sealordlawrenceI have already noticed that in your last responses you resorted to simple asking questions and making prejudiced judgements in style ‘OMG, you know nothing! 😮 😮 ‘ (which makes you look like a complete idiot in my eyes, BTW.), and that is of course much easier than trying to provide answers. That makes me think that you simply have no answers to provide which wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Regarding the recent developments, I have yet to see whether this is a new strategy or only some kind of campaign for the upcoming elections. It certainly does not fit the divide-and-conquer type strategy the old clique like Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bremer have pursued and it certainly could serve Iraq well, but I am still skeptical regarding the outcome. For every year of wrong policy you need 3-4 years to make the things right, it is impossible to tell at the moment. And don’t you pretend you know it better.
Regarding your problem with my sectarian geography, that is one thing I will never understand. I have clearly stated that Baghdad was not a shiite territory and that it was located somewhere on the borderline between Shiite ans Sunni area, there are enough maps to prove that. With your own response about Baghdad being a mixed city you have practically confimed everything I have said, ergo I don’t know what is the point of the senseless comedy of yours on this topic. It seems to me that you simply want to argue at any cost, peculiarly even in cases we agree with each other. But honestly, I am not even trying to comprehend your motives.
Regarding the consistency, I think that you are a shining example of a man having none. From the very start you have been one of the most hardcore defenders of the invasion of Iraq and the ideas of WMDs in Iraq and mysterious connections between Saddam and AQ and you were spitting fire on numerous posters indicating the oil as the true reason for the invasion. Now, peculiarly, your recent posts are full of *Iraqi democracy serving best the US interests because it is impossible to export oil under the situation of a civil war*. Funny, isn’t it? Next time be more careful with using the word *oil*, it reveals too much about you.
Another shining example would be your opinions about Iran. In threads like *US Iran war closer?* or *SU-30MKP (Persian) ???????!* you defend the iron fist policy towards Iran due to their nuclear ambitions and in this thread you express wish to make Iran toothless as a regional power. In the very same thread just few pages later you, OTOH, openly admit that the NPT is a worthless piece of paper and that Iranians in fact are not obliged to follow its directions. That means, you know very well that you have no right to impose any kind of punishment on Iran but you still stick to the idea of attack. And I am damn sure you would embrace even a potential invasion if you were sure that it would not turn in another bloodbath for your own forces.
As I have already expressed, I think your main personal motivation is to see your forces destroy something, to watch countries shattered by the mighty fist painted with stars and stripes in order to bolster your national ego. And you are hiding this perverse obsession behind some noble words about spreading freedom and turning the countries into liberal democracies. But I know you better than that.. poopie. 😎
I am finished with you here.. This conversation has gone way off track and I am to blame, too for even trying to answer your nonsense.
And again you have said nothing but made yourself look ridiculous,
I have never said anything about Iraq having WMD and I have never said anything about Saddam having links to AQ, so now you are either deliberately lying or are grossly misinformed (again).
Why not ask flex rather than assume an example, if rather than getting your knickers in a twist I would have happily explained my views on the NPT to you.
I regard it as dead and the whole idea of governing proliferation quite ridiculous but I also accept that the worlds existing nuclear powers as long as most regional powers do not want to see further proliferation and therefore efforts at preventing it on a case by case basis (ie Iran and NK) are perfectly viable.
Other than those two points you have really said nothing accept get very emotional and resort to childish insults. The fact is that you are wrong, deeply confused about the facts and incapable of understanding the realities in Iraq.
sealordlawrenceJust a couple of points.
1) If the entire operationally capable Russian Navy sortied they would only really have enough assets immediately available to do 1 or 2. People often forget that this doctrine was not a sniper type affair by any stretch of the imagination. This would have involved the launching of dozens of missiles from aircraft, submarines and cruisers (the idea that China’s 4 Sovremennys are capable of realistically sinking a USN carrier is absurd) to target a single CVBG. Remember that not only has the Russian fleet lost huge numbers of ships since 1990 it also never completed the building program that it had underway in the 1980s.
2) The most dangerous western assets in this scenarion are the USN and RN SSN’s they are available in large numbers and are at least as good as their Russian counterparts. They would likely decimate both the Russian surface fleet and her submarine force. massively limiting Russia’s surface strike capacity. In addition to this the western subs carry large numbers of Tomahawks (as do the DDG’s) which will massively undermine the functioning of required Russian shore facilities making doing it for a second time very difficult indeed.
