Iran proposes missile shield against U.S., Israel

ditto, i get a little tangled up trying to post here at work too... at any rate!!
President carter signed a covert action order to the CIA to provide backing to the mujahideen july 3, 1979 which is SIX months BEFORE the soviet invasion, and he did so on the advice of his national security adviser zbigniew brzezinski in order to provoke a russian incursion. Brzezinski confirmed this. And these mujahideen went on to yes, become both al qaeda and the taliban.
And i stand by what i said, that america regularly tries to impose their view of morals on other countries and whats worse is its not morals..its corporate domination. Yes, other countries might do the same thing in this situation, and i would criticize them as well, but at least they arent doing it with MY TAX DOLLARS> : )
as to the cobra guy, hamas has been willing to negotiate in the past but israel has broken EVERY SINGLE treaty they have signed with the palestinians to date. And isreal is NOW, THIS MINUTE still destroying palestinian houses in occupied territory to build new ones for isrealis. We are not talking about two people wronging each other equally, we are talking about one people trying to fight off a more powerful agressor that is continually taking more of their land. I remember back when we negotiated the FARC to lay down their weapons and take positions in office to work for betterment through politics in columbia....and within the year 2000 members were assassinated, so we can see what happens when people fighting for freedom and self determination agree to play by the rules imposed by american interests.

Originally posted by pexx421
President carter signed a covert action order to the CIA to provide backing to the mujahideen july 3, 1979 which is SIX months BEFORE the soviet invasion, and he did so on the advice of his national security adviser zbigniew brzezinski in order to provoke a russian incursion.

I'd be interested to read your sources for that info. The reasons the USSR invaded, was to support the failing communist government there, and to protect it's interests in Afghanistan from western nations, and, ironically, Iran. If the CIA was made aware of the upcoming invasion 6 months ahead of time, they may very well have armed the mujahideen in preparation. Both of our countries have a nasty little habit of doing that to each other as I'm sure you're aware, in the past and to this day. But I must disagree that it provoked the invasion even if true. Why would the USSR attack them simply because they heard we were giving them weapons? The USSR was not occupying the country at the time and would have no reason to care one way or the other, unless they planned on invading in the first place. We didn't even start giving them the good stuff, like heat seeking stingers, until they were getting their asses hammered by those big, HOT, croc helicopters. That's when things really started going downhill for the Soviets...

edit: wouldn't you be SO fired if they knew how much time you really spent reading the internet, lol...i know i would

[edit on 10-4-2008 by 27jd]

i believe it was the arming of the mujahideen and other militants which led to them attacking the afghan government, which led russia to invade in order to protect said government.

1978:

April - Pro-Soviet leftists (the PDP) stage a new coup in Afghanistan. Nur Mohammad Taraki becomes prime minister, and Babrak Karmal and Hafizullah Amin become deputy prime ministers. They win almost immediate recognition from the Soviet Union. [2] But the coup is apparently not Soviet backed. [23]

Summer - The Taraki regime announces Marxist-Leninist reforms such as the elimination of usury, equal rights for women, land reforms and administrative decrees.

Violent protests erupt over the reforms, many of which challenge Afghan cultural patterns. Taraki's political repression antagonizes others. [2]

Nevertheless the new regime is generally popular and goes on to hugely improve medical care and literacy. The gains for women are particulary marked. [23]

June - An alliance formed by a number of conservative Islamic factions is now waging a guerilla war against the government. [31]

1979:

March - Hafizullah Amin becomes prime minister but Taraki retains other high political posts. Revolts in the countryside expand, and the Afghan Army collapses. [2]

Taraki goes to Moscow to press the Soviets to send ground troops to help the Afghan army put down the Moujahedeen. He is promised military assistance, but not ground troops as the Soviets say this would give their common enemies an excuse to send armed bands into the country. [31]

April - At this time, and possibly earlier than this, US foreign service officers begin meeting with Moujahedeen leaders to determine their needs. [31]

July 3rd - President Carter signs the first directive for secret aid worth $500 million to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Zbigniew Brzezinski writes a note to the president in which he explains to him that in his opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. [12] [23]

A US State Department Report states: "the United State's larger interests ... would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." [31]

September - A confrontation between Taraki and Amin removes Taraki from power.

October - Taraki assassinated by Amin supporters.

