shafagh

The India incident was interesting. You stated that the Indian fighters had a number of advantages and that this should be taken into account when doling out points, but thats just the sort of thing that the US will run into in the battle field. You cant control the number of fighters opposing you, you cant control the quality of the pilots opposing you. As for the 'crap radar' claim that has been floating around, I have yet to see any official substantiation of this claim and therefore discount this until such time as substantiation arises.

While there are variables on the battlefield, it's unlikely we're going to be meeting pilots better trained then we are on the whole. India doesn't have pilots of this skill on the widescale to throw against us. These types of variables aren't likely to appear on the battlefield. We aren't likely to be outnumbered. There is really no chance we'd be ountnumbered against a set of elites from another country on the actual battlefield.

The push for the F-22 is good and will increase the US advantage a small amount, but its overdue and technology has already moved on in many areas. There are planes in service already with thrust vectoring, superior radar systems, comparable missile capabilities and range and speed. Add to this the fact that it will not be deployed overseas for at least another 5 years (it will take that long to migrate pilots and train them to a decent level and have them gain experience on the plane) and you have yet another mediocre plane when seen on the battle field.

There isn't anything comparable to the F-22 right now. The Eurofighter would be the best bet, and it doesn't even have stealth. You just have to look at the kill ratios to see that the F-22 is far superior to the competition. 10:1 against SU-35's compared to a 4.5:1 for the Eurofighter. There isn't anything else that's going to be deployed in the coming years that'll beat out the Eurofighter in capabilities. The claim that the F-22 will be a mediocre plane when it comes into service is just laughable.

At the moment, in the circle of people I meet, there is a general consensus of opinion that the US has grown to threaten the world more than protect it. In the past 50 years, the US has invaded more countries than any other country (including Nazi Germany) and has deposed at least 3 DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED AND SUSTAINED governments. The US has threatened to cut off aid to poor countries unless those countries grant US troops imunity to any crime they commit while in that country (nice one this, US troops got off without any charge after a UN investigation proved that US troops were taking children of the age of 12 from a refugee camp in an african country and using them as sex slaves - nice use of imunity there you bastards)

This paragraph reeked of anti-Americanism. It's one thing to question, it's another to insult and call us bastards.

I'd like a list of the countries we've invaded. Either way, we haven't conquered anybody. Besides that, Canadians and Europeans were along with us in all of those countries I'm betting.

While our soldiers may be immune in other countries, they don't go unpunished for things they do. I'm willing to bet those troops you talked about were seriously punished when they returned home. What they did, while awful, isn't exactly a representation of American troops. On the other hand, I could point out the situation in Congo right now where the UN troops are doing this exact same thing on a massive scale.

Using the checklist that Bush laid down for the invasion of iraq, the US has actively been seeking new Weapons of Mass Destruction (has stated in numerous reports that it wishes to seek new nuclear weapons and increase its nuclear arsenal), has used chemical agents against civilian populations (agent orange in vietnam), threatens the sovereignty of other nations and maintains prisons that have been outside US law.

Agent Orange in Vietnam was used to get rid of jungle, wasn't it? It did effect people in horrible ways, but were we aware of the consequences when we used it? Either way, we now give billions in aid to Vietnam (and they still complain). We give more than anyone in aid.

Oh, and the US is the only country to have had a UN resolution naming it as a state sponser of terrorism. The US likes to use the UN when it pleases them, but go its own way when the UN wont do what its told.

It wasn't a matter of the UN doing what it was told to do, it was a matter of the UN not doing what it was supposed to do. We've found a ballistic missile system in Iraq, along with a stash of chemical weapons and a number of other illegal weapons. We found a connection to Al Qeada. The invasion of Iraq was completley justified, and quite frankly it's saved a lot of Iraqi lives. The numbers that died in the invasion don't even compare to those lost under Saddam's reign of terror. The 1 million we've found in mass graves are always just skipped over when people talk about the Iraq War...

The UN's decision can hardly be considered fair. Hell, we've found a number of Russia, Chinese, and France weapons in Iraq since we entered. All three of those are on the UN Security Council, and opposed the war. They were getting oil from Saddam. They abused the Food for Oil program. Was it just a coincidence that they all opposed the war?

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

At the moment, in the circle of people I meet, there is a general consensus of opinion that the US has grown to threaten the world more than protect it. In the past 50 years, the US has invaded more countries than any other country (including Nazi Germany) and has deposed at least 3 DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED AND SUSTAINED governments. The US has threatened to cut off aid to poor countries unless those countries grant US troops imunity to any crime they commit while in that country (nice one this, US troops got off without any charge after a UN investigation proved that US troops were taking children of the age of 12 from a refugee camp in an african country and using them as sex slaves - nice use of imunity there you bastards)

This paragraph reeked of anti-Americanism. It's one thing to question, it's another to insult and call us bastards.

Funny that, anything not positive about the US is counted as anti-Americanism. Grow up people. Oh, and I wasnt called the generic American a bastard, it was aimed at the troops involved in that incident.

I'd like a list of the countries we've invaded. Either way, we haven't conquered anybody. Besides that, Canadians and Europeans were along with us in all of those countries I'm betting.

Ok (and I will just list the US only operations where military support was not asked for by the ruling government of the country invaded):

1954 Guatemala. US Government trained and backed exiles under the command and support of US military invades and overthrows current government. US Marines put into country to support exiles.

