Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bush in London
Topic Started: Nov 14 2003, 06:13 PM (706 Views)
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
ds9074
Nov 14 2003, 06:13 PM
Why the hell did we invite this moron to visit? Expecially for an official state visit with all the pomp and circumstance we 'do so well', it will be quite a show the mall is already lined with alternate stars and strips/union flags. Neither Reagan or Clinton warrented this treatment. How much is this bloody trip costing the British taxpayer to start with, 5000 police are going to be on streets. A state banquet in Buckingham Palace. Tea and cakes at Downing Street. Can I suggest a change in intinery, take Bush (and Blair) and put them in the cells at the TOWER OF LONDON to reside THERE at Her Majesty's pleasure. Still there is a MASSIVE protest planned and and effigy of Bush is going to be hoisted up and toppled in Traflgar square (Bagdad style). :lol:

Quote:
 
Why the hell did we invite this moron to visit?



HEY !!

you are NOT allowed to call the incumbent American President a "moron" - sorry.


PS : welcome back from me for what its worth; it seems you have changed your invasion opinions a bit since earlier in the year (?)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Cool Vulcan
Captain
Is it me or does these people hate Redpublican Presidents for no reason? Admiral I am starting to think NZtrekkie and DS9, have something called selective memory and selective sight.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
nztrekkie
Nov 17 2003, 04:58 PM
HEY !!

you are NOT allowed to call the incumbent American President a "moron" - sorry.


PS : welcome back from me for what its worth; it seems you have changed your invasion opinions a bit since earlier in the year (?)


He has been at college. Most of which are well known for their liberal bents. He may be an unwitting victim of brainwashing... :D :angel: :whistle:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
jjtrek
Lieutenant Commander
OK, then *I'll* call George W. Bush a moron! I'm an American, I did not vote for him, and last I looked, this country's constitution ALLOWS me to call him a moron! So there! :D

Julia
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Tell me where in the Constitution it says you can call the president a moron...

Article?

Section?

Amendment?

Fortunately the Constitution is not the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Calling the president ANY disparaging name (and president, too), is a violation of Article 88, which states:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

I never voted for Bill Clinton, and he was my Commander-in-Chief for seven years, yet I never called him a moron... even to my closest shipmates. There is such a thing as RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE, whether or not you agree with the guy. Too bad certain (knee-jerk) reactionaries don't see that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I can say and do whatever I like provided its not prohibited by law. Sorry but I dont reconise the US has any authority over me. That statement stands!

By the way my views havent changed. I never thought it was a good idea to start with, the case was not made, the UN resolution not forthcomming, the vote in Commons forced through. When British troops were 'in action' I wanted them to succeed with their mission as best as possible. Now we have to deal with the situation we are in, but at the same time someone should take the blame for misleading the British people over WMD.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
No one has been misled over WMDs. Just because we haven't found them YET does not mean that they don't exist. As I've said previously, "Hell, it took four months to find a squadron of MiG-25s buried in the sand AT AN AIRBASE."

Let's see... he's had them, he's used them on Iranians and Kurds, he has the facilities for making them, and he admitted to having them. How could he have gotten rid of them?

I don't want to get into an argument with you over this, DS, but from a tactical viewpoint, this constituted a threat. The threat generates a threat report, and a list of scenarios. There is no best case scenario for this one.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
We were told he had WMD which posed an immediate danger and could be launched within 45 minutes. I would suspect that to be launchable within 45 minutes you couldnt have them too well hidden - so well hidden that 6 mounths of searching doesnt find them!

We WERE misled. Like Bliar decided not to reveal that the intelligence service was warning attacking Iraq would increase terrorism in the area and increase instability in the middle east.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Not at all... warheads are easy to remove and secret away. After all, Saddam had SIX MONTHS to hide weapons. He USED HY-2 cruise missiles during the war, but fortunately (if it can be called that) that was only loaded with high explosive. You're looking at this all wrong... the missile body and the warhead are almost never stored together (except as ICBMs).

BUT, Blair is quite correct in that a missile can go from "cold" to fired in 45 minutes. It would be assembled beforehand, which only takes a few hours. Then you fuel, program, and fire. Saddam had intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) with a 1000 km range (the Al Abbas) and was developing an intercontinental ballistic missile in tandem with North Korea (the NoDong in Korean, the Al Abid in Arabic) with a 3000 km range.

You were NOT misled. The problem is that your news organizations (BBC) and the anti-war crowd are not analyzing data properly (or purposefully misanalyzing data for their own benefit).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
I can say and do whatever I like provided its not prohibited by law.

DS9074,

Question: 1) Do you believe that personnel in Star Fleet Academy would agree with this? 2) How about senior officers? I am only asking the question, not criticizing your position.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Nov 25 2003, 12:22 PM
Like Bliar decided not to reveal that the intelligence service was warning attacking Iraq would increase terrorism in the area and increase instability in the middle east.

We WERE misled just to step out side of the original argument, and please take this as a totally new idea, I am not trying to enter the back and forth that’s going on here.

I really do not understand this statement? Why is this not just common sense? I mean if you start to fight the terrorists, they are going to fight back. So common sense would have to tell you, that no matter what happens (good or bad) if you enter Iraqi, you are going to see an increase terrorism in the area and increase instability in the middle east. That’s what war is, if you start to fight one side, they aren’t just going to stop. so I really don’t see this as Bliar misleading the British people, I would be more inclined to see this as the British people not thinking for them selves. But of cores that isn’t true, so then that leaves it as only a whining point for the opposition.

Now don’t get me wrong - if you want to say that Blair misled you about there being WMD that’s valid - only time will tell if its true. But to say that Blair mislead you because he didn’t tell you "the other side will fight back"- that’s just another thing all together.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
It is definately true that long range missles can be armed and fired within 45 minutes. A major portion of the Soviet Union's policy for nuclear war was based on this fact. It was reasoned that the majority of the Soviet Union's silos and airfields would be destroyed after both sides exchanged the first round of strikes. Therefore, the Soviet Union put much of its effort into producing mobile nuclear missle platforms. The SCUD missle launcher is a Soviet design I believe (though stripped to bare bones as the Soviet's hardly ever sold their top of the line equipment), and the Soviets also developed the first ballistic missle submarine. Most Soviet aircraft were also able to take off and land on areas like fields, dirt roads, highways, and almost anything that was flat. This would potentially enable Soviet aircraft to strike from areas were not hit by American nukes.

So when you say that Saddam could not hide weapons effectively and use them 45 minutes later, remember that a former superpower based their whole nuclear weapons policy on being able to do just that!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Scud is the Soviet-era SS-1 ballistic missile. It had a relatively short range (200-odd miles) and was first deployed in the 1960s as what is known as a "theater weapon." It could fire a conventional 2000 lb warhead or a small tactical nuke.

Oh, not all Soviet aircraft could take off from dirt roads and unproven runways, although the MiG-23 and Su-25 could. They did build their aircraft more "heavy duty" than ours, simply because not all of their airfields were as developed as ours.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
ds9074
Nov 14 2003, 06:13 PM
Why the hell did we invite this moron to visit? Expecially for an official state visit with all the pomp and circumstance we 'do so well', it will be quite a show the mall is already lined with alternate stars and strips/union flags.

well, it was a bit of a laugh really wasn't it ?

Mr Bush never went further than 1.5 km (1 mile) the whole time of his "state" visit. And he drove the hundred yards to the palace.

:D
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Why is the distance he traveled of humor to you?

Did he beam over to Air Force One? Last I checked, Buckingham Palace doesn't come with a 10000 foot landing strip.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus