Indeed the irony has not been lost on me as well Swerve, sadly the meaning of Liberalism has been so twisted in the American psyche that it has come to mean Communism for many.

Gladstonian-Liberalism (something that I have generally adhered to in my political beliefs, albeit I also believe social-liberalism should play an important part of any healthy government as well) is very close to what many on the American right want:

From the font of all truth Wikipedia

Gladstonian Liberalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gladstonian Liberalism is a political doctrine named after the British Victorian Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party, William Ewart Gladstone. Gladstonian Liberalism consisted of limited government expenditure and low taxation whilst making sure government had balanced budgets. Gladstonian Liberalism also emphasised free trade, little government intervention in the economy and equality of opportunity through institutional reform. It is referred to as classical liberalism or laissez-faire liberalism in the UK.
Gladstonian financial rectitude had a partial lasting impact on British politics and the historian John Vincent contends that under Lord Salisbury’s premiership, he “left Britain’s low tax, low cost, low growth economy, with its Gladstonian finance and its free trade dogmas, and no conscript army, exactly as he had found it…Salisbury reigned, but Gladstone ruled.”[1] However in the early twentieth-century the Liberal Party began to move away from Gladstonian Liberalism and instead developed new policies based on social liberalism (or what Gladstone called “constructionism”).
The first Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Snowden, had Gladstonian Liberal economic views. This was demonstrated in his first Budget in 1924; government expenditure was curtailed, taxes were lowered and duties on tea, coffee, cocoa and sugar were reduced. A. J. P. Taylor has written that this budget “would have delighted the heart of Gladstone.”[2] Ernest Bevin remarked upon becoming Minister of Labour in 1940: “They say that Gladstone was at the Treasury from 1860 to 1930”.

AiM-7M is obsolete vs a fighter, Iraq shouldnt accept them or the planes if they havnt already an alternative weapon solution,
the problem is that the a/c has to keep flying in collision course to guide the missile, while any adversary exchange missile
can be left to do its own guidance while the opposite a/c do the sensible thing of turning away, hard.
Iraq must reserve the option to equip these fighters with an alternative missile, or ditch the deal.

I suggest you go and actually learn how AIM-7M actually works before writing it off as totally obsolete, everybody gets so hung up on it not being a fully active missile like AMRAAM butit most certainly isn’t a bad missile.

AIM-7M is a late generation semi-active missile, the launch aircraft DOES NOT need to maintain a head on straight line course when launching this missile. The launch aircraft can manoeuvre whilst keeping the radar locked onto a target, common tactic with this type of missile is to manoeuvre by up to 45 degrees post launch whilst keeping the radar at the target. AIM-7M also has a large warhead, ECM resistant and more discriminating then a fire and forget weapon.

The statement regarding the Iraqis wish to buy the Superhornet were made by both the Iraqi minister of defence and the commander of the Iraqi Air Force. The idea was killed already before the DSCA request stage… thus you wouldn’t see any official paperwork. Iraqis were told categorically that these would be denied.

Sorry saying “minister x” or “Airforce commander y” said they wanted Super Hornet but there is no corroborating paperwork to prove it is borderline asinine. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I don’t believe you, show some real evidence that this is the case not a second hand account of something that cannot be proven. I am not saying you have made this up but I need something more then what you are saying. Until you can show evidence otherwise that Iraq wanted the Super Hornet and not the F-16 it is not a real proposition beyond the kind of baseless rumours that spread on the internet.

In fact the final specifications for the F16-IQ were actually drawn up by the Americans for the FMS request since they told the Iraqis what would be accepted and what would be rejected… thus the inclusion of missiles that have been out of production for 25 years! in a neighbourhood brimming with AEW tottting AMRAAM armed neighbours…

Even Iraqi requests for JDAM/SDB were turned down… instead they were “allowed” some LGBs and mavericks!
The IFF transponder they were not allowed to set themselves… and it comes unencrypted (and unchangeable).

