Simviation Forum - F-16 Down over Iraq!

Reply #60 - Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:33pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 1:48pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 1:42pm:

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 1:38pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2006 at 7:56pm:

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2006 at 4:50pm:

expat wrote on Dec 26^th, 2006 at 4:33pm:

In 10 years of the Vietnam war as we all know 58,000 members of the armed forces died. The Iraq "problem" has been forecast to last up to 30 years or even a generation. What you be an acceptable figure of deaths before you would say, it cannot be won? As it stand we are at about 10 more troop deaths than people killed in the twin tower attacks.

Using that logic, I suppose we should have quit fighting the Japanese in WWII after 1 month on Guadalcanal? Roll Eyes

Thats not really using logic. Guadalcanal was winnable, all you have to do is remove Japanise resistance from the island. The current war, the "lets get rid of world terrorism" war cannot be won. Therefore there is no point in fighting.

You should try reading a few books on Guadalcanal. Operation Watchtower was not informally renamed to Operation Shoestring for nothing. The victory on Guadalcanal was not a foregone conclusion for many reasons. It appears you might be relying on hindsight to judge the campaign.

No. My point was with Guadalcanal it was clear what had to be done to achieve victory. Eleminate japanise resistance. I didn't make any mention of how difficult or easy it was, nor did I say it was a foregone conclusion. All I said is that it was clear what had to be done to win.

In the first 6 months of Guadalcanal, the only thing that was clear was the 1st Marine Division was expected to defeat the Japanese with not enough supplies, not enough aircraft, not enough food, not enough naval support. And at that time, the myth of the Japanese super-jungle-fighter had not been dispelled. It was not a foregone conclusion. Japanese BB's were ranging up and down Sealark Channel lobbing 14" shells onto Henderson field with impunity. You said Guadalcanal was winnable. That's hindsight because we know it was won. But at that time, winning was definately a precarious goal, and was not a foregone conclusion.

I never said it was a foregone conclusion. It was always winnable though. There were clear objectives that if carried out would see the Japanise on the island defeated. This is why you cannot make comparisons with the war, which you are trying to do. Because short of killing every human being on the planet it will never be won by either side. That is my point. Nothing to do with the odds against the American forces in the first 20 minutes of the Guadalcanal invasion.

If you put that into context today, then yes, maybe given the initial circumstances, the troops ashore and the supporting fleet decimated, there might be calls to pull out. However, as I have said it was always obvious what was ultimately required to win. In the current conflict, as in Vietnam, there is no winning strategy. That is why it is better to pull out that to just sit around in indecision while people die.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #61 - Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:52pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 8:29am:

First off, the war with Iraq, if intended to show the world that America intends to be an active policeman, has backfired. It's demonstrated that the world won't stand America invading countries on the thinnest of excuses.

It also showed that the world won't do anything substantial (economic sanctions, use of force, etc) when the US does invade a country using the thinnest of excuses.

Sadly the world reacted to Iraq the same way they reacted to Hitler's early invasions in Europe: lots of words, absolutely no action. I just hope my fellow countrymen aren't silly enough to continue to persue such a path given the lack of international incentive to the contrary.

However the excuses for the invasion need not be thin in this case. Hussein clearly violated the Gulf War I Cease fire agreement on many occasions. One could argue that the second Iraq invasion was merely a resumption of hostilities in response. But that doesn't play as well in the press as Weapons of Mass Destruction or Terrorism.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #62 - Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:55pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 1:43pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 8:29am:

First off, the war with Iraq, if intended to show the world that America intends to be an active policeman, has backfired. It's demonstrated that the world won't stand America invading countries on the thinnest of excuses.

When we fail to know the history, we end up contradicting the history.

So, post WWII, the world readily depended on, and openly encouraged the US to play the role of the world's policeman. And once the world has more-or-less gotten back onto it's feet, with some help from the marshall plan, no doubt, suddenly the world resents the role it has encouraged just a generation previous.

