Confed999

I get it, thanks Officer of Engineers.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Leader

Could he be any clearer?

And no, I don't ignore you. I read every word you post. I just choose not to respond to your outrageous statements and political rhetoric because there is absolutely no point in doing so. You will just argue right pass me as if my posts were so many blank lines.

__________________

Ironduke

Kevin, Lt. Col. Yu (ret.) had a distinguished military career in the Royal Canadian Army. His expertise on military matters is second to none on this forum.

If you want to get an idea of his vast amount of knowledge on military topics, read the article at the following link:
http://www.china-defense.com/pla/tac...mp_pla-01.html

The Colonel has been in actual combat, and served in a number of campaigns including Bosnia.

His military credentials are posted here:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...=8843#post8843

Ray

Tw-ac,

While your arguments merit interest, the Colonel makes out a very convincing case as to why it was imperative for the US to invade Iraq. I don't think one could wish away the facts that he has trotted out.

Oil is an important issue for the US and of that there is no doubt, but oil has been an issue even before Bush was elected. It is more of a strategic compulsion since US has to secure the Southern flank of the proposed oil line from the ex USSR oilfield through Ukraine to Europe and strategy is not 'conjured' in one day. It is a slow plodding process.

Why hemp oil is not a fuel is an interesting question, but I am not qualified to comment. Maybe someone on this board knowledgeable enough will.

What is irking the world is that WMD has not been found in spite of the vehement claims. It's not Bush who is the devil incarnate. Indeed, if you wish to pin anyone down it is Wolfowitch {spelling!). Bush is just a do-gooder who is a trifle naïve. That is about all.

The other question that none will believe that the US intelligence has failed. The best intelligence in the world with all the financial backup and technical gizmo cannot fail. Just cannot. There is more than what meets the eye. That is what is irking the world.

That the world thinks that the US is infallible is actually the fault of the US. They are gregarious and have 'convinced' all that nothing that they do is wrong. They are suffering now for their gregariousness. We can't ever believe that the US intelligence can be wrong. No way. That is why you are irked. Like it or not, you have been subconsciously made to believe that the US cannot EVER get it wrong. Unfortunately, they have got it wrong.

Can we change the current ground realties now? No way. So, lets make the best of a bad thing.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

smilingassassin

"better watch out for Canada!! and there 1 submarine?"

Shows how much you know about Canada Tw-ac, Canada has four upholder class submarines, that would pose quite a threat to the U.S. subs given the British have VERy quiet subs. If defenbaker hadn't of been a yankee kiss ass canada would have made the American aerospace industry look sick with the introduction of the Avro Arrow

"The United States is Canada's defense so you would be pretty ignorant to not pay attention to American politics."

The United States is canada's defence because both country's have decided upon that arrangment, not because the U.S. TOLD us that thats the way it was going to be.

...and as for your opinion that the war in Iraq was without rhime or reason heres some reasons for the war...aside from the repetative Quackmire "where are the WMD's" arguement

1. Saddam Hussein was in violation of the cease-fire agreements that put the 1991 Gulf War on hold by firing at British and American airplanes in the no-fly zones.

2. Saddam Hussein was in violation of more than a dozen UN Security Council resolutions, including one that threatened the use of force if he did not immediatly surrender all relevant documentation to Hans Blix regarding the production of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

3. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator guilty of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

4. Saddam Hussein publicly threatened to finish Hitler’s job by destroying the state of Israel.

5. Saddam Hussein was an obstacle to long-overdue political liberalization and democratization in the Arab Middle East.

6. Saddam Hussein’s support for Palestinian terrorists made a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict impossible.

7. Saddam Hussein was an ongoing threat to Saudi Arabia, and due to Saudi support for Al Qaeda and Islamic fascism generally, the United States was not able to continue protecting the House of Saud indefinitely, nor could the world afford to have Saddam Hussein in control of Saudi oil and the holy cities of Mecca and Medina if we abandoned the Saudis to their fate.

8. In the post-911 era of apocalyptic terrorism, mass-murdering anti-American dictators who align themselves with terrorists and who have produced and deployed the weapons of genocide are too dangerous to be allowed to remain in power.

