genmoore,
Before you re-engage, I suggest you read all of the following threads first.

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=101262

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=99665

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=101347

__________________
95 R129
04 Infiniti G35.5 BS
10 X204

He is "un-engaging" because he can't back up his wild assertions. In Texas, we call that "running away".

The Lewinski smear was purely that, a smear. The original investigation was started to determine if Mr. and Mrs. Clinton had "insider" information or some other unfair advantage when it was found they did not loose their $45,000 or so investment when Whitewater went under. Ms. Lewinski had nothing to do with it, and the investigation was pushed only to try to find something to smear Clinton when it became clear there was no "Whitewater-gate" in the land deal. It went meandering on forever and cost the taxpayers, one of the damaged parties in the Whitewater failure, over $10 Million. I think we would all have been better off not knowing about Monika, the cigar and the dress if we could have kept the $10 plus Million.

As Kirk noted, no one cared about the President getting a BJ enough for it to matter, and surely not $10 million or more worth. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

Kirk,

The problem with your posts is that you don't know what you're talking about and you make things up. I have returned to this thread just long enough to prove the point and alert everybody that you write fiction.

I did a very quick search and came up with the following. There are others, I'm sure. All who read your posts should beware.

You said, "Saddam did not launch any agressive (sic) attacks on our aircraft after 1991." Well read on...

U.S. Forces Again Strike Iraqi Missile Site


American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON -- For the second time in three days, coalition
air forces came under Iraqi attack Dec. 30, and returned
fire against a missile site.

The latest incident -- this one over southern Iraq --
occurred at about 9:30 a.m. local time, near the town of
Talil. A coalition British GR-1 Tornado pilot flying an
Operation Southern Watch mission saw the launch of six to
eight surface-to-air missiles from an air defense site,
said a Joint Task Force Southwest Asia spokesman.

U.S. Air Force F-16CJ, F-16CG and EA-6B aircraft fired two
high-speed anti-radiation missiles at the radars and
dropped several GBU-12 500-pound precision guided
munitions. All coalition aircraft returned to bases safely.
Officials are conducting battle damage assessment.

U.S. and British aircraft are part of Operation Southern
Watch. The operation enforces United Nations sanctions and
restrictions of the no-fly zone south of the 33rd parallel
in Iraq. Aircrews are authorized to use force in self-
defense.

Two days earlier, coalition aircraft came under similar
attack from an air defense site north of the town of Mosul
in northern Iraq. In that encounter, coalition forces
responded with anti-radiation missiles and precision-guided
munitions. Pentagon officials said that site was destroyed.
(From an Air Force News Service release)

You can find this release and others by going to the Department of Defense Web site.

Having worked in the defense industry it was George Bush the first and Dick Cheney who emasculated the United States Armed Forces. Do a little research. More modern weapons programs were scrapped under them than Clinton, who actually restored submarine and other programs. Bush the second, with Rumsfeld at the helm of the DoD, picked up where Cheney left off, and cancelled or curtailed a number of ongoing programs over loud protests from the Pentagon.

Just because you repeat your "relationship" theory, and fail to note that it is merely a theory, concerning Saddam and Bin Laden being best of buddies, eager to team up to attack America, does not make it true. The 9/11 report does not support your projection that they were buddies or that they were about to team up.

Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)

The only thing that seems to be a support to your assertion is this statement:

"A coalition British GR-1 Tornado pilot flying an
Operation Southern Watch mission saw the launch of six to
eight surface-to-air missiles from an air defense site,
said a Joint Task Force Southwest Asia spokesman."


It does not say the missles were fired at them. It seems if this was the case, they would have mentioned it. Military aircraft are well equipped to know when a missle has been fired at them, in fact they have only seconds to evade or they are dead. I can give you an actual analysis of what you have read. The Tornado is an extremly high altitude British bomber. I've actually been inside of one, and spoken to the crew, so I know that it was being most likely used in one of its two primary functions - high altitude survelliance (the other being strategic bombing, usually nuclear).

It observed the activity from a high altitude, which is probably what it was supposed to being doing -survelliance was after all the mission of Southern Watch. It then called in and guided the other planes mentioned in the article to the site, and those aircraft destroyed it. at no time did the battery engage the Coalition aircraft.

The Iraqis tried to set up anit-aircraft batteries within the one third of Iraq not declared as part of the no-fly zones. We told them this would not be allowed, as it was possible for them to fire into the no fly zones from these positions. They asserted that they must be allowed to do so in order to protect itself from possible attack from Iran, in other words for self defense. We said no. If we detected these batteries testing missles or we discovered radar signals emitting from them we wiped them out.

We also caught a single Mig at one point in the no fly zone. Rather than being part of some attack it was probably some luckless pilot trying to defect. We shot it down.

You also don't give a date for this particular incident. My guess would be 1994.

All and all it seems pretty weak, if not specious, evidence of attacks on US aircraft from Iraq, never mind attacks that justified Bush's War. Could you give us a date, perhaps a plane that reported he was dodging a missile fired at him, something that actually proves your point? At this time the detection of any radar signal that pinged a coalition aircraft was called "an attack". More propaganda than truth. Given the losses Saddam suffered for just emiting radar tracks, he soon ended this practice.Most of these incidents ended by 1996. All and all, most, if not all were premeptive, against targets easily discovered by high-altitude jets or satellites. We never lost a single plane. They were simply a punching bag. Perhaps the old age of what you posted made you shy about including a date?


Your statements:

The problem with your posts is that you don't know what you're talking about and you make things up. I have returned to this thread just long enough to prove the point and alert everybody that you write fiction.

I did a very quick search and came up with the following. There are others, I'm sure. All who read your posts should beware.

You said, "Saddam did not launch any agressive (sic) attacks on our aircraft after 1991." Well read on...


do not seem to be true. If any one is attempting to support a fiction it is you.

gemoore,
How is that a threat to the U.S. national security? Please clarify. They are there, we are here. Duh. You have very weak argument, my friend.

It's OK you admit you drank Bush's Koolaide. But don't justfy for the Administrations that the war was just and noble. Plain fact - Bush lied about WMD, AQ connection, and ignoring OBL in Afgan and N Korea. That is some serious mis-management of tax payers lives and resources. Maybe you are OK with it, but half of this country don't think so. His biggest push during his first campaign was his ability of bipartisan politics. He lied about that too. This country is more divided than ever.

Again, go read those threads before you re-engage. What you wrote so far had been discussed before.

__________________
95 R129
04 Infiniti G35.5 BS
10 X204

Yep, same carousel, a couple of repainted horses.

Amazing..... I'm just speechless.

Yeah, gemoore has some catching up to do....

__________________
'83 240D with 617.952 and 2.88
'01 VW Beetle TDI
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD
'89 Toyota 4x4, needs 2L-T
'78 280Z with L28ET - 12.86@110
Oil Burner Kartel #35

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1...oD/bioclip.jpg

The guy has a point, but I only concede it grudgingly. Under the rules of engagement in No-Fly Iraq in the 90s, a number of things could be classified and logged as "attacks" that were not attacks at all such as radar activity. There was also a great deal of cat and mouse going on as well where Saddam would attempt to test the limits of the No-Fly zone by moving anti-aircraft batteries around etc and this was also classified as "attacks". Anything they did resulted in their utter destruction. The idea that we somehow stoically bore sustained Iraqi attacks until Bush came and unleashed the dogs is patently ridiculous. We ruled iraq from the skies, until men came in to office that coveted what Iraq had underground.

OK, guys. Fess up.

LK1, your real name is Larry.

Kirk, you're really Curly.

And elau, you're Moe.

Your Rodney Dangerfield.