Big fat YAWN! Roll Eyes

I was speaking more recently, the Clinton years severely degraded the US's reputation as active policeman, and some could argue that Terror activity, and sabor rattling by rogue nations, surged as a result. Iraq was in part an attempt to regain that reputation. Agreed with your sentiment regarding the post WWII history.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #63 - Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:56pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Chris_F wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:52pm:

Sadly the world reacted to Iraq the same way they reacted to Hitler's early invasions in Europe: lots of words, absolutely no action. I just hope my fellow countrymen aren't silly enough to continue to persue such a path given the lack of international incentive to the contrary.

I think the eventual reaction more than made up for it. Anyway, if nations went to war every time they had a disagreement they would never be at peace.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #64 - Dec 28^th, 2006 at 5:02pm

Chris_F Offline
Colonel
Insert message here

Posts: 1364

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:56pm:

Chris_F wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:52pm:

Sadly the world reacted to Iraq the same way they reacted to Hitler's early invasions in Europe: lots of words, absolutely no action. I just hope my fellow countrymen aren't silly enough to continue to persue such a path given the lack of international incentive to the contrary.

I think the eventual reaction more than made up for it. Anyway, if nations went to war every time they had a disagreement they would never be at peace.

What eventual reaction? The US is under no sanction from the international community. Frankly it seems nobody cares. I can still buy a German car or a French bottle of wine in my local grocery store so obviously those contries most vocal against the US aren't persuing any sort of economic sanction or trade embargo.

There was a political reaction back home which indicated the US voters are distasteful of the duration of the conflict, however it's doubtful this would have occured if not for the duration of conflict. Had the outcome gone the way those in powere believed it would (short engagement, a couple months of setting up a government, no real resistance, etc) it's doubtful the election outcome would have occured. And as such the same people would be in power only now with the knowledge that the international community will do nothing about US agression.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #65 - Dec 28^th, 2006 at 5:08pm

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

Quote:

Personally, I'm not too worried about North Korea, but Iran is being exposed in ways it wouldn't have otherwise. Thise who think that Iran is not a big deal just aren't paying attention.

What do you want... a unpredictable madman in your back garden or a religuous extremist on the other side of the street that is noisy but predictable.

While the current Iranian leader might seem a little on the agressive side, he got far more experience and political feel than Khatami. He holds (and has held) some fairly high positions in various organisations, and before he became president he was major of Tehran (which is considered the 2nd most difficult political position in Iran). The amount of anti-Israel screaming is often directly related to internal poll results (he sees himself as a populist).
About the weapons program... don't forget that the supreme leader is AGAINST nuclear weapons (he made an official statemen about that).

Getting in trouble with Iran will more likely result in a reaction of North Korea than the Iranians themselves doing something nasty... China will have a reaction... and the most effect has been proven to be when they untighten the leash on the DPRK.

And the biggest unstable factor at the moment is Pakistan... every day more information is leaking out that suggests that the government is actively helping Al Qaeda. Musharraf won't take action against this because when he does his career is finished (in a quite permanent way).

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #66 - Dec 28^th, 2006 at 5:33pm

Woodlouse2002 Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England

Gender:
Posts: 12574

Chris_F wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 5:02pm:

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:56pm:

Chris_F wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:52pm:

Sadly the world reacted to Iraq the same way they reacted to Hitler's early invasions in Europe: lots of words, absolutely no action. I just hope my fellow countrymen aren't silly enough to continue to persue such a path given the lack of international incentive to the contrary.

I think the eventual reaction more than made up for it. Anyway, if nations went to war every time they had a disagreement they would never be at peace.

What eventual reaction? The US is under no sanction from the international community. Frankly it seems nobody cares. I can still buy a German car or a French bottle of wine in my local grocery store so obviously those contries most vocal against the US aren't persuing any sort of economic sanction or trade embargo.

There was a political reaction back home which indicated the US voters are distasteful of the duration of the conflict, however it's doubtful this would have occured if not for the duration of conflict. Had the outcome gone the way those in powere believed it would (short engagement, a couple months of setting up a government, no real resistance, etc) it's doubtful the election outcome would have occured. And as such the same people would be in power only now with the knowledge that the international community will do nothing about US agression.

Sorry, should have made it clearer that I was refering to the eventual reaction to Hitlers actions.

Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: