Originally posted by google
Ah, so now the tune is being changed from WMD to terrorists? Besides Saddam’s giving money to the families of palestinian suicide bombers, which has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, there has never been any evidence of Al-Qaeda terrorists working with Saddam. Powell admitted as much this year, but now that there is a power vacuum in the region, of course there are a gazillion crazy AQ wackos all waiting to blow up the US.

On January 8, 2004, Powell conceded that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no “smoking gun” proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda. “I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,” Mr. Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2344058

The removal of Saddam from Iraq was a stabilizing factor int he region

Would you care to explain how this is so? Now all the ethnic groups in Iraq are at each other’s throats, and the situation is far less controlled than in the Saddam-era. In fact, without a strong Iraq, a resilient and rising Iran will be forthcoming.

I don’t see what was said that “changed the tune.”
It seems that you weren’t following the events from the start, since this war was not about “WMD” or “Al-Queada”, or “human rights issues” alone.

Saddam was in material breach of UN resolutions for weapons systems that he was not “supposed” to develop, use of these weapons, and affiliations with TERRORISIM. He financed terrorists, this is a known fact. Terrorists trained in Iraq(under his control or not), this is a fact.
The UN voted UNANIMOUSLY that if he did not: a. give inspectors “unfettered” access to EVERYWHERE. b. document ALL his weapons programs to the UN. He would face “SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.”

Saddam CONTINUED to mislead inspectors. Saddam did NOT document ALL of his weapons programs, not even considering the “supposed” WMD’s.

Bush went to the UN to get them to ENFORCE THEIR OWN RESOLUTION. But they didn’t, they wanted to give him more time, just a few more months. More time while the Iraqi people suffered under UN resolutions.

When we talk terrorists, why assume Al-queda alone, they’re all terrorists, and they all have a common goal. Saddam funded terrorists.

Saddam may or may not have had stockpiles of WMD’s, but he definatly maintained the abilitryt to make and use them. Nobody mentions the LIVE culture of botulinin found, able to be used to , well, MAKE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, or Botox. The fact that it was found in a weapons scientist’s hpome, kinda rules out cosmetic applications. Longer than allowed range missles were found, and FIRED at US troops. Hollow warhead missle and rockets were found–able to be quickly filled with any biotoxin/chemical weapon needed. Plans for nuclear programs were found. Long range(Isreal) missle programs were under way. Chemical plants of dubious nature were found, including those mobile labs.

All in all, Saddam could have rebuilt his stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons in less than a year, with his current programs restarted, once the inspectors left.

There’s no change in tune, Saddam’s Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions, and the UN didn’t want to do anything(like in Rwanda, somalia, etc.)and AGAIN, becaus of UN inaction, millions of Iraqis were to suffer. The US followed through, the people of Iraq have a future, and Saddam will meet justice.

As far as Iraq being a stabilizing factor.

Iraq has a brighter future than ANY mideast country. There is still fighting, especially in the Sunni regions(like the killings today), but the PEOPLE are better off. As of now, they’re still rebuilding, recovering, and haven’t even had ELECTIONS yet!

Give them time! Remember, they’ve just been through a 40 year dictatorship, ethnic/relighious persectuion at the hands of said dictator, an 8 year war with Iran, more oppression/murder/tyranny, another War, this time with severe bombings, 12 years of UN sanctions(where European High-ups skimmed the top off the oil for food program, along with , again, the dictator), small bombings/attacks by coalition aircraft during the 12 year peiod, small uprisings here and there, followed by gassings(dictator, again), and to top it all off–another WAR! This time, an invasion, by the same people that bombed the crap out of them just over a decade ago.
The fact that Iraq is wher eit is, only a YEAR after the start of the war, is amazing.
You DO NOT see the whole picture on whatever news your’re watching. US troops have been very well recieved considering they’re an occuping force. the IRaqi people WANT them to leve, probably almost as much as the troops want to go home! But they DO NOT want them to go UNTIL Iraq is able to stand on its own.

Iraq was a powder keg in the region, a large, powerful nation, ruled by an evil, all-powerful dictator, with questionable mental stability. The region was uneasy becasue of Saddam, and his tendancy to INVADE OTHER COUNRIES, and GAS HIS OWN PEOPLE.

Saddam is gone, the Mideast is more stable because of it. Now, palistinian terrorist aren’t getting paid off to kill innocents, NOw, they have to recruit 15 year old kids with social anxiety disorder, and convince them that “the 70 virgins will accept them, once they blow themselves up.”

