If the people in the middle east region got the democratic power to vote, the US might actually have to contend with national policy decisions not favoring US interests. To keep propped up puppet leaders who don’t really represent their people is a catalyst for change.

Just ask your selfs if the west was so hell bent on democracy why did they support a coup against Irans democratically elected leader in the 50s and then ousted him. Freedom and democracy really takes a backseat its self interests first, lets be clear about that.

If the US wanted Iraq in flames they would have just left in mid 2006 and been done with it.

They 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 ironic thing is that the one thing you refuse to admit that the US is doing is actually the thing that is most likely to satisfy all the aims you claim America has. A liberal democratic and stable Iraq would allow a secure flow of oil (from the worlds second largest reserves) which would help slow the price increases, probably allow the US all the basing in Iraq they wanted (without being bombed) and maybe even create a state with moderate views toward Israel (ie accepting its right to exist whilst pushing for a Palestinian state).

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.

SOC:

Not sure what exactly that would do to the overall situation with OPEC, which we’d still have to contend with. A far more likely reason for oil to have been a factor, if you ask me, is that we had advance insight into what Iran was concocting with their plans for the Iranian Oil Bourse. War is an extension of politics by other means, to nearly quote a military genius you should all know of, and politics and economics are always hand in hand. If we end up in an actual shooting war with Iran within the next decade (I find the prospect of anything else unlikely, the government has been distancing itself from the prospect of anything recently with the sudden downplaying of the nuclear issue), it will be for economic reasons, and this may well be the start of it in the IOB.

Let me try to clarify this issue of the Saudi hold over oil production/prices. Im going to refer you to a website which summaries quite nicely the points I would of made. I will give you paragraphs to read up to save bandwidth in writing it all here. There is also paragraphs refering to iran that you will find interesting.

Ok to start of the link: http://www.redress.cc/global/cking20080105
Start with paragraph 10 which begins with “Our essential factor is,” Keep reading on, till the bit about Iran starts which is paragraph 17.

You will notice how occupying, installing a US favoured government in Iraq is meant to benefit the US in the long term with respect to oil.

Plenty of consideration is given to them, hence why the people responsible for Abu Ghraib and Haditha ended up in court, but hey dont let the truth get in the way of a good lie will you.

Abu Ghraib and Haditha only come out because of journalists who pulled down uncle sams pants to show what was going on, otherwise a coverup at the highest level (rumsfield) was taking place, im sure much more attrocities are happening and have happened, those two were the tip of the ice berg.

CIA rendition flights, Guntanomo bay, american human rights records….dont even get me started here, the US should stick at looking at the conduct of its own people before they point figures about human right records.

Pillaged gold doesn’t make a country or continent rich. Making things makes a country rich. Building infrastructure, improving productivity, making products or providing services others want to buy. You can’t eat or wear or live in gold.

Appologies for diverting the topic, when it comes to money or gold for that matter you have to look at it as leverage, it gets things done. When you have loads of it you can get things done by offering it to people. Now how does one invest in technology and infrastructure, its by paying people something which in this case gold would of helped to do. This brings about innovations ect. If you dont have enough of gold/ or paper money these days you wont get things made, people wont do things for you and society itself does not progress.

So yes looting another country of its wealth, wether its gold, silk, oil, iron or whatever would aid in the development of the looter.

Yeah I was thinking that, but if they could pull of an F-14 cloneolution like they have with the F-5 it might give them a vaguely viable fighter for non US regional threats, for a little bit anyway.

I think your speculation has good grounds, apparently they are working on a F-14 type fighter called F/B-44 “Iranian Lion”. Qouting from Irani defence forum

Very little is known about this fighter, other then that it has twin fins, twin engines, a dual seat configuration, it is a medium size fighter in a class between the YF-17 (P-530) Cobra and F-14 Tomcat, and is truly a new fighter. It supposedly has a basic configuration similar to the F/A-18 Hornet and MiG-29 Fulcrum. The aircraft derives much from the Northrop YF-17 project, in which the Shah was heavily connected. Actually, blue prints, designs, and manuals are said to have made there way into Iran before the revolution. Also, the F/B-44 incorporates much of the F-14 design.

Model picture of it:

Some more pictures for you guys to enjoy 😉

My hypothesis is that the SD-10 is using a seeker from a different Chinese institute from the one used on the PL-12. The SD-10 might be LETRI or Institute 607, while PL-12 is from NRIET or Institute 14. This does not mean that the SD-10 seeker is inferior than the PL-12.

What it does mean is that if the SD-10’s seeker is compromised by examination, the information obtained may not be effective or usable against the PL-12 for EW purposes.

Do you think the main change being in the seeker, not other parts of the missile i.e modifications on the body or different motor in the missile. Any more information available on those seekers, their effectiveness.