quote:

Originally posted by occrider There has not been a single loss of a US warplane since the gulf war

Sorry to burst in here with some anal remarks but wasn't there, at least, a stealth bomber/fighter shut down over former Yugoslavia? I remember it since it was all over the news here with pictures and everything. It looked kind of funny because some local serbia militia men where posing in front of some large chunks of the plane. It looked like this little ragg-tagged group of people shut down the hi-tech war plane with a simple rifle.

DJ Irish the issue of Kosovo was a very dubious one. The Serbs claimed a great many Nato aircraft were shot down, and some Western journalists concluded the same. If I remember correctly, one respected Western journalist put the figure at 28 aircraft. Meanwhile, the US iirc admitted to losing a Stealth Bomber and 2 F-16s.

Clearly there is a huge discrepency here, but I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. The main point to be said about Kosovo though wasn't the aircraft lost, but the fact that the mission was a catastrophic failure.

And although it isn't "warplanes" occrider, you could also include the helicopters in Mogadishu, Somalia. A total of 6 choppers iirc were shot down while the US was there. Each helicopter cost millions of dollars and was shot down by a simple $300 rocket.

All this talk of blowing anything you want to smithereens is a bit far-fetched. The US has very accurate missiles, but they are not cheap. A tomahawk cruise missile costs over $1 million per missile.

If you think the US fights wars like this you are fooling yourself. In the 42 days of the Gulf War the US dropped over 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq -- exceeding the 47,000 tons dropped in the forty five months of the Second World War. 93% of those dropped in the Gulf War were 'dumb' gravity bombs.

Last edited by evil_bastard on Jan-15-2003 at 18:56

about that issue... there was a Pentagone briefing a while after that war and they stated that the total of the damage they done to the serbian army (tanks, artillery, etc.) and the figures were lot less than what they stated during the war. one explanation of this it was because the Serbian were using decoys big time... or the damage reports were a lie... I wish I could find that report again

moral of the story? one most always keep in mind that those damage report are always inacurate from both sides...

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

The Serbs used a lot of fake tanks, even fake bridges. An aeriel campaign by itself speaks to the enemy not of strength but of weakness - I don't find it surprising the Serbs used a lot of bluff tactics, the NATO airplanes were instructed not to fly below 15,000 feet for fear of being shot down.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard Meanwhile, the US iirc admitted to losing a Stealth Bomber and 2 F-16s. Gulf War were 'dumb' gravity bombs.

it wasnt a b2 stealth bomber it was an f117 stealth fighter. very big difference. on the nuke subject yes the US has theater nukes or small yeilding nukes. you guys should see some of the things we tried to develope in the midts of the cold war ( shoulder launched nukes.... WTF) anyways there is a certain item that has been discussed on being used in iraq its called a b61-11. basically if you guys remeber the bunker busters form the gulf war these are bombs dropped on underground targets and explode in the ground. well saddam has a very strong almost inpenatrable bunker that this type of weapon is designed for. would we use it i highly doubt it do to world opinion.

onto NK it was stated earleir the country is in shambles and its current regime is playing wag the dog perfect anology. They have no first strike wepaons which can reach the US and if they even tried a convential attack they wouldnt get too far

Last edited by juzfugen on Jan-16-2003 at 00:24

quote:

Originally posted by juzfugen it wasnt a b2 stealth bomber it was an f117 stealth fighter. very big difference.

I'm aware of the differences, I made a typing error. But thanks for the correction.

quote:

anyways there is a certain item that has been discussed on being used in iraq its caleld its called a b61-11. basically if you guys remeber the bunker busters form the gulf war these are bombs dropped on underground targets and explode in the ground. well saddam has a very strong almost inpenatrable bunker that this type of weapon is designed for.

What differences does this have to the Paveway missiles?

it has a nuke tip on it

quote:

Essentially, Saddam's wishes are the word of God in Iraq, whereas in North Korea, the assembly of the communist party has popular control. In the very least, the politburo maintains some semblance of control such that a madman isn't running the entirety of the country.

