America is the most powerful nation EVER!!!

reply to post by jkrog08


By casually rubbishing the efforts of those other nations involved in the liberation of the Pacific you're displaying appalling insensitivity. And that can be as well directed too against those who complain about the USA's late entry to the War.

Every life lost counted in that struggle. Every single one, whether it be an Australian in the jungles of Borneo, a Soviet fighting house by house through Berlin, a Brit in the skies over England or an American dying on the beaches of Normandy. They all died that we might be free, in what was one of the very few just wars mankind has ever fought.

The British contribution in the Pacific would've that much greater were it not for the UK being under direct threat for much of the war. The Allies decided it would be Europe first, then the Pacific. And you know what the Brits did as the war in Europe entered its final phase ? They sent just about everything they could spare to the Pacific theatre to help the Americans.

The ship I was christened on board in 1966, HMS Victorious, a fleet aircraft carrier, was sent with the rest of the newly formed British Pacific Fleet (the battleships HMS Howe, HMS King George V, the fleet carriers HMS Indomitable, HMS Indefatigable, HMS Illustrious & HMS Formidable ... along with numerous other Commonwealth heavy cruisers, cruisers & destroyers) to help the Americans liberate the Pacific.

They fought alongside Spruance's Fifth Fleet. They fought alongside Halsey's Third. They fought at Okinawa (Victorious herself being hit twice by kamikazes), they were there to liberate Indonesia & numerous other territories. HMS King George V was the last British battleship to fire its guns in anger ... bombarding Japanese naval facilities near Tokyo itself.

Sure the Brits could've done more in the Pacific. But such a contribution would've threatened a successful outcome in Europe. These are things you really do need to read up about. And read up too about the British & Commonwealth air & land campaigns against the Japanese. They were every bit as significant as the naval war.

The Brits & the Commonwealth, Dutch & French did what they could with what they had. By doing so they relieved some of the burden from the USA in the Pacific theatre. That should be recognised, not diminished. It shouldn't be a debating point or an exercise in juvenile male penis envy. It should be something everyone can agree on.

By exhibiting your insensitivity for all to see you're pissing on the graves of heroes. British, Australian, New Zealander, Dutch and French heroes who died for you. In the same way American heroes died for me.

Shame on you for not recognising that.

Originally posted by aaa2500
I've been off line for a few days, assembling my new computer. I'll respond in 2 parts.

The proper term is "conflicts" as the war fighting was finished in the first few weeks.

You are playing semantics. Some of the 7 major groups in Iraq are using uniforms, grade distinctions, military structure and carry weapons openly, which makes them beligerents and affords them POW status according to the Geneva conventions.

Ok,now you are playing semantics.

Just as F22s are being produced? The US is infact in the process of replacing all its front line fighters with better, 5th generation fighters.

The F15 is getting long in the tooth, but it is seeing much needed upgrades and is still an adequate fighter for what the US needs.

The F-22 and F-35 are over budget, over weight, under spec, and delayed. Even then, the US will replace 700 F-15's with less than 200 F-22's, and 2600 F-16's with 2300 F-35's.

One,you do realize we still produce NEW F-15's right?Two,we don't need as many F-22's because they are so advanced one F-22 can do the job of 5 F-15's.

A derivative of earlier F-15 model aircraft (A-D), the F-15E Strike Eagle includes the following attributes:

Unmatched combat radius and persistence
Advanced digital electronic controlled higher thrust engines
Max speed greater than twice the speed of sound
More than 23,000 pounds of payload, including air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons such as the:
the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)
the AGM-130
the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)
AIM-9X
An Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar
A digital threat warning system
A Service life that will allow it to be viable until at least 2035
The F-15E is produced by Boeing and will be in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) inventory well into the 21st century.

For more information, read the F-15E Strike Eagle (PDF) overview.

Boeing

As for the F-15, it's not about age, but about structural integrity, Stresses on the aircraft etc. If can be the most capable fighter ever produced, but if it pulls too many G's over time, it will disintegrate in mid air.

I refer you to the above statement and also the fact that they are completely viable until 2035-so don't expect them to "disintegrate"any time soon as I'm sure you would like to see.

I suppose "cyclical recession" is not in your vocabulary.

It is, but simply refering to the boom/bust cycle and thus dismissing the effect that the US government has had, is silly. Depending on the actions of the the US government, the recession can be mild or severe, and right now it looks like a severe recession.

