March 29, 2006

If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again!
— Tanker

The Eurotrash never cease to amaze me. They have become permanently blinded by the fact that America has a bigger penis that they do. They created Airbus because they couldn't stand buying from Boeing anymore. Well, trillions of dollars of subsidies later they have garnered an equal footing in sales. But they still don't quite understand how to make planes that their customers actually want.

The first example was the Concorde. It wasn't exactly answering a market need, but it did fly faster than anything Boeing had. Of course, it was eventually retired after they realized flying empty planes was really a stupid idea.

Now, they have gone back to the well for a second drink of Kool Aid. This time they are making a plane to compete in the crucial mid-sized market. However, once again, its not what the market wants. Don't just take my word for it:

Two of the world's most powerful airplane buyers yesterday said Airbus should completely rethink the plane it has proposed to compete against Boeing's strong-selling new 787.

Steven Udvar-Hazy, probably the most respected figure in the global business of buying and selling airplanes, predicted the current version of Airbus' A350 would sell poorly and leave Boeing to dominate the lucrative market for midsized wide-bodies.

I'm sorry I couldn't post this one sooner. I was just laughing to hard!

I have another great article on the dual between Airbus and Boeing here.

Posted by: Tanker at 12:50 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ace, not to hijack, but aren't you going to cover the latest re Cynthia McKinney?

Methinks DC better hope the cop was black too...

Posted by: qdpsteve at March 29, 2006 12:57 PM (gwl7T)

2 Ha ha BTW. Just now noticed that I apologized for trying to hijack a thread re Airbus vs. Boeing.

Am I *witty* or what??!! (No, just clueless.) Zing!

(insert rimshot sound effect here)

Posted by: qdpsteve (who once had a crush on Monica) at March 29, 2006 01:02 PM (gwl7T)

3 This is sort of the problem the Europeans face in terms of competition. Already the European Union is being outproduced by India alone, and the discrepency is only going to extend.

The European Union is being run by people who reject everything that the US built it's self up to greatness on, so they have to try to find other ways. One of them is to use socialistic methods to build products and services that they hope people will want. The SST was this, a huge trash can for money that they figured would pay off in other ways by bringing people to Europe and defeating the US at it's own game.

All it did was cost a crapload of money and eventually get scrapped rather than rebuilt. This is part of why the US is so hated by the elites of Europe: they keep being on the losing end and their cherished ideals keep being wrong.

Posted by: Canelone at March 29, 2006 01:15 PM (1Vbso)

4 JetBlue, and excellent company, unfortunatly has the Airbus for its JFK-Burbank flight. The plane, when encountering mild to heavy head winds, as is typical for 6 months during winter/spring travel, has to land for fuel to complete its NONSTOP flight.

I swear I'm not making this up. Check its flight 357 late in the day will often have to land in Salt Lake or Las Vegas.

Now, I don't mind so much. But the first time this happened I thought WTF? I've never heard of that.

Turns out the JetBlue rep tells me its the AirBus. They just ain't built to hold enough fuel to fly nonstop across the country with any kind of a head wind.

So, just like the europeans, any sort of resistance at all and they just put down and give up.

Figures.

Posted by: Viking at March 29, 2006 01:15 PM (gXzaY)

5 Tanker,

I`m curious about your notions of Big being better than mid-sized. Airbus believed the same thing and targeted the A380. Boeing said nope, mid-sized will become more popular and profitable. Boeing`s logic: Passengers are tired of having to drive to a big hub somewhere + hubs are almost saturated. Passengers want to go somewhere close to home and get a flight that connects or almost connects to their destination w/o a hundred plane changes.

The A380 is max problems and I don` just mean the airframe. VERY few hubs in existence now can accomodate this jet because their concrete won`t support the psi weight of its tires, its turning radius, and its inability to fly some of the already published instrument and departure procedures. Also terminals will need expensive modification to deal with mass load of passengers.

So, Airbus has had second thoughts and come around to Boeing`s strategy. But Boeing is well on the way and Airbus is not...........








Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 29, 2006 01:23 PM (BJYNn)

6 Viking is lying to you--they had plenty of fuel...they were asking for directions!!

Posted by: THIRDWAVEDAVE at March 29, 2006 01:30 PM (deUrl)

7 Oddly enough, in all my years of flying, I've never been in a 747, even when making the JFK-LAX-Honolulu flight.

Posted by: Xoxotl at March 29, 2006 02:01 PM (Wsi7x)

8 TWDave - I guess it was a female flight crew then?

Posted by: jeff at March 29, 2006 02:03 PM (yiMNP)

9 What's with this Airbus 380? Why would anyone want to ride on the fatest target to ever get airborn outside of AirForce 1?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 29, 2006 02:13 PM (WjdPM)

10 Viking, JBLU's entire fleet is airbus, why I will never fly them.

Posted by: creeper at March 29, 2006 02:22 PM (wZLWV)

11 Re: Jetblue's fleet.

They recently added brasilian aircrafts to their fleets. Embraer 190's on certain flights. Unlike Southwest, which has all 737's, and all their pilots can fly all their aircraft, Jetblue has changed that cost effective model by adding a different plane that has different requirements. Bad play IMHO, but going with Airbus was the first mistake.

Posted by: BuyLUV at March 29, 2006 02:37 PM (S9jH0)

12 I concur with Viking. Another fine example of this is the Motorcycle industry. Aprilla/Ducati?Cagiva/Moto-Guzzi have all gone bankrupt or had funding dry up within the last 4 years. The Brits are playing hard with Triumph and they are moving some units.They do have issues with their cruisers that bikers carry from 30 years ago to overcome. However their speed bikes seem tobe well recieved. Europeans generally laugh at our heavy cruisers and try to sell us their village hoppers. Cute, but shitty resale and unreliablity are not going to cut it today or ever. Wondering when the latest Euro-dork is gonna bail on his moped factory doesn't do much for confidence either. Was this supposed to be about planes? Sorry.

Posted by: hutch1200 at March 29, 2006 02:38 PM (RRVzm)

13 Viking - I don't suppose maybe JetBlue was trying to save $$ by carrying less than a max fuel load?

Posted by: holdfast at March 29, 2006 03:05 PM (Gzb30)

14 oh yeah, one more thing....
Southwest (NYSE:LUV) is at a two year high, and Jetblue (NASDAQ:JBLU) is about 60% below it's all time high, set a bit over two years ago.

Holdfast, how does having to stop for fuel, which is basically taking the plane out of service, save money? Not to mention, planes are most efficient at cruising altitude, not while making the down and up trip to get at cruising altitude after the refueling stop.

Posted by: BuyLUV at March 29, 2006 03:17 PM (S9jH0)

15 http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/06_01_17_airbus_2005.html

With 1,111 new gross orders, valued at USD 95.9 billion, and 1,055 net orders, Airbus maintained its lead for the fifth year in a row. These orders, which make up for 52 per cent of the market, comprise 918 Single Aisles, 166 A330s, A340s and A350s, and 20 A380s, as well as seven A300 Freighters. 2005 was therefore even stronger than 1998, Airbus’ previous record year in which it booked 556 new orders. Also, the order intake for both the Single Aisle Family and the A330/A340/A350 were the highest ever for those product series.

Posted by: at March 29, 2006 03:18 PM (Teea2)

16 Boeing vs Airbus; capitalism vs socialism; free market vs controlled market. Guess who wins every time.

Posted by: docdave at March 29, 2006 03:22 PM (/LthV)

17 This reminds me of something I found on the recommended blog Baldilocks:

" In den USA erfrieren im Winter immer wieder alte Menschen in ihren Betten.

(Translation: In the USA, old people very often freeze to death in their beds during wintertime.)"

This is from a German TV show called Weltspeigel, basically a heap of propogandist crap designed to make the US look bad.

The purpose of this is to try to change the perception of the US from a golden land of opportunity, comfort, riches, and success to be a horrid place worse than Europe and full of miserable oppressed poor people.

Without a voice of reason and some sort of alternative media, there's no way for Europeans to know any better. They can be lied to very effectively by their governments and media because there's no room in the marketplace of ideas for conservatism. There's no Fox News, there's no Rush Limbaugh, there's no alternative media. Even sites like Right Wing News get barely any hits from Europe, despite being easily available to anyone around the world.

So I have otherwise reasonably conservative friends in places like the UK who think the 2000 election was a complete power grab and fraud, and think that President Bush is spying on people as they walk around their houses (they don't care, that's not all that shocking in Europe). They simply get one side and that side is a pile of reasty warthog crap.

Posted by: Canelone at March 29, 2006 03:32 PM (1Vbso)

18 I wonder which was more expensive: Airbus subsidies, or the trillion dollar effort by the US to install the SCIRI in Iraq?

Don't read the United States of Europe, or your head will explode.

Posted by: at March 29, 2006 03:50 PM (ANynN)

19 From Airbus link above:

At the end of 2005, Airbus had a backlog of 2,177 aircraft valued at USD 220.3 billion. It is also the highest ever in its entire history and in the history of aviation. Moreover, this is higher than that of the competition for the sixth year in a row, and comprises the highest ever backlog for both the A330/A340/A350 (346 aircraft) and the A320 Family (1,652 aircraft).

So you think that's failure, and you think the Bush foreign policy is a success. Have I got that right?

Posted by: at March 29, 2006 04:02 PM (ANynN)

20 Anon.,

Devil is in the details. France state airline industry counts completely different than any other country.

If they get a verbal, "Okay I`ll think about it" they ask for a guesstimate number and if they get one, it goes into the "done deal" box for counting.

Aviation Week and Space Technology tracks this and are viewing considerable delays showing up w Airbus deliveries, which is not a sign of health.




Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 29, 2006 04:18 PM (BJYNn)

21 Keep in mind Airbus can provide bribes while Boeing is constrained by US laws. Since many sales go to state run airlines that helps.

Also, China always buys Airbus if we are helping Taiwan that week or whatever.

Posted by: Aaron at March 29, 2006 04:19 PM (lcMDD)

22 England came out with the first jet airliner the DEHAVELIN COMET it turned out to have a fatal flaw that cuased it to be with drawn after several accedents

Posted by: spurwing plover at March 29, 2006 04:43 PM (uPdgJ)

23 Keep in mind Airbus can provide bribes while Boeing is constrained by US laws

You're joking, right?

Posted by: at March 29, 2006 05:04 PM (ANynN)

24 jeezuz Ace... its DUEL. With an E.

Posted by: mcgurk at March 29, 2006 05:23 PM (xV5z3)

25 Josie/Anonymous, so what if Airbus is busier than a pair of jumper cables at a Mexican funeral?

What's the bottom line? Do you they turn a profit?


By the way, they're probably backlogged because they can't get their employees' lazy asses to work more than twenty hours a week.

Posted by: Bart at March 29, 2006 05:23 PM (dSgMT)

26 Not at all, France regularly bribes people to work with them instead of other people. Homes on the Riviera, etc. It's part of how they do business, the only reason you think it's absurd is that you've got a different set of business ethics than the French government.

Posted by: Canelone at March 29, 2006 05:23 PM (1Vbso)

27 I don't think that was his point. I could be wrong, but I think he was trying to say Boeing does the same thing. And he's probably right.

Look, both Airbus and Boeing benefit mightily from state actors. Airbus gets large subsidies, yes, but Boeing gets huge tax breaks and cheap loans (seems like a subsidy to me), plus the military pays for the development of much of the technology that ends up in commercial airliners. You don't think Boeing paid to develop all those advanced composites, do you?

There are no black or white hats here. Personally, I support Boeing because it means American jobs and American technological superiority. But lets not fool ourselves into thinking Boeing is so much more efficient than Airbus it can compete with a large subsidy imbalance. It can't and it doesn't. It's dangerous to believe your own bullshit.

Posted by: Eric at March 29, 2006 05:40 PM (XIXhw)

28 I agree with Mcgurk. It's duel with an "E." And it's "TOO" instead of "TO." "THAN" after "penis" instead of "THAT."

It was posted at 5:50pm--cocktail hour. Figures.

Posted by: THIRDWAVEDAVE at March 29, 2006 05:45 PM (deUrl)

29 If it wasn't for some asshat Congressman in the 70's, we'd have supersonic commercial flights over the US right now. But nooooo.

Say what you will about Airbus, but I always thought the Concorde was a beautiful airplane. In the summer I used to watch them leave JFK, and there was nothing like it. Loud as all hell.

Posted by: Iblis at March 29, 2006 06:22 PM (0mmLV)

30 Iblis,

Good buddy you wouldn`t like it I promise. I am a 26 year supersonic fighter pilot and we have to train at least 30 miles out to sea on account of sonic booms. Over land you have to get above FL 600 (60,000 ft) or you drive people nuts with the booms.

Fly supersonic as low as 10,000 ft and you can break windows!

Eric is right about Airbus and Boeing getting govt help. But Boeing is getting their act together better with the 777 and Airbus is perpetually late, make a million changes after they sell one, AND have an Airbus right now that needs a whole new rudder because one came off and killed all. They have many signs of a company not managed too well and labor troubles up the ying-yang.

My money is on Boeing.........................





Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 29, 2006 06:59 PM (BJYNn)

31 Boeing is primarily private with some Government assistance in the form of tax breaks. Airbus is entirely government controlled and government funded. Comparing the two is absurd and a stretch, even for a leftist.

Posted by: Canelone at March 29, 2006 07:14 PM (1Vbso)

32 Colonel, I always wondered what/who those planes were that were so high up that all you could see on a crystal-clear day was a shiny dot slowly crossing the sky leaving two long white trails.

What are they, Colonel Jerry? Are they commercial airliners? Military? UFOs?

And what is the white trail? Vapor? Ice?

Posted by: Bart at March 29, 2006 07:28 PM (1vwN5)

33 Bart,

Yes, military, commercial and UFO`s for all I know?

Contrails (jet engine vapor) are a function of the ratio of air moisture and temperature differentials between outside air temp and engine exhaust temperatures. In the winter time you can get em at low altitudes like down to 10,000 ft. But normally they occur in the stratosphere which hovers around 30,000 feet where the outside temperature is pretty constant at -60 degrees

Jet engines are most economical at altitudes between 30k and above. Commericals usually fly 35k to 39k (but lot of variables, like where the headwind is less--Jet Stream--or where tailwind is more+ weather avoidance

Contrails form when cold, moist air goes down the intake, is heated by the burning engine and exits the exhaust and immediately cools down, which squeezes the moisture into visible vapor.

Fighters gotta watch this because we don`t want to be seen a comin 50 miles away by a bogie; in other words it ain`t good...................................










Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 29, 2006 07:56 PM (BJYNn)

34 Sure it's easy for Airbus to have a more orders and backlog than Boeing when they are selling their birds at cost or even a loss. Airbus (and the A380 in particular) are a symbol of European technology and industrial might, being profitable isn't their highest priority. Boeing, on the other hand, is just another big American private company. The shareholders are not too tolerant with "loss leaders".

As a Boeing engineer I'm biased of course, but I can tell you we are on the right track. Check out the stock price in the mid $70s, up from the low $40s a few years back. We are an 80 year old company that makes big expensive machines, not some dot com flash in the pan. Those that put their money at risk expect big things from Boeing in the future. I don't think they will be disappointed.

Posted by: Jeff C. at March 29, 2006 08:04 PM (YwdKL)

35 Jeff C,

You have every right to be biased. Boeing stuck to their guns when all about them went tits up or were bought during the so-called "Peace Bonus" time after demise of USSR.

I am an admirer..............................

Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 29, 2006 08:19 PM (BJYNn)

36 Hmmm.

Those planes seemed awful high to be commercial airliners. I remember as a kid looking up on a bright summer day and sometimes seeing two, maybe three, of those high-flying aircraft in the sky. They wouldn't make hardly a sound at all. We used to watch the white trails criss-cross the sky. I was always amazed that there were people traveling way way way up in the sky.

Posted by: Bart at March 29, 2006 09:05 PM (fk9Yk)

37 It's DUEL not DUAL you numb fuck.

Dumbass.

Posted by: Jay Naylor at March 30, 2006 03:19 AM (NaQ+d)

38 "Sure it's easy for Airbus to have a more orders and backlog than Boeing when they are selling their birds at cost or even a loss. Airbus (and the A380 in particular) are a symbol of European technology and industrial might, being profitable isn't their highest priority. Boeing, on the other hand, is just another big American private company. The shareholders are not too tolerant with "loss leaders"."

Yes, is Boeing a private company... war-profiteering by the $ billions. Airbus only manufactures civilian aircraft, so hard cash and huge margins are hard to come by.

While the Europeans choose to subsidize research and development in air & space technology, the Americans foster it by embarking on phony wars with third world countries for their oil.

Also, I you're looking for some really wrong European subsidies, you should look into European agricultural policy, but oh, wait, the US does exactly the same thing!

Posted by: GermanQR at March 30, 2006 04:48 AM (M5tJq)

39 Dear EuroKraut,

How much oil did we get in ending genocide on the European continent in two world wars, let alone just a few short years ago in the former Yugoslavia? Any oil in Afghanistan? Korea? Panama? Grenada?

We don't seem to find any oil in any of these places after wars. But we always seem to find budding democracies.

Of course, I can understand why you might not like Boeing so much. Especially if you live in Dresden or Hamburg!

By the way, I notice that virulent Anti-American, Anti-Semite Gerhard Schroeder just got a job as Vladimir Putin's bitch for 250,000 Euros a year. Now that is why I call a high priced whore!

Posted by: Tanker at March 30, 2006 05:40 AM (btzDE)

40 I agree regarding agricultural subsidies, and they should end. That's flat socialism - and isn't neccessary. The big difference between Euro and US military purchases is that the US is carrying the burden of the military defense of Europe and their own country. Trying to compare the two areas is absurd, it's like comparing the gymnastics spending of Jamaica and Romania. If the US wasn't defending Germany and France and the rest of Europe with NATO, then the military spending would increase, as would military contracts of companies.

