OP ED-"Little Timmy Wants to Know Why Nobody Likes Airplanes Anymore?

[flyboy0681]

Whatever lead Bush to those ridiculous conclusions about Iraq having chemical weapons? Maybe it was the numerous chemical attacks with mustard and nerve gas that Sadam used to annihilate Iranian villages on his border that were documented in the media complete with photos of entire villages of dead men, women and children lying in their homes or on their doorsteps? Common knowledge? Yes. It was common knowledge.

Where did Hussein get those chemical weapons? Russia would be the most likely supplier? Was he able to produce them? What happened to the rest? Did he use them all? Are there more still hidden? Buried? In a cave? Maybe he sent them to Syria? Syria used them recently? Were those Sadam's?

I am sure all Bush critics and Monday morning historians know the answers to these and other questions.

 

To borrow a quote from one of my all time favorite movies (Patton), Dave you magnificent bastard, you are a conspiracy theorist!

 

Your narrative makes it sound like Saddam gassed the Kurds and Iranian's a few months before we moved in there. As you know, it actually occurred well over a decade earlier. After Desert Storm the UN destroyed their arsenal and known manufacturing sites. Nothing was imported from Russia, it was all home made. If anyone helped Saddam in his chemical weapons program, it was the U.S. when they were still our "friends".

[rob]

Oh boy Rob is back.....his name is Scott not Scotty. He does not work on Star Trek Enterprise.

Oh. So sorry, no one informed me that we were sticking to specific names and not using nicknames on this thread. I guess that rule went into effect sometime around the one about mentioning any administration in the White House other than the present one?

Promise to be more careful in the future!

[flyboy0681]

So you acknowledge Saddam's possession and recurrent use of chemical weapons, but downplay and minimalize it because it is contradictory to your argument.

 

 

The evidence that he had chemical weapons up until the late 80's is irrefutable, and I'm not even sure how anyone could possibly deny it. But according to reports that I've read, after Desert Storm the UN went in and destroyed his arsenal and manufacturing capabilities. Of course you could argue that the UN didn't completely do their job, but if that were true, wouldn't our troops have found something? 

 

Sorry to mention a past administration here because not only is it taboo, it was democratic. But didn't Clinton tighten the screws on Saddam in 1998 and start bombing with cruise missiles when Saddam decided to deny further UN weapons inspections? I'm sure there were other mitigating factors, but that was the reason given at the time. Your use of the word "democrat" in your response sounds to me like you think the party is completely impotent when it comes to matters like this and run in the opposite direction at the first sign of trouble. The only time in recent history that I could think of where we did "cut and run" was immediately after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing (imagine if it were Obama at the time instead of you know who).

[gsxrpilot]

I was in the military with a secret security clearance at the time, as well as additional NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) Officer trained and let me tell you, based on the information we had, we were well rehearsed and expecting to have to don our protective masks and suits when going against Iraq.

 

Evidently that information was wrong. 

[carusoam]

what thoughts cross your mind on your first day of NBC training?

was it similar to duck and cover? (we're all going to die anyway if this were to happen...thoughts of a 12 year old.)

my desk top was Nuclear blast proof?

by that time, you were being told the truth?

[Guest]

If Saddam's past use of chemical weapons is justification for attacking/invading Iraq, just who should we get to attack the USA for its historical use of equally heinous weapons?

A famous guy whose birth we just celebrated said something to the effect of " let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Clarence

[carusoam]

thanks for the answer.

in sixth grade we were told to get under our desks in the event of such a situation. the sign on the side of the building said nuclear fall out shelter.

some concrete, brick and glass, none of it radiation resistant to any extent. it was probably the best we were going to do...

i have great admiration for those that take on the responsibility to defend this great country.

that's no ordinary job.

a bad day at work can really be horrible.

thanks...

[jetdriven]

If Saddam's past use of chemical weapons is justification for attacking/invading Iraq, just who should we get to attack the USA for its historical use of equally heinous weapons?