When Iraq has elections, and an eleted government is established, and the Iraqi police and Army are large enough, and stong enough to keep the peace, Iraq will be the richest nation in the Mideast, next to Saudi Arabia. With a democraticlly elected government, the policies will favor the population rather than the house of Saud, and, eventually, Iraq will be the center of the Mideast. iraq’s rise from the dictatorial hellhole it was under Saddam, to the economic powerhouse it will be, will greatly influence the future of the Mideast. Other muslims, seeing how a democratic system has transformed Iraq, will follow through.

Iran’s youth is educated, and knows the future lies on a different path than the Mullahs/ With influence of a strong, friendly, stable, non-dictatorial Iraq, Iran will undergo a (hopefully peaceful) revolution, hopefully followed by Syria and Saudi Arabia.

It’ll probably take decades, but with Iraq as a starter, it’s at least on the timetable.

Originally posted by aCiDHg
i like the f22 but what “many countries” can outclass f15? typhoon? su 27+ series? rafael? j10? the yanks w/ their force integration, doctrine & force multipliers & sheer numerical superiority can kick any1 & every1’s derri¨¨res under most conditions farfar into the future even with the current force as is.

& letz all hope none of the major nuclear powers adopt overtly aggressive postures towards eachother shall we…all of them got too much to lose when push comes to shove…

YEs, the US CAN win against prettymuch anybody, because of our force integration. However, what good is THAT going to be in 10-20 years, when EVERYIONE else is flying things that can shoot down our integrated force?

Russia has Sam systems with a 200mile + range–goodbye AWACS. The defense against such a system? stealth aircraft, that are LESS detectable, making the SAM range drop from 200 miles to, to less than a hundred, within range of standoff weapons.

China IS being used as AN example, but all of you are so far off in your assesment that it is “THE” example of a potential future enemy.
The US is looking into the future to start developing weapons, FOR, the future. Who are we going to face? North Korea, maybe, China, maybe, Iran, Syria, maybe? A breakaway Russian province that’s got a hold of some “missing” nukes, and is threatening the world? Maybe. we just don’t know. If we DO NOT think of ALL possible situations, China included, we’re going to be surprised.

Originally posted by GoldenDragon
American fingerpointing actually has become a joke because it’s hypocritical and totally out of touch with reality.

When pre-invasion Gallup polls had the US being considered by Europeans as one of the most dangerous countries in the world at the same time that the US was claiming Iraq and North Korea as threats, it is pretty funny 😀

North Korea wasn’t much of a threat–Kim Jong il wanted nukes so he could bargain with US like he did Clinton, not to give them to terrorists so they could do his “dirty work” for him. People were lead to believe they were a threat because they claimed they had nukes, big deal. The media fed it to them.

Iraq, while less of a strategic threat, was a greater immediate threat. If Saddam gave weapons to a terrorist, it would be bad. He was funding terrorists, terrorists were IN Iraq, and he was not listening to the UN. Iraq was not much of a direct threat, but had the potential to threaten us through terrorists.

The removal of Saddam from Iraq was a stabilizing factor int he region. Fixing up the country, after a decade of suffering under inept UN sanctions and an oppressiv eleader, was the best thing we could to to stop terrorism.

When Iraq is considered a threat, keep in mind we’re not talking about Iraq landing on the US shores–we mean through terrorism, destabalization.

the only way to really hurt the US is by terrorism, and that’s where the threat lies. Anyone connected to terrorism needs to be delt with, and Saddam was simply next in line.

Oh, I see now.
I wasn’t intending that. The people in Congress pushing for the Raptor will, and should, use every situation possible for promoting the raptor.

India’s Sukoi’s dominating the visual range area with F-15’s was the best example, I think they simply said: “see what the Indians did with these things? The Chinese are going to buy HUNDREDS of the things.”

Just to justify the F-22.

I wouldn’t take offense, at all. This is the way th eUSAF has to plan. Unfourtunatly, the politicians can’t see the need for a fighter now if it might NOT be needed in 10-20 years–they have a problem with foresight. They just needed a concrete example, and china, a HUGE, communist state, with a huge army, is a more effective demonstrator of potential threat than, well, just about anyhting since the USSR.

As far as the Carriers, they keep them “available’ all the time. Not JUST to keep China from getting any immediate ideas about Taiwan…

Originally posted by plawolf
again, as with so many, u dont properly read the post and go shooting off on a tangent (no offence).

when have i even said a nation needs to totally disarm?:rolleyes:

yes nuclear tipped ICBMs helped to keep the peace (it was the peace of the gun, but at least it was peace i suppose:rolleyes: ), and ur point being?

“If the Us accepts the status-quo, the US will eventually fall.
The maintanence of the huge gap between “US and THEM” will continue to keep THEM from getting any ideas about attacking US. Therefore, the money is well spent. VERY Well spent.”

and i suppose u dont understand what the term ‘status quo’ means.:rolleyes:

by status quo, i meant maintaing the current force balance that US has with everyone else, not as saying the US dont buy any more weapons for the next malenia.:rolleyes:

sure by not only maintaining the status quo but also futher tipping the balance in america’s favour, it will help to make sure no-one gets any ‘ideas’ about america, but what makes u so sure america will not start to get any ‘ideas’ about ‘them’ instead?:rolleyes:

That’s what I meant–the status quo, as of now, involves US air superioriority mad eup of 30 year old aircraft, versus NEW Sukoi aircraft.

to try to maintain the CURRENT status quo–US air superiority/dominance–with CURRENT f-15’s and 16’s would be a very very BAD idea.

The idea is to create the BEST aircraft, not one that’s “good enough”. If it’s overkill, good, this way it’ll remain the BEST, longer, saving us money in the long run.

Originally posted by plawolf
“
what might have happened had the bush administration and clinton administration before it paid more attantion to world terrirosm instead of being fixated by china (and iraq in bush’s case)? how many extra counter-terrirost agents could the US have feilded if only 1% of the american military budget had been used on CT instead of buying weapons to fight a war that will never happen? how many more agents would there be if 2% had been used? 3%?………….

One HUGE factor that you are totally neglecting…

the ONLY REASN that THAT war will never happen is because of weapons like the F-22, the B-2, and other “wasteful” spending.

Under that logic, one could say that the ballistic missle was a useless, wasteful weapon. However, it may have PRVENTED eithe rthe US or USSR from kiling each other.

The f-22 may not ever fire a shot–the fewer opponents it has to face, the better it has done it’s job.

If the Us accepts the status-quo, the US will eventually fall.
The maintanence of the huge gap between “US and THEM” will continue to keep THEM from getting any ideas about attacking US. Therefore, the money is well spent. VERY Well spent.

Originally posted by Srbin
I know most of you are for the F-22, but I don’t see why can’t the F-35 do a similar job, what air superiority will be in there in the future to achieve? Over Indian and Chinese Flankers? Over the Eurocanards? Over the future Russian PAK-FA? The F-35 should be able to handle the Flankers and the Eurocanards in Air to Air battles, not sure about the PAK-FA. I don’t see much need for so many Raptors, or Raptors in general.

The F-35 is much slower, smaller, and less capable in air-to air.

the F-22 will carry as many missles as 2 F-35’s, carry them faster, and fire them at longer ranges(bigger radar).

IT also has thrust vectoring, for better manuverability.

The F-35 is an all around aircraft, like the F-16. The F-22 is air-superiority, like the F-15.

You want the raptors tangling with the flankers, Firefoxes, future fighters, and the F-35 dropping bombs.

As far as future threats.

We can only guess.

Do you want to just suppose that future conflicts will be easy, and against simple, crude russian planes?
If I were planning the Air force for the next 30 years, I’d try to build something that could take on something that isn’t built yet, and flown in gret numbers by an adversary that we haven’t fought.

We simply cannot be satiated, or we’ll get or a$$ handed to us.

Originally posted by Arthur
Pluto,
Spangdahlem ‘airstrip’ where the F-117s were flying from is some 1200 kilometres away from Belgrade, i don’t think this is very close to the strike zone (but then, it might be to you since everything in the US is bigger 😉 ). Also, all F-117 ops were flown at night.

Apart from that: yes, the F-117 was shot down because the planners were too lazy to change ingress/egress routes. Of course, if it works once…

Yeah, after doing some more reseach, I see you are right.
Apparantly, I had once read someting that took the “planners were lazy” FACT, and exaggerated it to include “planners were lazy, and stupid.”

As far as the base being close, 1200 km is pretty close, especially when the same flight plan is used, and there are people alerting the SAM operators.