How can you make a bold statement and prediction like that when we are in the middle of it right now,you have to wait until it plays out to judge accurately how severe any recession is,history judges,not you-sorry.

The US military is in the process of doing just that, with a $200B+ transformation of the US armed forces. Its called Future combat system

Rail guns, Lasers, AI, the Global Information Grid, nanotechnology, biotechnology, autonomous drones, advanced naval assets, space weapons, weather modification and more, such as providing its soldiers with super strong exo skeletons that will employ smart nanotech body armor.

AKA 'Future Cancelled System'. Look at the original proposed specs, and compare with the revised specs of today. Most of the system has lost funding and what is left is far from what it was supposed to be.

It's all just pipe dreams. Let's see what the US can develop and afford. The US is already spending about 15 percent of it's budget paying interest, and to support it's wars abroad, it borrows roughly 20 percent of it's budget.

Its funny if we are so under budget and can't afford it than why are our revenues going up and our allies buying the technology aswell?

Meggitt has told investors that it is looking toward Future Combat Systems (FCS) revenues of USD800 million when the US programme reaches production in five years' time.

The announcement came on 7 August as investors were told that sales within the UK company's Defence Systems business increased 27 per cent to GBP57.1 million (USD14.4 million) during the first six months of the year on the back of a 73 per cent order increase. The UK manufacturer of defence and aerospace components said, however, that unfavourable exchange rates acted as a brake on the revenue increase: at constant exchange rates growth would have reached 37 per cent.

The period under review saw Meggitt secure agreements relating to the US FCS programme that it believes could ultimately contribute around USD800 million to sales after 2012.

Meggitt announced an agreement, with an initial value of USD6 million, to provide the electronic cooling system for FCS. "Future revenues from this programme could exceed USD300 million once production starts in five to six years time," Meggitt told investors.

It also said that its contract to provide the 120 mm autoloader for FCS had successfully entered the integration stage into the Mounted Combat System vehicle. The order is expected to provide revenues of USD500 million when production starts.

Overall, Meggitt said that military sales increased to account for 39 per cent of group sales during the six months, compared with 38 per cent during the same period in 2006. Civil aerospace revenues increased by seven per cent (14 per cent at constant exchange rates), while military revenues increased by 12 per cent (20 per cent at a constant rate).

Sales overall increased 10 per cent to GBP353 million (half year 2006 GBP325.9 million). Earnings per share dipped 11 per cent to 8.4 pence, however, as a result of "amortisation of acquired intangibles, fair value of financial instruments and time lag between rights issue and completion of the K&F acquisition [the aerospace group purchased in a USD1.8 billion deal in March this year]".

The aerospace equipment division (which accounts for 52 per cent of sales) saw revenue increase seven per cent to GBP186.7 million, while Sensor Systems (32 per cent of revenue) increased eight per cent to GBP114.2 million. Defence Systems (16 per cent of group revenue) reported a 27 per cent increase.

Jane' s Defence Weekly


Continued................

reply to post by aaa2500

"Pay for it all" by that do you mean the military budget that accounts for 5-6% of US GDP?




There are many ways to skin a cat.
www.warresisters.org...

Since you presented no valid argument here to that well placed and worded statement by Westcoast,I'll continue on the FCS(Future Combat System)Oh,and if your going to use the term "pipe dream"why don't you cite the source and quote ALL of it,well to bad,I did for you-and didn't cut off the quote when it said something I didn't like.

To critics of FCS, this seems only prudent. After all, they argue, the program's costs have ballooned, it is based on unproven technologies, and the entire con­cept was "always a pipe dream."[2] They suggest that the Army should instead invest FCS resources in repairing and resetting equipment worn down or destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, these arguments ignore the fact that Future Combat Sys­tems is the first comprehensive upgrade in decades and that, at only 3.7 percent of the Army's total bud­get, the program will not bankrupt the Army. Further­more, the Army urgently needs to reset and modernize simultaneously.

Soldiers are already using FCS-like technologies on the battlefield, including chemical and biological detectors, robots to ferret out improvised explosive devices (IEDs), lighter and more robust vehicle armor, and network sensors that allow soldiers to track friendly units. More FCS technologies are scheduled to "spin out" next year, further enhancing current capabilities. Given that the Army went to war in Iraq in 2003 with an equipment shortfall of over $50 billion and equipment that was based on 30-year-old technologies and has deteriorated even more in harsh operating environments, the Army needs to field its "future force" now

Heritage.org
Also lets step back and realize that our military is doing the biggest modernization since ww2,that takes some time and money.Not to mention how many other programs that we developed in the past do you think were grossly overbudget,but still came through?Do you think the US is the only country who goes over budget on defense?I think not.

Also the Army is the one having the "budget problems"not the Air Force or Navy-needless to say the later two are our real assets,the Army has always had it's head up it's a**,but it will get it together-infact the first major implement of FCS is due in 2012,if you read.

I don't listen to George W. Kindred, only logic and facts. Fact is, Iran has an extremeist President that wants to wipe out Isreal, said so himself.




Actually he didn't say that, but to the neocons, facts are of no use. Only perception matters. If they can control the narative and public discourse, they can make the public believe anything, and it'll be so much easier to start another war.

Again you are using semantics,it is called "War Propaganda",every nation does it,even your "Great Britain".Again no one is saying Bush is a "hero",far from it.

Logic will tell you that you cannot deal with Religious Extremeists and they are bent on a life-long mission to fullfill their supposed destiny bestowed upon them by their holyiness.




Are you talking about Ahmadinejad or GWB?

AGAIN-No one is claiming GWB a good President or a hero,most of America doesn't agree with him,he will be out of office in a few months anyways.

How about when we helped Afghanistan DEFEAT the "mighty"soviets(with nothing more than money)




You seem proud that the US created Al-qaeda?

Again you are twisting words to fit your need.How can you even say morally if "I am proud"that the US created Al-Qaeda.Would you rather the Soviets had won in Afghanistan,cause I guarantee they wouldn't have stopped there.

How about when we liberated Cuba from Spain...........did we "institute our dictatorship "then?NO,we let them be and look what happened




Yes, the US supported Cuban independence on the condition that the US would have a final say in everything from matters of sovereignty, trade, economy etc. Cuba was in fact a subject of the US, Batista even said so openly.

Ok,so the US is the only country in history to have self interest behind helping a country,or to flex it's power around smaller nations?I think not,and for Cuba being such a "subject"of the US they sure are our allies today uh?Also,why in the hell would we let Spain have a colony right off our shores?

Cuba became Communist and Afghanistan became the base of operations fo Al-Queda.



Both after heavy US involvement. Why is it that US involvement always breeds such anti US resentment among the people it's supposed to help?

Yea well I guess that proves other's and my point that some countries NEED and MUST be policed,look what happens when we "just let them be",but wait I guess you think Cuba has the right to be Communist and threaten Democracy(Cuban Missle Crisis)or Al-Qeada has a "right"to kill innocent Americans right?



[edit on 4/28/2008 by jkrog08]

reply to post by Charity


"male penis envy"I sense a mad female European!!

Well you say I should read,maybe you should read,I said I understand and agree while the majority of British and other European countries stayed in Europe,and I also acknowledged your help in the Pacific,but if Im going to get my country bashed for supposibly"coming in late and not helping much"in Europe ,damn it Im going to counter with real facts that the US really did fight in the Pacific in the MAJORITY by itself(I didn't want to bring it up),unlike Europeans in the European theater.I agree that we shouldn't be comparing how much who helped,but Im not the one who brought it up,maybe you should talk to your fellow Euro buddies.Im not going to stand idly by whilst they bash(falsely)my countries SIGNIFIGANT contribution in the war.Im sorry but I don/t feel that bad for Soviets who died in the war,Im glad they helped and of course have the natural human emoation of being sad they died-but I do feel diffrently towards them dying than say Americans or British.We did't rape German women and children cause"we were mad",I could go on with Soviet war atrocities,but I won't.So Im sorry I don't feel the same about their deaths-deal with it.

I for one don't wana talk about ww2 or the deaths anymore.

[edit on 4/28/2008 by jkrog08]

Also,Jakyll......you say I need to do research,haha,I do.............you need to learn how to "process"that research.

I am done talking about ww2 and any war for that matter.If thats all you all can bring up than you are already defeated.................as you have been.

Also,Jakyll......you say I need to do research,haha,I do.............you need to learn how to "process"that research.

I am done talking about ww2 and any war for that matter.If thats all you all can bring up than you are already defeated.................as you have been.

Part 2.

About WW2.

