Oh, okay. Euros then. F-4 is the old Phantom jet, no? more or less obsolete.
I do remember several Abuzz in which you expressed that opinion, c.i. Since you were right about the first part, I hope you were right about the second. Nevertheless, you did have a chain of logic to support the opinion.
roger, There are, I'm afraid, many variables as to when our economy will pick up again. Many feel that the impending war with Iraq will drag our markets lower. If you've been watching the market lately, it seems one bad news from one or a couple of companies drag the whole market downwards. That scenario just doesn't make any sense to me, because the analysts continue to insist that our economy is still very much plugging along - as the number one economy in this world. P/E ratios are a bit still too high, but that's been historically true even in times of bull markets - excluding the dot-com boom(the other extreme). With interest rates so low, I really feel it's a good time to buy into some equities. It's my HO that the DOW hovering in the 8,500 range is a good buy if one looks at the long term prospects. What worries me most at this time is the insider trading going on. Many officers and board members are selling stock options in the open market to gain millions for themselves, while deluting the earnings for investors. c.i.
roger wrote:F-4 is the old Phantom jet, no? more or less obsolete.
F-4's depending on configuration were either "Phantoms" or "Wild Weasels" so you pegged it. They were phased out of the US inventory in the 1980s. I used to work with the Recon version of them - the RF-4C.
I worked on the lighting technology engineering of the F-18, F-16, F-15 and F-111 under as much as a top clearance security rating.
I knew at least that we didn't sell aircraft to foreign countries with the latest technology. In other words, they were obsolete versions of the planes. Good for us, that's easy to figure out! I would venture to guess that there are no foreign pilots training in our most up-to-date aircraft either.
That's telling that Saddam didn't use WOMD's in the Gulf War -- I think he knew what would happen. I think he still knows what would happen. We did threaten to use tactical nukes in the event of any biological or chemical weapons used against our troops then and I don't see why there would be any difference now. Whether or not this would become a protracted street war and/or Saddam flees Iraq are scenerios that our government has to be fully willing to gamble on. I don't believe they are completely set on gambling on that right at this moment. They weren't willing to gamble on it during the Gulf War. What's changed? Trying to tie in 9-11 is moot without some real evidence I sincerely believe they don't have. If it's WOMD's in Iraq that they haven't declared, why isn't this being presented to the UN? The British have release their intelligence without fear of repercussion to the inspectors. We're still holding onto it for "secrecy" of how we got it. I can't buy that logic. Let's tell the inspectors where we believe they are.
Germany developed nerve gas before the end of the second world war - taubin, I believe. She never used it either. Had she believed it's use would have affected the final result of the war, it might have been different.
If we have any real evidence why should we release it until we are ready to attack? We are not yet read and quite content to let the inspectors swarm over Iraq.
Roger: More likely, they were unable to deliver it as a weapon. In The First and the Last, Adolph Galland, who headed the Luftwaffe Figher Service at the end, described how predatory P51 Mustangs ranged all over Germany, shooting up everything that moved. I've heard an interview with Chuck Yeager (sp?) in which he said: "What the Spitfire could do for 40 minutes, the Mustang could do for eight hours." P47 Thunderbolts would escort the Bomber streams to Aachen on the German border, where a P51 escort would pick them up, having left their bases much later than the slow-moving bombers. The Mustangs would escort the bombers to Berlin, or whatever other targets they were to hit, and then escort them back to Aachen. There the P47's would pick up the escort duty again, having landed to refuel and rearm. The Mustangs still had fuel for hours in the air, and they would devote that time to shooting up trains, trucks, bridges, any part of the communication net. Galland describes how Mustangs would follow German fighters back to their airfields--the ME109's being forced to land by their limited range. By the end of the war, Galland and the other survivors were flying ME262 jets from bases hidden in forests, and flying out on logging roads. In The Rommel Papers, Rommel warned that this would happen, but he was not heeded. On D-day, Germans flew 160 sorties in all of France, and only 2 over the invasion beaches. (A sortie is one plane going out on a mission, a plane could make more than one sortie per day.) By contrast, a figure i've read many times is 14,827 sorties over Normandy alone by the Allies. This total dominance of the skies lead German soldiers in Normandy to quip: "If you see a black plane, it's the Tommie (Brits), if you see a silver plane, it's the Amies (Americans), if you don't see any plane, it's the Luftwaffe." The total dominance of the skies over Iraq, btw, may account for why the Iraqis were not able to deploy many of their weapons systems--it may have been caution on Saddam's part, and it may well have been a complete inability to deploy WMD's.
