Night Shift in Iraq

Iraq is a fragile, but functioning democracy. Big problem with Iraq was all the intelligence pointed to Hussein having WMDs. It would have been imprudent not to do nothing in this belief. Remember he was a man who was the Middle Eastern equivalent of Hitler. His Baath party was modeled on the Nazi regime. He killed tens of thousands of people with chemical weapons, so we knew he was definitely willing to use WMDs, he was trying to acquire nuclear weapons as far back as the 70s (Israel took out the Osirak reactor in 1981), he invaded Kuwait in 1991 (and would have been nuclear-armed at the time if not for Israel), Hans Blix gave him a clean bill of health in the 1990s on not having any nuclear weapons program, only then it was discovered he did have one, and he also never came clean about having dismantled much of his WMD programs.

 

Afghanistan is a problem because if ignored, it could result in another 9/11. No easy solution to any of these problems.

 

And yes that's an old video

Things were the worst when everyone was behind them the most.

 

I wouldn't say that the two are related though (i.e. people support war = bad results, people skeptical = good results). For example, part of Iraq being more stable now is because of the surge, which everyone was against.

 

And I would question the 'best' term. Soldier for soldier, my money is on Israel against anyone.

 

Over at the AirWarriors forum (which has a lot of Navy pilots), I think there was a thread where they said the Israelis are better pilots. When they go up for training, they can get shot at!

That's radical. The more dirty scumbags that see this, the better. I know that some of you insurgents troll Lambopower. Don't mess with us.

 

I don't understand the politics as well as some of you, but I do understand what splattered bodies do to bad guys. It makes them think twice about being a bad guy.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say that the two are related though (i.e. people support war = bad results, people skeptical = good results). For example, part of Iraq being more stable now is because of the surge, which everyone was against.

 

All the Lib's were against. Every military member was for it. Just common sense IMO.

 

 

 

 

Over at the AirWarriors forum (which has a lot of Navy pilots), I think there was a thread where they said the Israelis are better pilots. When they go up for training, they can get shot at!

 

Bah, you should venture over to BaseOps (flyingsquadron.com).

Wish I was in the gunner seat myself to blast those sneaky little fucks.

All the Lib's were against. Every military member was for it. Just common sense IMO.

 

Bah, you should venture over to BaseOps (flyingsquadron.com).

 

 

No, almost everyone was 'for' the war at the beginning. that was the problem. The left was too pussy to take a stand and didn't want to be called 'unamerican' which is seen as the worst thing ever for some dumbass reason.

 

I have yet to meet a military member that was 'for' any war. If they are, chances are their idiots who don't understand anything.

 

War is never good, even when justified and necessary.

 

To argue that Iraq was a threat is to NECESSARILY make the argument that about 11 other countries were an even bigger threat (e.g., North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.).

 

If we minded our own fcuking business and actually had a functioning country with properly trained and paid security people, no one would be doing any '9/11' type stuff. We'd be a LOT 'safer' and a lot more stable as a nation.

No, almost everyone was 'for' the war at the beginning. that was the problem. The left was too pussy to take a stand and didn't want to be called 'unamerican' which is seen as the worst thing ever for some dumbass reason.

 

I have yet to meet a military member that was 'for' any war. If they are, chances are their idiots who don't understand anything.

 

War is never good, even when justified and necessary.

 

He meant the surge, not the war. The term "un-American" as I saw it would mean against their country, which many on the left are not, they were against the war precisely because they care about the country.

 

No one could really stand against the war at the time because it would have been an imprudent gamble that was too dangerous to take. A man like Hussein could not be allowed to have WMDs.

 

To argue that Iraq was a threat is to NECESSARILY make the argument that about 11 other countries were an even bigger threat (e.g., North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.).

 

Iran is a threat and probably will be a major threat soon and should be handled far more aggressively than they are right now. North Korea is also a threat and a major threat to South Korea, and as a result of their having nukes, they can now bully South Korea in ways they otherwise wouldn't be as able to do. We should have handled them far more aggressively during earlier times as well to prevent them from acquiring the nukes.

 

If we minded our own fcuking business and actually had a functioning country with properly trained and paid security people, no one would be doing any '9/11' type stuff. We'd be a LOT 'safer' and a lot more stable as a nation.

 

We spent almost a decade minding our own business and got 9/11 for it.

He meant the surge, not the war. The term "un-American" as I saw it would mean against their country, which many on the left are not, they were against the war precisely because they care about the country.

 

No one could really stand against the war at the time because it would have been an imprudent gamble that was too dangerous to take. A man like Hussein could not be allowed to have WMDs.

 

 

 

Iran is a threat and probably will be a major threat soon and should be handled far more aggressively than they are right now. North Korea is also a threat and a major threat to South Korea, and as a result of their having nukes, they can now bully South Korea in ways they otherwise wouldn't be as able to do. We should have handled them far more aggressively during earlier times as well to prevent them from acquiring the nukes.

 

 

 

We spent almost a decade minding our own business and got 9/11 for it.

 

We minded our business but didn't do the latter part of what I said. We spend way too much on defense spending and what we do spend, we waste.

 

We knew about 9/11 but didn't have the proper channels set up to prevent it.

 

I completely agree with what you said about the left.

 

My problem is not someone saying Iraq had to be 'taken down'; my issue is with someone saying that Iraq was the first priority. I think, given our geographical location, we could be isolationists and be completely safe is properly trained and funded.

 

Lastly, I have a HUGE pet peeve, we should NEVER invade a country we cannot pronounce the name of!!!!!!!!

 

"Eye"-rack!??!?! REALLY!?!?!? Is that near "Eye"-taly, or "Eye"stanbul?? "i"-rack is bad enough, but come on people!!!

We minded our business but didn't do the latter part of what I said. We spend way too much on defense spending and what we do spend, we waste.

 

Well I wouldn't say it's that we spend so much, but more that everyone else spends so little. In certain ways, I don't think we spend enough on defense. Many of the other major nations have spent pennies on defense because the USA was always there to protect them and as a result, aside from the UK, none of them can really project force at all.

 

We knew about 9/11 but didn't have the proper channels set up to prevent it.

 

I completely agree with what you said about the left.

 

My problem is not someone saying Iraq had to be 'taken down'; my issue is with someone saying that Iraq was the first priority. I think, given our geographical location, we could be isolationists and be completely safe is properly trained and funded.

 

Maybe we could, but if any rogue nation got a nuke and wanted to use it on us, that would be a problem. Also Israel is a strategic asset in the Middle East by providing stability in the region, so support for them is important in that sense. Plus if we withdrew support from them, we'd eventually have a second Holocaust on our hands.

 

Lastly, I have a HUGE pet peeve, we should NEVER invade a country we cannot pronounce the name of!!!!!!!!

 

"Eye"-rack!??!?! REALLY!?!?!? Is that near "Eye"-taly, or "Eye"stanbul?? "i"-rack is bad enough, but come on people!!!

 

You would love my grandma:

 

"EYE-talians"

 

"Chinee people"

 

"Ass-tronaut"

 

:)

if we withdrew support from them, we'd eventually have a second Holocaust on our hands.

 

 

Obama's policies are against Israel.

 

Obama is a Muslim apologist.

 

 

 

 

As far as Israel defending itself ?

 

Israel did quite well, from 1948-1967, without a 'single' American tank, airplane, APC, artillery tube, army truck, and small arms. Israel fought (3x) three regional wars, without any American arms. As a side note, Israel did purchase during the Kennedy Administration, a few pure defensive Nike (SAM) anti-air missiles and 150x second-hand M-48 tanks from W. Germany. The tanks were used by the reserves.

 

At the time, the Israeli economy was based on agriculture. Today, the economy has surpassed quite a few countries in Europe. Israel has the funds, to pay for all of it's own defense. Today, Israel is the world's #5 arms exporter.

As far as Israel defending itself ?

 

Israel did quite well, from 1948-1967, without a 'single' American tank, airplane, APC, artillery tube, army truck, and small arms. Israel fought (3x) three regional wars, without any American arms. As a side note, Israel did purchase during the Kennedy Administration, a few pure defensive Nike (SAM) anti-air missiles and 150x second-hand M-48 tanks from W. Germany. The tanks were used by the reserves.

 

At the time, the Israeli economy was based on agriculture. Today, the economy has surpassed quite a few countries in Europe. Israel has the funds, to pay for all of it's own defense. Today, Israel is the world's #5 arms exporter.

 

I agree Israel has never asked the U.S. to fight any of its wars, but they do depend on us for certain military weapons, like fighter planes, attack helicopters, I know they used M60 tanks for awhile, etc...a potential problem is what if Israel feels the need to strike at Iran, might the U.S. under this administration cut off the aid we send to them, military equipment included?

 

Well I wouldn't say it's that we spend so much, but more that everyone else spends so little. In certain ways, I don't think we spend enough on defense. Many of the other major nations have spent pennies on defense because the USA was always there to protect them and as a result, aside from the UK, none of them can really project force at all.

 

 

 

Maybe we could, but if any rogue nation got a nuke and wanted to use it on us, that would be a problem. Also Israel is a strategic asset in the Middle East by providing stability in the region, so support for them is important in that sense. Plus if we withdrew support from them, we'd eventually have a second Holocaust on our hands.

 

 

 

You would love my grandma:

 

"EYE-talians"

 

"Chinee people"

 

"Ass-tronaut"

 

 

 

Most of what we spend money on is a waste, old technology (like F-22s) and things that don't help us in any way. We could spend 1/10th what we do today and be 10 times 'safer'. No country is going to nuke us; it would almost certainly never get through and, even if it did, would not cripple our nation. We're simple too large of a country. If an individual decides to nuke us, from inside our country, then we need better internal security which leads me to my previous point. We need to just worry about us. We should experement with even 50% of the budget and see what happens. If nothing else, we could pay off the deficit in one year.

Obama's policies are against Israel.

 

Obama is a Muslim apologist.

 

Obama is not as pro-Israel as I would like, but he is no Muslim. He's most likely an atheist (god I hope so! ) and therefore approaches the situation from an academic standpoint.

Of course I support Israel over the middle east and mostly for rational reasons, some for irrational reasons. I think he is trying to look at things strictly as an unbiased 3rd party which, in point of fact, may ultimately be the most successful.

 

I wouldn't blink twice if wanted to level the entire middle east (avoiding Israel naturally), but that's because I wouldn't blink an eye if he wanted to level the country of any religious fundamentalists (except America since that now falls into the aforementioned category).

 

Most of what we spend money on is a waste, old technology (like F-22s) and things that don't help us in any way.

 

F-22 is not old technology, that's the problem. It is so monumentally advanced that there is really no need for it right now. What things in your opinion do we spend money on that do not help us in any way?

 

We could spend 1/10th what we do today and be 10 times 'safer'.

 

How so?

 

No country is going to nuke us; it would almost certainly never get through

 

Why wouldn't it get through? Missile defense is still in the infant stage. That's why the proponents want us to develop it, because having a truly reliable system with a very high capability of shooting down a nuclear missile launched would serve as a severe deterrant to any of those rogue nations. Of course such a system wouldn't have been able to stop the Cold War doomsday scenario of the Soviets launching a few hundred nukes all at once, but for those rogue nations with a few nukes, I think it would be a great asset.

 

and, even if it did, would not cripple our nation. We're simple too large of a country. If an individual decides to nuke us, from inside our country, then we need better internal security which leads me to my previous point. We need to just worry about us. We should experement with even 50% of the budget and see what happens. If nothing else, we could pay off the deficit in one year.

 

I think a nuclear strike would cripple the nation. Especially if one of the big cities got taken out (which is what would happen; no one is going to target Alabama or something!). It would cripple it through complete fear. There would be mass hysteria over fear of radiation and so forth, whether justified or not, which would screw up the entire region the blast occurred in, plus the chaos from the city that got taken out (likely New York City or Washington D.C.).

I spent the better part of 3 years downtown Manhattan doing rescue, recovery and rebuild. If it were up to me Afghanistan and Iraq would look like Iowa and be the 51st and 52nd states. Level everything and start over.

I know it's not the most PC statement, but sorry, when you bury friends and pull bodies of innocent secretarys, office workers and others out of a debris pile that used to be office buildings, PC is no longer an option.

 

i believe i read in another thread you owned/own a construction company by any chance were you contracted by the govn to work in ground zero?

No country is going to nuke us; it would almost certainly never get through and, even if it did, would not cripple our nation. We're simple too large of a country.

 

if a nuke hit nyc, it would shut down and virtually collapse the entire economical structure of the united states and other parts of the world

if a nuke hit nyc, it would shut down and virtually collapse the entire economical structure of the united states and other parts of the world

 

No. Wrong on so many levels.

No. Wrong on so many levels.

 

Knocking out Wall Street and all that wouldn't really mess up the economy?? Not saying you are wrong, just curious why?

D.Wiggs, please explain to me how the F-22 is old technology...

No. Wrong on so many levels.

 

you obviously dont know what your talking about, if wall street was nuked the united states would be on the same economic level as zimbabwe

if a nuke hit nyc, it would shut down and virtually collapse the entire economical structure of the united states and other parts of the world

 

I agree. Look what happened just with 9/11.

First of all Iran WILL be getting nukes, second, there is no exit strategy from Iraq, to leave would be to hand the country over to Iran, not good cuz we need their fcuking oil. Afghanistan just got more complicated due to deposits of minerals worth a trillion, Israel and the Palestinians will never make peace, and Ralph is right, those ASSymmetrically fought wars are bankrupting us.

 

Happy Father's Day Gents!

Israel might strike at Iran and knock them back a few years, that is what some are waiting to see. We could have maybe gotten regime change in Iran, but unfortunately that didn't happen.

you obviously dont know what your talking about, if wall street was nuked the united states would be on the same economic level as zimbabwe

Maybe not Zimbabwe, but it would cripple the world economy for a decade minimum.

 

D.Wiggs, please explain to me how the F-22 is old technology...

 

It is. What Lockmart, Boeing, GD, NG, etc build is old, what they draw is the new. Work on sixth generation fighters has been going on for years.

 

 

How are we determining what is too much on military spending? Are we using total GDP when compared to other countries? Total amount spent? If total spent are we somehow compensating for the countries that have lower standards of living than the United States? Are we comparing total military spending to total federal spending? Are we simply saying that what the the ROI for what is spent is too low compared to other ways we spend our money?

 

On a day to day basis how many of those who criticize military spending, use their cell phone to send a text message? How about using GPS? What about the internet? I ask because all of those technologies stem from military funding. I'll assume since you believe we spend too much, then you don't use any of those.

 

A big issue I have is we don't just use our Military for policing the world, and knocking off dictators. During the Tsunami an aircraft carrier was sent to Indonesia to help with relief. Ask yourself why we sent that. Was your answer because our aircraft carriers have multiple hospitals on board that can treat hundreds of people? That they are nuclear powered and in turn can provide emergency power to on shore facilities? That their cafeterias can feed thousands of people three meals a day? That they can produce thousands of gallons of fresh water per day? That the aircraft and helicopters on board can be used for search and rescue and critical transport? Because of our spending we currently have 11 aircraft carriers. We send them to war zones, and we send them to relief zones. Who was the biggest sender of relief during the earthquake in Haiti? How often does the story of the United States sending its military to provide relief to other nations occur?

 

 

Anyone here use the C programming language? How about C++? Ever hear of something called Unix? The laser? The transistor? Those technologies were all developed at Bell labs, with funding from DARPA. So next time you are editing your photos taken on your DSLR (which probably used a CMOS sensor if it was a Canon or Nikon, which was developed at Fairchild semiconductor, which was also funded by DARPA) on your computer, using a program developed with C++, while watching a Blu-Ray movie , remember who funded those technologies.

 

The latest fancy technology for luxury cars is thermal imaging. Your new BMW and Mercedes will let you see better in the dark. Any guesses as to who funded the development of that technology? If you answered with " Why the United States Military machine did" then you are correct. Originally intended to help knockout the bad guys, this technology helps firefighters find those trapped in fires, as well as mothers transport their children home safely.

 

Forty percent of oil for the worlds seaborne oil shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Guess whose navy protects that choke point? Anyone want to guess what would happen if the US Navy wasn't there?

 

So our large military budget provides a means to develop technology to further advance society, provide a safe environment for the United States and its allies to live in, as well as provide aid to those in need anywhere in the globe.

 

With that said, how would that money be better spent? What technologies have the entitlement programs of the United States brought us? I'm curious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes the F-22 was developed in the 80's, built in the 90's, flown in the 00's, and operated in the 10's and beyond. It has been that way for every recent major military program (this isn't just something that plagues our country). Look at all the Airbus A400. That was an even bigger cluster fcuk than the F-22.

 

But the F-22 is still the newest technology on the block...by far.

 

The Russian PAK-FA still has a lot of development to go through, and right now all the Russian President is bragging about is the "new technology" that lets the pilot keep his/her hands on the controls. Yea...HOTAS...totally ground breaking stuff there.