Casualties:
US: about 300000
USSR: about 25000000
Germany: about 6500000

Of Germany's 6.5 million casualties, roughly 80 percent were caused by the USSR on the eastern front. Remember that the USSR were facing The Wehrmacht(Battlehardened veterans from the campaigns in Spain, France, Poland etc. ), The Luftwaffe(well trained, well equipped and also veterans from various campaigns), The SS divisions(Elite soldiers)etc.

WW2 was a cooperative effort where noone was the winner, but the USSR by loss of life and the damage inflicted on the Nazi war machine can be the only winner of WW2. At Stalingrad the Nazi regime was deprived of almost 1000000 men(virtually it's entire frontline army ), and at Kurst, it lost almost 3000 tanks(virtually wiping out it's tankstrength).

You would be in smoldering ruins before you could respond.

Why do you feel the need for all of that macho posturing. Are you feeling inadequate, perhaps a little bit insecure of yourself?

Also, you may want to educate yourself on how the US rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan, after Europe fell into its own war just once too often.

Yes, the dollar imperialism that lent money to cashstrapped western european nations in exchange for using that money to buy goods in the US. That's how the US got rid of it's surplus military equipment, and got big fat loads of foreign currency which increased in value, so that the US could expand it's military and power.

I bet you think the Iraq War is the worst atrocity in the history of humanity, and that Guantanamo is worse than Auschwitz.

No, it's just one of many we credit to the US. How is 'eternal war' working for you.

I would say that the US has committed fewer atrocities than any other large country over the last 200 years, and has even prevented many atrocities across the world.

Then you don't know US history very well. Start with 'John Stockwell' and go from there. US foreign policy was and is always aimed at supporting US business interests abroad. Flexible labourmarkets(No workers rights, banning labourunions etc.), stable economy(think starvation wages, workweeks in the 100 hours, child labourers), stable democratic government(think US supported dictatorship, killing of dissidents, US trained and controlled forces, US controlled ownership of assets etc.). And this has happened all over the world.

but I will say the USA is the new ROME,and of course there will be people who try and stop our manifest destiny

You are more right than you know. The US is spending all of the money in China, while not contributing anything of value. The US is increasingly incorporating foreign citizens into it's military, in order to avoid shortfalls, as the americans won't fight. The US is taking on debt at an alarming rate, and since civilian R&D and production is moving to China, a higher and higher percentage og GDP comes from the growing military industrial complex.

Manifest destiny is a racist concept, similar to the nazi concept of 'lebensraum'. That the german people had an obvious, certain and preordained right and ability to conquor land.

But I do think,as do most scholars and historians that America STILL could have won WITHOUT the Russians fighting on the other side

In the US, you are taught what is called 'Micky Mouse history' or 'Hollywood History' in europe. You know the kind, The US singlehandedly won WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq 1 and Iraq2. The US also broke the enigma, invented the digital computer and even the poorest american living in the street is richer than the richest european...

The fact remains that the US defeated the Japs PRETTY MUCH by themselves though

What about China... They had been fighting Japan since 1933, having casualties between 15-20 million. Seems like you are airbrushing them out of history, just as you accuse others of doing to the US.

What about China... They had been fighting Japan since 1933, having casualties between 15-20 million. Seems like you are airbrushing them out of history, just as you accuse others of doing to the US.

The Chinese died really well and they were more of a hindrance to us than a help, seriously give me a break if the japs had never invaded us then China would now be ruled by Japan and none of their accomplishments in the last 70+ years would have never been allowed to happen.

The only thing China did to help was allow us to land on their airstrips after bombing Japan in the Dolittle raid lol.

More Chinese have died at the hands of their "leaders" than have in war this past century and more Russians have died at the hands of Stalin and Lenin then the Germans could have ever killed.

[edit on 4/28/2008 by Kr0n0s]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Kr0n0s

More Chinese have died at the hands of their "leaders" than have in war this past century and more Russians have died at the hands of Stalin and Lenin then the Germans could have ever killed.

Great point,I don't think "aaa" realizes how many more people,HIS OWN PEOPLE Stalin killed.Infact Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler did Jews in the holucast.Old paranoid Stalin-kills MILLIONS of Soviets because they "looked at him weird".Not to mention all the Russians he jailed indefinitely or worked to death in labor camps building insane projects like the Siberian Canal.(made outa wood,lol)

The US or Hitler worse than Stalin............

Oh aaa-So I am racist and my country is too for "manifest destiny"well I guess we shoulda just let all the Indians and other primitive societies dictate us and we would still be in the stone age!Dont be so liberal your brains fall out now!!Or maybe we shoulda took a page from Britains book uh?Oppress Scotland and Ireland(to mention a few) and rape their women cause "we are the supreme race"I think you were just taking out frustration from all those years of Roman rule

Since you presented no valid argument here to that well placed and worded statement by

I did present a valid argument, that the US spends more than 50 percent of it's budget on war related costs. Previous wars and current wars combined. Warcosts include, pensions for families of the deceased, bonusses for those who enlist, college money for those who came back, and lifelong pensions and healthcare for everyone lucky enough to survive. It all adds up.

Again you are using semantics,it is called "War Propaganda",every nation does it

So lying about what a foreign president says is ok, because it just business as usual.

,even your "Great Britain".

Who me?! The only connection I have to the U.K., as it is properly called(Great Britain is a part of the United Kingdom), is that my country ruled part of England(England is a Part of Great Britain which is a part of the United Kingdom) once. I don't think I've even refered to them in this thread.

Would you rather the Soviets had won in Afghanistan,cause I guarantee they wouldn't have stopped there.

Afghanistan, the world and certainly the US would have been much better off. The USSR was never expansive. Their interest lay solely in creating a buffer zone around their borders to protect them incase of invasion. With the soviet archives wide open for most of the 90's, even you should have realized that.

Had the Afghan government won against the US supported Mujahedeen/Taliban, there would have been a higher standard of living and a much more free society. Where the Mujahedeen ruled, men and women lived strickly by the Quoran, in seperate worlds with no rights for women at all. In the parts controlled by the Afghan government, you would see men and women participating equally in society with equal rights. Try to watch some of the newsfootage from Afghanistan in the 80's.

Women in Afghanistan were the hardest hit by the US support for the Mujahedeen. They were no longer allowed to go to school, to leave their home, to have any rights. Female doctors were killed because they had been 'corrupted' by western values. Girls as young as 6 were sold into marriage. Simple minor female health problems were killing girls and women at staggering levels.

Ok,so the US is the only country in history to have self interest behind helping a country,or to flex it's power around smaller nations?

The argument that I responded to was essentially that the US had no self interest in Cuba, which as you ought to know is BS.

Yea well I guess that proves other's and my point that some countries NEED and MUST be policed,look what happens when we "just let them be"

Surely you jest. You don't seem to get that the whole problem IS US intervention. In 1953 Iran had a fledgeling democracy, but Mosadeqh wanted to nationalize the Oil. The US didn't like that, and as US foreign policy has always been an expansion of corporate interests, the CIA removed him and imposed the autocratic Shah, remember him, the guy who killed political opponents, said that women should have no rights and lived in abundance while the vast majority of Iranians lived in povery or near powerty.

,but wait I guess you think Cuba has the right to be Communist and threaten Democracy(Cuban Missle Crisis)

Of course they have a right to be communist.

The cuban missile crisis was retaliation for the atomic missiles the US had stationed in Turkey.

This is how it went.
a) The US stations atomic missiles in turkey, which is right in the USSR's backyard.

b) The USSR then stations atomic missiles in cuba, which is right in the USA's backyard.

c) The US and USSR agree to remove both sets of missiles.

or Al-Qeada has a "right"to kill innocent Americans right?

Neither Al-Quaeda nor the US have a right to kill anyone, and yet they do, often and with glee and much celebration.



[edit on 28-4-2008 by aaa2500]

"male penis envy"I sense a mad female European!!

Not really. I'm not european, nor am I female. Your stereotypes need updating.

maybe you should talk to your fellow Euro buddies.

I suppose this wonderful unbiased US educational system is responsible for you thinking that europe is a country and that all europeans know each other. I suppose you think that all black look alike, and all latinos speak spanish as well.

Im sorry but I don/t feel that bad for Soviets who died in the war,Im glad they helped and of course have the natural human emoation of being sad they died-but I do feel diffrently towards them dying than say Americans or British.

Of course you do. They are not White Anglo Saxon People, they're just slavs.

We did't rape German women and children cause"we were mad"

So all slavs are 'mad' and all slavs rape 'white women'.

,I could go on with Soviet war atrocities,but I won't.So Im sorry I don't feel the same about their deaths-deal with it.

