• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Walking on the moon?"

Collapse

  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent
    And how much do Iranians Iraqis Saudis Kuwaitis Indonesians know about foreign affairs?
    Enough to know where to send the oil and invoices!

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by Signo_cypher
    Have you not heard of David Icke?

    He predicted just this type of event in his 1998 book, the Biggest Secret that America would be attacked and use this as an excuse to make a one world facist state government.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alice-Wonder...5197846&sr=8-4


    Originally posted by Amazon Comments
    That factor aside, Icke has really triumphed over adversity with this magnum opus. Incidentally, he holds back on the notorious shape-shifting lizards in this, which slightly weakens his case in my opinion. More of the Lizards please David!

    Leave a comment:


  • Board Game Geek
    replied
    hard enough to control a small light aircraft that is very responsive.
    Indeed Ardesco ! I too was in the ATC (2393 Squadron) and we travelled to RAF Cambridge to fly Bulldogs one year.

    I remember the day well.

    30 mins training on how to use a parachute.

    Then get given a parachute, meet instructor, and proceed to Bulldog.

    Note, with some unease, that you "sit" on your parachute in the airplane, to make a seat.

    Instructor prepares for take-off , Pre-Flight Checks, taxi's, commences take-off, then airborne.

    At about 2,000 feet, Instructor passes controls to a 13 year old boy.

    At this point, we need to take a break and examine the fine, motor neurone skills of a 13 year old boy, blessed as he was to be born in to the dawn of a new age of computing. An age where Atari games consoles and their solid, treelike joysticks, ruled the roost of computer game mania.

    Back to the cockpit, the instruction was to "Bank Left".

    Not a complicated instruction, granted, but one executed with the delicate touch of a skilled lover. Called The Hulk.

    "YANK !" went the joystick.

    "SHRIEK!" went the plane.

    "SHRIEK!" went the Instructor.

    "OOOPS" went me.

    After dropping 1000 terrifying feet in what seemed like 2 heartbeats, and no doubt convincing the school field below where a football match was underway that they were under imminent Dive Bomb Stukka Attack ala pages of the "Hurricane Annual (1975)", the Instructor promptly decided that our 30 minute flight had come to a premature end with 28 minutes left to go.

    He resumed control of the aircraft and we proceeded to land back at base.

    From that day on, I have a new appreciation of the sensitivity of an aircraft's controls.

    Leave a comment:


  • zathras
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent
    And how much do Iranians Iraqis Saudis Kuwaitis Indonesians know about foreign affairs?
    None of whom are

    a) A Super power

    b) Have one of the largest, most technically advanced armies on the planet.

    The problem with the general lack of knowledge when it comes to foreign affairs of your average American is that foreign policy is not informed by knowledge.

    Indeed George Bush had little or no interest or knowledge of Foreign affairs before 9/11 and afterwards his first action was to blame Iraq, something for which not only was there any evidence but his cabinet includes a certain Donald Rusmfield and Dick Cheney, certainly contributors and possibly authors of the paper by the PNAC calling for a new enemy to continue America's dominance in Post-War global community.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by zathras
    40% of Americans think Saddam did have something to do with 9//11 - I rest my case!

    Seriously have you ever spoken to an American about foreign affairs - they have some warped view of the world, and that assumes they know anything about what happens once you get into international waters. Don't get me wrong I like Americans; have an American Uncle and Auntie but they know next to nothing about foreign affairs.
    And how much do Iranians Iraqis Saudis Kuwaitis Indonesians know about foreign affairs?

    Leave a comment:


  • Signo_cypher
    replied
    Originally posted by zathras
    Nothing at all, but one of the first things George Bush ordered after the event was to find proof that Iraq was responsible. Unfortunatly for the PNAC this turned out to be untrue. Hence the attempts to manufacture evidence that Saddam was far more dangerous than it turned out to be.

    To be honest I think this has to do with the document produced by the PNAC over America retaining it's power in a post-coldwar world. For this it was felt some kind of Bogeyman was needed. Islamic terrorism is that Bogeyman. By allowing the attack of 9/11 to go ahead they created this idea of international terrorism as some kind of new threat - it is not Islamic terrorist murdered the Israli athletes in Munich and blew up airliners in the early 70's.

    Any right thinking person would have realised that fighting a war in Afghanistan would create a messy guerilla war. After all they faced down the British Empire, and the Russians.

    Ditto Iraq. There is a world of difference between kicking someone out of a country that they do not live in and attacking a soverign nation. It makes a difference to the soldier if his family is a long distance away and when it is right behind him!

    However these two wars have now lasted longer than WWI and WWII but with vastly reduced casualties (on the Coalition side). From the point of view of the dollars flowing into US Oil firms, construction firms and the like - many with close links to the Bush Administration cheap at half the price.
    The war in Afghanistan & Iraq is costing the USA 12 billion dollars a month, taking the total spend by the USA since 2001 to $640 billion, why spend half a trillion on restructuring some foreign country? Hmmm could it be the oil??

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070709/D8Q97VI00.html

    Dinars anyone

    Leave a comment:


  • r0bly0ns
    replied
    The only conversation I have been in the presence of that involved an American talking about anything foireign went like this......


    American: You guys don't sound like you are from around here, where are you from?
    My Mate: England.
    American: WOW! You speak really good English for a foregner.
    My Mate: Eng-land, Eng-lish........


    End of conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • zathras
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg
    I was chatting to a bright young American the other day who was sure that Saddam had 'something to do with 9/11'.

    Amusing cartoon on this subject (the black and white one 3rd from top":
    Get Your War On
    40% of Americans think Saddam did have something to do with 9//11 - I rest my case!

    Seriously have you ever spoken to an American about foreign affairs - they have some warped view of the world, and that assumes they know anything about what happens once you get into international waters. Don't get me wrong I like Americans; have an American Uncle and Auntie but they know next to nothing about foreign affairs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles Foster Kane
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg
    I said 'bright', not 'well-informed'.
    I know, I stand by my comment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by Charles Foster Kane
    Now you're just being silly.
    I said 'bright', not 'well-informed'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charles Foster Kane
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg
    I was chatting to a bright young American the other day
    Now you're just being silly.

    Leave a comment:


  • kramer
    replied
    Originally posted by oraclesmith
    They only thing the US Government are covering up is that they're a bunch of half-wits. In my opinion.
    you think they have been successful in doing that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by zathras
    Nothing at all, but one of the first things George Bush ordered after the event was to find proof that Iraq was responsible. Unfortunatly for the PNAC this turned out to be untrue. Hence the attempts to manufacture evidence that Saddam was far more dangerous than it turned out to be.
    I was chatting to a bright young American the other day who was sure that Saddam had 'something to do with 9/11'.

    Amusing cartoon on this subject (the black and white one 3rd from top":
    Get Your War On

    Leave a comment:


  • zathras
    replied
    Originally posted by gingerjedi
    And what did Iraq have to do with any of this?
    Nothing at all, but one of the first things George Bush ordered after the event was to find proof that Iraq was responsible. Unfortunatly for the PNAC this turned out to be untrue. Hence the attempts to manufacture evidence that Saddam was far more dangerous than it turned out to be.

    To be honest I think this has to do with the document produced by the PNAC over America retaining it's power in a post-coldwar world. For this it was felt some kind of Bogeyman was needed. Islamic terrorism is that Bogeyman. By allowing the attack of 9/11 to go ahead they created this idea of international terrorism as some kind of new threat - it is not Islamic terrorist murdered the Israli athletes in Munich and blew up airliners in the early 70's.

    Any right thinking person would have realised that fighting a war in Afghanistan would create a messy guerilla war. After all they faced down the British Empire, and the Russians.

    Ditto Iraq. There is a world of difference between kicking someone out of a country that they do not live in and attacking a soverign nation. It makes a difference to the soldier if his family is a long distance away and when it is right behind him!

    However these two wars have now lasted longer than WWI and WWII but with vastly reduced casualties (on the Coalition side). From the point of view of the dollars flowing into US Oil firms, construction firms and the like - many with close links to the Bush Administration cheap at half the price.

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by oraclesmith
    They only thing the US Government are covering up is that they're a bunch of half-wits. In my opinion.
    They're not doing a very good job of it. QED.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X