It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Iran is bordered by 8 countries,we are only in 2 and,as any good military leader knows,you don't start a battle when there is another going on behind you.Which is exactly what will happen if Iran is invaded before Iraq is brought under control.The same will happen if we decide to attack from Afghanistan as well.Also,we leave ourselves open to Iran's new ally,China.
China shares a border with Afghanistan.Its tiny,but its still a way in.
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.
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.
n 1950,the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China (PRC) recognized each other diplomatically.The Soviet Union quickly followed suit. U.S. President Harry S.Truman countered by recognizing the French puppet government of Vietnam.Washington, seemingly ignorant of the long historical antipathy between Vietnam and China,feared that Hanoi was a pawn of the PRC and, by extension,Moscow.As historian and former Hanoi foreign minister Luu Doan Huynh has commented, “Vietnam a part of the Chinese expansionist game in Asia? For anyone who knows the history of Indochina, this is incomprehensible.” Nevertheless,Chinese support was very important to the Viet Minh's success, and China largely supported the Vietnamese Communists through the end of the war.
The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 marked a decisive turning point. From the perspective of many in Washington, what had been a colonial war in Indochina was transformed into another example of communist expansionism directed by the Kremlin.
In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy, and train Vietnamese soldiers.By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war.The Viet Minh received crucial support from the Soviet Union and the PRC. Chinese support in the Border Campaign of 1950 allowed supplies to come from China into Vietnam. Throughout the conflict, U.S. intelligence estimates remained skeptical of French chances of success.
The Battle of Dien Bien Phu marked the end of French involvement in Indochina. The Viet Minh and their mercurial commander Vo Nguyen Giap handed the French a stunning military defeat. On May 7, 1954, the French Union garrison surrendered. At the Geneva Conference the French negotiated a ceasefire agreement with the Viet Minh. Independence was granted to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. As a U.S. Army study noted, France lost the war primarily because it “neglected to cultivate the loyalty and support of the Vietnamese people.”More than 400,000 civilians and soldiers had died during the nine year conflict.
Vietnam was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel, and under the terms of the Geneva Convention, civilians were to be given the opportunity to freely move between the two provisional states. Elections throughout the country were to be held, according to the Geneva accords, but never took place. Nearly one million northerners (mainly Catholics) fled south in “understandable terror” of Ho Chi Minh's new regime. It is estimated that as many as two million more would have left had they not been stopped by the Viet Minh.In the north, the Viet Minh established a socialist state—the Democratic Republic of Vietnam—and engaged in a land reform program in which the mass killing of perceived “class enemies” occurred. Ho Chi Minh later apologized. In the south a non-communist state was established under the Emperor Bao Dai, a former puppet of the French and the Japanese. Ngo Dinh Diem became his Prime Minister. In addition to the Catholics flowing south, up to 90,000 Viet Minh fighters went north for “regroupment” as envisioned by the Geneva Accords. However, in contravention of the Accords, the Viet Minh left roughly 5,000 to 10,000 cadres in South Vietnam as a “politico-military substructure within the object of its irredentism.”
As dictated by the Geneva Conference of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending national elections on July 20, 1956. Much as in Korea, the agreement stipulated that the two military zones were to be separated by a temporary demarcation line (known as the Demilitarized Zone or DMZ). The United States, alone among the great powers, refused to sign the Geneva agreement. The president of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, declined to hold elections. This called into question the United States' commitment to democracy in the region, but also raised questions about the legitimacy of any election held in the communist-run North.President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed U.S. fears when he wrote that, in 1954, “80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh” over Emperor Bao Dai.However,this wide popularity was expressed before Ho's disastrous land reform program and a peasant revolt in Ho's home province which had to be bloodily suppressed.
The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory.This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow. Popularized by the Eisenhower Administration,some argued that if communism spread unchecked, it would follow them home by first reaching Hawaii and follow to the West Coast of the United States.It was better to fight communism in Asia,rather than on American soil.
I've said many times to friends that i think the US government is treating Islam as the new Communism.
And,as with Communism,its only sharing lies and half truths about Muslims to their own people.
Americas fear of Communism plunged the world into the Cold War.Should we let the same happen again,especially when this time around that fear has helped to create 2 wars? (and counting)
[edit on 29-4-2008 by jakyll]
Originally posted by aaa2500
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.
What does the Geneva Convention Laws have to do with anything?What does the fact that the Iraqi's are fighting in a militia have do do with anything?If anything it proves we(the US)are pushing them along so they can govern and protect themselves soon.I just don't see why you brought up a bunch of irrelevant information,maybe cause it makes you look smart?
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...
Maybe you don't understand the English language and metaphors and other types of comparisons.He wasn't saying you WERE a "fifth columnist"but rather LIKE a "fifth columnist".
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.
Kinda like you lie about things that serve your purpose right?I guess if you have to resort to stating obvious and non-important facts of warfare technology development issues(which happen to everyone,esspecially when creating a super modern fighting system).Tell me ONE program from ANY country in the MODERN era that has't been over budget and have development issues BEFORE being successfully developed.Also you do do realize we ALREADY have numerous F-22's in ACTIVE DUTY right?I don't think those are "under specs,over weight,etc"They work JUST FINE,and the F-35 will SOON follow.
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.
Science fiction?So just cause your country can't develop it themselves it is sci-fi?Sounds pretty ignorant to me,and actually the systems got CONSOLIDATED,not cut-had you done research you would be aware of the "1+1+14"basis for the system-meaning multiple systems functioning together as one major system.Maybe you should look up "consolidation" and learn about what exactly "FCS"is.Oh and it will be ready by 2012.
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.
Again-this is why it's called the FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM-the key word being FUTURE,and alot of the technology is already availabe,and the rest(which is in test phase will be available by 2020 at the latest.)Also you act like the US doesn't have an income of it's own,like we can't pay for these things-which we can,somethings just cost money-especially things of the magnitude of "FCS".So that isn't an argument,trust me WE WILL pay for it,and our economy will get better,this is just a natural "20 year cyclical recession".
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.
Originally posted by aaa2500
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.
Again,the F-15E is more than capable of filling the role of the aging superiority fighters against any possible enemy right now,and let's not forget the F-16,F-18 either,not to mention the F-22 is rocketing ahead in numbers produced.
The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It is primarily an air superiority fighter, but has multiple capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles. The United States Air Force considers the F-22 a critical component of the U.S. strike force.[1]
Faced with a protracted development period, the aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 during the three years before formally entering US Air Force service in December 2005, as the F-22A. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Program partner Boeing Integrated Defense Systems provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and all of the pilot and maintenance training systems.
The F-22 is claimed by multiple sources to be the world’s most effective air superiority fighter. The US Air Force claims that the F-22 cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft.[1] Chief of the Australian Defence Force, then-Air Marshal Angus Houston, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."[5]
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.
Yes,physics are real and you seem to not get the "physics"of the F-22 and are bent on the idea that because we are in the middle of changing our primary fighter we are weak,which is not true.I guess you and other anti-Americans like to grab ahold of any sign of weakness-however false it is and try and stretch it out beyond fantasy.The FACT is that no country is a threat to us right now and thus your idea that "our f-15's are aging"is mute due to the fact that it doesn't matter since no country is a threat and these"weak"F-15's are more than a match for anyone.By the time a country does try and match us(if) the F-22 will be all over the skies and the F-15 retired...........those are the FACTS.So you continue to believe that our upgrading our military is a sign of weakness.
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.
If you believe that the US has never had good intentions, fine,I can't change your mind..........you are still side stepping the fact I posted and ONLY talking about the US in other countries,while "airbrushing"as you like to say,the other nations of the world out.
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.
I can't argue with you,how can I when you claim all my information is false and yours is true?In your eyes everything the US does is evil,and everything everyone else does is good.
Only one comment on this-did you say the "Communist"wanted to see "Democracy"develop??Again,I guess your diluted fanatical news source is right and mine is wrong.
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]
I think you should learn to read in between the lines,I know who it TECHNIALLY was,but as I said all it was was Russia and USA fighting eachother and testing war technologies on each other without actually FIGHTING eachother-in other words they pick a small a** country to fight it out on instead of fighting eachother on their own country.The US sent troops,money,and supplies while Russia sent weapons,money,and supplies.
F22
[edit on 4/29/2008 by jkrog08]
But by all means lets further this wonderful discussion so as we might continue to educate each other,I truly love you all,regardless of what you may think from some of my statements-I want nothing more than to live in a one world peace without grumblings of culture, wars,and money.I feel that one day we will have have this,if not than we are all truly doomed.
I also don't think we should go to war with Iran unless WE KNOW they have nukes and have COALITION SUPPORT.
Some good things can be said of the last world war-the fact that all nations that were for good formed together and fought for a single purpose against total evil disregarding personal and cultural bias,if even temporarly,and that gives me hope that we can change for the better in this world.
Im surprised that you dont see how disrespectful this thread is.
Originally posted by jkrog08
Are you a MOD?????????
No,your not.............so either put something intelligent into this thread or stop whining and get off of my thread.
Originally posted by aaa2500
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed, U.S. joint forces are teaming with industry, largely because of the enormity of the project. FCS involves nine different types of manned ground vehicles, ranging from mounted cannons to surveillance systems. It includes two classes of robotic aerial vehicles, from the saucer-like hovering vehicle to an unmanned mini-helicopter. It also includes two classes of unmanned ground vehicles, four kinds of tactical sensors, three types of urban sensors, centralized controllers for soldiers and an all-encompassing network built on approximately 67 million lines of software code.
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.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:article 4.
Which makes you anti-American.
Originally posted by jakyll
WestCoast.
Just out of curiosity,is everyone who doesn't agree with the US government anti-American??