scrutiny and blame for the event then Saudi Arabia.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Pongo
Saudi Princes pulled thier mony out of the US airlines involved days befor the attack.
Saudi intelligence agents paid the room and board for the hijackers while in California.

 

Hadn't seen these two before. Any links?

[Kieran]

Pongo, it has been discussed at length. Americans would not have believed such a thing possible before 9-11 and would not have tolerated the steps that would have been necessary to prevent it. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan-Carter, reach back as far as you like, but all of these guys faced a crisis from the muslim world, and yet in all that time not a single one of them did a single thing to prevent a terror attack such as 9-11.

Hindsight is so 20-20.