dorbie

OK, here's more on the buried MiGs http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml The additional photos show evidence of the attempt to preserve the burried aircraft with plastic wrap. DoD reports claim 30-40 aircraft discovered buried.

No no, it's just part of a conspiracy theory, it never existed, and you shouldn't let mere evidence influence your carefully nurtured ideas about Saddam's paradise. I'm sure you could find an image of an Iraqi detainee in his underware with man boobies you'd rather stare at Frenchy, so please move along, there's nothing to see here.

He writes a good article. If we assume what this guy writes is true, i.e. that pretty much every single foreign reporter in Iraq is bullshitting us about the situation there, why the fuck are they ALL doing it? Isn't it weird? I don't recall this happening with Afghanistan or with the first gulf way, so why this time? (edited for the usial spling mstks) Not at all, in fact I've heard at least one reporter complain that when they submit stories on positive developments they're never run on the news, eventually they give up even trying. We also have the objective facts in the article and we know of the reporting we've seen personally. We can be pretty sure that when the US forces invaded Fallujah and had success there while the media focus was on our casualties and a single shooting incident. We know many of the authors claims to be true because they closely correlate with what we know. It's amazing that many on the left think Saddam was in compliance with UN resolutions in the face of photographs like the one above, but that doesn't get a lot of play anywhere. It's not bulshitting by reporters it's selective editing and bias that you enjoy because it reinforces your position.

.... yea total compliance, see attached image.

This is just amazing, They became our enemies when we declared war on them and sent our troops in to do battle. Your confusion is illustrative of a broader malaise.

I appreciate the way this straight shooter details how the media bias and negativity undermines the allied efforts and describes in no uncertain terms how the media is aiding and abetting our enemies through their relentless bias and selectivity when relaying the news on Iraq. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html

I'd be more impressed with the criticism if it was levelled at all Presidents who throw a big party for their inauguration. It seems self indulgent and wastefull, swear the guy in a small room and broadcast it on C-Span and get on with the job. That way it'll get the attention it deserves. Does a second term even need another oath? The capacity of different sides of the U.S. media to raise or lower their penalty flags depending on who is in office never ceases to amaze me. If Bush is upping the ante with this celebration then he should be criticized (extra security aside) but I have no way of determining this, I just don't trust the numbers from any side, maybe the G.A.O. should get involved (if they aren't already). Clinton had James Earl Jones and Air Force flybys so it wasn't a modest affair.

Lifted verbatim from the highly selective BBC piece. I never said WMD wasn't a reason but it wasn't the only reason, everyone knows this, some choose to ignore it. Some of your quotes even make clear that reconstituting WMD was a key issue. There's evidence for funding of terrorists abroad, specifically palestinians, individual named terrorists who resided in Iraq and at least one terrorist organization formed in the north. You have applied your filter yet again, you don't apparently dispute Saddam's illegal weapons posession, purchases and manufacture, including potential delivery systems for WMD.

Yes, on taking the advice that's true, but BSR's represent collective wisdom not individual opinion that makes specific and unknowable 'observations' about my ability. w.r.t. proving myself and canopy progression you'll see that I've already stated that this is less objectionable if it's applied reasonably. The devil is in the details.

Well said. It really is utterly unimaginably irrational in light of the seemingly endless evidence to the contrary that people still think SH had any WMD or that Iraq was a terrorist threat to the USA (or anyone else for that matter) and that the coallition has any legal right to be there whatsoever. Skip to the end of my post to see why the focus on WMD is bogus anyway, I'll recap anyway, there were a multitude of issues surrounding the war and I for one was thinking about them. Some of the WMD focus arose w.r.t. the UN security council. There is proof positive that Saddam had WMD in the past and no doubt that he could have reconstituted a WMD program. There is proof that he had illegal weapons and continued to procure, manufacture and hide illegal weapons and was flouting UN resolutions. Moreover it turns out there was widespread misappropriation of oil for food money funding illegal purchases. There is also irrefutable evidence that Iraq was paying funds to terrorist organizations in the palestinian territories and was harboring terrorists and nurturing some terrorist organisations in Iraq. P.S. as a Brit you should have been paying more attention to Tony Blair during question time and you'd be less confused about the reasons going in. He was very articulate about the reasons for the war before the conflict began.

I'm not asking for a permission slip to downsize so you've shown me that you haven't even read my posts properly. I haven't shown you anything about my CC abilities, and according my initial interpretations these guys were saying I'm exceeding wingloading NOW despite the advice of people who've trained me and seen me jump and my uneventful canopy operation at my current wing loading for about a hundred jumps. Having been on a CC course and sought additional canopy training and since these requirements are now being presented as a means to encourage people to seek such training I guess I'd qualify in some manner already. Next time read my posts or even the rest of the thread before references to me downsizing to a canopy that will get me killed faster. I don't mind a joke but generic advice that's laden with supposition is one of the problems here. Just because I oppose a set of restrictions doesn't mean I have a deathwish. I wouldn't downsize without taking advice but it won't be from people who've never seen me fly on DZ.com. P.S. yea it would suck to bounce now at a WL of 1.2 after posting objections, I'd become the posterboy for canopy nannies. The embarrassment alone would kill me.