That's because you see slavs as subhuman. Don't worry, you are in good company. Hitler did it as well. Your 'manifest destiny' is right up his ally as well. It's really sad to hear such foolishness from an american.

I remember meeting a german-american jewish woman visiting my country. We talked about the time she had spent in eastern europe during WW2, and the US and Israel afterwards. She was so frustrated at what the US had become. Once the beakon of light in a feudal world, but now so much in love with itself and it's power. She told me about her neighbours with their american flags on their cars, their clothes, etc. talking about how 'they' were going to kill ragheads and how the only good muslim was a dead muslim. She took my arm and said that they reminded her of the germans during the 30's. Hating someone because of their race was now an everyday occurrence in the US, and if someone questioned it, they were berated as traitors and cowards. The jews in my country were almost all saved by a collective coordinated effort, and she wanted to move here to get away from the resurgent 'nationalsozialismus'

Ok,are you Russian?You must be"the Russians were the only winner of the war"are you f***in kidding me?

nope, not russian. The USSR cause 80 percent of the casualties of nazi germany, which is an important point.

Does the "aaa"in your name mean anti-american a**hole?

Why do you feel the need to berate people? I seems like whenever you are unable to argue the point, you start calling people names. Is this how you were raised? Do talk like that to your girlfriend if she doesn't agree with you?

Um,because you and your anti-american friends said Britain would kick the US's a**.Which would never happen-lol,not even in your dreams.

I've never said that. I haven't commented on that issue at all, and just for the record, nothing I have said can be construed as anti american, unless anti-american means disagreeing with you.

Like I said it is expected that the US(as the greatest nation by militarily and economical means)is always bashed due to jealousy and hate.

No jealousy or hate. I love americans, I guess I just know too much about the foreign policy and CIA adventures of the US. I travel to the US on business and vacation often and have been offered several jobs in the US.

But on a more important note-God you Europeans complain about EVERYTHING-even when someone helps you and SAVES your country.That is why Americans(rightfully so)see most Europeans as "crybabies"cause you are.I mean you and the French,hell most of Europe make me sick sometimes

You keep refering to me being a European. First of all europe is not a country, and secondly, I most certainly am not from europe.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by aaa2500]

seems tho me that its not americA! that is the most powerfulll of all time. Have you herad of Ancient eYGPT! aliens that were connecgted to them (the ancient EyPgytians) make them a powerfull )more than a million thimes in my opinons) than our current nuclear woepons. Can we be traveling from dimensions to dimensions freeYl? I didn;t thinkso. Prove me rong if you can???

reply to post by yawa_em_koot_sneila


Anyways....back to current events that actually pertain to modern war and current conflicts...

All right, let's get back to the Iraq war.

I remember seeing this on TV once. The similarities are striking!

Linky!

Interview: Robert McNamara, U.S. secretary of defense

They expected to withdraw the force of 16,000 military advisers by the end of '65, and that the first unit of withdrawal would be completed within 90 days, by the end of December 1963.


Interview: Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. secretary of defense

Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III

www.cbsnews.com...

Archival Footage: Robert McNamara, U.S. secretary of defense

"We'll stay for as long as it takes. We shall provide whatever help is required to win the battle against the communist insurgents."


Remarks by the President at Lima Army Tank Plant - Lima, Ohio

And we'll stay as long as it takes to complete our mission. And then all our forces are going to leave Iraq and come home.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Interview: Gen. William Westmoreland, commander, U.S. Forces, Vietnam

"This was the type of war that we'd had no experience with before, and we were on a learning curve ... and some of our policies were kind of trial and error in character."


Maj. Gen. William G. Webster, November 2005

“Fighting an irregular war is an extremely difficult conversion for any regular army, even a superpower."

www.afji.com...

Interview: Vice Adm. James Stockdale, pilot at Tonkin

"Well, I was over that ... those destroyers for over an hour and a half, below a thousand feet, lights off, watching everything they did. I could hear 'em chit-chatting on the radio, the Maddox and the Joy, they seemed to have some, er, intermittent radar targets. I took it upon myself to get out there where they thought the boat was and try to kill it if they didn't. But it was ... it was fruitless ... and I'd go down there and there was nothing."


The draft report was handed to British, US and Australian experts at a meeting in London earlier this month, according to the New York Times. It largely confirms the findings of Mr Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, who concluded "we were almost all wrong" in thinking Saddam had stockpiled weapons. The Duelfer report goes into greater detail.

www.guardian.co.uk...
edition.cnn.com...

"I'd ask questions like, er, when is the war going to end? Well, we don't know. How many more men do you think we're going to lose? Well, we really don't know. Then I finally got down to it and said, 'What is our plan to win the war in Vietnam?' Turned out there wasn't any. The plan was just to stay with it and ultimately hoping that the enemy would finally give up."


Brigadier General Mark Scheid in the The Daily Press

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.

"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

volokh.com...


And lots more...

The deception is the same and if you substitute 'Vietnam' for 'Iraq' in many of the quotes, it is like hearing Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush speak.

Well, atleast Al-qaeda won't run out of supplies...
www.guardian.co.uk...

Same old Same old...

[edit on 28-4-2008 by aaa2500]

Originally posted by aaa2500
I've been off line for a few days, assembling my new computer. I'll respond in 2 parts.

With the usual lack of source material.

You are playing semantics. Some of the 7 major groups in Iraq are using uniforms, grade distinctions, military structure and carry weapons openly, which makes them beligerents and affords them POW status according to the Geneva conventions.

There is absolutely no truth to what you say. An insurgent who wears camo pants, does not make a soldier.

The F-22 and F-35 are over budget,over weight, under spec, and delayed.

I suppose it is to certain factions (typical uniformed fifth columnist) who would like to see a weak America, however, that is not supported by fact.

Even then, the US will replace 700 F-15's with less than 200 F-22's, and 2600 F-16's with 2300 F-35's.

I personally think the F22 will see more purchases. However, I point to the red flags results, the Red Flags results speak for them selfs, the F22 enjoyed one of the most lopsided victorys in Red flag history with 244 kills, to 2 total losses. Do you really need 800 aircraft to feel a non existent void?

As for the F-15, it's not about age, but about structural integrity, Stresses on the aircraft etc. If can be the most capable fighter ever produced, but if it pulls too many G's over time, it will disintegrate in mid air.

The number of F15s affected by this structural defect were small, and did not involve the F15E strike eagles.

AKA 'Future Cancelled System'. Look at the original proposed specs, and compare with the revised specs of today.

It has actually grown in scope, size, with more added systems.

In 2004, the price went from $96 billion, to $160 billion, from that, to todays $200 billion. FCS has not experienced any significant incursions on its development, and if it has, I am curious to see such results, as my research points otherwise.

Thats not to say that there have not been attempts to slash the FCS budget, but all have failed, FCS has created so many jobs, that slashing its budget could be political suicide. I compare it much like canceling the B2 bomber, which has at least one part of it made in all 50 states, the same is true with FCS, but on a much larger scale.

Most of the system has lost funding and what is left is far from what it was supposed to be.

The best defense against logic, is ignorance.

It's all just pipe dreams.

According to whom?



[edit on 29-4-2008 by West Coast]

reply to post by aaa2500


"male penis envy"I sense a mad female European!! "

I wasn't even talking to you,and I know Europe is not a country,I just use it to generalize anyone from that continant.

Also it appears you don't have any comment for your invalid "f-15's"are aging argument-since I totally destroyed that one.

And no I don't call people names when they disagree,I call them names when they continue to demonstrate ignorance and will not listen to facts,but state false claims(ridiculous)themselves.

If you want to make it look like the US is the only country to ever get involved in foreign affairs and have some negative outcomes you can,but you and me both know that is not true.

Also I guess in your opinion we should have let the Soviets just continue to massacre the multitudes of unarmed Afghanis?Like I said,sure after the Afghans won their country went to sh*t, but it was have been better than a forced Communism........yea the Taliban took over-that was unfortunate,but that just shows how unstable that country is.

You do realize Vietnam was nothing more than a "satellite"war right?Meaning it was the Soviets and Americans fighting eachother-without actually fighting eachother,do you understand?There was never supposed to be a true winner.

I have to go to school,Ill be back on later.

There is absolutely no truth to what you say. An insurgent who wears camo pants, does not make a soldier.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
Article 4.

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

...2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
www.unhchr.ch...

So when you write 'There is absolutely no truth to what you say', you really mean that I am right, but you just don't want to admit it.

I suppose it is to certain factions (typical uniformed fifth columnist) who would like to see a weak America,

You really shouldn't use terms you don't understand. In order for me to be 'fith column', I would have to be in the US.
en.wikipedia.org...

however, that is not supported by fact.