1962 Panama. US Government puts troops into Panama against the wishes of that countries government. Results in over 1000 Panamanians being shot by US troops.

1965 Dominican Republic. US Government puts troops into the country during democratic elections when it becomes apparent that the pro US government was about to fall.

1969 Cambodia. Despite never having declared war on the country, the US government drops bombs and puts troops into Cambodia after CIA intelligence suggests the NVA was using Cambodia as a supply route.

1970 Oman. US Government puts troops into the country to support an Iranian invasion.

1971 Laos. US government commands South Vietnamese invasion and puts troops in upon request of SV commanders.

1973 Chile. US government puts troops into Chile to support and train rebels looking to depose democratically elected president.

1976 Angola. US government puts troops into country to support and train South African backed rebels.

1981 Nicaragua. US Government puts troops into country to support and train exiled militants. US Government received a UN resolution for this, citing the US as being a 'State sponser of terrorism', the only country to be labeled as such to date.

1983 Grenada. US Government puts troops into country to overthrow current government.

1987 Iran. US Government intervenes on the side of Iraq, puts troops into Iran for 6 weeks. US Naval and bombing of Iran continues for a year.

1989 Panama. US Government overthrows Nationalist government after they refuse to extend lease on the Canal (the US wanted a further 100 years on the lease, no extra money to be paid).

1994 Haiti. US Government reinstates Haitian president who was ousted 3 years previously by the people and the military. Troops put into the country. (US Government forces this president to quit in 2003, there was no democratic elections between the reinstatement and his departure for a second time).

1997 Liberia, Albania. US troops put into country to 'remove foreigners from country' and stayed for a year, supporting rebel held positions.

Good enough list for you?

While our soldiers may be immune in other countries, they don't go unpunished for things they do. I'm willing to bet those troops you talked about were seriously punished when they returned home. What they did, while awful, isn't exactly a representation of American troops. On the other hand, I could point out the situation in Congo right now where the UN troops are doing this exact same thing on a massive scale.

Yes, the UN troops are doing exactly the same thing, and they will be dealt with on three levels. 1. the local laws. 2. The international criminal court. 3. The troops own military. The US troops I mentioned will only face military disciplinary action, they cannot face a US court of law for these actions.

Using the checklist that Bush laid down for the invasion of iraq, the US has actively been seeking new Weapons of Mass Destruction (has stated in numerous reports that it wishes to seek new nuclear weapons and increase its nuclear arsenal), has used chemical agents against civilian populations (agent orange in vietnam), threatens the sovereignty of other nations and maintains prisons that have been outside US law.

Agent Orange in Vietnam was used to get rid of jungle, wasn't it? It did effect people in horrible ways, but were we aware of the consequences when we used it? Either way, we now give billions in aid to Vietnam (and they still complain). We give more than anyone in aid.

It was sprayed liberally over Hanoi and other non foliage covered enemy positions. And there were other defoliants in use by the US military at the time, which had lesser effects on humans. THe effects of Agent Orange were known to the company supplying it and the US Government at the time they purchased it.

The US government has always refused to take responsability for the use of Agent Orange, while the company that supplied it spent nearly �100million setting up after care centers for the victims of the spraying. Sometimes chucking Aid at a country doesnt make up for the abuses that country suffered at your hand. If that worked, why cant felons in the US pay money to buy shorter sentances? Oh, and the US government has just halted aid to Vietnam because it has refused to give up powers of prosecution of US troops at the international criminal court.

Oh, and the US is the only country to have had a UN resolution naming it as a state sponser of terrorism. The US likes to use the UN when it pleases them, but go its own way when the UN wont do what its told.

It wasn't a matter of the UN doing what it was told to do, it was a matter of the UN not doing what it was supposed to do. We've found a ballistic missile system in Iraq, along with a stash of chemical weapons and a number of other illegal weapons. We found a connection to Al Qeada. The invasion of Iraq was completley justified, and quite frankly it's saved a lot of Iraqi lives. The numbers that died in the invasion don't even compare to those lost under Saddam's reign of terror. The 1 million we've found in mass graves are always just skipped over when people talk about the Iraq War...

The ballistic missile system was made aware to the UN weapons inspectors both in visual inspections and in the dossier Iraq handed over, and was in the process of being destroyed at the time the US forced the inspectors to leave due to the pending war.

There has been NO SUBSTANTIATED Al Quieda connection made to date, other than 'an iraqi met a known AQ member several years ago.' Indeed, the invasion of Iraq by the US UK coalition may have actually prompted AQ to commence operations in that area. Al Queida is known to have said in the past that it despised Saddams regime as one it was not willing to tolerate.

There have been NO SUBSTANTIATED viable chemical weapons stores found, only empty rusty shells and one shell by the side of the road. There have been several front page claims of findings, but they were always refuted several days later (but those stories never made frontpage news, so you get left with the impression 20 or 30 dumps were found when infact none of them were anything really important)

I agree that Saddam Hussein was a Bad Man, but with what the US and the UK went to the UN with, THE INVASION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. There was no WMD threat from Iraq, the UN had done what it considered to be the best course of action. Indeed, Colin Powel said in 2001 that 'Iraq does not have the means to make or acquire WMD, and does not have the military means to wage war on its neighbours.' You cant convict someone in a court of law based on false evidence, and then later say 'Oh yeah, he may be innocent of THOSE crimes, but he deserved what he got because hes a Really Bad Man, and hes guilty of THESE crimes over here'.

Oh, and the UN inspectors were pulled out in 1998 by Clinton (they were never evicted or ejected by iraq) because Iraq refused to cooperate anymore, citing the fact that 'it had evidence to suggest that several UN inspectors were spying for the US'. Of course, the US denied this and carried out punitive bombing of Iraqi military sites. THen, in the report recently released about the reasons to go to war, the CIA stated 'they had no agents in Iraq after the 1998 pullout of the UN inspectors'. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. And Iraq got punished for that.

The UN's decision can hardly be considered fair. Hell, we've found a number of Russia, Chinese, and France weapons in Iraq since we entered. All three of those are on the UN Security Council, and opposed the war. They were getting oil from Saddam. They abused the Food for Oil program. Was it just a coincidence that they all opposed the war?

This is a claim constantly made, 'They abused the Food for Oil program'. Iraq couldnt abuse this program, the money was controlled by a UN comittee, only it had the power to say what was spent, and the records are publically available. As for the weapons, they also found several major US built radar systems.

And is it no suprise that the US is now in control of the Iraqi oil supply with no UN oversight? Was it just a coincidence that Cheney is a high level board member of the biggest firm in Iraq at the moment? Was it just a coincidence that Bush Senior is a major board member of the second biggest firm in Iraq at the moment? Was it just a coincidence that GWBush is a board member of a large military contractor that saw 300% increase in military contracts as a result of the Iraq war?

Funny that, anything not positive about the US is counted as anti-Americanism. Grow up people. Oh, and I wasnt called the generic American a bastard, it was aimed at the troops involved in that incident.

Sounded a lot more like a blanket statement to me.

Ok (and I will just list the US only operations where military support was not asked for by the ruling government of the country invaded):

We didn't really invade those nations on your list. A more appropriate statement would have been we've had troops in more nations then the Nazis.

Yes, the UN troops are doing exactly the same thing, and they will be dealt with on three levels. 1. the local laws. 2. The international criminal court. 3. The troops own military. The US troops I mentioned will only face military disciplinary action, they cannot face a US court of law for these actions.

Why can't they face a court of law? We've done it with those being accused of Iraqi abuse.

The US government has always refused to take responsability for the use of Agent Orange, while the company that supplied it spent nearly �100million setting up after care centers for the victims of the spraying. Sometimes chucking Aid at a country doesnt make up for the abuses that country suffered at your hand. If that worked, why cant felons in the US pay money to buy shorter sentances? Oh, and the US government has just halted aid to Vietnam because it has refused to give up powers of prosecution of US troops at the international criminal court.

America didn't start the conflict in Vietnam. The war crimes were hardly one-sided. Vietnam has never taken responsibility for what they did during the war, now have they? I don't expect them to apologize to American POW's they tortured, but I don't want to hear how we should take responsibility for agent orange. We have given them billions in aid to help the problem.

The ballistic missile system was made aware to the UN weapons inspectors both in visual inspections and in the dossier Iraq handed over, and was in the process of being destroyed at the time the US forced the inspectors to leave due to the pending war.

They didn't exactly have much choice after America got satellite photos of the site. They still had chemical weapons and illegal jet fighters. We also know they were negotiating the purchase of a missile system from North Korea. That wasn't discovered until after we invaded.

There has been NO SUBSTANTIATED Al Quieda connection made to date, other than 'an iraqi met a known AQ member several years ago.' Indeed, the invasion of Iraq by the US UK coalition may have actually prompted AQ to commence operations in that area. Al Queida is known to have said in the past that it despised Saddams regime as one it was not willing to tolerate.

We found documents in Iraq showing that they sought out a relationship with Al Qeada to work against Saudi Arabia in the early 90's. I believe that there is a lot of proof they funded Al Qeada operations in Syria. We also know Iraq considered Bin Laden an intelligence asset. We've found a number of terrorists within Iraq, such as the man who made the bombs in the first WTC attack, or the man responsible for bombing the USS Cole. Saddam throughout the 90's called for people throughout the Middle East to attack US embassies.

There may not be a smoking gun showing that they worked together to attack America, but enough has been found to show that they had more than a friendly relationship with one another.

There have been NO SUBSTANTIATED viable chemical weapons stores found, only empty rusty shells and one shell by the side of the road. There have been several front page claims of findings, but they were always refuted several days later (but those stories never made frontpage news, so you get left with the impression 20 or 30 dumps were found when infact none of them were anything really important)

The finds of chemical weapons were never really discredited. The claims against them were exaggerated. The closest thing to debunking I've seen is that some of the sarin found by the Polish was degraded, while nothing was ever said about other shells. I believe we just recently discovered another 12 artillery shells with sarin in them. The number count is something like 30 by now.

Didn't we find factories that could have pumped out chemical weapons within two months? They had the ability to produce anthrax, and the uranium recently taken out of the country could be used in dirty bombs.

The reports that Saddam sought out uranium in Nigeria have recently been shown to be far more credible.

Saddam had chemical weapons. He had the ability to produce more weapons. He was actively looking to get more weapons and a more effective delivery system.

This is a claim constantly made, 'They abused the Food for Oil program'. Iraq couldnt abuse this program, the money was controlled by a UN comittee, only it had the power to say what was spent, and the records are publically available. As for the weapons, they also found several major US built radar systems.

Do radar systems compare to missiles tanks and rockets? A lot of those weapons found were actually newer models that could have only been purchased in the 90's. Tell me, how exactly did Saddam get French, Chinese and Russian weapons throughout the 90's? I suppose the fact that Russia was pretty much getting over a million barrels of oil a day for nothing was just a coincidence?

The UN is investigating the Food for Oil program themselves (and not allowing anyone else to take part). You can not dismiss these claims so easily.

And is it no suprise that the US is now in control of the Iraqi oil supply with no UN oversight? Was it just a coincidence that Cheney is a high level board member of the biggest firm in Iraq at the moment? Was it just a coincidence that Bush Senior is a major board member of the second biggest firm in Iraq at the moment? Was it just a coincidence that GWBush is a board member of a large military contractor that saw 300% increase in military contracts as a result of the Iraq war?

There has been absolutely no evidence found that there was a conspiracy here. It's a lot of talk without much backing it. None of this even changes the fact that what we've done in Iraq has achieved a lot of good that goes ignored. It doesn't address the rest of the evidence I pointed out.

None of this changes the fact that Clinton himself alleged the same connections between Iraq and Al Qeada twice. It doesn't change that Clinton targeted in Iraq. It doesn't change that Clinton and members of his former staff state that no government could have left Iraq after 9/11. Was Clinton, too, in the pocket of oil companies and weapons contracters?

[edit on 24-7-2004 by Disturbed Deliverer]

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Funny that, anything not positive about the US is counted as anti-Americanism. Grow up people. Oh, and I wasnt called the generic American a bastard, it was aimed at the troops involved in that incident.

Sounded a lot more like a blanket statement to me.

Well, I apologise then, it wasnt supposed to be a blanket statement.

Ok (and I will just list the US only operations where military support was not asked for by the ruling government of the country invaded):

We didn't really invade those nations on your list. A more appropriate statement would have been we've had troops in more nations then the Nazis.

You had troops in those countries WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE RULING GOVERNMENT. Sounds like an invasion to me, albeit sometimes supporting other invasions. If putting troops into a country with a specific end goal isnt an invasion, then what is?

Yes, the UN troops are doing exactly the same thing, and they will be dealt with on three levels. 1. the local laws. 2. The international criminal court. 3. The troops own military. The US troops I mentioned will only face military disciplinary action, they cannot face a US court of law for these actions.

Why can't they face a court of law? We've done it with those being accused of Iraqi abuse.

Abu Graibe was considered to be under US protectorate at the time, hence the ability to be tried in a US court of law.

The US government has always refused to take responsability for the use of Agent Orange, while the company that supplied it spent nearly �100million setting up after care centers for the victims of the spraying. Sometimes chucking Aid at a country doesnt make up for the abuses that country suffered at your hand. If that worked, why cant felons in the US pay money to buy shorter sentances? Oh, and the US government has just halted aid to Vietnam because it has refused to give up powers of prosecution of US troops at the international criminal court.

America didn't start the conflict in Vietnam. The war crimes were hardly one-sided. Vietnam has never taken responsibility for what they did during the war, now have they? I don't expect them to apologize to American POW's they tortured, but I don't want to hear how we should take responsibility for agent orange. We have given them billions in aid to help the problem.

Oh, so the arguement 'well, they arent either' is usable here? sheesh, grow up.

The ballistic missile system was made aware to the UN weapons inspectors both in visual inspections and in the dossier Iraq handed over, and was in the process of being destroyed at the time the US forced the inspectors to leave due to the pending war.

They didn't exactly have much choice after America got satellite photos of the site. They still had chemical weapons and illegal jet fighters. We also know they were negotiating the purchase of a missile system from North Korea. That wasn't discovered until after we invaded.

Ive not heard anything about negotiations with NK anywhere. If that was true, why arent the US using that evidence against NK in the current crisis? That they had chemical weapons is still highly questionable.

There has been NO SUBSTANTIATED Al Quieda connection made to date, other than 'an iraqi met a known AQ member several years ago.' Indeed, the invasion of Iraq by the US UK coalition may have actually prompted AQ to commence operations in that area. Al Queida is known to have said in the past that it despised Saddams regime as one it was not willing to tolerate.

We found documents in Iraq showing that they sought out a relationship with Al Qeada to work against Saudi Arabia in the early 90's. I believe that there is a lot of proof they funded Al Qeada operations in Syria. We also know Iraq considered Bin Laden an intelligence asset. We've found a number of terrorists within Iraq, such as the man who made the bombs in the first WTC attack, or the man responsible for bombing the USS Cole. Saddam throughout the 90's called for people throughout the Middle East to attack US embassies.

Hate to break it to you but the documents found that you indicate were not in the posession of the Iraqi government, they were found in northern Iraq in the Kurdish controlled areas. It was the kurds who were seeking AQ connections, not Saddam. Indeed 4 terrorist training camps were found in the kurdish controlled areas.

Having a number of terrorists in Iraq does not a connection make. The US currently has dozens loose as well, the UK has dozens loose.

Im not disputing that Saddam was a state sponser of terrorism, he just had no substantiated links at all to AQ.

The finds of chemical weapons were never really discredited. The claims against them were exaggerated. The closest thing to debunking I've seen is that some of the sarin found by the Polish was degraded, while nothing was ever said about other shells. I believe we just recently discovered another 12 artillery shells with sarin in them. The number count is something like 30 by now.

Didn't we find factories that could have pumped out chemical weapons within two months? They had the ability to produce anthrax, and the uranium recently taken out of the country could be used in dirty bombs.

A great deal of the dumps were discredited, including the Polish find where later reports stated 'We do not know why initial tests showed sarin, further tests do not substantiate these findings. What is contained in those barrels is not sarin.' No sites have stood up to scrutiny. Remember, for them to be WMD they need to be viable and weaponisable, that is the criteria laid down by the US inspectorate team dealing with this (which we havent heard from in a good 6 months now). A good number of the sites found have been chemicals in industrial areas of cities, and have later been found to be jsut that, industrial chemicals (which in some cases could be used as chemical weapons, but no proof was ever found that they ever were to be)

If so many WMD sites have been found, why did Tony Blair recently say in Parliament and in front of the British people 'We have to come to terms with the fact that no weapons of mass destruction may be found in Iraq, he may never have had them or he may have destroyed them or hidden them. We need to consider this as a possibility.' He said that as recently as 3 weeks ago.

The reports that Saddam sought out uranium in Nigeria have recently been shown to be far more credible.

Whoa!! The nigeria claims have been TOTALLY discredited, he never sought to purchase uraniam yellowcake (that was the claim) from nigeria. Bush used this in his State of the Union speech and later withdrew it. It was found to be a false claim, from the British Intelligence office.

It is mentioned in the Hutton report on the enquiry into the death of Weapons Inspector David Kelly, who was found dead after publically discrediting much of the case for war against Iraq (and he was proven right in the recent Butler report about the state of intelligence around the case for war, all of kellys claims were proven true.)

The British Intelligence withdrew the nigeria claim as proven false, Bush still used it in the State of the Union, and later apologised for it.

Saddam had chemical weapons. He had the ability to produce more weapons. He was actively looking to get more weapons and a more effective delivery system.

He had chemical weapons, a decade or so ago. He didnt have the ability to produce more. He was actively looking for alternatives. Ill grant you two out of three for that.

This is a claim constantly made, 'They abused the Food for Oil program'. Iraq couldnt abuse this program, the money was controlled by a UN comittee, only it had the power to say what was spent, and the records are publically available. As for the weapons, they also found several major US built radar systems.

Do radar systems compare to missiles tanks and rockets? A lot of those weapons found were actually newer models that could have only been purchased in the 90's. Tell me, how exactly did Saddam get French, Chinese and Russian weapons throughout the 90's? I suppose the fact that Russia was pretty much getting over a million barrels of oil a day for nothing was just a coincidence?

If the rockets cant be fired because they dont have radar systems, yes. The fact that modern weapons were found means nothing, since there was only a limit to what Saddam could buy, not a ban on weapons. The UN had to accept when laying down the resolutions that Iraqs neighbours still proved a threat to them (Iran would love an independant Iraq with a #e military, can you say invasion three times quickly? )

The tanks and rockets found were not in breach of UN resolutions, and im not sure if the radar system was.

The UN is investigating the Food for Oil program themselves (and not allowing anyone else to take part). You can not dismiss these claims so easily.

Since the UN is made up of pretty much everyone, who else should take part? There may have been minor monetory violations, but since the books were reviewed monthly by a different independant committee, i seriously doubt that any serious violations could happen.

And is it no suprise that the US is now in control of the Iraqi oil supply with no UN oversight? Was it just a coincidence that Cheney is a high level board member of the biggest firm in Iraq at the moment? Was it just a coincidence that Bush Senior is a major board member of the second biggest firm in Iraq at the moment? Was it just a coincidence that GWBush is a board member of a large military contractor that saw 300% increase in military contracts as a result of the Iraq war?

There has been absolutely no evidence found that there was a conspiracy here. It's a lot of talk without much backing it. None of this even changes the fact that what we've done in Iraq has achieved a lot of good that goes ignored. It doesn't address the rest of the evidence I pointed out.

Theres a congressional investigation going on at the moment into Haliburton and Cheneys link. Theres investigations goiung on at the moment into overcharging Haliburton has done in Iraq. Theres also the coincidental evidence that Haliburton wasnt the lowest bidding contracter for the contracts it got, infact there were two or three other bids lower than the one Haliburton put in.
Maybe Haliburton was better than the other bidders, but Im not sure.

None of this changes the fact that Clinton himself alleged the same connections between Iraq and Al Qeada twice. It doesn't change that Clinton targeted in Iraq. It doesn't change that Clinton and members of his former staff state that no government could have left Iraq after 9/11. Was Clinton, too, in the pocket of oil companies and weapons contracters?

[edit on 24-7-2004 by Disturbed Deliverer]

Im not sure what you are trying to say here. Clinton never bombed Iraq under the pretence of terrorist activities. Clinton and his former staff can say all he wants, the evidence is not there to support the invasion under the proof given to the UN.

How the # would hit the fan if a US court turned down a search warrant to the police, but the police deciding to do the search anyway. The end does not justify the means. Do stuff right and you dont get criticised, but do it the way the US and the UK did it and you leave yourself open for criticism.

[edit on 25-7-2004 by RichardPrice]

You had troops in those countries WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE RULING GOVERNMENT. Sounds like an invasion to me, albeit sometimes supporting other invasions. If putting troops into a country with a specific end goal isnt an invasion, then what is?

Many were us going in there to support the current government.

An invasion is when you take over a country. How many times have we done that?

Oh, so the arguement 'well, they arent either' is usable here? sheesh, grow up.

I don't believe either side in a war should apologize. I was just saying that America has given them a lot of aid. We have no reason to take "responsibility" for something that happened in a war. America isn't pushing Vietnam to take responsibility for all of their numerous war crimes.

Ive not heard anything about negotiations with NK anywhere. If that was true, why arent the US using that evidence against NK in the current crisis? That they had chemical weapons is still highly questionable.

www.washtimes.com...

The Bush administration has been very quiet on all of the finds in Iraq.

Hate to break it to you but the documents found that you indicate were not in the posession of the Iraqi government, they were found in northern Iraq in the Kurdish controlled areas. It was the kurds who were seeking AQ connections, not Saddam. Indeed 4 terrorist training camps were found in the kurdish controlled areas.

"The Americans confirmed that they had obtained the document from the Iraqi National Congress, as part of a trove that the group gathered after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government last year."

Source - New York Times

Now, they don't say anything about the Kurds in here. This says Iraqi intelligence agencies were involved.

Having a number of terrorists in Iraq does not a connection make. The US currently has dozens loose as well, the UK has dozens loose.

How many terrorists do we have that well known hiding out still? Has our government ever hid these guys? Why would they have gone to Iraq of all countries?

A great deal of the dumps were discredited, including the Polish find where later reports stated 'We do not know why initial tests showed sarin, further tests do not substantiate these findings. What is contained in those barrels is not sarin.' No sites have stood up to scrutiny. Remember, for them to be WMD they need to be viable and weaponisable, that is the criteria laid down by the US inspectorate team dealing with this (which we havent heard from in a good 6 months now). A good number of the sites found have been chemicals in industrial areas of cities, and have later been found to be jsut that, industrial chemicals (which in some cases could be used as chemical weapons, but no proof was ever found that they ever were to be)

I've seen you try to discredit a single find without any sources. The Polish find wasn't the only one. I'd like to see some sources at this point, as well.

If so many WMD sites have been found, why did Tony Blair recently say in Parliament and in front of the British people 'We have to come to terms with the fact that no weapons of mass destruction may be found in Iraq, he may never have had them or he may have destroyed them or hidden them. We need to consider this as a possibility.' He said that as recently as 3 weeks ago.

I can't explain all the action of the governments. Finds have been kept relatively low profile. Stories on weapons being moved out of the country are rare. A lot has to do with media biases, I'm sure. Small finds like these don't cut it to a lot of people.

Whoa!! The nigeria claims have been TOTALLY discredited, he never sought to purchase uraniam yellowcake (that was the claim) from nigeria. Bush used this in his State of the Union speech and later withdrew it. It was found to be a false claim, from the British Intelligence office.

The 9/11 Commission as well as the Butler Report both said these statements carried weight.

"The recent British report by Lord Butler � while finding that the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons was "seriously flawed" � concluded that Mr. Bush's statement and a similar one by Blair were "well-founded.""

Source - CBS News

If the rockets cant be fired because they dont have radar systems, yes. The fact that modern weapons were found means nothing, since there was only a limit to what Saddam could buy, not a ban on weapons. The UN had to accept when laying down the resolutions that Iraqs neighbours still proved a threat to them (Iran would love an independant Iraq with a military, can you say invasion three times quickly?

Iraq had hidden jet fighters. They received spare parts from France just before we invaded.

These nations might not have given Saddam illegal weapons directly, but they gave him the ability to use them.

"Thanks to excellent reporting by Bill Gertz we now know that France has been supplying spare parts for Saddam's Mirage fighters. The French spare parts arrived in Baghdad not 20 years ago during the Cold War but last year, just in time to face our forces today.

...

In addition, William Safire recently wrote a column noting that a Chinese chemical company had supplied rocket fuel to Iraq through a French front company. Safire identified the fuel, the companies and the Iraqi missile facility where it was mixed into new Iraqi rockets. Again, the missile fuel sale was made within the last year, just in time to make new Iraqi missiles pointed at Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. "

Source - NewsMax

They were trading weapons for oil to a madman who abused his own people and threatened the region. You think that's justified?

Since the UN is made up of pretty much everyone, who else should take part? There may have been minor monetory violations, but since the books were reviewed monthly by a different independant committee, i seriously doubt that any serious violations could happen.

Those in charge were under the take. We'll see what happens when the Food for Oil report is finally released.

Theres a congressional investigation going on at the moment into Haliburton and Cheneys link. Theres investigations goiung on at the moment into overcharging Haliburton has done in Iraq. Theres also the coincidental evidence that Haliburton wasnt the lowest bidding contracter for the contracts it got, infact there were two or three other bids lower than the one Haliburton put in.

They haven't found anything yet, though, now have they? I haven't heard anything.

Im not sure what you are trying to say here. Clinton never bombed Iraq under the pretence of terrorist activities. Clinton and his former staff can say all he wants, the evidence is not there to support the invasion under the proof given to the UN.

He bombed Iraq for weapons, and agression towards America. Terrorism wasn't the same priority then as it is now.

My point of bringing it up was to counter your claims that Bush went in for money. Other politicians saying they would have done the same thing, as well as the fact that they did target Saddam before kind of undermines those claims.

How the would hit the fan if a US court turned down a search warrant to the police, but the police deciding to do the search anyway. The end does not justify the means. Do stuff right and you dont get criticised, but do it the way the US and the UK did it and you leave yourself open for criticism.

When the UN isn't supporting its own policy, and my country is at risk, I don't care what they have to say. The UN is a crooked organization, and there's more evidence that other nations were looking out for their oil interests more than America. How come the Micheal Moore's of the world don't point out Russian, French and German old interests? There's more proof there then for Bush.

Originally posted by persian
I guess you guys are missing the point, for a country like iran, making a plane like this is a big step. Future fighter plains would be small. Smaller plains mean they can maneuver better and go faster. Smaller plains have better chance of surviving in dog-fight than bigger plans. Although, there are not much info on Shafagh, but Iran confirmed that this plane is indeed stealth.

The only information I can find is this. I doubt that the F-117 proved much value to Iran and it would in all likelyhood have wound up in the hands of the Chinese, or Russia. The US chose not to bounce the rubble and further destroy the jet. They had the chance but chose not to. They simply seemed not to be concerned by it. Remember the Serbs will killing Moslems. My only other coment is that just beacuse it looks stealth does not mean it is. It looks like a trainer to me....

Te However, In April 1997 Iranian Brigadier General Arasteh, a deputy head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces (serving under Major General Ali Shahbazi, the joint chief of staff) claimed that Iran had successfully designed, constructed, and tested its first fighter aircraft, the Azarakhsh(Lightning). According to one theory, Iran cobbled together an aircraft by reverse-engineered elements from a number of other aircraft. Reportedly either similar to the F-4 or derivative from the F-5

www.globalsecurity.org...

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Also, there are some whispers that the F-15's were not equiped with the state of the art radar that our frontline fighters are. This could be to either make a case for more F-22's or because the Indian pilots were allowed in the F-15's. In either case, if it is true, then I would highly doubt that the F-15's WITH modern radar would give up first shot ability.

A few weeks ago AWST had a follow up blurb on this. The F-15 were NOT equiped with the new ESA Radar system. This would have allowed them to engage at a much longer range. I actully started a thread on this. It seems to me it was a setup to bolster the case for more Raptors.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

You had troops in those countries WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE RULING GOVERNMENT. Sounds like an invasion to me, albeit sometimes supporting other invasions. If putting troops into a country with a specific end goal isnt an invasion, then what is?

Many were us going in there to support the current government.

An invasion is when you take over a country. How many times have we done that?

No, all of those in the list I supplied were against the current government. And in that list you 'took over the country' a number of times actually.

Oh, so the arguement 'well, they arent either' is usable here? sheesh, grow up.

I don't believe either side in a war should apologize. I was just saying that America has given them a lot of aid. We have no reason to take "responsibility" for something that happened in a war. America isn't pushing Vietnam to take responsibility for all of their numerous war crimes.

Yes, in a war you should take responsability for everything you do, otherwise you run the risk of becoming those you dispise.

Ive not heard anything about negotiations with NK anywhere. If that was true, why arent the US using that evidence against NK in the current crisis? That they had chemical weapons is still highly questionable.

www.washtimes.com...

The Bush administration has been very quiet on all of the finds in Iraq.

I concede that point, thankyou for a good source.

Hate to break it to you but the documents found that you indicate were not in the posession of the Iraqi government, they were found in northern Iraq in the Kurdish controlled areas. It was the kurds who were seeking AQ connections, not Saddam. Indeed 4 terrorist training camps were found in the kurdish controlled areas.

"The Americans confirmed that they had obtained the document from the Iraqi National Congress, as part of a trove that the group gathered after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government last year."

Source - New York Times


Now, they don't say anything about the Kurds in here. This says Iraqi intelligence agencies were involved.

Upon reading this link, it would appear that this document is the one detailing the single short meeting a low level Iraqi intelligence operative had with a member of the organisation that preceeded AQ.

Its interesting to note that the end result of that meeting was soley that Iraq was to broadcast anti saudi propaganda, and that that article states 'There is no further indication of collaboration.'

Having a number of terrorists in Iraq does not a connection make. The US currently has dozens loose as well, the UK has dozens loose.

How many terrorists do we have that well known hiding out still? Has our government ever hid these guys? Why would they have gone to Iraq of all countries?

Yes, the US used to protect members of the IRA fairly regularly.

I've seen you try to discredit a single find without any sources. The Polish find wasn't the only one. I'd like to see some sources at this point, as well.

Ok

Claims on the 'Mobile Weapons Factories' - Source

As above, Mobile Factories turn out to be 'ice cream trucks' - Source

Large annotated article on WMD 'finds' Source

Interesting link concerning parts being moved INTO iraq by US forces Source

David Kay talking on the subject of WMD finds Source


Im away from my home PC at the moment, where I keep abreast of this stuff. When I return (tomorrow) I will post the preprepared list of claims and discreditations that I have.

As an aside, from a quick googling, a lot of the 'claims' of finds seem to be based on chemicals and items that have a dual purpose, including a castor bean find in a castor oil factory. (Castor beans can be used to make ricin, but the US survey group seems to ignore context).

Also, a find of pesticide was claimed as a WMD find due to the fact that 'pesticide is a major component in WMD fabrication', despite the fact the find was made on a farm

I apologise for the current lack of good urls, as I mentioned above, when I get back I will post a good list of links.

If so many WMD sites have been found, why did Tony Blair recently say in Parliament and in front of the British people 'We have to come to terms with the fact that no weapons of mass destruction may be found in Iraq, he may never have had them or he may have destroyed them or hidden them. We need to consider this as a possibility.' He said that as recently as 3 weeks ago.

I can't explain all the action of the governments. Finds have been kept relatively low profile. Stories on weapons being moved out of the country are rare. A lot has to do with media biases, I'm sure. Small finds like these don't cut it to a lot of people.

The finds have been kept 'relatively low profile' because they have tended to be in the 1 shell, 2 shell, 10 shell range. Not a significant find.

Whoa!! The nigeria claims have been TOTALLY discredited, he never sought to purchase uraniam yellowcake (that was the claim) from nigeria. Bush used this in his State of the Union speech and later withdrew it. It was found to be a false claim, from the British Intelligence office.

The 9/11 Commission as well as the Butler Report both said these statements carried weight.

"The recent British report by Lord Butler � while finding that the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons was "seriously flawed" � concluded that Mr. Bush's statement and a similar one by Blair were "well-founded.""

Source - CBS News

The Butler report is accepted in all circles in the UK as a government white wash, certainly considering the UK Parliament issued a committee report which detailed the nigerian claim being based on forged documents.

The Butler report only says that the claim was 'well founded' in so far that Bush and Blair supposidly didnt know at the time that the claim was false, only the intelligence services knew. The intelligence services were to later withdraw this claim in a memo to Blair.

Source - Report

Iraq had hidden jet fighters. They received spare parts from France just before we invaded.

These nations might not have given Saddam illegal weapons directly, but they gave him the ability to use them.

"Thanks to excellent reporting by Bill Gertz we now know that France has been supplying spare parts for Saddam's Mirage fighters. The French spare parts arrived in Baghdad not 20 years ago during the Cold War but last year, just in time to face our forces today.

...

In addition, William Safire recently wrote a column noting that a Chinese chemical company had supplied rocket fuel to Iraq through a French front company. Safire identified the fuel, the companies and the Iraqi missile facility where it was mixed into new Iraqi rockets. Again, the missile fuel sale was made within the last year, just in time to make new Iraqi missiles pointed at Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. "

Source - NewsMax

They were trading weapons for oil to a madman who abused his own people and threatened the region. You think that's justified?

Again, jet fighters and rocket fuel were not illegal under the resolution. Saddam was allowed Ballistic missiles of a certain range, and was allowed to purchase fuel for this. Saddam was allowed to purchase jets and jet parts.

Im not interested in whether these purchases were justified, the US sales of chemical weapons and delivery systems in the 1980s were jsut as justified.

Theres a congressional investigation going on at the moment into Haliburton and Cheneys link. Theres investigations goiung on at the moment into overcharging Haliburton has done in Iraq. Theres also the coincidental evidence that Haliburton wasnt the lowest bidding contracter for the contracts it got, infact there were two or three other bids lower than the one Haliburton put in.

They haven't found anything yet, though, now have they? I haven't heard anything.

Haliburton has already had to make concessions for overcharging, but neither committee has yet to release interim reports so I cant really comment on findings. The fact that the investigations exist and have been goiing for some time are enough to prompt concern.

How the would hit the fan if a US court turned down a search warrant to the police, but the police deciding to do the search anyway. The end does not justify the means. Do stuff right and you dont get criticised, but do it the way the US and the UK did it and you leave yourself open for criticism.

When the UN isn't supporting its own policy, and my country is at risk, I don't care what they have to say. The UN is a crooked organization, and there's more evidence that other nations were looking out for their oil interests more than America. How come the Micheal Moore's of the world don't point out Russian, French and German old interests? There's more proof there then for Bush.

The UN is so weak precisely because of what the US, the UK, Israel and other countries do. They take notice of the UN when it suits them, and ignore it at other times. When this happens, the whole ethos of the UN goes out the window.

If the UN did its job, the US would have major international sanctions on it at the moment. But it doesnt, precisely because the US throws its weight around so much.

Oh, since this is going wildely offtopic, I give you the offer of replying to me personally.

If you want to take this offer up, email me at [email protected]. Anyone feel free to take this debate up privately with me.

On the model version of the plane there is external weapons. Isnt that a big no no in stealth?

I dont know of any stealth plane that does not have weapons inside of it.

The JSF will have external weapons, as well. It's about keeping the cost down. It does hinder stealth some, though.

The JSF also has some internal bays as well, plus the US has ways and tech to still have stealth even with the weapons out. I doubt Iran has this technology.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I still want to know what makes this plane "stealthy" cuz if they have nothing else the design wont do them much good also id this plane is meant for dog fighting it will be pounded on by US F-15 and our other jets if we ever go to war with them. Cu i assume this plane was made public to the US pressure for Iran to dismantle their nuclear program.

I suppose that it's stealthy because they painted it black ))))like all these super fighters from american movies ))))

This plane isn't stalthy at all!!!! Russians tried to make their fighters stealth by using plasma stealth.First of all they failed and second one even in the future they wouldn't give such technology to iran )) it's silly