[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 6

DavidG · #51 February 26th, 2003, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
Everyone forgets that Pakistan has the bomb (and they have more anti-american extremists than anybody - that's where the Taliban come from - remember them?) so if the govt really cared about disarming terrorist they probably should have focused on them -

Pakistani anti-american extremists do not have the bomb. The Pakistani government does.

rextorres · #52 February 26th, 2003, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:
Originally posted by rextorres:
Everyone forgets that Pakistan has the bomb (and they have more anti-american extremists than anybody - that's where the Taliban come from - remember them?) so if the govt really cared about disarming terrorist they probably should have focused on them -

Pakistani anti-american extremists do not have the bomb. The Pakistani government does.

Umm . . . actually the Pakistani military (which actually runs the country) is very supportive of the Taliban and filled with extremists. What country do you think has been sponsoring terrorism in India? Where do you think the Taliban and Osama have been hiding? In factThere is less if anything linking Sadaam with terrorism than Pakistan with terrorism. Fortunately (for Pakistan) there is no oil there. My point with mentioning Pakistan is that this coming war is nothing about fighting terrorism.

[ February 26, 2003, 00:27: Message edited by: rextorres ]

DavidG · #53 February 26th, 2003, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:

Umm . . . actually the Pakistani military (which actually runs the country) is very supportive of the Taliban and filled with extremists. What country do you think has been sponsoring terrorism in India? Where do you think the Taliban and Osama have been hiding? In factThere is less if anything linking Sadaam with terrorism than Pakistan with terrorism. Fortunately (for Pakistan) there is no oil there. My point with mentioning Pakistan is that this coming war is nothing about fighting terrorism.

Yea but isn't the Government actually pro American? I'm no expert on Pakistan but my understanding is that the government (yes being the top military boys) was trying to weed out the extremists. Certainly Osama my be in Pakistan but do doubt it is in a rural area that the government has little control off. Maybe I was wrong but I got the impression from your post that you were saying anti americal extremists were in charge of Pakistanis nuclear forces. And they clearly do not or they would have used them (at least under my definition of "anti-american extremist")

Karibu · #54 February 26th, 2003, 02:46 AM

* taking his popcorn, lemonade and starting to watch *

DavidG · #55 February 26th, 2003, 02:51 AM

Slightly off topic in an off topic thread but hey any terrorists out there? Come to Canada. You can blow up a plane and kill 329 people and only get 5 years in jail.

How sick and disturbing is that!!

Instar · #56 February 26th, 2003, 02:54 AM

A couple problems Ive seen:
About the US military being capable to take on the entire world, yes it is a bit of a stretch, but consider, the US Navy and Airforce are completely unmatched. A single battle group consisting of a carrier and support vessels usually has more attack aircraft than most nations. The US has 12 full battle Groups, of which usually 2-3 are in major overhaul, around 6 are in port, and about 3 to 4 are at sea. If serious effort was put into putting all out to sea, I bet a max of like 6 could be reached feasibly. Britain's carrier fleet, although impressive in its own fashion, pales in comparison. The British carriers are much smaller, and operate only V/STOL aircraft. No other Navy comes close (the Russian surface Navy is generally a joke, their carriers are the same idea as the British, I believe; similarly, I don't think the French carrier is seaworthy yet). The US Submarine fleets are the same, for the most part. The Ohio class is generally undetectable, and the Los Angelas class is a very potent boat. The Sea Wolf class (as I recall it being named) is only limited to about 3 or 4 boats I think, so its numbers are almost inconsequential.
So the US Navy probably could destroy most all other Navies and stop a lot of the world's shipping.
Problems with this is that the US lacks sufficient ground forces to invade and garrison large regions of the world. China has insanely huge masses of infantry, but they are for the most part undertrained and underequipped, but that may be changing. The problem for the US would not be taking the ground, but keeping it. As it is, US Armor and Armored Cavalry are for the most part unstoppable juggernauts, if used correctly. Armor though, cannot be effectively tasked to garrison regions.
As to nuclear weapons policy:
In the bad old days of the USSR breathing down Europe's back, the US (and NATO) were of the position that the Soviets had so many tanks and other armored vehicles as to be impossible to stop, as NATO tanks were vastly outnumbered (the US could not feasibly deploy enough tanks to Germany to counter such a threat). To counter this, the policy was developed that NATO would employ tactical nuclear weapons (not strategic nuclear weapons) to destroy the Soviet blitz. (A great deal of emphasis for NATO in preventing USSR from invading all of Europe involved the Fulda Gap, I believe, and the Fulda Gap is one of the most popular scenarios in tank sims, like ATF or BCT, I think) This kept the USSR from attacking.
By the way, nuclear weapons can be subdivided in a couple different ways -- tactical and strategic. Tactical weapons are supposedly for use on a battlefield, and generally range from 100 kilotons to just less than a megaton in yield. Strategic nuclear weapons are used to obliterate cities, and range from 1 megaton to 10 or more megatons. (However, I think that the US doesn't employ many weapons that are close to 10 megatons.)
One Last thing: The US probably has plans for delivering nukes onto EVERY country in the world, even allies. Its paranoia, but dont take it personally.

Shyrka · #57 February 26th, 2003, 03:13 AM

Andr�s is right. US government can send a sniper or a CIA commando to murder Sadam, like the one that Kissinger sent to murder Salvador Allende

, and put a puppet leader. This war is not necessary.

Spanish government is supporting the war

Krsqk · #58 February 26th, 2003, 03:35 AM

Okay, sure, except for killing his two sons, too, and then his immediate chain of command. Oh, yeah, then there's the standing orders he's supposed to have given to his commanders, to be followed whether or not he's killed.

The point is, there's a command structure which goes deeper than just Saddam. It's small, sure--it's a dictatorship--but it's large enough to make it impossible to take out everyone at once. The minute Saddam's gone, his son will take over--and from all accounts, he's worse than his father is.

[Edit-switching "too" for "two"

]

[ February 26, 2003, 01:37: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Instar · #59 February 26th, 2003, 06:55 AM

However, it is against US law to assassinate foreign heads of state. Whether or not this policy is followed and if Saddam is actually a recognized head of state is debatable.

Askan Nightbringer · #60 February 26th, 2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shyrka:
Andr�s is right. US government can send a sniper or a CIA commando to murder Sadam, like the one that Kissinger sent to murder Salvador Allende , and put a puppet leader. This war is not necessary.

Spanish government is supporting the war

Well the Spanish government is supporting the war but the people aren't. The rally turn outs in Madrid and Barcelona were awesome.
Sydney got over 250,000 which was pretty cool, the biggest rally of any kind in Australia. Pity our elected leader is a chump and the opposition leader has not the wit or testicular fortitude to capitilise.

Askan