Oh and by the way, I'm not an ignorant canadian...I am following the american politics....and right now Kerry is the best thing the democrats can put against a Presedent that appears not to be even trying to battle his rivals. None of the other Democrats are worth their weight in gold and if you Americans are unlucky enough you could get Dean as a presedent, the same madman that said we shouldn't pre-judge Osama Bin Laden, and you guys on the left think Bush is a lunatic!

Trooth

MY concernw ith the war in Iraq is not that the war itself wasn't justified. My concern is that my elected eladers deceived me for their reasons to fight the war.

I fully understand and subscribe to the list in smilingassasin's post.

But, we cannot get away fromt he fact that a coalition was formed to defeat a clearl and present threat to the security of the free world posed by Saddam's massive arsenal of WMD. We cannot get away from the fact that the WMD arguement was the one pushed through the UN. We cannot get away fromt he fact that your poltiical leaders, chose to ignore the evidence from the UN weapon inspectors. Tehy decided to abandon the UN (and thus seriously damage it).
We cannot get away fromt eh fact that the coalition heaped such ire on the French, and yet now we know that the coalition leaders were deceiving us!

Perhaps it was an unintentional deceit. That we await to see. Perhaps the arrogance of the US/UK led railroading of the UN will come back to haunt them or perhaps we will find out why everyone got it wrong. This cannot be allowed to happen again, hundreds of coaltiions troops have died, thousands of Iraqi civilians have died, dozens of non-military support people (such as UN) have died. The death toll is greater than 9/11.

I have no problem with deposing Saddam, but i have a problem with my government deceiving me (or in my case trying to as i never bought the WMD argument).

As for "pre-judging" OBL. Well good on Dean. He stood up for the values of his society and didn't just pander to the lynch mob mentality. His comments showed that he respected the rule and principle of law. Something most people would normally commend in a poltiical leader.

Officer of Engineers

Trooth,

You've touched on several issues here.

1) W Bush and Blair's WND issue. On this, I was convinced of Saddam's WMD not by what Washington DC nor what London said but by Saddam's very own actions.

A) The AS (modified AS2) missiles
B) 12 chemical artillery shells
C) His 3rd Ring of Death around Baghdad (aka chemical weapons release point).
D) His release orders authorizing his generals to use chemical weapons.

I do not see how I could have made any other conclusions.

People make mistakes, even leaders. However, what I do demand is that they own up to their mistakes.

As for OBL, Dean is absolutely wrong. This ain't a crime. It's a war. By definition, OBL is a combattant, not a criminal. Meaning that he is subject to military Rules of Engagement, not a Court of Law. OBL declared war, not us. We don't have to prove his guilt. He has to prove his innocense.

Iron Man,

Just an FYI. The Canadian Army was never known as the Royal Canadian Army. It was simply just the Army or known as today Land Force. In abbreviation, it's LF or to foreigners, LF/CF - Land Force/Canadian Forces.

__________________
Chimo

Ironduke

My bad.

Officer of Engineers

That is perhaps one of the biggest myths out there, even believed by a vast majority of uniformed members on both sides of the border and both sides of the Atlantic.

First, ask yourself what military threats does Canada face? Today, none.

During the Cold War, the primary military threats were Soviet bombers and subs of which Canada was well equipped to handle. Air Command was expeted and capable of stopping the 1st Soviet bomber threat cold. It's the second and 3rd waves that the USAF would need to deal with (if it ever came to that, the ICBMs would already been launched). Maritime Command had the duty of protecting the sea lanes for REFORGER (Re-ENFORcement GERmany) and had ASW capabilities second to no one.

About the only threat we couldn't stopped are the ICBMs and even then, neither could the Americans. They relied on nuclear retalliation.

Even here, Canada had some cards to play. Canada was a nuclear power up until the mid 70s when Trudeau got us out of the nuke game. All three services had tac nukes (some under the dual key control (ie require American authorization)). CF-104 Starfighters primary role in CFB Lahrs, Germany was to rain nukes down on the Warsaw Pact.

I would like to put this in context. There is absolutely no doubt that the US carried a lion share of the defence burden and Canada could not have maintained even half her status without the US. Air Command is extremely reliant on NORAD and having access to facilities like TOP GUN to hone our pilots. Maritime Command is but a link in an American CVBG.

