Schinky --------since you obviously like statistics, then I have one for you also. Name me ONE US President who was nominated for and ran for the Oval Office with a major health concern on his resume. In case you've forgotten, Cheney missed near-death with a SECOND heart attack and there was some concern as to whether he could/would return to fullfill the office he has now. Cheney as next President of the US?........not according to "statistics" and history. Remind me of this post and how wrong I was on the day he assumes that office.
The one you want to keep your eye on is Colin Powell when that moment arrives. He may not accept, but if he does, he'd be a powerful and popular opponent.
MSN poll result - 86% favor immediate impeachment of Bush
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
The Air Force is the key here. They've got the people (enlistment in the USAF is actually up because it's considered the "safe" branch of the armed forces), equipment, know-how, etc. The logistics of it aren't what's stopping the US from an air campaign on Iran, it's the inability to do anything beyond bomb them. They could inflict a lot of damage but it wouldn't do much more than piss off the Iranians. Not to mention, if they do have WMD's or have the ability to obtain them, a US bombing campaign would force the Iranian's hand.LH wrote:costermonger -------"yes" the US has tons of ships, tanks and a/c, BUT as I said, they don't have enough crews to man them all.
costermonger ------may I please ask you from WHERE you have obtained that information? I'm a member of the VFW, a frequent visitor during my travels to my old base at Ft. Hood, TX and have an ex-member of the USAF as a son-in-law and he lives in Winnipeg right now......AND he is Canadian. His information from being contacted many times concurs with the info that I've been told also. If you'd care to share your info with me privately or on this site then please do so and I'll pass that on to Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota. IF you obtained your information from some website, then reach over and put that info in the "round file" because you have inaccurate information.
The Air Force is "the safe service?". My God man, are there people still out there who believe that dated WW2 crap? News bulletin buddy: nowadays they "lock-on" with "heat-signature" and "radar-imaging" missiles and you can then stick your head between your legs and kiss your ugly ass good-bye. Why fire a million rounds into the sky in the hope of hitting something when you can do that with a shoulder-held weapon from the back of a 1/2 Ton or your bedroom window. The only "safe" part of the Air Force these days is back at HQ operating a computer, chauffeuring-around some Officer or cleaning-out the "head". The days you speak of are loooooooonng gone.
The Air Force is "the safe service?". My God man, are there people still out there who believe that dated WW2 crap? News bulletin buddy: nowadays they "lock-on" with "heat-signature" and "radar-imaging" missiles and you can then stick your head between your legs and kiss your ugly ass good-bye. Why fire a million rounds into the sky in the hope of hitting something when you can do that with a shoulder-held weapon from the back of a 1/2 Ton or your bedroom window. The only "safe" part of the Air Force these days is back at HQ operating a computer, chauffeuring-around some Officer or cleaning-out the "head". The days you speak of are loooooooonng gone.
1. Radar-guided missiles require radar (obviously) - and radar emits emissions that can be picked up a good while out. And the USAF and many NATO nations invest heavily in anti-radar missiles (eg. AGM-88 HARM or ALARM). All that is needed is a few AGM-88 HARM's and that radar and SAM site is dead, if you get too close to the site. Another design point of modern ARM missiles, other than the range (which is hopefully greater than that of the SAM systems it will be targeted at) is their speed. Some SAM systems utilise huge missiles which are able to accelerate up to incredible speeds (some as high as Mach 10), which means that if the ARM is to be useful in a 'duel' between an aircraft and a SAM site, the ARM should be able to fly to and hit the SAM site faster than the SAM can fly to and hit the aircraft. The AGM-88 HARM mostly succeeds in this area; its top speed of around Mach 4 is partly due to its altitude and speed advantage at launch over the SAM which has to climb from rest at ground level and partly due to its powerful rocket motor. This means that if the SAM launches a missile at the aircraft first, unless it is one of the fastest SAM systems (SA-10/S-300 or SA-20/S-400), the aircraft is likely to win. Otherwise, bring with you a radar jamming platform, such as the EA-6B Prowler or the new EA-18G Growler, and like hell can a radar cut through very heavy jamming at long ranges. If you don't want to risk a SEAD platform, use a F-117 and bomb them, as radar can't pick it up, unless the airplane is wet, or has its bomb bays open for a long period of time. Otherwise, put a Tomahawk on the missile site if it is a stationary platform and it is toast.LH wrote: The Air Force is "the safe service?". My God man, are there people still out there who believe that dated WW2 crap? News bulletin buddy: nowadays they "lock-on" with "heat-signature" and "radar-imaging" missiles and you can then stick your head between your legs and kiss your ugly ass good-bye. Why fire a million rounds into the sky in the hope of hitting something when you can do that with a shoulder-held weapon from the back of a 1/2 Ton or your bedroom window. The only "safe" part of the Air Force these days is back at HQ operating a computer, chauffeuring-around some Officer or cleaning-out the "head". The days you speak of are loooooooonng gone.
Ground-launched heatseeking missiles? Useless against targets that are above 10,000ft. Same story with AAA. You can shoot all you want, it just makes a pretty lightshow for the pilots up there, and points out where you are to get bombed.
