CSNbbs

The first Tomahawks and JDAM's were hitting Baghdad...

Not much on the news about it..... and only a few die hard "Code Pink" nutjobs outside the Federal Building protesting yesterday.

But some Iraqis are clearly ungrateful...

Burning of U.S. flags marks war anniversary

BAGHDAD — American flags were set on fire Friday to chants of “no, no for occupation” as followers of an anti-U.S. Shiite cleric marked the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war.

In five other Iraqi cities, supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr also either marched or stood in protest after prayers to demand the release of their allies detained at Iraqi and U.S.-run prisons.

The protests came as a suicide bomber in Fallujah killed an Iraqi police officer and five other people, including civilians, in an attempted attack on the home of the local leader of Sunni security volunteers who turned against al-Qaida.

Also, a pair of roadside bombs exploded within 10 minutes of one another after sundown Friday, wounding four policemen and three civilians in Baghdad’s Karradah district, police said. A police colonel and his aide were wounded in a bombing Friday in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, police said.

In the capital, al-Sadr aide Sheik Haidar al-Jabiri urged supporters to join an April 9 march to protest the six-year anniversary of Americans taking over the city.

“Today, a remembrance of the cruel occupation of Iraq, and on April 9, there will be a chant for liberation,” al-Sadr aide Sheik Haidar al-Jabiri told worshippers gathered in Baghdad’s Shiite district of Sadr City for Friday sermons.

He added: “Sayed Muqtada invites you to march by the millions on April 9, the anniversary of the cruel occupation.”

Baghdad fell to U.S. forces on April 9, 2003. The war began with a missile and bombing attack on south Baghdad before dawn on March 20, 2003 — March 19 in Washington.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/03/ap...ry_032009/

Sounds like they want us to leave. I say give them their wish.

(03-21-2009 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like they want us to leave. I say give them their wish.

I think we are in the process of leaving as we speak.

(03-21-2009 01:23 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 12:54 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like they want us to leave. I say give them their wish.

I think we are in the process of leaving as we speak.

I have worthless dollar that says in 10 years we will still be there.

We do not have a good history of packing up and going home. It's our duty to the world to be it's protector.

Obama has already said that some people will remain to train their police and what not. We have too many permanent camps to just pack up and leave and that's how we end up with camps all over the world.

(03-21-2009 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama has already said that some people will remain to train their police and what not. We have too many permanent camps to just pack up and leave and that's how we end up with camps all over the world.

Anyone that thinks the Industrial Military Complex does not have a stranglehold on US policy is not thinking clearly.

I've said it before and it bears repeating....When the Right addresses military spending and the Left addresses the welfare state...and then...They both address entitlements, you will know that the gangs are serious about solving our financial problems in this country.

(03-21-2009 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama has already said that some people will remain to train their police and what not. We have too many permanent camps to just pack up and leave and that's how we end up with camps all over the world.

If you look at a Google Earth photo of Balad Airbase you will lots of improvements we have made to the facility, including new runways, housing, swimming pool, hangars and repair shops. Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis, we are still responsible for the defense of their airspace even after the US ground forces leave.

(03-21-2009 03:19 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama has already said that some people will remain to train their police and what not. We have too many permanent camps to just pack up and leave and that's how we end up with camps all over the world.

Anyone that thinks the Industrial Military Complex does not have a stranglehold on US policy is not thinking clearly.

I've said it before and it bears repeating....When the Right addresses military spending and the Left addresses the welfare state...and then...They both address entitlements, you will know that the gangs are serious about solving our financial problems in this country.

Fo do you realize if every country followed your Foreign Policy ideas for all of history, we wouldn't have the World Wide Web(among many other things) to talk about it today? Thank you Brits for all you did in the past to lay the cables all over the world that makes the Internet work, btw.

Also thank the Brits for being behind all the G7 nations, thanks for teaching the Hong Kong people education, british common law and business practices....which is the only reason Hong Kong and to the extent Hong kong are great spheres of capitalism at the moment.

ditto India and I love being able to travel to the Carribean and if I ever get rich to find tax shelter there.

also thank you USA, for advancing Liberty in places like Korea, Japan, Central America.....defeating the Soviets and putting the smack down on the freak show running the Middle East.





.....btw their are fringe groups in all these countries, who want power themselves and are some form of totalitarians, that also hate and protest everything about the Anglo-American liberal alliance.

(03-21-2009 06:08 PM)GGniner Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 03:19 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama has already said that some people will remain to train their police and what not. We have too many permanent camps to just pack up and leave and that's how we end up with camps all over the world.

Anyone that thinks the Industrial Military Complex does not have a stranglehold on US policy is not thinking clearly.

I've said it before and it bears repeating....When the Right addresses military spending and the Left addresses the welfare state...and then...They both address entitlements, you will know that the gangs are serious about solving our financial problems in this country.

Fo do you realize if every country followed your Foreign Policy ideas for all of history, we wouldn't have the World Wide Web(among many other things) to talk about it today? Thank you Brits for all you did in the past to lay the cables all over the world that makes the Internet work, btw.

Also thank the Brits for being behind all the G7 nations, thanks for teaching the Hong Kong people education, british common law and business practices....which is the only reason Hong Kong and to the extent Hong kong are great spheres of capitalism at the moment.

ditto India and I love being able to travel to the Carribean and if I ever get rich to find tax shelter there.

also thank you USA, for advancing Liberty in places like Korea, Japan, Central America.....defeating the Soviets and putting the smack down on the freak show running the Middle East.





.....btw their are fringe groups in all these countries, who want power themselves and are some form of totalitarians, that also hate and protest everything about the Anglo-American liberal alliance.

All your assertions...while valid, are based on the current paradigm of interventionism. Since we have been hell bent upon the pursuit of this policy...there are no examples to point to any other political strategy....So...no... I don't buy that other strategies would not have also yielded positive advancements for man. Who knows? I do know that the blood loss involved in this policy has been a tragedy.

(03-21-2009 06:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 06:08 PM)GGniner Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 03:19 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama has already said that some people will remain to train their police and what not. We have too many permanent camps to just pack up and leave and that's how we end up with camps all over the world.

Anyone that thinks the Industrial Military Complex does not have a stranglehold on US policy is not thinking clearly.

I've said it before and it bears repeating....When the Right addresses military spending and the Left addresses the welfare state...and then...They both address entitlements, you will know that the gangs are serious about solving our financial problems in this country.

Fo do you realize if every country followed your Foreign Policy ideas for all of history, we wouldn't have the World Wide Web(among many other things) to talk about it today? Thank you Brits for all you did in the past to lay the cables all over the world that makes the Internet work, btw.

Also thank the Brits for being behind all the G7 nations, thanks for teaching the Hong Kong people education, british common law and business practices....which is the only reason Hong Kong and to the extent Hong kong are great spheres of capitalism at the moment.

ditto India and I love being able to travel to the Carribean and if I ever get rich to find tax shelter there.

also thank you USA, for advancing Liberty in places like Korea, Japan, Central America.....defeating the Soviets and putting the smack down on the freak show running the Middle East.





.....btw their are fringe groups in all these countries, who want power themselves and are some form of totalitarians, that also hate and protest everything about the Anglo-American liberal alliance.

All your assertions...while valid, are based on the current paradigm of interventionism. Since we have been hell bent upon the pursuit of this policy...there are no examples to point to any other political strategy....So...no... I don't buy that other strategies would not have also yielded positive advancements for man. Who knows? I do know that the blood loss involved in this policy has been a tragedy.

There is nothing wrong with interventionim. I'd rather kick the Bad Guy's ass "over there" in HIS "front yard" instead of waiting for the threat to come to MY "back yard"...

And to do that you need air base and port access along the way....