Setanta
As you point out it is the total domination of the sky over the battle field that is essential for victory in any modern conflict----and we have that, thanks to our technological advantage and the superior training of our pilots.
roger
We didn't pay for our MIG 29s, either.
Perception, i would hate to imagine going to war without that . . .
Setanta
Yes but there are those who would have us lay down everything at the end of every war----as we did at the end of both world wars.
Your scenario is also very likely, Setanta and I'm surprised I haven't read more about why they abandoned the effort to deliver them. Air superiority over the Iraqis and their Air Farce?
Because we can do it doesn't make it the right course of action. Madeline Allbright's we have this wonderful military, why can't we use it? Why, indeed. We can't use it unilaterally without a direct and eminent threat or attack. Haven't proved to me that this is the case. It is getting to the point that a disarmament by force could happen and could be justified with the accent on the later. Some seem to be driven to the edge or even into a paranoia that has little validity or reason. Let
everyone be involved in solving this problem, not just a leadership consortium of one country.
The scenerio of the smuggled in WOMD unleashed without being able to trace it? This could happen from a multitude of sources, including Al Queda which hasn't successfully been tied into Iraq at all. There's bits and pieces but nothing conclusive. Unless we all want to see a future like in "Minority Report," there are established precedences for military action and I can't see it as progressive to change them now.
Perception: Well, Boss, i won't go into the subject here, but that is actually a long-standing tradition of English-speaking peoples. The oldest unit in the English army is the Coldstream Guard. When Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, he was succeeded by his incompetent son, Richard (known to his contemporaries as "Tumbledown Dick"), as his very competent son John was off in Jamaica with the Parliamentary expedition which took that island from the Spanish. When Richard Cromwell fled, leaving a power vacuum, George Monck, a former royalist who had been "rehabilitated" by Oliver Cromwell, marched slowly south from Coldstream in Scotland, with the only regiment left in all of the British Isles. The English always mistrusted a standing army as a potential tool for monarchical tyranny, and Americans have had much the same attitude in their history. As well, since our "big" wars have involved conscription, there is always a strong "bring the boys home" movement at the end of any war. Additionally, "downsizing" the military is a good way for politicians to look fiscally responsible at election time, which, as we all know, rolls around every two years--just as long as it takes for them to gear up their campaigns.
The American people have already given their blessing or don't you believe in our form of Democracy---the congress(the peoples representatives) voted overwhelmingly in favor. The Un Security council voted 15-0, it has been concluded by Secretary of State Colin Powell, a material breach has been created, now all we have to do is wait until we're ready. The stage is set. There is still time for you to go to Australia where you will probably be safe.
I'm not worried about my personal safety, and i wasn't commenting on the resolution of the Congress to give the President extraordinary powers in this matter. I was only commenting on the propensity in the US, as well as in England, to keep only a very small military establishment in time of peace. In fact, the "cold war" kept the US military large throughout the 1950's and up to the recent past, which is very much not in character for our historical experience. That was my only meaning in what i wrote. Please don't make political inference from what i write, i'm usually obnoxious enough to plainly state my views on such a subject.
Setanta
I know you're not saying that makes downsizing/dearming right. The fact is this is basic philosophic difference between the Republicans and the others----The Republicans have always stood for a strong and effective military and ever since Reagan have increased the military budget expecially for R&D. This huge advantage that we now have didn't happen by accident---it was a long hard political battle with those who are on the side of the "poets".
You mean, perception, that your form of democracy prescribes that every citizen of your country has either to share the opinion of congress or to immigrate?
Setanta
I was not directing that comment at you-----it was meant for anyone who is concerned about their safety from "fallout" caused by the upcoming action.
Walter
I believe it's known as ---The majority rules.
If the majority actually did rule, we'd have a different President (not that I was ever excited about having Bore over Gush...ooops!)
I don't read that anyone is paranoid to the point of moving out of the U.S. for the sole reason that a war with Iraq would mean that terrorist attacks would increase in the U.S. It's those who are paranoid that a smuggled WOMD device (provided by whom?) could be set off in their city that they should consider moving to Australia or Canada or wherever. Getting rid of Hussein shouldn't lower their level of fear. That's if they actually live in a large city that would be a target. If they don't, I submit that they promptly move to a large city just so they can backup that fear. Or perhaps, backup any claims of courage?