At least they got some use out of it. Here on the other hand these guys didn't: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/979224/posts In the end it was a more expensive oops checking in at a cool $400 Million.

Irrational is the most generous description I have for people who stand behind conjecture, conspiracy theories and clearly refuted rubbish in the face of facts at everyone's disposal. I actually think most of the posturing is a lot worse, politically contrived to attack Bush and undermine the effort of our troops in doing so. In arguing that their lives are squandered you seek to throw away any gains they have made and would advocate a disastrous course like withdrawal even now. We all know how our democracy works even those in the armed services, you should get used to the process instead of railing against it when it suits you (i.e. every time you're in the minority, you have no problem when leaders you like cut military funding without so much as a a plurality). The fact is that w.r.t. Bush's endorsement it's about as good as it gets in the U.S. You have about 4 years to work on your next attempt to change the leadership but don't pretend the choice hasn't been made by the people. There wasn't even a candidate on the left who opposed the war and the reason for that is the left knew it would be a losing issue even with their own base. My support for our servicemen on the front lines isn't a fashion statement, it has always been there. Long before 9-11 I was disgusted by the Jane Fonda's of the world just as todays back biters disgust me. As a child I opposed ignorant Marxists who lived in the free West yet looked to oppressive murdering regimes and found allegiance. Few things change over the years, there are always those who find fault within (even inventing it) instead of opposing evil on our doorstep. I oppose bringing our troops home too soon because I believe that the campaign in Iraq is vitally important to our interests and exiting too soon would court utter catastrophe. I support them and I support the cause they're fighting for. Saying they died for Halliburton, oil or other unfounded rubbish in an attempt to get them home or to attack Bush is promoting already discredited lies and pure conjecture for cynical political motives. Before the war several reasons were given, one is being focused on now but even beyond the WMD there were concerns over illegal weapons posession and manufacture and the ability to reconstitute WMD programs at some time in the future, and from the beginning freedom in Iraq and the geopolitical strategy to bring some semblance of sanity to the region was on the table. Saying these men were lied to (with the implication that they were tricked into this) implies there was some choice they made, that choice was made when they signed up, not on the basis of the details of the Iraqi campaign, nobody lied to them to get them into this.

My sincere thanks to all allied servicemen who lay everything on the line for us in this conflict. Even those that return physically unscathed make huge sacrifices for us and risk everything in the process. I like to focus on the primary goals here despite unfounded and frankly insane claims of irrational extremists on the left. The casualties in Iraq did not die in vain, they did not die for Halliburton or Exxon or any of the other disgraceful claims made by confused leftists who don't know the meaning of the word "support". We live in a democracy (no hair splitting please) and it has been explained to everyone why we're in Iraq, the people have decided this is the right course of action, and the reasons are on the table for everyone to see. The goal of bringing democracy to Iraq and the broader geopolitical consequences will have immeasurable benefits for America, for the people of Iraq and for the people in that region in general if we are successful. Diminishing the sacrifice of brave servicemen who have given everything in this cause for fickle political interests is beneath contempt. Most don't sign up to fight in a particular conflict, the noblest of them sign up to defend our freedom and democracy and that means exercising our will through our elected and executive branches of government. This cause is a noble and just one with profound implications for our world and a very significant chance of success. The long term alternative may have been death by a thousand cuts for democracy and freedom throughout the world, or perhaps a degeneration of the situation to the point where we'd be forced to deal with it using currently unimaginable options.

Well with this thought process we'd better hope the DA has a medical doctorate and a degree in psychology or he'll be unable to determine whether or not to throw the book at the widow. Heck they might anyway just to CYA for the inevitable law suit. We don't know the circumstances but a cop detaining patients in hospital grounds after they rush there during a medical emergency deserves more than mere firing. It doesn't take a medical degree or even hindsight to determine this. If this actually happened it verges on the sociopathic. Incredulously asking for the source then defending the action is slightly contradictory. This is frankly unbelievable conduct. I seriously doubt we have a fair representation of the story but even if it's true it ain't all cops and we don't need to support the most abhorrent behavior just because the guy was wearing a badge.

I think so, the thing that concerns me the most here is where the line gets drawn and the basis for that decision. It would be easy to impose a de facto WL table depending on where you set the bar for progression.

That makes things a lot more palatable, thanks for explaining.