December - Soviet troops begin to arrive in Afghanistan. It is unclear to what degree this is at Amin's request or with his approval. [31] Zbigniew Brzezinski writes to president Carter that "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." [12]

1978:

April - Pro-Soviet leftists (the PDP) stage a new coup in Afghanistan. Nur Mohammad Taraki becomes prime minister, and Babrak Karmal and Hafizullah Amin become deputy prime ministers. They win almost immediate recognition from the Soviet Union. [2] But the coup is apparently not Soviet backed. [23]

Summer - The Taraki regime announces Marxist-Leninist reforms such as the elimination of usury, equal rights for women, land reforms and administrative decrees.

Violent protests erupt over the reforms, many of which challenge Afghan cultural patterns. Taraki's political repression antagonizes others. [2]

Nevertheless the new regime is generally popular and goes on to hugely improve medical care and literacy. The gains for women are particulary marked. [23]

June - An alliance formed by a number of conservative Islamic factions is now waging a guerilla war against the government. [31]

1979:

March - Hafizullah Amin becomes prime minister but Taraki retains other high political posts. Revolts in the countryside expand, and the Afghan Army collapses. [2]

Taraki goes to Moscow to press the Soviets to send ground troops to help the Afghan army put down the Moujahedeen. He is promised military assistance, but not ground troops as the Soviets say this would give their common enemies an excuse to send armed bands into the country. [31]

April - At this time, and possibly earlier than this, US foreign service officers begin meeting with Moujahedeen leaders to determine their needs. [31]

July 3rd - President Carter signs the first directive for secret aid worth $500 million to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. Zbigniew Brzezinski writes a note to the president in which he explains to him that in his opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention. [12] [23]

A US State Department Report states: "the United State's larger interests ... would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." [31]

September - A confrontation between Taraki and Amin removes Taraki from power.

October - Taraki assassinated by Amin supporters.

December - Soviet troops begin to arrive in Afghanistan. It is unclear to what degree this is at Amin's request or with his approval. [31] Zbigniew Brzezinski writes to president Carter that "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." [12]

Keep telling yourself that, you're probably the only person foolish enough to believe it..

So, are you saying that America does not have key interests all around the world, and that US national security is a sham?

September 11th ring a bell? How about the cold war? The global war on Terror?

Ladies and Gentleman, welcome to the United States of Amnesia.

call things as I see the,

Which is your problem, you have a horrible misconception on how things work.

The AK is probably the best gun ever made. It Sturdy, reliable, east to repair, has a moderately powerful round, and it can be used and mantained by practically anyone. See how long a M16 poodle shooter will hold up to adverse conditions without constant cleaning and repair. Yeah, it's pretty amazing how mere peasants can take out some many professional soldiers with such a simple, homemade device isn't it?

The AK is a horrible weapon, in that it has horrible accuracy, and horrible range.

The only thing the AK has that makes it decent, is its 7.6mm round.

The M-4 (which is in the process of being replaced) is much more accurate, and has a much larger range than an AK.

Regardless, the AK is not the weapon of choice amongst the terrorists in Iraq, and afghanistan. Improvised explosive devices are, however. This has proven to be a "safe" weapon for the insurgents to use.

They were all destroyed in Gulf War I, thats why.

So, if you knew, then why did you ask where they all were?

Not when I'm debating with a parrot that repeats the same old BS constantly..

Making excuses eh.

Everyone take note how Mr. Lloyed does nothing to back up his uncorroborated claims.

I was going to reply to the rest of your post, but I'm really tired of typing the same things over and over again for someone who obviously has reading difficulties.

It probably has more to do with the fact that your claims are unsubstantiated garbage that you dig up from other fifth columnists.

Your post are too long, make little sense, and are backed up by nothing but your own opinions.

Pot meet kettle.

Please, feel free to point out where I have been wrong. I, unlike you, can provide sources.

In addition to all that, you're rude, obnoxious, discourteous, and make responding an unpleasant experience. Stop spouting the Bushian rhetoric please! I'm tired of reading it. Try thinking for yourself once...

All because your arguments don't hold up?

[edit on 10-4-2008 by West Coast]

Originally posted by 27jd
You're responding to a member who HAS ACTUALLY BEEN THERE!

I don't care if he's been there or not to be completely honest with you. A lot of people have been there, yet they're not rude, obnoxious, or arrogant. I'll I have for evidence that he's actually been there is his word. There's people here that claim they were abducted by aliens and taken on spaceships. Should I believe everything they post too?

Your posts are a joke, you have ZERO knowledge of military combat, weapons, world politics, etc. As soon as you lose the ability to come up with a ridiculous response off the top of your head, you say we're spouting "Bushian rhetoric".

First of all, I never asked your opinion. Secondly, I could care the least what you think. And lastly you sound like a drone that continuously spouts the same old tired party line. You have no originals thoughts of your own, just those someone else has spewed a million times before you.

Have you EVER fired a weapon? I doubt it.

I own several firearms, and I know how to use and maintain all of them.

Please explain why you say M16/M4's are "poodle shooters", I'd love to see that. For the record, I love my AK, but if I had the money to spend on an AR15 or an M4, I would have bought one instead.

The M16 is an unreliable weapon at best, that requires constant cleaning and lubrication to keep it working. In adverse conditions where such high maintenace is not a possible, you'd be better off using it as a club.

The 5.56 may be a more accurate round than the 7.62x39, but has poor penetration and stopping power. You can also carry more of it, but you'll need it too.

The AK47 on the other hand, has an excellent history of reliablity, does not jam as much, and will work much better under adverse conditions. I would much rather have a weapon that's reliable, than a weapon that is only accurate under ideal conditions. Wouldn't you? The 7.62x39 though less accurate, has more stopping power than the 5.56 round, and when someone is trying to kill you, that may just be important.

You probably would prefer an AR..


[edit on 4/10/08 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by West Coast

So, are you saying that America does not have key interests all around the world, and that US national security is a sham?

The US needs to start practicing a policy of isolationism, and stay out of other sovereign countries affairs like Iraq.

September 11th ring a bell? How about the cold war? The global war on Terror?

Sorry to tell you this, but Iraq was not responsible for 911. Bush even admits that now..duh The cold war has been over a long time, and how does one fight a concept like Terrorism? Let's fight hunger and poverty too while we're at it.

Which is your problem, you have a horrible misconception on how things work.

No, I use my own mind and do my own thinking unlike a lot of Bush drones.

The AK is a horrible weapon, in that it has horrible accuracy, and horrible range.

I guess you prefer you're made by Mattel plastic poodle shooter, huh?You can't even legally use one one to hunt deer because it's such a pathetic round.. If I can't kill a deer with one, I sure wouldn't trust it to put down a man shooting back at me.

The only thing the AK has that makes it decent, is its 7.6mm round.

It's a much better round than the 5.56 hands down.

The M-4 (which is in the process of being replaced) is much more accurate, and has a much larger range than an AK.

First they better concentrate on getting those guys in Iraq some body armor and armor plating for their vehicles.

Regardless, the AK is not the weapon of choice amongst the terrorists in Iraq, and afghanistan. Improvised explosive devices are, however. This has proven to be a "safe" weapon for the insurgents to use.

Yeah, I heard there has been more head and facial injuries during this war than in any other.

So, if you knew, then why did you ask where they all were?

I assumed you didn't realize that, and we had won some amazing ground victory. I especially loved the fairy tales about the heroic adventures of Pfc. Jessica Lynch. She admitted publicly that the rescue was staged.

Making excuses eh.

Everyone take note how Mr. Lloyed does nothing to back up his uncorroborated claims.

It's really be nice if you could learn how to spell Lloyd, but I guess that's asking too much. I'm sorry, but where are all your citations? If you want more details, look them up for yourself. I'm not your gofer.

It probably has more to do with the fact that your claims are unsubstantiated garbage that you dig up from other fifth columnists.

No, it's has more to do with your rude attitude and arrogance.

Please, feel free to point out where I have been wrong. I, unlike you, can provide sources.

I have no desire to read your poorly constructed post again. Feel free though to cite each and everyone one of your sources though if you can. Your personal opinions don't interest me much.

All because your arguments don't hold up?

No, I simply don't care for you or your opinions.

Do you think we could get back on topic now?

[edit on 4/10/08 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by LLoyd45
Sorry to tell you this, but Iraq was not responsible for 911. Bush even admits that now..duh The cold war has been over a long time, and how does one fight a concept like Terrorism?

Right, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quada, however, Iraq was in bad need of a regime change.

No, I use my own mind anddo my own think unlike a lot of Bush drones.

The irony from that statement is, you have shown very little difference in contrast to the way those "bush drones" think.

I guess you prefer you're made by Mattel plastic poodle shooter, huh?You can't even legally use one one to hunt deer because it's such a pathetic round.. If I can't kill a deer with one, I sure wouldn't trust it to put down a man shooting back at me.