Welcome to the world of American FMS sales, that is exactly how it works. The US will draw up significant aspects of what a nation can have based on an FMS request, that often means a country will receive what America thinks is appropriate for that country not always what they want . Talk to Finland or Pakistan on that matter, it is normal US practice as is restricted access to the black boxes usually involving anti-tamper seals. Even tier 1 US partner nations like the UK or Australia don’t always get access to IFF settings. In return you get access to US training and maintenance support plus a large installed user base. The restrictions that are being placed on Iraqi F-16 are no different to what other nations have to agree to and I think the weapon and sensor package is more then adequate for Iraq considering the benefits of an FMS contract. No doubt over time the US will furnish Iraq with other weapons as is needed, if you don’t like it then indeed there is no stopping Iraq shopping elsewhere. Other nations in the area like Saudi Arabia have worked under exactly the same restrictions and have intentionally purchased elsewhere as well.

Ultimately the Iraqi purchase of the F16 is an expensive mistake.

Considering how good a deal an FMS contract and the global success the F-16 is plus its potential to easily integrate other weapons I can’t agree with that.

It most certainly is not junk by any measure! I see no evidence that America is being particularly restrictive with the F-16IQ sell beyond what is normal practice with an FMS contract. Integrating AIM-9X and AMRAAM is not that a significant issue, just a couple of software drops away plus the required support equipment. The Iraqi F-16 order includes 120 LAU-129/A Common Rail Launchers which are fully compatible with the AIM-9X and AMRAAM. They are also ordering 120 JHMCS which says to me they plan to have a HOBS missile in the future. Also remember the F-22 is only just getting a restricted initial operating capability with the AIM-9X and the AIM-9M is still the principle missile for that type. Frankly the other stuff in the order is more important then the air to air missile fit at the moment. The order includes targeting pods, Paveway-II/III kits, Maverick and DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods. They are waaaaay more useful to Iraq at the moment then getting AIM-9X or AMRAAM especially as those missiles are simple to integrate down the line.

Respectfully whilst Sheytanelkebir has good local knowledge his assertion that the F-16 was a second choice to the F/A-18 Super Hornet does not stand scrutiny. I have seen no official evidence that Iraq wanted the Super Hornet or the F-16 was a second choice. There is plenty of evidence that they pushed hard to get the F-16 whilst it was still in production. The Block 52+ they are getting are arguably superior to the standard Block50/52 and it has been argued that model should of got a new Block number.

Sorry maybe the Iraqi rumour/blogosphere has rumours of a request for the Super Hornet but unless there is an official FMS request to the US government or a genuine request for pricing from Boeing I don’t believe it. On the other hand we have plenty of evidence including the FMS request for the F-16 and that order is being serviced, the order includes a very reasonable and affordable weapons package that Iraq will take a number of years to fully integrate and I am in no doubt there will be a follow on order for AMRAAM and some form of HOBS missile down the line.

I see no evidence of America being particularly nefarious in respect of this contract. The Iraqi airforce has to walk before it can run.

Well that is a bolt from the blue and very good news. I wonder if we can persuade them to add ARTISAN to their ANZAC upgrade as well.

So what? that is a list of systems. It means nothing without knowing their performance. This isn’t top trumps!

The USS Constitution has 3 masts and 52 cannon. That makes it superior to the 052D, like you I am going to assert that with no evidence.

Tell me what systems are fitted to the 052D and what their performance is. If you can’t do that then you can’t assert its superiority to anything.

How good is its CMS? What is the radar performance? How well integrated are the different systems and weapons? What is the relative performance of those weapons? How well built is the vessel? How good are its c4i systems? How good are its elint systems? What is the performance of its ECM/ECM?

Until you give those answers you can’t just say it is superior or give a vague demand to show a US vessel that is superior?

You keep on stating that Chinese equipment is superior without ever qualifying that with evidence.