May 12, 2004
Mexican Air Force pilots film UFOs
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexican Air Force pilots filmed 11 unidentified flying objects in the skies over southern Campeche state, a Defense Department spokesman confirmed Tuesday.
A videotape made widely available to the news media on Tuesday shows the bright objects, some sharp points of light and others like large headlights, moving rapidly in what appears to be a late-evening sky.
The lights were filmed on March 5 by pilots using infrared equipment. They appeared to be flying at an altitude of about 3,500 meters (11,480 feet), and allegedly surrounded the Air Force jet as it conducted routine anti-drug trafficking vigilance in Campeche. Only three of the objects showed up on the plane's radar.
Posted by Muddy at May 12, 2004 11:37 AM
Full Story @ CNN.com
see, that's how the illegal aliens are coming to the U.S. via spaceships.
haha i liek your explanation muddy, but honestly, it looks like arty rounds or asteroids.
I guess sightings in Mexico City have been getting more and more frequent in recent years... often thousands have seen the same UFOs in public settings (according to TLC)
The thing that strikes me is that they have an air force! I could care less aout UFO sightings, but Mexico has an air force?! Why?!
Somebody has to buy those jets that our tax dollars pay to manufacture, how else will a VP at Lockheed be able to afford a summer home in Vail in addition to his mansion in San Diego?
IS something wrong with owning a summer home in vail in addition to a mansion in San Diego? (BTW, doubt a VP at lockheed would live in San Diego when they have plants here in Atlanta and in Dallas, TX.)
Sides, I doubt the MExican air force has anything remotely as advanced as what is built now. Plus, our tax dolals pay for jets to be built for our use, I wish they'd hurry up on the purchase of things like the new huey and the new cobra...would make my life easier.
Yes, I have a major problem with war-profiteering... I could try to put in to words why it is a bad thing but USMC Mjr General Smedley Butler said it better, http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
He was reffering to WWI and historical wars but since then the blatant use of US forces for the benefit of specific corporations rather than the critical defense of the Republic itslef has become more and more commonplace, to the point of being the status quo.
Weapons systems are among the most profitable products arround, often it is necessary to market these things with a percieved threat, even if the perception is greatly exaggerated.(like a UFO, or a terrorist)
I believe in the necessity of a secure national defense but that is not the same thing as a military hegemony as imagined by the Axis and now realized by the CIA and pentagon.
"...often it is necessary to market these things with a percieved threat, even if the perception is greatly exaggerated.(like a UFO, or a terrorist)"
The perception of a terrorist is a greatly exaggerated perceived threat? I didn't realize it was even *possible* to "exaggerate" a terroists threat.
Mrs. Muddy: look at how many Americans die each year from 'terrorism' and compare that to how many die from other, preventable things, then look at how much public money/debt is spent on fighting terrorism compared to other things (lack of public healthcare, curable cancers, poverty, etc www.cdc.gov is a good resource to get some perspective on what is really killing Americans every year). Therein lies the exaggeration. If the government cares about saving American lives it could save thousands yearly for a small fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars we are now borrowing against our childrens future to kill more and more people worldwide.
Fist of all I don't mind spending billions on fighting terrorism. I'd rather we get them first on *their* soil before they get us on *our* soil. I'm not talking about "picking a fight" because that's not what we're doing. I'm talking about finishing the fight (although it will never be completely "finished") THEY started with us.
2nd: I understand what you're saying about how many Americans die every year from preventable things. Certain forms of heart diseases, obesity, cancer.....but *I* truely believe ALOT of these diseases could be not only cured but PREVENTED by each person taking more responsibility on how they take care of their own bodies. Most people die as a result of the irresponsible choices THEY make for themselves. Proccessed foods and Junk food restaurants (or "fast food" as the rest of the world calls it) are such a HUGE culprit - in *my* personal opinion - in laying the foundations for a breeding ground to alot of those problems like the heart disease, obesity, cancer on so on.
Also, allow me to add on to another thing you said:
"If the government cares about saving American lives it could save thousands yearly for a small fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars we are now borrowing against our childrens future to kill more and more people worldwide."
We're NOT killing people worldwide for sport. We're doing it to save and preserve not only *our* way of life right now BUT *to* preserve a future *for* our children so they *will* actually *have* one.
Besides, look at the billions of dollars the gov. pisses away every year on failed "systems" like the 'war on drugs' (oh, yeah, we're making headway there) and the welfare system - which is in need of some MAJOR "fine-tuning". If we could learn to spend money more wisely (or in some cases - not spend the money at all on old broken down 'systems' that aren't working anyway) then alot of our countries "financial problems" would be solved. But that's MHO.
I'm talking about finishing the fight (although it will never be completely "finished")
so you acknowledge you are in the wrong.
"A war you can't win is a war you have already lost."-Me
"THEY started with us."
Mrs. Muddy that statement is extremely ignorant and false. Us vs. them is the most basic of mind control schemes. If THEY means the terrorists who attacked the pseudo-civilian target of the WTC then THEY were not from Iraq, THEY died on 9/11.
Yes, junk food (and red 'texas' meat) are bad for Americans, dependance upon it contributes to thousands of American deaths, why is there no war on junk food? Why no 'junk food tax'? Surely it wouldnt take $1trillion to make real progress in a "War on Obesity".
"We're NOT killing people worldwide for sport."
Correct. We are killing them for the hundreds of billions of dollars that has already been dished out mostly to executives at defense contractors. Despite 're-enlistment bonus' (have fun spending that $5000 when you're in a wheelchair) almost all of the money goes to CEO's and not GI Joe.
The welfare system got a major reform to 'Workfare' from Gengrich in 1996, obliterating it's budget and requring poor recipents to be shipped to the suburbs where they work at places like American Bandstand Grill for LESS than minimum wage, often leaving their children home alone. Welfare is not even a drop in the bucket compared to the Pentagon.
The war on drugs was Bush's dads idea (possibly to increase profit on nacotics sales) and it is a tremendous waste of money considering the invisible impact on drug abuse of the series of secret central and south american wars in the 1980's(and it also locks up millions of americans who could otherwise be contributing positively to the economy), but those funds are insignificant compared to the immense levels of Pentagon funding we now see.
"preserve a future *for* our children so they *will* actually *have* one."
Terrorism was never even remotely close to being a leading cause of death for children or anyone else. The most notorious terrorist acts in America during recent years include the 1992 WTC bombing(possibly by PLO splinter cell), The Unabomber (American mathematician Kazinsky), OKC Bombing(USMC trained McVeigh), 9/11(AlQaeda/CIA), DC sniper(USMC trained Muhammed). Terrorists in general and Al Qaeda in specific have never made any plans to wipe out all Americans (if our boys had secretly stoppped one, you bet they would have taken credit for it) and it is not our 'way of life' that makes them carry out a suicide attack. Their reasons are various. They want to expose corruption (unabomber). They demand ransom(Muhammed). They want our troops out of their counrty. They want our covert ops and intel pesonnel out of their governments and oil businesses(Al Qaeda, other arab units). Mostly, International terrorists are concerned with getting our troops off their soil- surely you can relate, occupation is something we ourselves would never tolerate of another country.
We were led to believe that a despotic tyrant Hussein was the devil and once we 'take him out' things will be OK. Isnt it funny how quickly the Devil named Saddam was supplanted with a previously unheard of, but now totally evil "Radical Cleric" He is radical because he believes Iraq should form it's own government based on traditional ways of their own choosing as opposed to the Capitalist 'Democracy' that we have gone 5000 miles to bring them. There will always be a new enemy.
It cracks me up when people say the Iraqi's are so much better off than they were before we decimated their national defense and Infrastructure. Are the 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians better off? The 40,000 Iraqi's now in Gitmo-style (YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH) prisons like Al-Gharib? The 350,000 Iraqi Christian's who under the new Islamic governors are no longer given the protection of religious freedom that they had under Saddam?
First there was WMD, then we were liberators for democracy, then everyone agrees Saddam was probably evil, the mission was accomplished, the Devil was hiding in a dirt hole and now the boogey man is a Cleric. Where is Osama? Probably celebrating in his new corner office at Langley or enjoying some horseback riding in Crawford. We the people who are stuck paying the tab are getting screwed by both sides. Contractors like Halliburton 'relocate' on paper to the carribean and don't even pay taxes on the money they are given by their friends in DC.
Meanwhile the planet (more specifically, humanity) is actually in grave danger due to our precious American 'way of life'. All of this defense money could be used to reduce dependency on oil producing nations, thereby reducing pollution in addition to relieveing political pressure in the mid-east, instead we increase pollution (what kind of mileage does a AC-130 get? a carrier? a hummer?) Despite the official claims of the Commander in Chief, global warming is real. Under Asshcrofts 'Patriot Act' Greenpeace, Tommy Chong, ACLU and Sierra Club are classified as terrorist cells. In the days before the Columbia was destroyed they conclusively and scientifically proved such (too bad much of there data was lost). This week we find that pollutiion is so bad that we have a global loss of sunlight... the implications to the food chain are chilling(pun). But who has time to worry about that when 2 men might be getting married somewhere. I see on the local news today that both today's record high and record low were set within the last 10 years, consitant with the effects of Global warming. At an alarming rate we are losing our insulation that once kept us safe from skin cancer due to solar radiation as well as keeping us warm in winter and cool in summer. The planet does need America to take the lead and guide us through an unprecidented global problem, but the most dangerous enemy is not terrorism it is pollution due to consumption.
I'd like to clear something up, the DC sniper was not trained by the Marine Corps, he was trained by the Army - and not as a sniper. And I can promise you he did not learn all his marksmanship skills from the Army since they only teach field firing techniques unlike the Marine Corps. He did however work at the same base as the US Army's sniper school, so he could have picked up information second hand, which is not unusual in the military. However marksmanship training is fairly simple (really folks,s hooting a rifle accurately is just a matter of a steady hand) so he could have taught himself. McVeigh may have been trained byt he Corps, but not as a bomb builder - such a thing does not exist in the Marine Corps. The closest thing would be a combat engineer (they blow up bridges) but they are trained to use things like C-4 and dynamite.
Other than everything else you said, I haven't got time to address most of the stuff you said
"I haven't got time to address most of the stuff you said"
It's pointless anyhow. This is the same person who said that the ten commandments are 'tools of hebrew oppression'
a constant source of humor.
Smoke another doobie and see what else you can come up with and remember: Since you pay for everything you complain about (with your tax dollars) that makes you ever bit as guilty.
"I'm talking about finishing the fight (although it will never be completely "finished")"
"so you acknowledge you are in the wrong."
No, I *acknowledge* the fact that there are many people, groups, countries, ect....who hate us. Mabey more specifically, (now that I think about it) I should have said that there are (and will always be) many *battles* within the "big war" on terrorism. We will win many battles BUT because there is ALWAYS going to be SOMEONE *somewhere* who hates us for SOME reason....then No, the war on terror itself will most likely Never be over completely....at least not *this* side of Heaven.
"A war you can't win is a war you have already lost."-Me
Well yes, that is very well true - to a certain degree. However - and I don't mean to steal your thunder but YOU did not come up with that statement. I've heard it before.:-) But like I said, people will *always* be crawling out of the wood work who have been waiting in a long line behind some one else who hates us just as much - who are all just wanting for a chance to "take us out" in some way shape or form. So in a way, it's not exactly that this war CAN'T be won but more specifically, it will never be over....but now I'm just sounding repetitive.
"THEY started with us."
"Mrs. Muddy that statement is extremely ignorant and false. Us vs. them is the most basic of mind control schemes. If THEY means the terrorists who attacked the pseudo-civilian target of the WTC then THEY were not from Iraq, THEY died on 9/11."
Well 1st of all: YOU were comming across as if you believe the war on terror is not necessary. Like it is "exagerated" (a word you used) in some way and that the US was just using terroism as an excuse to "kill more and more people world wide" (a phrase you *also* used). Maybe that's NOT how you ment it (and if I misunderstood, I appologize) but that is how it came off.
2ndly: "If THEY means the terrorists who attacked the pseudo-civilian target of the WTC then THEY were not from Iraq, THEY died on 9/11."
Actually, No, THEY did NOT die on 9-11 - not ALL of them anyway. Bin Laden is still out there somewhere alive and probably very well and so are his followers. Those "people" (and I use that term extremely loosly) Who flew the planes into buildings on that day were - I'm sure - just a small few of them.
3rdly: You're right, I don't believe anyway - that any of the 9-11 terrorist where from Iraq. Iraq also wasn't involved with 9-11....well, not *directly* but INdirectly....yes. There are reports (at least what I've been reading anyway) that do link Sadam to terroists that were involved (in some way or another) to Al-queda and other groups...so Sadam was not innocent on those acounts - gee, surprise surprise.
