outrager

I don't think they've updated Vertigo web site in a while. Email or call Martha and Jimmy: phone /fax (435) 259-1085 adrenaline@vertigobase.com bsbd! Yuri.

Exactly. The shape is the most important issue here. Once you learn to fly well, the container drag becomes a noticeable issue. The exact numbers will vary but i remember Patric getting about 10% better perfomance just by adding a deflector to his skydiving rig. Merlin has a teardrop shape with most of the bulk on top and in the middle of a container, which is a much better solution. If you don't fly a suit or track hard, it works just like any other 2-pin rig. bsbd! Yuri.

Yo ! At the moment, there is only one wingsuit-specific container on the market, Vertigo's Merlin. It is by far the best one to use with a wingsuit, at least perfomance-wise. You can really notice a difference on the long flights. I have tried to push BR and CR to make something like that, but so far no luck. If you don't care about your flight perfomance, any of the containers in the poll will work equally well safety-wise. If you use Warlock, make sure it has a plastic-stiffner in the pin cover flap ("wingsuit mod"). bsbd! Yuri.

Yo! Washington is probably the closest big city, about 4.5h drive away. Pittsburg gets some international flights, it's 3h away. You can get a few local connecting flights into Charleston, about 1h away. I will be driving from Washington, drop me a line if you need a ride. bsbd! Yuri.

Yo ! A bit off topic, but couldn't resist (and Tom must be still recovering from the weekend)... found these old pictures during my last Moscow trip. The top 3 shots here: http://base416.com/day6.html bsbd! Yuri.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3913/bush_sizes_up_spain.html

"We have to kill them or else they will die" (c) South Park. It truly sucks there are so many brainwashed people in US... bsbd! Yuri.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/iraqwar_ru_018.htm April 1, 2003, 1404hrs MSK (GMT +4 DST), Moscow - As of the morning of April 1 active combat operations continued along the entire US-Iraqi front. The town of Karabela – one of the key points in the Iraqi defense – is subjected to a continuing artillery barrage. The town outskirts are being attacked by the coalition aviation. However, so far the US forces made no attempts to enter the town. Available information suggests that after evaluating Karabela’s defenses the US command made a decision to delay storming the town. Orders were issued to the coalition troops to move around the town from the east and to take control of the strategic Al-Hillah, Al-Khindiya, and Al-Iskanderiya region. Several largest highways are intersecting in this area, which also contains the three strategic bridges across the Euphrates. Gaining control of this “triangle” will finally open the way for the coalition troops into the valley between the Tigris and the Euphrates and the route to the Babylon-Baghdad highway. Yesterday and today early morning most heated combat continued in this area. During a night attack the US forces were able to reach the center of Al-Khindiya by 0800hrs and to move to the right bank of the Euphrates. However, their further advance was stopped by heavy fire from the Iraqi positions across the river. Al-Khindiya is being defended by up to 2,000 Iraqi soldiers and militia armed with up to 20 tanks and around 250 anti-tank weapons of various types. During this battle one US soldier was killed, 2 were missing in action and seven were wounded. For now it is impossible to determine the Iraqi losses. Throughout the night the US field commanders have reported at least 100 killed and 30 captured Iraqi soldiers and militia members. However, by morning the number of captured was revised down to less than 15. The [coalition] effort to capture Al-Hillah was unsuccessful. All attempts by the US troops to enter the town during the night have failed. Every time they were met with heavy Iraqi fire near the town. Intercepted radio communications show that one US APC was destroyed and at least 5 soldiers were killed and wounded. Fighting is continuing near An-Najaf. The town is currently surrounded from three sides by the US Marines, who are still unable to enter the town. The Iraqi positions are being subjected to artillery and aerial bombardment. No information is available about any losses in this area. Since 0700hrs reports are coming about large-scale attacks by the US Marines and infantry units against An-Nasiriya. As was previously expected, up to two Marine battalions deployed on the left bank of the river to the north of the town have begun advancing on An-Nasiriya from the north and are now trying to break the Iraqi defenses and to capture this strategic town. More than a hundred of aerial strikes have been delivered against the Iraqi positions [at An-Nasiriya] just during today’s morning. There is a continuing artillery barrage. All this indicates the US Marines are determined to fulfill their orders and take the town. However, so far neither Marines nor the paratroopers were able to widen their staging area or to break through Iraqi defenses. Radio surveillance indicates that during the morning hours of today there were 5 medevac helicopter flights to this area. At least 3 US soldiers were killed. Another US combat convoy crossed to the left bank of the Euphrates and by today’s morning reached the outskirts of the town of Ash-Shatra located 40 kilometers north of An-Nasiriya. This unit is now engaged in combat. For now there is no additional information about this convoy’s losses or movements. Localized fighting is continuing near Basra. Throughout the last night and today’s early morning the British forces were making attempt to capture the neighboring villages of As-Zubair and Suk-al-Shujuh, but, despite of overwhelming artillery and aviation support, the British were forced to return to their original positions. During these battles 1 British soldier was killed, 1 is missing and up to 5 were wounded. No information is available about the Iraqi losses. According to the reports by the British, at least 200 Iraqi troops were killed and no less than 50 were captured. However, only under 10 captured Iraqis were delivered to the British camp and only 4 of them were in military uniform. This was reported by one of the US journalist located in this area during a phone conversation with the editor. Active combat reconnaissance operations by both sides are continuing in the north of Iraq. There have been reports of an attack launched by an Iraqi battalion against the positions of a US combat unit from the 82nd Airborne Division. It was reported that during the night the Iraqis moved around the US position and in the morning attacked the US forces from the rear. A fierce exchange of fire is continuing in this area. The US forces have requested aviation support. The combat activity of the Kurds supported by the US forces was limited to clearing several areas occupied by its long-time enemy – the militant Islamic group called “Ansar al Islam”, after which the Kurdish units have stopped. Amid calls by the US military for a continuing offensive the Kurdish troops appear to be in no rush to engage the regular troops of the Iraqi army and are more interested in reaping the spoils of war. The Kurdish leadership is not particularly interested in “leading” the advancing forces. Instead they are calling on the US to strengthen the US forces deployed in this area. With at least another 2,000 paratroopers and to “bomb the Iraqis some more.” This indicates that the Kurds are not willing to move their forces too far from the home bases fearing an attack in the back by the Turkish troops. Their fears are reinforced by the continuing assurances by the US to respect Turkey’s territorial integrity. The term “territorial integrity” in this case covers almost 40% of the territory of the current Northern Kurdistan, which has the de facto independence from Turkey and Iraq. It is likely that the Kurdish forces will move forward only after the complete military defeat of the Iraqis, when their desire for the war booty will make them less cautious. Analysis of the present state of the US-British coalition fighting in Iraq suggests that the current active combat phase will last for about 4-5 days. After that the troops will once again require time for rest, repairs and reinforcement. Most analysts believe that this time the coalition will require more downtime than the last time, when it stopped for just long enough to get resupplied and immediately continued their advance so not to lose the initiative and not to let the enemy come to their senses. The price of putting this “squeeze” on the troops is enormous exhaustion and extensive wear of equipment, which is long overdue for serious scheduled maintenance. At the same time the fresh forces arriving in Kuwait from Europe and the US will not be able to join the combat before Monday April 7 as deployment of troops is progressing with many delays and is poorly organized. The units that already arrived [in Kuwait] cannot get to their weapons and the weapons already delivered here are sitting here without the troops to which they are assigned. Because of this the coalition command has ordered the attacking forces to be as aggressive as they can be to use this short time to break the Iraqi defenses along the entire line of the front. The troops are ordered by the end of this operation to advance to the starting positions for the final assault on Baghdad and to begin preparing to take the Iraqi capital. This order is specifically referring to the importance of An-Nasiriya, An-Najaf and the Karabela – Al-Hillah– Al-Iskanderiya “triangle”. These areas will see the most combat action in the upcoming days. Additionally, we should expect elements of the coalition forces reaching the Amman-Baghdad highway, currently controlled only by small US paratroop and special operations units and to form here in the area of Al-Khabbania the western side of Baghdad’s blockade. The Al-Khabbania region also contains three strategic airfields and large stores of weapons causing serious concern on the part of the coalition.

http://www2.iraqwar.ru/iraq-event_lenta_w.php?lang=en&archdts=2 Another link (translation source): http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/iraqwar_ru_017.htm Information is updated daily. English translations lag behind a bit (up to 24h). Below is the last one: ------------------------------------------------------------- During the night of March 30-31 the situation on the US-Iraqi front became increasingly more critical. All indications are that the coalition has launched a new attack. Following a three-hour-long artillery barrage and several nighttime aviation strikes the coalition forces came in contact with the Iraqi troops near Karabela and attempted to move around the Iraqi defenses from the east. For now the coalition is limiting its actions to probing the forward layer of the Iraqi defenses, attempting to assess its density and organization after nearly five days of artillery and aerial bombardment. There have been no reports of any coalition breaks through the Iraqi defenses in this area. At the same time morning radio intercepts uncovered a large US military convoy moving around the Razzaza Lake. At the moment it is unclear whether the purpose of this movement is to get to the town of Ar-Ramdia or a wider maneuver leading to the town of Al-Falludja. Another [coalition] convoy numbering up to 100 combat vehicles was seen near the town of Al-Hillah moving in the southeaster direction 30 kilometers from the strategic Baghdad-Basra highway. Given there is no Iraqi resistance this coalition force will be able to reach the highway by today’s night. So far there were no reports of any losses in this area. The US forces resumed attacking Iraqi defenses near An-Najaf. The US group of force in this area has been reinforced with at least three reserve Marine battalions and now Americans are trying once again to capture this key town. According to the US intelligence Iraqi defenses in this area number up to 3,000 troops aided by around 1,500 volunteers and [Ba’ath] party activists. The Iraqis here are armed with around 30 T-55 and T-62 tanks, up to four artillery batteries and more than 300 various anti-tank weapons. The town is being stormed by the elements of the 1st Marine Division numbering up to 6,000 troops assisted by 80 tanks and 60 artillery systems. Additionally, aerial support is provided by up to 40 helicopters. So far the Americans were unable to push the enemy. Early today morning an American tank was destroyed near An-Najaf. At least two of its crew were killed. Intensive exchange of fire is continuing in the vicinity of An-Nasiriya. The US Marines have so far been unable to side nth staging area they captured seven days ago on the left bank of Euphrates. The bridge connecting this staging area with the main coalition forces is nearly destroyed and is under constant fire from the Iraqi defenses located in the riverside city blocks. This is the reason why the [coalition] troops holding the staging area can only be reinforced by small and lightly-armed units and only during nighttime. During the past night alone the Marines holding the staging area sustained 2 killed and 5 wounded. The situation [for the coalition] is complicated by the fact that the residential blocks occupied by the defending Iraqis come to the very edge of the river, giving a significant advantage to the defenders who control the river and all approaches to the river. Currently the coalition artillery and aviation is methodically destroying these blocks in an attempt to push the Iraqis away from the shoreline. Intercepted radio communications indicate that the Marines engineering units are ordered to build a pontoon crossing up the stream from An-Nasiriya and move up to three battalions of Marines and troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the left bank of the Euphrates for a future strike in the rear of the An-Nasiriya garrison. The coalition command would have been ready to bypass other defended crossings on the Euphrates if it wasn’t for one problem: the entire group of forces has only two pontoon units. Any new pontoon units will arrive not sooner than in mid-April. A standoff between the Basra garrison and the British marine infantry is continuing in the area of Basra. Using localized attacks the British are attempting to “lean” on Basra as closely as possible and to tighten the blockade, but so far they were unsuccessful. Thus, during the last night the British attempted to take the town of Al-Hasib located 7 kilometers southeast of Basra. The British plan was to reach the Al-Arab River and to slice the local Iraqi defenses in half, separating Basra from the defending Iraqi forces on the Fao peninsula. Up to a battalion of the British marine infantry supported by armored vehicles entered the town of Al-Hasib from south but in less than an hour they were stopped by Iraqi fire and requested aviation and artillery support. Fighting for the control of the town is continuing. At least two British soldiers were killed and three were wounded in this battle. One British armored personnel carrier was destroyed. British commanders are reporting killing 50 Iraqis and capturing 10. In the area of the As-Zubair River port, which was declared to be under full coalition control just a week ago, a British patrol boat was attacked. The boat was carrying its crew and a marine infantry unit. As the result of the attack at least 4 British soldiers were killed and 9 were wounded. The official coalition losses are, to put it mildly, “falling behind” the actual figures. The 57 dead acknowledged by the coalition command reflect losses as of the morning of March 26. This information was provided to a BBC correspondent by one of the top medical officials at a field hospital in Al Kuwait during a confidential conversation. “We have standing orders to acknowledge only those fatalities that have been delivered to the hospital, identified and prepared to be sent back home. The identification process and the required standard embalming takes some time – occasionally up to several days. But only the command knows how many casualties we sustained today and you will learn about it in about three days…” [Reverse-translated from Russian] This conversation was taped by the journalist and sent to the editor via a cellular phone network. Based on the radio intercepts and internal information networks of the US field hospitals as of this morning the coalition losses include no less than 100 killed US servicemen and at least 35 dead British soldiers. Additionally, some 22 American and 11 British soldiers are officially considered to be missing in action and the whereabouts of another 400 servicemen are being established. The number of wounded has exceeded 480 people. US experts at the coalition command headquarters studied the cases of destroyed and damaged M1A2 tanks and various APCs. The conclusion was that without a doubt the Iraqis do possess modern anti-tank weapons but so far use them on a “very limited scale.” Only three tanks have been hit by guided weapons which destroyed these tanks with the first hit. The rest of the tanks were destroyed with more standard weapons. Some of the most common causes [of destroyed armor] include: anti-tank guns (about 40% of all hits), man-portable rocket-propelled grenade launchers (25% of hits), and landmines (25% of hits). Effectiveness of anti-tank artillery has been particularly high. “Impacts by high-velocity projectiles do not always destroy the tank and its crew. However, in 90% of all cases the tank is disabled and the crew is forced to abandon the tank on the battlefield…” – says the report that was distributed to the commanders of the forward units for analysis. Russian military analysts are advising the Iraqi military command against excessive optimism. There is no question that the US “blitzkrieg” failed to take control of Iraq and to destroy its army. It is clear that the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and the military campaign hit a snag. However, the Iraqi command is now in danger of underestimating the enemy. For now there is no reason to question the resolve of the Americans and their determination to reach the set goal – complete occupation of Iraq. In reality, despite of some obvious miscalculations and errors of the coalition’s high command, the [coalition] troops that have entered Iraq maintain high combat readiness and are willing to fight. The losses sustained during the past 12 days of fighting, although delivering a painful blow to the pride and striking the public opinion, are entirely insignificant militarily speaking. The initiative in the war remains firmly in the hands of the coalition. Under such circumstances Iraqi announcements of a swift victory over the enemy will only confuse its own troops and the Iraq’s population and, as the result, may lead to demoralization and a reduced defensive potential… Russian military analysts believe that the critical for the US duration of the war would be over 90 days provided that during that time the coalition will sustain over 1,000 killed. Under such circumstances a serious political crisis in the US and in the world will be unavoidable.