Dear LH,LH wrote:Schinky --------since you obviously like statistics, then I have one for you also. Name me ONE US President who was nominated for and ran for the Oval Office with a major health concern on his resume. In case you've forgotten, Cheney missed near-death with a SECOND heart attack and there was some concern as to whether he could/would return...
What I meant was that perhaps one day we would wake up and President Bush will no longer be in the Oval Office. Perhaps through attempts on Bush's life or some sudden illness, Dick Cheney will automatically become president. I didn't mean that he'll be on the voting ballot during the next election. Just thought I'd clear that up.
Wjflyer -------I see. We are now working on the principle that those firing those missiles are poorly trained and/or stupid. What you stated is all true except for one thing.........SAMS and other weapons get fired and then shut off.....NOW!. Target gone!. Now you wait until the suckers are stupid enough to turn the target "on" again before YOU got a target. Meanwhile, buddy in formation with you is hit or waiting to return to base to clean out his jockey shorts. "Been there, done that" for REAL and didn't get it from any instructor, video or website. Your statement about "heat-seeking, ground-launched missiles being useless below 10,000' is interesting because I've SEEN those s.o.b's take out buddies who never came home at 2,500'AGL. Russian and Polish made, but that makes no difference at the gravesite. My "experts" said the same as you and said it was impossible.......UNTIL they saw it accidentally from the gun-camera of another a/c.
Wjflyer -------I see. We are now working on the principle that those firing those missiles are poorly trained and/or stupid. What you stated is all true except for one thing.........SAMS and other weapons get fired and then shut off.....NOW!. Target gone!. Now you wait until the suckers are stupid enough to turn the target "on" again before YOU got a target. Meanwhile, buddy in formation with you is hit or waiting to return to base to clean out his jockey shorts. "Been there, done that" for REAL and didn't get it from any instructor, video or website. Your statement about "heat-seeking, ground-launched missiles" useless below 10,000' is interesting because I've SEEN those s.o.b's take out buddies who never came home at 2,500'AGL. Russian and Polish made, but that makes no difference at the gravesite. My "experts" said the same as you and said it was impossible. My reply was that perhaps they were shot down by "heat-seeking" .50 cals or 20mm then.
Shtinky-------my apologies.......I misunderstood your meaning.
Considering Cheney's health, I believe what you would see in that case is that the next-in-line would be asked to serve as interim President and Cheney would "bow-out" for health reasons. Even if Bush could run again, Cheney and his family have stated that he would not and for that reason. His doctors opinions would also have a great say in that eventuality also. It makes for an "interesting" situation though and food for thought.
Shtinky-------my apologies.......I misunderstood your meaning.
Considering Cheney's health, I believe what you would see in that case is that the next-in-line would be asked to serve as interim President and Cheney would "bow-out" for health reasons. Even if Bush could run again, Cheney and his family have stated that he would not and for that reason. His doctors opinions would also have a great say in that eventuality also. It makes for an "interesting" situation though and food for thought.
Illness? Hell, all we need is another pretzel. j/kShtinky wrote: What I meant was that perhaps one day we would wake up and President Bush will no longer be in the Oval Office. Perhaps through attempts on Bush's life or some sudden illness, Dick Cheney will automatically become president. I didn't mean that he'll be on the voting ballot during the next election. Just thought I'd clear that up.
LH, I'm not so sure Cheney would bow out if something happened to Bush. It would only be a short term presidency to begin with, and as he wouldn't be elected, the public wouldn't have to be convinced that he wouldn't drop dead of an MI in a week. And even if he did have a heart attack or stroke, the 25th amendment provides for a smooth transition even if he's simply incapacitated rather than dead. It's already been implemented under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and GWB for various issues.
edit: Cheney already assumed the role of "acting president" under the 25th amendment when Bush underwent surgery a couple years back.
grimey ----- all true....with one caveat. That can all happen as you have described, IF Congress approves. If they have concerns about Cheney's health after conferring with doctors, then it doesn't happen. The man that abides in that Office does so "at the pleasure of Congress" and if they say "NO".......then he doesn't.......and the American public will have no say in that at that moment. They can then turn to the "3rd-in-line", which is the Senate Majority Leader and have him assume that Office for the little time remaining. All of that would be accomplished in a matter of 30 minutes at most and there'd be no Congessional Hearings about it either.
Agreed. My point was that his health probably wouldn't be as much of a concern to a (currently) Republican controlled Congress as it would be to the general public. If the Democrats take control of Congress after this round of elections, then it would be much more likely that there would be a fight over it.
Not true. Fire a ALARM missile (the Brits have it), and that radar is still toast. Even better; it has a loiter capability in which it goes up to 40,000ft, deploys a parachute, and waits for the radar to come on. When it picks up the radar, it drops the parachute, and that radar is toast. One other advantage with this system is that if the target shuts down before the missile has destroyed it, the missile remembers the location and will still hit the target.LH wrote:Wjflyer -------I see. We are now working on the principle that those firing those missiles are poorly trained and/or stupid. What you stated is all true except for one thing.........SAMS and other weapons get fired and then shut off.....NOW!. Target gone!. Now you wait until the suckers are stupid enough to turn the target "on" again before YOU got a target. Meanwhile, buddy in formation with you is hit or waiting to return to base to clean out his jockey shorts. "Been there, done that" for REAL and didn't get it from any instructor, video or website. Your statement about "heat-seeking, ground-launched missiles being useless below 10,000' is interesting because I've SEEN those s.o.b's take out buddies who never came home at 2,500'AGL. Russian and Polish made, but that makes no difference at the gravesite. My "experts" said the same as you and said it was impossible.......UNTIL they saw it accidentally from the gun-camera of another a/c.