The 5.6mm is smaller than a 7.6mm for sure, But that 5.6 mm will go at least 400ft farther than that 7.6 round, and will be less effected by adverse weather conditions, thus it is more accurate.

A 5.6 round will still penetrate through your head with relative ease, making it far from being a "poodle shooter."

It's a much better round than the 5.56 hands down.

I actually agree, however, anything outside of "close proximity's" makes the 7.6 round obsolete, as its range is pathetic, as is its accuracy.

Yeah, I heard there has been more head and facial injuries during this war than in any other.

*note the bold*

Injuries are far better than fatality's, wouldn't you agree?

It's really be nice if you could learn how to spell Lloyd, but I guess that's asking too much.

Forgive my spelling error, for I could care-a-less how I spell your name.

I'm sorry, but where are all your citations. If you want more details, look them up for youself. I'm not your gofer.

No, but you are the one who seems to base many of your ill informed facts off of a biased opinion.

I have no desire to read your poorly constructed post again.

The last line of defense for the defenseless!

Feel free though to cite each and everyone one of your sources though if you can.

I already said I would, I am however waiting on you to point out where I was "wrong."

Your personal opinions don't interest me much.

I have already applied the coup de grace to you. I have given you a chance to question what I have said, I can, and will provide source validation to what I have said, please feel free to question whatever you would like.

No, I simply don't care for you or your opinions.

Don't waste my time, your hypocrisy knows no end.

Originally posted by West Coast
Right, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quada, however, Iraq was in bad need of a regime change.

I thought we went in because of WMDs that haven't been found to this day..

The irony from that statement is, you have shown very little difference in contrast to the way those "bush drones" think.

Unlike you, I've never bought into his BS. I'm sure you were a staunch devotee up until the time he was proven a liar, and most of his drone base deserted him.

The 5.6mm is smaller than a 7.6mm for sure, But that 5.6 mm will go at least 400ft farther than that 7.6 round, and will be less effected by adverse weather conditions, thus it is more accurate.

Accuracy means little if your weapon is unreliable and can't penetrate the target..

A 5.6 round will still penetrate through your head with relative ease, making it far from being a "poodle shooter."

My .22 magnum will do the same thing for a $1,000+ less. Your point being?

I actually agree, however, anything outside of "close proximity's" makes the 7.6 round obsolete, as its range is pathetic, as is its accuracy.

Unless you're a sniper and need to make shots out beyond the 300yd range, accuracy is not really that big of an issue. Battlefield conditions rarely call for shots farther than that.

Injuries are far better than fatality's, wouldn't you agree?

No, I can't say I do. For every one man that is wounded, two more are required to carry him off the field. Also, I've seen pictures of the horrible disfigurements these guys recieve, and personally I'd rather they made clean kill shot on me.

Forgive my spelling error, for I could care-a-less how I spell your name.

Obviously spelling and the English language aren't your forte.

No, but you are the one who seems to base many of your ill informed facts off of a biased opinion.

And all your alleged facts come from where?

The last line of defense for the defenseless!

No, just the truth.

I already said I would, I am however waiting on you to point out where I was "wrong."

Like I said, I have no desire to strain my eyes and your credibility by re-reading all your opinion-based post.

I have already applied the coup de grace to you. I have given you a chance to question what I have said, I can, and will provide source validation to what I have said, please feel free to question whatever you would like.

Are we in a fencing match? If so, I think my repartees have been more than adequate.

Don't waste my time, your hypocrisy knows no end.

Ditto..

Originally posted by LLoyd45
I thought we went in because of WMDs that haven't been found to this day..

That is what Mr. Bush said.

Unlike you, I've never bought into his BS. I'm sure you were a staunch devotee up until the time he was proven a liar, and most of his drone base deserted him.

The only time I ever supported military force under Bush was after 9/11. I supported the bombing of Afghanistan.

Accuracy means little if your weapon is unreliable and can't penetrate the target..

5.6 round goes nearly 400mph faster than a 7.6 round, as well as nearly 400ft longer in distance, it can penetrate flesh quite easily.

My .22 magnum will do the same thing for a $1,000+ less. Your point being?

One is actually an assault rifle, the other is not.

If given an option of which rifle you would use, would you choose your .22 over the M-4?

A .22 is not nearly as powerful as an M-4, nor is the range comparable. The bullet is also far smaller.