SOC: I have no doubt that the USN would be put out by the loss of a CVBG but it would be able to absorb the loss. If such an event happened the rules of the game would be changed and although the waters would be uncharted I have no doubt that the USN would fill them with warships. If this ever happened the US would put every vessel it could get a crew together for to sea. Through reconfiguring the amphibious flattops and getting the vessels out of the reserve fleet the USN could probably surge to 30 carriers in a matter of months dependent on crew availability. There is no way that the Russians could handle the naval mobilisation that would result from the destruction of one CVBG.
The most survivable assets the Russians would have would be the Tu-22M’s, even their medium term survival would be highly dubious.
It is worth noting that the Soviet naval revival of the 1980s was essentially a repeat of Stalins in the 1950s, they just replaced guns with missiles. Fortunately thus far we have yet to find out if either would actually work.
sealordlawrenceI would be very disappointed if you started your response with anything more intelligent…
That is exactly what I was saying, poopie. Learn to read..
Summary: The US is supporting Sunni militia against AQI and AQI is getting somewhat upset about it. This is only a very recent development after US has learned they will probably not be able to keep Sunni under control in certain areas without the help of the locals.. I don’t think it will change much. Sunni population has every right to be extremely pi$$ed off the US invasion and presence.
Which two facts?
BTW, travelling from one part of the city to another with a truck full of guns is entirely different from doing the same at the distance of 400-500 km southwards.
I think this vote poll pretty much reflects the situation. The public opinion is very unstable and shows tendencies to shift unnaturally. Just compare the figures of 28% of ‘Iraqis above all’ in 2006 and 54% for the same question in 2007. While this can be observed as a positive tendency, it clearly shows that Iraqis are prone to rapid and violent reactions. Certainly not a good sign for a liberal democracy. Another fact is that gaining another 26% of ‘Iraqis above all’ will be uncomparably harder. I’d say with current mindset a liberal democracy in Iraq won’t survive upcoming 5-6 years without external ‘help’. The country is not ready yet. That is my opinion and you can go beserk if you have a problem with it.
I’d say that your credibility is undermined by large amount of senseless outscreams accompanied by unnaturally high number of emoticons and personal issues. I certainly prefer discussion with people who are calm and act seriously. It does not matter whether you have knowledge or not, if you act like idiot when presenting it, nobody will remember what you’ve said but how you’ve said..
Take my piece of advice, calm down, unpersonalize the topic and then the discussion will make some sense.
LOL, another post that says absolutely nothing. You have been wrong so many times here its now difficult to count.
The hilarious gem this time is you use a direct insult ‘poopie’ followed by this ‘ Take my piece of advice, calm down, unpersonalize the topic and then the discussion will make some sense.’ come on flex show a little bit of consistency!:D 😀 😀
So far you have shown yourself as ignorant of the following:
1)COIN tactics and strategy
2)All recent developments in Iraq in the last twelve months especially since the surge
3)The sectarian geography of Iraq
And that is all before we even get into some of your most ridiculous comments like the absurd notion that you can control the oil supply out of an Iraq in civil war.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrencekk 😉 , just heard a few rumours tiss all 🙂
Does not mean that it is not theoretically possible though?;)
sealordlawrenceThe problem being that naval guns use fixed ammunition, made to different tolerances, so it really isn’t quite as simple as it sounds. The naval rounds could be similar to the land based types, but would be pretty different rounds, hence it is not as simple to ‘cross deck’ new ammunition types. The new rounds would have to be made to naval specs, converted to fixed rounds, and this is just for the ammunition. The 155mm would have to be redesigned very heavily – it is, as the Germans found with their MONARC project, not as simple as fitting a howitzer on a flex-mounting. The gun has to be water-cooled and of different materials, if you want it to last in the naval environment.
In contrast, the 127mm is already developed, the ammunition boasts longer range (albeit somewhat smaller rounds), and it is generally ready for adoption. In effect, there are few, if any, advantages to adopting a naval 155mm versus adopting a 127mm, since the rounds would have to be different anyway, so you don’t really get commonality anyway. What you do get is a gun that is already used by many nations, has an excellent support base, and is likely to cost less. It may end up similar to the British Army’s use of the 120mm rifled gun on the CR1 and CR2 – there may be some advantages, but if nobody else buys it, you end up with an orphaned system, with Britain having to foot the whole bill for development. There may be some advantages to the 155mm, but the disadvantages have to be seen as well; likewise, the 127mm may not be British, but it seems to be the best game in town…
Either way BAe seems to be pressing the 155mm idea fairly aggressively for the RN, so one can only guess that they think they can surmount the problems without too much difficult?:confused:
sealordlawrenceI can see one.. Recent history..
Baghdad is certainly not a Shiite territory. If we assume a borderline betwen the Shiite-controlled and Sunni-controlled area, it would cross the nearest area of Baghdad.
Wrong, it would not. Basrah and surrounding areas are almost exclusively Shiite, there is nobody to attack them there.
There are no indications about any US support for Sunni militia, Sunni in Iraq were left pretty much on their own from the very start..
The situation does not play in favor of the democratic Iraq. Almost all oil is exclusively on Shiite territory while the two other groups in the country are
1. Sunni, who have been opressing the Shia for last 40 years, sucking out the oil from the southern part of Iraq while completely neglecting development of these areas, brutally slaying down the civil uprising against Saddam in 1991, etc. etc.
2. Kurds, disliked by Arabs and generally seen as a substandard ethnic group and eternal troublemakers with their foolish dreams about their own land.Now a simple question, which side has serious interest in liberal, democratic Iraq?
– Shiites? What makes you think that Shiites in Iraq are interested in noble sharing their black gold with these two groups? Be sure as hell they won’t give them a single penny.Americans? A large share of Iraqi population has no warm feelings for their ‘liberators’. This anti-american sentiment would be a decisive factor in any free elections, it is next to impossible to establish a voted pro-American government in Iraq.
And that is why neither side has much interest in a liberal Iraq. Maybe Kurds and Sunni would welcome this idea but they got no saying here, whatsoever.. A much more realistic idea of future Iraq is a Shiite-controlled islamic autocracy (similar to Sunni models in Kuwait or SA) and the US surely don’t mind that as long as the rulers of Iraq will provide exclusive oil contracts for them.
OMG you know absolutely nothing!!!!!:eek:
Baghdad is a mixed city, take Saddar city for a start it is entirely Shia and makes up a very large part of Baghdad, you are even ignorant of this reality and you try an talk about this subject. This can only be described as shocking how little you actually know!:eek:
And then you have to go and reinforce your demonstration of your own ignorance with this little gem ‘There are no indications about any US support for Sunni militia’. It is common knowledge that the US is now supporting Sunni militia, here is an article that perfectly describes what is happening:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7153563.stm
Summary: The US is supporting Sunni militia against AQI and AQI is getting somewhat upset about it.
The very fact that you dont know these two very basic facts is demonstrative of a shocking level of ignorance on your part and fundamentally undermines everything that you have to say on the subject. All this is leaving aside the pure nonsense that if Iraq went into civil war Basra would be safe……you are aware that Iraqis know how to travel are you not?:rolleyes:
Your notion that Iraq is not capable of democracy is blown out of the water by the relity expressed in the following poll figures from last year (2007):
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5973
Please flex if you wish to discuss this topic then at least get a basic understanding of it first, not knowing the sectarian make-up of Baghdad and being unaware of US support for Sunni militia in the Sunni awakening is just mind bogglingly poor on your part and massively undermines your credibility.
sealordlawrenceEvidence? The link shows a primary source explanation from the Aussies that it was as much a geo-political decision and financial as to the capability of the aircraft.
Note that the actual recommendation was for the RA-5C as this was available quicker!
See Maple01’s post above.
Furthermore I never said anything about the aircrafts capability I was commenting on the British establishments faith in the overall project.
sealordlawrenceIsnt the ‘new’ Su-35 supposed to get external tanks?:confused:
sealordlawrenceWhat do you think that if USA doesn’t give F-22 to the Japan will Japan buy PAK-FA or will they develop their own 5th generation aircraft.They said that if USA doesn’t give F22 they could buy it from a third country.Is it possible or at last will Japan goverment buy F-35.
The most likely option is if no Raptors it will be Typhoon or F-35. Pakfa is a big no no.
sealordlawrenceWhile were on the su-34, does anyone know if it can carry the kh-55 missile or any of its derivatives/similar missiles?;)
No evidence what so ever.
sealordlawrenceThis one will cause a real fight. However there are only really two important issues.
1)How effective is the Soviet/Russian doctrine versus US CVBG’s, this will create a massive row here but the reality is that no one knows and the only way to find out is to have a real war………..hardly a desirable prospect.
2)If this doctrine is capable of taking out a US CVBG (again unanswerable to us) the question is could the current Russian Armed forces do it. Post communism their strategic ocean recon satellite system has fallen to a pitiful level of capability which greatly undermines the ability of the Russians to actually find a US battle group. What is certain is that if they found one they only really have the assets to take out one or two, a loss that the USN could absorb without to much difficulty.
So the answer to your basic question is, no one really knows. If the wider question is can a the Russians beat the USN then the answer is no.
Now be prepared to be told that the Russians could wipe out the USN and that the Russians are completely useless and would be wiped out in an instant.;)
sealordlawrenceI agree, the 127/62 does seem to be a very attractive option. Just for your reference Sealord:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=139&art_id=vn20060419072702714C419505
They managed 75km with the Denel G6/52L!
Mind you, the prospect of the Vulcano round from the 127/62 does seem to be a better bet!
Dont qoute me on this but I have a sneaking suspicion that that 155mm is not NATO standard, or rather it is but it uses an additional charge, it has a larger chamber so not technically a ‘real’ 155mm in the NATO sense. Again however, do not qote me on this but I know there have been/are to different SA 155s.
Swerve and Jonesey really go to underline the problems with this whole project, everything is highly subjective and with benefits and disadvantages on both sides. I would be inclined to agree with swerve but Jonesy has a viable point too.
Just gone back and done some reading and……..
Denel G6 (L for Losvoor IIRC) has a chamber of 25 litres and uses the M64 charge system, JBMOU uses a 23 litre chamber and the M90 charge system, at maximum range with VLAP projectiles this creates a range difference of nearly 10km. NATO guns are JBMOU.
EXCALIBUR is good for 60km, half the range of the Oto-Melara 127/62 and Volcano combination.
Plans for longer ranged 155mm :http://www.defense-update.com/events/2006/summary/eurosatory06-ammo.htm
I am now starting to lean towards Jonseys perspective, a 155/52 with properly funded ammunition should offer everything a 127/62 should?:confused: The IMPAQT Mk-2 with 3 BONUS sensor fused munitions offering a 150km range (potential maximum) might make for an interesting anti ship system too.
sealordlawrenceGreat work SOC keep it up………….your blog is one of the best resources on the web for this sort of analysis.:)
sealordlawrenceA quick musing about main gun options.
Thus far we have all been assuming that the 155mm would be the obvious choice should the 4.5inch not be used. However no other country seems to be pursuing this approach and the 127/62 seems to be coming the standard. Whilst the AGS for DDG is a 155mm it is a very different beast to the modified NATO standard affair that the RN is looking at. Thus far the highest initial range figure I have seen for the BAe 155mm for naval applications is 70km and it is difficult to see how this would be achieved considering that the current longest range 155mm artillery combination that I know of is 60km now. On the other hand Oto-Melera is claiming 120km for its 127/62 and Volcano ammunition combination and as mentioned earlier this configuration (not necessarily that ammunition or exact gun model) does seem to be becoming a western standard. I just thought that this was an interesting point and I would be intrigued to hear peoples thoughts on this subject?
sealordlawrenceThey probably could have left allot earlier, but US strategy in Iraq is to secure oil, by leaving they are not securing oil. To forment secretarian violence I dont understand the reasoning to do that unless leaders in western capitals have other ideas we dont know about. The UK did create a mess when they helped to create Iraq in the first place.
The problem I have with the above is america’s hypocrisy, they are meddling in a region by trying to do all the above and yet wonder why so many misguided individuals want to blow them up all round the world. Not that there is a problem with Iraq being a stable liberal country, im sure it could if there wasn’t so much outside influence stemming from the west and iraqs neighbours.
There were much better options available to secure the oil in Iraq than invade it in 2003, the Saudi model would have been much more effective and would not have been that difficult to pull off. If you go back to my earlier posts in this thread you see the explanation.;)
Other than that I agree with you, however up until now the US influence has been entirely negative in the middle east, if the surge works and Iraq does turn the corner and become civilised it will be very interesting to see what happens to global terrorism. After all it is very easy to hate America when they support regimes like the one in Saudi Arabia whilst having been so supportive of Israel., however will it be as easy to hate an America that has made Iraq democratic and prosperous?:confused:
What I like to call the ‘neo AQ’ are a bit different to the people responsible for 7/7 and the like in that their focus is as much (if not more so) ideological than it is anything else, ie they actually do hate everything the west stands for. I hope that they are in the minority and Iraq suggests that they are (read Sunni Awakening), if this is the case then success in Iraq would isolate them. For now it all depends on what happens in the next year.
Sign In