First of all, Stalin also had a politburo and it liked his ideas more than he himself did. Saddam also has a government, ministers, etc. Anyway, existance of a formal government doesn't guarantee anything. I would like one of KJI's ministers decide against his wishes, and see how long he lives. Besides, in NK, population is more supportive of KJI than it is for Saddam in Iraq. Also, KJI's sanity is more questionable than Saddams, because Saddam at least wants to trade oil for food, and wants to get sanctions lifted, while KJI didn't accept foreing aid and thousands of people died, just because KJI wants 100% sovereignity. Add to that that NK posesses nukes and missiles with long enough range to reach Japan and US west coast, and I think we see who the bigger threat is. The previous clinton government had NK and Al Quaeda on top of it's danger list, while Iraq was at the bottom, while Bush now reversed situation. How many assaults has Iraq made on US after the gulf war? 0! And how many has AQ made? I can name at least 5.

Just a note, I've just read Madeline Albright interview, and she also thinks Iraq is no threat compared to the other two.

___________________
1+1=10

Personally I agree that NK is more of a danger right now then Iraq but its also a more intricate situation that needs to be approached differently then how we are handling the iraqis. and as far as clintons foriegn policy towards things... well lol it sucked to put it bluntly. Hes part of the reason we are in this mess but thats another thread.
NK has no capability to touch the US in a military way, their medium range missles cant reach our west coast but Japan and US terrortories like Guam is a different story. I can not beleive china has stepped in and taken this guy by the balls and explained to him how things really work in the world now.Diplomacy should always be given its shot and right now i dont think all diplomatic avenues has be tried. Things will settle down NK cant support itself too long if its cut off even more from the rest of the wolrd

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 First of all, Stalin also had a politburo and it liked his ideas more than he himself did. Saddam also has a government, ministers, etc. Anyway, existance of a formal government doesn't guarantee anything. I would like one of KJI's ministers decide against his wishes, and see how long he lives. Besides, in NK, population is more supportive of KJI than it is for Saddam in Iraq. Also, KJI's sanity is more questionable than Saddams, because Saddam at least wants to trade oil for food, and wants to get sanctions lifted, while KJI didn't accept foreing aid and thousands of people died, just because KJI wants 100% sovereignity. Add to that that NK posesses nukes and missiles with long enough range to reach Japan and US west coast, and I think we see who the bigger threat is. The previous clinton government had NK and Al Quaeda on top of it's danger list, while Iraq was at the bottom, while Bush now reversed situation. How many assaults has Iraq made on US after the gulf war? 0! And how many has AQ made? I can name at least 5. Just a note, I've just read Madeline Albright interview, and she also thinks Iraq is no threat compared to the other two.

You're making the wrong comparison. Yes Stalin had a politburo, yet he had complete control of his government. THAT case is most comparable to Sadam Hussein. There essentially is no input from anybody in Iraq except for Sadam. The N. Korean government is most akin to the chinese government or later Soviet governments. Yes the president has a significant amount of power, but by no means is all the power consolidated in one man. In N. Korea KJI is not making all the decisions on his own volition. He's following the party platform and the policies established by the politburo. Additionally, bear in mind that China has a HUGE role in N. Korea policy making. China will not back a N. Korean aggressive policy against Japan or S. Korea.

With regards to your second statement about the bush administration shifting focus from N. Korea and AQ from Iraq ... bear in mind ALL are considered high priority threats. Just because Clinton designated AQ and N. Korea as more of a threat than Iraq, doesn't mean that we shouldn't adapt and recognize GROWING threats. Are you advocating that we should be blind to the developements around us and maintain a static environment? Also take into account the fact that N. Korea has maintained the status quo in its region for over 50 years while Iraq has aggressively attempted to expand its borders over the duration of the past 20 years.

occrider, I agree with you about Stalin's politburo of 'yes men' but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We forged an alliance with Stalin after he'd purged millions of his own people. I also think it's difficult to make any comparisons between Stalin and Hussein that are much more than mere speculation. Before 1985 Western historians could only speculate about Stalin's intentions and had little idea of what was going on in Russia other than that which was contained in the Smolensk acrhives. They were also forced to make the naive assumption that what had happened in Smolensk was representative of the country as a whole. The sheer amount of contradictions floating around the media about Iraq suggests we don't know the full truth, we only know that it's very, very grim. Aside that point, from what we do know, they may share a few basic characteristics, but the situations are incomparable.