Besides, if you can keep that radar turned off, it is the same as having no SAM.
And I said heat-seaking SAM's are useless against targets that are above 10,000ft above you. Fly even higher, to say 20,000ft, and it is a exercise in futility.
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
Air Force enlistment is currently at 101% of forecasts for FY2006, it closed out FY2005 at 102%, the highest of all services. Re-enlistment is hovering around 67%, also quite high.LH wrote:costermonger ------may I please ask you from WHERE you have obtained that information? I'm a member of the VFW, a frequent visitor during my travels to my old base at Ft. Hood, TX and have an ex-member of the USAF as a son-in-law and he lives in Winnipeg right now......AND he is Canadian. His information from being contacted many times concurs with the info that I've been told also. If you'd care to share your info with me privately or on this site then please do so and I'll pass that on to Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota. IF you obtained your information from some website, then reach over and put that info in the "round file" because you have inaccurate information.
Oh come on, you'd have to be an idiot to claim the Air Force was safer in WWII than it is now.The Air Force is "the safe service?". My God man, are there people still out there who believe that dated WW2 crap?
What percentage of USAF personel ever see combat? Hell, what percentage even leave the ground in the course of their duties? For every combat pilot, how many support pilots, ground crew, maintenance techs, logistics officers, etc, etc, etc? Not to mention the fact that nearly every single USAF man/woman who actually has the possibilty of contact with the enemy is an officer, and we were talking about enlistment.News bulletin buddy: nowadays they "lock-on" with "heat-signature" and "radar-imaging" missiles and you can then stick your head between your legs and kiss your ugly ass good-bye. Why fire a million rounds into the sky in the hope of hitting something when you can do that with a shoulder-held weapon from the back of a 1/2 Ton or your bedroom window. The only "safe" part of the Air Force these days is back at HQ operating a computer, chauffeuring-around some Officer or cleaning-out the "head". The days you speak of are loooooooonng gone.
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
I swear I've read somewhere that AGM-88's have this capability as well, although perhaps it wasn't particularly accurate.WJflyer wrote: One other advantage with this system is that if the target shuts down before the missile has destroyed it, the missile remembers the location and will still hit the target.
They do, its not as great as ALARM's loiter capability. ALARM will hang around for a while until it sees the radar come on, and after that, the SAM site is toast.costermonger wrote:I swear I've read somewhere that AGM-88's have this capability as well, although perhaps it wasn't particularly accurate.WJflyer wrote: One other advantage with this system is that if the target shuts down before the missile has destroyed it, the missile remembers the location and will still hit the target.
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
FDR had polio and was confinded to a wheel chair. I don't know about you, but I call that a major health concern.LH wrote: Name me ONE US President who was nominated for and ran for the Oval Office with a major health concern on his resume.
Chester A Arthur was a Canadian who kept that fact hidden and then the church in Quebec holding his birth records mysteriously went up in flames so it could never be proved. Being Canadian isn't a major health concern but the American and Canadian public never ever get the whole story. You of all people should know that LH. Vietnam comes to mind.
LBJ had a major heart attack in 1955, 9 years prior to being elected. He died of a another one after leaving office. His case it the one that most closely resembles Cheney's. Arthur also had Bright's disease, and JFK had Addison's disease (although this was kept a secret).Driving Rain wrote:FDR had polio and was confinded to a wheel chair. I don't know about you, but I call that a major health concern.LH wrote: Name me ONE US President who was nominated for and ran for the Oval Office with a major health concern on his resume.
Chester A Arthur was a Canadian who kept that fact hidden and then the church in Quebec holding his birth records mysteriously went up in flames so it could never be proved. Being Canadian isn't a major health concern but the American and Canadian public never ever get the whole story. You of all people should know that LH. Vietnam comes to mind.
WJflyer ------ SAMS are turned-off for the obvious reason and then turned back on again at their pleasure. They can fire at their target, shut doewn for the obvious reason and move to turn-onacquire a target, launch and shut down again. That SAM doesn't have to sit in one place and can move at will if they so choose. If you are saying that they can shut-down, move and still have the missile follow them, then I'll ask the questions necessary from people well-placed to give an authoratative "Yes" or "No". Sorry, but a website is no authority for me on anything without back-up. Interestin if that is so and I'll also assume that since every new thing weapons-wise is beginning to be obsolete after about 6 months, that that problem is also being addressed some place as we discuss it.