A famous guy whose birth we just celebrated said something to the effect of " let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Clarence

Only Americans think that invading a sovereign nation on a hunch (and later finding no proof of said Iraq WMD hunch) was OK.

But at least Bush said it with conviction and KBR Halliburton made billions so it ok.

[jetdriven]

Nope.... I think it's wrong regardless of the perpetrator. I could get behind the attack on Afghanistan. But Iraq? NFW.

[flyboy0681]

It's a perfect balance when after listening to six year of "Bush Blaming" - you are answering someone who is "moderate" but will only discuss previous administrations faults, will only present half the story as the whole story, will minimize or cast as irrelevant - facts which don't support or contradict his rhetoric, and refuses acknowledge the current administrations shortcomings which are by far greater than those who preceded him but wants to name this failed corrupt era of American politics and horrible legislation as a glowing success.

 

After year four I felt that Obama started to own a lot, as most presidents should. By this I mean mostly military and economic - for better or worse. I may be wrong, but other than discussions that we've had here on LT about politics in general and the national debt, I don't think I've done much blaming on Bush (fee free to cut and paste examples). When appropriate I did point out policies, proposals and ideas that are thought to have originated with Obama but weren't. One such example was a discussion a few pages ago about how Obama wants to push user fees and I pointed out that FAA user fees were first proposed in 2006. I could also point out Obamaphone, but would be childish.

 

I happen to agree with you Dave on all of your comments regarding the atomic bomb drops. You should also have pointed out that the invasion of Japan, which I believe was to get started around December by the U.S. and Russia, would have costed millions of lives alone. 

[Guest]

Nowhere did I say I dislike the US or the American people, if that is how it came across please accept my apology.

What I was trying to point out is a double standard. Iraq is attacked because it had processed and has used chemical weapons, yet the US(and others) get a pass because we collectively won WWII.

The invasion of Iraq did little good for anyone involved, the population or the service personnel, both will bear the scars for a long time if not for ever.

Scott, please define the award you're honouring me with.

Clarence

[gsxrpilot]

Same with rehash on user fee's by someone that doesn't even live in the country.

 

 

Is this me?  If so, as usual your facts are wrong. 

 

My observation has been that there is a trend. People with a larger world view tend to be more progressive (liberal) and those who have spent very limited or no time outside their own country/culture tend to be much more conservative. (I don't count military or government service overseas as that is still an American bubble/environment)  I was born in Louisville Kentucky and currently live in Austin Texas, but in between that time I have had the opportunity to live on two other continents and work with local people in almost 50 countries.  I can say, and friends who have known me for years would agree, I have become much more liberal/progressive/leftist from that experience.  I would disagree that I'm a Socialist, and as one who's never taken a paycheck from any government organization, I'm a big supporter of private enterprise and business.  It's because of private business that I can afford my own airplane.  But I've come to recognize that we are all the same, humans in the first world or the third world. Whether we live in "freedom" or under a dictatorship. (I've lived under both). Humans are humans and I am no more important than another human. 

 

And on that note, I will not be going to see American Sniper. It is very saddening to me that our government sent so many to fight, die, and needlessly kill so many people for such an unjust mistake as was the Iraq war.

 

And just to be sure, I don't support Obama and his drone program either.  I would sooner support a Rand Paul who might succeed in extracting us from war rather than a Hillary who is as much a hawk as most Republicans.

[flyboy0681]

I wonder if Iran will use atomic energy for peacful purposes, or to destroy Israel. HMMMMmmm, I wonder?

I wonder if Japan or Germany would have used the atomic bomb if they had harnessed the potential to do so first? HMMMmm, I wonder?

I wonder what killed more civillian's-The aerial bombardment of Germany or The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I wonder how many Japanese and allied lives both civillian and military would have been lost had we prepped and invaded Japan without forcing surrender with atomic bombs?

Thank you Enola Gay, Paul Tibbits, Harry Trumann and all the scientists that allowed us to be first.

M20Doc- "You didn't build that"...

