THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Thok wrote:

Just in: Hungary announces withdrawal of troops from Iraq by March 2005.

When were they supposed to withdraw? I hope more follow suit. Sooner.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

When were they supposed to withdraw? I hope more follow suit. Sooner.

There it is:

Quote:

Hungary PM Says Troops Out of Iraq by End-March

Hungary's new Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany said the country's 300 troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of March 2005, a government spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Spokeswoman Boglar Laszlo said a formal announcement on legislation authorizing the withdrawal would be made at a news conference later in the day. "On March 31, Hungarian troops will come back from Iraq ... This is the proposal the government will put forward to parliament," she said.

State news agency MTI quoted Gyurcsany as saying: "To stay there until elections are completed is an obligation, to stay there for much longer is an impossibility. Therefore, we will bring back our soldiers back from Iraq by March 31, 2005."

Gyurcsany made the initial remarks at a ceremony to celebrate the end of 136 years of conscription in Hungary, and on the day U.S. President Bush's campaign declared election victory and a second term in office.

"Troops will remain until conditions have been created for democratic elections in Iraq," Laszlo said.

Hungary's 300 soldiers in Iraq are not front line fighting troops, but a support transport battalion. The mandate for their presence in Iraq was to finish at the end of this year.

The issue had become a political liability for the ruling Socialist Party, which in August dumped former prime minister Peter Medgyessy in favor of 43-year old millionaire Gyurcsany.

Source

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Thok wrote:
Just in: Hungary announces withdrawal of troops from Iraq by March 2005.

When were they supposed to withdraw? I hope more follow suit. Sooner.

Way to support the troops.

0 Replies

Tico, can I ask you a personal question?

0 Replies

Ican - did the FAA retire the tail number after you stopped being PIC of that plane?

N711NM is not Assigned/Reserved
source:
Civil Aviation Registry
AFS-700
PO BOX 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

No offense meant, just curious!

0 Replies

ON EGALITARIANISM

I allege that securing egalitarian liberty enhances human liberty and thereby enhances human accomplishment which is generally not egalitarian.

I allege that securing egalitarian wealth limits human liberty and thereby limits human accomplishment so that it eventually becomes egalitarian at the lowest level by default.

So which shall be secured?

From each according to her/his ability; To each according to her/his accomplishments.

From each according to her/his ability; To each according to her/his needs.

I'm biased by both my engineering and aviation careers. If it weren't for those more wealthy than I, I wouldn't have had and wouldn't still be having the fun of accomplishing what I enjoy accomplishing.

So I say it's in my/our own self-interest for the Bill Gates of the world to double their wealth. Whether it be their objective or not, they will thereby increase my/our opportunities for accomplishment and my/our wealth.

So what's all this got to do with Afghanistan and Iraq in particular and the whole world in general?

It has to do with what we should be trying to help each other accomplish in Afghanistan and Iraq in particular and in the whole world in general. And that of course has to do with how we should go about accomplishing it.

0 Replies

I've heard you say many times
That you're better 'n no one
And no one is better 'n you.
If you really believe that,
You know you got
Nothing to win and nothing to lose.
From fixtures and forces and friends,
Your sorrow does stem,
That hype you and type you,
Making you feel
That you must be exactly like them.
dylan

0 Replies

Cinnesthesia wrote:

Tico, can I ask you a personal question?

Ask away. I don't promise I'll answer, though.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Ican - did the FAA retire the tail number after you stopped being PIC of that plane?

N711NM is not Assigned/Reserved
source:
Civil Aviation Registry
AFS-700
PO BOX 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125

No offense meant, just curious!

None taken. Smile

We bought the Learjet from a private owner located in Florida. It's tail number then (for others reading this, a tail number is the aircraft equivalent of a license plate) was N50B. We requested the FAA change it to N711NM. As you know the first N signifies US registry. The date we were married is 7/11/54. The initial of my wife's first name is N, mine is M. Voila! N711NM. Eventually, after chartering it in Texas, we sold our Learjet to a charter firm in Tennessee. We lost track of it since then. Crying or Very sad

Perhaps they or some one they sold it to changed its tail number again.

By the way, I'd enclose the photo of it I have stored in my computer, if I knew how to do that.

0 Replies

Ah, that clears it up. Thanks, Ican. Btw, my Q about Boyd started with your signature, which seems like a direct quote from him - could be mistaken though.

With some delay, happy wedding anniversary to you and Mrs. Ican!

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cinnesthesia wrote:
Tico, can I ask you a personal question?

Ask away. I don't promise I'll answer, though.

