US millitary caught in its own lies
WhiteWolf
WW
============================================
Wholesale Professional Web Hosting only $5.50/month
for full service accounts!
since 1996
http://www.1stopwebshop.com
============================================
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 07:00:29 -0500 (EST), "True Patriot"
<RedW...@nd.blue> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:20:11 +0000, Eddy <ma...@the.weekend> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Congenital Kano wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Of course. You have so much experience at low level flying of helos in
>>>hostile urban settings to qualify you to comment.
>>>
>>
>>I would have thought that one of the first rules of flying is not to fly
>>into the scenery. With the sole exceptions of Kamikazies, of course.
>
>The US forces are highly skilled at flying into scenery at low altitude.
>Who else would have the skills to connect with a civilian cable car in
>Italy killing everybody on board, for example?
>Thank god that the merkins have finally declared war on the Red Cross,
>that's all I can say. Three direct hits should show those bastards not to
>assist innocent civilians and think that they can get away with it.
>
M. Eglestone
> True Patriot wrote:
>
> The US forces are highly skilled at flying into scenery at low altitude.
> Who else would have the skills to connect with a civilian cable car in
> Italy killing everybody on board, for example?
> Thank god that the merkins have finally declared war on the Red Cross,
> that's all I can say. Three direct hits should show those bastards not to
> assist innocent civilians and think that they can get away with it.
If all our High Tech (low altitude) Bombing Systems bother you so much when
they occasionally miss, perhaps we should just go back to all out High
Altitude "Carpet Bombing" with 1,000 ponders, and use our old B-52 fleet. It
costs us a LOT LESS to just blow the hell out of everything than it does to
use "Smart Bombs" that "Occasionally" miss the target!
You can get hung with an old rope, or a new one - the choice is yours!
------
M. Eglestone SMSgt (E-8)
United States Air Force (Strike FIRST with Air Power) Retired
Greg Procter
"M. Eglestone" wrote:
That "occassionally" is wearing a bit thin - UN, Red Cross (four warehouses),
hospital, old peoples home, civilian homes, Northern Alliance, villages,
dropping supplies into minefields - if you can't do the job, why not ask those
who can?
Robert Frenchu
He's right- we should let the New Zealand Navy take over.
WhiteWolf
if you're gonna kill civilians anyway - might as well do the job right
& eliminate them all.
it will put them out of their eternal misery & leave the taliban with
no one left to rule.
WW
M. L. Davis
Robert Frenchu wrote in message
<8jgrttc5ndv26pkfs...@4ax.com>...
-*MORT*-
Robert Frenchu
>
>Robert Frenchu wrote in message
><8jgrttc5ndv26pkfs...@4ax.com>...
>>> Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDC04F...@ihug.co.nz> in
>talk.politics.guns. :
>>>That "occassionally" is wearing a bit thin - UN, Red Cross (four
>warehouses),
>>>hospital, old peoples home, civilian homes, Northern Alliance, villages,
>>>dropping supplies into minefields - if you can't do the job, why not ask
>those
>>>who can?
>>
>>He's right- we should let the New Zealand Navy take over.
>>
>>
>Or the New Zealand air force.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those two guys.
M. Eglestone
> > > True Patriot wrote:
> > >
> > > The US forces are highly skilled at flying into scenery at low altitude.
> > > Who else would have the skills to connect with a civilian cable car in
> > > Italy killing everybody on board, for example?
> > > Thank god that the merkins have finally declared war on the Red Cross,
> > > that's all I can say. Three direct hits should show those bastards not to
> > > assist innocent civilians and think that they can get away with it.
------------------------------------------
> > M. Eglestone replied:
> > If all our High Tech (low altitude) Bombing Systems bother you so much when
> > they occasionally miss, perhaps we should just go back to all out High
> > Altitude "Carpet Bombing" with 1,000 ponders, and use our old B-52 fleet. It
> > costs us a LOT LESS to just blow the hell out of everything than it does to
> > use "Smart Bombs" that "Occasionally" miss the target!
> >
> > You can get hung with an old rope, or a new one - the choice is yours!
--------------------------------------------------
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> That "occassionally" is wearing a bit thin - UN, Red Cross (four warehouses),
> hospital, old peoples home, civilian homes, Northern Alliance, villages,
> dropping supplies into minefields - if you can't do the job, why not ask those
> who can?
------------------------
Ok, sounds like a plan to me.
Who would you suggest we call upon to drop the bombs, and then "Take Full
Responsibility" for their actions when they miss a target, Greg!
Oh, by the way, I'll be sure to pass your suggestions on to the White
House. I'm sure that they will be wide open to any suggestion coming from
the GREAT Military Strategist "Greg (the mouth) Procter!"
ROTF - LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards
> scout troop could do as well and still have time to bake cookies. Face
> facts, you've never won a battle by yourselves.
I'm curious to know, "True Patriot" - are you from NZ or Australia? (For the
record, I am an Australian living in the U.S.). I'd like to know if I should
be flaming you for being an undereducated xenophobic New Zealander (why the
hell do NZer hate and fear America so much, anyway?) or for being someone
I'm ashamed to call a fellow-countryman.
The U.S. has historically been supported in battle because most of the time
it has been going to the aid of other countries, fighting causes that were
in its (U.S.) and allied national interest though not necessarily a direct,
immediate threat.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
I bet we would hit less UN facilities, Red Cross (any left?) hospitals, old peoples homes, civilian
homes, Northern Alliance soldiers and villages.
Oh, and we know to avoid minefields.
Greg Procter
"M. L. Davis" wrote:
The New Zealand airforce is well able to deliver aid to refugees. The part we
are getting rid of is the bit that you could utilize to bomb friendly forces and
defenseless civilians.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
I see you are still short on intelligence.
Greg Procter
"M. Eglestone" wrote:
I suggest you stop trying to bomb rocks - there's not a big market for small rocks
in Afghanistan.
That must be the most wasteful military action since ... last time.
>
> Oh, by the way, I'll be sure to pass your suggestions on to the White
> House. I'm sure that they will be wide open to any suggestion coming from
> the GREAT Military Strategist "Greg (the mouth) Procter!"
>
> ROTF - LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ------
>
> M. Eglestone SMSgt (E-8)
> United States Air Force (Strike FIRST with Air Power) Retired
Are you laughing harder than the Taliban is at your nation's war effort?
For every Taliban soldier you kill, ten cross the border from Pakistan to fill the
martyr's shoes.
Stupid!
Robert Frenchu
I see you're still a lying sack of shit.
Your turn, lanolin-breath.
Robert Frenchu
Of course you'd hit less- you don't have anything to hit WITH.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
Why do you feel the need to make your reply a personal attack?
Robert Frenchu
I'm sorry- I forgot in New Zealand telling someone they are short on
intelligence is a compliment, since most of you have no intelligence
at all.
WhiteWolf
hear from a retired e-8.
WW
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
Why would we want to hit UN facilities, Red Cross (any left?) hospitals, old peoples homes, civilian
homes, Northern Alliance soldiers and villages.
If you really wanted to remove the Taliban, the only way to do it is on the ground.
If you want to score political points with voters and weapons manufacturers the way to do it is with
high tech bombs.
If you want to remove individuals (eg ben Laden) then you have to send someone to knock on the door.
New Zealand was the first of your allies to offer SAS forces to go knocking on doors in Afghanistan. The
lack of response suggests Bush only wants to score points with arms manufacturers and voters.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Robert Frenchu
>Why would we want to hit UN facilities, Red Cross (any left?) hospitals, old peoples homes, civilian
>homes, Northern Alliance soldiers and villages.
You wouldn't hit anything- you don't have anything to hit with.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
Intelligence is the military term for details such as where Red Cross aid warehouses are located.
Intelligence is also making sure that the targeters have the co-ordinates of those Red Cross warehouses on file so that they can
avoid targetting such facilities.
Intelligence is knowing the location of friendly forces so you can avoid targetting them.
Intelligence is knowing the location of the Chinese Embassy.
Without that intelligence you might just as well carpet Afghanistan with bombs from B52s.
Intelligence is the opposite of stupidity - bombing friendly forces is a loss three times; your side is reduced by the number of
casualties. The enemy thereby gains an advantage of double the number of casualties. The third loss is the reduction in trust by
your allies. Bombing your allies is stupid.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Robert Frenchu
If you had a real armed forces you would know that bombs don't always
go where they are supposed to. But you don't, so I forgive your
ignorance- this time.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
Your bombs accurately hit their targets, you just got the targets wrong.
Stop knocking your technology - it's the only thing in the USa that I have faith in!
Robert Frenchu
And of course YOU know this because the Pentagon is in touch with YOU
every day, is that right? Or are you picking up targeting signals with
your tin foil hat?
>Stop knocking your technology - it's the only thing in the USa that I have faith in!
But you still want to ask "...those that can." I assume this isn't the
New Zealand Armed Forces.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
The Pentagon communicates with me regularly - via the news media.
> >Stop knocking your technology - it's the only thing in the USa that I have faith in!
>
> But you still want to ask "...those that can." I assume this isn't the
> New Zealand Armed Forces.
Did I ask the USa? That would be your tin foil hat in action again!