"why is there no war on junk food?"
I have a personal "war" against it and I make my statement everytime I *don't* buy it. But as far as an actual "war" goes,in a way, there is a "war" on junk food. Or at least junk/fast food when stupid people file lawsuits against McDonals because they are "tired" of not being told that their food was bad and now they want the industry to pay for their bad health. Like it actually takes a person of exuberant intellegence to realize that fast food is not exactly up to healthy standards.
"Why no 'junk food tax'?"
I think there *should* be. That way when someone's health starts to deteriorate because of it then they can dip in to the "junk food tax money pot" and pay for their own treatment instead of relying on my tax dollars to pay for their irresponsible eating habits. Then again, we ALL have things we probably would be better off NOT eating.
"Terrorism was never even remotely close to being a leading cause of death for children or anyone else."
I never said it *was* the leading cause of death for anyone. There are ALL kinds of threats in this world. Terrorism can very well affect us in a more dangerous manner than it already has. Biological and chemical weapons and so on. My point is that it IS a threat. No matter how big or small one may think it is. I would rather us do our best to take care of (or at least lessen) the threat of it now before it gets too big *to* handle/contain.
"Terrorists in general and Al Qaeda in specific have never made any plans to wipe out all Americans"
How do YOU know what their plans are?! When was the last time you talked with one! And, for your information...Al Qaeda Does want to "wipe out all Americans". That would mean YOU too. Why? Because they believe their "god" is telling them to do so.
"Mostly, International terrorists are concerned with getting our troops off their soil- surely you can relate, occupation is something we ourselves would never tolerate of another country."
I think they just want us out so THEY can have it and become the latest tyrant to the people there. At least, that's MY thinking.
"It cracks me up when people say the Iraqi's are so much better off..."
You mean they aren't? Are you and Hillary Clinton using the same drugs? Are women and children being kidnapped and raped by the secret police? Are entire families disappearing because they show the slightest disdain for their gov.?
"Are the 10,000 dead Iraqi civilians better off?"
Are you talking about the number of Iraqis that Saddam butchered during his reign? Because that number you gave should be MUCH higher.
Actually, I'm personally quite sick to death of people AND the media always focussing on what is *wrong* over there and giving just a *taste* of what is right. As far as the news goes, I think for every 5min. they spend on the down side of things (and yes, some things ARE indeed still quite nasty - to say the least) they should spend *10* min. focussing on the good. But as always, the struggles are the focus and are also what drives up the ratings.
"First there was WMD,"
Still are somewhere. Impatience, impatience.
"then we were liberators for democracy,"
Well, we thought they deserve a country without Saddam where they can decide for themselves what *they* want.
"then everyone agrees Saddam was probably evil,"
Probably? And that Osama comment of yours is just too ridiculous for *me* to even comment on. Personally - and I really mean no offense - I can't believe I actually spent *this* much time replying to you on this....we're most likely NEVER going to see eye to eye on this but I just wanted to clarify some things *I* had said earlier. Well, that's all for me right now. Have a good weekend.
"First there was WMD,
Still are somewhere. Impatience, impatience."
They are somewhere alright:
Oh but that doesnt fit your anti-American/anti-Christian, left wing theories does it bennyhill?
Therefore this cannot possibly be true.
Besides your a hugh hipocrite. Look around bennyhill, your living the exact lifestyle that you are complaining about. You no different than the CEO who takes a hugh bonus. The only difference is the level (and dont lie to yourself, if you were the CEO you undoubtably would accept the bonus. But maybe that is the point. Your not, so your bitter). You have taken bonus's from your former employer and I didnt hear you complain THEN about all the people on welfare. Your bonus alone would have bought some family Christmas.
Your another airmchair American blinded by their own objectivity and oblivious to your own level of greed.
You take the money and you pay the taxes. Therefore you ever bit to blame as anything the Government does. After all you fund them. By choice I would like to add. You do have a choice, you know. There are alternative places to live that more fit your philosophy. (France comes to mind. Maybe China. Yea, you wouldnt last 30 seconds in a Communist country. Not to mention be able to afford the lifestyle you take for granted on the average salary in China. Yea I am sure you would love to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for a fraction of what your used to making.)
I dont think that you have every really hurt a single day in your life, bennyhill. Maybe thats the real point. Do you feel guilty about that?