MAYDAY! , Alot of Warbird Flying could come to a END!

oscardeuce · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:34 am **Posts:** 1021

No...I haven't read it and I'm sure our illustrious president hasn't read it either (proabably not enough pictures in it )

Then go read it before you post your idiotic dribble.

We are on the way to loosing a war where we win every battle. The Press and Left are making this a second Viet Nam.

Former Member · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:40 pm **Posts:** 1493

oscardeuce wrote:

The Press and Left are making this a second Viet Nam.

That's because it is! :roll:

AirJimL2 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:43 pm

Sun Tzu would be the author of the Art of War.

A couple more quotes are "No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare" and "When doing battle, seek a quick victory. A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor." I think the current administration may have conveniently skipped those sections when planning their mideast adventure.

This is a warbird board and not a political debating society, so I'll just leave it at that.

Jim

Former Member · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:40 pm **Posts:** 1493

oscardeuce wrote:

Have any of you read "The Art of War" by Sun Su (SP?)? He laid out taking the battle to the enemy long ago. Fight on your terms, at the place and time of your choosing. That is how you win a war.

That is one of the reasons to be in Iraq, the place and time of our choosing.

Does this also hold true for our other enemies such as Iran and North Korea? According to you I guess it should so maybe we should invade those countries as well. Not sure where we're going to find all those warm bodies to put into uniform but I'm sure we can start a draft and add another half trillion dollars to the national debt. Why worry?...our prez has said the Iraq mess will be left to future presidents. I guess he was also referring to the costs as well. :roll:

oscardeuce · **Joined:** Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:34 am **Posts:** 1021

Does this also hold true for our other enemies such as Iran and North Korea? According to you I guess it should so maybe we should invade those countries as well. Not sure where we're going to find all those warm bodies to put into uniform but I'm sure we can start a draft and add another half trillion dollars to the national debt. Why worry?...our prez has said the Iraq mess will be left to future presidents. I guess he was also referring to the costs as well.

I guess if we have to then yes. I would hope not, but it may come to that. If we do, then we should fight to win. Like Sun Tzu stated. Not a PC battlefield plan. Yes, in that way it is like, Nam, but also the Press and left are looking to make us lose, just like they did 30 years ago. History I think proves me right. I'll also leave it at that.

rwdfresno · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:21 pm

Quote:

Ryan, do you mean you think we could just possibly find better uses for the $500 million(oops slip of the pen) that's $500 billion, headed to $700 billion that we are spending on George's glorious adventure? Those pansy Dems might waste it on something like curing kids cancer, nothing manly about that. Unless Haliburton gets in the cancer business I don't think Republicans are going to be anxious to fund that. There is a charity group in Denver that I have done a little with. In 4 years they have raised $300,000 for research on the worst types of kid's cancer and raised the survival rate from about 15% to 60%. No cool uniforms or flight decks though.

Maybe if you would have sold your Spit and donated more money you could raised that rate to 80%. Just think of how many more lives you could have saved, oh but then again you couldn't wear your cool uniform and flight helmet. :roll:

Anyone who thinks that the most efficient way to cure a disease is having the government do it really needs a reality check. The patient will die waiting in line filling out the papers before they can get the medicine.

There is a lot of money made in finding a cure for cancer. If libs weren't so busy putting the pharmaceutical industry out of business they could probably be much farther ahead in curing and treating a lot of diseases. It costs so much money to research and test drugs because of of the liabilities because of the wonderful litigious atmosphere fostered by liberals that even if by some chance a miracle drug was found the company selling it would go out of business because although it cured 100,000 people of cancer one of the 100,000 died of a heart attack and they would get sued for $5 billion.

Beachy · **Joined:** Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:20 am **Posts:** 1104

Back to the original topic, did anyone read this today?

Sweetheart deal for airlines http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200702 ... orairlines

Eric Friedebach · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:02 pm

Ed Bolen at NBAA:

Quote:

Another driver of the airlines' support for the budget is the advantage it gives them on funding and control of the nation's Air Traffic Control (ATC) system. Considered the best in the world, the system uses an efficient "pay-at-the-pump" approach for fuel and ticket taxes that is consistent with widely accepted international standards. Yet, to hear the airlines tell it, we need a radical change that would, of course, let them pay far less into the ATC system. They propose taxing every aircraft at the same rate, whether it's carrying four passengers or 400.

Cha-ching!

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:10 pm

RWD, You are correct that it might be a good moral thing to do to use the Spitfire proceeds or those from any other expensive hobby for charity. I've thought about the same thing. As for your other point, it is a little off base about the govt curing cancer. The group I have a small part of working with in Denver is a private organiation and has nothing to do with the govt. It is made up mostly of parents who have lost children to cancer, is named after Morgan Adams, one of those young girls.. As for your reference about "my cool flight suit", you must have never worn a Nomex one in the summer if you think it's cool. One other thing,rigtht or wrong, agree or not my name is on my opinion, where's yours?

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:23 pm

rwdfresno wrote:

Maybe if you would have sold your Spit and donated more money you could raised that rate to 80%. Just think of how many more lives you could have saved, oh but then again you couldn't wear your cool uniform and flight helmet. :roll:

Anyone who thinks that the most efficient way to cure a disease is having the government do it really needs a reality check. The patient will die waiting in line filling out the papers before they can get the medicine.

There is a lot of money made in finding a cure for cancer. If libs weren't so busy putting the pharmaceutical industry out of business they could probably be much farther ahead in curing and treating a lot of diseases. It costs so much money to research and test drugs because of of the liabilities because of the wonderful litigious atmosphere fostered by liberals that even if by some chance a miracle drug was found the company selling it would go out of business because although it cured 100,000 people of cancer one of the 100,000 died of a heart attack and they would get sued for $5 billion.

I pretty much agree, but I don't think that was Bill's point... He was mainly talking about the extreme costs involved here, and the concern over the future of our country. We are all going to be slaves to those who can call the note, unless we can find a way to help those in our government see the error of their free-spending ways.

Ryan

rwdfresno · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:29 pm

Mr. Greenwood,

I'm not at all knocking your group by the way. Groups that want to raise money from private citizens to for whatever cause they believe in is great. My point is simply you find it noble as can be if the government funds something you believe in however you find it to be morally bankrupt when when the government is funding something that I believe in. RWD is my name it is my initials. Ryan W Davis

Quote:

I pretty much agree, but I don't think that was Bill's point... He was mainly talking about the extreme costs involved here, and the concern over the future of our country. We are all going to be slaves to those who can call the note, unless we can find a way to help those in our government see the error of their free-spending way.

Sir, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Mr. Greenwood specifically said that the money that is spent on the war could be better spent in other places. To me the comments give all indications that he disagrees with where the money is being spent and if it is being spent. I didn't see any sort of comments about how much money that we are dumping into education, social security, Medicare that are basically dollars that are being misspent and $2 out of every $3 is being spent on overhead as opposed to actually helping the people that the programs as supposed to help. In my opinion the comments are clearly knocks on the war, the president, conservatism and really have little to do with concern about spending money.

Ryan W Davis

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:21 pm

rwdfresno wrote:

Sir, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Mr. Greenwood specifically said that the money that is spent on the war could be better spent in other places. To me the comments give all indications that he disagrees with where the money is being spent and if it is being spent. I didn't see any sort of comments about how much money that we are dumping into education, social security, Medicare that are basically dollars that are being misspent and $2 out of every $3 is being spent on overhead as opposed to actually helping the people that the programs as supposed to help. In my opinion the comments are clearly knocks on the war, the president, conservatism and really have little to do with concern about spending money.

Ryan W Davis

Check your PMs. I'm probably at least as "conservative" as you but I don't want to get any further off topic on this thread.

Ryan Short

skybolt2003 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:23 pm

Methinks someone here spends too much time watching Fox (faux) News. Check out the recent headlines where Rupert Murdoch admits furthering the White House agenda for the war in Iraq (as if any reasonable person didn't already know that . . .)

Broken-Wrench · **Joined:** Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:37 pm **Posts:** 1197

STOP BICKERING ABOUT THE STUPID WAR! GA IS IN TROUBLE! I SWEAR,, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE AND YOU GUYS ARE ARGUING ABOUT WHO LEFT THE STOVE ON!

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:40 pm

So what did I mean? Stoney brought this into the war theme, then Ryan brought in the $ angle. So what I was trying to say, maybe I did not comunicate, is that we are spending an enormous amount in this war, $600 BILLION!!! Just on that scale alone we should audit if it is worth it, are we getting value for the money? One way to look at it is see what productive, benefical things could be done for humanity with that $. I used kid's cancer research as an example because I know it and they've made a real impact with just $300K, much less $600B! My son is a New Orleans volunteer, and tells me how much could be done there with a few million $. To me it is not a ? of govt vs private spending, rather taxpayer $ that has been wasted on this war. However, if people think it is fine for the govt to get young men and women killed and maimed in Iraq, but not for the govt to cure cancer, then I guess we are so far apart in our basic values, that it is hard to discuss. Of course $$$ is only part of the reason that I and about 70% oppose the war.

Warbird Information Exchange

MAYDAY! , Alot of Warbird Flying could come to a END!

Who is online