sealordlawrenceWhy would I bother?
1. You don’t bother to back up any claims of yours, as well.
2. Regardless of what proof I would find, it would not change a damn thing. There are numerous eyewitnes reports about allied troops being active around the golden mosque the night before the bombing, you disregard them. Theis at least one report from the ex-member of killing squads claiming they were trained by Americans and Israelis, you disregard that, as well. The same way you would disregard any other reports anyone would provide. So why kill my time?The only thing that could make you change your mind is Rumsfeld of Bush making a press conference and openly admiting ‘yes we did it’. Obviously that will not happen so why should I waste one single minute of my life trying to persuade you? You are simply not worth it. On the other side, I am having pretty much fun seeing how you stick to the last remains of your good American values at any cost. Feel free to continue, I could not care less.
So you have nothing to contribute and can not prove any of your ranting………..if you had realised this before you started posting in this thread you would have saved a lot of bandwidth.:p
sealordlawrenceTu-22M4 was 1983 project for Tu-22M3 airframe with NK-93 engines from Tu-160. It would have carried Kh-32 vice Kh-22 and 10 subsonic Kh-57 (conventional variant Kh-55 – 6 internal, 4 external) or UPAB-1500 gliding TV bomb. One prototype in 1990, work ceases Nov 91.
Thanks for that Peter, do you mind if I ask what your source is? I assume that the internally carried Kh-55’s were to be carried on rotary launcher modeled on the one from the Tu-160. Does anybody know if there are any images available of this aircraft?
I assume that you mean NK-32 engine as the NK-93 is propfan?:confused: Furthermore I have never heard of a Kh-57, the Kh-65/Kh-SD would seem appropriate.
sealordlawrenceThe debate on Astute 8 is tied in with argument as to whether hull 8 should be an Astute or the lead boat of a follow on design. The Navy want 8 SSN’s, and given the decision to retain a SSBN force, the two CVF’s and the ARG in addition to intel and counter-sub roles 8 boats are going to be very tightly stretched. And the Trafalgar’s won’t last forever. I’m guessing if BAE offer a good price on Astute 8 the MoD may just go for it, but it does appear to be more than just a financial argument this time as the in service date for hull 8 is close to planning for the next design.
My suspicion is that no8’s fate depends on the new SSBN program, the longer that gets delayed the more likely no8 is. The entire SSN/SSBN program at the moment seems orientated at design and construction skills retention, this requires a reasonably steady flow of work.
sealordlawrence1. Your quotation of the Daniel Pipes’s three reasons why the west would not want civil war in Iraq is welcome. I wasn’t lucky to find those…
2. A car full of explosives is not exactly the right tool for pinpoint attacks against insurgents, if you ask me. BTW, you know that, too, but it does not fit into your argumentation concept so you silently passed it by ‘unnoticed’
3. The idea of exporting oil is not completely ridiculous if you got Shiites on your side. The bulk of Iraqi oil reserves lie near Al Basrah, at the head of the Persian Gulf. That is Shiite territory and that is all you need to have stabilized to certain extent.
Helping Shiites to hunt down their former Sunni opressors would be a good start, wouldn’t it? Of course, that would require Iran keeping their filthy fingers off the region.. The best way to do that is – yes, threaten them! It fits in quite nicely, if you ask me.
4. I take your ‘racist’ thing as a desperate attempt to attract some sympathy to your side because you obviously do not seem to enjoy much of it here.
5. BTW, it’s a pity that you are unable to continue any reasonable debate without name calling, completely unsubstantiated on top of that. I don’t mind anyone not agreeing with me but sure as hell I do mind someone feeding here his personal agitprop agenda against me..
More nonsensical ramblings. Explosives are perfectly suitable for killing insurgents another demonstration of your ignorance.
There is no way that Iran would ‘keep its fingers of the region’, more rubbish from you.
Having Shiites on your side would not secure the oil at all. Ever heard of Mosul or Kirkuk?
Flex you have been utterly unable to substantiate any of your ludicrous claims. The final nail in the coffin of your already dead argument is the fact that the US is doing everything in its power to end the sectarian violence. Thats why we have the surge, to put a stop to it. The fact is that you can not control the flow of natural resources from a country in civil war and shows how ignorant and uninformed you are that you suggest it can be done.
It has already been pointed out that invading Iraq for oil is pointless anyway when in 2003 the US was in the perfect position to simply force the Saudi model on Iraq. The fact is th you are wrong, you completely ignorant on this subject and you are unable to back up any of your claims.
sealordlawrenceNothing wrong about that. Every country can decide, what are the advantages and disadvantages from that as long it is no signatory to that.
Precisely what makes the whole concept of the NPT flawed.;)
sealordlawrenceLOL.. You are beating a dead horse, I have already proven this claim of yours wrong..
I have learned one thing: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If you catch a Briton dressed up in Arab turban riding a car full of explosives in Iraq, what idea comes into your mind? COIN in Aden?
BTW, you, too, have absolutely no evidence of what AQ is doing in Iraq but that miraculously does not seem to bother you…. :diablo: Double standard, maybe?
Here is what Daniel Pipes in Jerusalem Post has to say to that:
1) “When Sunni terrorists target Shi’ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one.”
2) “Civil war terminates the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This would have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote (referrence to HAMAS)
3) “A civil war would likely invite Syrian and Iranian participation hastening the possibility of confrontation with these two states, with which tensions are already high.”
Of course, this all only becomes an advantage when control the flow of oil in the midst of turmoil in Iraq is assured. My own idea Nr.4 would be:
4) To justify increased defense spending by further feeding the idea of a big evil master network of terror, which has to be fought by all available means.
This is after all the most brilliant idea of all… an invisible, virtual Enemy… Its existence does not need to be proven, it only needs to be repeated throughout the news so many times that nobody even thinks about doubting it. An enemy like this is a perfect one: the war against it cannot be lost and at the same time it is almost endless – that means steady flow of varous weapon contracts, almost an utopia for any defense industry.
For anybody with even the slightest knowledge of COIN (of which you have none) it actually is the first thing that comes to mind. The use of undercover special forces to hunt down insurgents in urban areas is a proven SAS tactic from Aden. OEDITED
Daniel Pipes actually lists three reasons why the west would not want civil war in Iraq. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that it would allow control of the oil for the west. The insurgency of the early years of the conflict slowed the flow to a trickle, all out civil war would end it. The idea that one can successfully export oil from an Iraq in the midst of all out civil war is incomprehensibly ridiculous.
The intervention of Iran and Syria, is just as ridiculous. It would only act to strengthen those countries regionally, after all one of the Supreme Leaders claimed objectives in the Iran Iraq war was th unification of all Shia’s, a sectarian war in Iraq would provide the perfect opportunity to do that. It would shift the balance of power in the middle east and take Iraqi oil out of western hands. It would be a strategic tragedy of epic proportions. The US simply lacks the ground forces to deal with such a scenario.
EDITED
sealordlawrenceI think the timeframe fits very well. If the real sectarian violence started Feb 2006, one can safely assume that the attempts to ignite its flame must have started good 6-12 months before this date. Ergo, Sept 2005 is just perfect.
The fact that Barah did not see much of the attrocities does not say much, as the SAS story only gives an idea about allied forces havin been doing exactly what you accuse AQ for. Nobody said that the mentioned SAS team was the only one, there could have been dozens of similar sabotage squads.
Your accusation of racism is a weird and unlogical… The reason is simple: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races. Unfortunately for you, ‘Iraqis’ are not a race, they are simply a nation.
You are racist, period.:mad:
You have absolutely no evidence of what the British troops were doing, there are any number of explanations, including one that relates to COIN activities developed in Aden. If you had any idea what you were talking about you would no this. But you do not know what you are talking about……….
………….which is why you are also completely unable to explain why the US would want to stir up sectarian violence.:rolleyes:
Further evidence of you not knowing what you are talking about is that you have now switched (you clearly tried to avoid being noticed doing this) from saying that Iraq was a sectarian bomb ready to explode that did so becouse the ‘iron grip’ that you say Iraqis need was removed in 2003 to saying that the sectarian violence was started by a clandestine western incitement policy in 2006. All of this conspires to prove that you are utterly ignorant of the subject about which you are trying (and failing) to talk about. Your nonsense is the product of your racist views and hatred, not of any knowledge what so ever. The final betrayal of your lack of understanding comes from your decision to pick an arbitrary time span (one that varies in length by 100%:rolleyes: ) to justify your fundamentally flawed conspiracy theory.
sealordlawrencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
Just the signatory ones are bound to that, when I do remember well.
The USA tried to force some of the countries mentioned by you to do so with little success.
Thats why its questionable. The NPT only allows the 5P to have nuclear weapons but it can only function as such if all nations are signatories. So whilst those who are not officially bound by it are legally entitled to do what they like, for the treaty to work and have any meaning they have to be made to comply. Despite punative efforts (sanctions etc) these countries have not been made to comply which thus undermines the entire treaty.
sealordlawrenceWhat does NPT mean to avoid misunderstanding from my side.
Non Proliferation Treaty. For the record I regard it as dead duck now and efforts to impose it as increasingly pointless.
sealordlawrenceWell what’s to argue about now, you’ve addmited that U.S.’s invasion is a lie.
Difference between an out right lie and a faliure.
Iraqi WMD were a massive intelligence faliure, even thr french expected WMD to be found in Iraq.
It was not a lie it was a faliure.
sealordlawrenceBLA BLA BLA BLA, this is just the kind of excuses (cover story) the U.S. would need to justify an invasion, nothing of truth to it ALL.
In 2003 UNSCOM report to the U.S. they basically were saying “so far no WMD’s were found and if the U.S. would want us the keep looking we can”, but we know what the U.S. did don’t we.If the theory Iraq was a threat to U.S.A. were are the rocket boasters that can travel 6000 miles 😮
In 2003 the US was a global hegemonic super power still lashing out after the worst attack launched against its mainland since the civil war, it did not need an excuse. The US govt made it perfectly clear that regime change was the objective, if you had actually read my post rather than just look at my avatar you would have realised that I party agree with you.:rolleyes:
Anyway I have given you a list of reasons why Saddam did not have WMD, let me put this in terms that you might understand IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD IN 2003, I GAVE YOU THE MAIN REASONS FOR THAT, get it now?
sealordlawrenceWere is your assumption about questionable legality based on?
NPT.
sealordlawrenceYes and no, Scalp Naval perhaps but there would also be a strong case for maximising commonality with the RAF missile and accepting a shorter range tactical missile for supporting land ops given that the RN SSN’s already carry long range cruise missiles for strategic strike.
It would probably just be cheaper to buy Naval Scalp of the shelf.
sealordlawrenceOne thing is certain, given that the MoD have committed themselves to two large aircraft carriers then the future RN surface fleet will need to be of a reasonable size and capability otherwise we may as well cancel the two CVF’s right now. With two carriers and the ARG that means potentially three task groups, if we say a capability to field two of these groups with one in refit at all times it still calls for a pretty substantial force. Easy to be pessimistic about the RN (and I’m one of the worst) but with CVF now through main gate, the T45 program making good progress, long lead activity in progress on Astute’s 5-7 things could be a LOT worse for the RN, we have to keep a little perspective.
Very true, Indeed if one compares the T45 program to how Horizon turned out the RN is doing very well. The RN will at least have more T45’s than there will be Horizons built and each will be more capable. Of course 7 & 8 would nice as would another Astute.;)
sealordlawrenceEspecially since they are very different things! Scalp Naval is far more than just a navalised Storm Shadow, having a reported range of around 1000km, which is two-to-three times that of Storm Shadow!
1000km is very impressive, it would certainly make an interesting contribution to any RN fleet. Would it be possible to order more T45’s but have them fitted with a more austere AD capability whilst still retaining the ability to get Sampson later?
I feel rather sorry for the T45 designers, they have produced a very capable design with a large capacity but at the moment is looks unlikely that its full potential will ever be fulfilled.
Sign In