Unless you're a sniper and need to make shots out beyond the 300yd range, accuracy is not really that big of an issue. Battlefield conditions rarely call for shots farther than that.

What battlefield conditions are you talking about here?

Obviously spelling and the English language aren't your forte.

ad hominem personal attacks are a sign of weakness.

No, just the truth.

There is no truth in making up things that simply do not exist.

I am quite confident when I say I am smarter than you...It's because I am.

Like I said, I have no desire to strain my eyes and your credibility by re-reading all your opinion-based post.

Then quit asking for source confirmation. You are making a foolish, redundant ass out of yourself.

dear god guys, let it drop....its to the point now where its just exchanges of rejoinders, and all reason is out the window.

as to work, well i work on a psyche ward so we get plenty downtime.... my bosses probably would not exactly approve, specially if they read some of my opinions, but some web surfing is expected of us....ah for such an easy job, i cant believe i get paid to do this!!

reply to post by pexx421


Alls that I ask of Mr.Lloyd is for him to point out where I am wrong, so that I may be able to provide a source that contradicts his claim. He is unable to do this, as he has yet to do so, or he simply makes up excuses to brush it off.

Sorry to tell you this, but Iraq was not responsible for 911. Bush even admits that now..duh The cold war has been over a long time, and how does one fight a concept like Terrorism

I just thought I would add:

Were you aware that Saddam was paying $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, the presence of Zarqawi (he received medical aid from wounds he sustained in Afghanistan back in 2001-2002), and the 1993 WTC bombing done by Ramsey Yousuf, who had extensive ties to Saddam?

Of course, all this would matter if anti-Americans actually cared about facts. They really only care about hating America (yet are too ashamed to admit that this is their real motivation).

Please, do yourself a favor, and do some damn research before you speak.



[edit on 11-4-2008 by West Coast]

Hey come on guys, we are getting out of hand here. Lets take a breather, remember what we are discussing, and shake hands for peace. Good. Now on another note....

SOURCES SOURCES SOURCES!!!! It would be nice if, as we discuss so passionatley the facts, that perhaps we could at least include one source to one of them in a post? It may help to distract our mind from attempting to think of new insults if we were focused on posting sources for our facts. Just a thought.

In any case, I do not really predict Iran will be investing in a missle shield at this time, or any time in the future. the primary purpose of the missle shield is to take out larger ballistic missles with heavy payloads. It is not somethign appropriate for targeting cruise missles or anything launched from a jet.

There is other equipment suited for that, and I am darn sure Iran has already invested in these typed of defenses. the Iranians do have at least one good thing for sure goign for them, and that is ther satellite in the sky. I dont recall Sadaam having any of those.

Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

They already know where to look, and they already knows what need be fortified. It is likely they have routine air patrols on these facilites as we speak. See now, if the commanders in charge there were too conviniently recieve misplaced intel about certain stealth aircraft launching from European bases as it happens, they could utilize the satellite to track them down and prepeare the equipment to strike them.

Where would this convinient info come from? I am sure our two largest critics would love nothing more than to see up to 5 billion dollars go out with only 5 units (B-2's).

The Iranian Air Force is broken into three command areas: Western, Southern, and Eastern. The Western Area Command consists of: Tehran (Mehrabad and Doshan-Tappeh), Tabriz, Hamadan, Dezful, Umidiyeh, Shiraz, and Isfahan. The Southern Area Command consists of: Bushehr, Bandar Abbas, and Chah Bahar. The Eastern Area Command consists of: Zahedan, Tehran (Ghale Morghi), and Shiraz's training squadron.

There is significant base numbers to protect the targets of this fictional Western airstrike.

In order to reduce the danger of being hit by the enemy's air defense units, fighter bombers now use ultra-low-altitude flight to launch surprise assaults against ground targets. Ordinary radar and air defense missiles are relatively ineffective against planes and helicopters using this kind of tactics, flying at altitudes of scores of meters. Under such circumstances, low-altitude air defense missiles specially designed to hit objects flying in low altitudes have become increasingly important.
....
At the end of 1998, the "Feimeng-90," an improved version of the "Feimeng-80," was introduced. Compared to the old system, the target seeking range of the new system is increased from 18,400 meters to 25,000 meters, the homing range is increased from 17,000 meters to 20,000 meters, the maximum speed is increased from 750 meters/second to 900 meters/second, and the maximum range is increased from 12,000 meters to 15,000 meters, thus enhancing its long-range combat capability. At the same time, its maximum ultra radio frequency height is reduced from 30 meters to 15 meters. The new system also makes use of two-waveband radar instead of ordinary radar and features an improved television tracking system, which greatly increases its combat effectiveness.