It would also sink Europe to lose the economic boost of having US soldiers spending in their countries and to have to shoulder the burden of self defense like grown up countries.

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 05:42 AM (1Vbso)

41 Dear EuroKraut,

Thanks for your post. I will not insult you or indeed anyone else. I hope you'll at least avoid insulting me or treating me with contempt in the future. You read just lines here, but I'm a person. I deserve respect, just as you do.

I wasn't talking about WWII specifically. I wasn't even talking about pretty much every war the US has waged since 1960 or so. I was talking about the Iraq Farce. Waging one just war does not give anyone the right to start phony "pre-emptive" wars or bringing about "regime changes" by force for the following century. People die in wars. They die and are maimed, injured or psychologically scarred for life.

The fact that you mention Panama and Grenada makes me wonder what version of the stories did you have access to? Or put it another way, how does the invasion of a country the size of a Florida Key make the US safer? But that's another issue.

My point was that the US's bellicosity, to put it mildly, helps Boeing at least as much as subsidies help Airbus. I find that especially repulsive.

And lastly, I'm not German. That's my NAME. I'm Spanish.

Thanks for listening.

Posted by: GermanQR at March 30, 2006 05:57 AM (M5tJq)

42 I deserve respect, just as you do.

No, you earn respect, Pablo.

And I'm sure I understand why you don't refer to WWII. Or Franco.

Quite a little regime change there, eh?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 30, 2006 06:04 AM (pzen5)

43 And how do you earn it? By agreeing with you all the time?

Posted by: GermanQR at March 30, 2006 06:07 AM (M5tJq)

44 People die in wars. They die and are maimed, injured or psychologically scarred for life - GermanQR

Yes, that's one of the reasons I'm proud we took Saddam out. He conducted a 25 year war against the people of Iraq - he gassed the Kurds, massacred the Shi'ites and tortured to death tens of thousands of Iraqis every year.

For anyone to oppose taking out a monster like Saddam because war is not cost-free is objectively on the side of evil.

Posted by: max at March 30, 2006 06:13 AM (BnMsf)

45 Try saying something intelligent, chico. That may earn you some cred.

Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2006 06:13 AM (RLZTQ)

46 No Pablo, you don't have to agree with me.

Try not being a dick when you post a comment.

You'd be amazed (I do believe this) at how civil we bellicose Americans can be.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 30, 2006 06:18 AM (pzen5)

47 People die in wars. They die and are maimed, injured or psychologically scarred for life.

They also die when terrorists hijack jetliners and smash them into skyscrapers.

Posted by: The Warden at March 30, 2006 06:47 AM (8WTw1)

48 Everyone agrees that wars are awful and ghastly, everyone sane is opposed to war and considers them hellish.

But war is not the worst possible thing that can happen, and sometimes when the alternative is worse, war is neccessary and proper. WW2 is a good example of this, because all but the most loopy recognize that was a needed thing to stop a greater evil.

The argument that people get hurt in war or that it's awful is not sufficient to make the case one should not have gotten involved in any given conflict.

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 06:53 AM (1Vbso)

49 Somewhat off topic, but this discussion reminds me that I oppose giving any Euro-dopes the plans to our new war-bots. If anyone needs to be reminded the hellish quality of conflict, it's the Euros.

As for us, we're going to let the war-bots do our fighting for us so the mayhem won't result in the death or maiming of loyal Americans. Let's hear it for the military-industrial complex and its cool new war-bots!

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 30, 2006 07:14 AM (uSomN)

50 I, for one, welcome our new war-bot overlords.

(come on, someone was going to say it...)

Posted by: wiserbud at March 30, 2006 07:23 AM (AQGeh)

51 I'm slightly astonished that...

1.- I wasn´t "nice". I didn´t call names!
2.- I´ve been grilled here for posting my opinion
3.- Some guy calls me "Pablo", which is NOT my name
4.- Some other guy has linked Saddam with 9/11 (wow that takes nerve this far down the road...!!)
5.- My contention that subsidies for Boeing come in the form of dead people has not been addressed.

Not bad for my first contact with this blog!

Posted by: GermanQR at March 30, 2006 10:05 AM (Gm4ja)

52 OK Illegal Occupier of Basque,

You say that ridding the world of genocidal dictators equates to belicosity. Fine, call it whatever euphemism you choose. I really don't care. Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing no matter what you think. I'm sure that you are probably happy that we left Spanish degenerate Franco in charge for so long. Consider it my gift to you.

As for this absurd notion that Boeing is subsidised because they receive military contracts, you are wrong once again. Boeing competes for all the contracts they receive. We have a number of very successful defense contractors in the US. Boeing wins a lot of contracts because they have EARNED them. Airbus is free to compete for them if they like. But we always give preference to planes that actually fly.

Posted by: Tanker at March 30, 2006 10:13 AM (btzDE)

53 Yeah, you may not be thick-skinned enough for this site, Hermann. It's nothing to be ashamed of, really. Many have come before you with similar axes to grind and few have chosen to remain.

There is little chance you have any gems of wisdom to enlighten us with--we've heard it all before.

Most important, no war-bots for you. You must do your fighting (or cowering, as you choose) for yourself.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 30, 2006 10:17 AM (uSomN)

54 GermanQR ,

I'd just like to point out that Airbus is owned by EADS, which is a defense contractor.

So please drop the hypocritical screeching about "warmongering American companies vs. peace-loving European companies".

Posted by: Hylas at March 30, 2006 10:36 AM (ouDL6)

55 Some other guy has linked Saddam with 9/11 (wow that takes nerve this far down the road...!!)

You know what takes nerve? Conflating terrorism generally with 9/11 specifically to dishonestly impute ignorance on my part.

Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. GWB made it very clear post 9/11 that engaging in this behavior would put a state at risk of military action. He followed through.

So, kiss my red-blooded Amercian ass, Paco, you smug little fuck. You have achieved nothing here other than to confirm what we already know about trash like you.

I fart in your general direction.

Posted by: The Warden at March 30, 2006 10:46 AM (8WTw1)

56 He's certainly thick-headed enough for this site.

but I'm a person

say, did you see that movie with Rosie O'Donnell too?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 30, 2006 12:07 PM (pzen5)

57 Chico, you don't mind if I call you Chico, do you?

Good.

Chico, I'm astonished that...

1) You refuse to see that while Saddam had no direct connection with 9/11, he was deeply involved in terrorism.

2) You think, like most good-hearted liberals, that the Army is a jobs program. It is neither a fucking jobs
program nor a international humanitarian organization. It is formed to kill people and break things.

One more thing, Chico.

Don't mess with Texas America.

Fuck Yeah!

Yahooooo!

Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2006 12:22 PM (ikO5u)

58 Pigfucker... do you mind if I call you pigfucker?

No, only my friends call me pigfucker.

Posted by: at March 30, 2006 12:34 PM (/0Qyy)

59 I wonder how the Spanish people feel about the Islamofascist agenda vis a vis the restoration of the caliphate across Andalusia? Perhaps our friend can explain how the enlightened Euro folk intend to deal with that.

Posted by: geoff at March 30, 2006 12:41 PM (nH1Ad)

60 You can have a clue of how the Spanish people react to the threat by what happened in their last election.

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 12:54 PM (1Vbso)

61 What I meant about the bribes: Airbus can bribe pretty easily. It used to even be deductible as a business expense in Europe. US has laws that don't allow our companies to bribe people even if it is done overseas. Yes, it's probably not air-tight, but for sure European defense contractors do it better than ours see Vickers deal in India, Lafayette deal in Taiwan, etc.

Airbus is competing for a tanker order from the USA...so I guess Airbus is getting some militray deals as well.

Also, keep in mind the new French google copy they are rolling out...Europeans see any US success as a chance to start their own state subsidized competitor...

Posted by: Aaron at March 30, 2006 04:39 PM (00aoH)

62 Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism

Well the US has historically been a state sponsor of terrorism. Contra in Nicaragua, Death Brigades in Guatemala, not to mention a lot of coups (so much for fostering "democracy"in Chile, Iran, etc). It turns out terrorism can be very useful sometimes...

Saddam's Connection to terrorism... he paid the Palestinians terrorists' families to rebuild their houses, demolished by Israel. A fine kind of justice that, I blow myself up, then Israel demolishes my mother's house. The fact is Iraq didn't attacked the US, and didn't have the intention or means to do so.

And, the US supported Saddam Hussein...when he was useful for its own purposes.


And as for how we reacted after the terrorists attacked us... well we didn't invade a country that didn't have anything to do with the attack. We acted responsibly and sensibly. We won't send troops to cause more suffering to innocent people, because that would amount to terrorism itself. We arrested and are trying the culprits, and you know what? They're mostly from Morocco, our neighbour to the South. You guys would have probably invaded Algeria instead (Morocco has no oil).

Thanks to everyone here insulting me or my country. But as you may understand, I will not reply to those of you who counter dissent with hostility instead of arguments. What's the point of writing in a blog where basically everyone agrees with you?


Yes, EADS is a defense contractor. But that's not the point. Boeing is also a defense contractor... from a country that has bombed or invaded over 30 countries in the last 30 years. EADS is yet to profiteer from an illegal war of aggresion.