Yo! Will be in Cancun, Mexico in early May. Any info about the place is appreciated! My email is base416@yahoo.com bsbd! Yuri.

From Time magazine, an article by Brian Eno: http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2003/0120/cover/view_eno.html ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World To this European, America is trapped in a fortress of arrogance and ignorance Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascination and puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people? How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special interest groups? For me, the question has become: "How can a country that has produced so much cultural and economic wealth act so dumb?" I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better. That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 until 1983. That America was an act of faith — the faith that "otherness" was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it. But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious, introverted America, a country-sized version of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle. Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward — courageous, innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought — America's real wealth — is squandered. This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President. When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it, they're going to stop us from having it." But does everyone want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born of ignorance. Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We think it's important — civilized, in fact — to help people who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got. Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century. There's a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original idea? Brian Eno is a musician who believes that regime change begins at home ------------------------------------------------------- bsbd! Yuri.

The current trend is that the world is indeed uniting - against United States. bsbd! Yuri.

Yo ! This sounds like WO accident many years ago... bsbd! Yuri.

Yo ! It`s currently 1:34 from the highest, and must be 0 from the lowest ;-) bsbd! Yuri.

Yo ! Flying a wingsuit with a base rig allows you to pull incredibly low. Because of a large forward speed your deployment starts nearly horizontal and consumes very little altitude. I understand the question was not about safety ;-) bsbd! Yuri.

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml bsbd! Yuri

Yo ! In addition to premature container openings i have witnessed a couple of incidents in Kjerag where small pilot chutes escaped from oversized pockets (older Reactor containers). While those deployments were normal, it presents a lethal danger on multi-way jumps. The fix for this problem is obvious and easy - tighten the pouch, you can put a small S-fold on it in 5 minutes using just needle and thread. bsbd! Yuri.

On this particular road it's safe to run the toll booth. Cameras are fake. A bit harder since they put the gates in but if you tailgate somebody reasonably close gates stay open. There has been no toll enforcement on Beltway-Herndon stretch during the last 8 years. bsbd! Yuri.

Yo ! Another obvious strategy would be retaliatory strikes against various soft targets within U.S. (currently called terrorism). Unlike collateral damage in Iraq, killing civilian population in U.S. during the war would look perfectly justified in the eyes of a large part of the world population. By definition, in a democracy (ok, a republic) like U.S. the majority of its population is directly responsible for what the government and the country does. Killing voiceless civilians in Iraq, on the other hand, will be seeing as a slaughter. My office is less that 1/4 mile from the White House. If anything hits W. residence, i can only hope it's far enough. I wouldn't feel sorry for the target, though - it well deserves it. bsbd! Yuri.

Another great read from U.K. Times. Thanks to Winsor for posting it to rec.skydiving: Published on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 by the Times/UK The United States of America Has Gone Mad by John le Carré America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press. The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions. But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost - because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people - in Iraqi lives? How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election. Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy. The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist. God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas. Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God's work. In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that "somebody" was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy." But it's still not personal, this war. It 's still necessary. It's still God's work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people. To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil - but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't, won't. If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day - think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt. Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad. The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't get out. It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world' s greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys? Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy. There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship. I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect's sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.

Yo ! Don't you guys see ? She's just taking a leak! ;-) bsbd! Yuri.

Yo ! In case you aren't following onheading.com: http://noemata.net/nwt/ bsbd! Yuri.

Crossposted from BASE Board: http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/board/260.html bsbd! Yuri.

Yo ! I have landed in the water a couple of times after BASE flights. Both times i was fairly close to the shore and it wasn't a big deal. I had my arms unzipped right after opening and freed my legs after entering the water. I could swim easily, but the wings fill up with water and become a drag. Once you reach the shore/boat/etc be prepared for a huge extra water weight in the wings that you will have to pull up. As Jay said, moving water can be a real danger! Getting out of the suit underwater is nearly impossible. I would advice using some kind of a compact and quickly inflatable flotation gear (Aquaboy?) if you're likely to take a swim. bsbd! Yuri.

>I guess we'd better all get out there and find some pretty girls to take jumping, then. A solution for any smart girl that came up in PM exchange: If you let them score upfront before it even comes to BASE, the whole "using BASE to get laid" becomes irrelevant. Further on, even if you kept having sex with a typical BASE jumper (a male chauvinist pig) there shouldn't be any love-feelings-relationship BS, thus by definition you are not romantically involved. You will get objective high-quality instructions, lots of jumps and plenty of complimentary sex bsbd! Yuri.