← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 18453 | Posts: 39 | Started: 2005-05-30
2005-05-30 07:20 | User Profile
View From Lodi, CA: Bushââ¬â¢s Failing War Makes Draft Inevitable
By Joe Guzzardi
A friend told me that she had recently struck up a casual conversation with a middle-aged woman she met at a social gathering.
During their small talk, my friend asked, "How many children do you have?"
"I had two," the woman replied. "But one was killed in Iraq."
My friend said she was speechless. "I could not think of one comforting thing to say," she told me.
Finally, she said to the grieving mother, "I am sure you are very proud of your sonââ¬â¢s service."
On Memorial Day weekend, what can I write about except George Bushââ¬â¢s filthy and futile Iraq War?
The recently released Downing Street Memo proves how craven Bush is.
Iââ¬â¢m proud that I opposed the war in Iraq. President George W. Bushââ¬â¢s disingenuous sales pitches fooled most of Americaââ¬Â¦.but not me.
In my March 2003 column, written just hours before the Iraq invasion, I stated, "Bush owes Americans more candor than he has given us."
More than two years later, weââ¬â¢re still waiting for honest answers about Americaââ¬â¢s future in Iraq.
Iraq is a disaster. The U.S. death total now stands at 1655. Even the most hardened Bush apologists have been silenced by the totality of the mess in Iraq.
Remember the euphoria of the Iraqi elections?
Hereââ¬â¢s the harsh post-election truth: according to the Associated Press and based on statistics from police, hospitals and military officials, more than 620 people, including 58 U.S. troops, have been killed since April 28.
Included in the slaughter were 89 car bombs that killed at least 355 people. An additional five suicide bombings by individuals wearing explosives killed 107 people.
For those who are delusional enough to hope that everything will work out in Iraq, some evaluations from high-ranking U.S. officials might jar you into reality.
A May 20th New York Times story titled "Generals Offer a Sober Outlook on Iraqi War" offered a bleak picture of the U.S. ability to quell the insurgency.
The best one general could muster up was this grim forecast: "Itââ¬â¢s going to succeed in the long run, even if it takes years, many years."
The Los Angeles Times provided another insightful news item with its May 22nd story by Mark Mazzetti, "Officers Plot Exit Strategy."
Mazzetti wrote that last year Army lieutenants and captains left the service at an annual rate of 8.7% indicating
"An undercurrent of discontent within the Armyââ¬â¢s young officer corpsââ¬Â¦Young captains in the Army are looking ahead to repeated combat tours, years away from their families and a global war that their commanders tell them could last for decades. Many officersââ¬Â¦are deciding that it is a future they canââ¬â¢t sign up for."
Finally, from the soldiers themselves comes a cry for help.
According to the G.I. Rights Hotline, more than 3,000 soldiers or recruits call looking for information about the consequences of going A.W.O.L.
A phone volunteer says that almost all the callers have made up their minds to get out. The latest Pentagon figures put the current A.W.O.L. total at 5, 133.
As always when I write critically about the Iraq War, I conclude with the same question: "Where is the outrage?"
One reason the American public is so uninformed about Iraq is because the media has not covered the war adequately.
If you lived though the Vietnam era and recall, as I do, the nightly images of carnage that helped awaken America, you might be wondering why we arenââ¬â¢t getting similar photojournalism from Iraq.
The Los Angeles Times broke down the actual number of pictures of Americans killed in action during a recent six-month period in Iraq.
During the period analyzed, 559 Americans and Western allies died. Yet six prominent newspapers---among them the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post--- and Time and Newsweek Magazines, published almost no pictures of dead Americans from the war zone.
Can you remember seeing any?
Newspaper editors admit that they have done a poor job. Pim Van Hemmen, assistant managing editor for photography at the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. said:
"We in the news business are not doing a very good job of showing our readers what has really happened over there. Writing a headline that 1,500 Americans have died doesnââ¬â¢t give you nearly the impact of showing one service man who is dead. Itââ¬â¢s the power of the visuals."
For the growing number of Americans who have changed their minds about the wisdom of invading Iraq, letââ¬â¢s take comfort in the old adage about things that canââ¬â¢t go on, donââ¬â¢t.
Under no circumstances will the status quo in Iraq continue into 2006.
Expect to see the draft reinstated. Then weââ¬â¢ll find out just how popular Bushââ¬â¢s war really is.
Joe Guzzardi [email him], an instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.
http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/050527_vfl.htm
2005-05-30 07:36 | User Profile
I doubt it will happen, but I hope a lot of soldiers in Iraq do wake up to the truth and decide to put themselves and their families above the Jews and their puppets by going AWOL. Not one of those people has any duty to get so much as a papercut for the sake of Israel.
If the draft is reinstituted, then I hope at least some draftees will resist it with force. I personally would rather die fighting the so-called "authorities" on my own soil than be sent overseas to fight for Israel.
2005-05-30 15:49 | User Profile
Instead of being "proud" of the troops I feel sorry for them, it is one thing to fight for your country and another to fight in order to take the country from someone else.
I have seen many photos of dead Iraqis civilians and specially of tortured "prisoners" and all that I can say is "I don't believe it" I just can't believe that Americans are doing the torturing and I am willing to bet anything that the Zionists in Iraq are the ones doing the dirty work.
2005-06-02 20:20 | User Profile
I wonder at the inevitability of Conscription. While the AWOL number is a not a good indicator of healty morale, the disenchantment of junior officers is an old story in the Military. Junior officer retention has been a challenge any time the economy is good, though how the economy stacks up as a motivator puzles me, which takes us to "conditions of service" being too bitter to swallow. Any Senator or Congressman advocating the draft as placebo is committing political suicide in his own district.
Here is a thought: draft illegal aliens, give them citizen ship if they survive Iraq. Nevermind, there's a recipe for disaster . . .
The key point was made by the quoted general: Over The Long Haul. That admission is at odds with the "quick little war" symbol presented in the fall of 2002, spring of 2003. It is also admission that General Shinseki was right, as was James Webb in the strategic sense, and admission that the inability to stop the reinforcement of internal fighters with foreign fighters is a root cause to the continued carnage.
If the Iraqi people bleed hard enough, long enough, my money is on them seeking a strong man, be he Sunni, Shiite, Kurd, or something else entirely. It's more natural to their cultural, clan based social framework. Would love to be wrong, but that is where the betting money is.
[QUOTE] Under no circumstances will the status quo in Iraq continue into 2006. [/QUOTE]Yes, it will change for better or for worse? The person to ask that value question does not live in Washington, but in Bagdad, Basra, or Mosul.
2005-06-02 20:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I doubt it will happen, but I hope a lot of soldiers in Iraq do wake up to the truth and decide to put themselves and their families above the Jews and their puppets by going AWOL.[/QUOTE] I've often wondered about that. There is a lot on the Internet about this phony-baloney war and no doubt a substantial number of troops have read it. I'd be one pissed-off grunt if I learned I'd gone to war based on a pack of lies. (And the lies are piled up deep and wide in this one.)
Of course, your average infantryman is not known for his independence of thought.
Back to the topic: I don't see a draft ever happening. Aside from the political fallout (huge), the top brass do not want it. Draftees are only motivated to do the least work necessary and to get out alive. DI's would hate it. They'd go to chew out some recruit and he'd say, "What are you gonna do? Discharge me?"
2005-06-02 21:05 | User Profile
If even mentioning reestablishing military conscription spells suicide for any politician, the question I must ask is why??
They could start drafting from the people and families who voted for Jorge in '04. There shouldn't be too much resistance to conscription in those ranks, right?? Shouldn't be political suicide for politicians to mention the draft...I mean, they marched the USA lock-step into an immoral, illegal, and catastrophic quagmire in Iraq. What's a stinking draft to the uber-Bushistas?
2005-06-02 21:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]If even mentioning reestablishing military conscription spells suicide for any politician, the question I must ask is why??
They could start drafting from the people and families who voted for Jorge in '04. There shouldn't be too much resistance to conscription in those ranks, right?? Shouldn't be political suicide for politicians to mention the draft...I mean, they marched the USA lock-step into an immoral, illegal, and catastrophic quagmire in Iraq. What's a stinking draft to the uber-Bushistas?[/QUOTE]You want a serious answer to that silly question?
For the draft to be lawful, it has to apply to all citizens. Whoa, that means women have to be eligible . . . unless Congress writes it otherwise.
So, in reality, what ever law Congress writes and passes establishes the criterion for conscription. Do you think, for a minute, that under the present conditions "pro Bushites only" is gonna work as a basis?
Heck, I'd bet a majority of the folks who volunteer favor Bush, so why do you have to draft them? :shocking:
2005-06-02 21:27 | User Profile
Aren't we entering the "latter days of Rome" territory here?
I almost wish they'd have a draft. It might make the ever-referred-to American People stand up and think before they cheer on bombing some random group of Arabs if there were a personal price to be paid for their cheerleading. As AE pointed out, that's not likely, politically, so I surmise the solution to the problem of filling the ranks will be similar to the Roman answer, mercenaries. In the modern case, we're seeing illegals being signed up as a fast-track to citizenship. How widespread this is likely to become is anyone's guess, but I'll bet it will have the same downsides the Emperors discovered too late and to their cost.
It's far easier for the modern "$1.98 patriot" to stomach that than having their precious Britney, Tyler or Kaitlin catch a bullet or come back missing appendages, just as it is easier for them to stomach some White kid named Jones from Bumwater, N.C. doing the dying.
2005-06-02 21:53 | User Profile
This same concern, the Varangian Guard or Praetorian Guard problem, has been made since the 1970's in-re black soldiers by some, particularly those who bring their Muslim beliefs with them. So far, the all volunteer force has allowed the black men who are not into fighting Whitey's War to remain aloof. It might be best that such condition be left untampered with, or we may see more fraggings like the one in the 101st, March, 2003. That guy, by the way, is eligible for the death penalty, and has been recently convicted.
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Aren't we entering the "latter days of Rome" territory here?
I almost wish they'd have a draft. It might make the ever-referred-to American People stand up and think before they cheer on bombing some random group of Arabs if there were a personal price to be paid for their cheerleading. As AE pointed out, that's not likely, politically, so I surmise the solution to the problem of filling the ranks will be similar to the Roman answer, mercenaries. In the modern case, we're seeing illegals being signed up as a fast-track to citizenship. How widespread this is likely to become is anyone's guess, but I'll bet it will have the same downsides the Emperors discovered too late and to their cost.
It's far easier for the modern "$1.98 patriot" to stomach that than having their precious Britney, Tyler or Kaitlin catch a bullet or come back missing appendages, just as it is easier for them to stomach some White kid named Jones from Bumwater, N.C. doing the dying.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-03 14:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]You want a serious answer to that silly question?
For the draft to be lawful, it has to apply to all citizens. Whoa, that means women have to be eligible . . . unless Congress writes it otherwise.
So, in reality, what ever law Congress writes and passes establishes the criterion for conscription. Do you think, for a minute, that under the present conditions "pro Bushites only" is gonna work as a basis?
Heck, I'd bet a majority of the folks who volunteer favor Bush, so why do you have to draft them? :shocking:[/QUOTE]
First off, it's not a silly question to ask why politicians, in lock-step, marched this country into an disastrous war based on HUGE lies, would commit political suicide by calling for military conscription. IMO, every politician in the US gov't already committed suicide by marching lockstep with a lying, smirking, arrogant Chimpanzee into a war which has killed well over 100,000 people total. And that same Chimp was re-elected!
But you just seem so certain that the American people would go revolutionary if these same politicians, backed up by the media, said a military draft is needed for the security of the United States of America. Nah, I don't buy it, Americans would submit because this government could sell snow to an Eskimo and sand to an Arab and sell a military draft to Americans. But maybe you know something I don't know.
And I was being sarcastic about drafting only Bushites, although I would imagine there's [U]millions of 18-34 year old males[/U] who love George Bush and also love seeing Ay-rab women and children and old men being slaughtered by American soldiers who are not in the military. Look at the idiots on Free Republic and multiply by 1,000,000 and you should have the 'military you wish you had' like Donald Rumsfeld said.
2005-06-03 14:23 | User Profile
Looks like I missed the tone of your first reply, and thus I was rude. My apologies for being so crass.
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]First off, it's not a silly question to ask why politicians, in lock-step, marched this country into an disastrous war based on HUGE lies, but supposedly would commit political suicide by calling for military conscription. IMO, every politician in the US gov't already committed suicide by marching lockstep with a lying, smirking, arrogant Chimpanzee into a war which has killed well over 100,000 people total.
What I meant by political suicide is that the two year election cycle would probably see a draft supporter dumped, though for Senators, the impact would not be as harsh, so I overstated that case a bit. As to their failing to execute the responsibilities of their office in 2002/2003, your point is well taken.
[QUOTE] But you just seem so certain that the American people would go revolutionary . . . [/QUOTE]Go revolutionary? No, I don't think so, your assessment is probably closer to the truth. I do think a lot of people would vote their frustration/irritation on the "where were those WMD's again" at the local level if the opposition sold that message simply and clearly. I see an opportunity for third party candidates in legislatures, but there may not be enough organization to pull it off.
I would imagine there's [u]millions of 18-34 year old males[/u] who love George Bush and also love seeing Ay-rab women and children and old men being slaughtered by American soldiers who are not in the military. [/QUOTE]Rumsfeld is the kind of silver bullet thinker who considers using nukes a practical idea, since they are "cheap." He ignored a perfectly competent advisor, General Shinseki, for telling him the truth. 'Nuff said on that person.
Not sure about the 18-34 demographic, you may be right. My guess is that the longer this bloody Iraq mess lasts, the fewer there will be who see it through rose colored glasses.
2005-06-03 14:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes] What I meant by political suicide is that the two year election cycle would probably see a draft supporter dumped, though for Senators, the impact would not be as harsh, so I overstated that case a bit. As to their failing to execute the responsibilities of their office in 2002/2003, your point is well taken.[/QUOTE] This is true, but what if the leadership of both parties supported the draft? What are the people going to do -- vote third party and throw their votes away?!! :rolleyes:
2005-06-03 15:09 | User Profile
Angeleyes, thanks for your reply, and if I sounded upset in my posts, it's not directed at you personally.
Basically, in a nutshell, what I see and interpret in America today is this:
The American people, as a whole, are RIPE for exploitation by a criminal enterprise called the US Government. ANYTHING can happen now and the resistance mechanisms that the People once had and used have been decimated and left to rust. The US Gov't was complicit in 9/11 and the people overlooked it and swallowed the official fairytale. The US Gov't lied the people into a disastrous, illegal, catastrophic war in Iraq and the news media said if you're anti-war you're equivalent to Osama Bin Laden, and when they want the military draft to come back, they will create the conditions in order to make it happen with little resistance. I wish I could be more optimistic.
2005-06-03 15:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]This is true, but what if the leadership of both parties supported the draft? What are the people going to do -- vote third party and throw their votes away?!! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] If enough of them do, doesn't that put the third party guy into the seat, sort of like Gov Ventura a few years back?
2005-06-03 15:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]If enough of them do, doesn't that put the third party guy into the seat, sort of like Gov Ventura a few years back?[/QUOTE] It is hard to indicate sarcasm through a message board, I'm afraid. I was merely parroting what I was told ad nauseum last year when I voted for Peroutka, unable as I was to vote in good conscience for either the Bush or Kerry incarnation of the single Janus-faced establishment. Ventura and the the socialist Representative from Vermont are special cases. The Democrats and Republicans have an absolute lock on the Presidency that will not be undone without some cataclysmic event to shock the drowsing populace.
2005-06-03 15:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Angeleyes, thanks for your reply, and if I sounded upset in my posts, it's not directed at you personally.