Well I dont think they will have to worry about "allied" aircraft flying in at low altitude, the average elevation of Iran is at least 1500 metres, and coincidentally the highest and longest peaks happen to be along the Iraqi and Persian gulf borders. If we send B-52's over Iran, the good lot of them will be blown out of the sky, even under heavy fighter escort. Remember, the bombers themselves are not very agile at all, and those will be the targets that the defending pilots will be sacraficing their lives to take down, not the fighter jets.

We have to understand that we are not just going to catch Iran by surpise in this completely hypothetical war scenario that will never come to be. However, if it came to pass in some other dimension, it would be quite a fight. In the end Iran would lose probably its entire air fleet, but will have succesfully taken out most of the bombers, and a few of the fighters, alot probably utilizing kamikaze tactics.

NATO forces have not really lost any enemy aircraft since the Serbian missions, which was widely covered up and kept out of the media. That would not happen this time, with the world watching and communications and surveilance technology significantly evolved in the past nine years. It may actually have an affect on public opinion and further operations.

Funny thing is how many dummies and decoys were actually destroyed in
that operation. Tactics learned from none other than the Soviets. Iran would no doubt put these tactics to excellent use perhaps to assist in pre-emptively disposing of escorting aircraft's ordinance in an effort to reduce firepower? Who knows, but they should definetly make a movie about it! At least then we would know for sure it would never happen.


(the following is mostly opinion, and "gut feelings")

FYI, Hamas has been so compromised by the Mossad, it is hard to tell who is actually instigating an attack at times. What do you think they are doing everytime they begin an incursion, and then fall back? Planting more agents of course. If the real leaders of Hamas were serious, they would completely dissolve the group, create a new one and carefully screen their members. However, I doubt they would have the resources or financing to perform such logistics.

Hezbollah is successful because it has the financial backig of Iran and Syria to assist. It is probably also the reason they do not just go attacking random targets with frequency.

Hamas attackign random targets makes Israel always look like the good one. even the "EVIL" guys have more strategy than to continue just doing that. Hamas = compormised over 60%, not worth maintaing any longer, except of course to further serve the demonization of Palestinians and justify the indefinite oppression.

reply to post by LLoyd45



When have I been rude, obnoxious or arrogant? Well at least on this thread. I think I have been generally mild for the most part.

I'm not going to try to prove to you who I am. I have no need for it on this forum. I could post a picture or video but someone could I say stole it or it was photoshopped. I could explain to you the FBCB2 and what it has to do with a PLGR. Whats a MELIOS, PVS-7s, PVS-14s, PAQ-4s, PEQ-2s M68s, and what do the last three have to do with M-4s. I could talk all day about the M1 Abrams. Whats the "female dog" plate, but we dont call it a female dog . Whats .50 cal can lids and the turbine exhaust good for? How does it relate to Ramen Noodles? Whats the stupid light that likes to come on every hour while your trying sleep and do radio watch? Whats a ANCD and where do you use it? Whats a Golden End Connector award for? Three points of contact?
I could tell you about HUMVEES, why do you want to be a TC definitely during the winter? Whats blackout drive? Wheres a good place to place sunflower seeds and gatoraid in the front for easy access? What kind of file cards are taped on the inside of the windshield? I could tell you about many things. Whats three things soldiers always carry besides their ID card? Whats written down in one of those? These arn't things typically found on global security or army study guide websites. Yet I feel even this probably won't satisfy you. Heck if you called the Department of Veteran's Affairs in Shreveport and have them pull me up, maybe even the Veteran's Liason at LSUS. Again I dont feel compelled to prove anything. I knwo who I am and what I have done. Thats good enough for me.

Actually the M-4/M-16 with Miltech works just fine. Its the CLP that gunks up the weapon. Proper lube is very important, I used to be a Unit Armorer. Ive fired the Ak-47 and they are not accurate. The only good thing about them is I can fire it without my ears ringing unlike the M-4. 5.56mm though smaller is quite capable of killing. Personally I think the M-14 is superior to the M-4/M-16 and the AK-47.




[edit on 11/4/08 by MikeboydUS]

Maybe sadaam was not connected to 9/11, but he sure was a cruel man, to his own and to others across the globe apparantley. Openly supporting and financing terrorism is a good way to get knocked off by world governments. Gaddafi foudn this out in Libya when Reagan ordered an airstrike on him after his public declarations for support of terror. It seems he got the message after his daughter in law was killed instead of him.

thankfully he made the right choice and began to cooperate with the world, even renouncing his pursuit of WMD's. I believe Hussien was just too far gone to do that, and one could tell from his behaviors in court.

I believed in the liberation of Iraq, just not lying in order to do it. The world needs to be more like the US sometimes and just go out and liberate some oppressed peopels from hideous rulers. We just have to execute and dedicate the appropriate resources, and focus on dishing out educational material after initial battles instead of more death.

Ok, a few things here. Hamas is the only defense of a desperate and dying people. Its not the best organization for them to use....but i dont see any other great organizations over there doing much to help them out. Do you expect a people to just die out quietly?
Secondly, no offense mikeboy, but while i may believe you are offiliated with our military, that by no means makes you informed. I have talked to many vietnam vets who still have very flawed ideas of what that war was about, have no clue how it really started, and no idea what america was really doing over there....and this is a country these people spent lots of time in and lost lots of friends in. I spend 12 years in our armed services, 6 in the army, and 6 in the air force, and very few of the people who are in the service are truly willing to question or even think about what it is our country truly does, because that is the type of person who generally signs up for the armed services kind of thing. Most polls have found questioning and criticism of military actions to a very small amount among enlisted, a bit higher among the officers, and i guess that goes along with the higher education and intellect rates. Ok, maybe i shouldnt have said that, cause ive known a few pretty bright enlisted...and a lot of dumb officers...but anyway.
As for Dyepes and the Saddam thing......look, everytime you let your government play you for a fool and wage their war for power and money but tell you (hey, look what these people did, they deserved it!!) You are setting yourself farther away from a just government run with transparency and representing the people. How can ANY action that LIES to people in a supposedly representative government be considered justified? Specially when said action is against the peoples will, and also transfers 500billion taxpayers dollars to government cronies against the peoples will???? Thats all ok with you because Saddam was a bad man??? Thats kinda like saying "im sorry i cheated on you honey, but look at her, she was hot!! she DESERVED to be fu$%ed!! This has been the tactic of fascist countries all over the world...

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.

And thats what our leaders did, and your ok with being manipulated, because you think that us killing 1.2 million iraqi's, trying to steal their oil, and transferring the taxpayers dollars to irresponsible contracters, and cutting back on americans civil rights...these are all good results that are worth our effort? Amreicans are LESS safe now than they were before the war.

On an aside, it still trips me out how americans are more afraid of terrorists than they are of perscription drugs which kill 100,000 people a year, or smoking which kills 435000 a year. A few statistics, Terrorism in our country kills less people than tylenol and other nsaids, which kills 7600, which is alittle less then half of ALL ILLICIT DRUG USE COMBINED which does in 17000 a year. then theres poor diet and lack of activity (2 great american passtimes) which kill 365000/year. Last is marijuana which kills...oh yeah, 0
american fears. hm.

I believed in the liberation of Iraq, just not lying in order to do it. The world needs to be more like the US sometimes and just go out and liberate some oppressed peopels from hideous rulers. We just have to execute and dedicate the appropriate resources, and focus on dishing out educational material after initial battles instead of more death.

Perhaps you may go over my closing paragraph again and understand with some accuracy my stance.

Fact is evil will always be out in the world attackign and dstroying innocent and weak people. It is the dfuty of good peoples and powers to not jus sit by and watch. when the genocide in Rwanda happened, the world should have been there in full force, but we failed them.

Those with the power to do good should be up in the world minimizing the power of the bad guys. It is not right to sit by and do nothing when a woman ahs her purse snatched, or a group of people are harassing innocent bystanders. It is even worse to sit by and watch a dictator allow his people to srave, torturing them, and keeping them opressed.

I still believe we have the pwoer to change the leadership to enact these goals.

Originally posted by pexx421
i believe it was the arming of the mujahideen and other militants which led to them attacking the afghan government, which led russia to invade in order to protect said government.

Well, that may be. But the west didn't instigate it directly, the USSR made the decision to invade, they weren't forced too. They invaded because they felt it was in their interest, something the US government is faulted for over and over, it's kind of hypocritical that many praise the arming of extremist resistance forces against the US and Israel, but condemn the exact same thing when we did it.

You didn't post a link to your source though...