Costermonger -----"don't go there with me" on statistics. You ain't convincing me about military manpower and how much of it ever sees gunfire of any sort......because I agree on that. Here's one for an army then. The highest build-up of troops during the Vietnam War was 1968, when that number topped approximately 500,000 "IN theatre". Of that 500,000, aprroximately 125,000 were anywhere near combat or shooting. The standard ratio is 4.5 people supporting 1 soldier on the front lines. Your stats regarding the Air Forces "mirror" those of the Armies and Navies of most militaries, with exceptions. If I was flying in the CAF nowadays, I would be supported by one hell of a lot more than 3-4 people. EVERY part of the a/c is a different trade classification and if that a/c happens to be a reasonably large one, it can have 12-13 separate people that support and look after it......and I don't mean an a/c as large as the Herc either.
Re-read my statement again about the Air force and WW2. We have no disagreement there at all. You mnetion all the people who support mone a/c in the air. Before you go further, you want to be checking on what those numbers are for the Navies and the Armies also. You either don't know or are forgetting that in every
I have no idea where you are getting your info from about enlistment in the USAF. I'm getting mine from Col. Randy Bechtel, Public Affairs Officer , Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, the Dept. of the Air Force, Washington, DC, the VFW (American Legion) and from letters sent to my son-in-law asking him to consider "re-upping" with an $85,000 "re-enlistment bonus". ALL information that I have belies what you have stated.
I'm sorry to also stae that you are incorrect about another facet of your statement which is that ONLY officers get to fly or are in aerial combat with the USAF. Wherever you received that information, the person providing it is totally incorrect. I can give you names, dates, places, engagements and unit numbers of times where that has taken place AND I witnessed many of those myself.......including photographs of some of those departures.
Driving rain ----- yes FDR was in a wheel chair because of contracting polio and THAT was not a major health concern then and isn't now. When one contracts it initially, "Yes" it can be a major health concern, but he had his many years before assuming that Office and after one has it they are crippled like he was.....and that's the end of the concern at that point. Mnay polio victims are not confined to a breathing tank or apparatus then or now and usually loose the use of their legs only and go on to lead long and healthy lives. Having said that, it was "unofficial" government policy in those days, that FDR would be seen as seldom as possible and photographed as seldom as possible in a wheelchair. It was felt at that time and in those days, that to have the leader of a country in a wheel-chair could give the impression that he was somewhat "less of a man" and therefore not a strong leader. Dated as that thinking is today, it is the reason why there were thousands of photos taken of FDR during his Presidency, but few show him in a wheel-chair. There was also "an un-written rule" of the American Press of those times, that they would abide with that policy and doing otherwise by some photographer without permission of the White House would have meant immediate isolation by their peers nationwide. If FDR were around today and in the White House, they'd also be on his ass constantly about the mistress he had for 35 years.......and that was never acknowledged then either.......but she attended his funeral and stood next to Eleanor Roosevelt at the ceremony. Nowadays, the Press would be "over her" like "white on rice".
Grimey ---- understand what I said and do not misunderstand me. There is a distinct difference between someone who has a heart attack 9 years before assuming office, has a major medical before assuming the VP to prove that that heart attack is of no MAJOR concern THEN. Someone who has had two, the last one nearly killing him and then has to undertake a by-pass operation while in office and might have to assume the Presidency is another story altogether. After all of that is done, he is watched closely and advises that regardless of anything that he will not be continuing in Office past this Presidency. It is a natural concern because the man in that Office represents 1/3 of the American government and to have him "go down" is exactlky the same as having one of the other 2/3's, like the Senate, be unable to function or carry-out the duties that are their responsibility. That's why the quick "turn-around" when ever a President dies or is assassinated, because until that event is accomplished, they have more of an emergency than their President is dead....1/3 of their goverment isn't functioning in any capacity.
There is NOT one President or Vice President, as I've stated, in the history of the United States who had a MAJOR health issue BEFORE he assumed that Office. Health issues "Yes", but none that would have caused him to die in that Office. In faact there were many who had health issues of all sorts, including U.S. Grant, who was a confirmed alcoholic and that's what caused his death in New York City after leaving office..
Costermonger -----"don't go there with me" on statistics. You ain't convincing me about military manpower and how much of it ever sees gunfire of any sort......because I agree on that. Here's one for an army then. The highest build-up of troops during the Vietnam War was 1968, when that number topped approximately 500,000 "IN theatre". Of that 500,000, aprroximately 125,000 were anywhere near combat or shooting. The standard ratio is 4.5 people supporting 1 soldier on the front lines. Your stats regarding the Air Forces "mirror" those of the Armies and Navies of most militaries, with exceptions. If I was flying in the CAF nowadays, I would be supported by one hell of a lot more than 3-4 people. EVERY part of the a/c is a different trade classification and if that a/c happens to be a reasonably large one, it can have 12-13 separate people that support and look after it......and I don't mean an a/c as large as the Herc either.
Re-read my statement again about the Air force and WW2. We have no disagreement there at all. You mnetion all the people who support mone a/c in the air. Before you go further, you want to be checking on what those numbers are for the Navies and the Armies also. You either don't know or are forgetting that in every
I have no idea where you are getting your info from about enlistment in the USAF. I'm getting mine from Col. Randy Bechtel, Public Affairs Officer , Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, the Dept. of the Air Force, Washington, DC, the VFW (American Legion) and from letters sent to my son-in-law asking him to consider "re-upping" with an $85,000 "re-enlistment bonus". ALL information that I have belies what you have stated.
