Jet dives to avoid another plane; 4 are hurt
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
provocative.....is it?
Fox3....
you forgot to mention the P3's that trail their petticoats exactly 12 nm off the Iranian coastline, just about H24...reason?
We all know it's because the fact that Iran has some quiet subs, but doesn't the US have them satellite thingies?
One of the funniest things heard in these parts was a Pakistani pilot of an F27 asking "don't these monkeys obey any rules"??That was of course after launching the carrier air wing in "international" waters...that just happened to coincide with a pile of A class oceanic airspace with loads of RPT traffic around...including intercepting a C130 on a 7 mile final for an International airport. Last time I looked that airport was not outside the 12 mile limit.
Laugh? I nearly s..t.
Of course it's all good fun til someone loses an eye.
you forgot to mention the P3's that trail their petticoats exactly 12 nm off the Iranian coastline, just about H24...reason?
We all know it's because the fact that Iran has some quiet subs, but doesn't the US have them satellite thingies?
One of the funniest things heard in these parts was a Pakistani pilot of an F27 asking "don't these monkeys obey any rules"??That was of course after launching the carrier air wing in "international" waters...that just happened to coincide with a pile of A class oceanic airspace with loads of RPT traffic around...including intercepting a C130 on a 7 mile final for an International airport. Last time I looked that airport was not outside the 12 mile limit.
Laugh? I nearly s..t.
Of course it's all good fun til someone loses an eye.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get back to the original knee jerk press headline which caused all this... I think you'll find that the military guys did not cause this incident. Jobza you are 180 out from the truth. Still the facts don't make anywhere near as good headlines and its definitely not good for business so the journos blame it on those nasty fighters as thats what sells papers.
..Now you lot can get back to your oh so predictable Yank knocking
..Now you lot can get back to your oh so predictable Yank knocking
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Mark writes:She wasn't! She had just sailed from Honolulu Harbour after refueling and was heading out into INTERNATIONAL waters. (WHAT!!??!! The USA don't own all the oceans!!??!! Shock, horror!).
Excuse me......OK Fishing Boat leaving Honolulu......was that Honolulu Japan?? No fish left in japan?? No doubt if it were leaving Yokohama it wouldnt have happened.
(That is not an exuse by the way)
Excuse me......OK Fishing Boat leaving Honolulu......was that Honolulu Japan?? No fish left in japan?? No doubt if it were leaving Yokohama it wouldnt have happened.
(That is not an exuse by the way)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b sousa
Hey B sousa....
The same submarine was involved in a very similar accident (I use that word advisedly) just a few months ago.
This time it was surfacing without due care and attention and hitting it's own replenishment vessel....roughly 50km north of Muscat in the Gulf of Oman, causing a bit of an oil slick.
It was actually RVing with that particular ship and still managed to hit it. Do you think there may be a small problem with the way things are being done aboard that boat, or is this par for the course?
Last time I looked, there were loads of different flagged vessels in all sorts of ports all around the world...are you saying that they should never leave their own waters??? Might put a small crimp in the US balance of trade figures don't you think?
So having a go at the Japanese training vessel for having the temerity to be in international waters is a non starter.
I suppose that you also think that aircraft should never venture beyond their own borders too....
The same submarine was involved in a very similar accident (I use that word advisedly) just a few months ago.
This time it was surfacing without due care and attention and hitting it's own replenishment vessel....roughly 50km north of Muscat in the Gulf of Oman, causing a bit of an oil slick.
It was actually RVing with that particular ship and still managed to hit it. Do you think there may be a small problem with the way things are being done aboard that boat, or is this par for the course?
Last time I looked, there were loads of different flagged vessels in all sorts of ports all around the world...are you saying that they should never leave their own waters??? Might put a small crimp in the US balance of trade figures don't you think?
So having a go at the Japanese training vessel for having the temerity to be in international waters is a non starter.
I suppose that you also think that aircraft should never venture beyond their own borders too....
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piniped writes:I suppose that you also think that aircraft should never venture beyond their own borders too....
Not at all. The hidden point was that had it happened in Yokohama, you would not even have heard about it. BUT since it happened near the U.S. every schmuck Attorney who ever got his license will be all over it as was the News Media....
Same with Aviation. Crash in Africa and its sad.........Crash in the U.S. and families for the next 15 generations are rich.
Not at all. The hidden point was that had it happened in Yokohama, you would not even have heard about it. BUT since it happened near the U.S. every schmuck Attorney who ever got his license will be all over it as was the News Media....
Same with Aviation. Crash in Africa and its sad.........Crash in the U.S. and families for the next 15 generations are rich.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B Sousa....
Glad you brought it up, so who do we blame for this ludicrous law suit concept and sue every man and his dog for any ridiculous petty incident in the free world.....ummmm, now let me see...oooh ooh I know!!!!!
Where were those shmuck attorneys from again that you mentioned?
Glad you brought it up, so who do we blame for this ludicrous law suit concept and sue every man and his dog for any ridiculous petty incident in the free world.....ummmm, now let me see...oooh ooh I know!!!!!
Where were those shmuck attorneys from again that you mentioned?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Florida,USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet dives to avoid
This one for DC10Real something or other....
I have personal knowledge of a trawler crew out of Anglesey,Wales lost in the Irish Sea some years ago. Enquiry(s) was/were held, and from the evidence available (including the boat being dragged backwards), the conclusion was that that it was a sub- and although official requests to MOD were made to no avail, that it was RN.
As there was never any official finding, the families then and presumably to this day did not receive 'satisfaction'- an acknowledgement, explanation, excuse, or any compensation.
Arrogant bl**dy Brits, no?
Cheers Capitao Sousa (Rock Spider ?)
I have personal knowledge of a trawler crew out of Anglesey,Wales lost in the Irish Sea some years ago. Enquiry(s) was/were held, and from the evidence available (including the boat being dragged backwards), the conclusion was that that it was a sub- and although official requests to MOD were made to no avail, that it was RN.
As there was never any official finding, the families then and presumably to this day did not receive 'satisfaction'- an acknowledgement, explanation, excuse, or any compensation.
Arrogant bl**dy Brits, no?
Cheers Capitao Sousa (Rock Spider ?)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
laidbak,
I too remember the said incident. It happened in the days when USN subs were based only a matter of miles from RN ones. It happened in an area frequented by subs of several nations transiting to/from and participating in military exercises. The fishing vessel in question had its nets deployed. These nets are huge, spread over a wide area and are trailed a long way behind the fishing boat. They are constructed of fine twine that is invisible to sonar. As a result the submerged submarine was unaware that it had snagged the fishing nets until it was too late. I am not apportioning blame at the feet of any nationality, it could have been a sub from the Navy of several countries, including the UK.
However, as a result of the incident several lessons were learned and changes have been made both in the way submarines operate in our waters and the way fishing vessels are informed of any exercises involving submarine movements. When such exercises are taking place there is always a 'Fishing Vessel safety Ship/aircraft' on scene to warn fishing boats of the presence of a submerged submarine and to alert the submarine to come to the surface if a fishing vessel with its nets out gets within a certain distance of it. Non-operational submarine movements are broadcast on the marine radio frequencies. Devices have been developed to be attached to fishing nets to enable them to be seen by sonar.
The incident you have brought up is nothing like that previously discussed. The submarine crew were almost certainly unaware of the fishing net. It is very unlikely that the crew made such blatant operating errors as those on the USS Grenville. Lessons were learned and changes to procedures and equipment have been made.
MadMark!!!
I too remember the said incident. It happened in the days when USN subs were based only a matter of miles from RN ones. It happened in an area frequented by subs of several nations transiting to/from and participating in military exercises. The fishing vessel in question had its nets deployed. These nets are huge, spread over a wide area and are trailed a long way behind the fishing boat. They are constructed of fine twine that is invisible to sonar. As a result the submerged submarine was unaware that it had snagged the fishing nets until it was too late. I am not apportioning blame at the feet of any nationality, it could have been a sub from the Navy of several countries, including the UK.
However, as a result of the incident several lessons were learned and changes have been made both in the way submarines operate in our waters and the way fishing vessels are informed of any exercises involving submarine movements. When such exercises are taking place there is always a 'Fishing Vessel safety Ship/aircraft' on scene to warn fishing boats of the presence of a submerged submarine and to alert the submarine to come to the surface if a fishing vessel with its nets out gets within a certain distance of it. Non-operational submarine movements are broadcast on the marine radio frequencies. Devices have been developed to be attached to fishing nets to enable them to be seen by sonar.
The incident you have brought up is nothing like that previously discussed. The submarine crew were almost certainly unaware of the fishing net. It is very unlikely that the crew made such blatant operating errors as those on the USS Grenville. Lessons were learned and changes to procedures and equipment have been made.
MadMark!!!
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox3three snapshot writes: Where were those shmuck attorneys from again that you mentioned?
I dunno you tell me......Is there something here Im missing.......
Mad_Mark
Seems funny, UK is involved and long diatribe as to how its all corrected and everything now smells good.. U.S. involvemenmt cant be corrected until all you F**ks get paid off.
Also you can fill it in is it ol or uc.
I dunno you tell me......Is there something here Im missing.......
Mad_Mark
Seems funny, UK is involved and long diatribe as to how its all corrected and everything now smells good.. U.S. involvemenmt cant be corrected until all you F**ks get paid off.
Also you can fill it in is it ol or uc.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox3, question for you, matey.
What's the rules on external lighting displays for the RAF/RN/AAC aircraft when transiting to/from an operational area( note operational not exercise) through busy Civilian air routes at night whilst obtaining a Radar Control Service?
What's the rules on external lighting displays for the RAF/RN/AAC aircraft when transiting to/from an operational area( note operational not exercise) through busy Civilian air routes at night whilst obtaining a Radar Control Service?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Florida,USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet dives...
M squared:
Glad to have Irish Sea/sub incident corroborated, and naturally procedures were revised and must have been improved.
Notwithstanding, consider the scenario: It can have hardly been a revelation that trawlers were operating in this relatively small area - they didn't just appear one day. Plus, methods of fishing ops - details of the trawl methods etc. were also known. Thus, lack of due diligence on the part of the sub is, at the least, a valid charge.
Whether or not US and UK sub ops were at that time co-located, never mind anyone else, word unofficially (naturally since the accident was buried) is that it was RN. Somebody knows - SOSUS facility at RAF Brawdy - would have tracked this.
In any case, the operative descriptor is 'accident'. I don't believe even the US haters would venture to suggest that these, or any other incidents (aircraft, to get back to the thread), were intentional.
I take exception with the US military being unprofessional, under-trained,trigger happy etc. etc.
F.I.D.O.
There are bad seeds in every outfit, and bad things can happen to good folks, never mind fate in the form of bad luck. If you look at such incidents statistically, of course the US is going to have more such incidents/accidents attributed - they are so much the larger presence. In a previous incarnation and a few years prior to the Italian cablecar disaster, my outfit had a couple of weeks of ops in those mountains on exchange. Given the existing terrain, and that whilst adhering to the rules, it's no surprise that it happened. The crew responsible were not cowboys as even a cursory review of the investigation will show. The fact that the map was not so marked became the lynchpin, but as anyone who has done this type of flying can attest, this was of little consequence other than in the evidentiary/legal setting. Nonetheless, they were made sacrificial lambs due in part to the pressure exerted within Italy and in their parliament.. A few years before I was in, a UK fast jet hit power cables across a fjord- successfully ejected, but did not survive in the water due to a 'modified'goon suit. Then too, whatever military you are with, you'd be a damn fool to expect top cover. On my out fit we lost an ac and crew in low flying training- hit the top of a hill in the LFS (UK)- and, though lightly populated , nearly took out a farm. I'm damn sure had this been a 'foreign crew' - Belgique, Canuck ,USAFE or such, the same asinine bulls*it would have been vented in a forum like this, where one presumes people have a degree of knowledge or experience greater than John Q. Civvie. In this case, a comprehensive reconstruction was undertaken using the same time of day,weather conditions etc. and a definitive finding reached- visual illusion, and the crew posthumously exonerated.
I think a major part of the problem in such topics, is unqualified people running their mouths; the remainder is the folks who have a visceral and illogical dislike for all things american (could it stem from envy?), though some of them dress up their observations with camouflage such as 'I have some good american friends' etc. Like saying 'one of my best friends is jewish/black/hispanic/gay blah blah blah.
As of this posting the UN presence in Iraq, limited as it is, continues to be drawn down, and further sneak attacks continue on Coalition Forces. Apparently some of us here are of the opinion that the average US grunt should be proferring Hershey bars instead of M16 rounds in the face of provocation- and I'm sure the average British squaddie recognises that for the arrant nonsense it is.
Uh... here's another one.
What about the blu on blu F4 v Jag shootdown in taceval flying in RAFG? Was this 'their finest hour' ?
It was an accident, the chain of events reading like a classic accident reconstruction, which fortunately didn't result in any fatalities and occasioned some excellent jokes and banter for years afterward, though I'm not sure das volk were similarly amused.
Uh... here's another one.
What about the blu on blu F4 v Jag shootdown in taceval flying in RAFG? Was this 'their finest hour' ?
It was an accident, the chain of events reading like a classic accident reconstruction, which fortunately didn't result in any fatalities and occasioned some excellent jokes and banter for years afterward, though I'm not sure das volk were similarly amused.
Glad to have Irish Sea/sub incident corroborated, and naturally procedures were revised and must have been improved.
Notwithstanding, consider the scenario: It can have hardly been a revelation that trawlers were operating in this relatively small area - they didn't just appear one day. Plus, methods of fishing ops - details of the trawl methods etc. were also known. Thus, lack of due diligence on the part of the sub is, at the least, a valid charge.
Whether or not US and UK sub ops were at that time co-located, never mind anyone else, word unofficially (naturally since the accident was buried) is that it was RN. Somebody knows - SOSUS facility at RAF Brawdy - would have tracked this.
In any case, the operative descriptor is 'accident'. I don't believe even the US haters would venture to suggest that these, or any other incidents (aircraft, to get back to the thread), were intentional.
I take exception with the US military being unprofessional, under-trained,trigger happy etc. etc.
F.I.D.O.
There are bad seeds in every outfit, and bad things can happen to good folks, never mind fate in the form of bad luck. If you look at such incidents statistically, of course the US is going to have more such incidents/accidents attributed - they are so much the larger presence. In a previous incarnation and a few years prior to the Italian cablecar disaster, my outfit had a couple of weeks of ops in those mountains on exchange. Given the existing terrain, and that whilst adhering to the rules, it's no surprise that it happened. The crew responsible were not cowboys as even a cursory review of the investigation will show. The fact that the map was not so marked became the lynchpin, but as anyone who has done this type of flying can attest, this was of little consequence other than in the evidentiary/legal setting. Nonetheless, they were made sacrificial lambs due in part to the pressure exerted within Italy and in their parliament.. A few years before I was in, a UK fast jet hit power cables across a fjord- successfully ejected, but did not survive in the water due to a 'modified'goon suit. Then too, whatever military you are with, you'd be a damn fool to expect top cover. On my out fit we lost an ac and crew in low flying training- hit the top of a hill in the LFS (UK)- and, though lightly populated , nearly took out a farm. I'm damn sure had this been a 'foreign crew' - Belgique, Canuck ,USAFE or such, the same asinine bulls*it would have been vented in a forum like this, where one presumes people have a degree of knowledge or experience greater than John Q. Civvie. In this case, a comprehensive reconstruction was undertaken using the same time of day,weather conditions etc. and a definitive finding reached- visual illusion, and the crew posthumously exonerated.
I think a major part of the problem in such topics, is unqualified people running their mouths; the remainder is the folks who have a visceral and illogical dislike for all things american (could it stem from envy?), though some of them dress up their observations with camouflage such as 'I have some good american friends' etc. Like saying 'one of my best friends is jewish/black/hispanic/gay blah blah blah.
As of this posting the UN presence in Iraq, limited as it is, continues to be drawn down, and further sneak attacks continue on Coalition Forces. Apparently some of us here are of the opinion that the average US grunt should be proferring Hershey bars instead of M16 rounds in the face of provocation- and I'm sure the average British squaddie recognises that for the arrant nonsense it is.
Uh... here's another one.
What about the blu on blu F4 v Jag shootdown in taceval flying in RAFG? Was this 'their finest hour' ?
It was an accident, the chain of events reading like a classic accident reconstruction, which fortunately didn't result in any fatalities and occasioned some excellent jokes and banter for years afterward, though I'm not sure das volk were similarly amused.
Uh... here's another one.
What about the blu on blu F4 v Jag shootdown in taceval flying in RAFG? Was this 'their finest hour' ?
It was an accident, the chain of events reading like a classic accident reconstruction, which fortunately didn't result in any fatalities and occasioned some excellent jokes and banter for years afterward, though I'm not sure das volk were similarly amused.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontious...
Good question and unfortunately I can only answer on a practical viewpont rather than a specific doctrine as we work with operatives from all Air Forces and of course most do things differently.
Certainly common sense should prevail whilst transitting to and from the tactical area's through civil airspace (and very busy airspace in this case) it would be paramount that the anti col or equivelent are displayed.
The problem we have found with the environment here is what defines the tactical area as far as perceived threats go, for example the US treated this particular sand drenched friendly country as an operational environment and would have flares etc. armed such that on final and departures on numerous occassions the skies over our pretty city looked like a Sydney Harbor new years celebration and the odd villa was showered in flares, this coupled with them going "tactical" straight after take off with the extinguishing of all anti col led to a huge thumping from the local civil and military authorities and this procedure had to cease. Additionally RTF was introduced for the US operators to confirm that there counter measures were "safe" before they were allowed to join the approach environment.
I know of one very very nasty airmiss (of many) on the tactical boundary entry point to the North East that involved a Brit and a US asset, with the US aircraft "blacked out" and at a non conformal level, but I think I have harped on enough about that, I have only mentioned a military conflict here, the civil/military conflicts were numerous also .....!
Good question and unfortunately I can only answer on a practical viewpont rather than a specific doctrine as we work with operatives from all Air Forces and of course most do things differently.
Certainly common sense should prevail whilst transitting to and from the tactical area's through civil airspace (and very busy airspace in this case) it would be paramount that the anti col or equivelent are displayed.
The problem we have found with the environment here is what defines the tactical area as far as perceived threats go, for example the US treated this particular sand drenched friendly country as an operational environment and would have flares etc. armed such that on final and departures on numerous occassions the skies over our pretty city looked like a Sydney Harbor new years celebration and the odd villa was showered in flares, this coupled with them going "tactical" straight after take off with the extinguishing of all anti col led to a huge thumping from the local civil and military authorities and this procedure had to cease. Additionally RTF was introduced for the US operators to confirm that there counter measures were "safe" before they were allowed to join the approach environment.
I know of one very very nasty airmiss (of many) on the tactical boundary entry point to the North East that involved a Brit and a US asset, with the US aircraft "blacked out" and at a non conformal level, but I think I have harped on enough about that, I have only mentioned a military conflict here, the civil/military conflicts were numerous also .....!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd still like to know what happened with the original near hit...
Interesting thread, this one. The US is the biggest economy in the world (I think California is the world's fourth biggest. That may change if Arnie gets in...) and, consequently, has the biggest military and probably the widest spread of interest in the world. This is always going to be a sticking point with anyone who is non-American, ie: the rest of us. Most Yanks I know genuinely believe it is their nation's manifest destiny to bring freedom to the world and seem a little taken aback when a nation doesn't equate freedom with having the 101st Airborne camp out in the backyard.
Part of the problem is the Yanks, being the biggest, never have to adapt to another country's way of doing business: it's always us that has to do it the American way.
Still, I like Yanks, some of my best friends etc...
One of the things I like about them is they are so easy to bait. It doesn't take much prompting for some of them to have a big dummy spit, take their bat and ball home and sook.
The Kiwis, on the other hand, appreciate good banter. They have to, what with the All Blacks being such a bunch of girls, their terrible beer, the weather and all those sheep.
Oh, and the Poms. Not just their rugby team, but every sporting team they've ever fielded ever in the history of history. That, plus having Aussies working in every pub in London.
Also...
B Sousa, you mentioned what would happen if the Americans went home. In the case of Iraq who knows? Maybe the Shi'a would take over, link up with Iran and Saudi and create an Arab super state.
Maybe the Arabs would fall back on what they do best: fighting each other.
For me, it would mean back home to good old Oz and a happy boy I'd be.
I can tell you a war in Iraq or no war in Iraq made not a bit of difference to Australia, but we are here anyway, listening to people like you bleat on about America "carrying the can" for everyone else.
I do think the world is a better place without Uncle Saddam and I do think Iraq can emerge as a modern democracy and an example to the rest of the Arab world. I don't think we can conquer every country that disagrees with you. Some people don't like you or disagree with you. Might as well accept it and move on.
Interesting thread, this one. The US is the biggest economy in the world (I think California is the world's fourth biggest. That may change if Arnie gets in...) and, consequently, has the biggest military and probably the widest spread of interest in the world. This is always going to be a sticking point with anyone who is non-American, ie: the rest of us. Most Yanks I know genuinely believe it is their nation's manifest destiny to bring freedom to the world and seem a little taken aback when a nation doesn't equate freedom with having the 101st Airborne camp out in the backyard.
Part of the problem is the Yanks, being the biggest, never have to adapt to another country's way of doing business: it's always us that has to do it the American way.
Still, I like Yanks, some of my best friends etc...
One of the things I like about them is they are so easy to bait. It doesn't take much prompting for some of them to have a big dummy spit, take their bat and ball home and sook.
The Kiwis, on the other hand, appreciate good banter. They have to, what with the All Blacks being such a bunch of girls, their terrible beer, the weather and all those sheep.
Oh, and the Poms. Not just their rugby team, but every sporting team they've ever fielded ever in the history of history. That, plus having Aussies working in every pub in London.
Also...
B Sousa, you mentioned what would happen if the Americans went home. In the case of Iraq who knows? Maybe the Shi'a would take over, link up with Iran and Saudi and create an Arab super state.
Maybe the Arabs would fall back on what they do best: fighting each other.
For me, it would mean back home to good old Oz and a happy boy I'd be.
I can tell you a war in Iraq or no war in Iraq made not a bit of difference to Australia, but we are here anyway, listening to people like you bleat on about America "carrying the can" for everyone else.
I do think the world is a better place without Uncle Saddam and I do think Iraq can emerge as a modern democracy and an example to the rest of the Arab world. I don't think we can conquer every country that disagrees with you. Some people don't like you or disagree with you. Might as well accept it and move on.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have no problem accepting it. Just think its about time We did back off and stay at home more often. Then if France wants the place, go for it. Problems somewhere else let the neighbors deal with it.
If it becomes a problem to us or a threat here from a distance? No troops, just eliminate the problem.
We can watch it here on the tube....
If it becomes a problem to us or a threat here from a distance? No troops, just eliminate the problem.
We can watch it here on the tube....
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but if you did leave the Middle East and decided to nuke it, where would you get your oil for those SUV's everyone over there drives?
Those pesky Frenchies are a problem too. Most of the time they just seem to want to confound we English speakers. Of course, there are quite a few Muslims in France, one of the biggest European populations I believe. Most of them vote, too, so the French government probably took them into account when it decided to vote "non" in the UNSC. Democracy, I supose. Mainly though, I think it was to annoy you folks.
A question. The French disagreed with you and on the telly from the US we saw French wine tipped into sewers and chips called "freedom fries". I seem to recall that the Turks didn't allow the use of Turkey as a FOB for OIF. Why weren't Turkish restaurants blacklisted and kebabs renamed?
Look, I supose my point is that other countries will help you, Australia and the UK are two examples and there are others currently in Iraq. Sure, the US is putting in the biggest effort, but do you expect Australia, a country with a population of less than 20 million, to provide 250,000 troops? We were here, pulling our weight in Iraq during the war and now in the "peace". We've got problems of our own to deal with (Jemaah Islamiah, the basket case that is the Pacific) that we should be looking to instead of Iraq and yet we remain here in the Sandpit. Don't try and convince me that the US is here on its own, or that you are the only country in the world fighting terrorism. Now, I may have misunderstood you, but it seems to me that that is what you are saying.
And I'd still like to know what happened to that near hit. Maybe we need a new thread...
Those pesky Frenchies are a problem too. Most of the time they just seem to want to confound we English speakers. Of course, there are quite a few Muslims in France, one of the biggest European populations I believe. Most of them vote, too, so the French government probably took them into account when it decided to vote "non" in the UNSC. Democracy, I supose. Mainly though, I think it was to annoy you folks.
A question. The French disagreed with you and on the telly from the US we saw French wine tipped into sewers and chips called "freedom fries". I seem to recall that the Turks didn't allow the use of Turkey as a FOB for OIF. Why weren't Turkish restaurants blacklisted and kebabs renamed?
Look, I supose my point is that other countries will help you, Australia and the UK are two examples and there are others currently in Iraq. Sure, the US is putting in the biggest effort, but do you expect Australia, a country with a population of less than 20 million, to provide 250,000 troops? We were here, pulling our weight in Iraq during the war and now in the "peace". We've got problems of our own to deal with (Jemaah Islamiah, the basket case that is the Pacific) that we should be looking to instead of Iraq and yet we remain here in the Sandpit. Don't try and convince me that the US is here on its own, or that you are the only country in the world fighting terrorism. Now, I may have misunderstood you, but it seems to me that that is what you are saying.
And I'd still like to know what happened to that near hit. Maybe we need a new thread...