However, to say that Canada was reliant on the US for her defence is extremely misleading.

Officer of Engineers

About the Avro Arrow,

Much of the perceived performance was speculated. The Avro Arrow was never fitted with the Iroquois engine, thus, we don't know if the airframe could have handled that much power.

Then, there is the design itself. The Avro Arrow was an interceptor, not a dog fighter. It could manouver as well as a MiG-25 which is to say not very well at all though it could use climb as a way of manouver. While it had an internal weapons bay, it lacked guns of any sort and whether it could fit guns or external mounts is academic at this point. The Avro Arrow would have been the best interceptor ever built if it lived up to its potential but the interceptor concept was dead wrong in the context of areial warfare. You would have to bastardize the thing up the ying-yang to get any combat worthiness out of it.

The Americans are to blame for its failure but not the way you think. The break even point for the Avro Arrow was 140 planes. The RCAF was only committed to buy 60-75. There has to be another buyer and the only one looking at that point that could fill this order was the USAF. They were not interested.

The Arrow's cancellation also paved the way for the expansion of Canadian nuclear weapons program. The RCAF acquired the CF-101 Voodoo with a Genie nuclear tipped AAM package to fill the need that was destined for the Avro Arrow.

Trooth

Yeah sorry my laser sight is broken

I am assuming these are the missiles that operated beyond the mandated range? I do not disagree that it is a material breach. However if i remember it came to light in the test results of the issles in amongst the documentation supplied by Iraq to the US/UN. As i understand it the Iraqis had found some of their missles were more efficient than they had thought. Also as i understand it the extra 30km was not tactically significant? I design things everyday, and i have bought other peoples designs, and i have stuff that works better than it is supposed to and i have Friday afternoon specials that don't. My understanding of it at the time was that it was not a strategic advantage, just well engineered. But others will be able to correct me.

The crucial thing, for me is the intent. Did they intend to make those missles fliy further or did they just perform better than expected. Why does it matter? Well in the build up to the war there was a lot made of Iraq's intentions to kill everyone with WMD.

Are these the 12 that are in good nick, but empty, or the ones that were buried that the Danish found? The latter were proved not to contain WMD.

12 is not the massive arsenal that was portrayed. Again a material breach, but see intent above.

Which appears to have been a bluff. The intelligence should have known this.

All who have been questioned so far say they were authorised to use chemical wepaons, but that their units didn't have them. They were all told that the nearby units had them, however. Another bluff.

I agree. And this is somewhat my point. On the evidence we were presented, it was clear cut, open and shut. We had to get him now, because he is gonna kill every last one of us with his massive arsenal of WMD. But someone was either deliberately telling porkies, or was failing in their job of gathering intelligence

Its a brave new world. It might happen .....

If trials were good enough for the Nazis and the Japs i fail to see why OBL should be let off lightly.

I am not (and i do not believe Dean was either) saying that OBL is innocent. I am simply saying that if OBL wants to declare western society to be barbaric, uncivilised etc, we should use the utmost principled way of dealing with him and afford every right available to him. He'll still be convicted but it will show those parts of the world that hate us that we are not the devils we are portrayed.

As people are fond of saying, we are in a new type of war here and as i am fond of saying, it is a hearts and minds war. It won't be solved by shooting alone.

smilingassassin

I humbly stand corrected!

Officer of Engineers

It's a case of if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, don't try to tell me it's an platupus.

I believe that we went through this before but allow me to refresh your memory.

This is a modified SA2 Surface-To-Air Missile with a 12kg warhead. The extra range was achieved by removing the guidance system and extending the fuel storage. Essentially, its only guidance is pure ballastics meaning that you're not aiming at a moving target unless you know exactly where that target is 20 minutes from now. Even then, the pure ballastic nature of the weapon has too many variables such as wind and target speed that it really cannot be depended to hit a moving target.

Thus, this missile is only good for stationary targets like an HQ. The only HQs that the Iraqis can be sure of are within stationary sites (ie within a building) and 12 kgs ain't even going to dent the concrete.

Also, the SA2 has a proximity fuse, meaning an airburst. It does not have nor did the Iraqis developed an impact fuse for this weapon.

Thus, you have 12kgs warhead size, essentially an airburst fuse, pure ballastics that is only good for stationary targets, what kind of warhead do you think would be best suited for this system?

The other point is that the Iraqis knew that they exceeded the allowable specifications. They proceeded with production in any case, knowing the violation.


These were the 12 found before the war. The 12 were in perfect, well maintained order, meaning that someone knew about them, and maintained them, during the time that Iraq was not supposed to have them. A very deliberate violation. A warning sign if there is any that at the time I took to be if Saddam hid this deliberately, what else is he hiding?

On this one, I side with Military Intelligence (as opposed to the CIA). The depots were filled and the lines manned. We have had confirmed intelligence that orders have been given to deploy the chemical weapons. Whether it was a bluff or not, I would have treated as real. It would be criminally negligent to do otherwise.

There are two things that this intelligence confirmed and remained true. Saddam is more than willing to use WMD. Saddam has no qualms about casualties, even among his own people. This confirms that Saddam was a very legitimate threat vis-a-vi chemical weapons. Just because he doesn't have them does not erase the fact that he was willing to use them.

Not the first time and I'll bet won't be the last time. However, the fault is throughout the world, perpuated by Saddam himself. He was either unable or unwilling to comply with the terms of surrender. He was also very willing to continue his programs (re: the buried nuclear program, the 12 chemical shells, the modified SA2 SAM).

I don't know when or how he decided to destroy his WMDs. We knew he had them. However, I strongly suspect that Iraq is sitting on an ecological timebomb.

Only time that happenned was Ronald Reagan and the Iranian airliner shot down, despite what the evidence suggest to the contrary.

The Nazis and the Japanese who went to trial surrendered and signed the terms of surrender. They were subsquently charged with War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

If OBL decides to surrender, then he would be treated according to the Rules of War. However, no one is going to wait for a lawyer to read him his rights before slamming him into a cell.

We are devils. Ask anyone who met us in combat. You have one chance to live and that is to surrender before we reach you.

The Mongols would readily disagree with you.

Trooth

We will have to disagree as to whether or not the war on terror will achieve its aims by shooting alone. The war on terror isn't over, and i can't see it being over without convincing people of our worth as a peoples.

I for one don't care about what OBL is. It is what he represents that we have to deal with. Failing to deal with him fails to deal with the war on terror. In my opinion, we are storing up problems if we treat OBL like a battlefield commander. He isn't and whilst i hate to use the word, we should respect him for what he is. A terrorist, but also a figurehead. It is a figurehead that needs to be exposed.

My concern is that the West has a shady past when it comes to OBL and SH and may decide to solve the problem secretly rather than air all that dirty laundry in public. This would do ourselves a dis-service, but politicans are opportunists by nature.

I struggle to believe that Saddam's arsenal is buried somewhere. If Saddam had destroyed his weapons he would only have done it to avoid war, or to get the sanctions repealed. He could only have achieved either end by demonstrating he ahd destroyed them. There is no doubt he didn't do that. Therefore it is fair to assume he had the WMD ready to deploy, or that he never had them (well since he was last disarmed).

And my concern remains that the removal of a dictator on the middle east does not warrant the creation of dictatorships in the west. If the intelligence is wrong, that is one thing. If it was right and ignored, i will use my democractic rights to assist in their removal.

Officer of Engineers

Trooth,

You're not listening to me. At the very least, you're not understanding me. The 1st and primary response to OBL is Force and Force alone. Until that Force neutralizes OBL's threats, your views on how to deal with him is irrevelent.

That Force cannot and will not promise you in what shape we will deliver OBL to you. What you civies do with him after we deliver him to you is your business but do not for one second dictate on how we are tol deliver him to you (ie, dead or alive).

Saddam's capture is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Saddam surrendered fast. However, if any later, I cannot and will not bring anyone up on charges for dropping a grenade in Saddam's hole.

At this point, since we delivered Saddam, what you Civies do with him is no longer a military problem.

As for Saddam's WMD. We know that he had them. We also know that there is no record of their disposal meaning that it was not done at a plant where it could be recorded.

That essentially leaves a very disturbing option. He either buried it or spilled it - ie an ecological timebomb.