Posted by: at March 30, 2006 08:53 PM (3H7L+)

63 Sorry I didn't sign before

Posted by: GermanQR at March 30, 2006 10:53 PM (M5tJq)

64 Yeah, Saddam was a real peach, helping out those poor homeless relatives:The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.He wasn't reimbursing them - he was encouraging the perpetuation of violence. Your view is stomach-turning in its vile and dishonest reconstruction.

Posted by: geoff at March 30, 2006 11:37 PM (nH1Ad)

65 I wonder how the Spanish people feel about the Islamofascist agenda vis a vis the restoration of the caliphate across Andalusia? Perhaps our friend can explain how the enlightened Euro folk intend to deal with that.
Posted by: geoff on March 30, 2006 05:41 PM


The country is 95% Roman Catholic.
I'd say they're far less terrorfied about the possibility of Sharia law being imposed in Spain than you are.

Posted by: Ted at March 30, 2006 11:59 PM (aOeXm)

66 Airbus only manufactures civilian aircraft, so hard cash and huge margins are hard to come by.

This was your original (insulting, BTW) statement - which displays an abysmal ignorance of the US defense industry. By US law the "huge margins" you imagine in your febrile brain are limited to something like 10%. And how much "profiteering" did Boeing in particular rake in, anyway - I don't recall any surge in military aircraft orders as a result of the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts. In fact they're talking about reducing orders for the F-22 and cancelling JSF.

It's also nice to see you've moved your argument from "Airbus is innocent" to "EADS hasn't profited from illegal wars." Though the validity of your argument is as weak as ever. Here's what EADS is trying to do:European defense contractors are making ever greater inroads into the US market. Now the manufacturer of Airbus, EADS, is hoping to sell tanker aircraft to the US military on a large scale. Despite bitter resistance from its American competitor Boeing, EADS' chances aren't looking bad at all. Perhaps you should stop gathering all your information from your buddies at the youth hostel and research your claims.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 12:02 AM (nH1Ad)

67 The country is 95% Roman Catholic. I'd say they're far less terrorfied about the possibility of Sharia law being imposed in Spain than you are.

Their religious unity was quite a help the last time. But the question is: at what point do they decide to take action to avert the threat? Because the threat has been growing since the late 60s - it's not going away unless something proactive is done.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 12:05 AM (nH1Ad)

68 And from Wikipedia, we find out that religion in Spain is not nearly as monolithic as is supposed:It is important to note, however, that many Spaniards identify themselves as Catholics just because they were baptised, even though they are not very religious at all (in fact some polls show that 14% do not believe in any God). According to recent surveys (New York Times, April 19, 2005) only around 18 % of Spaniards regularly attend mass.Not that it would help, anyway.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 12:08 AM (nH1Ad)

69 And as for how we reacted after the terrorists attacked us... well we didn't invade a country that didn't have anything to do with the attack.

And we didn't invade Iraq because they had anything to do with the attack, either. I don't know why you think these little digs shouldn't be considered insulting, or why you think they should earn you a civil response. Because from where I sit, you're rude, ill-informed, and all too inclined to dishonestly distort or fabricate "facts."

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 12:13 AM (nH1Ad)

70 I'd say they're far less terrorfied about the possibility of Sharia law being imposed in Spain than you are.

I don't care what a few wackos think. Keeping them under control is the police's work. We have arrested some 400 of them, but it should not define our external policy. These are seriously deranged people, but they are not in control of any country. And they are not a threat for the stability of this or any other Western country. They can kill some people, yes, but achieve their ends?

It's also nice to see you've moved your argument from "Airbus is innocent" to "EADS hasn't profited from illegal wars."

I never said that Airbus is "innocent" or changed my argument, which still goes like this: Boeing gets its subsidies in the form of military contracts from the US. AND the US keeps finding "reasons" to invade or bomb countries that pose no military threat at all (they do pose a threat for certain economic interests, though)

And we didn't invade Iraq because they had anything to do with the attack, either. I don't know why you think these little digs shouldn't be considered insulting, or why you think they should earn you a civil response. Because from where I sit, you're rude, ill-informed, and all too inclined to dishonestly distort or fabricate "facts."

I would be most welcome if you:

1.- Could find an instance here of me insulting anyone. Why are you exactly calling me rude? What exactly is rude in my posts here?

2.- Proved that I'm ill-informed from anything I've posted here.

3.- Showed that I have fabricated facts. What facts?

4.- Let me know if you think this quote by The Warden, when talking about the Iraq war.

They also die when terrorists hijack jetliners and smash them into skyscrapers.

could be an attempt to link the invasion of Iraq to the 911 terrorist attacks. Because that's what I thought he meant, although I might be wrong.

Thanks.

Posted by: GermaanQR at March 31, 2006 01:14 AM (M5tJq)

71 These are seriously deranged people, but they are not in control of any country.

They were, and are trying to be again.

And they are not a threat for the stability of this or any other Western country.

They want to be, and if in fact they do get access to WMD, they will be.

Boeing gets its subsidies in the form of military contracts from the US.

Subsidies? They aren't subsidies. And there is little overlap technically or from a manufacturing standpoint between the civilian and military aircraft functions.

AND the US keeps finding "reasons" to invade or bomb countries that pose no military threat at all

Or maybe there are really "reasons."

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 01:20 AM (nH1Ad)

72 And from Wikipedia, we find out that religion in Spain is not nearly as monolithic as is supposed:
Not that it would help, anyway.
Posted by: geoff on March 31, 2006 05:08 AM


No doubt it wouldn't.
Then again if we are talking about Algeria and Morocco taking on NATO there's no real need for prayer in such a one-sided shit kicking.

Did you have a different threat in mind which was grounded in such legitimacy that it should be considered by greater Europe as a viable threat of the imposition of Sharia law in Spain, rather than laughed at?

Posted by: Ted at March 31, 2006 01:26 AM (aOeXm)

73 What exactly is rude in my posts here?

From your very first post above:
...war-profiteering by the $ billions.
...Americans foster it by embarking on phony wars with third world countries for their oil.

These sorts of statements are supposed to be the basis for an objective, rational discussion? Not only are you factually completely wrong (even American wackos have given up the "war for oil" meme), but you're taking cheap shots at the US from the outset.

Proved that I'm ill-informed from anything I've posted here.

I thought that's what I did, but here's a brief recap if you weren't following along:

You said that military contracts in the US were the equivalent of European subisidies to Airbus, since it does not military work. That was wrong on two counts: 1) military contracts are nothing like subsidies; and 2) EADS is a defense contractor and so, by your standards is "double-dipping."

You said Boeing is an Iraq War "profiteer." That is wrong.

You implied that Boeing makes huge profit margins. That is wrong.

You said that Hussein's motivation for his payments to the families of suicide bombers was motivated by the destruction of their houses, when in fact it was designed to stimulate new recruitment of suicide bombers.

You just used the stupid "war for oil" argument, which was debunked 3 years ago, and which subsequent events have proven to be completely unfounded.

And finally, Warden already called you on your conflation of "terrorism" with "9/11," yet you repeat your distortion of his words.

Where's the honesty?

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 01:33 AM (nH1Ad)

74 Did you have a different threat in mind which was grounded in such legitimacy that it should be considered by greater Europe as a viable threat of the imposition of Sharia law in Spain, rather than laughed at?

I'm looking more at the British/French/Dutch/Swedish model, rather than an invasion in which NATO would be relevant. Massive immigration of Muslims with concomitant establishment of radical Islamist footholds. Demands for the host country to accommodate Islam's cultural and religious practices, to the point of demanding that shari'a be accepted as law within Muslim enclaves. Radicalization of a larger segment of the Muslim population, combined with violence destabilizing the host country. Creating fear among the host country's officials and media to intimidate opposition to their expansion.

All of this has occurred over the past few decades, and was the subject of Qut'b's writings.

Next stop: conversion or dhimmitude.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 01:44 AM (nH1Ad)

75 More rudeness:

You guys would have probably invaded Algeria instead (Morocco has no oil).

More wrongness:

well we didn't invade a country that didn't have anything to do with the attack. (And that's not why we invaded either)

A fine kind of justice that, I blow myself up, then Israel demolishes my mother's house. (Aren't you forgetting something here?)

We won't send troops to cause more suffering to innocent people... (That's quite slanted and pejorative, isn't it?)

These are seriously deranged people, but they are not in control of any country. (But they were, and they're currently fighting for control of 3 countries, so this point is meaningless. And, BTW, you're doing nothing to stop them)

I never said that Airbus is "innocent" Here's what you said, contrasting the virtues of Airbus with the evils of Boeing:Airbus only manufactures civilian aircraft, so hard cash and huge margins are hard to come by.I guess I find very little you've said that's more than a distortion or fabrication.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 01:59 AM (nH1Ad)

76 These sorts of statements are supposed to be the basis for an objective, rational discussion?

Yes. I believe them to be true. They have NOT been debunked. What HAS been debunked is every reason previously given by the Bush Administration.


