US infantry Co remembers 9-11 shot from air

Please Go to : http://www.angelfire.com/wa/drdan71/

You will find an aerial photo as a tribute by Baker Company of the last
Infantry Battalion in Iraq to the victims of 9-11 and the fallen heroes
of the US military who died defending US and avenging the deaths of the
victims of the twin tower terrorists.

Here's a message from Baker Company's Top Sergeant:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The proud warriors of Baker Company wanted to do something to pay
tribute to our fallen comrades.
So since we are part of the only Infantry Battalion left in Iraq the one
way that we could think of doing that is by taking a picture of Baker
Company saying the way we feel.
It would be awesome if you could find a way to share this with our
fellow countrymen. I was wondering if there was any way to get this
into your papers to let the world know that "WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN" and
are proud to serve our country.

Semper Fi
1st Sgt Dave Jobe 'Baker 8"
----------------------------------------------------

You will also find many items of interest to all aviators especially a
link to a movie of the Martin Mars seaplane dumping a load of water.
It's awesome.

Thanks,
Dr Dan

"Dan Ross" wrote...
Please Go to : http://www.angelfire.com/wa/drdan71/

You will find an aerial photo as a tribute by Baker Company of the last
Infantry Battalion in Iraq to the victims of 9-11 and the fallen heroes
of the US military who died defending US and avenging the deaths of the
victims of the twin tower terrorists.

Of course, even "President" Bush himself now admits that there is no evidence
that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and we're still buds with the country that
actually supplied the manpower and payed for the operation, but hey, why get
bogged down in silly little details?

Marc -

While I almost always agree with your well-considered posts, here I must
strongly disagree. The troops of Baker Company, and their cohorts, have put
their lives upon the line to protect us and our way of life, while we enjoy
comforts they cannot even imagine. Many Americans seem to think that they
have no part in defending themselves, just let someone else do it.

Although you may consider mention of "9-11". etc., to be political, we have
been attacked. When under attack we must respond. If discussion of this is
inappropriate to this forum, then so is much of what has preceded.

Ed

Marc Ramsey wrote in message
. ..
My honest response is that I consider any post that mentions "Iraq",
"victims of
9-11" and "avenging the deaths" to be inherently political. I have no
doubt
this was a heart-felt tribute on the part of Baker Company, but the manner
of
its presentation here happened to anger me this morning. So be it. If no
one
posts any political pointers to tributes, I won't post any political
responses.
Back to soaring...

From: "E. A. Grens"
Date: 9/20/2003 7:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Marc -

While I almost always agree with your well-considered posts, here I must
strongly disagree. The troops of Baker Company, and their cohorts, have put
their lives upon the line to protect us and our way of life, while we enjoy
comforts they cannot even imagine. Many Americans seem to think that they
have no part in defending themselves, just let someone else do it.

Although you may consider mention of "9-11". etc., to be political, we have
been attacked. When under attack we must respond. If discussion of this is
inappropriate to this forum, then so is much of what has preceded.

Ed

Dear Ed:

I certainly support our troops and I would like to bring them home safe.
However, if you want to "avenge (ing) the deaths of the victims of the twin
tower terrorists" you should be in Saudi Arabia not Iraq. "President" Bush has
publicly stated that Iraq played no part in 9/11 whereas 15 of 19 terrorist
were from Saudi Arabia and 28 pages of the independent commission's report on
9/11 detailing the Saudi connections to 9/11 were blackout out by the White
House. In addition the case for war is coming apart at the seems. No WMD's.

A well known Senator has stated that Bush's reason for war with Iraq is
tantamount to fraud. When attached respond to the attachers, hence
Afghanistan. Where is Osma, not Iraq. In fact that was a country that was
non-secular and now women are being attached for not wearing Islamic clothing.
It is possible we just helped to make another fundamentalist country who will
hate all that is not Islamic.

Want to get back to soaring and take this discussion off line?

Craig

I have always, and do to this day, believe in a strong US military. Anyone
that thinks that their country should not be able to DEFEND it's population
AS NEEDED ignores the lessons of history. These lessons include but are not
limited to WW1, WW2 and 9/11. Who in the US on 9/11/01, when watching the
news, did not think we were under attack. The World Trade Centers and the
Pentagon....For the first time in my life I had a truley eery feeling about
my ability to continue existing.
Some people have used the term "avenging" the deaths of 9/11. That is not my
sentiment with regard to the perpetrators of 9/11. I want them stopped. I
want the US to do whatever we need to do to stop this kind of attack from
happening again in the future. I don't just want the scumbags killed.
Sadam Husein has never had any ties to these terrorists. In fact, they have
been at odds with each other. Hussein is not a muslim fundamentalist. In
fact he has always had disdain for them.
George W. Bush and Co. knew the day he took office that they would find a
reason to attach Iraq. They believe that our economy is based on oil. George
W. Bush is and has been owned by big oil since his father got him his first
job working for an oil company. We all knew that before he got "S"elected.
Isn't it strange that our petrolium prices are the highest they've ever been
since he's in office and, coincindentaly, the oil companies have reported
their greatest profits in history during this time. If you just find this a
meer coincidence then I suggest you take a look at you reasoning because
it's just a bit askew.
I believe in defending ourselves. I support the US military. I supported
going into Afganistan to eliminate the breeding ground for terrorists.
The INVASION of Iraq was wrong in my eyes. Let's not call it a war because
it wasn't. It was the US INVASION of Iraq.
I support and admire our men and women in the US military. I believe they
are necessary for this country (and others around the world) to survive. But
they must be used (as they are a tool of the president) responsibly. I think
George W. Bush's statement "Bring 'em on" with regard to snipers killing US
soldiers in the streets of Bagdad pretty much says it all.

David Norinsky
A Patriotic American

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
...

"E. A. Grens" wrote...
While I almost always agree with your well-considered posts, here I must
strongly disagree. The troops of Baker Company, and their cohorts, have
put
their lives upon the line to protect us and our way of life, while we
enjoy
comforts they cannot even imagine. Many Americans seem to think that
they
have no part in defending themselves, just let someone else do it.

Ed, I've tried to make it clear that my issue has nothing to do with Baker
Company. None of the words I have issue with came from their site. They
came
from the person who posted the link.

Although you may consider mention of "9-11". etc., to be political, we
have
been attacked. When under attack we must respond. If discussion of
this is
inappropriate to this forum, then so is much of what has preceded.

We have never been attacked by Iraq. Iraq attacked Kuwait 12 years ago,
that
war is over. We were attacked by Saudi Arabians (for the most part),
using
money from members of the Saudi royal family, of other prominent Saudi
families,
and from the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency. There is
absolutely
no evidence linking Iraq to 9-11. Sorry, but I don't think we should be
"avenging the deaths of the victims of the twin tower terrorists" by
invading
and occupying a country that had nothing to do with it.

Marc

From: "E. A. Grens"
Date: 9/20/2003 7:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time

...Although you may consider mention of "9-11". etc., to be political, we have
been attacked. When under attack we must respond. If discussion of this is
inappropriate to this forum, then so is much of what has preceded.

Ed


Well, said Ed! And I know I feel safer now that was have found and destroyed
all those WMD that were an imminent threat to "our way of life". We have
toppled Osma Hussian who supplied the murders for the airplanes and so far it
has only cost a mere 79 billion, well actually a a little more with the added
87 billion and more to come. But we have made our world safer, haven't we? We
have strengthened our ties with our European allies and we have shown we are a
responsible memember of the world community.

I think crack smoking is something you "Patriotic American Democrats"
are much better at.

HOW TO LOSE A WAR
Thu Sep 11, 8:02 PM

By Ann Coulter

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has been issuing diatribes against the Bush
administration that would surpass even Tariq Aziz with severe
menstrual cramps. This strategy has made him the runaway favorite of
the Democratic Party. Even Mr. War Hero, John Kerry, is getting
shellacked by Dean. At times Kerry seems almost ready to surrender,
making him look even more French. (If only Kerry had a war record or
an enormously rich spouse to fall back on!)

In the wake of Dean's success, the entire Democratic Dream Team is
beginning to sound like Dr. Demento. On the basis of their recent
pronouncements, the position of the Democratic Party seems to be that
Saddam Hussein did not hit us on 9/11, but Halliburton did.

Explaining his vote for a war that he then immediately denounced,
Kerry recently said his vote was just a head-fake, leading some to
wonder how many of Kerry's other votes in the U.S. Senate this would
explain. He voted for war only to bluff Saddam Hussein into letting in
the U.N. weapons inspectors. "It was right to have a threat of force,"
Kerry said, "because it's only the threat of force that got Hans Blix
and the inspectors back in the country." But he never imagined that
Bush would interpret the broadly worded, open-ended war resolution as
grounds to start an actual war! "The difference is," Kerry said, "I
would have worked with the United Nations."

None of the Democrats has the guts to come out and demand that U.S.
forces turn tail and run when the going gets tough. If only one of
them had the courage to demand cowardice like a real Democrat! So
instead, they stamp their feet and demand that Bush go to the United
Nations. Apparently it is urgent that we replace the best fighting
force in the world with an "international peacekeeping force," i.e., a
task force both feared and respected worldwide for its ability to
distribute powdered milk to poor children.

Inconsolable that their pleas to "work through" the U.N. did not stop
Bush from invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, now all the
Democrats are eager for the U.N. to get involved so it can wreck the
rebuilding process. Since we didn't let the U.N. lose the war for us,
the least we can do is let them screw up the peace.

The idea that we would involve those swine in the postwar occupation
of Iraq is so preposterous that it's under serious consideration as
next week's slogan for the Howard Dean campaign. I hesitate to raise
it to the level of a serious argument by offering a rebuttal, but as
luck would have it, we have two models for how to occupy a country
after a war. Getting "the allies" involved is not the winning model.

After World War II, the United States ran the Japanese occupation
unilaterally. Without the meddling of other nations, the Japanese
occupation went off without a hitch. Within five years, Gen. Douglas
MacArthur had imposed a constitutional democracy on Japan with a
bicameral legislature, a bill of rights and an independent judiciary.
Now the only trouble Japan causes is its insistence on selling good
products to Americans at cheap prices.

By contrast, the German occupation was run as liberals would like to
run postwar Iraq -- a joint affair among "the Allies," the United
States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. It took 45 years to
clean up the mess that created.

The Soviets bickered with the French, refusing to treat them as
"allies" (on the admittedly sensible grounds that they didn't fight).
While plundering their zone, the Soviets refused to relinquish any
territory to France. Trying to be gallant, the U.S. and British carved
a French zone out of their own sectors. The Soviets then blockaded
Berlin, built the Berlin Wall, and Germany was split for the next 45
years.

The British made Germany's war-torn economy worse by trying to impose
socialism in their zone (as well as in their country). Predictably,
economic disaster ensued. Over the next five years, the U.S. was
required to spend the equivalent of about $200 billion annually in
today's dollars to bail out Western Europe under the Marshall Plan. I
note that there was no need for a Marshall Plan in Japan.

And the disastrous German occupation is the best-case scenario for
"international peacekeeping." The less rosy picture involves the
defaced corpses of American servicemen being dragged through the
streets by dancing, cheering savages, as happened under "international
peacekeeping" forces in Somalia in 1993. Showing that America is not a
country to be toyed with, our draft-dodging, pot-smoking commander in
chief responded by withdrawing our troops.

So naturally the Democrats are rooting for an international force in
Iraq. The Democratic logic on national defense is: As soon as anyone
in the military gets his hair mussed, we must pull out and bring
"international peace-keeping" forces in. Our boys are in harm's way!
People are dying! Bush lied when he said major combat operations were
over! Let's run. That'll show 'em.

It was not lost on Osama bin Laden that it only took 18 dead in
Somalia for the Great Satan to pull out. It should not be lost on
Americans that this is what the Democrats are again demanding we do in
Iraq.