So those 66 cruise missles just fell out of the sky on their way to striking terrorist training camps?
:roll:
:roll:
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp, that's where the "almost" comes from.Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Wow. You're almost cheering that Americans are getting shat on over there.
It's a good thing my friends die (and the rest of us put our lives on the line) so that you have more evidence to win your internet debate
I didn't see anyone cheering about it, just stating the facts as they are.
And to say that there were no political implications to his statement...well, never mind
What i see is a link, a headline, two statements from Bush that relate to this and his opinion that this policy obviously isn't working.
I don't think any of that is "almost cheering" either.
As it was the current president that made those statements (which were obviously pretty damn stupid statements to make) and the current admin that started this war it is kinda hard to leave them out of it.
That makes it a political issue if that is what you want to see i guess.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
The problem is, I think a lot of the security forces are sympathizers with the insurgants. The insurgants in Iraq may be in the majority.
Oh, I thought I dropped it when I said never mind...Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp, that's where the "almost" comes from.Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Wow. You're almost cheering that Americans are getting shat on over there.
It's a good thing my friends die (and the rest of us put our lives on the line) so that you have more evidence to win your internet debate
I didn't see anyone cheering about it, just stating the facts as they are.
And to say that there were no political implications to his statement...well, never mind
What i see is a link, a headline, two statements from Bush that relate to this and his opinion that this policy obviously isn't working.
I don't think any of that is "almost cheering" either.
As it was the current president that made those statements (which were obviously pretty damn stupid statements to make) and the current admin that started this war it is kinda hard to leave them out of it.
That makes it a political issue if that is what you want to see i guess.
Quite a few of them did. I can tell you why too, if you'd care to know, though it's not very exciting. The bearing grease in the missiles doesn't remain in suspension if the missiles have been in storage more than a couple months. No bearings = not-so-great missiles.
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Oh, I thought I dropped it when I said never mind...Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Yawp, that's where the "almost" comes from.Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Wow. You're almost cheering that Americans are getting shat on over there.
It's a good thing my friends die (and the rest of us put our lives on the line) so that you have more evidence to win your internet debate
I didn't see anyone cheering about it, just stating the facts as they are.
And to say that there were no political implications to his statement...well, never mind
What i see is a link, a headline, two statements from Bush that relate to this and his opinion that this policy obviously isn't working.
I don't think any of that is "almost cheering" either.
As it was the current president that made those statements (which were obviously pretty damn stupid statements to make) and the current admin that started this war it is kinda hard to leave them out of it.
That makes it a political issue if that is what you want to see i guess.
Umm, your last sentence warranted a response.
We need to Put 1million troops in Iraq. Seal off all borders in the same way the soviets did in Berlin.
Theres no way we can maintain any type of security if we let everyone in.
Either this or pull-out.
Theres no way we can maintain any type of security if we let everyone in.
Either this or pull-out.
all good, but can the US afford to be wrong?
For the US its obvios that fighting a war against militants in a civilian population in a far away country works. People are greefing over 1000 deaths and that gets the most attention in the US media but only a fraction of it goes into the thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq. Simple reason, people only care about whats close to them.
Can the US afford to be wrong when they have staked their reputation on this as a war of "good against evil"?
Dozens killed by Baghdad car bomb
A car bomb has exploded close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad, killing 47 people, health ministry officials say.
More than 100 people were injured in the huge mid-morning blast, which devastated a busy shopping area in Haifa Street.
Witnesses spoke of body parts and twisted debris scattered across a wide area, and a large crater in the road.
And
And
And
And
Bring it on!
:disgust:
A car bomb has exploded close to an Iraqi police station in central Baghdad, killing 47 people, health ministry officials say.
More than 100 people were injured in the huge mid-morning blast, which devastated a busy shopping area in Haifa Street.
Witnesses spoke of body parts and twisted debris scattered across a wide area, and a large crater in the road.
And
And
And
And
Mission Accomplished!
Bring it on!
:disgust:
How convenient. How many Iraqis do we get to kill for our convenience? 50,000? 100,000? One million? All of them? If we kill them all it will be much easier to identify the terrorists.
Your explanation is repugnant to any civilized person.
---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980
It's certainly repugnant to me.
So, that appears to be the excuse du Jour for this war: "We needed a place to kill Muslims!"
Huh. I don't see "WMD" in there at all.
So, that appears to be the excuse du Jour for this war: "We needed a place to kill Muslims!"
Huh. I don't see "WMD" in there at all.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Excuse me?
You seem to be confusing my opinion of the reasoning behind the US invasion of Iraq with tacit approval of that tactic.
Since we're making leaps to conclusions here, Mr. Civilized, should I assume you were one of those who would rather have left Saddam in power so he could kill Iraqis instead?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Don't forget Iraqis killing Iraqis. And Jordanians, Syrians, Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis, Yemenis, and others killing Iraqis too.
Oh, and Saudi Arabians killing Americans on our own turf.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,501
- 47,964
- 136
For starters read 'Against All Enemies' by Richard Clarke. It's quite an eye-opener; I think every American should read it before November. After that, you could scroll through some news archives if you'd like to bone up on Clinton's history against terror. I did some fact checking after finishing that book and found it on the money. Please don't buy into the neocon lie that Clinton did nothing, in truth he did far more than Bush, and took a personal interest in educating himself on the topic. Bush doesn't read if he can help it, and has already proven to the country that he is an untutored neophyte in both foreign policy and military decisions.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Do some fact checking about Clarke and his standing bias against Bush. Maybe that will help define the reason behind the tone of Clarke's book.
Then read the book Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror for a little balance as well.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,501
- 47,964
- 136
That's exactly what happened, and then the repugs have the nerve to blame him for it. I guess the buck only stops at the top if it's a democrat in office. :roll:
Clarke had the opportunity to really lash it to Bush, but didn't aside from noting factual occurences that just look bad on Bush. I don't need any book to tell me Bush is no diplomat, and certainly not 'a thinker.' Mimiter paints the Clinton team as a bunch of limp wristed lawyers, unable to make hard decisions which would result in loss of life. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. I don't care if some Bush fan boi has a problem with the 'gung ho'-ness of Clinton when he ordered the Iraqi Secret Service HQ to be taken out, or when they went after the guy who shot people outside the CIA HQ, or giving orders to take out anyone seen carrying a weapon in Mogadishu after the events of 'Black Hawk Down.' These acts don't paint that admin as weak lawyer types. What concerns me more is:
If terrorism was a priority for the Bush team (as they love to say, often) then why did they do nothing about the Cole? Why did Condi Rice and Bush both ignore the foremost American authority on terrorism for 9 months after arriving in office? Why the refusal to testify at the 9/11 Hearings? Our National Security Advisor refuses to testify at a hearing concerning the worst act of terror EVER on our shores, are you fvckin kidding me?!?!? Bush's tapdancing around the commission was humiliating for our country, his rational was a pending investigation would detract from the war effort. With his limited intelligence, I'm not surprised at all he wasn't aware that after Pearl Harbor, an investigation was launched within days. There were seven investigations during FDR's presidency! Congress even started a new one after the war. At the very least President Cheney could have admitted lax performance in the past, and pledged to combat terror as priority #1. Instead, we get Iraq and Tora Bora.....nice.
God these neocons disgust me.
Please accept my apology if you do not support that reasoning. Some people do. I find that repugnant.
This war was about establishing a sphere of influence in the middle east.
Have you ever stopped to think why we now have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Turkey, and Kuwait? It is about exerting influence. The terrorists are pissed because we are on their 'holy soil' and the Wahhabi public aren't too pleased about it either. On top of that, we have Iran building nukes, Palestinians attacking Israel, and Syria screwing around too.
Our major military focus USED to be Europe. That's not the case any longer and the new theater of conflict will be the middle east. We now have Iran surrounded with troops on either side, as well as a way to move our troops to Iraq (easing the Saudi politcal scene), and a way to strike at terrorist targets anywhere in the middle east. (Ironically, where most radical Muslim extremists originate)
Yes, part of this influence does concern oil. However, you have liberals and Democrats (notice, they're not always the same) driving around in their SUVs (John Kerry is an example) bitching about the price of oil, yet, also refusing to drill in the US reserves (Alaska) or exert political/military influence in the middle east to control it.
Have you ever stopped to think why we now have troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Turkey, and Kuwait? It is about exerting influence. The terrorists are pissed because we are on their 'holy soil' and the Wahhabi public aren't too pleased about it either. On top of that, we have Iran building nukes, Palestinians attacking Israel, and Syria screwing around too.
Our major military focus USED to be Europe. That's not the case any longer and the new theater of conflict will be the middle east. We now have Iran surrounded with troops on either side, as well as a way to move our troops to Iraq (easing the Saudi politcal scene), and a way to strike at terrorist targets anywhere in the middle east. (Ironically, where most radical Muslim extremists originate)
Yes, part of this influence does concern oil. However, you have liberals and Democrats (notice, they're not always the same) driving around in their SUVs (John Kerry is an example) bitching about the price of oil, yet, also refusing to drill in the US reserves (Alaska) or exert political/military influence in the middle east to control it.
Now that you point it out I do see a similarity in ideology and methods between the Militaristic Cabal of the Imperial Court in Japan and the Nazi greed for, for example, oil in the Caucasus, Caspian and ME, and the current US leadership and it's urge to dominate other nations and impose it's will whereever and whenever it so pleases. :roll:
Edit: and by all means lets not forget "it's way of life".
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I doubt there's going to be a link to publicly available information on corrective actions or engineering changes made to cruise missiles.
There was a problem in the late 80s with a mineral oil/sodium soap based lubricant leaching out of cruise missile bearings which was subsequently replaced with another type of lubricant. I'm not sure if that's the same issue though.
Grease not remaining in suspension can be a problem. A large part of my job involves creating maintenance lubrication schedules for bearing interfaces, so I'm somewhat familiar with the issue. What CycloWizard is describing is highly possible and can be a problem for packed bearings in storage, particularly if the storage area is not an environmentally controlled environment.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter