Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 360
  1. #16
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Stuart,Fl
    Posts
    2,163
    It is all FACT. Taking out of my History text book in the mid early 90's.

    it is NOT my opinions

    And yes, it was a school here in the USA. Florida.

  2. #17
    Joined
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Age
    62
    Posts
    11,621
    Originally posted by Jereboam
    Ever heard of Airbus?

    And you're laying it on a bit thick...by all means be proud of your country, I should think most people are.

    America has caused its fair share of misery too. You seem to have glossed over that in your outbreak.

    Oh I could pick apart quite a few of your points, but I'm not going to bother. Too much typing. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

    J'bm
    Of course, Airbus waits for Boeing to design an aircraft, then they design one the same size/class, and undercut Boeing's price by millions. The A300 was to compete with the 767, and the DC10. It was such a poor airplane that American purposely left one in Puerto Rico years ago in the face of a Hurricane. Unfortunately for them, the Hurricane missed PR. The A319/320 series are copies/competitors to the 737.
    They can do this because of the various governments funding into Airbus Industrie. And there is a reason they are known on the airline industry as "Scare-bus".
    But if the American Gov dared to subsidize Boeing so they could better compete with foriegn mfgrs, the outcry in the US would be tremendous.

    On another subject, it amazes me how people can actually look back fondly on the Clinton admin, when the man was an admitted liar and cheat on his wife (not that I blame him in his case). But slam Bush because he has the audacity to come from a family that made it's money from oil! How dare he! Such shame.
    Throughout the last 40 yrs, the Dems have had good foriegn policy, and terrible economic policy, while the Republicans have had to spend the first 4 yrs of any admin cleaning up the economic mess left for them. Simply amazing.

  3. #18
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    4
    Originally posted by Soltek Boards
    ALL this was taken out of my history book back in the 8th grade.
    Credibility of a history book can be questioned...My old highschool history teacher handed us out books and said to us "Leave those in your locker...you won't need them...I'll teach you what history was really like"

  4. #19
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,433
    But if the American Gov dared to subsidize Boeing so they could better compete with foriegn mfgrs, the outcry in the US would be tremendous.
    Boeing is ably supported by the US government through very juicy defense contracts. So let's not go there, shall we?

    And as to the relative merits of the different aircraft, the 737 is a very mature aircraft and has had a serious head start, which has allowed Boeing to make many, many improvements and design revisions. So that is slightly unfair to Airbus.

    J'bm

  5. #20
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,405
    Originally posted by Jereboam
    I think anyone who knows me on this forum knows that the last thing I am is a troll. So you can drop that nonsense.

    And I'm sorry, your tone and content is very self-righteous. You are clearly leaving no room for any other opinion but yours.



    Here we go again. Are you that insecure that you need to view everything as an attack on the United States? I said "we", implying the coalition we managed to cobble together back then. So include a whole bunch of people. Blame the Italians. Or the French. Or someone. So I'm not going to retract anything, regardless of whether you think it embarrassing or not. So there.

    Trumpet away, my good man.

    J'bm
    Stating you can pick apart someones post but choose not to is typical troll behavior. It is EXACTLY and SPECIFICALLY the actions of a troll. I just call 'em as I see 'em. If you are not a troll then I apologize, but do attempt not to engage in trolling behavior if you would not like to be labeled as one. Either respond to my post or don't.

    I told you I am open to others view and thoughts, it appears you missed that part of my post. Feel free to go back and re-read it if necessary.

    To blame anyone other than Saddam Hussein for his actions against the Kurds is utter nonsense and you know it. This is another untenable position. It is typical liberal behavior. Blame your past, blame society, blame the government, blame the wind. Blame anyone but the person directly responsible for the actions in question. Such a sad state of the world indeed.

    To Soltek:

    1) The bulk of the weapons supplied to Iraq during their war with Iran came from other Arab states including: Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, not the United States of America. Truly only Syria stood out against Iraq during the entire conflict in the middle east. What the USA did was give trade credits to Iraq, and supplied a limited amount of intelligence. The United States did this primarily to back other European countries in the region(France included) and simply feared an Iranian victory.

    2) The Kurds, while ethnically Iranian, were murdered helplessly and needlessly at the very end of the Iraq-Iran conflict. Poison gas was used, including banned agents and other chemicals packed into munitions to destroy villages and innocents. What are you trying to say here? Are you defending this action? I sure hope not.

    3) Iraq invaded Kuwait over an oil dispute. Not because the USA encouraged them to. Iraq claimed that Kuwaits over-production of oil was hurting the Iraqi economy by suppressing prices, and thus they invaded and took it over. The UN Security Council demanded that they immediately and unconditionally withdraw or face severe consequences. When Iraq did not comply the United States lead a coalition to drag him out.

    The twisting you liberals do just never ends does it?

    Mordeth

  6. #21
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    New Jersey
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,943
    Originally posted by Soltek Boards
    1) The weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons were given to Sadam by the USA and Britain to defeat Iran during the 8 year war back in the 80's

    2) The people Sadam enslaved and killed were NOT his people. They are kurds who are ethnically and religously Iranian by decent who live on the border between Iraq and Iran. For Iraq to successfully beat Iran, US/Britain knew that the Kurds being ethnically Iranian will fight with the Iranians against Iraq. Ergo, the Kurds must die. And that's why Sadam was given chemical weapons by the US and British to quickly and efficiently kill thousands of kurds.

    Same thing the US did to the Native Americans.

    3) Kuwait used to be part of Iraq. After winning (thanks to USA/Britain) the war with Iran. Sadam was encouraged by the Americans/British to re-take Kuwait because not only do his men have weapons and fighting skill, but they need the oil from Kuwait to help re-build the Iraqi economy after the 8 year war with Iran.


    ALL this was taken out of my history book back in the 8th grade.
    1. SIMPLY NOT TRUE AT ALL!! we gave him some bell choppers and some small arms.

    2. This happened over 200 years ago even before the US became a country. You think because of what the settlers did to the Native americans over 200years ago, means Iraq has the right to do the same things to the Kurds?

    3. Eh? war with Iran? Wow your way off base here. Kuwait was never apart of the country of Iraq. Iraq laid claim to Kuwait because the provence of IRAQ controlled Kuwait when it was apart of the Ottoman Empire, which was defeated and then broke up by the allies following WWI.
    read more here
    http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...(DOCID+kw0017)

  7. #22
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,405
    Originally posted by Jereboam
    I can't wait to see what happens with that post...my crystal ball says thread soon to be locked...

    J'bm
    Well it "happened". Were you surprised? When will this alleged "lock" occur?

    Mordeth

  8. #23
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Age
    33
    Posts
    10,167
    Originally posted by Mordeth
    Well it "happened". Were you surprised? When will this alleged "lock" occur?

    Mordeth
    Probably very soon...Posts in this thread have violated many rules..

    Namek

  9. #24
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,405
    Originally posted by Namek
    Probably very soon...Posts in this thread have violated many rules..

    Namek
    My apologies for any rule breaking that has occurred. If possible, please allow the thread to stay open until Soltek and Jereboam have the opportunity to respond to my last comments. I am interested in their response and would like to hear more of their viewpoint on the matter.

    I am heading to bed soon, so this thread will probably die on its own anyways.

    Mordeth
    Last edited by Mordeth; 02-07-2003 at 11:31 PM.

  10. #25
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,003
    Originally posted by Jereboam
    Boeing is ably supported by the US government through very juicy defense contracts. So let's not go there, shall we?
    Boeing has gotten so little in defense contracts compared to say McDonald Dogulas or Lockheed Martin (Sans the 'partial' JSF contract).

  11. #26
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    New Jersey
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,943
    Clement Boeing is a major defensive contractor. Also Boeing accuired McDonell-Douglas sometime ago.

  12. #27
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,433
    Liberal? Hah! I would start another thread about what I think about most liberals and not only would it get locked within several posts, it would probably get me banned. I like this place...so let's not do that, hey?

    I repeat - I am not troll. But in order to make my counterpoints to your first posting would require a fair amount of effort, as I always like to have my facts straight, which would mean flicking through some of my books, cruising the web, etc. And honestly, I just bought a Playstation 2 and Gran Turismo 3 so that rules out extended surfing or reading for the next few weeks...

    I am gald you are open to other views, but have to doubt the veracity of that statement really because every time another view is proffered you immediately find some anti-American element to it and run from there. Look at the wider picture, especially as regards my comments.

    I am not blaming anyone else for Hussein's actions against the Kurds, which are cause enough for removing him. What I did say, was that the support we promised the Kurds in return for rising and harassing Iraq's forces internally during the conflict never materialised, leaving them cut off, isolated and massacred. All we did was establish a token no-fly zone which was utterly ineffective in preventing their continued persecution. Of course, that persecution is no longer overt, as previously, but now takes the form of denial of food, medicines and infrastructure.

    Clement - that's a whole other thread. I am an aviation fanatic - I sat SATs whilst at school and had sufficient scores to go to MIT and then on to a job with Sikorsky (family connections, gotta love 'em ). I often wonder what my life would be like today if I had done that...

    J'bm

  13. #28
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Age
    33
    Posts
    10,167
    Originally posted by Jereboam
    Liberal? Hah! I would start another thread about what I think about most liberals and not only would it get locked within several posts, it would probably get me banned. I like this place...so let's not do that, hey?

    J'bm
    Good move

    Namek

  14. #29
    Joined
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,003
    Originally posted by Optimus_Prime
    Clement Boeing is a major defensive contractor. Also Boeing accuired McDonell-Douglas sometime ago.
    Yeah, sorry.

    I'm a huge old timer when it comes to the military planes theese days. I was intrested in it alot a long time ago, and kind of lost intrest and havn't really paid attention to the industry.

    Guess that's what happens when you don't keep up to date on stuff and post from memorys from a decade or so ago...

  15. #30
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,433
    Just a small example...

    But this really should be taken elsewhere, as it is OT.

    Aargh! I knew it - Namek's a liberal...

    J'bm

    USA: Boeing's Sweet Deal

    By Jeffrey St. Clair
    Counter Punch
    November 26, 2001

    Boeing may have lost out to Lockheed in it's bid to build the Joint Strike Fighter, one of the most lucrative contracts in Pentagon history, but no one should mourn for the defense giant. The Pentagon needs a plump Boeing as much as Boeing needs Pentagon largesse. In this spirit, it's no surprise that Congress is poised to quietly hand Boeing a big consolation prize in the form two unprecedented contracts that will give the company, which has recently fled Seattle for Chicago, a bailout that will total more than $10 billion.

    One would allow the purchase of 60 Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft under a special "commercial" provision that shields the deal from any financial oversight, long dream of both Pentagon acquisition hawks and defense contractors. The other contract calls for the Pentagon to lease at least 100 Boeing 767 tankers at a cost that is nearly $7 billion more than if the aircraft were purchased outright. These are the kinds of contracts that created front-page scandals during the 1980s. But these days the press, in full war mode, barely bats an eyelash over.

    This C-17 commercial proposal would allow the Air Force to bypass important pricing oversight that is only intended to be lifted for items which are truly commercial and therefore regulated by "forces of the free market". A $200 million outsized military cargo carrier with 173,300-pound capacity is scarcely an item where the price tag is determined by bracing forces of competition.

    Originally, the senate frowned upon this extraordinary deal and failed to include the provision in its Defense Authorization Act, despite a desperate lobbying effort from Boeing. Then the Pentagon sprang into action. In an October 26, 2001 letter sent to Armed Services Committee Chairman Senator Carl Levin, Pentagon acquisitions chief E.C. "Pete" Aldridge urged that the language be reinserted to "provide sufficient flexibility" for the Department of Defense. By the way, October 26 is the same day that the Pentagon announced its decision to award the $200 billion Joint Strike Fighter contract to Lockheed/Martin.

    So far Senator Levin has refused to bow to the tag team efforts of the Pentagon and Boeing. But Levin is getting heat from all sides, including inside his own party, to capitulate. Senator Patty Murray, the Democrat from Washington state, is one of those carrying Boeing's water on the Hill, even though the company abandoned her state earlier this year, laying off 90,000 employees. "We could lose our ability to build airplanes in this country if Boeing's production plants are kept rolling," Murray said.

    Over on the House side, Boeing's interests are being zealously advanced by Rep. Norm Dicks, another Washington Democrat. "I've never seen Boeing as interested in anything as this deal," Dicks said.

    The plan to lease 100 converted Boeing 767 air refueling aircraft for a period of 10 years has all the hallmarks of an even bigger boondoggle. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the lease plan would cost $22 billion, while purchasing the aircraft outright would cost just over $15 billion.

    But it doesn't stop there. In the perverse logic of defense contracts, the more complications the better. The B-767 plan also requires an additional handout from taxpayers, as modifications to existing hangers would be necessary to house B-767s and would cost an estimated $600 million.

    Why in the world would Congress go along with such blatant pork barrel? Leave it to Boeing's PR whizzes to come up with a unique sales pitch. Boeing has airlifted its top executives to DC last week in a feverish lobbying blitz. There the men from Boeing told key congressional that the deal was needed to get the ailing airline industry back on its feet by the "creating a multibillion military market for the company's popular civilian aircraft including the 767."

    "These two handouts are being characterized as good business practices when in fact the U.S. taxpayers are paying more to get less," said Danielle Brian, Executive Director of the Project On Government Oversight, the defense watchdog group.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •