swede316 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 We were flying to enforce a UN no-fly zone...A targeting radar locks on...we fired anti radar missles....Get a clue....I've noticed nothing fair and balanced from you yet...Change your name to Kelly the Not so fair and balanced mutt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 7, 2004 Author Share Posted October 7, 2004 We were flying to enforce a UN no-fly zone...A targeting radar locks on...we fired anti radar missles....Get a clue....I've noticed nothing fair and balanced from you yet...Change your name to Kelly the Not so fair and balanced mutt. 60882[/snapback] http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer U.S. and British warplanes have bombed more than 80 targets in Iraq's southern "no-fly" zone over the past five months, conducting an escalating air war even as U.N. weapons inspections proceed and diplomats look for ways to head off a full-scale war. The airstrikes have increased not only in number but in sophistication, with pilots using precision-guided bombs to strike what defense officials describe as mobile surface-to-air missiles, air defense radars, command centers, communications facilities and fiber-optic cable repeater stations. U.S. military officials said the attacks are initiated only in response to Iraqi fire. They said the increase mirrors an increase by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's forces in anti-aircraft and surface-to-air missile attacks on U.S. and British jets. But they acknowledged that military planners are taking full advantage of the opportunity to target Iraq's integrated air defense network for destruction in a systemic fashion that will ease the way for U.S. air and ground forces if President Bush decides war is the only option for disarming Iraq. The United Nations does not recognize the no-fly zones or the U.S. assertion that it is enforcing U.N. resolutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 The UN is filled with spies taking bribes from despots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 "The Iraqi regime has increased its attacks on the coalition, so the coalition has increased its efforts to protect its pilots," said Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa. "Every coalition action is in direct response to Iraqi hostile acts against our pilots, or the regime's attempts to materially improve is military infrastructure south of the 33rd parallel." True...but those were the few months directly leading up to the 2nd Gulf War...What about the 12 years prior? We can dance this dance all night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 7, 2004 Author Share Posted October 7, 2004 The UN is filled with spies taking bribes from despots. 60899[/snapback] Wow. So the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq solely based on the 19 resolutions spies taking bribes from despots made, one could only imagine to protect future spies so that they may be able to take more bribes from despots. I mean, really, otherwise these resolutions made by spies taking bribes from despots will mean nothing, and the world will be in chaos with insurgents killing people randomly for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 7, 2004 Author Share Posted October 7, 2004 True...but those were the few months directly leading up to the 2nd Gulf War...What about the 12 years prior? We can dance this dance all night. 60908[/snapback] I am not sticking up for Saddam, perhaps the biggest scumbag in the world, and wish he died a horrible death instead of being captured, but we did attack him in 1991. He never went after us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 He only invaded our ally ..Kuwait...Come on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 7, 2004 Author Share Posted October 7, 2004 He only invaded our ally ..Kuwait...Come on now. 60913[/snapback] What people in general and republicans in particular have difficulty doing is separating two things, unwilling or unable to see things other than black and white, unwilling or unable to look at another person's POV, even if that person is an !@#$. I was for the Gulf War. I was glad we attacked him and stopped him from taking over our eternal, loyal, trusted "ally", Kuwait. But that doesnt mean from the Saddam's, or the rest of the Arab world, or the rest of the world in whole that we didnt attack Saddam without him doing anything to us. It was the right thing to do, but it was also America attacking Saddam unprovoked. There is a good argument that we were messing in someone else's affairs where we didnt belong. Those two things can happen concurrently, and both be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I get your point KFABD ...but honestly...Any attack on the the oil supply...right or wrong..We are going to deal with it...It's the basis of our economy..whether we like it or not Oil is the basis for these latest wars....Granted we need alternative energy..but until one exists that we can all use cheaply...We will continue to be slaves to Oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts