Ooops.

[jeff]

Somebody who uses parrot squawking sounds as his means of making an argument has no basis for criticizing anyone else's rhetoric. As much as I enjoy watching you increase your sputtering, sarcasm and insults the emptier your arguments become, I'm not wasting any more time on you today. Go stew in your own foolishness.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And you can just keep insisting that that which has not been demonstrated has been. It doesn't advance your argument, but it must be a very comfortable technique for maintaining your personal convictions.




Braaawwwk! Lie! Braaaawwwk! Lie! Polly want a cracker...

Maybe "Pieces of eight" would be more entertaining.





You must be in great demand for jury duty; you are so easily convinced to vote "guilty".




I begin to think you aren't worth anything but sharp retorts, at least on this subject. You certainly don't seem to listen to anything else. Just keep repeating your mantras, "Lie, deception, exaggeration, it's true, it's true, it's true!"



I would far prefer to assume innocence until proven guilty than to follow your lead and assume guilt on the flimisiest of "inferences". Even for Tricky Dick. I leave it to your conscience to decide which is the more noble course.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Larrison

Actually we have lost planes -- but never a piloted one.

The Iraqis downed several unmanned survelliance aircraft while they were under UN sanctions.

One of the reasons I remember this, is one event is claimed to be the first case of robot versus pilot dogfighting in combat. The rumor (from Aviation Week magazine, known in the industry as "Aviation Leak"), was that the US was flying a Predator remotely piloted vehicle, which is known for being able to carry small missiles. The Iraqis had made several attempts to shoot down other unmanned survelliance aircraft using a jet fighter which would do a scramble take off, zoom to the vicinity of the survelliance aircraft and fire upon it. For self protection, this Predator was armed with a couple of small Stinger air-aircraft missiles. The Iraqis made an attack on the Predator, and the pilot was quite surprized when the unmanned Predator turned into the attack and fired off a couple of Stingers at him. Didn't work of course -- the Stingers are very short range and really need to look into the hot blowpipe of a jet to get really good results -- and the Predator was shot down. But the Iraqis didn't try attacking the unmanned vehicles with piloted aircraft for some time after that, either.

Actually, in that case, I believe the Predator survived. I've seen the video from it; it's pretty funny.

In any case, it's the manned vehicles we were speaking of; it was already noted that several UAVs had been lost.

Again, that no manned vehicles were lost, is not for lack of trying on the part of the Iraqis.

[Soldier]

Alright, Jeff, Inq, break it up already. We've heard all the points from both sides. Inq, you're saying there was no intent; Bush was mistaken, but not lying. Jeff, you're saying that Bush was in fact lying, since he had information ahead of time by which he knew his position was false. You've both restated your positions again and again and again, and now you're just starting to trade insults. Just call the whole thing a draw already, before you sink any further.

[jeff]

Good summary of the argument, Soldier. As you can see from my last post, I already have done what you suggest.

[Soldier]

I've just been lightly skimming the last several posts; I'm glad to hear it.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

To Inq, Jeff writes:

Originally Posted by jeff

I don't expect a rational response from you. Your partisanship and unwillingness to ever concede any error preclude that.

Which puts Soldier apart from Inq. A case of the by far younger acting more grown up, and a plus in my book for soldier, despite that I disagree with him a lot on several topics.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Soldier

Well, considering there's no Raptors in combat yet, I'm going to guess pilot error. Anyway, the point is that you frequently don't hear about even relatively major losses (like a brand new Raptor).

And yes, UAVs are definitely going to be the next big thing. They just...make infinitely more sense.

An aside, but don´t they hurt your job security (as apart from security) and make your education somewhat pointless?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

PS: Maybe that Raptor was not lost - could it be chasing chickens you-know-where?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

An aside, but don´t they hurt your job security (as apart from security) and make your education somewhat pointless?

Naw, there's always going to be a need for pump-jockeys on the ground to spit and polish and to keep the rubber bands twisted!

UAVs aren't new. They've been in operations for a long, long time!

[jeff]

To Peter's question: I think the point of the unmanned vehicles is that a human still flies them, but remotely. Still need the pilots. Should be interesting to see how it affects distribution of abilities: big tall pilots (in fact, not physically fit guys) would be able to pilot vehicles where today they might not fit comfortably in a cockpit. Ability to withstand high G forces wouldn't be a benefit. However: all you video gamers would have an advantage.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jeff

To Peter's question: I think the point of the unmanned vehicles is that a human still flies them, but remotely. Still need the pilots. Should be interesting to see how it affects distribution of abilities: big tall pilots (in fact, not physically fit guys) would be able to pilot vehicles where today they might not fit comfortably in a cockpit. Ability to withstand high G forces wouldn't be a benefit. However: all you video gamers would have an advantage.

The chances are though, for a long time, that these guys manning the board are still going to be experienced pilots - and also still meet the fitness standards and requirements of military service.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Naw, there's always going to be a need for pump-jockeys on the ground to spit and polish and to keep the rubber bands twisted!

UAVs aren't new. They've been in operations for a long, long time!

Major off-topic: One of the coollest things you could have when I was a kid was one of those wire-controlled model planes with a little bitty gas engine. Only surpassed (and at a later age group) by the model rocket guys. Build your very own model Atlas or Saturn V! Both had "fanatic historical accuracy construction" and "make it fly higher" cliques. Do people still do these, or have video games put an end to it?

I agree with your other point: for a long time the pilot population will need to have the same fitness and skills as today's. Transition to UAV won't be one day, and may not be suitable for all tasks.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by jeff

Major off-topic: One of the coollest things you could have when I was a kid was one of those wire-controlled model planes with a little bitty gas engine. Only surpassed (and at a later age group) by the model rocket guys. Build your very own model Atlas or Saturn V! Both had "fanatic historical accuracy construction" and "make it fly higher" cliques. Do people still do these, or have video games put an end to it?

I agree with your other point: for a long time the pilot population will need to have the same fitness and skills as today's. Transition to UAV won't be one day, and may not be suitable for all tasks.

Yes, they do. My son got one for his birthday this year. But they have, fortunately, gone over to battery remote control, not gasoline. He has a North American P51 Mustang. It flies great and without strings attached (which is actually quite a feat for a Boeing aircraft! (ha ha, only kidding)!)

The gasoline models really weren't good for kids. This new plane is easy to use and safer than sending Lil Johnny out with a cup of gas!

So ya! It is COOLLIEST!

[Drifter]

My favorite parts of the US Senate REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ:
[The below conversation took place MORE THAN A MONTH before the State of the Union Address]( ) At 11:28 am. on the morning of December 19, 2002, NP e-mailed its draft fact sheet to several offices in the State Department, including INR's Office of Analysis for Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues (SPM). NP sent the e-mail to the senior analyst in the office and did not indicate that there was a response deadline for comments. At 12:20 p.m. the senior analyst passed the fact sheet to three other analysts to solicit comments. At 1:12 p.m. the DELETED Iraq nuclear analyst in SPM sent comments to NP requesting that the word "reported" be added before "efforts" in the sentence, "the declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger." The e-mail added "as you know, INR assesses this reporting as dubious. Policymakers are entitled to leave out the word `reported,' but the INR/SPM would not sign off on such a move." The INR's comments did not reach NP before the fact sheet had already been forwarded to the Office of Public Affairs. NP did not try to retrieve the document from PA to make the INR's recommended change. (U) At about the same time, the action officer for Iraq in the State Department's Office of United Nations Political Affairs (IO/UNP) responded to NP that the draft fact sheet needed to be vetted with WINPAC because some items in the Negroponte speech had been changed. NP, aware that the fact sheet had already been cleared with WINPAC but unaware that WINPAC had told the NSC the prior evening to change the "Niger" reference to "Africa," told IO/UNP that the fact sheet was consistent with the speech. Later that afternoon, IO/UNP responded to NP's email, saying "didn't we pull `from Niger' from Negroponte's comments at IC request?" By that time, the fact sheet had already been posted to the State Department web page. The fact sheet said Iraq's declaration, "ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

(U) On January 13, 2003, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst sent an e-mail to several IC analysts outlining his reasoning why, "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." He indicated that one of the documents that purported to be an agreement for a joint military campaign, including both Iraq and Iran, was so ridiculous that it was "clearly a forgery." Because this document had the same alleged stamps for the Nigerien Embassy in Rome as the uranium documents, the analyst concluded "that the uranium purchase agreement probably is a forgery." When the CIA analyst received the e-mail, he realized that WINPAC did not have copies of the documents and requested copies from INR. CIA received copies of the foreign language documents on January 16, 2003.

( )On January 15, 2003, thirteen days before the State of the Union address, WINPAC provided comments on a White House paper, A Grave and Gathering Danger, saying "better to generalize first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process." WINPAC had submitted identical language when it commented on the same paper in October. The paper was never published.


( )On January 17, 2003, eleven days before the State of the Union address, WINPAC published a current intelligence paper (Request for Evidence of Iraq's Nuclear Weapons Program Other Than the Aluminum Tube Procurement Effort, SPWRO11703-01) in response to a request from the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff for information, other than the aluminum tubes, that showed Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. Regarding uranium acquisition, the paper said, "fragmentary reporting on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from various countries in Africa in the past several years is another sign of reconstitution. Iraq has no legitimate use for uranium." The information on uranium acquisition attempts was one DELETED streams of intelligence provided to show Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...chapter2-h.htm

More light reading:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...intell_toc.htm


Unlike some, I don't make assumptions. I read. But feel free to "assume" you know what my opinions are, it is afterall apparently ok for you to do that but the rest of us must provide locktight proof.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!



An aside, but don´t they hurt your job security (as apart from security) and make your education somewhat pointless?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

PS: Maybe that Raptor was not lost - could it be chasing chickens you-know-where?

Actually, no. I'm an officer first, and a pilot second. There will still be plenty of need for Air Force officers long after everything we actually fly is remotely piloted. My education, currently, is actually to be an officer and an engineer (maybe building the things). If I get a pilot slot, then I'll still have the added advantage of knowing how to fly - which is just cool, whether or not I actually get to do it as a job (you'll have to forgive me, I'm still riding the high just from getting to do some touch-and-goes in the sims today).

Second, UAVs have a long way to go yet. I think cargo aircraft will be the easiest to make as UAVs (though we will still have to wait to phase out our existing cargolifters, including those as new as the C-17 - it's only a few years old; compare to the C-5s and -141s which are much older, and still in regular use). Next to follow, I think, will be tankers, and then high altitude/strategic bombers. Closer range bombers and fighters are a long way off, and close air support craft will be the last to go to UAV. I'll be dead and gone by the time we run out of use for pilots.

[Soldier]

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm

[Soldier]

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/rayreynolds.htm

[Soldier]

Note: This is a bit more than soldier stories; it's also "the other side".

[Soldier]

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/i/iraqadvance.htm

[Soldier]

Crap, these have all been going in the wrong thread. Oh well, here's another:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cnn-iraq.htm