I'm sorry to also stae that you are incorrect about another facet of your statement which is that ONLY officers get to fly or are in aerial combat with the USAF. Wherever you received that information, the person providing it is totally incorrect. I can give you names, dates, places, engagements and unit numbers of times where that has taken place AND I witnessed many of those myself.......including photographs of some of those departures.
Driving rain ----- yes FDR was in a wheel chair because of contracting polio and THAT was not a major health concern then and isn't now. When one contracts it initially, "Yes" it can be a major health concern, but he had his many years before assuming that Office and after one has it they are crippled like he was.....and that's the end of the concern at that point. Mnay polio victims are not confined to a breathing tank or apparatus then or now and usually loose the use of their legs only and go on to lead long and healthy lives. Having said that, it was "unofficial" government policy in those days, that FDR would be seen as seldom as possible and photographed as seldom as possible in a wheelchair. It was felt at that time and in those days, that to have the leader of a country in a wheel-chair could give the impression that he was somewhat "less of a man" and therefore not a strong leader. Dated as that thinking is today, it is the reason why there were thousands of photos taken of FDR during his Presidency, but few show him in a wheel-chair. There was also "an un-written rule" of the American Press of those times, that they would abide with that policy and doing otherwise by some photographer without permission of the White House would have meant immediate isolation by their peers nationwide. If FDR were around today and in the White House, they'd also be on his ass constantly about the mistress he had for 35 years.......and that was never acknowledged then either.......but she attended his funeral and stood next to Eleanor Roosevelt at the ceremony. Nowadays, the Press would be "over her" like "white on rice".
Grimey ---- understand what I said and do not misunderstand me. There is a distinct difference between someone who has a heart attack 9 years before assuming office, has a major medical before assuming the VP to prove that that heart attack is of no MAJOR concern THEN. Someone who has had two, the last one nearly killing him and then has to undertake a by-pass operation while in office and might have to assume the Presidency is another story altogether. After all of that is done, he is watched closely and advises that regardless of anything that he will not be continuing in Office past this Presidency. It is a natural concern because the man in that Office represents 1/3 of the American government and to have him "go down" is exactlky the same as having one of the other 2/3's, like the Senate, be unable to function or carry-out the duties that are their responsibility. That's why the quick "turn-around" when ever a President dies or is assassinated, because until that event is accomplished, they have more of an emergency than their President is dead....1/3 of their goverment isn't functioning in any capacity.
There is NOT one President or Vice President, as I've stated, in the history of the United States who had a MAJOR health issue BEFORE he assumed that Office. Health issues "Yes", but none that would have caused him to die in that Office. In faact there were many who had health issues of all sorts, including U.S. Grant, who was a confirmed alcoholic and that's what caused his death in New York City after leaving office..
Your line of thinking really baffles me, swede.[/quote] from Nark
Nark - My line of thinking is thus: The U.S. under Bush has become Nazi Germany, 1938. Bush has been conducting illegal wiretaps on American citizens since 911 and considers himself above the law. The author of a book titled Karl Rove, aka Bush's Brain has been put on a no fly list. This man is a born and bred U.S. patriot without so much as a traffic violation. Now he is excluded boarding on commercial aircraft because of his political views. People in the U.S. (and here) sit in front of their boob tubes, stupified, transfixed dullards. They suck up the never ending stream of drivel and hate filled propaganda from people like Bill O'reilly and they are oblivous as to the fact that history is repeating itself in front of their eyes. Thats my line of thinking, whats yours??
Nark - My line of thinking is thus: The U.S. under Bush has become Nazi Germany, 1938. Bush has been conducting illegal wiretaps on American citizens since 911 and considers himself above the law. The author of a book titled Karl Rove, aka Bush's Brain has been put on a no fly list. This man is a born and bred U.S. patriot without so much as a traffic violation. Now he is excluded boarding on commercial aircraft because of his political views. People in the U.S. (and here) sit in front of their boob tubes, stupified, transfixed dullards. They suck up the never ending stream of drivel and hate filled propaganda from people like Bill O'reilly and they are oblivous as to the fact that history is repeating itself in front of their eyes. Thats my line of thinking, whats yours??
I'm givin er all she's got..
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
[quote="LH"]
Driving rain ----- yes FDR was in a wheel chair because of contracting polio and THAT was not a major health concern then and isn't now. When one contracts it initially, "Yes" it can be a major health concern, but he had his many years before assuming that Office and after one has it they are crippled like he was.....and that's the end of the concern at that point. Mnay polio victims are not confined to a breathing tank or apparatus then or now and usually loose the use of their legs only and go on to lead long and healthy lives. Having said that, it was "unofficial" government policy in those days, that FDR would be seen as seldom as possible and photographed as seldom as possible in a wheelchair. It was felt at that time and in those days, that to have the leader of a country in a wheel-chair could give the impression that he was somewhat "less of a man" and therefore not a strong leader. Dated as that thinking is today, it is the reason why there were thousands of photos taken of FDR during his Presidency, but few show him in a wheel-chair. There was also "an un-written rule" of the American Press of those times, that they would abide with that policy and doing otherwise by some photographer without permission of the White House would have meant immediate isolation by their peers nationwide. If FDR were around today and in the White House, they'd also be on his ass constantly about the mistress he had for 35 years.......and that was never acknowledged then either.......but she attended his funeral and stood next to Eleanor Roosevelt at the ceremony. Nowadays, the Press would be "over her" like "white on rice".
[quote]
Yes I was aware of that relationship with the press. BUT
Eleanor was FDR's first cousin. Did you know it's not against any law to marry a first cousin anywhere in Canada or the USA? In fact studies have concluded there is no more chance of birth defects in the offspring of first cousins than in the rest of the population. Now if identical twins were to marry identical twins their children would be more like brothers or sisters than cousins.
In fact, people who are 60 years of age and over it was quite common for them to marry first cousins in the old days in both Canada and the US Today the idiots that report in the press would be all over that too and they'd be wrong.
Polio was and still is a very serious illness. Apparently you are unware of the fact that it can reoccur in those that have had it. So yes, presidents have been elected with serious illnesses.
Driving rain ----- yes FDR was in a wheel chair because of contracting polio and THAT was not a major health concern then and isn't now. When one contracts it initially, "Yes" it can be a major health concern, but he had his many years before assuming that Office and after one has it they are crippled like he was.....and that's the end of the concern at that point. Mnay polio victims are not confined to a breathing tank or apparatus then or now and usually loose the use of their legs only and go on to lead long and healthy lives. Having said that, it was "unofficial" government policy in those days, that FDR would be seen as seldom as possible and photographed as seldom as possible in a wheelchair. It was felt at that time and in those days, that to have the leader of a country in a wheel-chair could give the impression that he was somewhat "less of a man" and therefore not a strong leader. Dated as that thinking is today, it is the reason why there were thousands of photos taken of FDR during his Presidency, but few show him in a wheel-chair. There was also "an un-written rule" of the American Press of those times, that they would abide with that policy and doing otherwise by some photographer without permission of the White House would have meant immediate isolation by their peers nationwide. If FDR were around today and in the White House, they'd also be on his ass constantly about the mistress he had for 35 years.......and that was never acknowledged then either.......but she attended his funeral and stood next to Eleanor Roosevelt at the ceremony. Nowadays, the Press would be "over her" like "white on rice".
[quote]
Yes I was aware of that relationship with the press. BUT
Eleanor was FDR's first cousin. Did you know it's not against any law to marry a first cousin anywhere in Canada or the USA? In fact studies have concluded there is no more chance of birth defects in the offspring of first cousins than in the rest of the population. Now if identical twins were to marry identical twins their children would be more like brothers or sisters than cousins.
In fact, people who are 60 years of age and over it was quite common for them to marry first cousins in the old days in both Canada and the US Today the idiots that report in the press would be all over that too and they'd be wrong.Polio was and still is a very serious illness. Apparently you are unware of the fact that it can reoccur in those that have had it. So yes, presidents have been elected with serious illnesses.
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
Blasted double post! Ah well, might as well do something with the space.
And is it any wonder they're getting a few percent more to re-enlist when they offering such a big sum?letters sent to my son-in-law asking him to consider "re-upping" with an $85,000 "re-enlistment bonus".
Last edited by costermonger on Mon Jan 09, 2006 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
Various articles on usmilitary.about.com. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningt ... uiting.htm is an example.LH wrote:I have no idea where you are getting your info from about enlistment in the USAF. I'm getting mine from Col. Randy Bechtel, Public Affairs Officer , Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, the Dept. of the Air Force, Washington, DC, the VFW (American Legion) and from letters sent to my son-in-law asking him to consider "re-upping" with an $85,000 "re-enlistment bonus". ALL information that I have belies what you have stated.
LH. Read carefully. Perhaps slowly. Whatever you need to do to actually absorb all the words:I'm sorry to also stae that you are incorrect about another facet of your statement which is that ONLY officers get to fly or are in aerial combat with the USAF. Wherever you received that information, the person providing it is totally incorrect. I can give you names, dates, places, engagements and unit numbers of times where that has taken place AND I witnessed many of those myself.......including photographs of some of those departures.
Again, read carefully. If you enlist in the USAF, in a time of war, you are statistically less likely to be killed in combat than if you enlist in the US Army or the US Marine Corps. Now, instead of dropping names and assuming I'm a freaking idiot, prove that statement wrong. That's the goddamn point I'm trying to make, and you just won't let up. Yes, you could still be killed depending on what your job is, but instead of focusing on the exception, let's look at the service as a whole. The majority of those who will see combat in the USAF are officers. The majority of those who will see combat in the other forces are enlisted men. This isn't goddamn rocket science.Not to mention the fact that nearly every single USAF man/woman who actually has the possibilty of contact with the enemy is an officer, and we were talking about enlistment.
Coast Monger:
I really like to take exception to your comment that Officers are more likely to see combat that enlisted airmen.
The chAir Force also has security forces, and EOD (explosives oridinance demolition) I think those are two very sought after specialties in Iraq right now (among others).
