USAF F-16 Instructor Discusses Flying Into MOAs

[Larry Dighera]

Here's an interesting subject:

FLYING INTO MOAs: THE MILITARY PERSPECTIVE
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080404&kw=AVwebAudio)
Monday's podcast
(http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20080331&kw=FollowUpPodcast) with
a California pilot who was intercepted and shadowed

(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/F16EncounterAngersPilots_197487-1.html)
by an F-16 in a military operating area (MOA) ignited a firestorm
of debate on our blog, the AVweb Insider

(http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_IfYouCantHandleMigs_F16s_MOAs_197 505-1.html).
Lt. Col Fred Clifton, a retired F-16 pilot who now instructs at
the Air Force's weapons school at Nellis Air Force Base in Las
Vegas, joined the debate from the military pilot's perspective.
AVweb's Russ Niles spoke with Clifton about why it's important
that civilian pilots be aware of and avoid active MOAs.

Plus, the original story and podcast about Pilatus pilot Patrick
McCall's brush with an F-16 generated several listener comments
that we'll share.

Click here (http://www.avweb.com/podcast/files/2008-04-04.mp3) to
listen. (10.6 MB, 11:35)

Before I comment, let me assure you that I always contact FSS to learn
the status of any MOAs along my planned route of flight. I always
either avoid hot MOAs or coordinate transit with the controlling
agency. I believe this is what a prudent pilot should do.

However, in the case in point it would seem that the F-16's
interception of the Pilatus may constitute a violation of CFR Title
14, Part 91, Section 91.111:


§ 91.111 Operating near other aircraft.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft so close to another aircraft
as to create a collision hazard.

(b) No person may operate an aircraft in formation flight except
by arrangement with the pilot in command of each aircraft in the
formation.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft, carrying passengers for
hire, in formation flight.


While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
prior arrangement.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 4, 10:17*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Here's an interesting subject:

> Before I comment, let me assure you that I always contact FSS to learn
> the status of any MOAs along my planned route of flight. *I always
> either avoid hot MOAs or coordinate transit with the controlling
> agency. *I believe this is what a prudent pilot should do.

I've found pilot's opinions and actions with regard to MOAs is very
regional. Those of us that fly in the SouthWest have learned that
flying through hot MOAs is necessary since most of the country is
either MOA or restricted. However, since MOA is specifically joint use
(VFR and military) pilots normally assume that by coordinating with
ATC you can avoid problems. In this case the pilot was talking with
ATC but the F-16 was not. The F-16 choose to jump the pilot without
informing ATC. Its a bit like a guy in a motorcycle swooping around a
guy on a bicycle. I would like have been upset as well. Again, I
realize that pilots from the midwest and east coast will see it
differently because they can just avoid hot MOAs.

-Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:32:10 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Apr 4, 10:17*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> Here's an interesting subject:
>
>> Before I comment, let me assure you that I always contact FSS to learn
>> the status of any MOAs along my planned route of flight. *I always
>> either avoid hot MOAs or coordinate transit with the controlling
>> agency. *I believe this is what a prudent pilot should do.
>
>I've found pilot's opinions and actions with regard to MOAs is very
>regional. Those of us that fly in the SouthWest have learned that
>flying through hot MOAs is necessary since most of the country is
>either MOA or restricted.

That was the situation in this case. The flight to Corona KAJO to
originated at Scottsdale KSDL.

>However, since MOA is specifically joint use
>(VFR and military) pilots normally assume that by coordinating with
>ATC you can avoid problems.

That would be a valid assumption in my opinion.

>In this case the pilot was talking with ATC but the F-16 was not.

It would be interesting to know if the controller mentioned the
current active status of the MOA.

>The F-16 choose to jump the pilot without informing ATC.

That would seem to be a violation of FARs, IMO.

>Its a bit like a guy in a motorcycle swooping around a
>guy on a bicycle.

There is one important difference; there is no Vehicle Code statute
prohibiting that (is there?).

>I would like have been upset as well.

I, like the Pilatus pilot, would have been expecting the F-16 to
signal me to land or follow as part of an interception.

In the podcast, the F-16 instructor indicated that F-16s are equipped
with VHF radios. It would seem that the intercepting F-16 pilot did
not attempt to contact the Pilatus nor ATC, because there was nothing
for him to say, and it may have revealed his identity.

>Again, I realize that pilots from the midwest and east coast will
>see it differently because they can just avoid hot MOAs.

My experience has been, that MOA airspace is usually designed so that
flights to or from airports that lie virtually within the MOA can be
made without actually entering them.

In this case, the Pilatus was transiting the MOA at 16,500' en route
to Corona. There has been no mention of the ATC controller advising
the Pilatus of the status of the MOA or attempting to coordinate with
the MOA controlling authority. If the USAF is frustrated by civil
aircraft exercising their right to transit joint use airspace, it
would seem to me, that it is incumbent on them to suggest alternative
procedures/regulation to the FAA, not violate FARs.

AOPA should do that first, if GA wants to see their interests
considered. What do you think about an order mandating ATC to pass
the non-military flight to the military controller with authority over
the military operations occurring within the MOA, so that controller
can assist the civil flight in minimizing its impact on the military
maneuvers something like is done in TRSAs? If the military controller
were unreasonable in handling of the civil flight, its PIC could
decline participation, thus preserving the existing Joint Use aspect
of MOAs.

[buttman]

On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
> exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
> FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
> prior arrangement.

The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
they go by.

[Jim Logajan]

buttman > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 11:17 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
>> exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to
>> violate FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft
>> without prior arrangement.
>
> The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
> they go by.

WRONG.

That is a common, but incorrect, belief. Here are the laws (you may
browse them starting from [1]) that grants FAA authority even over
military operations and the cases when the military may deviate from FAA
regulations (note (d)(4) and (d)(6)):

" TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

subpart i--general

CHAPTER 401--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 40101. Policy
[...]
(d) Safety Considerations in Public Interest.--In carrying out
subpart III of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable
in carrying out subpart III, the Administrator shall consider the
following matters, among others, as being in the public interest:
(1) assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as
the highest priorities in air commerce.
(2) regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety
and fulfills national defense requirements.
(3) encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new
aviation technology.
(4) controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating
civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of
the safety and efficiency of both of those operations.
(5) consolidating research and development for air navigation
facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities.
(6) developing and operating a common system of air traffic
control and navigation for military and civil aircraft.
(7) providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the
enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled substances,
to the extent consistent with aviation safety." [2]

And here are the exceptions under which the military may deviate from
those regulations:

"Sec. 40106. Emergency powers

(a) Deviations From Regulations.--Appropriate military authority may
authorize aircraft of the armed forces of the United States to deviate
from air traffic regulations prescribed under section 40103(b)(1) and
(2) of this title when the authority decides the deviation is essential
to the national defense because of a military emergency or urgent
military necessity. The authority shall--
(1) give the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration prior notice of the deviation at the earliest
practicable time; and
(2) to the extent time and circumstances allow, make every
reasonable effort to consult with the Administrator and arrange for
the deviation in advance on a mutually agreeable basis." [3]

[1] http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title49/subtitlevii_.html

[2] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+49USC40101

[3] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+49USC40106

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT), buttman >
wrote:

>On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
>> exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
>> FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
>> prior arrangement.
>
>The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
>they go by.

That is true. However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
parallels the FARs.

http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file25.html
5.3. Proximity of Aircraft. The PIC must not allow the aircraft to
be flown so close to another that it creates a collision hazard.
Use 500 ft. of separation (well clear) as an approximate guide
except for:

5.3.1. Authorized formation flights.

5.3.2. Emergency situations requiring assistance from another
aircraft.

NOTE: If an emergency requires visual checks of an aircraft in
distress, the PIC must exercise extreme care to ensure this
action does not increase the overall hazard. The capabilities of
the distressed aircraft and the intentions of the crews involved
must be considered before operating near another aircraft in
flight.

5.3.3. MAJCOM-approved maneuvers in which each participant is
fully aware of the nature of the maneuver and qualified to
conduct it safely (for example, interceptor attack training).

