The war is legal, of that there is absolutely no doubt now. While you can debate the legality of the original invasion as long as you like, the fact remains that after the initial invasion the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1483 (and later 1511) which removed any and all legal ambiguity about the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. Now that Iraq has a democratically elected independent government, the Coalition forces maintain their presence through the new government’s requests. So the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq is entirely legal.

I think it’s also wrong to compare the relative “stability” under Saddam to the more transitive situation we’re seeing now. Most people may not realise it, but a temporary stage of relative anarchy almost always follows liberation from a totalitarian regime, as we’ve seen in Russia, some of the former Soviet satellites, and even my own country. Now while it might be easy to compare the two superficially, and say: “Well, it was better when it was stable, even though it was a bad government”, this is a mistake, and you have to take a more long-term look at the issue.

For example, by the United Nations’ own estimate, approximately 30 000 civilians have died as a result of the post-liberation chaos in Iraq. This is a fair number, and it would have been better that all of those deaths were prevented, but then you’ve got to remember that around 15 000 – 20 000 Iraqis died each year under Saddam and the brutal abuses of his regime. Iraq will become stable over the next few years, as the Iraqi forces gain in strength, and that chaos will largely disappear. Saddam, had he been left in power, would just have gone on killing, and Iraq would have become poorer and poorer. Now, Iraq has a future, it has a path to not only stability, but also prosperity and safety. Is it not awfully cruel to claim that they do not deserve that?

Besides, it’s not the first time we’ve seen something like this. I’m sure none of those in here would claim that it was better to allow Apartheid to continue in South Africa, but it ironically went through a very similar stage as Iraq is. In the early 1990s, over 10 000 people were killed in ethnic violence in South Africa, and over the past 10 years, over 200 000 South Africans have been murdered as part of the crime wave that swept SA after the end of that repressive system. Looking at the stats alone, one might be tempted to wish instead for the relative stability that existed under Apartheid, but this would be wrong. That’s because despite the deaths, despite the crime, and despite the temporary violence, South Africa is a better place today than it was 10 years ago. The economy is growing, people are getting wealthier, and there is a great opportunity to do well. I believe in 10 years time, we’ll look back and say the same thing about Iraq.

Oh yeah, and the whole “war for oil” thing is so idiotic I don’t even know where to start. Sure, maybe before the war you could have claimed that was the case, but now that America has done what it promised and not only handed over power to a legitimate Iraqi government but placed all oil production and export in its hands, it only makes you look silly to claim that America went in to steal Iraq’s oil.

Right, so one single massacre in three years of tough, draining and deadly war in which Coalition forces are placed under huge pressure, and suddenly all Americans are “terrorists”. I really will never cease to be amazed at the sort of logic some of those in here come up with.

Let’s be honest, massacres are an inevitable part of war. When you place young men from all sections of society under that sort of stress, it’s inevitable that some will eventually crack and go postal, or that some commanders will be lax in enforcing discipline and encouraging a bad attitude amongst their men. You cannot entirely avoid this. What separates the good nations and militaries of the world from the bad, however, is that in countries like the US, massacres such as that which allegedly occurred at Haditha are not official policy, and those who commit such atrocities are investigated and punished. Haditha is an anomaly, an isolated incident in flagrant breach of the US military’s rules, and if the reports are true then those responsible will be punished. The terrorists on the other hand do no such thing, they actually encourage such massacres, they reward those who succeed in killing the most innocent civilians in the most creatively brutal ways. There’s a huge difference, and those who can not see it would be advised to do a bit of self-examination.

Regarding Zarqawi, I am glad that he is dead, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. Not only does his death remove one of the obstacles in Iraq’s path to become a stable and prosperous country, but the many hundreds of additional innocent victims whom he would have murdered had he continued will now live instead of die. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to claim that being pleased at his passing places you on the same moral footing as him and his fellow thugs, and in fact I would argue that it’s immoral to not feel some relief or other positive emotion as a result of the news.

OK, Impi.. So let me apply this logic to civil law.. Imagine a situation where a large company is willing to build a new shopping park in the suburbs. Majority of people living in the area agree and are looking forward to this new attraction. But there also is a small group of farmers rejecting to sell their estate. Businessmen make a decision to eliminate these threats and let the farmer family silently eradicated.

Now, what should civil law do? Businessmen are arguing that they had the park built for good of the majority and that their winnings are only a secondary product. As a judge, would you believe them? If yes, would you release them as innocent? Is the subsequent ‘benefit for the most’ enough to dispel doubts about businessmen motives and to justify their action?

I would like to know your answer..

Your analogy is flawed and intentionally loaded. Allow me to adjust it to better meet the situation we’re debating here: Imagine a situation where a small group of farmers had absolute totalitarian control over all the other people in this suburb. They torture, murder and commit virtual genocide on their opponents in order to keep power, and they control all wealth while doing all they can to ensure everybody else remains poor and therefore weak.

Another suburb is concerned by this (and by the external activities of the farmers’ regime), and so they decide to do something about. They invade the first suburb, and remove the brutal farmers’ regime from power, an act which costs them many lives lost. However, rather than wreaking revenge, they bring in other suburbs and the United Suburbs Organisation to keep an eye on things, while they help create the conditions and negotiations for a democratic transition for this suburb. They then actively support these elections, and in fact make every effort to ensure that the former members of the farmers’ regime are accomodated and are involved in the process. Finally, at the end, the suburb is ruled by a democratic government elected by all its people (including the former members of the farmers’ regime), and it has a much brighter future ahead of it. THAT is the correct analogy.

Another thing is that Bush made a LOT of failures which put the whole matter in the spotlights and even worse, induced a world wide movement, generally referred as anti-americanism. That is a term which was unknown under Clinton, no matter whether you liked him or not. That makes exactly those people to lose their contacts abroad.

Utter nonsense. I live in a country which is actually less Anti-American than most, and the amount of anti-American sentiment I saw during the Clinton administration was already sickening. When Clinton intervened in Kosovo, there was a huge outcry, especially amongst SA’s Muslims (ironic that, considering that America was defending Muslims in the Balkans).

We can go on debating the reasons for this anti-American sentiment until we’re blue in the face, but the fact remains that it has existed for decades, and is no more virulent than it was with Bush’s predecessors. Indeed, I might point out that Reagan was widely hated in Europe for his insistence, contrary to those with their hands covering their eyes and ears, that the USSR was an evil abberation that needed to be stopped. So it was with Truman, who laid the groundwork for fighting the Cold War, yet ended his two terms with some of the worst approval ratings of any American president.

Ultimately, my point is simple. America is not perfect, but it’s sure as hell not as bad as some on this forum keep claiming. Yes, it acts mostly in its own interests, but this is what every single other nation on earth does, including all of Europe. The key thing to remember is that what is in the US’s interests are often in the interests of others too. As an example, is it in America’s interest that Iraq become a stable and free democratic country? Of course it is, it means Iraq’s no longer a potential threat, and it means the entire region becomes more stable. Is it in the interests of Iraq’s people to have a free and democratic state? Well, I don’t think you can argue otherwise. So both benefit.

Let go of your smug hatred of America, it’s irrational and it silly.

Well, if the Rooivalk wins the Turkish order, Denel has already indicated it will go ahead with the lighter and cheaper Rooivalk Lite. While I do not think the SAAF will buy any more Rooivalks anytime soon, there might be a chance of it buying a squadron or two of Rooivalk Lites if the price is right and the capability isn’t decreased too much. After all, we don’t exactly need an AH-64D-type helicopter in most operations in Africa, whereas a slightly less capable Rooivalk Lite would make a perfect peacekeeping assistance and transport escort helicopter.

The AH-1 and Ka-52 are no longer part of the tender, due to the nasty twists and turns the ATAK program has taken in the past few years. Ja Worsley is more clued up on those shenanigans.

The Rooivalk has only become an option in the most recent round, since the ATAK tender was relaunched a few months ago. Previously, despite Turkish interest in it, Denel had been forbidden from participating in the tender by the SA govt because of concerns over Turkey’s treatment of its Kurdish population. Evidently, relations between Turkey and the SA govt have improved of late.

I know the A129 has been a favourite in the past, but the latest I’ve heard is that Turkey seems to have lost interest in it somewhat. I’m not sure why, and I may even be wrong, but that’s what I’ve been told.

Assuming no further delays or cancellations, the ATAK program should have a decision sometime in June/July.

I think it’s inaccurate to claim that “Hollywood messed up the story again”, because Hollywood never set out to tell the story of the Storozhevoy. The Red October movie’s plot was pure fiction, just as the book’s was. I should think it’s obvious, but this was the reason Clancy created the fictional submarine Red October…

Additionally, while Clancy isn’t the best, and the plotlines in his latest books seem to get worse and worse, his first novels (such as RO and RSR) came out in the midst of the Cold War, when very few people had the access to military equipment information that we have now. Indeed, for a while Clancy was regarded as one of the foremost civilian experts on Warsaw Pact military equipment and organisation, which made his novels interesting in a way they could not be today.

I live in Johannesburg, South Africa. Most military aircraft are fairly rare over my area, though it’s fairly common to see SA Air Force Oryx and Alouette III helicopters, or even the odd Rooivalk (I once had 5 of those fly low over my house, but that’s another story).

I also get to see some C-130s, not only SAAF, as I’m under one of the airway paths from JHB Intl, where Denel has its aircraft upgrade and maintenance facilities. I see Il-76s fairly regularly, have seen an An-124 twice and was once lucky enough to have an Il-18 fly over, which is quite a rarity here. Rounding off this (tiny, compared to some here) list, was seeing a B707 tanker at low-level with three Cheetahs in the plug position. They were practicising for a flypast the next day.

Uh, is this really that big a deal? South Africa’s been operating UAVs over civilian areas (and indeed in controlled airspace) for over a decade now, and you don’t see us descending into a police state.

Think about it, is this really much different from police helicopters, or the blimps they use to keep an eye on big events? Indeed, last time I checked, police helicopters were also used to check on illegal activities and certain unsocial behaviour, yet nobody’s complaining.

Much ado about nothing, I think. The deployment of UAVs in police capacity is no more sinister than the use of police helicopters.