OK that sounds a lot better, there's a difference between wing loading restrictions that prevent obviously reckless choices and those that seem conservative and that colors my view here. Since it seems inevitable that any table will eventually become the WL ceiling at some DZs it causes me concern, and not really for my ability to jump, by the time this evolves into a BSR I will probably have made many more jumps, however meeting the requirements personally doesn't make me any more inclined to approve the measure if it's seen as a hard ceiling for other jumpers. I didn't make my canopy choice without discussing it with instructors and one DZO who saw me jump and saw my log book and it did have an influence. w.r.t. the list, a few not most (and the crosswind landing wasn't exactly planned, that was an aborted turn to final when I got myself too low after a bad spot, it was something I was trained to do instead of a low turn onto final fortunately I remembered it on my second(?) jump), some I won't do (uphill landing, why invite the risk, I'll take the risk if/when I'm forced to) and at least one is a profficiency test for something AFF teaches.

...fun right down to the last few feet. Not quite what I had in mind, my current wing loading is < 1.2 on a docile 7 cell. The proposed wingloading table would prevent me jumping the canopy tomorrow that I've already got about 100 jumps on. I've never had anything I didn't expect from my current canopy, it's very predictable and I've had to turn it low due to traffic more than once, I feel very safe with this canopy and always have.

You listen up, you're not my mate, especially not with comments like that and your threats (that speak volumes), spare me the ad hominem about my selfishness, I'm not imposing my opinion in an attempt to restrict your actions, you are. You need to read my quote in the context of saying "I can play that game too" I wouldn't disagree with your second observation but that includes stupid things like intentional low turns. If someone's going to impose new training requirements for stuff I was already training for during AFF then they need to back it up with more than this. I have a right to argue against someone imposing inflexible restrictions on me because of someone else's poor judgement, lack of skill or sheer stupidity. It's not just about me, me, me, it's about all the other jumpers that have to tollerate new restrictions imposed based on guesswork, opinion and the nannying attitude of people some of whom have downsized or flown far more recklessly than anything I've done or ever intend to. I follow the advice of experiend jumpers, DZ staff and instructors when it comes to downsizing, this is not about me just wanting to do whatever the hell I like despite your attempts to represent this as such. If all you do is attack any dissenting voices from the people the proposed rules affect the most then I guess you're destined for unanimous agreement, so continue to pat yourselves on the back and congratulate eachother about what a wonderful job you're doing for safety.

I got to jumped this at Elsinore on Sunday 16th, got 4500 ft, it was a lot of fun, last helo jump I got out falling backwards with 4 others then turned to track, I've decided that facing forwards is much more fun :-)

This is exactly why I put it in quotes. It's an ambiguous term but higher speed and more responsive to control input would do for now. Training with the good intention of improving safety that doesn't address the skills shortages or attitudes that actually lead to the majority of fatalities that are used to 'sell' the training requirement. I like Fineman's example so let me borrow it. If you want to get rich you might study rich people and after a lengthy process observe that rich people tend take a lot of shirts to the dry cleaners. You might then conclude that to get rich you need only send a bunch of shirts to be dry cleaned each week. It is obviously an incorrect conclusion. Unfortunately this is about the level of science being applied to BSRs on canopy sizes (as one example), especially when they are set conservatively and the outcome may be counter productive when you wind up boring jumpers who want to progress. That's not what a conservative wing loading chart based on a single metric (jump numbers) represents nor how it will be applied to me.

Actually, I find it quite interesting, and it seems I have heard a lot lately, jumpers defending their High WL (and/or HP canopy choice) conversely with statements like: "yeah, but even at 1.5(+):1 I am 'safe' because I am not either hook turning or performing HP landings". "Higher performance" canopies are more fun to fly and beginner-intermediate jumpers are permitted to have fun too, not just the skygods or self-appointed canopy police (some of whom have already made insane downsizing judgement calls I'd never make and bounced). Arguments in favor of additional restrictions are full of untested assumptions like people who downsize are the ones doing the hook turns, this matters to me because it's my choices they seek to restrict and they've never seen me fly a canopy or discussed my safety choices or thought processes. Even if some of these assumptions were true the outcome of a wing loading chart for example may be counter productive, if someone is getting bored with their 1.0 loaded canopy are they more likely or less to try a low level turn? All sorts of red herrings are thrown in here like inability to do flat turns to justify inappropriate training. I can play that game too: Most people bounce because they intentionally turn low and screw up. You can do that on any canopy and have a bad day and you're more likely to do it if you're not getting what you want from the canopy you're flying because some canopy nazi has taken the fun from an important part of your chosen sport.

That's just the law, the DoJ doesn't write it. Surely you don't expect them to interpret it based on your whimsical interests.

Doing it locally with no flights and accommodation to pay for it cost me about $400 including most equipment rental, study materials, tests, pools session(s) and dives, add to that package the cost of fins, mask, snorkel, bootees & gloves all of which I retained as personal gear. I don't think it was the cheapest option, different stores/training centers probably have different approaches to selling & packaging this.