Basically, in a nutshell, what I see and interpret in America today is this:
The US Gov't was complicit in 9/11 and the people overlooked it and swallowed the official fairytale.
==snip== I wish I could be more optimistic.[/QUOTE]On OBL: Complicit by incompetence? Complicit by design? Complicit by negligence?
I look at OBL's successful attack in this light. (Don't remember if he was behind the 1993 WTC truck bomb or not).
Eight years of a long term plan designed to exploit any and every loophole in the American system, the "open society" and deliver a blow. Our anti-hijacking policy of "pay like a good little sheep," since the early 70's and all those "take this plane to Havanna" stuff, was ripe for exploitation. For another time.
Analyzed unemotionally: if OBL, did the the WTC / Pentagon attack without an inside assist, it is an effective use of force for political ends: his. His ends need not have anything to do with any American or European or Zionist ends.
For example, why would neocons want to blow up the Pentagon?
Have you seen the articles on the shoot down versus crash of that fourth plane over Pennsylvania? Some interesting stuff. Tail section 5 miles from crash site? That's some bounce.
Given OBL's very open displeasure with American troops in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) post 1991, I find credible the assertion that he pursued his aims on his own initiative and with like minded, well off, associates.
Put differently: if one assumes the enemy is stupid, he'll get the drop on you. He had declared himself an enemy of America openly. Why, when he was offered up, by some reports, to the Clinton team by Sudan's gang government, was he not taken down by a bit of wet work. That's a head scratcher, and lends fuel to the "inside job" fire.
My last thought: I have a hard time seeing him and Zionists making common cause. What common ground do they really have?
2005-06-03 15:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] The Democrats and Republicans have an absolute lock on the Presidency that will not be undone without some cataclysmic event to shock the drowsing populace.[/QUOTE] Yes, no argument at all on that. I was looking more at the legislative level as a first step.
Any change will have to take root at a district by district level, and work through accruing legislative seats first to build a power base. Not from the top down, but from the bottom up.
And not a short term process.
2005-06-03 15:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]On OBL: Complicit by incompetence? Complicit by design? Complicit by negligence?
I look at OBL's successful attack in this light......[/QUOTE]
Who is Osama Bin Laden and why did he not take credit for 9/11...and his praising of "that day in New York" is not the same as claiming responsibility. But remember, the entire Bush & Co Enterprise based their War on 'Terra' and the Patriot Act in reaction to 9/11. Therefore, in my eyes, proof of guilt for 9/11 is CRUCIAL when your reactionary measures involve curtailing civil liberties and, of course, death and destruction in foreign lands.
Were they complicit, incompetent, or designers of 9/11? I'd say lazy and possibly complicit. Less than 15 minutes for F-15's to intercept golfer Payne Stewart's wayward plane in 1999, yet 4 gigantic 767's violate flight paths between 40 and 80 minutes while making big swooping U-Turns in the sky and not a single 100million dollar tax-payed F-16 could even get up in the sky to at least ID the person flying the plane???? Did you ever hear or read transcipts of what Air Traffic Controllers' were communicating on the morning of 9/11?? Why were those tapes confiscated and destroyed by the FAA???? Who were the 5 Israelis arrested in NJ for cheering on the collapse of WTC and why were they immediately deported as reported by FOX and then subsequently the story goes down the memory hole??
I dunno Angel, somedin' is rotten in Denmark, I'm tellin'ya.
2005-06-03 16:06 | User Profile
Any change will have to take root at a district by district level, and work through accruing legislative seats first to build a power base. Not from the top down, but from the bottom up.
True, but in the "winner take all" two-party-that's-actually-one system we've got, it's near impossible to get any representation of alternate views. Plus, the party machines have made sure to close off the same doors they've gone through. It doesn't help that the American Public has been Pavlovian conditioned to the idea of only having Dems and Repubs from now to the end of time. I wish we had someone like TR and the Bull Moose Party around to keep things interesting. Perot blew himself and third-party politics out of the water with his well-intentioned, but disastrous run in '92.
2005-06-04 02:42 | User Profile
I will leave Patriot Act for another time, and am willing to believe it was reactive in nature for the moment.
[QUOTE=xmetalhead] I'd say lazy and possibly complicit. Less than 15 minutes for F-15's to intercept golfer Payne Stewart's wayward plane in 1999 From an article: Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel.
Luck of his flight route and where some F-16's happened to be, IMO. Wasn't he intercepted coming out of Central Florida heading north? Northern Florida is full of F-15/F-16 training areas, known as MOA's (Military Operating Areas) and a big training base, Tyndal Air Force Base. Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact. In F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT. Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit. At 10:44 a.m., the fighters from Eglin diverted to St. Louis for fuel. Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla
yet 4 gigantic 767's violate flight paths between 40 and 80 minutes while making big swooping U-Turns in the sky and not a single 100million dollar tax-payed F-16 could even get up in the sky to at least ID the person flying the plane????
No one is gonna stop the first one if no one if FAA or ANG knows about it, though there was reason to believe one was hijacked. There is little evidence that anyone predicted a hijack was going to turn kamikaze. For the first attack, surprise was most definitely on the side of the kamikaze attackers. Even folks with a cell phone who would call would not get a hint of that, I think, until shortly before impact, due to "standard Hijack expectation.
There's for the first one.
Now, for the second one.
[size=3]Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, states "the pilots flew like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner. We had a nine-minute window, and in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' he said. ''There was just literally no way.'' [[/size][url="http://www.wanttoknow.info/010915dallasnews"][size=3][color=#0000ff]Dallas Morning News, 9/15/01[/color][/size][/url][size=3]] F-15's[color=black] fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound [1875 mph or 30+ miles a minute or 270+ miles in nine minutes] and are designed for low-altitude, high-speed, precision attacks[/color]. [[/size][url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/military_fact_files/warplanes_f15e.stm"][size=3][color=#0000ff]BBC[/color][/size][/url][size=3]][/size]
[size=3]Dallas Morning news time-distance is pure crap. An F-15C can indeed reach Mach 2.5 for a few minutes in a dive at very high altitudes. He's then out of gas. The crap math on Mach numbers, and thus intercept times at lower altitudes I won't even honor. The Major General is correct. The F-15E "low altitude Strike Eagle" cannot hit Mach 2.5 or even mach 1.7 at low altitude. A Mach 1.5 would be nice, at low level, then flame out pretty soon. These journalists are idiots on that score. However, why no tanker, where is an alert tanker (KC-10 or KC-135) to support the intercept? That changes the math, since then a Mach 1+ burst becomes more credible a response. [/size]
[size=3]A subsonic intercept, if no tankers were in the air (usually takes 30 to 60 minutes to get an alert tanker airborne from a SAC base, need to check where the closest one was then transit to area to support fighters) and a goodly distance to travel is all that they probably had as an option. [/size]
If you are coming into LaGuardia or Kennedy from (Boston) . . . get an aeronautical chart out, it is pretty easy to see this on one. Or a Jepson approach plate. Depending on whether they are landing north or south flow, you can have a course deviation take less than two-three minutes and you hit the WTC. I used to fly down the Hudson river all the time in smaller aircraft than an airliner, and by the WTC and Statue of Libety. Laguardia and its approach corridors are Right There.
So, for #1, childs play, for #2, geometry and time-distance, not to mention what was probably a sense of disbelief on the ground controller's part, made an intercept a miss. Plus, NORAD commander has to call the Pres for authorization, and if you intercept him anywhere within 20 miles of WTC, and you shoot him down, you will kill hundreds on the ground, easily. That is a densely populated area, unless you get a perfect shot and he falls into the Hudson River or the Narrows. RL is not Hollywood.
As for # 3 and #4. There is an excellent case to be made for some command and control problems.
Having spent some real time directing fighter scrambles and intercepts, consider this. While all of this is going on, FAA controllers are trying to figure out which planes are a threat, are or are not hijacked, and after the second, I think were trying to get planes out of the sky in a hurry. Given the crowded airways already, that adds considerable friction to the process.
The cost of the F-16 is irrelevant, its speed is of interest if no tankers are airborne (no afterburner), and most critically the decision chain on the ground from people not expecting the need order the pilot and his wingman to intercept, initially "weapons tight," then the intercept geometry, drive the time line. Not to mention the weather.
There is also the problem of 'uh, anyone know their next target? New York? DC? Chicago? Boston? Baltimore? Philadelphia?'
As far a ID'ing the person in the plane?
Have you ever flown a plane. Getting an F-16 up close and personal to the narrow cockpit window that the suspected hijacker is occupying is one thing (no, this is not Hollywood) you may not appreciate how easy it is to "not be seen" in the airliner cockpit. Even mild evasive maneuvering by an airliner makes that a damn near impossible prospect.
That said, once the first two hit the WTC, not sure about the issues on the timeline for the Pentagon plane, and as I alluded above, there is some question whether or not that fourth plane was shot down.
X, the non availabiliity of the FAA tapes is NOT a good sign. Will chat with a golfing bud who works the local FAA. He's said some rather bitter things about that day, and how FAA was treated. I do know that for flight violations or airliners who are doing "out of the box" flying, the controllers routinely mark the radio and radar tapes that run all the time. NTSA requirement. (Federal Safety regs for mishap and flight violation evidence)
[QUOTE]Did you ever hear or read transcipts of what Air Traffic Controllers' were communicating on the morning of 9/11?? [/QUOTE]No, and I'd love to read it all, and I'd really like to read the radar traces.
[QUOTE]Why were those tapes confiscated and destroyed by the FAA?[/QUOTE]FAA? FBI? DoD? National Command Authority? Who really took them? I wish I knew. As for this
Sept 11, 2001: Six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners make a tape recording describing the events, but the tape is later destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it
I shake my head and wonder who that "supervisor" really was working for.
Who were the 5 Israelis arrested in NJ for cheering on the collapse of WTC and why were they immediately deported as reported by FOX and then subsequently the story goes down the memory hole?? I dunno Angel, somedin' is rotten in Denmark, I'm tellin'ya.[/QUOTE]No answer here, and I have to agree with you, something smells. Gulf of Tonkin on the Hudson? Danzig on the Potomac? I can't wrap my brain around that.
2005-06-04 16:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes][size=3]Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, states "the pilots flew like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner. We had a nine-minute window, and in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' he said. ''There was just literally no way.'' [[/size][url="http://www.wanttoknow.info/010915dallasnews"][size=3][color=#0000ff]Dallas Morning News, 9/15/01[/color][/size][/url][size=3]] F-15's[color=black] fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound [1875 mph or 30+ miles a minute or 270+ miles in nine minutes] and are designed for low-altitude, high-speed, precision attacks[/color]. [[/size]
url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/military_fact_files/warplanes_f15e.stm"][size=3][color=#0000ff]BBC[/color][/size][/url][size=3]][/size]
[size=3]Dallas Morning news time-distance is pure crap. An F-15C can indeed reach Mach 2.5 for a few minutes in a dive at very high altitudes. He's then out of gas. The crap math on Mach numbers, and thus intercept times at lower altitudes I won't even honor. The Major General is correct. The F-15E "low altitude Strike Eagle" cannot hit Mach 2.5 or even mach 1.7 at low altitude. A Mach 1.5 would be nice, at low level, then flame out pretty soon. These journalists are idiots on that score. However, why no tanker, where is an alert tanker (KC-10 or KC-135) to support the intercept? That changes the math, since then a Mach 1+ burst becomes more credible a response. [/size]
[size=3]A subsonic intercept, if no tankers were in the air (usually takes 30 to 60 minutes to get an alert tanker airborne from a SAC base, need to check where the closest one was then transit to area to support fighters) and a goodly distance to travel is all that they probably had as an option. [/size][/QUOTE]I am glad to see responses on this subject that show obvious knowledge. For too long conspiracy theorists and others ignorant of technical characteristics have posted items that I was positive could not be true, but I lacked the knowledge to refute their more loony conjectures. Please keep up the good work.
2005-06-04 17:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I doubt it will happen, but I hope a lot of soldiers in Iraq do wake up to the truth and decide to put themselves and their families above the Jews and their puppets by going AWOL. Not one of those people has any duty to get so much as a papercut for the sake of Israel.[/QUOTE]Not only go AWOL, but get involved with WNs. Euro-American guys with military training and who know the score could be very useful.
2005-06-11 04:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead] Look at the idiots on Free Republic and multiply by 1,000,000 and you should have the 'military you wish you had' like Donald Rumsfeld said.[/QUOTE]Grin GREAT post! I loved that part about the Freakers---I used to be one--and had the high honor of getting banned twice. It's the best thing that has ever happened to me.....
Speaking of FR, I had to marvel at the gung-ho BS that FReakers spout. The real doozie is where they just cannot wait for us to go after Syria, Iran--or whatever nation happens to be on their radar. They seem very willing to send 'other' folk's kids on a trip to the sunny Middle East. If there is a draft, let's hope their kiddies get an appropriate draft number. Most of the former combat vets that were there (at FR) were horrified at the majority of the freakers being so willing to go to war at the drop of a pin.
I had a pretty long Navy career---including combat service. If we have to go to war--fine. I'd prefer that we go for the right reasons and not because some FReaker type wants to show how "brave" they are in their favorite role as Armchair Commando--or because another country wants to have US do their dirty work for them.
2005-06-11 04:44 | User Profile
Welcome to Original Dissent, Brother!
It won't take long to scrape that Rimjobstani dung off your clogs... :1eye:
2005-06-11 05:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Howard Campbell, Jr.]Welcome to Original Dissent, Brother!
It won't take long to scrape that Rimjobstani dung off your clogs... :1eye:[/QUOTE] Thanks for the welcome---and I'm well on the way to removing the dung! :yes:
Amazing how much clearer the air is when you leave the muck pit that is FR....
2005-06-11 05:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=formerfreeper]Thanks for the welcome---and I'm well on the way to removing the dung! :yes:
Amazing how much clearer the air is when you leave the muck pit that is FR....[/QUOTE]
Yes, welcome to OD.
Perhaps you could bring along like-minded souls?
It's just a thought.
Again, welcome.
2005-06-11 05:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Aren't we entering the "latter days of Rome" territory here?
I almost wish they'd have a draft. It might make the ever-referred-to American People stand up and think before they cheer on bombing some random group of Arabs if there were a personal price to be paid for their cheerleading. .[/QUOTE]
I really hope we get the draft.
It will have exactly the effect you say. I will force tens of millions of Fox News viewers to take a good hard look at the war. Every American household will have a real stake in the thing. It will be very, very good for those of us who want to bring down the Empire and dance on its grave.
I remember back in the early 70s the draft was the only thing people talked about. Especially young guys. I was a year or two shy of draft age myself, but I do remember my older male relatives and friends worried sick about it. And I also remember that when Nixon finally got rid of the draft the wind was taken out of the sails of the anti-war movement. Literally overnight. The thing sorta lurched forward under sheer inertia even under President Ford, but campuses calmed down a good deal after that (1973, if memory serves). That was it. I remember being at a CSN&Y concert in Milwaukee in 1973, and Graham Nash yelled about the war, but few cared. There were a few people with signs, but everybody really just wanted to rock. The Beach Boys were there, too. They got a much bigger reception even though they were second billing. It was funny, actually. All these hippies shaking it to "Help Me Rhonda."
The point is that millions of young guys no longer had a personal stake in it, and so human nature being what it is they turned their minds to other endevours. It suddenly became somebody else's problem.
The reason there is no anti-war movement now is because the middle, upper middle, and upper classes (especially on the coasts) don't care, and they don't care because the casualties are all with volunteers, drawn from the working and poor classes (mostly from flyover country).
That's basically it.
A draft will change that. And it looks like we may just get it.
I've got my fingers crossed.
2005-06-11 05:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yes, welcome to OD.
Perhaps you could bring along like-minded souls?
It's just a thought.
Again, welcome.[/QUOTE] Many thanks! I've sent a few of my buddies a link asking them to take a look. I'm sure they will, as their disgusted FR grows hourly. After all, what point is there in staying at FR when you cannot intelligently discuss a subject without having the RimJob-bots lamebrains coming after you.
2005-06-11 06:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=formerfreeper]Many thanks! I've sent a few of my buddies a link asking them to take a look. I'm sure they will, as their disgusted FR grows hourly. After all, what point is there in staying at FR when you cannot intelligently discuss a subject without having the RimJob-bots lamebrains coming after you.[/QUOTE]
Indeed.
That's the very question many of us here asked ourselves. Including yours truly.
You see, FF, I've come to believe that the great dividing line in American politics is not liberal-conservative, which is the establishment's basic line, be they Pubbie or 'Rat, and from which neither side can or will allow the troops to deviate, at least not publicly. It is precisely deviation from this party line in any way shape or form that gets one banned from FR. The 'Rats are actually freer in internal discussions to rant on about the real rub in our political discourse than are Fox News viewers (Al Sharpton, Hillary's "anti-Semitic" statements and so forth) so long as they use some discretion, but that's the nature of their being a coalition of anti-white minorities, but I digress.
The great dividing line in American politics (and world politics) is not liberal-conservative, or capitalist-socialist, or even Christian-Muslim. The great seismic fault that divides the world today is that which separates the Jews and their army of gentile allies on one side from the patriots of the many nations of the world on the other.
That is the simple truth you are not allowed to speak on FR.
I'm pleased to have you here.
2005-06-11 08:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]From an article: Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel.
Luck of his flight route and where some F-16's happened to be, IMO. Wasn't he intercepted coming out of Central Florida heading north? Northern Florida is full of F-15/F-16 training areas, known as MOA's (Military Operating Areas) and a big training base, Tyndal Air Force Base. Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact. In F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT. Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit. At 10:44 a.m., the fighters from Eglin diverted to St. Louis for fuel. Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla
Re: Payne Stewart [url]http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm[/url]
[I]At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.
About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 [/I]
Note that at approximately 9:33 EDT there was no response from the Lear; the first F-16 reached the Lear at 9:52 CDT. Taking account of the time zone change this allows a period of an hour and nineteen minutes from the first flight anomaly to the time of initial visual contact, not just twenty minutes.
Still doesn't change the fact that a small private jet received this kind of attention, yet several airliners diverting from their course were supposedly never intercepted.
2005-06-11 17:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]Re: Payne Stewart [url="http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm"]http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm[/url]
At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.
*About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 *
Note that at approximately 9:33 EDT there was no response from the Lear; the first F-16 reached the Lear at 9:52 CDT. Taking account of the time zone change this allows a period of an hour and nineteen minutes from the first flight anomaly to the time of initial visual contact, not just twenty minutes.
Still doesn't change the fact that a small private jet received this kind of attention, yet several airliners diverting from their course were supposedly never intercepted.[/QUOTE] Not arguing that, my point was more that the flight was, by chance, flying into a volume of airspace full of fighters, since northern Florida is full of fighters on training missions every day.
There is not that kind of density of fighters in the airspace volume in the Northeast, so less odds of a two ship of opportunity being on a training mission in the proper volume of airspace to give ATC the chance to zip them over for a peak.
2005-06-12 02:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Indeed.
That's the very question many of us here asked ourselves. Including yours truly.
You see, FF, I've come to believe that the great dividing line in American politics is not liberal-conservative, which is the establishment's basic line, be they Pubbie or 'Rat, and from which neither side can or will allow the troops to deviate, at least not publicly. It is precisely deviation from this party line in any way shape or form that gets one banned from FR. The 'Rats are actually freer in internal discussions to rant on about the real rub in our political discourse than are Fox News viewers (Al Sharpton, Hillary's "anti-Semitic" statements and so forth) so long as they use some discretion, but that's the nature of their being a coalition of anti-white minorities, but I digress.
The great dividing line in American politics (and world politics) is not liberal-conservative, or capitalist-socialist, or even Christian-Muslim. The great seismic fault that divides the world today is that which separates the Jews and their army of gentile allies on one side from the patriots of the many nations of the world on the other.
That is the simple truth you are not allowed to speak on FR.
I'm pleased to have you here.[/QUOTE]
I tried to express myself on FR in the most diplomatic fashion possible-using pure facts and logic. In the case of the immigration threads, I was immediately assailed as a bigot, un-American and everything else that one could think of. For all my intelligence, I just coudn't comprehend it.
Something of interest from my father: He was at a dinner a few weeks ago when a Jewish fellow that is Dad's age (85) was remarking about WWII. Dad had spend 42 years in the US Army (1937-1979) and was a VERY proud Screamin Eagle. Anyway. this fellow was going on about why he didn't serve in WW II. It seems that his doctor in NYC had kept two complete sets of medical records on himself and his brothers. One set, as you might expect, was the set that made them 4-F for military service--the other set was the "real" Set. Dad was stunned.
In his very quiet way, dad reminded this jerk that all his of age brothers had served--including one that died at Okinawa.
