Oops. Guess you were wrong on that one. Apparently they also fired AAA.
I'm sure the American pilots take great relief in only having AAA fired at
them instead of missiles. I'm sure they also feel that being illuminated is
just a really fun game. How about this? I stand outside your house and
point a loaded M16 at your head. I don't shoot, just point it at you. Does
that make you feel good? Would you consider that an overtly aggressive act?
Don't be a stooge and start splitting hairs over whether Iraq fired missles
or AAA or just a few missiles or "hey, they just illuminated our planes".
The fact is they shouldn't have been doing shit.
The fact is, the no-fly zones (which covered almost 2/3's of Iraq) were
imposed on Iraq by the US, Britain, and France, not the UN. There is no UN
Security Council resolution that sanctions the no-fly zones (in other words
the no-fly zones were illegal under international law) and the Iraqi's had
every right to defend their sovereignty by firing on aircraft invading their
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:04:04 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
Of course Iraq fired missiles. And if they did it twice (over a
decade), then I guess that counts as repeatedly. But you're trying to
inflate this into "going downtown", when it was anything but. The
allied forces had effective air superiority over the whole of Iraq,
and maintained it for years.
The one time this was allowed deliberately to lapse was, oddly enough,
when Iraqi helicopters were allowed to destroy those anti-Saddam
forces that were inspired to rie up in '91, then hung out in the
breeze to be wiped out.
Why not ? It was a sovereign country after all, and US and UK
aircraft were engaged in bombing it. I'm not disputing the positive
benefits of doing so, but the legal basis on which it was carried out
was _extremely_ thin.
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:48:08 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:
Well, it was more than twice. here's a SAM firing from 1996:
And here's 20 more from late '98 and '99:
And here's couple more with one SAM fired at a plane in Kuwaiti territory:
How much is enough?
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
Yeah, that's kinda like what the Redcoats said when those damn colonists
refused to wear bright clothes and walk slowly toward them all grouped
together. They were certainly able to say that they fought a "civilized" war
while those ignorant, nasty rebel colonists hid behind trees. You see where
fighting in a civlilized way got the British don't you?
It does seem to me that we lack the high ground when we react as our enemies
do. Yes, this is a different kind of enemy. Yes, it would be easier to do it
their way in retaliation. But where on earth did anyone get the idea it was
going to be easy, anyway? From our pols? From Mr. "I'll Bring Morality Back to
Talking to a friend who is 'Nam combat vet (USMC, Tet and a bunch else), and he
and I find some agreement. We're in ANOTHER quagmire like 'Nam, with no
resolution in sight. We do seem to develop leaders who have this type of
blindness, right across party lines.
"The test and the use of man's education is that he finds pleasure in the
exercise of his mind." Jacques Barzun
Frankly, I'm appalled, and I wish the President would promptly and publicly
repudiate those memos and dismiss the people that wrote them.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
I am going to stand squarely beside you on this one Dave. Imagine how
much could be accomplished by our government if it was not always at war
with itself. Republicans against the Democrats. Democrats against
Republicans. To hell with what is right or good for the people as long as
one party wins over the other party. I blows me away that both parties
think that we cannot see this all this crap for what it really is, school
yard bickering. If the government had to make a profit all this BS would
come to a screeching halt. We have lost a great leader and my deepest
respect and sympathy goes to the Ragan family. Why does it take something
like this for the two parties to work cooperatively together?
But back to the point your were making, if we the people would give the
president, "any of our presidents" respect and work with him and not fight
him tooth and nail all the way because he is not a member of the correct
party, things would be a lot better. If he screws up, we replace him like
we did with Carter and how we would have done with Nixon had he pulled that
crap in his first term and had he not decided to resign. I think we as
Americans have learned to bitch too much and not do anything to help solve
I agree with your entire statement. There are too many
folks eager to armchair quarterback every presidential move.
What galls me the most though, is the lack of unity we
display to the rest of the world. Some of the politicians
act more like traitors than public servants, IMHO. I get
disgusted with the likes of Kennedy. He should stick to
something he does best; drinking.
Yeah.... While the jokes about our politicians are funny, and I like Leno
as much as the next guy, this, "free speech" does not send the right
message. Who of any intelligence would want the job with all the ridicule.
If we treat them with respect we might get some talent in there.
No, how about holding him to the standards of the Constitution ?
There are limits, even for a president.
I envy the US its constitution, and the fabled "checks and balances"
of its government. On the whole I prefer the UK's political system to
that of the USA, but your founding fathers did a damn good job on this
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.