The USa keeps asking New Zealand for assistance; Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan.
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
>> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDF12D...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>> But you still want to ask "...those that can." I assume this isn't the
>> New Zealand Armed Forces.
>
>Did I ask the USa? That would be your tin foil hat in action again!
I'm not surprised you must have forgotten your own post already.
>The USa keeps asking New Zealand for assistance; Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan.
Just trying to be polite and include you. I don't think anyone would
actually notice if you showed up, do you?
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDF747...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >
> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDF12D...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >> But you still want to ask "...those that can." I assume this isn't the
> >> New Zealand Armed Forces.
> >
> >Did I ask the USa? That would be your tin foil hat in action again!
>
> I'm not surprised you must have forgotten your own post already.
I remember mine, it's your's I keep forgetting.
>
> >The USa keeps asking New Zealand for assistance; Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan.
>
> Just trying to be polite and include you. I don't think anyone would
> actually notice if you showed up, do you?
I do remember the yank GI's not noticing in Vietnam - something to do with the substances they kept
snorting.
WhiteWolf
aiming for instead of making apologies and excuses.
WhiteWolf
==============================================
Multi-tools, Survival Knives, Boot Knives, Swords &
More - http://www.1stopwebshop.com/mtools/index.htm
All Top Quality & 15% off our Sale Prices NOW!
-----------------------------------------------------
Professional Web Hosting starting at only $5.50/month
Wholesale Full Service Accounts!
since 1996 - http://www.1stopwebshop.com
==============================================
Robert Frenchu
>
>
>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
>> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDF747...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDF12D...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>> >> But you still want to ask "...those that can." I assume this isn't the
>> >> New Zealand Armed Forces.
>> >
>> >Did I ask the USa? That would be your tin foil hat in action again!
>>
>> I'm not surprised you must have forgotten your own post already.
>
>I remember mine,
Evidently not- is the New Zealand Navy steaming up to show everyone
how it's done?
>> >The USa keeps asking New Zealand for assistance; Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan.
>>
>> Just trying to be polite and include you. I don't think anyone would
>> actually notice if you showed up, do you?
>
>I do remember the yank GI's not noticing in Vietnam - something to do with the substances they kept
>snorting.
I doubt you remember it at all.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDE188E...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >
> >
> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >
> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDF747...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >>
> >> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDF12D...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >>
> >> >> But you still want to ask "...those that can." I assume this isn't the
> >> >> New Zealand Armed Forces.
> >> >
> >> >Did I ask the USa? That would be your tin foil hat in action again!
> >>
> >> I'm not surprised you must have forgotten your own post already.
> >
> >I remember mine,
>
> Evidently not- is the New Zealand Navy steaming up to show everyone
> how it's done?
Did you think I was in command of the RNZ Navy?? Sorry, no - I was in the Airforce and then with the New
Zealand Shipping Corporation controlling the NZ-Europe container traffic.
>
> >> >The USa keeps asking New Zealand for assistance; Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Afghanistan.
> >>
> >> Just trying to be polite and include you. I don't think anyone would
> >> actually notice if you showed up, do you?
> >
> >I do remember the yank GI's not noticing in Vietnam - something to do with the substances they kept
> >snorting.
>
> I doubt you remember it at all.
You may doubt - that will have zero effect upon my memory!
If you were there I would be surprised if you remember any of it.
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards
so
> your point is irrelevent.
You've never seen me flaming anybody, if you've only read my posts in m.s. I
would be willing to wager a small amount that I was successfully holding my
own in public against much more intelligent, gentlemanly and articulate
people than you before you even understood what online discussion forums
were. (Hint: Before Usenet was readily accessible). But we don't need to
compare penis lengths in this forum, I'm sure. Hike your sorry ass over to
alt.sex.bestiality, unzip and lay it on the line where somebody will care.
In any case, I digress from the matter at hand.
> Neither. And I'm happy that I can't call you a compatriot.
Excellent! This statement liberates me, once I discover your nationality, to
generalize your prejudice and dogmatic idiocy to all your compatriots in
exactly the same way you generalize and misunderstand the people of the
United States. I'll be sure to attach every possible stigma I can to
"Nationality X", too.
> >The U.S. has historically been supported in battle because most of the
time
> >it has been going to the aid of other countries, fighting causes that
were
> >in its (U.S.) and allied national interest though not necessarily a
direct,
> >immediate threat.
> You've been there for too long, you're believing their publicity. Or do
> they just teach the US mythological version of history in Australian
It's certainly true that Australians are, by and large, very friendly with
the United States. However I didn't come to the U.S. to make friends. I came
because I was asked to do a job here. And while I have been doing that job,
I've been living alongside and amongst Americans - New Yorkers to be exact.
You eat with them, you work with them, you laugh with them, you attend ball
games with them, you cry with them. Try it. Unless you're a total sociopath
(a possibility I, of course, do not deny) you'll find it a wonderful
learning experience.
This isn't called "publicity", it is called "learning about a culture by
living within it". I suspect that you, like me three years ago, have no
better idea of life in America than what you see on TV and in the movies. TV
and movies are TV and movies. Living here is _real_. The people here are
_real_. The day of the WTC attacks, I called my mother to let her know I was
all right. I'm not ashamed to say I was crying. Not out of relief that it
was "someone else", not because I was worried that my corner of NYS would be
next, but because the country that has offered me so much was attacked by
people like yourself who think that the right way to redress a grievance is
to force death and/or bullshit down someone else's throat.
If you think that empathizing with a "foreign" culture (actually, it's very
little "foreign" for an Australian) is somehow wrong, or that I should have
been glad that these Americans got their "comeuppance", then you're welcome
to take a one-way flight to Afghanistan and take your chances there. Perhaps
you'd care to try the latest in-flight snack, anthrax ripple cookies.
> It's sickening to see apologists like you, you should be ashamed of
> yourself.
No, it's sickening to see people like you attacking a culture you clearly
don't understand. What the fuck is wrong with you? Jealous that America has
more money than whatever rathole country you live in? (Remember - you
authorized me to denigrate your country and compatriots). Or are you just
brainwashed by someone? Careful - brains shrink when washed.
J D Leister
of them be cost effective?
And also nuke Israel and Palestine while we're
at it and solve that problem
rdr
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards <la...@larwe.com> wrote in message
news:VpkD7.7252$wM4.4...@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
> > They could only do a better job than the US is doing now - but then
a girl
> > scout troop could do as well and still have time to bake cookies.
Face
> > facts, you've never won a battle by yourselves.
>
> I'm curious to know, "True Patriot" - are you from NZ or Australia?
(For the
> record, I am an Australian living in the U.S.). I'd like to know if I
should
> be flaming you for being an undereducated xenophobic New Zealander
(why the
> hell do NZer hate and fear America so much, anyway?) or for being
someone
> I'm ashamed to call a fellow-countryman.
If I may interject, I have travelled extensively throughout Oceania and
have come to the conclusion that Kiwis are a nation suffering from an
insecurity complex. As much as they may hate to admit it, they are
Aus.'s little brother, far from mother England and kinda insignificant
in the scheme of things. That must be hell on the national psyche. Add
their reluctance to face the crime/race problems at home and you have
the makings of an "interesting" culture of people. Beautiful country
with lot's of nice people but an underlying edginess pervades. If that
edginess is what produce's people like Hillary and Blake than I am
pretty much in favor of ignoring their idiosyncrisies, I do however wish
they would direct their anger at more appropriate sources.
Why the Yanks? Perhaps because we are like a rich 2nd Uncle.
> The U.S. has historically been supported in battle because most of
the time
> it has been going to the aid of other countries, fighting causes that
were
> in its (U.S.) and allied national interest though not necessarily a
direct,
> immediate threat.
Cheers.
my2¢
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
- Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939)
Robert Frenchu
>>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDE188E...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>> Evidently not- is the New Zealand Navy steaming up to show everyone
>> how it's done?
>
>Did you think I was in command of the RNZ Navy?? Sorry, no - I was in the Airforce and then with the New
>Zealand Shipping Corporation controlling the NZ-Europe container traffic.
I don't even think you're in command of reality, Greg. You said
someone could bomb bette and we're still waiting for you to tell us
who it is.
John
> If all our High Tech (low altitude) Bombing Systems bother you so much when
>they occasionally miss, perhaps we should just go back to all out High
>Altitude "Carpet Bombing" with 1,000 ponders, and use our old B-52 fleet. It
>costs us a LOT LESS to just blow the hell out of everything than it does to
>use "Smart Bombs" that "Occasionally" miss the target!
>
As they say, when the US forces come *everyone* ducks for cover...
I've no problem with the weapons themselves, just the delivery to
target. And the selection of target.
M. L. Davis
GardenGnome
"Stella" <brightsta...@night.net> wrote in message
news:aHlwYXRpYQ==.d62ed8c0024f0384c986c9bde81b2b9a@1004412896.cotse.net...
> True Patriot wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:31:34 GMT, "M. L. Davis"
> <oglet...@oglethorpe.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Robert Frenchu wrote in message
> > ><8jgrttc5ndv26pkfs...@4ax.com>...
> > >>> Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote
> <3BDDC04F...@ihug.co.nz>
> > in
> > >talk.politics.guns. :
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> > True Patriot wrote:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > The US forces are highly skilled at flying into scenery at low
> > >altitude.
> > >>>> > Who else would have the skills to connect with a civilian cable
> car
> > in
> > >>>> > Italy killing everybody on board, for example?
> > >>>> > Thank god that the merkins have finally declared war on the Red
> > Cross,
> > >>>> > that's all I can say. Three direct hits should show those
bastards
> > >not to
> > >>>> > assist innocent civilians and think that they can get away with
it.
> > >>>> ------------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> much
> > >when
> > >>>> they occasionally miss, perhaps we should just go back to all out
> High
> > >>>> Altitude "Carpet Bombing" with 1,000 ponders, and use our old B-52
> > >fleet. It
> > >>>> costs us a LOT LESS to just blow the hell out of everything than it
> > does
> > >to
> > >>>> use "Smart Bombs" that "Occasionally" miss the target!
> > >>>>
> yours!
> > >>>
> > >warehouses),
> > >>>hospital, old peoples home, civilian homes, Northern Alliance,
> villages,
> > >>>dropping supplies into minefields - if you can't do the job, why not
> ask
> > >those
> > >>>who can?
> > >>
> > >>He's right- we should let the New Zealand Navy take over.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Or the New Zealand air force.
> > >
> > >
> > Hey, which one of you fuckheads forgot to lock mort's cage?
> > The "Illiterate moron" section of the zoo needs him back urgently.
>
>
> So, I imagine, you would be the poster boy for literate intelligence?
>
> NOT what I had in mind.
>
So ?
GardenGnome
> Jonathan H wrote:
>
> > True Patriot wrote in message ...
> > >On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:20:11 +0000, Eddy <ma...@the.weekend> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Congenital Kano wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>Of course. You have so much experience at low level flying of helos
in
> > >>>hostile urban settings to qualify you to comment.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I would have thought that one of the first rules of flying is not to
fly
> > >>into the scenery. With the sole exceptions of Kamikazies, of course.
> > >
> > >The US forces are highly skilled at flying into scenery at low
altitude.
> > >Who else would have the skills to connect with a civilian cable car in
> > >Italy killing everybody on board, for example?
> > >Thank god that the merkins have finally declared war on the Red Cross,
> > >that's all I can say. Three direct hits should show those bastards not
> to
> > >assist innocent civilians and think that they can get away with it.
>
>
> > have to start attacking the Taliban.
>
>
> Wahhhh haa haa!
>
Haa haa wahhh
GardenGnome
"Jonathan H" <fa...@e.mail> wrote in message
news:100438680...@eos.uk.clara.net...
>
> Strabo wrote in message <3BDDB50B...@flashnet.com>...
> >
> >
> >Jonathan H wrote:
> >>
> >> True Patriot wrote in message ...
> >> >On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:20:11 +0000, Eddy <ma...@the.weekend> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Congenital Kano wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Of course. You have so much experience at low level flying of helos
> in
> >> >>>hostile urban settings to qualify you to comment.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>I would have thought that one of the first rules of flying is not to
> fly
> >> >>into the scenery. With the sole exceptions of Kamikazies, of course.
> >> >
> >> >The US forces are highly skilled at flying into scenery at low
> altitude.
> >> >Who else would have the skills to connect with a civilian cable car in
> >> >Italy killing everybody on board, for example?
> >> >Thank god that the merkins have finally declared war on the Red Cross,
> >> >that's all I can say. Three direct hits should show those bastards
not
> to
> >> >assist innocent civilians and think that they can get away with it.
> >>
> >> They're running out of high-priority targets though. Pretty soon
they'll
> >> have to start attacking the Taliban.
> >
>
> No -- I believe there are still many "command and control" centres left.
>
We all believe something.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDE3171...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >>Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDE188E...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >> Evidently not- is the New Zealand Navy steaming up to show everyone
> >> how it's done?
> >
> >Did you think I was in command of the RNZ Navy?? Sorry, no - I was in the Airforce and then with the New
> >Zealand Shipping Corporation controlling the NZ-Europe container traffic.
>
> I don't even think you're in command of reality, Greg. You said
> someone could bomb bette and we're still waiting for you to tell us
> who it is.
Reality check for you Robert, We (New Zealand) can bomb better.
Your present bombing is having minimal strategic effect at vast cost but in addition is doing vast damage to
the civilian infrastructure and to the US image and reputation.
Put New Zealand in charge of the bombing (ie no bombing) and you will get a tiny reduction in the strategic
effect/slight improvement in the strategic effect, vast reduction in cost, vast reduction in damage to the
civilian infrastructure and an improvement to the US image and reputation.
Greg Procter
"M. L. Davis" wrote:
Yes.
Robert Frenchu
>Reality check for you Robert, We (New Zealand) can bomb better.
Reality check for you, Greg. You have nothing to bomb WITH. Therefore,
it's impossible for New Zealand to bomb "better."
I think the City of Los Angeles has a bigger Air Force than New
Zealand.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDEC271...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >Reality check for you Robert, We (New Zealand) can bomb better.
>
> Reality check for you, Greg. You have nothing to bomb WITH. Therefore,
> it's impossible for New Zealand to bomb "better."
Not bombing would be better than your current activities.
BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
intelligence about our capabilities.
>
>
> I think the City of Los Angeles has a bigger Air Force than New
> Zealand.
Quite possibly, the City of Los Angeles probably has a larger population than New Zealand has.
Robert Frenchu
>
>
>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
>> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDEC271...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>> >Reality check for you Robert, We (New Zealand) can bomb better.
>>
>> Reality check for you, Greg. You have nothing to bomb WITH. Therefore,
>> it's impossible for New Zealand to bomb "better."
>
>Not bombing would be better than your current activities.
Quite possibly, but "not bombing" was not the option you suggested,
was it? You suggested substituting the mighty New Zealand Air Force
and letting them take a whack at it. Pretty stupid idea, really.
>BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
>intelligence about our capabilities.
You have no capabilities. Try being honest with yourself. You probably
can't even defend yourselves, much less carry out an attack on targets
thousands of miles away.
>> I think the City of Los Angeles has a bigger Air Force than New
>> Zealand.
>
>Quite possibly, the City of Los Angeles probably has a larger population than New Zealand has.
And less sheep.
John A. Stovall
They have 17 A-4 Skyhawks which they will sell next year when they
disband their air combat forces.
http://www.airforce.mil.nz/today/forceelements/index.htm
Then all they will have are trash haulers and rotor heads.
*****************************************************
"Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all."
Billy Bragg's "The Internationale"
from the album "The Internationale"
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDECB52...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >
> >
> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >
> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDEC271...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >>
> >> >Reality check for you Robert, We (New Zealand) can bomb better.
> >>
> >> Reality check for you, Greg. You have nothing to bomb WITH. Therefore,
> >> it's impossible for New Zealand to bomb "better."
> >
> >Not bombing would be better than your current activities.
>
> Quite possibly, but "not bombing" was not the option you suggested,
> was it? You suggested substituting the mighty New Zealand Air Force
> and letting them take a whack at it. Pretty stupid idea, really.
Not stupid at all, getting us to not bomb Afghanistan in your place would let your politicians off the
hook and everyone saves face.
>
> >BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
> >intelligence about our capabilities.
>
> You have no capabilities. Try being honest with yourself.
We do and we do.
We are getting rid of a small fleet of 48 year old design attack aircraft. (I personally don't agree
with it)
> You probably
> can't even defend yourselves, much less carry out an attack on targets
> thousands of miles away.
We probably can't defend ourselves, but that situation barely changes with the retirement of a dozen odd
obsolete aircraft. We are 3.6 million people with thousands of miles of coastline to "defend".
Hey, the USa can't defend itself either, judging by recent events.
>
> >> I think the City of Los Angeles has a bigger Air Force than New
> >> Zealand.
> >
> >Quite possibly, the City of Los Angeles probably has a larger population than New Zealand has.
>
> And less sheep.
Sure, everyone has less sheep.(and more anthrax)
Robert Frenchu
>Not stupid at all, getting us to not bomb Afghanistan in your place would let your politicians off the
>hook and everyone saves face.
Quite stupid, since you don't have the capability, and never had.
>> >BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
>> >intelligence about our capabilities.
>>
>> You have no capabilities. Try being honest with yourself.
>
>We do and we do.
>We are getting rid of a small fleet of 48 year old design attack aircraft. (I personally don't agree
>with it)
Your only capabilities at this point are to light the way for invading
forces with the burning hulks of your aircraft.
By cutting your forces in half, I can see how it might make it more
difficult for them to see.
Greg Procter
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:37:00 -0800, Robert Frenchu
> <robert_frenchu@ya-take_out-hoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDEC271...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >
> >>Reality check for you Robert, We (New Zealand) can bomb better.
> >
> >Reality check for you, Greg. You have nothing to bomb WITH. Therefore,
> >it's impossible for New Zealand to bomb "better."
> >
> >I think the City of Los Angeles has a bigger Air Force than New
> >Zealand.
>
> They have 17 A-4 Skyhawks which they will sell next year when they
> disband their air combat forces.
