Just a Random Fly By

Ken Cangi wrote: If a king forcefully subjugates a nation, or nations, into obsequium, is that really peace?

Really?

To be clear, I think the war in Iraq is a gross misuse of our military brought about by a critical lack of judgement in our government.

I think we agree on that.

However outside of the last seven-and-a-half years, do you honestly picture the US as a "king" (I mean do you even think this is the case including the last 7.5 years)?

Do you really think living in the country with the most powerful military on the planet is a bad thing?

What exactly is your argument against (I'm not trying to be an ass here Ken, but I'm not sure what your point is, it sounds to me like you're just trying to argue)?

James M Schroeder wrote: So you're saying the most important purpose for those jets is something other than deterrence? Care to speculate on what that might be?

To further the IMCC.

Our own congress has become the biggest threat to our liberty as well as failed leadership of our executives in deterring the terrorist threat to our country & its citizens.

Not So Famous Old Dude wrote:It sounds like to me that boy's ego is writing checks his body can't cash. Somebody had to say it...

AmaZING. How about this one.

"Gentlemen, you had a hell of a first day. The hard deck for this hop was 10,000 ft. You knew it. You broke it..."

Richard Radcliffe wrote: James, I don't think anybody here disagrees with the basic idea that you're promoting. The problem was with your use of the word "only". The reality is that those jets were "only" designed to blow things up.

ARRGH!

"ONLY" WAS THE WORD OTHER PEOPLE WERE USING! I WAS SAYING THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PURPOSE TO THOSE JETS.

Yes they were designed to be effective at killing people and destroying propety, because that is the only way they would be effective deterrents. Why is this so hard to understand?

The reason those jets were designed was to keep other military powers from attacking this country, and they have been very effective in that role because they are good at killing people and destroying property. I'd guess that if our airforce consisted of a bunch of Cessnas and 747s we wouldn't be around to have this argument right now.

Mark Nelson wrote: To further the IMCC. Our own congress has become the biggest threat to our liberty as well as failed leadership of our executives in deterring the terrorist threat to our country & its citizens.

I'm not familiar with the acronym "IMCC" could you please elaborate?

James M Schroeder wrote:they are a huge deterrent to anyone who would mess with our country.

Right, by scaring the bejesus out of them because an F-15 is specifically designed and piloted to...wait for it...

KILL PEOPLE

:) Just being a bit literal for effect. I know what you meant though. Our military has a very valuable function, as does our vast arsenal of hydrogen bomb-tipped ICBMs, in the deterrence of threats against this country. It's necessary.

batman spaghetti wrote: AmaZING. How about this one. "Gentlemen, you had a hell of a first day. The hard deck for this hop was 10,000 ft. You knew it. You broke it..."

James M Schroeder wrote:ARRGH! "ONLY" WAS THE WORD OTHER PEOPLE WERE USING! I WAS SAYING THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PURPOSE TO THOSE JETS.

It was a question of semantics and grammar. My first reading of your "only" statement missed your point. My apologies. But let's be clear: The only purpose of the jets is to kill people. Deterrence is simply a benefit of that purpose.

batman spaghetti wrote: AmaZING. How about this one. "Gentlemen, you had a hell of a first day. The hard deck for this hop was 10,000 ft. You knew it. You broke it..."

WELL THIS POST REPLY THING HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND.
AGENDA THIS AGENDA THAT. KILL THIS PROTECT THAT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY WATCHING A PILOT IN A JET HAVE SOME FUN (release some stress perhaps). Just like watching my dogs run along side me on my bike. Some could be uptight that they aren't on leases (but I am also not cruising state street).

At the end O the day either ignore or reply 'that must have been cool.' This doesn't need to be a political platform forum. Besides no one ranted about the blasted thunderstorm. Damn the Flash flood!!! :)

Take it down a notch or two people. This is why I hate blogging or forums. I just wanted to tell something cool that happened, but now I feel like I have burned of that again.

rth wrote: WELL THIS POST REPLY THING HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND. AGENDA THIS AGENDA THAT. KILL THIS PROTECT THAT. AT THE END OF THE DAY WATCHING A PILOT IN A JET HAVE SOME FUN (release some stress perhaps). Just like watching my dogs run along side me on my bike. Some could be uptight that they aren't on leases (but I am also not cruising state street). At the end O the day either ignore or reply 'that must have been cool.' This doesn't need to be a political platform forum. Besides no one ranted about the blasted thunderstorm. Damn the Flash flood!!! :) Take it down a notch or two people. This is why I hate blogging or forums. I just wanted to tell something cool that happened, but now I feel like I have burned of that again.

You know...those dogs have one purpose and one purpose only...TO LICK PEOPLE. It's a simple fact!

I was actually more concerned for you about the ping pong hail. That's gotta hurt.

rth wrote: WELL THIS POST REPLY THING HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND. AGENDA THIS AGENDA THAT. KILL THIS PROTECT THAT. AT THE END OF THE DAY WATCHING A PILOT IN A JET HAVE SOME FUN (release some stress perhaps). Just like watching my dogs run along side me on my bike. Some could be uptight that they aren't on leases (but I am also not cruising state street). At the end O the day either ignore or reply 'that must have been cool.' This doesn't need to be a political platform forum. Besides no one ranted about the blasted thunderstorm. Damn the Flash flood!!! :) Take it down a notch or two people. This is why I hate blogging or forums. I just wanted to tell something cool that happened, but now I feel like I have burned of that again.

You can't take offense when your thread gets hijacked. Everything actually worth reading gets hijacked eventually. It's the sign of a good post - take it as a compliment. :)

But to your original point - yes, I've been buzzed a few times by sail planes and fighter jets in RMNP and helicopters and low flying civilian aircraft on Green Mountain in Lakewood. Way cool, but a little scary and noisy if they come too close. It's completely irresponsible by the military pilots of course - but what do you expect from 20-something fighter jocks? I'd do the same in their position no doubt.

James M Schroeder wrote: Really? To be clear, I think the war in Iraq is a gross misuse of our military brought about by a critical lack of judgement in our government. I think we agree on that. However outside of the last seven-and-a-half years, do you honestly picture the US as a "king" (I mean do you even think this is the case including the last 7.5 years)? Do you really think living in the country with the most powerful military on the planet is a bad thing? What exactly is your argument against (I'm not trying to be an ass here Ken, but I'm not sure what your point is, it sounds to me like you're just trying to argue)?

A few things here, James:

First, thank you for qualifying, although it is not necessary for you to do so. You have shown a clear sense of fairness in recent discussions, and I don’t for a moment believe that you are being an ass. I enjoy debating you. You seem like a class act.

To address your fighter jet premise and response to Richard, I don’t believe that Richard is confusing anything. I feel you are not thinking this through. Your assertion that the primary purpose of these aircraft is for prevention presumes that no one would ever challenge them. We all know that this isn’t true, and history points to centuries of examples that back that up. Consequently, if we know that our firepower will eventually be challenged, then we also know that we will eventually utilize it. When we do, it will be for one primary reason, which is to destroy (kill) our opponents.

And, yes, I do feel that our administration has been playing sovereign leader for the last 7.5 years. What is taking place in Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11. Moreover, Iraq’s citizens and leaders want us to leave, and we won’t. We won’t leave, because we want control of the oil. So if they want us to leave, and we won’t, then what is their alternative, other than to submit to U.S. rule, or rise up against us, the results of which would be palpable?

P.S. for clarity, When I said centuries of examples, I meant examples of force being challenged - not specifically our fighter jets.

More then once I have been in Lake Powell when some insane jet did a fly-by over our houseboat and through the canyon.

And more then once I have almost shat my pants...

rth wrote:Take it down a notch or two people. This is why I hate blogging or forums. I just wanted to tell something cool that happened, but now I feel like I have burned of that again.

Hi rth ~ I like your thread topic and share your sentiment. Just for the sheer sound, the power & the energy that these planes have when they fly-by is amazing and always stops me to look from wherever I am.

politics & pain aside ~ I know you meant what you said for face-value and to share. Just know that your not alone, thanks for sharin' your experience -- those truly are amazing to watch.

...now if we could only get out cell-phones to work properly ~

:)

I think James's point is fairly in line with MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Do you guys think that nukes are killing tools? Many would argue that the earth has been as safe as it has due to fear of killing the entire planet. Russia doesn't mess with us we don't mess with them. If one or the other launches an attack then the other will in turn retaliate ultimately killing everyone on earth. Hence one could argue that straight fear of attack has kept us safe. James is effectually arguing that the force/power of these jets is such that it makes the world safer and one could argue less death.

Now are there any restrictions for private aircraft buzzing National Parks? Since the long's base jump I've just been wanting to buzz the diamond...actually long before but coming over the summit inverted pulling back and diving the thing just sounds fun. Is there a law against jumping out of an airplane and landing your parachute in a National Park?

Jeff Barnow wrote:I think James's point is fairly in line with MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Do you guys think that nukes are killing tools? Many would argue that the earth has been as safe as it has due to fear of killing the entire planet. Russia doesn't mess with us we don't mess with them. If one or the other launches an attack then the other will in turn retaliate ultimately killing everyone on earth. Hence one could argue that straight fear of attack has kept us safe.

It is not a fair comparison. We will and always have challenged fighter jets because they promise only limited destruction. Nukes, on the other hand, represent a threat that would eliminate mankind as we know it. James is arguing a very narrow viewpoint.

Andy Librande wrote:More then once I have been in Lake Powell when some insane jet did a fly-by over our houseboat and through the canyon. And more then once I have almost shat my pants...

I have had the same experience many times there. Luckily, you can dive into the water and clean the soiled shorts...

rth wrote: Take it down a notch or two people. This is why I hate blogging or forums. I just wanted to tell something cool that happened, but now I feel like I have burned of that again.

You can only open them. You can't dictate the direction in which they will eventually travel. Be happy that it is a friendly, intelligent discussion.

A couple notes and answers:
Yes, there are Iraqis who cheer when the fighter jets, Helicopters, and big artillery fly overhead. I've been there with thim and can verify this.
Yes, when the jets fly low and catch me off-guard, I do almost shit my pance everytime.
On the whole killing machine, Killing purpose of the weaponry; yes, everything in the arsenal can kill. Some weapons can do this on a tremendous scale. BUT, the primary employment of these larger assets has been towards the destruction of equipment and structures (in my experience).

One more note; every time I've been to Iraq I've had Iraqi's ask me where these reports in the media are coming from. "Who said that we don't want the americans here?" Generally they follow with a "Your reporters need to come here(random city/village in Iraq), and talk to us(local iraqis')" Now I know full well they don't all aggree on this, hell, look at our discussions on any random subject here on MP. We don't all aggree either.

Just a little base line info from an admittedly biased source.
Tony