The Real Reason for War (Angry)
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please remember that the new moderators for this forum are primarily here to moderate for security issues. They are still finding their feet and and there will be the occasional blooper. Overall you shouldn't see any moderation and the few instances that have happened over the last week are exceptions rather than the rule.
As for the rest of the conspiracy theorists, you may find that occasionally a thread will be merged into an exisiting one. This is done to make my work easier and also to tidy up the forum. At the moment there must be 20 threads about the war in Iraq. As you will know, there are always some people who are unable to keep to the topic of a thread and if I am not careful I end up with 20 or more threads discussing 100 different topics which may have some microscopic link to the war in Iraq.
What I don't need is muppets who can't figure this out for themselves and end up duplicating threads more than once. The thread referenced to at the beginning of this thread and again duplicated for the fourth time on PPRuNe
is a typical example. It was already posted a few weeks ago and discussed on the very long Iraq thread in Jet Blast. It was pointed out that it had been discussed but some people are unable to accept that they were not involved in that discussion and then go and take umbridge and accuse me or my mods of somehow conspiring to supress the article which is absolutely not the case. Trouble is that you can't convince the conspiracy theorists that we are'nt out to get them.
So, with all that in mind, I'll let this thread run again, until it gets so diverted from the main topic that it either merges with another thread or gets closed. It's bad enough dealing with the hack attempts without having to babysit some people on here who are unable to figure out the correct forum etiquette!
...pathetic!
As for the rest of the conspiracy theorists, you may find that occasionally a thread will be merged into an exisiting one. This is done to make my work easier and also to tidy up the forum. At the moment there must be 20 threads about the war in Iraq. As you will know, there are always some people who are unable to keep to the topic of a thread and if I am not careful I end up with 20 or more threads discussing 100 different topics which may have some microscopic link to the war in Iraq.
What I don't need is muppets who can't figure this out for themselves and end up duplicating threads more than once. The thread referenced to at the beginning of this thread and again duplicated for the fourth time on PPRuNe
is a typical example. It was already posted a few weeks ago and discussed on the very long Iraq thread in Jet Blast. It was pointed out that it had been discussed but some people are unable to accept that they were not involved in that discussion and then go and take umbridge and accuse me or my mods of somehow conspiring to supress the article which is absolutely not the case. Trouble is that you can't convince the conspiracy theorists that we are'nt out to get them.So, with all that in mind, I'll let this thread run again, until it gets so diverted from the main topic that it either merges with another thread or gets closed. It's bad enough dealing with the hack attempts without having to babysit some people on here who are unable to figure out the correct forum etiquette!
The thing that worries me is (and this will probably get the thread pulled - so print it now if you think it matters - I have)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest Oxfordshire
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Capt PPRuNe...
Danny
No offence, but after having been set straight by ORAC I did look at your message in JetBlast about merging all threads pertaining to the Iraq conflict into one.
However I am not a regular on JetBlast, and since I hadn't seen that message here, all I could see was that a thread that I personally found worthy of further debate, and that had been closed after only one reply.
That doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist. In fact, by nature I generally lean far more towards the 'cock-up' scenario.
I appreciate all you say about the management difficulties with all these disparate threads...but in that case, why not just merge or delete it? And if you're going to lock it, why allow one reply first?
There is loads of other good stuff on the PPRuNe that I wish I had the time to read, but haven't. Mrs Gadget and Baby Gadget see to that.
Please accept my sincere apologies. All I wanted was to promote some reasoned debate on this forum.
But, as they say, you are the boss...
Gadget
PS: The thing that worried me still does...but that comes back to the conspiracy versus cock-up thing, doesn't it? Is it really that pathetic to wonder which?
No offence, but after having been set straight by ORAC I did look at your message in JetBlast about merging all threads pertaining to the Iraq conflict into one.
However I am not a regular on JetBlast, and since I hadn't seen that message here, all I could see was that a thread that I personally found worthy of further debate, and that had been closed after only one reply.
That doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist. In fact, by nature I generally lean far more towards the 'cock-up' scenario.
I appreciate all you say about the management difficulties with all these disparate threads...but in that case, why not just merge or delete it? And if you're going to lock it, why allow one reply first?
There is loads of other good stuff on the PPRuNe that I wish I had the time to read, but haven't. Mrs Gadget and Baby Gadget see to that.
Please accept my sincere apologies. All I wanted was to promote some reasoned debate on this forum.
But, as they say, you are the boss...
Gadget
PS: The thing that worried me still does...but that comes back to the conspiracy versus cock-up thing, doesn't it? Is it really that pathetic to wonder which?
Last edited by Captain Gadget; 30th Mar 2003 at 00:16.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbf1
Can you please cease your incessant posts about Flt Lt Pprune. I recognised a serious concern after some of the 'loose' talk that occured, and it is now there for the purpose of controlling it. YOU chose to rabbit on post after post about it impinging on 'rights' and wanting to know who the mod team were. What does it have to do with us? Who are you? Want to give your name? Why should the mods give theirs. And what rights do any of us have on Pprune? None - in the strongest possible terms.
Your Pprune RAF dominated theory. All crap! It's nothing of the sort. Might it not be your way of trying recruitment for that other forum - covered in my next sentence.
Your irritating plugging of this forum for the army. Who cares! If people want to join in that is their privilege. Personally, I prefer it here.
And your nagging nonsense about moderation. It really is getting rather tiresome. My first para will suffice.
You are sprouting a lot of cobblers in my view, though doubtless you will have some supporters, but I would take a bet that there are good number whose noses you get up. I am one of the 'brownies' and I don't have a problem with any of the above. You on the other hand seem intent on dictating what in your opinion is the 'answer.' Well I haven't found ONE of your 'answers' that has any validity. A lot of hot air and huff and puff is all I can see.
Danny et al (including the mods) are doing a great job. PPRuNe is a site that will probably never be surpassed in aviation terms. From what I have seen of your other forum, it has a fair few number of years to even get into the running.
Pity I had to air my view really. Because this post will only serve for you to post another of your particular kind of rhetoric.
Just give it a rest, it's boring!
That feels better!
Can you please cease your incessant posts about Flt Lt Pprune. I recognised a serious concern after some of the 'loose' talk that occured, and it is now there for the purpose of controlling it. YOU chose to rabbit on post after post about it impinging on 'rights' and wanting to know who the mod team were. What does it have to do with us? Who are you? Want to give your name? Why should the mods give theirs. And what rights do any of us have on Pprune? None - in the strongest possible terms.
Your Pprune RAF dominated theory. All crap! It's nothing of the sort. Might it not be your way of trying recruitment for that other forum - covered in my next sentence.
Your irritating plugging of this forum for the army. Who cares! If people want to join in that is their privilege. Personally, I prefer it here.
And your nagging nonsense about moderation. It really is getting rather tiresome. My first para will suffice.
You are sprouting a lot of cobblers in my view, though doubtless you will have some supporters, but I would take a bet that there are good number whose noses you get up. I am one of the 'brownies' and I don't have a problem with any of the above. You on the other hand seem intent on dictating what in your opinion is the 'answer.' Well I haven't found ONE of your 'answers' that has any validity. A lot of hot air and huff and puff is all I can see.
Danny et al (including the mods) are doing a great job. PPRuNe is a site that will probably never be surpassed in aviation terms. From what I have seen of your other forum, it has a fair few number of years to even get into the running.
Pity I had to air my view really. Because this post will only serve for you to post another of your particular kind of rhetoric.
Just give it a rest, it's boring!
That feels better!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider this:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And that's why threads get rolled into the main thread. The report has been done to death several times.
Read it and it doesn't say any such thing. It's recommendations for world-wide deployment bear no resemblance to those which have occurred.
In particular, it proposed a slight reinforcement of the No-Fly Zones and ground with allied support maintaining the status quo so that naval forces could be redeployed to the Far East - seen as the most important theatre of operations. To quote:
"With a minor increase in strength, more permanent basing arrangements, and continued no-fly and "no-drive" zone enforcement, the danger of a repeat short-warning Iraqi invasion as in 1990 would be significantly reduced. With the rationalization of ground based U.S air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed."
The main thrust of the paper is about the reorganisation of the Army, Air Force and Navy upon lines which have not happened. e.g. It recommends the Air Force should scrap the JSF program and buy more strategic bombers and tankers.
Seen that happen?
The main recommendations for the Navy were that:
- "Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns towards East Asia, a majority of the U.S. fleet, including two-thirds of carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"
- "The Navy must begin to transition away from it's heavy dependence on carrier operations, reducing it's fleet from 12 to 9 carriers over the next 6 years".
Seen that happen either?
I suggest you read it in full. It may indeed, pragmatically, explain how the U.S. forces should be redesigned for a "Pax Americana" role. But when you see what they recommended in force structure and disposition against what has occurred, to propose it as a "blueprint" for a war with Iraq is laughable and unsustainable. Link
Read it and it doesn't say any such thing. It's recommendations for world-wide deployment bear no resemblance to those which have occurred.
In particular, it proposed a slight reinforcement of the No-Fly Zones and ground with allied support maintaining the status quo so that naval forces could be redeployed to the Far East - seen as the most important theatre of operations. To quote:
"With a minor increase in strength, more permanent basing arrangements, and continued no-fly and "no-drive" zone enforcement, the danger of a repeat short-warning Iraqi invasion as in 1990 would be significantly reduced. With the rationalization of ground based U.S air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed."
The main thrust of the paper is about the reorganisation of the Army, Air Force and Navy upon lines which have not happened. e.g. It recommends the Air Force should scrap the JSF program and buy more strategic bombers and tankers.
Seen that happen?
The main recommendations for the Navy were that:
- "Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns towards East Asia, a majority of the U.S. fleet, including two-thirds of carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia"
- "The Navy must begin to transition away from it's heavy dependence on carrier operations, reducing it's fleet from 12 to 9 carriers over the next 6 years".
Seen that happen either?
I suggest you read it in full. It may indeed, pragmatically, explain how the U.S. forces should be redesigned for a "Pax Americana" role. But when you see what they recommended in force structure and disposition against what has occurred, to propose it as a "blueprint" for a war with Iraq is laughable and unsustainable. Link