>
> http://www.airforce.mil.nz/today/forceelements/index.htm
>
> Then all they will have are trash haulers and rotor heads.
What were we going to stop with 17 A-4 Skyhawks?
- 100 million Indonesians?
- 2 Billion Chinese?
- A few load mouth yanks?
M. L. Davis
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>
>
>"John A. Stovall" wrote:
snipped
>> Then all they will have are trash haulers and rotor heads.
>
>What were we going to stop with 17 A-4 Skyhawks?
>- 100 million Indonesians?
>- 2 Billion Chinese?
>- A few load mouth yanks?
I'm sure you mean "loud mouth yanks".
None of the above care about your island. But you may have a real
problem when the Cook Islanders show up in their war canoes.
Besides if the Indonesians or Chinese have designs on your and your
sheep, you might want to consider the French model of a Force Frappe.
Oh, I forget the French don't care much for your national sovereignty
and carry out operations there when they want to there.
********************************************************
"Reason will not decide at last, the sword will decide."
"Contemplation of the Sword"
Robinson Jeffers
from "Such Counsels You Gave Me"
Robert Frenchu
>Greg Procter wrote in message <3BDED2D4...@ihug.co.nz>...
>>What were we going to stop with 17 A-4 Skyhawks?
>
>Bullets? Stingers? Ack-ack?
ROFLMAO
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDED001...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >Not stupid at all, getting us to not bomb Afghanistan in your place would let your politicians off the
> >hook and everyone saves face.
>
> Quite stupid, since you don't have the capability, and never had.
This "Quite Stupid" thing is getting to be like an; "it is", "it isn't", "it is" arguement between school
children!
We presently have the capability to bomb, or more especially, as I argued, to not bomb.
In the past, we most definitely had the capability to bomb - my uncle died bombing Berlin from North
Africa, even before the USa was dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII.
> >> >BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
> >> >intelligence about our capabilities.
> >>
> >> You have no capabilities. Try being honest with yourself.
> >
> >We do and we do.
> >We are getting rid of a small fleet of 48 year old design attack aircraft. (I personally don't agree
> >with it)
>
> Your only capabilities at this point are to light the way for invading
> forces with the burning hulks of your aircraft.
As we don't have any intention of attacking any defenseless nations at this point, the level of capability
is unimportant.
>
>
> By cutting your forces in half, I can see how it might make it more
> difficult for them to see.
The point of cutting our airforce's capability down to a defensive role is to allow the defense allocation
to be spent in increasing our military's capability in other more important areas after 12 years of right
wing governments cutting spending and re-equipping.
Lewin A.R.W. Edwards
> The point of cutting our airforce's capability down to a defensive role is
to allow the defense allocation
> to be spent in increasing our military's capability in other more
important areas after 12 years of right
> wing governments cutting spending and re-equipping.
"Other areas". Like white flags and body bags?
Greg Procter
"M. L. Davis" wrote:
So you agree that these outmoded aircraft are a pointless waste of money and
that we should put our defense allocation to better use - fair enough.
Greg Procter
"John A. Stovall" wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 05:18:29 +1300, Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"John A. Stovall" wrote:
> snipped
> >> Then all they will have are trash haulers and rotor heads.
> >
> >What were we going to stop with 17 A-4 Skyhawks?
> >- 100 million Indonesians?
> >- 2 Billion Chinese?
> >- A few load mouth yanks?
>
> I'm sure you mean "loud mouth yanks".
That could be fun to argue - do yanks load their mouths to fill their
guts to gigantic proportions or are they better known for being loud
mouthed? Nahh!
>
> None of the above care about your island. But you may have a real
> problem when the Cook Islanders show up in their war canoes.
They appear regularly - we have the Orions for spotting them and for
keeping watch for nuclear subs for the yanks.
We have a wrongly equipped navy (thanks to Aussie and US pressure) to
meet them before they get within spear throwing range.
We have a reasonable army to meet them if they do manage to slip past the
net and get ashore.
>
> Besides if the Indonesians or Chinese have designs on your and your
> sheep, you might want to consider the French model of a Force Frappe.
>
> Oh, I forget the French don't care much for your national sovereignty
> and carry out operations there when they want to there.
As with all terrorist activities, the action happens and then is dealt
with - we sorted out the French (by way of extradition) - there have been
no further incidents and no threat of further incidents.
We have the experience (successful) Just ask when you realise you need
our help again.
John
>>
>>As they say, when the US forces come *everyone* ducks for cover...
>>
>>I've no problem with the weapons themselves, just the delivery to
>>target. And the selection of target.
>>
>
>Oh? And you can do better?
>
Absolutely not. I'd be better of throwing rocks at the camels and
caves. Rocks have several advantages:
1. They're cheap.
2. They don't tend to cause too much damage when they miss the
target.
3. You don't need a $18m aircraft to throw a rock.
Greg Procter
"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" wrote:
Frigates, APC's and modern radios.
John A. Stovall
Yes, let's throw some rocks. But really big ones, 100's of meters in
diameter and from very high up, like out side lunar space. Then we
can do some serious damage with that sort of delta-V.
The object of war is to damage those you wage it against.
*****************************************************
Browning, Browning...
On appuie là, et qu'est-ce qui sort
Par le p'tit trou? Madame la Mort.
"Browning"
Edith Piaf
M. Eglestone
> > Speaking of the New Zealand Air Force and their War Fighting Ability...
--------------------------------------
> True Patriot stated:
>
> They could only do a better job than the US is doing now - but then a girl
> scout troop could do as well and still have time to bake cookies. Face
> facts, you've never won a battle by yourselves.
--------------------------------
M. Eglestone replied:
You are not a very good Troll, True Patriot. Fact it you're a pitiful
excuse for a Troll!
The New Zealand Air Force doesn't have any bombers to speak of. What they
do have is so out dated that the Florida Air National Guard could wipe them
out in a few hours.
Wars are NOT fought by single countries anymore Troll Patriot. We HAVE
Allies and (when they can "afford" to participate) we call upon them - Or,
if it is in THEIR best interest, they participate and we usually end up
paying their bills.
As for OUR ability to fight a war, hide in the bushes (Behind your Fake
Name) and watch!
------
M. Eglestone SMSgt (E-8)
United States Air Force (Strike FIRST with Air Power) Retired
M. Eglestone
> True Patriot wrote:
>
> You shouldn't have, collectively their IQ is equal to that of the entire US
> Marines corps.
----------------------------
Bad Troll! Very bad Troll!
Go sit in the corner and lick your balls!
----
- Short Books to Read a Bed Time -
28. STAYING HAPPILY MARRIED by Elizabeth Taylor
27. INCREDIBLE BEAUTY TIPS by Janet Reno
26. BUILDING YOUR OWN PLANE by John Denver
25. DOWN HILL SKIING by Sonny Bono
24. BEAUTIFUL LEGS AND THIGHS by Hillary Clinton
23. GETTING TO THE SUPER BOWL by Dan Marino
22. NIGHT FLYING by JFK, Jr.
21. THINGS I LOVE ABOUT BILL by Hillary Clinton
20. LIFE'S MEMORIES by Ronald Reagan
19. CULTIVATING TRUE FRIENDSHIP by Linda Tripp
18. DON'T BE A SORE LOSER by Steve Spurrier
17. THINGS I CAN'T AFFORD by Bill Gates
16. THE BEAUTY OF SILENCE by John Madden
15. MY PLAN TO FIND THE REAL KILLERS by O. J. Simpson
14. THINGS I WOULD NOT DO FOR MONEY by Dennis Rodman
13. THE WILD YEARS by Al Gore
12. AMELIA EARHART'S GUIDE TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN
11. AMERICA'S MOST LOVED LAWYERS
10. CLEVELAND - A TRAVEL GUIDE
09. GETTING WELL by Dr. Kevorkian
08. EQUESTRIAN FIELD JUMPING by Christroper Reeves
07. KNOCK'M DEAD SPEECHES by George Bush
06. GEORGE FOREMAN'S BIG BOOK OF BABY NAMES by George Foreman
05. MEN I HAVE LOVED by Ellen DeGeneres
04. DATING ETIQUETTE by Mike Tyson
03. SPOTTED OWL RECIPES by the EPA
02. THE AMISH PHONE DIRECTORY
01. MORALS AND WHY THEY ARE IMPORTANT by Bill Clinton
M. Eglestone
> >
> > Oh, by the way, I'll be sure to pass your suggestions on to the White
> > House. I'm sure that they will be wide open to any suggestion coming
> > from the GREAT Military Strategist "Greg (the mouth) Procter!"
----------------------
> True Patriot wrote:
>
> And yet you would have us believe that they would listen to *you*?
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
----------------------------------------------
No, Troll Boy, they would have no reason to listen to anything I had to say
in the matter either! What EVER made you think they would?
You have a very bad reading comprehension problem Troll Boy.
Bad Troll Boy.. Go sit in the corner and lick your balls!
---------------------------------------------
M. Eglestone
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> I bet we would hit less UN facilities, Red Cross (any left?) hospitals,
> old peoples homes, civilian homes, Northern Alliance soldiers and villages.
-------------------------------------------
Well, by God, you should suggest that New Zealand take over the war effort
then, Greg. I think it's a GREAT idea. Call up your Civilian Leadership and
TELL THEM what they need to do!
Don't forget to let me know when you're Mighty Armed Forces are ready to
rock and roll!
ROTF - LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
M. Eglestone
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> The New Zealand airforce is well able to deliver aid to refugees.
> The part we are getting rid of is the bit that you could utilize to
> bomb friendly forces and defenseless civilians.
-----------------------
Good idea, Greg. If you can't hit a target with your Old Outdated Aircraft,
it is best to eliminate them completely. After all, Australia has a large
enough Air and Navy to protect your "Homeland" if it becomes necessary. You
don't need to "Project National Power" because (in fact) you have no
National Power to speak of.
Face facts, Greg, your country is WAY out of its league in this type of
conflict. The only thing you CAN DO is bitch and complain about the mistakes
we make. And YES, we make mistakes. War is a Dirty, Deadly Business which
involves the deaths of many innocents (directly and indirectly) - It always
has been - It always will be.
As for cargo, just about any of our (State) National Guard units with and
Airlift Mission have as many Cargo Aircraft as your entire country!
M. Eglestone
> Greg Procter wrote:
>
> Stop knocking your technology - it's the only thing in the USa that I have faith in!
-------------------------
Did it ever occur to you that we might be hitting EXACTLY what we intended
to hit?
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
>> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDED001...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>>
>> >Not stupid at all, getting us to not bomb Afghanistan in your place would let your politicians off the
>> >hook and everyone saves face.
>>
>> Quite stupid, since you don't have the capability, and never had.
>
>This "Quite Stupid" thing is getting to be like an; "it is", "it isn't", "it is" arguement between school
>children!
All you have to do is admit your remark was stupid and move on- what's
keeping you?
>We presently have the capability to bomb, or more especially, as I argued, to not bomb.
But not in Afghanistan, of course, which is what we're talking about.
>In the past, we most definitely had the capability to bomb - my uncle died bombing Berlin from North
>Africa, even before the USa was dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII.
I feel quite certain the New Zealand Air Force was not involved, so
one wonders why you're dragging your dead uncle into the fray.
>> >> >BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
>> >> >intelligence about our capabilities.
>> >>
>> >> You have no capabilities. Try being honest with yourself.
>> >
>> >We do and we do.
>> >We are getting rid of a small fleet of 48 year old design attack aircraft. (I personally don't agree
>> >with it)
>>
>> Your only capabilities at this point are to light the way for invading
>> forces with the burning hulks of your aircraft.
>
>As we don't have any intention of attacking any defenseless nations at this point, the level of capability
>is unimportant.
Then one wonders why you suggested the US let someone else handle it.
We're back to the beginning again. Or were you just posting to see
your name on the computer screen?
David Lentz
"M. Eglestone" wrote:
>
> > Greg Procter wrote:
> >
> > Stop knocking your technology - it's the only thing in the USa that I have faith in!
> -------------------------
>
> Did it ever occur to you that we might be hitting EXACTLY what we intended
> to hit?
Couple of observations.
First, no military plan survives execution. I am sure we have
making adjustments to the plan as we go along.
Second, the reporters writing these stories that that plan is not
working, don't know what the plan is. Therefore they have no
ability to determine if the plan is working or not.
Three, as William T. Sherman once noted: "War is Hell." Nobody,
in position of responsibility, ever said this would be either
quick or easy.
David
--
qyra...@ebpurfgre.ee.pbz
J. A. M.
"Lewin A.R.W. Edwards" <la...@larwe.com> wrote in message
news:VpkD7.7252$wM4.4...@typhoon2.gnilink.net...
> > They could only do a better job than the US is doing now - but then a
girl
> > scout troop could do as well and still have time to bake cookies. Face
> > facts, you've never won a battle by yourselves.
>
the
> record, I am an Australian living in the U.S.). I'd like to know if I
should
> be flaming you for being an undereducated xenophobic New Zealander (why
the
> hell do NZer hate and fear America so much, anyway?) or for being someone
> I'm ashamed to call a fellow-countryman.
>
FYI, TP is posting through a server in Amsterdam, NL
most likely is where he is from.
J. A. M.
"J. A. M." <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4GGD7.275$RK3.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
Sorry , he is using a remailer located in NL, anyway he goes in the x list
WhiteWolf
you're a sick pup.
WW
Ferg
the SLR with.
"Oh, the ammo's sooo much lighter to carry so we can employ more
faggotpooffairyhomos on the frontline, youbeaut - pity about the fact
the enemy is not afraid of us anymore"
Russ
their civilians. Oops! They don't have any, they live in caves in the side of mountains. Do you
even know the difference in carpet bombing and smart bombs. All Wars have some civilian casualities.
RUSS HARDEN
Msgt, USAF, Retired
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDC04F...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >"M. Eglestone" wrote:
> >
> >> > True Patriot wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The US forces are highly skilled at flying into scenery at low altitude.
> >> > Who else would have the skills to connect with a civilian cable car in
> >> > Italy killing everybody on board, for example?
> >> > Thank god that the merkins have finally declared war on the Red Cross,
> >> > that's all I can say. Three direct hits should show those bastards not to
> >> > assist innocent civilians and think that they can get away with it.
> >> ------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> If all our High Tech (low altitude) Bombing Systems bother you so much when
> >> they occasionally miss, perhaps we should just go back to all out High
> >> Altitude "Carpet Bombing" with 1,000 ponders, and use our old B-52 fleet. It
> >> costs us a LOT LESS to just blow the hell out of everything than it does to
> >> use "Smart Bombs" that "Occasionally" miss the target!
> >>
> >> You can get hung with an old rope, or a new one - the choice is yours!
> >
> >That "occassionally" is wearing a bit thin - UN, Red Cross (four warehouses),
> >hospital, old peoples home, civilian homes, Northern Alliance, villages,
> >dropping supplies into minefields - if you can't do the job, why not ask those
> >who can?
>
> He's right- we should let the New Zealand Navy take over.
Russ
Greg Procter wrote:
> Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
> > > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDE820...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDE493...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> > >>
> > >> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> > "M. L. Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote <WUjD7.9675$CJ6.1...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com> in talk.politics.guns. :
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Robert Frenchu wrote in message
> > >> >> ><8jgrttc5ndv26pkfs...@4ax.com>...
> > >> >> >>> Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDDC04F...@ihug.co.nz> in
> > >> >> >talk.politics.guns. :
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >>>That "occassionally" is wearing a bit thin - UN, Red Cross (four
> > >> >> >warehouses),
> > >> >> >>>hospital, old peoples home, civilian homes, Northern Alliance, villages,
> > >> >> >>>dropping supplies into minefields - if you can't do the job, why not ask
> > >> >> >those
> > >> >> >>>who can?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>He's right- we should let the New Zealand Navy take over.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >Or the New Zealand air force.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Oh yeah, I forgot about those two guys.
> > >> >
> > >> >I see you are still short on intelligence.
> > >>
> > >> I see you're still a lying sack of shit.
> > >>
> > >> Your turn, lanolin-breath.
> > >
> > >Why do you feel the need to make your reply a personal attack?
> >
> > I'm sorry- I forgot in New Zealand telling someone they are short on
> > intelligence is a compliment, since most of you have no intelligence
> > at all.
>
> Intelligence is the military term for details such as where Red Cross aid warehouses are located.
> Intelligence is also making sure that the targeters have the co-ordinates of those Red Cross warehouses on file so that they can
> avoid targetting such facilities.
> Intelligence is knowing the location of friendly forces so you can avoid targetting them.
> Intelligence is knowing the location of the Chinese Embassy.
> Without that intelligence you might just as well carpet Afghanistan with bombs from B52s.
> Intelligence is the opposite of stupidity - bombing friendly forces is a loss three times; your side is reduced by the number of
> casualties. The enemy thereby gains an advantage of double the number of casualties. The third loss is the reduction in trust by
> your allies. Bombing your allies is stupid.
>
> Regards,
> Greg.P.
Since the Red Cross Warehouses had been used and taken over by the TallyWhackers of the Taliban, bombing it was part of the plan.
RUSS
M. L. Davis
Ferg wrote in message <6b02215a.0110...@posting.google.com>...
Ferg is crying because Britain's army is so effective it has been fighting
Irelands for several centuries.
-*MORT*-
Frank White
sto...@our-town.com says...
>
>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 19:43:20 GMT, jo...@liquisol.com (John) wrote:
>
>>"M. L. Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>As they say, when the US forces come *everyone* ducks for cover...
>>>>
>>>>I've no problem with the weapons themselves, just the delivery to
>>>>target. And the selection of target.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh? And you can do better?
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely not. I'd be better of throwing rocks at the camels and
>>caves. Rocks have several advantages:
>> 1. They're cheap.
>> 2. They don't tend to cause too much damage when they miss the
>>target.
>> 3. You don't need a $18m aircraft to throw a rock.
>
>Yes, let's throw some rocks. But really big ones, 100's of meters in
>diameter and from very high up, like out side lunar space. Then we
>can do some serious damage with that sort of delta-V.
That'd be a hellish weapon, you realize.
Unfortunately you couldn't aim it very precisely, and the
side effects would be global in scope.
>The object of war is to damage those you wage it against.
But not yourself.
And unfortunately, by boasting about how accurate our
smart weapons are, we've set up a situation where if
we hit the wrong target, the rest of the world assumes
we did it deliberately. That's one of the reasons the
Chinese are STILL angry we blew up their embassy in
Serbia.
FW
Eddy
M. Eglestone wrote:
I think a more creditable reason for NZ to stay out of this current
conflict is not to do with their military equipment being outdated, but
rather it's got absolutely sod all to do with them.
R. Kym Horsell
...
> "Oh, the ammo's sooo much lighter to carry so we can employ more
> faggotpooffairyhomos
HEY! Don't talk about my granny like that!
>on the frontline, youbeaut - pity about the fact
> the enemy is not afraid of us anymore"
The "shoot through the rocks they're hiding behind" feature had limited
usefulness...
Eddy
M. L. Davis wrote:
Mort is crying because 250 odd US maureens couldn't prevent a pair of
rag-heads blowing up their camp in the desert, nor could his US navy
prevent a pair of rag heads blowing a hole into USS Cole, or security
prevent US Embassies blowing up in Africa, US intelligence preventing
rag-head landscape gardening in downtown Manhattan ...
John A. Stovall
wrote:
>In article <sv0utt859bvurd6j1...@4ax.com>,
>sto...@our-town.com says...
>>
>>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 19:43:20 GMT, jo...@liquisol.com (John) wrote:
>>
>>>"M. L. Davis" <oglet...@oglethorpe.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>As they say, when the US forces come *everyone* ducks for cover...
>>>>>
>>>>>I've no problem with the weapons themselves, just the delivery to
>>>>>target. And the selection of target.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh? And you can do better?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Absolutely not. I'd be better of throwing rocks at the camels and
>>>caves. Rocks have several advantages:
>>> 1. They're cheap.
>>> 2. They don't tend to cause too much damage when they miss the
>>>target.
>>> 3. You don't need a $18m aircraft to throw a rock.
>>
>>Yes, let's throw some rocks. But really big ones, 100's of meters in
>>diameter and from very high up, like out side lunar space. Then we
>>can do some serious damage with that sort of delta-V.
>
>That'd be a hellish weapon, you realize.
Yes.
>
>Unfortunately you couldn't aim it very precisely, and the
>side effects would be global in scope.
>
No, small ones would not be "global in scope" and could be with
guidance packages put down close enough for the job. It's not much
more difficult than what is done with a hypersonic warhead reentry
now.
As of side effects, there were no global side effects from Tunguska of
major consequences not from nor from Barringer meteor in Arizona.
http://www.meteorite.com/meteor_crater/
These are little ones. I'm not suggesting using a Dinosaur killer.
>>The object of war is to damage those you wage it against.
>
>But not yourself.
>
>And unfortunately, by boasting about how accurate our
>smart weapons are, we've set up a situation where if
>we hit the wrong target, the rest of the world assumes
>we did it deliberately. That's one of the reasons the
>Chinese are STILL angry we blew up their embassy in
>Serbia.
That was not a failure of the technology. It was a failure of the
intelligence as to the fact the Chinese had moved into that building.
The weapons hit the location they were targeted for.
I suggest you do more research on this subject.
*****************************************************
"We are the Pilgrims; we shall go
Always a little further: it may be
Beyond that last blue mountain barred with snow
Across that angry or that glimmering sea....."
Special Air Service Memorial to the Dead
Taken from "The Golden Journey to Samarkand"
by J. E. Flecker
Greg Procter
Russ wrote:
Russ, your comment is just too stupid to warrent a response.
Robert Frenchu
>Russ wrote:
>> Since the Red Cross Warehouses had been used and taken over by the TallyWhackers of the Taliban, bombing it was part of the plan.
>
>Russ, your comment is just too stupid to warrent a response.
Uh, Greg? Your post *is* a response.
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Greg Procter
"M. Eglestone" wrote:
> > Greg Procter wrote:
> >
> > I bet we would hit less UN facilities, Red Cross (any left?) hospitals,
> > old peoples homes, civilian homes, Northern Alliance soldiers and villages.
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Well, by God, you should suggest that New Zealand take over the war effort
> then, Greg. I think it's a GREAT idea. Call up your Civilian Leadership and
> TELL THEM what they need to do!
>
> Don't forget to let me know when you're Mighty Armed Forces are ready to
> rock and roll!
>
> ROTF - LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Duhh! We have been ready since 11/9.
Now, tell me what you want done - leave the means to us.
Greg Procter
"M. Eglestone" wrote:
> > Greg Procter wrote:
> >
> > The New Zealand airforce is well able to deliver aid to refugees.
> > The part we are getting rid of is the bit that you could utilize to
> > bomb friendly forces and defenseless civilians.
> -----------------------
>
> Good idea, Greg. If you can't hit a target with your Old Outdated Aircraft,
> it is best to eliminate them completely.
A small point there; in the days of the ANZUS treaty there were regular practice
operations involving US, Australian and New Zealand forces. These included an
annual competition between the three airforces. Since the US withdrew, the
contests have been held between the RAAF and the RNZAF. The RNZAF with it's
outdated aircraft and equipment was consistantly the winner of those
competitions in most categories.
> After all, Australia has a large
> enough Air and Navy to protect your "Homeland" if it becomes necessary.
We have forces in proportion to Australia.
> You
> don't need to "Project National Power" because (in fact) you have no
> National Power to speak of.
>
We know that - what's your point?
>
> Face facts, Greg, your country is WAY out of its league in this type of
> conflict.
Of course we are out of our league in bombing innocent civilians in a foreign
country on the other side of the world - you still haven't come up with a
logical reason why we would want to do that.
If you can ever figure out a logical reason, I'm sure we can figure a way to
achieve the required end.
> The only thing you CAN DO is bitch and complain about the mistakes
> we make. And YES, we make mistakes. War is a Dirty, Deadly Business which
> involves the deaths of many innocents (directly and indirectly) - It always
> has been - It always will be.
To date, it is only you who is waging a war against innocent civilians in this
apparent conflict.
>
>
> As for cargo, just about any of our (State) National Guard units with and
> Airlift Mission have as many Cargo Aircraft as your entire country!
Sure, the United States is a larger country than New Zealand - do you have some
point to make or are you just being arrogant?
Regards,
Greg.P.
DRS
[...]
| To date, it is only you who is waging a war against innocent civilians in
this
| apparent conflict.
America is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, more so than
any nation in any war in history. There are no guarantees ever that no
civilian will be hurt or killed but trying to frame the conflict in terms of
America waging war against civilians is flatly a lie.
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
#319
Gandalf
Oh yeah, there's a guy who's thinking :-)
I suppose incenerating ~5,000 innocents isn't waging war in that precise way
(which the USA is not doing, unless you consider Al Queda (sp?) civillian).
This idiot sounds like those poor brainwashed morons that think there
weren't any jews in the trade towers!
Greg Procter
"M. Eglestone" wrote:
> > Greg Procter wrote:
> >
> > Stop knocking your technology - it's the only thing in the USa that I have faith in!
> -------------------------
>
> Did it ever occur to you that we might be hitting EXACTLY what we intended
> to hit?
YES!
(but I never once accused you (the USa) of being that low)
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDEDC26...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >
> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDED001...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >>
> >> >Not stupid at all, getting us to not bomb Afghanistan in your place would let your politicians off the
> >> >hook and everyone saves face.
> >>
> >> Quite stupid, since you don't have the capability, and never had.
> >
> >This "Quite Stupid" thing is getting to be like an; "it is", "it isn't", "it is" arguement between school
> >children!
>
> All you have to do is admit your remark was stupid and move on- what's
> keeping you?
>
Your stupid remarks.
>
> >We presently have the capability to bomb, or more especially, as I argued, to not bomb.
>
> But not in Afghanistan, of course, which is what we're talking about.
We exactly have the capability to not bomb Afghanistan - we have the equipment to not bomb Afghanistan - we
have the intention to not bomb Afghanistan. We still have the equipment to bomb Afghanistan. Why are you making
such heavy going of this point?
>
> >In the past, we most definitely had the capability to bomb - my uncle died bombing Berlin from North
> >Africa, even before the USa was dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII.
>
> I feel quite certain the New Zealand Air Force was not involved, so
> one wonders why you're dragging your dead uncle into the fray.
>
It was you who said that we _never_ had the capability of bombing.
My uncle was trained in New Zealand. He travelled to Britain and joined an RAF squadron staffed by New Zealand
crews because the RNZAF did not at that time have suitable equipment to bomb Berlin from New Zealand. Later
(1940) the RNZAF purchased bombers in Britain and set up squadrons there.
It seems quite reasonable to me that NZ supply trained manpower to her allies in times of war.
>
> >> >> >BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
> >> >> >intelligence about our capabilities.
> >> >>
> >> >> You have no capabilities. Try being honest with yourself.
> >> >
> >> >We do and we do.
> >> >We are getting rid of a small fleet of 48 year old design attack aircraft. (I personally don't agree
> >> >with it)
> >>
> >> Your only capabilities at this point are to light the way for invading
> >> forces with the burning hulks of your aircraft.
> >
> >As we don't have any intention of attacking any defenseless nations at this point, the level of capability
> >is unimportant.
>
> Then one wonders why you suggested the US let someone else handle it.
Because the US has completely stuffed this one up!
>
> We're back to the beginning again. Or were you just posting to see
> your name on the computer screen?
I can see why you would be aware of such a reason for posting, but no, that is not my reason.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDEDC26...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
>> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDED001...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>> >>
>> >> >Not stupid at all, getting us to not bomb Afghanistan in your place would let your politicians off the
>> >> >hook and everyone saves face.
>> >>
>> >> Quite stupid, since you don't have the capability, and never had.
>> >This "Quite Stupid" thing is getting to be like an; "it is", "it isn't", "it is" arguement between school
>> >children!
>> All you have to do is admit your remark was stupid and move on- what's
>> keeping you?
>Your stupid remarks.
At the rate you generate stupid remarks, you'll just have to get used
it.
>> >We presently have the capability to bomb, or more especially, as I argued, to not bomb.
>>
>> But not in Afghanistan, of course, which is what we're talking about.
>
>We exactly have the capability to not bomb Afghanistan - we have the equipment to not bomb Afghanistan - we
>have the intention to not bomb Afghanistan. We still have the equipment to bomb Afghanistan. Why are you making
>such heavy going of this point?
You don't have the capability to bomb Afghanistan. Which part of this
sentence are you having trouble with?
>> >In the past, we most definitely had the capability to bomb - my uncle died bombing Berlin from North
>> >Africa, even before the USa was dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII.
>>
>> I feel quite certain the New Zealand Air Force was not involved, so
>> one wonders why you're dragging your dead uncle into the fray.
>>
>
>It was you who said that we _never_ had the capability of bombing.
You never did. I assumed you were smart enough to know I was talking
about Afghanistan. I won't overestimate you again.
>My uncle was trained in New Zealand. He travelled to Britain and joined an RAF squadron staffed by New Zealand
>crews because the RNZAF did not at that time have suitable equipment to bomb Berlin from New Zealand. Later
>(1940) the RNZAF purchased bombers in Britain and set up squadrons there.
>It seems quite reasonable to me that NZ supply trained manpower to her allies in times of war.
So are you now suggesting that your past remark, "if you can't do the
job, why not ask those who can?" meant we should let New Zealand
military personnel fly U.S. aircraft, since you don't have anything
capable in your own military?
>> >> >> >BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
>> >> >> >intelligence about our capabilities.
>> >> >> You have no capabilities. Try being honest with yourself.
>> >> >We do and we do.
>> >> >We are getting rid of a small fleet of 48 year old design attack aircraft. (I personally don't agree
>> >> >with it)
>> >> Your only capabilities at this point are to light the way for invading
>> >> forces with the burning hulks of your aircraft.
>> >As we don't have any intention of attacking any defenseless nations at this point, the level of capability
>> >is unimportant.
>> Then one wonders why you suggested the US let someone else handle it.
>Because the US has completely stuffed this one up!
No they haven't. Everything is going according to plan.
Greg Procter
David Lentz wrote:
> "M. Eglestone" wrote:
> >
> > > Greg Procter wrote:
> > >
> > > Stop knocking your technology - it's the only thing in the USa that I have faith in!
> > -------------------------
> >
> > Did it ever occur to you that we might be hitting EXACTLY what we intended
> > to hit?
>
> Couple of observations.
>
> First, no military plan survives execution. I am sure we have
> making adjustments to the plan as we go along.
Agreed.
>
> Second, the reporters writing these stories that that plan is not
> working, don't know what the plan is. Therefore they have no
> ability to determine if the plan is working or not.
The plan is not an end in itself, it needs to have an objective. Perhaps what the reporters
should be saying is that the objectives are not being advanced upon.
>
> Three, as William T. Sherman once noted: "War is Hell." Nobody,
> in position of responsibility, ever said this would be either
> quick or easy.
>
Are you suggesting that the objectives of the plan are "quick and easy" that they are not
"quick and easy", or that they are "not quick and easy"?
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg Procter
"M. L. Davis" wrote:
Britain has been fighting "terrorists/freedom fighters" in Ireland for several
centuries.
If you had bothered to ask Britain before launching a war against Afghanistan,
they might have told you about the problems involved in bombing innocent
civilians when you are after terrorists.
Greg Procter
Eddy wrote:
Would you mind saying that to our Prime Minister please?
Regards,
Greg.P.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BE04A0D...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >Russ wrote:
>
> >> Since the Red Cross Warehouses had been used and taken over by the TallyWhackers of the Taliban, bombing it was part of the plan.
> >
> >Russ, your comment is just too stupid to warrent a response.
>
> Uh, Greg? Your post *is* a response.
Too true, but Russ needed to know that I did not accept his point. I give everyone at least one chance.
Greg Procter
DRS wrote:
> "Greg Procter" <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3BE059A6...@ihug.co.nz...
>
> [...]
>
> | To date, it is only you who is waging a war against innocent civilians in
> this
> | apparent conflict.
>
> America is going out of its way to avoid civilian casualties, more so than
> any nation in any war in history. There are no guarantees ever that no
> civilian will be hurt or killed but trying to frame the conflict in terms of
> America waging war against civilians is flatly a lie.
The USa is the country doing the bombing - it is almost guaranteed that
civillians will be casualties.
You need to have some reason and aim before entering a conflict.
Greg Procter
Gandalf wrote:
> "[...] apparent conflict."
>
> Oh yeah, there's a guy who's thinking :-)
> I suppose incenerating ~5,000 innocents isn't waging war in that precise way
It is.
Next question is: "_who_ was waging war on the USa"?
The answer is not "Afghanistan" nor "the Taliban".
>
> (which the USA is not doing, unless you consider Al Queda (sp?) civillian).
> This idiot sounds like those poor brainwashed morons that think there
> weren't any jews in the trade towers!
Yes, you do sound like a brainwashed idiot.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BE068F5...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDEDC26...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BDED001...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >> >>
> >> >> >Not stupid at all, getting us to not bomb Afghanistan in your place would let your politicians off the
> >> >> >hook and everyone saves face.
> >> >>
> >> >> Quite stupid, since you don't have the capability, and never had.
> >> >This "Quite Stupid" thing is getting to be like an; "it is", "it isn't", "it is" arguement between school
> >> >children!
> >> All you have to do is admit your remark was stupid and move on- what's
> >> keeping you?
> >Your stupid remarks.
>
> At the rate you generate stupid remarks, you'll just have to get used
> it.
>
> >> >We presently have the capability to bomb, or more especially, as I argued, to not bomb.
> >>
> >> But not in Afghanistan, of course, which is what we're talking about.
> >
> >We exactly have the capability to not bomb Afghanistan - we have the equipment to not bomb Afghanistan - we
> >have the intention to not bomb Afghanistan. We still have the equipment to bomb Afghanistan. Why are you making
> >such heavy going of this point?
>
> You don't have the capability to bomb Afghanistan. Which part of this
> sentence are you having trouble with?
Just the bit where you say we don't have the ability to bomb Afghanistan.
>
> >> >In the past, we most definitely had the capability to bomb - my uncle died bombing Berlin from North
> >> >Africa, even before the USa was dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII.
> >>
> >> I feel quite certain the New Zealand Air Force was not involved, so
> >> one wonders why you're dragging your dead uncle into the fray.
> >>
> >
> >It was you who said that we _never_ had the capability of bombing.
>
> You never did.
No, it was _you_ who said that we _never_ had the capability of bombing.
> I assumed you were smart enough to know I was talking
> about Afghanistan. I won't overestimate you again.
I'm sorry Robert, I assumed that when you said _never_ you actually meant _never_. That was silly of me!
>
> >My uncle was trained in New Zealand. He travelled to Britain and joined an RAF squadron staffed by New Zealand
> >crews because the RNZAF did not at that time have suitable equipment to bomb Berlin from New Zealand. Later
> >(1940) the RNZAF purchased bombers in Britain and set up squadrons there.
> >It seems quite reasonable to me that NZ supply trained manpower to her allies in times of war.
>
> So are you now suggesting that your past remark, "if you can't do the
> job, why not ask those who can?" meant we should let New Zealand
> military personnel fly U.S. aircraft, since you don't have anything
> capable in your own military?
>
No. We haven't yet agreed that New Zealand has aircraft capable of bombing.
> >> >> >> >BTW, we do have something to bomb with, but I guess this baiting is the USa's only way to gain
> >> >> >> >intelligence about our capabilities.
> >> >> >> You have no capabilities. Try being honest with yourself.
> >> >> >We do and we do.
> >> >> >We are getting rid of a small fleet of 48 year old design attack aircraft. (I personally don't agree
> >> >> >with it)
> >> >> Your only capabilities at this point are to light the way for invading
> >> >> forces with the burning hulks of your aircraft.
> >> >As we don't have any intention of attacking any defenseless nations at this point, the level of capability
> >> >is unimportant.
> >> Then one wonders why you suggested the US let someone else handle it.
> >Because the US has completely stuffed this one up!
>
> No they haven't. Everything is going according to plan.
"The US plan to eliminate terrorism"
9/11/2000. Ouch.
10/11/2000: Find someone to blame.
2nd week: Blame Ben Laden.
2nd week Day 2: Bomb Pakistan or Afghanistan tomorrow.
2nd week/Day 3: Bomb Afghanistan.
.......... Bomb UN.
.......... Bomb rocks.
.......... Bomb Red cross.
.......... Bomb rocks.
3rd week. Bomb Northern Alliance.
4th week. Bomb rocks.
5th week bomb rocks.
6th week . Send troops.
6th week/day 3. Bomb our troops.
6th week/day 4. Shoot at Taliban.
etc.
Great plan!!!
Gandalf
God. The leader of the biggest group is housed, supported by (symbiotic,
actually - do you know what symbiosis is?), and protected by the Taliban and
Afganistan, preventing (for now) justice - therefore the who is also the
Taliban and Afganistan, as in civilized countries "aiding and abetting" is
the same as commiting the crime oneself. I bet you can't see that
connection.
There is absolutely no difference between this "new" terrorism and the
ethnic cleansing and plan for world domination of Hitler's Germany and Japan
in WW2. Will you understand when some huge group of people in NZ are
incenerated for no reason? It is likely Bin Lauden won't do that to NZ, as
they have no significant impact on "world" anything, but who's to say what
the next group of fanaticals with fuel-laden jets will be upset with?
Perhaps if someone or something dear to you is destroyed by senseless horror
beyond sane imagination you'll understand ... but I doubt that too.
Do you believe there were no jews in the trade towers?
I really don't mind being called an idiot by you. There is a saying: "best
to keep one's mouth shut, lest by opening it one proves themself a fool."
Had that saying never existed, it would have been invented just for you. The
USA has the clear moral high ground here ... but you likely can't understand
that either. Go ahead and rant. With every narrow-minded comment you make,
my point is proved over and over.
May Allah protect you.
Robert Frenchu
>> You don't have the capability to bomb Afghanistan. Which part of this
>> sentence are you having trouble with?
>
>Just the bit where you say we don't have the ability to bomb Afghanistan.
You don't. What's your problem?
>> >> >In the past, we most definitely had the capability to bomb - my uncle died bombing Berlin from North
>> >> >Africa, even before the USa was dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII.
>> >> I feel quite certain the New Zealand Air Force was not involved, so
>> >> one wonders why you're dragging your dead uncle into the fray.
>> >It was you who said that we _never_ had the capability of bombing.
>> You never did.
>No, it was _you_ who said that we _never_ had the capability of bombing.
>> I assumed you were smart enough to know I was talking
>> about Afghanistan. I won't overestimate you again.
>I'm sorry Robert, I assumed that when you said _never_ you actually meant _never_. That was silly of me!
You must go out of your way to appear stupid. Well, it's working.
>> >My uncle was trained in New Zealand. He travelled to Britain and joined an RAF squadron staffed by New Zealand
>> >crews because the RNZAF did not at that time have suitable equipment to bomb Berlin from New Zealand. Later
>> >(1940) the RNZAF purchased bombers in Britain and set up squadrons there.
>> >It seems quite reasonable to me that NZ supply trained manpower to her allies in times of war.
>> So are you now suggesting that your past remark, "if you can't do the
>> job, why not ask those who can?" meant we should let New Zealand
>> military personnel fly U.S. aircraft, since you don't have anything
>> capable in your own military?
>No. We haven't yet agreed that New Zealand has aircraft capable of bombing.
I know you have aircraft capable of bombing.
>> No they haven't. Everything is going according to plan.
>
>"The US plan to eliminate terrorism"
>9/11/2000. Ouch.
>10/11/2000: Find someone to blame.
>2nd week: Blame Ben Laden.
>2nd week Day 2: Bomb Pakistan or Afghanistan tomorrow.
>2nd week/Day 3: Bomb Afghanistan.
>.......... Bomb UN.
>.......... Bomb rocks.
>.......... Bomb Red cross.
>.......... Bomb rocks.
>3rd week. Bomb Northern Alliance.
>4th week. Bomb rocks.
>5th week bomb rocks.
>6th week . Send troops.
>6th week/day 3. Bomb our troops.
>6th week/day 4. Shoot at Taliban.
>etc.
>
>Great plan!!!
Thanks! Note how no more planes are being flown into buildings.
Robert Frenchu
And we all sleep better because of it.
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BE07C6C...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >> You don't have the capability to bomb Afghanistan. Which part of this
> >> sentence are you having trouble with?
> >
> >Just the bit where you say we don't have the ability to bomb Afghanistan.
>
> You don't. What's your problem?
Oh shit, we're back to "don't", "do", don't". Trust me, we do, with the small proviso that the capability is here in
NZ, not in Afghanistan.
>
> >> >> >In the past, we most definitely had the capability to bomb - my uncle died bombing Berlin from North
> >> >> >Africa, even before the USa was dragged, kicking and screaming into WWII.
> >> >> I feel quite certain the New Zealand Air Force was not involved, so
> >> >> one wonders why you're dragging your dead uncle into the fray.
> >> >It was you who said that we _never_ had the capability of bombing.
> >> You never did.
> >No, it was _you_ who said that we _never_ had the capability of bombing.
> >> I assumed you were smart enough to know I was talking
> >> about Afghanistan. I won't overestimate you again.
> >I'm sorry Robert, I assumed that when you said _never_ you actually meant _never_. That was silly of me!
>
> You must go out of your way to appear stupid. Well, it's working.
Yeah sure - assuming you mean what you write really is stupid.
>
> >> >My uncle was trained in New Zealand. He travelled to Britain and joined an RAF squadron staffed by New Zealand
> >> >crews because the RNZAF did not at that time have suitable equipment to bomb Berlin from New Zealand. Later
> >> >(1940) the RNZAF purchased bombers in Britain and set up squadrons there.
> >> >It seems quite reasonable to me that NZ supply trained manpower to her allies in times of war.
> >> So are you now suggesting that your past remark, "if you can't do the
> >> job, why not ask those who can?" meant we should let New Zealand
> >> military personnel fly U.S. aircraft, since you don't have anything
> >> capable in your own military?
> >No. We haven't yet agreed that New Zealand has aircraft capable of bombing.
>
> I know you have aircraft capable of bombing.
>
but just above you said ... oh, never mind!
>
> >> No they haven't. Everything is going according to plan.
> >
> >"The US plan to eliminate terrorism"
> >9/11/2000. Ouch.
> >10/11/2000: Find someone to blame.
> >2nd week: Blame Ben Laden.
> >2nd week Day 2: Bomb Pakistan or Afghanistan tomorrow.
> >2nd week/Day 3: Bomb Afghanistan.
> >.......... Bomb UN.
> >.......... Bomb rocks.
> >.......... Bomb Red cross.
> >.......... Bomb rocks.
> >3rd week. Bomb Northern Alliance.
> >4th week. Bomb rocks.
> >5th week bomb rocks.
> >6th week . Send troops.
> >6th week/day 3. Bomb our troops.
> >6th week/day 4. Shoot at Taliban.
> >etc.
> >
> >Great plan!!!
>
> Thanks! Note how no more planes are being flown into buildings.
You think the Saudis or the Jordanians or whoever made the last attack have only one idea?
Good luck!!!
Greg Procter
Robert Frenchu wrote:
> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BE07813...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
>
> >
> >
> >Robert Frenchu wrote:
> >
> >> > Greg Procter <pro...@ihug.co.nz> wrote <3BE04A0D...@ihug.co.nz> in talk.politics.guns. :
> >>
> >> >Russ wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Since the Red Cross Warehouses had been used and taken over by the TallyWhackers of the Taliban, bombing it was part of the plan.
> >> >
> >> >Russ, your comment is just too stupid to warrent a response.
> >>
> >> Uh, Greg? Your post *is* a response.
> >
> >Too true, but Russ needed to know that I did not accept his point. I give everyone at least one chance.
>
> And we all sleep better because of it.
Sure, but do try not to sleep better _while_ you are posting!
Shaun
<robert_frenchu@ya-take_out-hoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> No they haven't. Everything is going according to plan.
>>
>>"The US plan to eliminate terrorism"
>>9/11/2000. Ouch.
>>10/11/2000: Find someone to blame.
>>2nd week: Blame Ben Laden.
>>2nd week Day 2: Bomb Pakistan or Afghanistan tomorrow.
>>2nd week/Day 3: Bomb Afghanistan.
>>.......... Bomb UN.
>>.......... Bomb rocks.
>>.......... Bomb Red cross.
>>.......... Bomb rocks.
>>3rd week. Bomb Northern Alliance.
>>4th week. Bomb rocks.
>>5th week bomb rocks.
>>6th week . Send troops.
>>6th week/day 3. Bomb our troops.
>>6th week/day 4. Shoot at Taliban.
>>etc.
>>
>>Great plan!!!
>
>Thanks! Note how no more planes are being flown into buildings.
>
>
That's due to half the US airlines going bust because yanks are too
scared to fly