I think it was in Stars and Stripes, that the AF wants to get rid of 40,000 Officers. Some services are sitting fat, while some are crying for people. Just goes to show you we aren't all the same.
Swede:
My line of thinking doesn't go as far as comparing my country to Nazi Germany circa 1938.
I'll keep it short and to the point.
I joined the Marine Corps knowing full well that I could find myslef in Iraq down the road. Instead of waiting until the spring of the next year to return to work flying, I signed a 5 year contract. Might aswell been a 25 year contract. I get treated better in the military than I ever would have as a civilian pilot.
I really like to take exception to your comment that Officers are more likely to see combat that enlisted airmen.
The chAir Force also has security forces, and EOD (explosives oridinance demolition) I think those are two very sought after specialties in Iraq right now (among others).
I think it was in Stars and Stripes, that the AF wants to get rid of 40,000 Officers. Some services are sitting fat, while some are crying for people. Just goes to show you we aren't all the same.
Swede:
My line of thinking doesn't go as far as comparing my country to Nazi Germany circa 1938.
I'll keep it short and to the point.
I joined the Marine Corps knowing full well that I could find myslef in Iraq down the road. Instead of waiting until the spring of the next year to return to work flying, I signed a 5 year contract. Might aswell been a 25 year contract. I get treated better in the military than I ever would have as a civilian pilot.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
-
Driving Rain
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: At a Tanker Base near you.
- Contact:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/sto ... 66,00.html
Special report: politics and Iraq
11.15am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New call to impeach Blair over Iraq
Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday January 9, 2006
Tony Blair should be impeached over the Iraq war, according to one of Britain's most senior former soldiers.
General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia, accused the prime minister of taking the country to war on what turned out to be "false grounds", saying it is something "no one should be allowed to walk away from".
Despite publicly insisting that his aim was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blair "probably had some other strategy in mind", said Gen Rose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He makes the call for Mr Blair's impeachment in a documentary by the former BBC correspondent and former independent MP Martin Bell.
Gen Rose told Bell he would have resigned his commission rather than take troops to war on the flimsy basis offered by Mr Blair.
And he said: "The politicians should be held to account, and my own view is that Blair should be impeached.
"That would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war."
He added to that criticism on the Today programme, saying: "Certainly from a soldier's perspective there can't be any more serious decision taken by a prime minister than declaring war.
"And then to go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something that no one should be allowed to walk away from."
The general described Mr Blair's actions in the run-up to war as "somewhere in between" getting the politics wrong and actually acting illegally.
"The politics was wrong, that he rarely declared what his ultimate aims were, as far as we can see, in terms of harping continually on weapons of mass destruction when actually he probably had some other strategy in mind," he said.
"And secondly, the consequences of that war have been quite disastrous both for the people of Iraq and also for the west in terms of our wider interests in the war against global terror."
Gen Rose is one of a number of retired soldiers taking part in a documentary by the former war correspondent Bell, entitled Iraq: The Failure Of War.
In his documentary, Bell denounces the war as an "ill-considered adventure" and suggests it may prove more damaging to those who launched it even than America's involvement in Vietnam.
Bell wrote yesterday: "In March it will be three years since the invasion, yet Iraq remains in the unshakeable grip of sectarian violence and may be on the brink of civil war.
"In just two bloody days last week, more than 170 people were butchered by insurgents.
"We have entered a tunnel with no light at the end of it. The mission has not been accomplished.
"Instead we face the prospect of war without end. Even Vietnam offered a less disastrous outcome."
There has already been an attempt by MPs, led by Plaid Cymru's Adam Price, to impeach Mr Blair for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain to war against Iraq. The campaign had backing from Tory MPs such as Boris Johnson, as well as Lib Dem, Plaid and SNP members.
Gen Rose accepted parliament had endorsed the decision to commit British troops to military action, but he said that was because the PM had stressed the argument that dictator Saddam Hussein must be stripped of the power to deploy weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons of mass destruction (WMD) argument used to persuade MPs that war was justified had turned out to be wholly wrong, he told Today.
The intelligence relied upon by Mr Blair should have been tested properly by giving UN weapons inspectors more time to see if Saddam did have WMD.
Gen Rose said he would not have been prepared to lead the army into a war that he believed was wrong and on such weak grounds.
"You cannot put people in harm's way if you don't believe the cause is right or sufficient," he said. Senior soldiers should point out strategic failures, he went on.
He said most people thought the continuing presence of troops in Iraq was achieving little, but he said it would be wrong to just walk away.
Responding to Gen Rose's accusation at this morning's lobby briefing, Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "General Rose is entitled to his view. Equally, the government is entitled to point out that we have had free democratic elections in Iraq for the first time in well over a generation.
"In the last of these elections, 69% of the population of Iraq expressed their view.
"In terms of the reasons why we went to war, that has been investigated by four inquiries, including two select committees of the Houses of Parliament.
"The matter has been gone well over and in terms of the outcome - which is what matters - of course there have been difficulties, but we have in process the creation of a democratically elected government in Iraq and that speaks for itself."
Special report: politics and Iraq
11.15am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New call to impeach Blair over Iraq
Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday January 9, 2006
Tony Blair should be impeached over the Iraq war, according to one of Britain's most senior former soldiers.
General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia, accused the prime minister of taking the country to war on what turned out to be "false grounds", saying it is something "no one should be allowed to walk away from".
Despite publicly insisting that his aim was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blair "probably had some other strategy in mind", said Gen Rose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He makes the call for Mr Blair's impeachment in a documentary by the former BBC correspondent and former independent MP Martin Bell.
Gen Rose told Bell he would have resigned his commission rather than take troops to war on the flimsy basis offered by Mr Blair.
And he said: "The politicians should be held to account, and my own view is that Blair should be impeached.
"That would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war."
He added to that criticism on the Today programme, saying: "Certainly from a soldier's perspective there can't be any more serious decision taken by a prime minister than declaring war.
"And then to go to war on what turns out to be false grounds is something that no one should be allowed to walk away from."
The general described Mr Blair's actions in the run-up to war as "somewhere in between" getting the politics wrong and actually acting illegally.
"The politics was wrong, that he rarely declared what his ultimate aims were, as far as we can see, in terms of harping continually on weapons of mass destruction when actually he probably had some other strategy in mind," he said.
"And secondly, the consequences of that war have been quite disastrous both for the people of Iraq and also for the west in terms of our wider interests in the war against global terror."
Gen Rose is one of a number of retired soldiers taking part in a documentary by the former war correspondent Bell, entitled Iraq: The Failure Of War.
In his documentary, Bell denounces the war as an "ill-considered adventure" and suggests it may prove more damaging to those who launched it even than America's involvement in Vietnam.
Bell wrote yesterday: "In March it will be three years since the invasion, yet Iraq remains in the unshakeable grip of sectarian violence and may be on the brink of civil war.
"In just two bloody days last week, more than 170 people were butchered by insurgents.
"We have entered a tunnel with no light at the end of it. The mission has not been accomplished.
"Instead we face the prospect of war without end. Even Vietnam offered a less disastrous outcome."
There has already been an attempt by MPs, led by Plaid Cymru's Adam Price, to impeach Mr Blair for "high crimes and misdemeanours" in taking Britain to war against Iraq. The campaign had backing from Tory MPs such as Boris Johnson, as well as Lib Dem, Plaid and SNP members.
Gen Rose accepted parliament had endorsed the decision to commit British troops to military action, but he said that was because the PM had stressed the argument that dictator Saddam Hussein must be stripped of the power to deploy weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons of mass destruction (WMD) argument used to persuade MPs that war was justified had turned out to be wholly wrong, he told Today.
The intelligence relied upon by Mr Blair should have been tested properly by giving UN weapons inspectors more time to see if Saddam did have WMD.
Gen Rose said he would not have been prepared to lead the army into a war that he believed was wrong and on such weak grounds.
"You cannot put people in harm's way if you don't believe the cause is right or sufficient," he said. Senior soldiers should point out strategic failures, he went on.
He said most people thought the continuing presence of troops in Iraq was achieving little, but he said it would be wrong to just walk away.
Responding to Gen Rose's accusation at this morning's lobby briefing, Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "General Rose is entitled to his view. Equally, the government is entitled to point out that we have had free democratic elections in Iraq for the first time in well over a generation.
"In the last of these elections, 69% of the population of Iraq expressed their view.
"In terms of the reasons why we went to war, that has been investigated by four inquiries, including two select committees of the Houses of Parliament.
"The matter has been gone well over and in terms of the outcome - which is what matters - of course there have been difficulties, but we have in process the creation of a democratically elected government in Iraq and that speaks for itself."
-
shimmydampner
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
That's my favourite part. "Ok, so we lied about why we went in there. But you didn't really believe us anyways, so don't act so surprised. Besides, we've imposed freedom and dictated democracy. That justifies it, right?"Driving Rain wrote:Responding to Gen Rose's accusation at this morning's lobby briefing, Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "General Rose is entitled to his view. Equally, the government is entitled to point out that we have had free democratic elections in Iraq for the first time in well over a generation.
"In the last of these elections, 69% of the population of Iraq expressed their view.
"In terms of the reasons why we went to war, that has been investigated by four inquiries, including two select committees of the Houses of Parliament.
"The matter has been gone well over and in terms of the outcome - which is what matters - of course there have been difficulties, but we have in process the creation of a democratically elected government in Iraq and that speaks for itself."
-
costermonger
- Rank 8
- Posts: 881
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm
In an occupation scenario such as Iraq, those are combat roles. I don't know if you could make that case for those two specialties in the type of war the US fought prior to this one.nark wrote:Coast Monger:
I really like to take exception to your comment that Officers are more likely to see combat that enlisted airmen.
The chAir Force also has security forces, and EOD (explosives oridinance demolition) I think those are two very sought after specialties in Iraq right now (among others).
If we're going to look at Iraq itself, USAF enlisted men/women probably are more likely to be involved in a potential combat situation than officers, purely by nature of the conflict. The insurgents don't have an air force, and it appears they've never really had more than a handful of MANPADS, so the guys in the air aren't in a terribly hostile environment.
Looking at a potential war in Iran (which would have to make heavy use of US air power as that's the area of their biggest advantage), things change.
