Originally posted by Vympel
Poorly. No Shkval, no IR jammer, no new ECM, No Vikhrs, No podded radar, etc.

Well apart from the IR jammer, does all the other stuff relly need to be on a SU-25 style airplane.

The Scorpion is a good and cheap choice for low level conflicts and low to medium threat areas.

Originally posted by djnik
I do not think it was problem in Iraqi aircraft and other equipment during the war,but it was problem in Iraqi pilots and their training.Just remember how many pilots defected to Iran for example instead of fighting the Coalition! They did not attack them with all they had,and they could have.They had a respectable AF.HEck,if they spoke of my country’s 14 Mig-29As as a potential threat in 1999 (not that they really were due to outnumbering and outclassing)when they bombed us,what were they consithering Iraqi airplanes then as?

That is my definition of a bad airforce. I did not mean to blame the equipment (much of it was nearly first class), but I meant to point out that they had the equipment and never really used it to the full potential.

They failed in the IPGW, in the IIPGW and in OIF they decided to burry the planes. All in all a pretty bad airforce.

I don´t know why people are bashing those small airforces with old and only few planes. Many of those are surely better then some parade Air Forces.

Originally posted by Arthur
Weisswurste, i hope?

If you like.

Joins the party and brings in 2 case of Bitburger german beer and 1 case pf Paulaner.

Did I mention the original german “Bratwursts” I have brought along ??

Originally posted by plawolf
“I do agree, for people like Al-Sadr there is no compromise, he has decided to fight it out and he has to be neutralised. The important part will be how.”

Al-sadr was opposed to the occupation from the start and he made his feeling clear from day one, but he has only now resorted to using his malitia, the question has to be asked, why?

the root of the problem is that the little good will the iraqi ppl had for the occupation forces for removing saddam is wearing thin and totally gone in some places. looking at opinon polls will not change that fact no matter how rose the ppl who compiled them make it seem. did those opion polls show any sign that the whole nation was about to be threwn into caos this week?

iraqis want to have control over their own destinies, the longer the US wait, the more resentful the iraqis wil become and the more difficult for the US to truely hand over power.

I tend to disagree. I think he became active, because his power will dimish when a moderate Iraqi government is in power. It will be much harder to motivate people to fight a legimate and widely accepted Iraqi government (including clerics that are much more respected then he is), then to fight the “unholy crusaders”.

Originally posted by pluto77189
Violence won’t work in the end, but it will help put an end to the “rouge” cleric’s militias. ……..
ustify attacks on muslims, who are in a postion to control their OWN destiny, and not at the hand of Western Overlords.

(Quote shorted intentionaly)

I do agree, for people like Al-Sadr there is no compromise, he has decided to fight it out and he has to be neutralised. The important part will be how. Bomb a house and kill innocent civilians with him will only make him a hero. Having a big fight with his militia will do the same.

It would be good to cathc him alive and let the Iraqis trial him for murder after they get to power. Then he will loose his followers.
If that does not work it would be most fortunate if one of his men would kill him. Can this be arranged ?? – I hope so.

And the Us must build jobs for the Iraqis. That is extremely important in the long and medium term.

Yes and no.

Surely we would have become an united socialist Germany if the allies would have decided to leave the western part of Germany open to a Soviet invasion. That is a fact nobody with a sane mind can not honor.

If Germany would have been left alone by all external influence, I think we would have seen a small civil war between communist supporters and democrats. In the end the democrats would have won. I think Germany would have turned out like Austria did. A neutral democracy. But that is pure speculation.

I do agree that the development in Iraq will have a direct impact on Iran. If things in Iraq turn out good for the people there (and the US stops threatening Iran) then it is likely that we will see aa democratic revolution in Iran. If Iraq suffers from a civil war or even worse the islamic hardliners raise to pwer, then the situation in Iran good become quite different.

Anyway imo the War in Iraq had a negative influence on the developments in Iran.

That is a quite reasonable assesment of the situation Pluto.

But the problem is that it is really hard to get such fanatic people to change. And I believe that germans were much less fanatic then the islamic terrorists are.

Japan and Germany needed a total defeat which in the end showed the lies of their leaders and so helped to get rid of the ideas spread by them.

The only way to win over those muslem fundamentalists is to prove them wrong. Unfortunately nobody can prove that there will be no 70 virgins waiting in heaven. On the other hand those fanatics are quick to built social organisations that are helping the people. In the meantime US forces have to use force to capture those fanatics, which will always include the death of innocent cvilians. So in the end these action are exactly what the fanatics are saying.

” We will help you, the Americans will come to kill us and you.”
Which is exactly what is happening.

The best way to fight them is to beat them at the things that are helping the people with. If they give food, the US needs to give more. If they help with medical supplies the US must do more. If they give some people jobs, then the US must give jobs to a lot of people.

That is the only way – violence won´t work.