So neither the F-22 or the F-35 are overweight, overbudget, under spec and delayed. Wow, you certainly know how to tell a lie with a straight face.

The number of F15s affected by this structural defect were small, and did not involve the F15E strike eagles.

It's not about about any specific defect, but about the fact that F-15's are old airframes with lot's of hours of flying time, lot's of G's, who are already flying with restrictions. The F-15 Eagle is an air superiority fighter whereas the F-15 strike eagle is a strike aircraft.

It has actually grown in scope, size, with more added systems.

Actually the system has gone from about 20 systems to less than 15 and from electric tanks, lasers, majorily UAV to existing tanks, existing UAV's and still using kinetic weapons. The original FCS was science fiction, but the new improved FCS is just a gradual improvement of the current forces, with a longer timeframe.

According to whom?

I said that. You and others talk of systems which aren't finalized, systems that doesn't exist yet, lasers, railguns, Air superiority UAV's, unmanned tanks etc. and talk of them as if they are in production and being fielded as we speak, but even the manufacturers say that even though these weapons can be built, they won't be if there is no money for it. And where is that money supposed to come from. With tax cuts and more spending, the interest the US has to pay is increasing every month, and at some point someone has to put the shoe down and say 'we have to stop living above our means' and pay this debt down, the interest is killing us! Clinton did that in the 90's, and then GWB began implementing voodoo economics again.

Also it appears you don't have any comment for your invalid "f-15's"are aging argument-since I totally destroyed that one.

I didn't respond as I thought you might see yourself why you were wrong. I'm talking about the fighter, you are refering to the strike aircraft. F-15's are ageing, and the fact that F-15's are flying under restrictions should make you see that.

You operate under the assumption that physics can be worked around by simply ignoring it. There is a reason that all aircraft have an airframe lifespan measured in hours. It can't be made clearer than that, and if you don't understand that, then there is nothing that I or anyone else can say that will help you.

And no I don't call people names when they disagree,I call them names when they continue to demonstrate ignorance and will not listen to facts,but state false claims(ridiculous)themselves.

I have simply demonstrated superior understanding and knowledge of the systems you refer to and that makes you angry. You don't seem to realize that a system doesn't nessesarily work as well or even at all, as the army or airforce is claiming, you just accept anything they spoonfeed you and call it fact.

Physics are real.

If you want to make it look like the US is the only country to ever get involved in foreign affairs and have some negative outcomes you can,but you and me both know that is not true.

It's not, but it is the country which have interfered the most in other countries, to benefit everything from presidents egos to Corporate interests.
The US does it, not because it has to, but because it can.

Also I guess in your opinion we should have let the Soviets just continue to massacre the multitudes of unarmed Afghanis?

The USSR didn't 'slaughter multitudes of unarmed Afghans'. The TV images you've seen on TV was staged footage from the Mujahedeen. The fact is that throughout the entire conflict, the Soviet forces operated under specific orders not to use force unless fired upon.

Like I said,sure after the Afghans won their country went to sh*t, but it was have been better than a forced Communism........yea the Taliban took over-that was unfortunate,but that just shows how unstable that country is.

Do you even know anything about Afghanistan? Communism wasn't forced on them. The monarchy was abolished in a peaceful coup, and the new US supported 'president' then started to kill his political opponents. He was then overthrown by Afghan socialists and communists who set about changing Afghanistan into a modern democratic society, allowing freedom of religion, giving women equal rights and began a landreform programme to distribute wealth and curb the influence of the tribes. This was something the USSR liked to see, and they began offering aid. This angered the US, so they sent in the CIA and in response the USSR invaded Afghanistan in order to support the Afghan government

The afghans didn't win their country when the soviets left. They were occupied by pakistanis and arabs in the guise of the Taleban. The pakistanis and arabs then sat in the background and paid afghans to fight other afghans.

You do realize Vietnam was nothing more than a "satellite"war right?Meaning it was the Soviets and Americans fighting eachother-without actually fighting eachother,do you understand?There was never supposed to be a true winner.

Actually it was the north vietnamese fighting the foreign forces, just as they had fought the french. They wanted independence and sovereignty. Ho Chi Minh even referenced the US proclamation of independence in his own independence proclamation. The south was mostly fighting itself. The US had the CIA working in Vietnam since the 50's, and as the US increased attention to the south, the soviets decided to help the north.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by aaa2500]