The other guy got up and left. Even then they allowed others to fight wars for them. So much for his dedication to country, I guess.
2005-06-12 07:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=formerfreeper]I tried to express myself on FR in the most diplomatic fashion possible-using pure facts and logic. In the case of the immigration threads, I was immediately assailed as a bigot, un-American and everything else that one could think of. For all my intelligence, I just coudn't comprehend it.
.[/QUOTE]
It's great to have you here.
Many of us, including yours truly, were heavily influenced by the [URL=http://home.ddc.net/ygg]Yggdrasil webpage.[/URL] I urge you to check it out.
Walter
2005-06-12 09:30 | User Profile
FF,
[QUOTE]I tried to express myself on FR in the most diplomatic fashion possible-using pure facts and logic. In the case of the immigration threads, I was immediately assailed as a bigot, un-American and everything else that one could think of. For all my intelligence, I just coudn't comprehend it.[/QUOTE] :oh:
Ah, yes, that brings back fond memories of "Free" Republic for me and no doubt others here. That was yours and our mistake as well. Most "freepers" don't understand facts and logic. They only emote. :drool: In this regard they are no different than the "Liberals and Democrats" they are always bitching about. Being polite was probably precieved as a weakness as well by them in that brain laundry. Unfortunately, one can't slam them right back for J.R. will remove them in a heartbeat. The truth of the matter is this. No matter how you respond to those idiots the game is rigged for in all probability RimJob is paid off by the RNC or one of its spinoffs. :1eye:
Here's something for you: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16714[/url]
And in regard to your father: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2073[/url] "Edward Gibbon" will love this story.
2005-06-12 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=formerfreeper]Many thanks! I've sent a few of my buddies a link asking them to take a look.[/QUOTE]
Can they handle the "racism" here? Granted, what "racism" is is ill defined, but the true-believer Freakers over there know it when they see it (kinda like porn).
I haven't lurked there since the blowup over immigration and the Minutemen and the purges associated with that time. Are Dane & bayourod still shilling as hard as ever? It's too bad there aren't more people like NewRomeTacitus and Ranger Drew over there. It might be a better place. Of course, more NRTs and Ranger Drews are leaving every day, making the signal-to-noise ratio there ever worse. Good to have you here, BTW, FF!
[quote=Weisbrot]Still doesn't change the fact that a small private jet received this kind of attention, yet several airliners diverting from their course were supposedly never intercepted.
I can understand the confusion and problems with intercepts, though I still think it slightly fishy that the airspace in that region was so unguarded at the time, but what really begs explanation are some of the lesser-known events like the five high-fiving Israeli movers and the "anonymous tip" that led authorities to the rental car at Logan, conveniently chock full of Korans and "Death to America!" literature, as well as the Atta's miraculously fireproof passport. That whole Odigo IM thing was kind of strange, too.
2005-06-13 00:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=MadScienceType]Can they handle the "racism" here? Granted, what "racism" is is ill defined, but the true-believer Freakers over there know it when they see it (kinda like porn).
Are Dane & bayourod still shilling as hard as ever? It's too bad there aren't more people like NewRomeTacitus and Ranger Drew over there. It might be a better place. Of course, more NRTs and Ranger Drews are leaving every day, making the signal-to-noise ratio there ever worse. Good to have you here, BTW, FF!.[/QUOTE] My friends would have no problem here---at FR the big problem was the idiots like Dane and bayourod that winged it around just for the hell of it--if you tried to igonore their 'racism' baits, they taunted you for "not rebutting it because it's true" and if you did--they'd hit the abuse button no matter how careful you were in rebutting them--with the inevitable ban or suspension to follow.
Sertorius is right about their 'emoting" The RimJobots havn't a clue as to what reason is---all they have is unreasoned emotion. They are operated from a central computer gleefully run by RimJob--who took some lessons for the DNC, I guess. In the words of the "borg"--they have been assimilated--resistance is futile. Happily for everyone here at OD---we refused to go that way.
BTW, Dane and company are still there---but seemed to have toned it down a bit-likely because the people they wanted out are mostly gone. I lurked for a little bit, but going there made me want to shower right afterwards. After all, whats the use of going to see zoo animals?:biggrin:
2005-06-13 14:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I can understand the confusion and problems with intercepts, though I still think it slightly fishy that the airspace in that region was so unguarded at the time[/QUOTE]The government's own description of its standard operating procedure stated that errant flights could and would be intercepted in much less time than was available between the discovery of deviation from flight plan on 9/11 and impact.
After reading Stranger than Fiction and A New Pearl Harbor, I have no doubt that someone in the government allowed these events to happen.
2005-06-23 15:42 | User Profile
What worries me most about the war in Iraq is it demonstrates to our enemies how vulnerable we are. We can't get enough volunteers to fight in Iraq, let alone defend ourselves in other parts of the world. We can't even control our borders because of a lack of military personnel.
2005-06-24 01:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]What worries me most about the war in Iraq is it demonstrates to our enemies how vulnerable we are. We can't get enough volunteers to fight in Iraq, let alone defend ourselves in other parts of the world. We can't even control our borders because of a lack of military personnel.[/QUOTE] BTW, the Armed forces were at Belmont Park Racetrack today---they were trying to get the Stable area Mexicans there to enlist.
A lot were there--not sure if there were a lot of takers, though.
I keep you all informed.