You said that military contracts in the US were the equivalent of European subisidies to Airbus, since it does not military work.

I never said that I said that Boeing get its contracts from an militarily hyperactive government (I do hope that didn't offend anyone using those terms).

You implied that Boeing makes huge profit margins. That is wrong.

Again, you misrepresent my words. I meant that profit margins in their defense division are considerably higher than those of their civilian aircraft manufacturing business. I meant margin, not gross revenue.


You said that Hussein's motivation for his payments to the families of suicide bombers was motivated by the destruction of their houses, when in fact it was designed to stimulate new recruitment of suicide bombers.

I never discussed his motivations. I simply told what he did. Hardly a casus belli.

(By the way, Israel's policy of home demolition is wrongheaded, counterproductive, cruel, degrading and against the principles of democracy. And as Saddam proved, easily countered, but that's not the point)

The US has trained and funded terrorist groups in the past (including Osama Bin Laden by the way) much more actively than Saddam ever did.

And finally, Warden already called you on your conflation of "terrorism" with "9/11," yet you repeat your distortion of his words.

I quoted, not distorted Warden's words. I didn't quote some of them. I quoted them all. What distortion then? My point was that from those words, if was easy to infer that he was conflating one with the other. That's all.

Posted by: at March 31, 2006 02:04 AM (M5tJq)

77 You said that military contracts in the US were the equivalent of European subisidies to Airbus, since it does not military work.

I never said that I said that Boeing get its contracts from an militarily hyperactive government (I do hope that didn't offend anyone using those terms).


You're right, though, that EADS, Airbus's parent company, is indeed a defense contractor. But the subsidies discussed here are those granted to Airbus. And that was not my point anyway. Read above. Airbus numbers are in the black because of subsidies. Boeing are because of military contracts. I am not that articulate in English, I apologize.

Posted by: at March 31, 2006 02:15 AM (M5tJq)

78 I'm looking more at the British/French/Dutch/Swedish model, rather than an invasion in which NATO would be relevant. Massive immigration of Muslims with concomitant establishment of radical Islamist footholds.

All of this has occurred over the past few decades, and was the subject of Qut'b's writings.
Posted by: geoff on March 31, 2006 06:44 AM


So that's a no to ligitimate threats then.

Posted by: Ted at March 31, 2006 02:17 AM (aOeXm)

79 Again, you misrepresent my words.

Oh, COME ON!! Here's your lastatement:My point was that the US's bellicosity, to put it mildly, helps Boeing at least as much as subsidies help Airbus. Your claim is that Boeing receives as much aid via military contracts as Airbus receives via subsidies. Which is patently false.

I meant that profit margins in their defense division are considerably higher than those of their civilian aircraft manufacturing business

So did I - as I said above, profit margins on defense contracts are strictly governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Boeing can't inflate their profit without defrauding the government. And the civilian side of Boeing's business is in the black, by the way.

I never discussed his motivations.

And now you're lying right to my virtual face. Here are your words:Saddam's Connection to terrorism... he paid the Palestinians terrorists' families to rebuild their houses, demolished by Israel. A fine kind of justice that, I blow myself up, then Israel demolishes my mother's house.Every time you open your mouth you lose more credibility.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 02:29 AM (nH1Ad)

80 My point was that from those words, if was easy to infer that he was conflating one with the other.

And he already explained that he wasn't. Yet you keep repeating your assertion, which apparently gives you some sort of satisfaction. He unequivocally stated that he meant a generic terrorist threat, but you keep beating that dead horse. That, to me, is distortion, since you know the truth but keep peddling the lie.

The US has trained and funded terrorist groups in the past (including Osama Bin Laden by the way) much more actively than Saddam ever did.

Well OBL wasn't supposed to kill civilians wantonly in order to create an environment of fear. He was supposed to repel the Russian invasion. That would not make him a "terrorist," at least at the time he was trained. And yes, this would be another distortion.

Yes. I believe them to be true. They have NOT been debunked.

"War for oil" hasn't been debunked? Do you recall how much Iraqi oil the US consumes? Do you know how much oil and oil revenue we've received in the past 3 years? You may *want* to believe it, but this is the stuff of fantasy. And how about that Afghani oil, huh? That's really pouring in, too.

If you don't think claiming that the US is wandering the globe shooting civilians and taking their oil is as insulting as our statements that Spain is a weak-willed naive soon-to-be dhimmi client state, then you definitely should work on your English skills.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 02:41 AM (nH1Ad)

81 So that's a no to ligitimate threats then.

Aw, you're just sore because your ill-conceived Catholic defense shield fell apart. If you're not convinced that that's the ongoing process, that's fine. But I think that in light of the violence across Europe, the recent near-brush with shari'a's ascendancy in Canada, and the stated intentions of Al Qaeda, you ought to at least consider the threat.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 02:45 AM (nH1Ad)

82 And he already explained that he wasn't. Yet you keep repeating your assertion, which apparently gives you some sort of satisfaction. He unequivocally stated that he meant a generic terrorist threat, but you keep beating that dead horse. That, to me, is distortion, since you know the truth but keep peddling the lie.

For Peter's sake, I'm just defending that it wasn't that unreasonable for me to have understood that from his initial words, not that I still believe he said that after he denied it. Got it?

Well OBL wasn't supposed to kill civilians wantonly in order to create an environment of fear. He was supposed to repel the Russian invasion. That would not make him a "terrorist," at least at the time he was trained. And yes, this would be another distortion.

Death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Those were some serious terrorists. Trained and funded by the US. Not to mention the coups in Iran, Chile, Argentina, Brazil...

I don't just think the US wanders around the world shooting civilians. I know it for a fact. Check the papers. 130,000 Iraqis have died because of what exactly? WMD? Nope. Links to 911? Nope. What then? You tell me, because your goverment is doing a poor job of explaining it. Nobody east of NYC seems to understand

Every single one of the reasons given by President Bush for his invasion of Iraq has turned out not to be true. I know the US is NOT keeping the oil revenues. One thing is to ensure control of one resource and a very different thing is ownership. The fact that oil production has not increased is more related to the botching up of the whole thing by the Bush Administration than to its original plans.

Thanks

Posted by: GermanQR at March 31, 2006 03:30 AM (M5tJq)

83 Damn its like this has to be restated endlessly. People like you GermanQR, wonder why some of us lose our patience with you and/or think you are disingenious in your claims.

Bush and his administration stated loudly and repeatedly for months and months before the war the rationale for going to Iraq. He stated it enough that he was able to organize a coalition which included YOUR country.

As has been stated repeatedly on this thread, Bush stated that the US would no longer tolerate international terrorists or OR THE COUNTRIES WHO SPONSORED THEM. The fact that Hussein sponsored international terrorists is indisputable. It is a fact that he even bragged about. And now documents are surfacing that he had stronger ties to al Qaeda, seeminly the only terrorist organization that the anti-war crowd believes is worth fighting, than has previously been reported. Reason 1.

He stated, as did the UN Security Council, unanimously, that Hussein was not in compliance with the terms of the cease fire from GW1. That is to say that the first war never ended, it was in a state of suspension which would hold so long as Hussein met certain goals. Chief among those (although one might argue that firing on coalition planes enforcing the No-Fly Zone might alone be cause for war) was that Hussein open his country to free and unettered UN inspections for WMD and that he explain fully the disposition of his ADMITTED supply of WMD. He willfully and arrogantly refused. Reason 2.

Those in fact were the two chief reasons for going to war. The fact is WMD HAVE been found in Iraq. Many metric tons of chemical weapons and precursors have been found although they don't seem to get much press and many seem to pretend they don't count cause they weren't nukes pointed at NYC. Centerfuges with no other application than enriching uranium were also found buried in the sand. It also appears that there is strong evidence that we will find more WMD activity as the documents continue to pour out. The fact that not everything has been discovered yet does not mean the search is over. Be that as it may, FINDING WMD WAS NEVER A REASON FOR GOING TO WAR. The reason was that it was up to Hussein to prove he no longer had the weapons he was known to have. For his own reasons, he chose not to comply.

The whole point of pre-emption was to prevent people like Hussein, know international terror supporters openly defiant of the world community and a man who has used WMD on his enemies and his own people, from spreading terror and arming terrorists with even more deadly weapons. If you don't support that policy then say so. But stop saying that Bush was wrong or that he lied. To do so in the face of known facts makes you either willfully ignorant or knowingly spreading a lie.

Got it now?

If you want to get into a discussion on El Salvador or Nicaragua or Honduras, etc., make sure your facts are better. Some of us east of NYC have ours.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 31, 2006 04:01 AM (J8+2b)

84 Aw, you're just sore because your ill-conceived Catholic defense shield fell apart.
geoff on March 31, 2006 07:45 AM

No, it's still the same concept of a population of 40 million non-muslims that it was when I referred you to it the first time. It hasn't "fallen apart" since you told us you had discovered such things as immigration and time exist.

The concept of an organised underground campaign by millions of followers of a particular religion to infiltrate, undermine, weaken and take over a particular state (simply by virtue of their very existance) which poses such a threat is just as legitimate now as it was in the 1930s.