For the past few years the basic US Navy “US-China Conflict Scenarios” haven't been running on an invasion of Taiwan ( I think there will be a political solution to that within 20 years) but on a conflict induced by access/denial to natural resources.

For the US Navy to take on the Chinese you will need forward deployed assets, pure and simple. You can't base everything in the CONUS and expect to get it all there in time.

(03-21-2009 06:57 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 06:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 06:08 PM)GGniner Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 03:19 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 03:14 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama has already said that some people will remain to train their police and what not. We have too many permanent camps to just pack up and leave and that's how we end up with camps all over the world.

Anyone that thinks the Industrial Military Complex does not have a stranglehold on US policy is not thinking clearly.

I've said it before and it bears repeating....When the Right addresses military spending and the Left addresses the welfare state...and then...They both address entitlements, you will know that the gangs are serious about solving our financial problems in this country.

Fo do you realize if every country followed your Foreign Policy ideas for all of history, we wouldn't have the World Wide Web(among many other things) to talk about it today? Thank you Brits for all you did in the past to lay the cables all over the world that makes the Internet work, btw.

Also thank the Brits for being behind all the G7 nations, thanks for teaching the Hong Kong people education, british common law and business practices....which is the only reason Hong Kong and to the extent Hong kong are great spheres of capitalism at the moment.

ditto India and I love being able to travel to the Carribean and if I ever get rich to find tax shelter there.

also thank you USA, for advancing Liberty in places like Korea, Japan, Central America.....defeating the Soviets and putting the smack down on the freak show running the Middle East.





.....btw their are fringe groups in all these countries, who want power themselves and are some form of totalitarians, that also hate and protest everything about the Anglo-American liberal alliance.

All your assertions...while valid, are based on the current paradigm of interventionism. Since we have been hell bent upon the pursuit of this policy...there are no examples to point to any other political strategy....So...no... I don't buy that other strategies would not have also yielded positive advancements for man. Who knows? I do know that the blood loss involved in this policy has been a tragedy.

There is nothing wrong with interventionim. I'd rather kick the Bad Guy's ass "over there" in HIS "front yard" instead of waiting for the threat to come to MY "back yard"...

And to do that you need air base and port access along the way....

For the past few years the basic US Navy “US-China Conflict Scenarios” haven't been running on an invasion of Taiwan ( I think there will be a political solution to that within 20 years) but on a conflict induced by access/denial to natural resources.

For the US Navy to take on the Chinese you will need forward deployed assets, pure and simple. You can't base everything in the CONUS and expect to get it all there in time.

Again...I respectfully submit that arguments that can not be refuted because of the lack of examples of other paradigms are simply opinions. You are of course entitled to your opinion.

In no way do I disregard the service and blood spilled by servicemen and women(6 in my immediate family) in the pursuit of our current policy.

Frankly, I feel I often value them more than those that put them into harms way furthering that policy. I believe in principle that the military should be for "defense". Often I see them being used as peace keepers,police,advisors and trainers and are put into situations that do not fall under their mission of defense. This puts them in needless peril with their hands tied behind their backs as soldiers.

Regardless of my opinion...I honor all that were conscripted and volunteered for service. I just feel that much of the blood spilled has been for political motives and not for national defense.

I have no problem with the military as described Constitutionally. Unfortunately, what we now are doing has blurred the line so far that I'm sure the founders would shake their heads in disbelief.

If other powers sense a vacuum, they often intervene, which is often not in the best interests of the US… for example, Japan just launched a “Helicopter-Destroyer”… Yep that is what they call this thing. And it looks like an “Aircraft Carrier” to me. Bad things usually happen in Asia when Japanese start operating Aircraft Carriers-- it isn't a "Maritime Self Defense Force" anymore. And the last thing the US needs is a Naval Arms Race in the Pacific.



March 20, 2009: Japan recently commissioned its first aircraft carrier since World War II. Sort of. The new, "helicopter-carrying destroyer", the Hyuga, is a 610 foot long, 18,000 ton warship that operates up to 11 (mostly SH-60) helicopters from a full length flight deck.

Although called a destroyer, it very much looks like an aircraft carrier. While its primary function is anti-submarine warfare, the Hyuga will also give Japan its first real power projection capability since 1945. The Hyuga is the largest warship built in Japan since World War II. The Japanese constitution forbids it to have aircraft carriers, which is the main reason it is called a destroyer. That, and the desire to not make the neighbors anxious. East Asian nations still have bad memories about the last time Japan had lots of aircraft carriers.

The Hyuga also has 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. There are also two 20mm Phalanx anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts. There is a crew of 350 and a top speed of about 60 kilometers. Vertical takeoff jets like the Harrier and F-35B could also operate from the Hyuga. A second Hyuga is under construction and a third is planned.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai...90320.aspx

(03-21-2009 08:19 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]If other powers sense a vacuum, they often intervene, which is often not in the best interests of the US… for example, Japan just launched a “Helicopter-Destroyer”… Yep that is what they call this thing. And it looks like an “Aircraft Carrier” to me. Bad things usually happen in Asia when Japanese start operating Aircraft Carriers-- it isn't a "Maritime Self Defense Force" anymore. And the last thing the US needs is a Naval Arms Race in the Pacific.



March 20, 2009: Japan recently commissioned its first aircraft carrier since World War II. Sort of. The new, "helicopter-carrying destroyer", the Hyuga, is a 610 foot long, 18,000 ton warship that operates up to 11 (mostly SH-60) helicopters from a full length flight deck.

Although called a destroyer, it very much looks like an aircraft carrier. While its primary function is anti-submarine warfare, the Hyuga will also give Japan its first real power projection capability since 1945. The Hyuga is the largest warship built in Japan since World War II. The Japanese constitution forbids it to have aircraft carriers, which is the main reason it is called a destroyer. That, and the desire to not make the neighbors anxious. East Asian nations still have bad memories about the last time Japan had lots of aircraft carriers.

The Hyuga also has 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. There are also two 20mm Phalanx anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts. There is a crew of 350 and a top speed of about 60 kilometers. Vertical takeoff jets like the Harrier and F-35B could also operate from the Hyuga. A second Hyuga is under construction and a third is planned.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai...90320.aspx

Looks like the US is not the only country that skirts it's constitution with technicalities to achieve the wishes of those hungry for power.

(03-21-2009 08:19 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]If other powers sense a vacuum, they often intervene, which is often not in the best interests of the US… for example, Japan just launched a “Helicopter-Destroyer”… Yep that is what they call this thing. And it looks like an “Aircraft Carrier” to me. Bad things usually happen in Asia when Japanese start operating Aircraft Carriers-- it isn't a "Maritime Self Defense Force" anymore. And the last thing the US needs is a Naval Arms Race in the Pacific.



March 20, 2009: Japan recently commissioned its first aircraft carrier since World War II. Sort of. The new, "helicopter-carrying destroyer", the Hyuga, is a 610 foot long, 18,000 ton warship that operates up to 11 (mostly SH-60) helicopters from a full length flight deck.

Although called a destroyer, it very much looks like an aircraft carrier. While its primary function is anti-submarine warfare, the Hyuga will also give Japan its first real power projection capability since 1945. The Hyuga is the largest warship built in Japan since World War II. The Japanese constitution forbids it to have aircraft carriers, which is the main reason it is called a destroyer. That, and the desire to not make the neighbors anxious. East Asian nations still have bad memories about the last time Japan had lots of aircraft carriers.

The Hyuga also has 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. There are also two 20mm Phalanx anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts. There is a crew of 350 and a top speed of about 60 kilometers. Vertical takeoff jets like the Harrier and F-35B could also operate from the Hyuga. A second Hyuga is under construction and a third is planned.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai...90320.aspx

It appears a lot of US technology went into that ship...

We licensed AEGIS and the weapon systems to the Japanese about 15 years ago. They build (and improve) their shipboard weapons systems over there. The Japanese are also building Guided Missile Destroyers based on our Burke design, that again, we licensed to them.

Put the Guided Missile Destroyer with the "Helicopter Destroyer" and you have a pretty capable task force. More than enough to take on the Chinese. The only thing the Chinese have that the Japanese don't are nuke subs and of course, offensive missiles.

(03-21-2009 08:33 PM)smn1256 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2009 08:19 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]If other powers sense a vacuum, they often intervene, which is often not in the best interests of the US… for example, Japan just launched a “Helicopter-Destroyer”… Yep that is what they call this thing. And it looks like an “Aircraft Carrier” to me. Bad things usually happen in Asia when Japanese start operating Aircraft Carriers-- it isn't a "Maritime Self Defense Force" anymore. And the last thing the US needs is a Naval Arms Race in the Pacific.



March 20, 2009: Japan recently commissioned its first aircraft carrier since World War II. Sort of. The new, "helicopter-carrying destroyer", the Hyuga, is a 610 foot long, 18,000 ton warship that operates up to 11 (mostly SH-60) helicopters from a full length flight deck.

Although called a destroyer, it very much looks like an aircraft carrier. While its primary function is anti-submarine warfare, the Hyuga will also give Japan its first real power projection capability since 1945. The Hyuga is the largest warship built in Japan since World War II. The Japanese constitution forbids it to have aircraft carriers, which is the main reason it is called a destroyer. That, and the desire to not make the neighbors anxious. East Asian nations still have bad memories about the last time Japan had lots of aircraft carriers.

The Hyuga also has 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles. There are also two 20mm Phalanx anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts. There is a crew of 350 and a top speed of about 60 kilometers. Vertical takeoff jets like the Harrier and F-35B could also operate from the Hyuga. A second Hyuga is under construction and a third is planned.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai...90320.aspx

It appears a lot of US technology went into that ship...

My first thought is that I don't have a problem with the US providing help with Japan's defense capabilities....then...I realize that the US is doing the same thing in Poland with the defense shield stuff. All this stuff is interventionist policy...I really don't think that I am comfortable with it.

(03-21-2009 06:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]All your assertions...while valid, are based on the current paradigm of interventionism. Since we have been hell bent upon the pursuit of this policy...there are no examples to point to any other political strategy....So...no... I don't buy that other strategies would not have also yielded positive advancements for man. Who knows? I do know that the blood loss involved in this policy has been a tragedy.

point I was making, was if not for British Empire(and not all empires are the same)...we wouldn't have the Internet as we know it, and many other advancements. The British layed the under sea cables, originally so they could communicate with all their interest around the world. Basically the Internet would be impossible today without these cables.

China learned what they are doing today with business mostly from Hong Kong, only reason HK is so good at it is because of the influence of the British.

Australia, a G7 Nation today. Is relatively young, it got started after we defeated the British in the Revolutionary War. They had some prisoners they could no longer ship here, so they sent them along with some of their men to Australia to start a colony....rest is history.

The industrialized/civilized world does have much of a choice with the Middle East, whats being done there so far in setup is still far different than british colonalism, for better or worse. If we were just like the Brits of old, we'd probably still be in the Phillipines even after they asked us to leave.

(03-21-2009 06:57 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: [ -> ]There is nothing wrong with interventionim. I'd rather kick the Bad Guy's ass "over there" in HIS "front yard" instead of waiting for the threat to come to MY "back yard"...

this has worked out rather well for the current crop of ungrateful(and stupid) brits. Luring British born and educated muslims to taking arms in Afghanistan instead in the streats of Britain(with the handful of exceptions of course).

Its gotta be surreal to be on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq and fighting a group of un-uniformed Jihadist with British Accents.

Its a New Age, for better or worse