Were you in the military?

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Ah, that clears it up. Thanks, Ican. Btw, my Q about Boyd started with your signature, which seems like a direct quote from him - could be mistaken though.

With some delay, happy wedding anniversary to you and Mrs. Ican!

We both thank you! Very Happy

The first sentence in my signature was borrowed from: www.m-w.com

Quote:

Main Entry: prob·a·bi·lism
Pronunciation: 'prä-b&-b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French probabilisme, from Latin probabilis probable
1 : a theory that in disputed moral questions any solidly probable course may be followed even though an opposed course is or appears more probable
2 : a theory that certainty is impossible especially in the sciences and that probability suffices to govern belief and action
- prob·a·bi·list /-list/ adjective or noun

The second sentence was my attempt to draw a smile in order to make the first sentence less obnoxious to those seeking or claiming to have found some certainty. I bet that no one has ever proven anything to a certainty without first making at least one assumption that cannot be proven to a certainty (e.g., one's perception of reality is an absolutely true perception).

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

McTag - if you cannot see the difference between soldiers shooting somebody who represents a danger to them, and somebody like a dog, who doesn't, then I have nothing further to say to you on the subject.

Boys shoot at squirrels. Men shoot at deer. Many people who buy guns (and that's a lot of people) wish to kill things with them. Almost NO hunter is threatened by the animal or bird he kills.

Soldiers- people in uniform? We can talk about them if you want. At road blocks in Iraq, civilians gunned down for no reason. Soldiers on patrol. Gunners in helicopters. Airmen in fighter jets. We have seen pictures and video film of this, and a sickening multiplicity of eyewitness accounts. The civilian death toll is now over 100 000 and rising.

But Vietnamese dogs? They couldn't possibly. Could they?

You bet they could.

0 Replies

You would win that bet, Ican, if anyone would bet against. It was proven in the 1920s in the great classic "Principia Mathematica" by Whitehead and Russell.

Sorry, now have to get back to work, but will leave you with a third and final pic:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2004/11/02/bushflag.gif

The people have spoken!

0 Replies

Cinnesthesia wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cinnesthesia wrote:
Tico, can I ask you a personal question?

Ask away. I don't promise I'll answer, though.

Were you in the military?

No. My wife was. I have other family that were, and are.

0 Replies

The terrible war casualties among innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have occurred if the al Qaeda in both countries had not declared war against Americans and committed acts of war againdt Americans. The terrible number of casualties among innocent civilians that have occurred since we deposed the Taliban and the Saddams, would not have occurred had not the surviving al Qaeda, Baathists, other insurgent Sunis, and the sabotaging Iranians not attemted to defeat Afghani and Iraqi efforts to establish a true liberty securing democracy.

The continued resistance by these people will continue as long as their pathological pursuit of power over their fellow arabs continues. That will of course continue casualties among civilians.

It's time we assign the blame where it truly belongs. The blame clearly belongs to those who perpetrate murder. The blame clearly belongs to those who perpetrate actions which limit the accomplishments of others. The blame does not belong to those who act to stop these perpetrators. The blame does not belong to those who act to enhance the liberty of others.

0 Replies

Thank you, Tico.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

It's time we assign the blame where it truly belongs. The blame clearly belongs to those who perpetrate murder.

In NYC, 3000 innocents killed.

In Iraq, 100 000 (and rising) innocents killed.

You do the math. No wait, I've just done it for you.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
It's time we assign the blame where it truly belongs. The blame clearly belongs to those who perpetrate murder.

In NYC, 3000 innocents killed.

In Iraq, 100 000 (and rising) innocents killed.

You do the math. No wait, I've just done it for you.

Thank you for "doing the math." Care to make a point that can be addressed? (By the way, I seem to recall another thread for "fuzzy math". Maybe this post belongs there?)

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
It's time we assign the blame where it truly belongs. The blame clearly belongs to those who perpetrate murder.

In NYC, 3000 innocents killed.
In Iraq, 100 000 (and rising) innocents killed.
You do the math. No wait, I've just done it for you.

Thank you for your assistance.

That's 103,000 (and rising) innocents whose killing was perpetrated and/or aided and abetted by al Qaeda, Iraqi Insurgents, Syrian infiltrators, Iranian infiltrators, and all those that have knowingly and willingly harbored them. None of these killings would have occurred had al Qaeda, had Iraqi Insurgents, had Syrian infiltrators, had Iranian infiltrators, and had all those that have knowingly and willingly harbored them, not sought to kill them or to prevent the democratization now sought by the Afghani and Iraqi people.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know