You were about to tell us how that was a concept greater Europe should really get behind. Yeah.

Tell you what, you head back to Stormfront, lay out what we should do to prepare for the invasion of the brown hoardes and I'll meet you there.

Posted by: Ted at March 31, 2006 04:36 AM (aOeXm)

85 Why do you guys even bother--this guy isn't even good enough to sharpen your tools on. War for oil? Wasn't that from 2002?

And this gem:

The US has trained and funded terrorist groups in the past (including Osama Bin Laden by the way.)

That's totally false. It's a conflation of our tepid support for Iraq during their war with Iran and our assistance of an entirely different group of Mujhaddin when the Soviets tried to install a client government in Afghanistan. OBL was never trained by the U.S. and anybody who claims otherwise is a liar.

Why bother with this guy? He's not even any good.

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 31, 2006 04:48 AM (uSomN)

86 What a pedestrian troll. No war for oil...we funded terrorists...and the obligatory Nazi reference.

It's like they're not even trying anymore.

Posted by: Slublog at March 31, 2006 05:07 AM (aGpO3)

87 What's amusing is this guy is trying to lecture us on what our president said and meant. There's few better examples of astonishing arrogance and condescension one can imagine.

Here's a hint: when the President said "terrorists of global reach" he actually meant it. I know this might be a shock to a leftist, but when President Bush says something, that's what he meant to say.

Posted by: Canelone at March 31, 2006 06:11 AM (1Vbso)

88 The concept of an organised underground campaign by millions of followers of a particular religion to infiltrate, undermine, weaken and take over a particular state (simply by virtue of their very existance) which poses such a threat is just as legitimate now as it was in the 1930s.

The strategy of radical Islam is explicitly based on the historical precedents of the communist movements. These aren't my theories - they are straight from the writings of the founder of radical Islam. But that doesn't matter: look, why don't you ask Al Qaeda how they plan to accomplish the restoration of Andalusia? And ask them why they think they have a decent shot when you think their strategy is hopeless? Perhaps you can dissuade them from continuing.

Because it doesn't really matter if they have a realistic chance at success: as long as they keep trying, we'll continue to enjoy the horrendous fruits of their efforts.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 06:25 AM (nH1Ad)

89 I especially enjoyed the whining about "U.S. funded death squads" and overthrowing the goverments in various countries. In one fell swoop he brought in pretty much every far left wing talking point dating back to 1980. Maybe next we'll hear him complain about JFK ordering the CIA to whack that psychotic thug Fidel Castro.

Got news for you, dude. Communism is dead. It's main project leader and sugar daddy, the USSR, is gone. It's never coming back. So get over it.

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 31, 2006 06:34 AM (gWvet)

90 130,000 Iraqis have died because of what exactly?

I dunno - about 100,000 of them are completely imaginary, so who knows why they were supposed to have died?

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 06:42 AM (nH1Ad)

91 Here is a very thorough round up of iraq casualties done at the end of last year.

30-40K seems like a more reasonable number, especially given that for a long time, iit was American facilities (AMEDD, AFMED) that were treating the civilian casualties. At any rate, what is clear from the article is that the American Hegemon is a gentle one at worst.

Posted by: DDG at March 31, 2006 06:49 AM (4uzEh)

92 Bush and his administration stated loudly and repeatedly for months and months before the war the rationale for going to Iraq.

Which kept changing as facts are stubborn indeed. I won't even waste my time researching for you . What Bush actually said during the run-up to war is there for anyone to read. But you will find it embarassing. Saddam Hossein supported the families of the terrorists of a LOCAL conflict.

As has been stated repeatedly on this thread, Bush stated that the US would no longer tolerate international terrorists or OR THE COUNTRIES WHO SPONSORED THEM. The fact that Hussein sponsored international terrorists is indisputable. It is a fact that he even bragged about. And now documents are surfacing that he had stronger ties to al Qaeda, seeminly the only terrorist organization that the anti-war crowd believes is worth fighting, than has previously been reported. Reason 1.

That is bullshit. I suggest you have a look at the "documents": NOT RUBBERSTAMPED, HAND-WRITTEN. For God's sake! I bet Cheney wrote them himself (that was irony).


. That is to say that the first war never ended,


You're truly getting pathetic here.

inspections for WMD and that he explain fully the disposition of his ADMITTED supply of WMD

The arms inspectors had to leave Iraq BECAUSE Bush told them to. You are in direct contradiction to Hans Blix, who grilled the Bush administration for their shameful conduct (he called them Bastards, by the way). Oh, and Saddam didn't have any WMD, which is exactly what he had been reporting for months!

FINDING WMD WAS NEVER A REASON FOR GOING TO WAR.

Whatever. How much kool-aid have you been drinking lately? It was THE reason. That, and the imaginary links to OBL.

For his own reasons, he chose not to comply.

Really? He reported none. None there were.

The fact is WMD HAVE been found in Iraq.

Definitely, lots of kool-aid. Stop watching Faux News. It's bad for you.

But stop saying that Bush was wrong or that he lied.

Bush was wrong. Bush lied. And you're full of bullshit. First ad hominem attack. How does it feel?

If you want to get into a discussion on El Salvador or Nicaragua or Honduras, etc., make sure your facts are better.

The facts are very clear. Over 80,000 people were killed in Central America by terrorist groups funded and trained by the US. Not pretty, but you should stare at the facts, not look away. I guess there is "good" terrorism and "bad" terrorism.

That's totally false.

I pity you, your self delusion is hopeless.

I especially enjoyed the whining about "U.S. funded death squads" and overthrowing the goverments in various countries. In one fell swoop he brought in pretty much every far left wing talking point dating back to 1980.

I don't care what those people say. This is true.

30-40K seems like a more reasonable number

Yes, reasonable. Killing 40,000 people gratuitously is reasonable. You guys are dangerous.

The hard, cold facts are:

1.- Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction
2.- Iraq didn't have links to the people who attacked the US on 9/11/2001
3.- Iraq is a poor, backward country that wasn't a threat to anyone in the region, much less the US.
4.- Your casus belli was flimsy at best, and the world didn't buy it.

And we were arguing about Airbus...

Posted by: GermanQR at March 31, 2006 08:24 AM (3H7L+)

93 I won't even waste my time researching for you

That certainly would be a waste of time.

Your casus belli was flimsy at best, and the world didn't buy it.

We disagree, but we really don't care whether the world buys it or not.

Posted by: at March 31, 2006 08:56 AM (pzen5)

94 oops.. that was me Pablo

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 31, 2006 09:00 AM (pzen5)

95 oops.. that was me Pablo

Thank you, Humphrey

Posted by: GermanQR at March 31, 2006 09:08 AM (q4uGA)

96 You're quite welcome.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 31, 2006 09:10 AM (pzen5)

97 The facts are very clear. Over 80,000 people were killed in Central America by terrorist groups funded and trained by the US.

This is as big a lie as it was 20 years ago when the you guys on the moonbat left first started circulating it. You got any legitmate sources to back this up?

Posted by: OregonMuse at March 31, 2006 09:41 AM (gWvet)

98 And, as anticipated, this is the nature of "honest inquiry" of the liberal. Surprised at the hostile reception to his unsupported snide asides, he burbles out an endless stream of hackneyed extremist talking points, failing to support any of them. Once again, the "sincere desire for open discussion" is revealed as the "sincere desire to bestow his deep insights upon us."

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 11:07 AM (nH1Ad)

99 This is as big a lie as it was 20 years ago when the you guys on the moonbat left first started circulating it. You got any legitmate sources to back this up?

This is getting weird. Those are widely known facts. I´ll make it simple for you. Just check Wikipedia. Just two excerpts. On Guatemala...

. The Central Intelligence Agency, supported by a small group of Guatemalan citizens, orchestrated the overthrow of the democratic socialist freely-elected Guatemalan government in 1954. This was known as Operation PBSUCCESS and led to over thirty years of unrest in the nation during which over 100,000 Guatemalans were killed (mostly indigenous Mayan Indians), more than 450 Mayan villages were destroyed, and over one million people became refugees. This is considered to be one of the worst ethnic cleansings in modern Latin America. Contributing reasons include US support of every successive, non-democratic government in Guatemala. From the 1950s until the 1990s, the U.S. directly supported Guatemala's army by supplying it with combatant training, weaponry, and money. The U.S. sent the Green Berets to Guatemala to transform its Army into a "modern counter-insurgency force," making their army the most powerful and sophisticated in Central America.

On Nicaragua:

The Contras initially received financial and military support from the Argentine government and the U.S. through the CIA. Later the Contras received aid clandestinely from the US by rogue elements within the administration of US President Ronald Reagan. The contras mostly attacked civilian targets such as coffee plantations and farming cooperatives. They received limited support from Nicaraguans opposed to the Sandinistas' nationalization of their land, formation of large farming co-ops, and mistreatment of dissenters; however, they were opposed by most Nicaraguans and human rights groups who viewed their tactics as brutal and indiscriminate. According to human rights group Americas Watch, the Contras engaged in "violent abuses ... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war."


My God, you demand proof of the obvious? How blind can you be? And this is moonbat stuff.

You´re really pathetic.

Posted by: at March 31, 2006 11:29 AM (6s4dY)

100 America's Watch

You know, I remember another flash-turd who had a constant boner over Reagan and the Contras, who used to post here.

Paco, you don't happen to sell vacuum tubes, do ya?

Posted by: at March 31, 2006 11:34 AM (pzen5)

101 I manage investments. Nothing for you here.

I don´t give a shit for the Contras or Guatemalan death squads. But the sheer hypocrisy of the "terrorism sponsoring states" coming from some people in the US and elsewhere is revolting. Remember what Jesus said about throwing the first stone?

You don´t seem to like facts, but pleased to meet you anyway, Stanley.

Posted by: GermanQR at March 31, 2006 11:47 AM (6s4dY)

102 You manage investments do you?

That is impressive.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 31, 2006 01:00 PM (pzen5)

103 Remarkably persistent, isn't he?

On the issue of the US being hypocritical:

So what? If we haven't always done as we say, does that automatically make what we say wrong?

Besides which, I think it's a little hypocritical to hold up Saddam as an example of an evil regieme the US supported against one we believed to be even worse, and then to criticize us for overthrowing him after the greater threat had passed. I look at it as simply cleaning up a part of the mess we made in the process of stopping the Soviets. Ask yourself this, every time you hear a liberal quote the laundry list of bad guys we supported against worse guys: "What would he/she say if the US armed forces went in and deposed every one of those people/movements and tried them for the crimes they commited while taking our support?"

Posted by: chris at March 31, 2006 02:01 PM (ze3EB)

104 I'm more impressed that he's still arguing with strangers after thirty hours.
I usually give up after about twenty-four.

Posted by: Chris at March 31, 2006 02:03 PM (ze3EB)

105 For Ted: at Wikipedia you find a vague but relevant description of Qutb's strategy:Qutb is also credited with theorizing approaches to enacting the widespread Islamic reforms he envisioned. His main vehicle for change was the concept of a Muslim vanguard who would instruct and lead the masses through the persausive message of Islam. Fully formed in his final work, Milestones, Qutb's vanguard was not explicitly intended as a ruling class, but was meant to be an elite organization of highly educated and motivated Muslims dedicated to a unified cause. It is unknown if Qutb intended the Muslim Brotherhood to be such an organization.

Qutb's concept of a vanguard tasked with leading a revolution is similar to other 20th century political thinkers. For example, though Qutb was strongly opposed to Communism, the few practical details of his political theory bear some resemblence to Vladimir Lenin's Communist Party.and you can see his importance to Al Qaeda and radical Islam here:Qutb has been interpreted, particularly in Western media, as an intellectual precursor to various Islamic fundamentalist movements of the 1980's to the present, including the notorious international organization, Al-Qaeda. In this view, Qutb is argued to be a theoretical foundation of Islamic extremism.
...
One of Muhammad Qutb's students and an ardent follower was Ayman Zawahiri, who later became the mentor of Osama bin Laden.As I said, the strategy of radical Islam that I presented above is not mine, and it is not me that you need to convince that it is unworkable - it's the inheritors of Qutb's legacy you need to talk to. Until you succeed in some wise, my original question still stands:

How do the Spaniards feel about the Islamofascist agenda vis a vis the restoration of the caliphate across Andalusia?

Your answer seems to be: "complacent." I'll buy that, but I think we disagree strongly on the wisdom of that attitude.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 03:31 PM (nH1Ad)

106 And it looks like blockquote stopped at the paragraph break again, even though it previewed correctly. The quote from Wikipedia should extend from the first block through "... Communist Party."

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 03:33 PM (nH1Ad)

107 1.- Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction

Wrong and proven to be.

2.- Iraq didn't have links to the people who attacked the US on 9/11/2001

Wrong and proven to be.
3.- Iraq is a poor, backward country that wasn't a threat to anyone in the region, much less the US.

Hussein was fabulously wealthy and even more so through payoffs from the French and Russians (among others) through the frauduelnt Oil for Food scam (gee wouldn't that make the French the ones all about stealing oil?). Backward is a realtive and highly judgemental term particularly for a multi-cultural , enlightened Euro investor. As to a threat, please. Talk to the UN.


4.- Your casus belli was flimsy at best, and the world didn't buy it.

Wrong. Much of the world did buy it. Those countries on the take (see France, Germany and Russia) didn't buy it. They were already bought and paid for. And again, cause you seem unclear on this fact, it wasn't a case for war, it was a case for negating a cease fire which was being violated by the party the cease fire was enforced upon.

I see you haven't gotten any more informed or any smarter since I was here last. Pity.

Posted by: JackStraw at March 31, 2006 05:34 PM (rnOZq)

108 The strategy of radical Islam is explicitly based on the historical precedents of the communist movements. These aren't my theories - they are straight from the writings of the founder of radical Islam.

Okay. As I pointed out, there are also historical precedents for fearmongering about mass infiltration of societies by millions of followers of a particular religion to undermine the values of the fatherland.

But that doesn't matter: look, why don't you ask Al Qaeda how they plan to accomplish the restoration of Andalusia? And ask them why they think they have a decent shot when you think their strategy is hopeless? Perhaps you can dissuade them from continuing.

The standard for the validity of this threat seems to have moved from what is actually viable to what someone hopes for.

While I am at it why don't I ask some hippies how much they really hope the entire world will grow their own food, stop driving cars, wear sandals, legalize hemp and shift to communal-based socialist societies while I'm at it?

They have far greater membership than al Qaeda does and if the level of hope involved is more relevent than the likelyhood of changing the opinions of tens of millions of people then that seems like a far more viable threat for fundamental changes in the values of large democratic capitalist societies.

Or we could just recognize that there is a difference between a concept written in a book 50 years ago and mass emigration on a scale that makes Noah look lazy.

Because it doesn't really matter if they have a realistic chance at success: as long as they keep trying, we'll continue to enjoy the horrendous fruits of their efforts.
Posted by: geoff on March 31, 2006 11:25 AM


No, it really does matter since that was the whole premise of your arguement. That this was a legitimate threat that greater Europe needed to address. As I said earlier, it is clear not even you are willing to seriously suggest that there is a leigitmate threat of this being attempted let alone achieved.

Posted by: Ted at March 31, 2006 07:23 PM (aOeXm)

109 How do the Spaniards feel about the Islamofascist agenda vis a vis the restoration of the caliphate across Andalusia?

Your answer seems to be: "complacent." I'll buy that, but I think we disagree strongly on the wisdom of that attitude.

Geoff, we think that´s a pie in the sky the size of, well, Andalusia. There´s a lot a wackos out there, with all kinds of wacky projects in mind. How would they "reclaim" Andalusia? They may have the intent, but not the means. Do they think we'll willingly give up 20% of our territory, population and wealth, just because Andalusians were muslims 5 centuries ago? The idea is so ludicrous is not even discussed here. Those people are seriously deranged.

So what? If we haven't always done as we say, does that automatically make what we say wrong?

Nervy indeed. So sponsoring terrorism is OK for the US, but doing so on a much smaller scale (no training, no funding, helping the families cope with the costs of Israeli retaliation) is a casus belli against Iraq? Do you really fail to see the hypocrisy here?

Jack: cut the kool-aid. Iraq didn't have any WMD, they didn't have any ties to International terrorism (meaning AQ or international networks) and "fabulously rich" on a personal scale doesn't make the country rich. The combined GDP of ALL Arab countries plus Iran is smaller than that of California.

Start questioning what you see and don't buy it all up front. So Cheney says he has a document and you swallow hook, line and sinker? Oh, please. I'll be happy if you could link some page here where I could read proof of either of the above allegations. Impartial, please. Thanks.

This thread is getting tired by the way, isn't it?

Posted by: GermanQR at March 31, 2006 10:15 PM (6s4dY)

110 The standard for the validity of this threat seems to have moved from what is actually viable to what someone hopes for.

No, the standard for validity is how committed they are to their plan, and how well they're doing so far.

But again, you're saying the threat's not realistic, so Spain can afford to be complacent. I'm saying that based on past performance, the threat will grow until it is realistic, and Spain will have regretted this moment to act while it's barely manageable. I'm also pointing out that events in Europe and many Middle Eastern countries are proceeding according to Qtub's stated plan. I think you're offering small comfort with the ostrich approach.

Posted by: geoff at March 31, 2006 11:06 PM (nH1Ad)

111 To continue making the point, here's one take on the situation in Britain, written after a poll found that 40% of Muslims in Britain want shari'a law (Patrick Sookhdeo, Telegraph, 2/19/06):In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate.
*
Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on.
*
That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them sharia law.
*
There's already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant m*rtgages and sharia pensions.
*
Some Muslims are now pressing to be allowed four wives: they say it is part of their religion. They claim that not being allowed four wives is a denial of their religious liberty. There are Muslim men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time - and stay married, in sharia law, to all four.
*
The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that.Patrick Sookhdeo is an ex-Muslim with a strong pro-Christian agenda, so his statements shouldn't be accepted uncritically. But the process he is outlining is exactly the process that radical Islam has adopted.