Another example of U.S. exceptionalism...

World, you are welcome.

 

Agreed.

[scottfromiowa]

Is this me?  If so, as usual your facts are wrong. 

 

My observation has been that there is a trend. People with a larger world view tend to be more progressive (liberal) and those who have spent very limited or no time outside their own country/culture tend to be much more conservative. (I don't count military or government service overseas as that is still an American bubble/environment)  I was born in Louisville Kentucky and currently live in Austin Texas, but in between that time I have had the opportunity to live on two other continents and work with local people in almost 50 countries.  I can say, and friends who have known me for years would agree, I have become much more liberal/progressive/leftist from that experience.  I would disagree that I'm a Socialist, and as one who's never taken a paycheck from any government organization, I'm a big supporter of private enterprise and business.  It's because of private business that I can afford my own airplane.  But I've come to recognize that we are all the same, humans in the first world or the third world. Whether we live in "freedom" or under a dictatorship. (I've lived under both). Humans are humans and I am no more important than another human. 

THERE ARE A LOT OF WORDS HERE PAUL. WHAT IS THE CLIFF NOTES VERSION? HERE IS MY INTERPRETATION OF YOUR WORDS. I HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND SEEN SOCIALISM, YOU HAVE NOT. I PREFER SOCIALISM, BUT DON'T "FEEL" I AM A SOCIALIST. PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE YOU GO. I KEEP TELLING MYSELF I AM NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS. I KEEP TELLING MYSELF I AM NOT FOR A REASON I DON'T UNDERSTAND?

 

And on that note, (WHAT NOTE?) I will not be going to see American Sniper. (GOOD FOR YOU) It is very saddening to me that our government sent so many to fight, die, and needlessly kill (THOSE THAT DIED AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF THOSE THAT DIED LIKELY DISAGREE)so many people for such an unjust mistake (DO YOU MEAN DEFEATING A OPPRESSIVE HOSTILE DICTATOR AND THEN LEAVING?, I AGREE) as was the Iraq war.

 

And just to be sure, I don't support Obama and his drone program either.  I would sooner support a Rand Paul who might succeed in extracting us from war rather than a Hillary who is as much a hawk as most Republicans.

(LOOK THERE. COMMON GROUND)

YOU SURE USE A LOT OF WORDS TO GET THERE.

[scottfromiowa]

They won't get it.

Simple concepts like what is socialism and what is not socialism are hard to grasp once you have been trained how to think by the government schools or listened to our modern media whose staff almost universally supports and defends a move to socialism, or anything that Obama says this week or next. Easier to believe the lie you have heard a thousand times, than the truth the first time you hear it ...

SO THAT IS IT PAUL AND TATTLETALE? YOU JUST DON'T GET THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONSUMPTION BASED TAX/PAY TO PLAY (FUEL TAX) AND AN ONEROUS-SOCIALISTIC TAX SPREAD OUT FOR ALL THE COMRADES TO SUPPORT-PROPERTY TAX FOR SCHOOLS?

YOU STATE THAT I AM DRIVING ON SOCIALIST ROADS. HOW? IT IS A ROAD THAT ALL USERS FROM MOTORCYCLES TO SEMI'S HAVE PAID IN FUEL TAX TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ROADS THAT I USE.

THE 100 LOW LEAD FUEL TAX OR AIRPLANE TICKET TAXES ARE DESIGNED AS USER TAXES TO SUPPORT THE AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE BOTH GENERAL AND COMMERCIAL AVIATION. HOW IS THAT SOCIALISTIC? THOSE THAT USE THE SYSTEM PAY. IF MY MOM NEVER FLIES, SHE DOESN'T.

THEN YOU HAVE A MANDATE SAYING EVEN THOUGH YOU PURCHASED A PLANE BEFORE NEXT GEN, YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY THOUSANDS TO CONTINUE TO USE IT. IT IS LIKE MANDATING ELECTRIC CARS FOR ALL LOCAL COMMUTER USE. OH BOY, ECO LIB RETARDS GOT A LITTLE WOOD AT THE THOUGHT OF THAT....

WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ATTACKING ME ON HERE TATTLE TALE? EDUCATE ME ON HOW MY USING THE ROADS IS SOCIALISM?

HOW IS PAYING A PROPERTY TAX FOR THE SUPPORT OF SCHOOLS NOT SOCIALISM?

[scottfromiowa]

If you fly commercial, you pay a tax. You benefit from it and you pay for it.

If you ship a package Via an Air Carrier, you pay them and they pay a tax. You benefit from it and you pay for it.

Otherwise, what you mention sounds sort of like socialism? Some people need it so everyone can use it for free? Isn't that redistribution of wealth? Isn't that how Scotty gets his third-hand Porsche from Iowa to Wisconsin to cheer on the State school he supports?

WAITING....

[flyboy0681]

Under Obama that got quadrupled, expanded to cell phones and the government aggressively searched high and low to give cell phones to anyone and everyone on our tax dollar. Blatant abuse. We tried to help poor people have a way to get emergency help, and they took full advantage and stuck it to us. Now drug dealers get fee phones that can't be traced to them. In fact, many of our handouts are taken by people who portray themselves as needy, but then turn around and sell our charity for profitable drug/drinking/cigarette money. What do they say, "No good deed goes unpunished?"

 

Dave, this is a prime example of what I was talking about. You got your facts wrong and blamed expansion of the program to cell phones on Obama. Just so I didn't get the facts wrong, I just read a bunch of sites on the history of the program and it appears the Lifeline program was created under Reagan in 1984 and it was expanded to cell phones under Bush because they are now cheaper than landlines. The program appears to be funded entirely by the Universal Service Fund, which, unfortunately, we all pay into each month with each phone bill we pay. The reason the program expanded so much over the past few years is because there are just so many households that would need a landline, but there are multiple people within those households that could possess a cell phone. 

 

Make no mistake, regardless of who took over the White House in 2009, the program would have progressed the same rate. Also, it's not as if these recipients are getting unlimited minutes. Most plans are limited to between 50 and 60 minutes of airtime per month.

[scottfromiowa]

Dave, this is a prime example of what I was talking about. You got your facts wrong and blamed expansion of the program to cell phones on Obama. Just so I didn't get the facts wrong, I just read a bunch of sites on the history of the program and it appears the Lifeline program was created under Reagan in 1984 and it was expanded to cell phones under Bush because they are now cheaper than landlines. The program appears to be funded entirely by the Universal Service Fund, which, unfortunately, we all pay into each month with each phone bill we pay. The reason the program expanded so much over the past few years is because there are just so many households that would need a landline, but there are multiple people within those households that could possess a cell phone. 

 

Make no mistake, regardless of who took over the White House in 2009, the program would have progressed the same rate. Also, it's not as if these recipients are getting unlimited minutes. Most plans are limited to between 50 and 60 minutes of airtime per month.

I don't care as much about the details as I do that the Federal Government has this program. Just another insidious tax on "a bill" those that choose to own cellphones must pay to socialize use.

Should be eliminated.

[scottfromiowa]

Dave, this is a prime example of what I was talking about. You got your facts wrong and blamed expansion of the program to cell phones on Obama. Just so I didn't get the facts wrong, I just read a bunch of sites on the history of the program and it appears the Lifeline program was created under Reagan in 1984 and it was expanded to cell phones under Bush because they are now cheaper than landlines. The program appears to be funded entirely by the Universal Service Fund, which, unfortunately, we all pay into each month with each phone bill we pay. The reason the program expanded so much over the past few years is because there are just so many households that would need a landline, but there are multiple people within those households that could possess a cell phone. 

 

Make no mistake, regardless of who took over the White House in 2009, the program would have progressed the same rate. Also, it's not as if these recipients are getting unlimited minutes. Most plans are limited to between 50 and 60 minutes of airtime per month.

What he said was the program quadrupled in size under Obama...

Did that happen? Has the program originally designed for landline 911 calls expanded at this rate?

[scottfromiowa]

135,000 estimated deaths in two atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

[scottfromiowa]

Fund aviation with fuel tax. Same as it has been funded. The same way roads are funded. If you don't fly you don't pay a tax. If you don't drive/buy gas, you don't pay tax. How again is that Socialism?

Funding schools with property taxes...THAT is Socialistic.

[gsxrpilot]

So yelling or restating just louder, doesn't make the position any more right or understandable.  It makes me think of so many American tourists on their first trip abroad and encountering someone who doesn't speak English. After saying the same thing in English a couple of times, they'll just start talking louder, evidently thinking that if they yell the same words, the non-English speaker will then understand.

 

I'm sorry my post was too long and complex for you to understand, but no hard feelings.  I won't yell, swear, or use derogatory names as you do with Rob and other's on this board. I'm comfortable with my position and will continue to work every day towards promoting it.  I vote, I contribute financially, I blog, and I engage in friendly, civilized, intelligent, debate regularly.

 

And seriously, I'd be happy to buy you a beer or share a $100 hamburger with you sometime, and we can debate further. :-)

[flyboy0681]

What he said was the program quadrupled in size under Obama...

Did that happen? Has the program originally designed for landline 911 calls expanded at this rate?

 

I agree with you that the program should be eliminated. When I look at how much I pay towards the Universal Fee though each of my four phone bills, I cringe. Not only are we forced to pay a Universal Service Fund fee as a line item, the phone company has to pay into it too and makes us pay their share under the guise of a "USF recovery fee". So in other words, we are left paying for it twice while they don't pay for it at all.

 

What caused the program to expand was covered in my response (again, according to what I read). Only one home could have a landline, but cell phones are carried by individuals. Since there are more individuals than households, it stands to reason the numbers are exponentially larger. Also, since there are multiple cell phone providers taking part in the program nationwide, as opposed to just one local phone carrier for landlines, they started advertising the program to gain subscribers (guess where they concentrated their efforts). And you know what happens when the free market system starts targeting American's.

 

Do you think for a minute that it would not have grown under a McCain administration or that it won't grow under a Republican one should they win in 2016? Don't kid yourself.

 

Fact of the matter is, the word "Obamaphone" first surfaced in 2009 without him signing any legislation related to the program. 

[flyboy0681]

 

 

And seriously, I'd be happy to buy you a beer or share a $100 hamburger with you sometime, and we can debate further. :-)

 

Same here. Given the opportunity with Scott or Dave, I think we would actually have a fun day of flying. And I'd even be willing to bet that most of the conversation would be about flying and Mooneys, not politics (but just to be safe, I'd make doubly sure the door was latched if I was sitting on the right side).

[scottfromiowa]

So yelling or restating just louder, doesn't make the position any more right or understandable.  It makes me think of so many American tourists on their first trip abroad and encountering someone who doesn't speak English. After saying the same thing in English a couple of times, they'll just start talking louder, evidently thinking that if they yell the same words, the non-English speaker will then understand.

 

I'm sorry my post was too long and complex for you to understand, but no hard feelings.  I won't yell, swear, or use derogatory names as you do with Rob and other's on this board. I'm comfortable with my position and will continue to work every day towards promoting it.  I vote, I contribute financially, I blog, and I engage in friendly, civilized, intelligent, debate regularly.

 

And seriously, I'd be happy to buy you a beer or share a $100 hamburger with you sometime, and we can debate further. :-)

I wasn't yelling Paul. I used caps so readers could see my comments inserted within your text. Thanks for the reply clarifying my interpretation of what you said...

Not worthy?

Really, all you saw was my use of caps. You again seem really ashamed of American's, even comparing my use of caps to American's attempting to communicate.

I would really have no desire to have a beer with you. I agree that all people are people. I just don't want to hang socially with some of them. So while you feel you are smacking me down with your prose and illustrations your throwing me a beer summit bone just isn't ringing sincere to me.