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT), buttman >
> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>
>>> While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
>>> exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
>>> FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
>>> prior arrangement.
>>
>>The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
>>they go by.
>
> That is true. However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
> parallels the FARs.
>
> http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file25.html

It doesn't merely parallel the FARs, it _incorporates_ them:

"1.1.2. This AFI is a common source of flight directives that include:
1.1.2.1. Air Force-specific guidance.
1.1.2.2. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).
[...]
1.2.1. The PIC will ensure compliance with the following:
[...]
1.2.1.3. The FARs when operating within the United States including
the airspace overlying the waters out to 12 miles from the US
coast, unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
excluded military operations."

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 4, 2:28*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >>The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
> >>they go by.
>
> > That is true. *However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
> > parallels the FARs.
>

Perhaps the point though is that the FAA cannot take action against
the F-16 pilot. Perhaps if he has a civilian ticket they can suspend
it but he may not even care. In anycase, I just hope that the
visibility of this has been enough to discourage this type of incident
from happening in the future. I fly with my 2 young sons in the back.
I would be pretty upset if we were assulted in such a way.

-Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:28:02 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT), buttman >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 4, 11:17*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While I can appreciate the AF's frustration at having their training
>>>> exercises interrupted, I doubt that that gives them license to violate
>>>> FAR 91.111(b) by flying in formation with a civilian aircraft without
>>>> prior arrangement.
>>>
>>>The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
>>>they go by.
>>
>> That is true. However AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-202 pretty much
>> parallels the FARs.
>>
>> http://www.f-16.net/downloads_file25.html
>
>It doesn't merely parallel the FARs, it _incorporates_ them:
>
>"1.1.2. This AFI is a common source of flight directives that include:
> 1.1.2.1. Air Force-specific guidance.
> 1.1.2.2. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).
>[...]
> 1.2.1. The PIC will ensure compliance with the following:
>[...]
> 1.2.1.3. The FARs when operating within the United States including
> the airspace overlying the waters out to 12 miles from the US
> coast, unless the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
> excluded military operations."

So it would appear that the F-16 pilot in this case violated
regulations when he formed up on the Pilatus.

The problem with military regulations violations is, that the military
doesn't discipline their ranks commensurate with the violation(s).
Consider flight-lead Parker who lead his wingman into a fatal MAC with
a Cessna 172 on November 16, 2000. He failed to comply with
regulations to brief the terminal airspace, failed to obtain the
required ATC clearance to enter congested Class B and C terminal
airspace, and a list of other violations, but he only received a
verbal reprimand. In another incident, an A4 on a MTR hit a glider,
and the Navy and NTH found the glider at fault despite its having the
right-of-way. And with the current administration, you can expect a
further decline in justice in our fair nation.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 4, 3:18 pm, buttman > wrote:
>
> The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
> they go by.
>

The military is subject to the FARs.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 4, 3:19*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> On Apr 4, 3:18 pm, buttman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The military doesn't have to obey the FARs. They have their own rules
> > they go by.
>
> The military is subject to the FARs.

But any punitive actions as a result of such violations are up to the
discretion of the military.

-Robert

[CriticalMass]

> And with the current administration, you can expect a
> further decline in justice in our fair nation.

With respect to illegal immigration, yes. In all other respects, you're way
better off than you'd be with any alternative administration.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> And with the current administration, you can expect a
> further decline in justice in our fair nation.

Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
the WMDs they lied about in the first place?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote
>> Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
>> trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
>> the WMDs they lied about in the first place?
>
> Probably because someone would have to do the "planting" and all-hell
> would break loose and heads would roll when their book hit the book store
> shelves.
>
> Bob Moore

Someone would have also have had to do the planing of the big lie.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> And with the current administration, you can expect a
>> further decline in justice in our fair nation.
>
>Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
>trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
>the WMDs they lied about in the first place?

There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
political gain.

Watch the 1st half of Frontline piece, and your questions will be
answered: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ . Until
you've done that, you lack the proper perspective to discuss the
topic.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> And with the current administration, you can expect a
>>> further decline in justice in our fair nation.
>> Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
>> trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
>> the WMDs they lied about in the first place?
>
> There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
> the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
> Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
> political gain.

You have got to be kidding! If there had been evidence of WMD or better
yet a tank full of anthrax sitting next to a missile delivery system the
American people would still be 75% in support of any action that the
Bush administration has taken or might ever take in the Mid-East.


>
> Watch the 1st half of Frontline piece, and your questions will be
> answered: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ . Until
> you've done that, you lack the proper perspective to discuss the
> topic.

Eat **** Larry. I don't get all my news and current events information
from a single source and anyone that does be it PBS or Fox News is an
idiot. I'm pretty sure if they had come up with some new information
that proves that the Bush administration intentionally lied about WMDs
I'd have heard about it. Probably from C-SPAN when the article of
impeachment were drawn up.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 7, 8:55*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> > Probably because someone would have to do the "planting" and all-hell
> > would break loose and heads would roll when their book hit the book store
> > shelves.
>
> > Bob Moore
>
> Someone would have also have had to do the planing of the big lie.

Don't burst the bubble. The great thing about conspiracy theories is
that you can't disprove them. They are self-proving.
Interesting that DC can't keep a BJ secret but apparently they can
keep projects secret like UFO's, alien abductions and Iraq
conspiracies secret.

If you want to get information out to the public quickly, just make it
top secret.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 7, 9:26*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder

> Watch the 1st half of Frontline piece, and your questions will be
> answered:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/. *Until
> you've done that, you lack the proper perspective to discuss the
> topic.


So you have to watch a documentary made by a democrat funded
organization (PBS) before you can discuss the topic?? You know that
Republicans have been trying to pull the plug on public funding of PBS
for decades and that there is no love for Republicans at PBS.


-Robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:41:49 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> And with the current administration, you can expect a
>>>> further decline in justice in our fair nation.
>>> Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
>>> trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
>>> the WMDs they lied about in the first place?
>>
>> There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
>> the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
>> Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
>> political gain.
>
>You have got to be kidding! If there had been evidence of WMD or better
>yet a tank full of anthrax sitting next to a missile delivery system the
>American people would still be 75% in support of any action that the
>Bush administration has taken or might ever take in the Mid-East.
>

Why would they need that?

>>
>> Watch the 1st half of Frontline piece, and your questions will be
>> answered: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/ . Until
>> you've done that, you lack the proper perspective to discuss the
>> topic.
>
>Eat **** Larry.

No thanks.

>I don't get all my news and current events information
>from a single source and anyone that does be it PBS or Fox News is an
>idiot. I'm pretty sure if they had come up with some new information
>that proves that the Bush administration intentionally lied about WMDs
>I'd have heard about it. Probably from C-SPAN when the article of
>impeachment were drawn up.

Who cares?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:18:38 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>On Apr 7, 9:26*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
>
>> Watch the 1st half of Frontline piece, and your questions will be
>> answered:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/. *Until
>> you've done that, you lack the proper perspective to discuss the
>> topic.
>
>
>So you have to watch a documentary made by a democrat funded
>organization (PBS) before you can discuss the topic?? You know that
>Republicans have been trying to pull the plug on public funding of PBS
>for decades and that there is no love for Republicans at PBS.
>
>
>-Robert


I posted a link in the original article in the "OT: Bush's War' thread
that indicates that PBS programming is more conservative than liberal.
I guess you missed that.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote:

>Don't burst the bubble. The great thing about conspiracy theories is
>that you can't disprove them.

If you are referring to the Frontline piece Bush's War, it is told in
the words of those who caused it. You actually see and hear the words
coming from the mouths of Chenny, Bush, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, ...
You are free to make you own inferences, if you are interested enough
in the subject to view it.

[Kyla =^..^=]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:41:49 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

> Eat **** Larry.

*plonk*
--
Kyla%b
now deleting entire thread

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote:
>
>> Don't burst the bubble. The great thing about conspiracy theories is
>> that you can't disprove them.
>
> If you are referring to the Frontline piece Bush's War, it is told in
> the words of those who caused it. You actually see and hear the words
> coming from the mouths of Chenny, Bush, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, ...
> You are free to make you own inferences, if you are interested enough
> in the subject to view it.


That's great. And editor is a very powerful machine. Hence to problem of
getting all your info from one place.

Hell, I'd bet that if I had seven to eight hundred hours of you talking
on video I could make you come off as something other than an idiot. No,
wait, It's been a long time since I ran an editing machine I'm probably
not that good anymore.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:41:49 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:38:20 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>> And with the current administration, you can expect a
>>>>> further decline in justice in our fair nation.
>>>> Larry, did you ever decide why, if the government would go to all the
>>>> trouble of setting up a big lie to get us into Iraq they wouldn't plant
>>>> the WMDs they lied about in the first place?
>>> There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
>>> the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
>>> Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
>>> political gain.
>> You have got to be kidding! If there had been evidence of WMD or better
>> yet a tank full of anthrax sitting next to a missile delivery system the
>> American people would still be 75% in support of any action that the
>> Bush administration has taken or might ever take in the Mid-East.
>>
>
> Why would they need that?
>

So they could keep there profiteering as an ongoing enterprise for more
than 8 years? If it weren't for the war in Iraq the Dems wouldn't have a
chance in hell of winning in '08. Even with the war it isn't a sure thing.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 7, 11:26 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
> the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
> Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
> political gain.
>

Who received personal and political gain from the war in Iraq?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:42:41 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> So they could keep there profiteering as an ongoing enterprise for more
>> than 8 years?
>
> It's unlikely the Iraq occupation will end in our lifetime.
>
> I'm sure Karl Rove knew a Republican president after Bush wasn't
> likely way before the last election.
>
>
OT

Of course he did. Because there were no WMDs found in Iraq.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:42:41 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

>So they could keep there profiteering as an ongoing enterprise for more
>than 8 years?

It's unlikely the Iraq occupation will end in our lifetime.

I'm sure Karl Rove knew a Republican president after Bush wasn't
likely way before the last election.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:54:11 -0700 (PDT), "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>On Apr 7, 11:26 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
>> the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
>> Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
>> political gain.
>>
>
>Who received personal and political gain from the war in Iraq?

The recipients of non-competitive contracts and those corporations
that thrive on war materials and equipment.

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

>> Who received personal and political gain from the war in Iraq?

> The recipients of non-competitive contracts and those corporations
> that thrive on war materials and equipment.

That's peanuts. Think big, think oil.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:05:22 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Think big, think oil.

Are you referring to the oil price run-up and obscene oil company
profits ostensibly caused the "instability" in the region caused by US
military operations?

Have you any idea of the profits made by Halliburton, Carlyle Group,
Blackwater, ...?

[news.chi.sbcglobal.net]

"The recipients of non-competitive contracts and those corporations that
thrive on war materials and equipment."

You really should learn a bit more about the contracting process in general,
government contracts in particular, and war-time contracting specifically.

While there were some no-bid contracts, most of these were not
"non-competitive". Further, for some of these contracts, there may not be
but one or two companies that could even do the work required.

I have heard the types of comments you are making more than once, and in
every instance they have been made by people who really didn't have a clue
regarding the accusations they are making...




"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:54:11 -0700 (PDT), "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>On Apr 7, 11:26 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>
>>> There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
>>> the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
>>> Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
>>> political gain.
>>>
>>
>>Who received personal and political gain from the war in Iraq?
>
> The recipients of non-competitive contracts and those corporations
> that thrive on war materials and equipment.
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:22:20 -0500, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> wrote:

>Further, for some of these contracts, there may not be
>but one or two companies that could even do the work required.

In this case, soldiers are complaining that they can't do their own
laundry, because Halliburton is charging us $99.00 a load to do it for
them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
http://iraqforsale.org/ . Prisoner interrogation is out-sourced;
private contractors are not signatory to the Geneva Convention.
Blackwater security guards are exempt from local and federal laws
while operating in Iraq. Halliburton charges US tax payers $99.00
per load to wash solders laundry, and solders are ordered not to
do their own. This article
<http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30834> is two years old;
there are over 50,000 Peruvian mercenaries now in Iraq.

[news.chi.sbcglobal.net]

And where is information from any reputable news or other source confirming
this?

YouTube is hardly a reliable journalistic source...