Posted by: geoff at April 01, 2006 01:09 AM (nH1Ad)

112 I'm saying that based on past performance, the threat will grow until it is realistic

That threat sounds a little paranoid (please don't take offence). I live in Spain, and trust me, Andalusia and central Spain are very much safe. The chances of Spain getting back its former Empire are higher (that is, 0.0000001%).

How large should this infiltration be? Immigration here is mostly Latin American (3 out of 4 million immigrants currently in Spain). And most muslims, when they come here, want to be assimilated into the mainstream. These are normal, hardworking people for all I know, not a part of a vast conspiracy to bring about the Caliphate.

Posted by: GermanQR at April 01, 2006 01:14 AM (3H7L+)

113 Then we have an excerpt from Bruce Bawer's new book, While Europe Slept:In France, a public official met with an imam at the edge of Roubaix’s Muslim district out of respect for his declaration of the neighborhood as Islamic territory to which she had no right of access. In Britain, imams have pressed the government to officially designate certain areas of Bradford as being under Muslim, not British, law. In Denmark, Muslim leaders have sought the same kind of control over parts of Copenhagen. And in Belgium, Muslims living in the Brussels neighborhood of Sint-Jans-Molenbeek already view it not as part of Belgium but as an area under Islamic jurisdiction in which Belgians are not welcome.And just to flesh it out, here's an old article from National Review Online, entitled "European Dishonor:
Sharia on the Old Continent."

Posted by: geoff at April 01, 2006 01:28 AM (nH1Ad)

114 German-

There have been so many threads on these very topics I have no intention of going back and reposting links to all these topics. Its not about believing Bush and Cheney without question. I have lots of questions about many things they have done.

But not about Iraq and Islamic terrorism which I have been following for years, long before Bush.

Once again, because I said this in my first post and you STILL don't get it. One of the reasons the war was RE-started is because Hussein did not comply with the terms of the cease fire. The inspections were a joke and if you are saying they were ended because of Bush and not because of the absurd games Hussein was putting the inspectors through, well then your bias and understanding of fact is clear.

Hussein had ties not just to the PLO, which sadly for you, is and has been the single largest factor in middle east destabization for decades (I guess you don't care much if they are only murdering Israelis) but also Hammas, Hezbollah and yes, al Qaeda. I get my "facts" not from the msm nor "faux" news (you gave yourself away on that one) but from people such as Dore Gold, reports from the State Dept., The UN website, positngs of Hussein's prewar documents on gov't websites, etc., etc.. Go read them yourself.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 01, 2006 01:35 AM (rnOZq)

115 I live in Spain, and trust me, Andalusia and central Spain are very much safe.

I hope you're right. The point being that Al Qaeda has stated that restoration of the caliphate is one of their goals, and they're obviously prepared to use extreme methods to obtain that goal. When do you think they'll stop trying? When would you think it appropriate to act?

Posted by: geoff at April 01, 2006 01:45 AM (nH1Ad)

116 And here is a Christian Science Monitor article (2004) with some reactions to Al Qaeda's stance. Not quite as blase as yours.

Posted by: geoff at April 01, 2006 01:53 AM (nH1Ad)

117 Should have said "some reactions from Spaniards to Al Qaeda's stance."

Posted by: geoff at April 01, 2006 01:59 AM (nH1Ad)

118 Jack,

I think calling them "Faux" news is fun. Whoever made that up deserves a prize. Even if you don't agree. But I do. Please don't make much of that, I think that's funny.

Saddam proven link was to Palestinians. And they're not a destabilizing factor. The Israeli-Palestinian confict is. Its two-sided. Some side wuth Israel, some with the Palestinians.

I've seen those purported "documents". Why couldn't the Bush Administration come up with them before the war? Even Bush HAS DENIED linking them. And how could they be connected in any way? Saddam's mass graves are filled with Islamists, Communists and other opponents of his regime. YOU check that. Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism don't mix well. Ask the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

Geoff, your article days:

In March the Junta Islámica, a Spanish organization, asked the Vatican for permission for Muslims to worship in the Mezquita.

Pretty civilized, isn't it? They asked the owner of the building. These people are proud of what their forbears built and would like to use the temple. Let the Pope decide.

It also cites the 311 attacks in Madrid. The response was examplary (I live in Madrid). There was no backlash against Muslims or Moroccans. And they were genuinely horrified and participated in the mass demonstrations that ensued. These people are mostly not extremists. 400 hundred people or so were arrested, many tipped off by their Muslim neighbors.

And then we have Ceuta and Melilla, two Spanish enclaves on Northern Africa where some 40% are Arabic and Spanish speaking Muslims, mostly of Moroccan descent. Islamic Parties vote? 0%. There are Secular, Arab-dominated parties that take some 20-25% percent of the vote. These parties emphasize multi-culturality and 'Spanishness'. Some of these Arabs are not citizens and their main concern is obtaining citizenship.

Posted by: GermanQR at April 01, 2006 02:23 AM (3H7L+)

119 " Why couldn't the Bush Administration come up with them before the war? "

Because they are FROM BAGHDAD, as in from the place we had to invade in order to obtain them. There were hundreds of thousands of documents (its a matter of faith to keep and document all your activities for the Baathist party) taken when Hussein was defeated. Its taking years to translate and sort through them all.

Now here's the critical point for you, German. What is your response now? To try to find ways the documents must be wrong, or try to find out what they say and examine their contents? In other words, will your first reaction be "how are they wrong" rather than "what do they say?"

Because if it's the former, you've got a basic problem with your worldview and approach to data. Be honest now.

Posted by: at April 01, 2006 08:09 AM (1Vbso)

120 I think calling them "Faux" news is fun.

It's pretty dated, not to mention quickly identifying your position on the ideological scale.

Why couldn't the Bush Administration come up with them before the war? Even Bush HAS DENIED linking them.

Bush clearly stated that Saddam was a "state sponsor of terrorism," and that is what previous evidence and the emerging evidence show. Bush denied linking Saddam directly to 9/11, not to terrorism in general.

And how could they be connected in any way? Saddam's mass graves are filled with Islamists, Communists and other opponents of his regime.

Actually this seems like a pretty decent compromise arrangement for Saddam: Saddam provides material and logistical support for terrorists and their training camps, thereby innoculating Iraq from attacks. But asking "how could they be connected?" is silly when the evidence that they are is staring at you.

In general Spain seems to be well behind many other European countries in terms of Muslim immigration - you're only at 2.3%. But Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway have all had difficulties stemming from large unassimilated immigrant Muslim populations that don't share the host country's values or vision. Perhaps Spain will be the exception to the rule, but with your demographics and immigration rates, I'd guess that Spain is simply lagging the other nations by 1 or 2 decades. Good luck.

Posted by: geoff at April 01, 2006 09:26 AM (nH1Ad)

121 This is getting weird. Those are widely known facts.

I am not so much disputing the US's involvement in other countries, as your spin on the events of 20 years ago. As you might recall, one part of the Cold War was that there were a number of proxy wars that occured in various parts of the world between the USSR backed regimes and US backed regimes. You left this part out, though. I wonder why?

What I find objectionable is your outrageous lie that it is and has been official US policy to support terrorism and your wildly inflated casualty figures (the tired old "130,000 dead civilians in Iraq", a lie that has been refuted time and time again) . Also, your "80,000 dead in Central America because of the United States" trope,, a wildly exaggerated figure that comes from the radical left wing political groups and completely ignores the historical context. You're going to have to come up with something a bit more credible.

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 01, 2006 11:07 AM (we8HZ)

122 SEO Promotion to a budget http://casino.pro.ie

Posted by: asi at May 30, 2006 02:49 AM (Np86E)

123 his task can be accomplished quickly.

Posted by: oru at May 31, 2006 12:11 AM (Np86E)

124 Entrepreneur reveals all http://betting.myfreeforum.org

Posted by: dfg at June 01, 2006 09:18 PM (Np86E)

125 Founder of GNU Project and Free Software Foundation

Posted by: akol at June 06, 2006 07:19 AM (Np86E)

126 Age restri-ction sign out.

Posted by: orum at June 08, 2006 07:48 AM (Np86E)

127 Save time by hitting the return key http://squeakland.org:8080/mint/16

Posted by: quea at June 08, 2006 11:10 PM (Np86E)

128 Official Online PartyPoker.

Posted by: mail at June 13, 2006 07:40 AM (Np86E)

129 play bingo and very nice site.

Posted by: bing at June 20, 2006 07:42 AM (Np86E)

130 View our complete selection.

Posted by: inewag at June 22, 2006 06:16 PM (kfFng)

131 Official site.

Posted by: kuop at June 23, 2006 03:17 AM (Refwd)

132 Want to spice up your poker night?

Posted by: p7app at June 25, 2006 02:53 AM (52lza)

133 Offers online and in-person tax.

Posted by: ulltim at June 28, 2006 05:06 AM (gOqzl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
180kb generated in CPU 0.25, elapsed 1.4281 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2441 seconds, 369 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.