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

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by rextorres:
If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?

You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)

[dogscoff]

OK, samurai, I'm sorry I blew up in response to your statement (which could have been worded better, as you point out.)

In response to this:

I will even pay attention to it if you come from a country that had thousands of civilians murdered in an *unprovoked* attack by foreign nationals.

I would say this:
First, there were all kinds of nationalities in the WTC, including plenty of fellow Brits.

Second, the US has been all too keen to make the 9/11 attacks an international threat when it suits them. To suddenly shut out the rest of the world because it happened on US soil is pretty poor, imho.

Third, we have been putting up with terrorist attacks for a long long time. Ever heard of the IRA? France and Spain have their Basque seperatists... terrorism isn't new you know, and US doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Who is willing to say that he should be left in power? I'm not.

I'm not defending Saddam Hussein, and I'm not sure anyone else is. Even if you take out the pro-war lies and propaganda about him, that still leaves plenty of proof that he is unfit to be in charge of a country. I have acknowledged several times in this thread that I do think him a monster.

However I am still opposed to war because I think that it is being waged for the wrong reasons. Someone made a point earlier about choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion a maniacal corporate warmonger in control of history's largest ever military force is far scarier than a mustachioed monster at the head of a bankrupted dictatorship.

Oh, and South Korea is not a threat. Sure, they have a huge army, but who doesn't these days? (Apart from Iraq, I mean) It was only when they heard that George had them on the hit list that all that stuff with the nuclear power stations started happening. With all this talk defending nuclear deterrents in this thread, can you really blame them for building nukes?

[tesco samoa]

The UN is a joke. When you have a ruling class member from Lybia running the Human Rights commision you gotta shake your head. And the UN is very, very anti-sematic. The Un puts the League of Nations to shame. But unfortantly it is the best thing we have for world police.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Sinapus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
If the UN votes not to go war and the US goes to war in spite of the UN isn't the US the rogue state?

You mean if the US enforces the UN Resolutions against Iraq in spite of the UN it suddenly becomes rogue?

How strange.

Btw, I don't recall any UN resolution authorizing the Afghanistan campaign. (Nor the Ivory Coast, but I digress.)

---

The Ivory Coast is very bad example because the govt of IC invited the French in.

Afghanistan is a bad example because we were attacked first.

There is no resolution authorizing the use of force.

Your the perfect example of the gallup poll's number mentioned in a previous post. Of those who want war.

[Instar]

Well, we found out that Al-Qaida were in Afghanistan, and we waged war on them and the Taliban. This is where it gets to be a grey area. If they nuked us, but they are a pathetic pushover in conventional warfare (like the taliban), do we have the right to nuke them back? Similarly, if Saddam uses Chem or Bio weapons in war, do we have justification to level Baghdad and put in a parking lot? In my opinion, it is yes on both counts. Firstly, once ANYONE escalates to the nuclear level, retaliation is all but guaranteed. If NYC was hit with a nuke instead of two planes, perhaps there would not be much of Afghanistan left, other than radioactive cinders. Again, with the chemical or biological weapons used in combat, we would be justified in using nukes in retaliation, because any WMB counts, even if the WMB used does little or no damage (US forces are very well prepared to fight in a WMB environment, and such an attack would be well nigh useless). During the Gulf War, the threat of massive US retaliation kept Saddam from using chemical weapons.
As for "faceless terrorist Groups": name one. Really. We knew it was Osama and gang pretty quickly after 9/11.

[ February 26, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: Instar ]

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Aloofi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Instar:
You are missing the point though, Aloofi. I was discussing conventional warfare. A single nuke in a US city, well, the way nuclear warfare goes, the US would probably glass whatever countries that were involved. Even if you nuked 10 or more cities, the US would still have the capability and would more than likely find out who did it, and then obliterate the offending party.

Don't think so. They have re-invented a new kind of warfare, in which a faceless terrorist organization do the attack. If Al Qaeda nuke a city who would you nuke back? Who will support you?
And even if you did, the damage its already done. I don't even wanna think how a post nuked US will be. I can easily see Democracy and individual freedoms being buried under 6 feet of military concrete. Or worst.