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:22:20 -0500, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> > wrote:
>
>>Further, for some of these contracts, there may not be
>>but one or two companies that could even do the work required.
>
> In this case, soldiers are complaining that they can't do their own
> laundry, because Halliburton is charging us $99.00 a load to do it for
> them:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
> http://iraqforsale.org/ . Prisoner interrogation is out-sourced;
> private contractors are not signatory to the Geneva Convention.
> Blackwater security guards are exempt from local and federal laws
> while operating in Iraq. Halliburton charges US tax payers $99.00
> per load to wash solders laundry, and solders are ordered not to
> do their own. This article
> <http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30834> is two years old;
> there are over 50,000 Peruvian mercenaries now in Iraq.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 7, 4:58 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:

>
> >Who received personal and political gain from the war in Iraq?
>
> The recipients of non-competitive contracts and those corporations
> that thrive on war materials and equipment.
>

Name them. How did they gain politically?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:31:32 -0500, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> wrote:

>YouTube is hardly a reliable journalistic source...

You obviously didn't watch it. You can see soldiers saying they have
been instructed not to do their own laundry, so that Halliburton can
get their $99/load. Surely you aren't calling our fighting forces
liars, are you?

[Bill Denton[_2_]]

As I said, "YouTube is hardly a reliable journalistic source..."

So I don't bother watching it for any sort of news coverage.

I've got a really nice Sony HD Video camera, and I bet I could line up ten
soldiers whose personal experience would support just about any claim I
chose to make.

But one's personal experience hardly represents an overall situation.
Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant?

Given the liberal agenda of much of our nation's media don't you think we
would have seen loads of stories on the laundry situation if it actually
existed?





"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:31:32 -0500, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
> > wrote:
>
>>YouTube is hardly a reliable journalistic source...
>
> You obviously didn't watch it. You can see soldiers saying they have
> been instructed not to do their own laundry, so that Halliburton can
> get their $99/load. Surely you aren't calling our fighting forces
> liars, are you?
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 06:26:30 -0500, "Bill Denton"
> wrote:

>As I said, "YouTube is hardly a reliable journalistic source..."
>
>So I don't bother watching it for any sort of news coverage.
>
>I've got a really nice Sony HD Video camera, and I bet I could line up ten
>soldiers whose personal experience would support just about any claim I
>chose to make.
>

The same could be said of the Abu Ghraib photographs leaked by British
troops. Perhaps your insistence to remain blind is clouding your
judgment.

>But one's personal experience hardly represents an overall situation.
>Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant?

I believe it is your unwillingness to inform yourself that contributes
to your being even less aware of the truth than the fabled blind men
and the elephant.

>Given the liberal agenda of much of our nation's media don't you think we
>would have seen loads of stories on the laundry situation if it actually
>existed?

You may characterize the news media as liberal, but it is the duty of
journalists to expose deceit and corruption, because we won't be
hearing if from the administration. Your choice to ignore the news
only makes you less knowledgable, not patriotic. Enlighten yourself.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On Apr 8, 6:43*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> You may characterize the news media as liberal, but it is the duty of
> journalists to expose deceit and corruption, because we won't be
> hearing if from the administration. *Your choice to ignore the news
> only makes you less knowledgable, not patriotic. *Enlighten yourself.
>

His choice to ignore the "news" makes him less likely to be
misinformed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:32:25 -0700 (PDT), "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>On Apr 8, 6:43*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> You may characterize the news media as liberal, but it is the duty of
>> journalists to expose deceit and corruption, because we won't be
>> hearing if from the administration. *Your choice to ignore the news
>> only makes you less knowledgable, not patriotic. *Enlighten yourself.
>>
>
>His choice to ignore the "news" makes him less likely to be
>misinformed.

It also makes him less likely to informed.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:54:11 -0700 (PDT), "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Apr 7, 11:26 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> There was no need to find WMD; their objectives were accomplished when
>>> the RNC and their spokes-puppet Bush under the direction of
>>> Darth-Chenny conned us into engaging in the Iraq war for personal and
>>> political gain.
>>>
>> Who received personal and political gain from the war in Iraq?
>
> The recipients of non-competitive contracts and those corporations
> that thrive on war materials and equipment.
>
>

I'm pretty sure I asked you who else, other than Big H do you think
would have been able to bid on those contracts. I'm also pretty sure you
never answered.