Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Even if they DO have unmanned jets with biological warfare sprayers, do they have aircraft carriers?
No?
Do they have in-flight refueling capability?
I would wager not.
So how exactly would those planes be able to get all the way to the US and spray the general populace?
I worked with Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV-N) program and In-Flight Refueling (IFR) isn't too hard to incorporate onto UAV/UCAV.
The biggest challenge is the actually refueling itself. It is very difficult to perform IFR due to UAV/UCAV's inability to make
small adjustments during IFR especially with air turbulence. BTW, with all the available information that I have on worldwide UAV/UCAV programs,
I could honestly say Iraq do not possess any Unmanned Air Vehicle.
The difficulty of In-Flight refueling may not be that difficult(I dunno, never having the experience), but one would still need some kind of Base(likely many due to the distance) or an Aircraft Carrier in order to reach from Iraq to the US
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
I believe a good many of those would support war on Switzerland if Bush decided to attack them.
There seems to be a growing mass growing mass that are opening their eyes though.
Yes and I believe a good many people, including you, would say Bush was fscked up if he said the world was round and the sky was blue. About 99% of what I hear these "protestors" say is pure emotional drivel. "War monger", "Oil for his friends", "Personal vendetta" is just so much unsubstantiated crap. If they want a majority of people to take them serious they better come up with something better.
Well, you're wrong about me and I think most of these others as well. People don't go out in and gather in gigantic protests whenever Bush makes a poor decision.
...and what "Majority" are you talking about? The 40%?
Well based on what I 've seen you post here and listening to the "protestors" I don't think I'm wrong at all. As far as these gigiantic protests go, 200,000 in a country of 280 million doesn't really impress me all that much and hardly qualifies as gigantic.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Even if they DO have unmanned jets with biological warfare sprayers, do they have aircraft carriers?
No?
Do they have in-flight refueling capability?
I would wager not.
So how exactly would those planes be able to get all the way to the US and spray the general populace?
I worked with Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV-N) program and In-Flight Refueling (IFR) isn't too hard to incorporate onto UAV/UCAV.
The biggest challenge is the actually refueling itself. It is very difficult to perform IFR due to UAV/UCAV's inability to make
small adjustments during IFR especially with air turbulence. BTW, with all the available information that I have on worldwide UAV/UCAV programs,
I could honestly say Iraq do not possess any Unmanned Air Vehicle.
The difficulty of In-Flight refueling may not be that difficult(I dunno, never having the experience), but one would still need some kind of Base(likely many due to the distance) or an Aircraft Carrier in order to reach from Iraq to the US
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: SlowSS
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Even if they DO have unmanned jets with biological warfare sprayers, do they have aircraft carriers?
No?
Do they have in-flight refueling capability?
I would wager not.
So how exactly would those planes be able to get all the way to the US and spray the general populace?
I worked with Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV-N) program and In-Flight Refueling (IFR) isn't too hard to incorporate onto UAV/UCAV.
The biggest challenge is the actually refueling itself. It is very difficult to perform IFR due to UAV/UCAV's inability to make
small adjustments during IFR especially with air turbulence. BTW, with all the available information that I have on worldwide UAV/UCAV programs,
I could honestly say Iraq do not possess any Unmanned Air Vehicle.
The difficulty of In-Flight refueling may not be that difficult(I dunno, never having the experience), but one would still need some kind of Base(likely many due to the distance) or an Aircraft Carrier in order to reach from Iraq to the US
Wrong.
What do you mean by IFR may not be that difficult? Do you even know the requirements of IFR?
If you don't have any experience with IFR/UAV/UCAV or carrier suitability, don't make that kind of silly statement.
It kinda make you look foolish.
The purpose of IFR is to prevent from having to land on land base, so with IFR land basing isn't need for refueling
especially with UAV/UCAV, since human factor isn't in consideration.
Also, UAV is just a drone and do not meet the aircraft carrier requirements to be able to land on aircraft carrier.
Originally posted by: BlueEyedBeezlebub
Whats everyone got against loyalty? I was a blind patriot before 9/11, I just feel i owe the country something. sorry (not really) if ya dont like that.
I guess if you enjoy the freedoms and take the liberty to personally judge whether YOU think a certain conflict is worth you fighting for, instead of your publicly elected officials then I consider that treason.
Originally posted by: BlueEyedBeezlebub
Whats everyone got against loyalty? I was a blind patriot before 9/11, I just feel i owe the country something. sorry (not really) if ya dont like that.
I guess if you enjoy the freedoms and take the liberty to personally judge whether YOU think a certain conflict is worth you fighting for, instead of your publicly elected officials then I consider that treason.. You elected them, they are representing you.. they work for us so do something for that liberty. But wait, Bush Stole the election right! So he wouldnt be our publicly elected official.. BS.
My view is, before the election, slander and dont stand behind the other guy, but stand behind your damn president after its done and over and return some kind of unity to the country. If ya dont like it, vote bush out.. but until then he knows alot more top secret information than we do and we should trust our elected president.
He is a man of integrity and honor and wouldnt do anything to hurt americans foolishly...i highly doubt he's after OIL (or # of other p*ss poor excuses people are using).. for gods sake the man is what, a millionaire already? He's gotta have more, hes a greedy republican!
instead of your publicly elected officials
Originally posted by: etech
Take a look at the title to this story from the BBC. I think it is misleading.
US braced for huge anti-war protests
The US is not braced for anti-war protests but doesn't that make them sound so much more important than just stating the truth. A very very small percentage of the US population is holding anti-war protests?
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: etech
Take a look at the title to this story from the BBC. I think it is misleading.
US braced for huge anti-war protests
The US is not braced for anti-war protests but doesn't that make them sound so much more important than just stating the truth. A very very small percentage of the US population is holding anti-war protests?
Weren't some of those protests biggest protest there has ever been in the city in question? In my book that makes them pretty damn huge protests.
Originally posted by: BlueEyedBeezlebub
Whats everyone got against loyalty? I was a blind patriot before 9/11, I just feel i owe the country something. sorry (not really) if ya dont like that.
I guess if you enjoy the freedoms and take the liberty to personally judge whether YOU think a certain conflict is worth you fighting for, instead of your publicly elected officials then I consider that treason.. You elected them, they are representing you.. they work for us so do something for that liberty.
Originally posted by: BlueEyedBeezlebub
I dont know how many of you have been reading about the protests that have been going on against the war but I am going to be organizing counter protests in my area that are pro war. Its time those of us who despise draft dodgers from the vietnam era and the weak ones who are afraid to do what we have to do now hear our voice. Sad thing is these days the popular opinion is against me (which is ok with me), honor, chivalry, and duty to ones nation is dead in our country.
Its also said that the media is ignoring these protests, and for good reason.. alot of the media is jewish owned, this war will get all support from liberal jews, conservative jews, all other conservatives.. the only ones left out will be the liberal whites who want to protest everything for mostly political hatred of their enemies initiatives and ideas or fear of sending their children off to battle.
Most of their children are scared, but I'm 21 years old and think the war and draft is a good thing. In fact I think from age 18-20 in this country mandatory military service should be required!! Mostly for a wake up call so we respect our freedom and how important it is to maintain.
I think that those who protest just do so to relive or regain some spirit of the 60s.. it was justified in those times but now some would protest even if we were being attacked on our own soil. And if this nation is ever attacked on our own soil, as powerful as we are now.. and our enemys got that far, it would be all over.
So counter protest the protesters if you have the motivation!
Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
What kind of fvcktard starts a rally in favor of war???? Jesus tap dancin' Christ
Originally posted by: numark
Originally posted by: BlueEyedBeezlebub
Whats everyone got against loyalty? I was a blind patriot before 9/11, I just feel i owe the country something. sorry (not really) if ya dont like that.
I guess if you enjoy the freedoms and take the liberty to personally judge whether YOU think a certain conflict is worth you fighting for, instead of your publicly elected officials then I consider that treason.. You elected them, they are representing you.. they work for us so do something for that liberty.
One of the basic principles of our government is that the power to govern comes through the consent of the governed. Therefore, we have every right to question what our leaders think and do, because we ultimately decide how our country is run; we don't just blindly give power to anyone who decides they can be elected by the slimmest of margins (and very few elections in history have been decided by relatively large margins).
The best case scenario is an internal coup to overthrow Saddam and his immediate Lieutenants. The plan that the Saudi's have been rumored to have tabled regarding giving Amnesty to all but the top 150 officials in the Baath Party in Iraq would result in the best scenario. There still would be order within Iraq preventing utter chaos from emerging (which could result in stockpiles of WMD's falling into terrorists hands) plus thousands of lives would be saved not to mention the economic toll be avertedOriginally posted by: nakedfrog
Just out of curiosity, IF we do go to war and this time Saddam is ousted and slain, or whatever, what then?
Do we just let the Iraqis fend for themselves and see what government springs up? If history is any example, no.
We'd end up propping up whoever we decided should be in power there with financial and military support.
What about the Iraqi citizens? How many of them would support our decision of government for them?
Just food for thought about what happens AFTER the war.
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Just out of curiosity, IF we do go to war and this time Saddam is ousted and slain, or whatever, what then?
Do we just let the Iraqis fend for themselves and see what government springs up? If history is any example, no.
We'd end up propping up whoever we decided should be in power there with financial and military support.
What about the Iraqi citizens? How many of them would support our decision of government for them?
Just food for thought about what happens AFTER the war.
Washington - President Goerge W Bush's administration is working on post-war plans for Iraq that could include using American and other foreign troops as a stabilising force until a new government is formed, the defence department said on Friday.
"Clearly, security would be a concern in the early months" after the overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, said Pentagon spokesperson Victoria Clarke.
Any plan would include a defence department role in finding and securing any weapons of mass destruction, she said.
"The United States will not cut and run," White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said. "The United States and our allies are committed to find a way to help preserve the stability and maintain the peace of the region and particularly Iraq as a unified country in the event military force is used."
He said the United Nations might be called upon to help stabilise a post-Hussein Iraq, and did not rule out US forces behind part of an international effort.
President Bush says he has not definitely decided on a military invasion to achieve his goal of ousting Saddam Hussein.
The plan is being developed by a number of US government agencies.
Clarke said it was "way too soon" to say what plan would eventually be approved.
Possible plan
One plan being considered by the White House is based on the occupation of Japan following World War II and includes installing a US commander to administer Iraq, The New York Times said in its Friday editions.
US commanders would oversee the beginnings of democratic transformation, The Washington Post quoted unnamed sources as saying in a similar story.
But officials said later on Friday that such a plan is among the least likely to be approved of those being considered.
"That's not what's envisioned," Fleischer said.
A senior White House official said that while there were people in the government studying the idea of a military occupation, Bush and his foreign policy team "are not looking seriously at this."
He said Bush is committed to helping the Iraqi people establish a broad, democratic government.
Fleischer said military civil affairs units may help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
Quick transfer of power
"The point is, we want to very quickly transfer governmental power to the Iraqi people both from inside Iraq and outside Iraq," he said.
Some have warned that American military control of Iraq would enflame Iraqis and Muslims in other countries.
"I am viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country," former secretary of state Henry Kissinger said during Senate hearings last month.
"Some kind of peace force is absolutely critical, but peacekeeping is very different from having a viceroy or some kind of commission," Anthony Cordesman, Iraq expert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said on Friday.
Warning to Hussein?
Some officials suggested the occupation option may have been leaked by lower-level planners who wanted to kill it.
Others suggested that the idea is being floated publicly by some in the administration as the latest effort in a psychological campaign aimed at Hussein's generals. That is, they said, it suggests to them that they should join in the US effort to topple Hussein or face being controlled by foreign military forces.
Officials have repeatedly warned in recent weeks that Hussein's forces should refuse orders to use chemical or biological weapons in any invasion. They also have suggested in public speeches and press conferences that the population should revolt and Hussein, his family and inner circle voluntarily go into exile.
Official also have said previously that any postwar plan would probably include war-crime trials for Iraqi leaders.
The Senate, early on Friday, joined the House in passing a resolution granting Bush power to use the US military to enforce United Nations orders that Hussein dispose of his weapons of mass destruction. The resolution, which now goes to the president, encourages Bush to seek UN co-operation in such a campaign, but does not require it. [/b]
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: etech
Take a look at the title to this story from the BBC. I think it is misleading.
US braced for huge anti-war protests
The US is not braced for anti-war protests but doesn't that make them sound so much more important than just stating the truth. A very very small percentage of the US population is holding anti-war protests?
Weren't some of those protests biggest protest there has ever been in the city in question? In my book that makes them pretty damn huge protests.
True.
This stuff does not happen very often.