---

It would be quiet easy to track the device to the source. All fissionable materials carry a signature that can be linked to their source of manufacture. So based on byproduct yield, we would know the source in less than a day. At that point, it would just be a case of tracking it to the end user. If any large city was to be nuked by terrorists, then the gloves will come off in the war on terrorism.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Instar:
Thanks Oleg for the update on the Charles de Gualle -- I read a while back that the French suspected sabotage because of the massive delays and mishaps, anything come of that? EDIT: I just read that the CdG carries and operates 40 aircraft, making it about only 1/2 of a US carrier. It is a step up from British carriers (which are S/VTOL only), but that is really no match for a US battlegroup. Seeing that the French made their own carrier aircraft (other than the kickin E-2C), I think that they will have a few kinks to work out. When they get all of their Rafale M's into service, they should be pretty well off. The Etendard is too old.
You are missing the point though, Aloofi. I was discussing conventional warfare. A single nuke in a US city, well, the way nuclear warfare goes, the US would probably glass whatever countries that were involved. Even if you nuked 10 or more cities, the US would still have the capability and would more than likely find out who did it, and then obliterate the offending party.

In an American Carrier Battle Group, the air wings are moving from a defensive role into strike rolls. Even the F-14 has been fitted to operate in an air to ground role. Some carriers have no F-14 wings. The battle group is defended by the Aegis system. One Ticonderoga class cruiser is capable of eliminating the entire air forces of most countries. It is the Aegis system that allows the American Navy to project itself into areas normally dominated by land based aircraft. This electronics system when teamed with the Standard II surface to air missile makes the American carriers a viable strike force, and allows them to operate almost anywhere in the world. Also, these Groups are always accompanied by at least one Los Angles class attack sub. The French have built a small carrier, and feel that this is an indication that they are still a super power. But the fact is that it probably would not be able to live very long were it to be operated within range of land based aircraft. Also, I doubt that the French have the ability to protect it from submarines that would surely be sent against it.

While carriers allow a country to readily project force in to the far flung regions of the world, the task of protecting them can actually be greater than what they cost to deploy. England came to this conclusion before the Falklands war. Then when the miniscule Argentinean Air force was able to repeatedly strike major blows against the British fleet, it was decided that the carriers were not able to operate when relying on fleet units for air cover. The result is that the British will close the book on Fleet Air Operations. The French will also come to this conclusion. A carrier force that can not operate as a blue water navy is of little use, and will be a very expensive symbol of national pride.

Does anyone have a link to the makeup of the French carrier air wing? With only 40 aircraft, they would be rather limited in what they could do. I would think that they would need 2 airborne radars, at least 2 COD’s. And 4 rotary wings would be the minimum needed for ASW duties. That leaves 32 of which teeth to tanker would be 3 to 1 at best. So they would be able to put up a strike force of about 10 aircraft with a CAP of four fighters. That would leave 2 fighters over the carrier and 4 on deck alert, with 6 tankers and 4 in the hanger for repairs. If the tankers are DP and the fighters have a strike capability, then they might put 20 aircraft on target if the mechanical crews are really on the ball. In the real world, I think it would be more like 10 to 15.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

I'll ask this, intead of berating you like I want to.

If it is about oil, and everything you mentioned, why Iraq? Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabi, which is only marginally friendly to the US and has more oil.

Phoenix-D

I am not sure what the mystery is it's not about 9/11 - if it were W would attempt to solve the Israel/Palestinian issue (for instance) because that conflict is the main recruiting tool for terrorist. It's not about WMD because there are more dangerous countries that have these and we aren't doing anything about it.

All you guys sound so Naive I just read today that we will keep a couple of HUNDRED thousand troops in Iraq for at least two YEARS if not more.

All you gamers out there think about - I know (if I were playing a war game and some of those games are based on reality) I would want a huge protection force on top of MY most precious commodity. Fortunately for us Iraq gives us an excuse to just move them there.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

However I am still opposed to war because I think that it is being waged for the wrong reasons. Someone made a point earlier about choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion a maniacal corporate warmonger in control of history's largest ever military force is far scarier than a mustachioed monster at the head of a bankrupted dictatorship.

The key word here is 'bankrupted' If certain nations pushing peace have thier way and they get their hands on Iraqi oil then Iraq will quickly no longer be bankrupt. Now what?

[ February 26, 2003, 19:51: Message edited by: DavidG ]

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
The UN is a joke. When you have a ruling class member from Lybia running the Human Rights commision you gotta shake your head. And the UN is very, very anti-sematic. The Un puts the League of Nations to shame. But unfortantly it is the best thing we have for world police.

You got that right. The UN have become a hotbed of anti-semitism. They do nothing more than encorage terrorist attack on Israel. And the European Union just need a little push and will be inventing an excuse to invade Israel. Talk about double standards. They support a dictatorship in Irak and fight a democracy in Israel.
I don't like Bush's corporative gang, but I would support them for the only motive of opousing those bastards in Europe.