Quote :

"I guess the Bush regime didn't get the memo that Saudi Arabia is the one who's funding fundamentalist ideology all over the world and not to mention how many Saudi nationals was it that flew planes into the World Trade Center? But we get oil from them so I guess it makes it okay."

I guess you didn't get the memo that Bush's actions are completely in step with the actions of every president since FDR made a deal with the Saudi royal family promising military aid as needed in return for access to oil.

7/31/2007 12:03:13 PM

And that makes it right?

7/31/2007 1:55:59 PM

No, but theres certainly more to it than "BUSH BAD!"

7/31/2007 2:31:04 PM

i guess you didnt get the memo that bush has been the only president since 9/11

7/31/2007 2:32:50 PM

bush controls congress

7/31/2007 2:35:38 PM

Quote :

"I guess you didn't get the memo that Bush's actions are completely in step with the actions of every president since FDR made a deal with the Saudi royal family promising military aid as needed in return for access to oil."

Hate to be captain obvious on this one, but just because everyone else has done it, does it make it right?

In this respect, I have to repeat words that Bush uses all the time. 9-11 changed everything. The fact that our government has no problem with massive arms deals to a country that seems to turn a blind eye to terrorism for an oil source, is rather hypocritical.

7/31/2007 2:42:26 PM

Quote :

"duke, i was wondering if you could settle a question i had...i had one friend tell me russia has some new fighter jet thats better than our shit...i have another friend that was like "yeah right, the US has better shit than everyone"...what do you think? "

The Flanker (speaking generally, because there are a ton of versions of it...Su-27, 30, 33, 34, 35)is bad ass. It's not without problems, but it's pretty nasty. They also have some very good missiles, which is extremely important. They're also datalinked now.

The F-15 (especially in the latest upgrades to the "C" model) is a badass, too, but as JCASHFAN said, the Flanker could very well be better. In fact, I'd be surprised if it isn't--it's their latest and greatest, whereas the Eagle is our previous generation top dog (which was far enough ahead of its time back then that it's still quite viable). I've read a little bit of stuff about them both, but nothing more than trivial. Of course, any information available to me and not others is just that--I'm not going to comment on anything.

But no, nothing touches the F-22 Raptor. The Flanker is great, and I've heard the Eurofighter Typhoon is outstanding, but the Raptor is in its own class.

Also, I'm sure our command and control is still superior to anything anyone else has, and that's a big force multiplier.

Quote :

"F-16 is far more maneuverable than either of them F-18 is newer, and less prone to mechanical failure F-15 is flat out old. I've got a friend who is a trunk-monkey in the E variant and they're very maintenance "

F-15 ---> lots of g's, lots of power, BIG speed. Superior avionics suite (which is actually very important). There is a reason it's the one of these 3 used as an air superiority fighter.

F-16 -->? lot's of g's, lots of power, good speed. guessing more agile than the F-15. Probably most primative avionics, although later variants are better.

F-18 --> more moderate g capability, substantially less power and speed. Pretty good avionics, particularly in the new E/F models (although they suffer even more than the baby Hornet in terms of power and speed). It is more compromised in its design as a fighter, due to the greater intent in the strike role, and the design constraints for carrier use. HOWEVER, it has probably the most outstanding slow-speed handling, which is of huge utility in a dogfight (won't get into the theory here). However, with the new BVR missiles and the latest AA-11, AIM-9X, and Python 4, there isn't going to be any prolonged dogfighting.

Also, the baby Hornets aren't that much newer than the other 2, and they've had a lot of hard use.

7/31/2007 2:48:15 PM

JSF (F-35) FTW!

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 2:52 PM. Reason : d]

7/31/2007 2:51:48 PM

Quote :

"In this respect, I have to repeat words that Bush uses all the time. 9-11 changed everything. The fact that our government has no problem with massive arms deals to a country that seems to turn a blind eye to terrorism for an oil source, is rather hypocritical."

It didn't change our dependence on oil. I think most people underestimate how tightly oil is woven into the fabric of our entire economy from top to bottom. For that reason it is in our best interest to
a) Maintain some semblance of a balance of power in the Middle East
b) Support those governments who pay us lip service over those who do not. The house of Saud has been a consistent ally to the United States for decades now and the Saudi Police have actually been a major ally in cracking down on Wahhabist extremists within Saudi Arabia. A recent news story even pointed to the fact that they are beginning to reign in the religious police.

As an aside, I'd like to pose this completely ridiculous question: would an Arab army, in the process of being smashed by an Iran openly and violently hostile to Israel (not that they aren't) turn to Israel (or the United Sates) for aid? My guess is no, emphatically no, hell no, but I'd be interested in seeing if anyone disagrees with me.

Also, Iran has long fingers, but I wonder if it can sustain the size of supply chain that would be necessary to conduct a protracted invasion of somewhere like Saudi Arabia when faced with Arab insurgents whose teeth had been cut and sharpened on US troops?

I'd also be interested to hear what OEPII1 thinks about who Shi'a Arabs would side with, other Arabs or Persians of the same faith?

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 5:05 PM. Reason : 1]

7/31/2007 5:02:54 PM

According to Robert Baer (former CIA Officer who spent a considerable amount of his career in the region), Israel is backing this arms sale to the Saudis.

Quote :

"Israel has come out in support of a multi-billion dollar U.S. arms deal to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. I can't remember the last time Israel supported a deal like this. Probably because it never has. So what exactly is going on this time? Earlier this month I was in Nablus, the most radicalized Palestinian town in the West Bank. The Israeli Defense Forces enter it only in force — and preferably in armor. I was standing in the main square when a disabled man on an all-terrain vehicle came weaving through traffic. He bounced across the curb in front of me to avoid a vendor's cart, shouting, "We need Hasan Nasrallah here to impose a little order." I was surprised to hear Nasrallah's name evoked in Nablus. Nasrallah, the secretary general of Lebanon's Hizballah, is a radical Shi'a. Nablus is Sunni, with segments increasingly attracted to Hamas radicalism. I walked around Nablus's old bazaar conducting an impromptu poll. To a person, everyone admired Nasrallah, for how he had fought the Israelis to a standstill in last summer's 34-day war. Just to make sure Nasrallah enjoyed the support he seemed to I asked the head of an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade cell holed up in Nablus's Balata refugee camp. He is wanted by the Israelis, and constantly moves from house to house to avoid them. When he heard Nasrallah's name, he put his fingers to his lips. "I love that man," he said. The point of all this is that Hasan Nasrallah and Hizballah are the creation of Iran, the tip of Iran's spear pointed at Israel's throat. If anyone still has any doubts about Nasrallah's standing with Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent a "greeting card" to Nasrallah to mark the first anniversary of last year's war. As Ahmadinejad put it, "the wonderful victory of the Lebanese people over the Zionist occupiers is a result of faith, unity, and resistance." It's Nasrallah and Iran, then, that moved Israel to break with a 60-year policy of opposing arms sales to the Arabs. And the Israelis make no bones about how we got here: the Bush Administration completely botched the Iraq invasion, allowing Iran to effectively annex Basra and a large part of southern Iraq. The Israelis' nightmare is that there will be some sort of domino effect, the Iranians moving down the Arab side of the Gulf. The Israelis also believe the Iraq fiasco emboldened Iran to incite its Palestinian allies. Israel holds Iran at least partially responsible for Hamas's coup in Gaza. An Administration official, speaking privately, agrees. Today, Iranian couriers cross the border from Egypt into Gaza daily carrying bags of money to keep Hamas afloat. The Israelis want to stop Nasrallah, Hizballah and Iran from making serious inroads into the West Bank. What keeps them awake at night is Iran in the Gulf. If it means our arming Israel's historical enemies, the Gulf Arabs, so be it. Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1648100,00.html?xid=rss-world

7/31/2007 5:34:55 PM

i didnt really read the story above me, but on cnn earlier they said israel is getting about 30 billion in technology in the next 10 years or so(they even stated about 3 billion a year)...i'm guessing thats why israel isnt all that upset over this

israel=30billion, rest of arab states against iran=20billion - that just seems crazy!

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 8:03 PM. Reason : asdf]

7/31/2007 8:01:48 PM

Quote :

"We could stomp the bejeezus out of any other country, and any really foreseable combination of countries--and that's on THEIR turf."

Only if you disallow nukes and put the US on serious war footing. Fighting Russia and China together, for example, would be a huge pain in the ass. I'm not at all sure we could do it. Hell, invading the UK alone would cause massive casualties. It's extremely unlikely we'd be able to beat the whole EU in any reasonable amount of time, if we could do it at all.

7/31/2007 8:10:29 PM

Define beat. We could cripple the EU. Close their shipping lanes and they are fucked within a month or two. We win. While our army and airforce are superior to anyone else's, our Navy is stronger than pretty much the rest of the world combined.

7/31/2007 8:33:03 PM

Quote :

"Close their shipping lanes and they are fucked within a month or two. We win."

Not really. The EU's economy is about as strong ours. While that'd hurt them, it wouldn't be a real military victory. The EU wouldn't collapse. And a ground invasion would be very, very dangerous.

7/31/2007 8:40:53 PM

you have to control the ground, rape and pillage to beat someone

we just dont have enough people to really do that anywhere

7/31/2007 8:54:33 PM

Quote :

"israel=30billion, rest of arab states against iran=20billion - that just seems crazy!"

Israel gets it for free, the arabs have to pay.

7/31/2007 9:31:15 PM

Quote :

"i guess you didnt get the memo that bush has been the only president since 9/11"

Earth to Meekus, I'm thinking that maybe you didn't get the memo that arab terrorism existed before 2001.

Quote :

"As an aside, I'd like to pose this completely ridiculous question: would an Arab army, in the process of being smashed by an Iran openly and violently hostile to Israel (not that they aren't) turn to Israel (or the United Sates) for aid? My guess is no, emphatically no, hell no, but I'd be interested in seeing if anyone disagrees with me."

Yeah, any arab country that sided with Israel would be the odd one out and end up on every shit list. Thats why Hussein thought that bringing Israel into the Gulf War via missile attacks would destroy arab support for the war.

Quote :

"And the Israelis make no bones about how we got here: the Bush Administration completely botched the Iraq invasion, allowing Iran to effectively annex Basra and a large part of southern Iraq."

That last part is news to me. Any good links regarding this?

[Edited on July 31, 2007 at 9:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2007 9:31:48 PM

Quote :

"Not really. The EU's economy is about as strong ours. While that'd hurt them, it wouldn't be a real military victory. The EU wouldn't collapse. And a ground invasion would be very, very dangerous."

I didn't realize the EU could shit out oil, my bad.

7/31/2007 9:34:14 PM

Quote :

"I didn't realize the EU could shit out oil, my bad."

The EU does have a little oil production, actually. (And they'd probably steal Norway's oil, if push came to shove.) But cutting off access to Russian oil would be the problem.

7/31/2007 10:00:37 PM

Quote :

"Israel gets it for free"

well what does the US get out of it

7/31/2007 11:43:27 PM

This just doesn't sit right with me. I am absolutely over-simplifying it here, but I just don't like the idea of really giving ANYTHING to a country that just might be actively providing funds and people to our declared enemies.
The idea of "well they couldn't conquer America" really doesn't make it any better IMO, for two reasons

1. I wouldn't be too stoked about even giving icecream to a country that most likely fuels our problems

2. I don't think anyone (for at least the end of the 70's) has been concerned of being overrun by our enemies. They win by spooking our knee-jerk-"safety before liberty" politicians into legislating us into a society of people that will eventually have to get their rectums xeroxed in order to ride a bus on the grounds that "someone somewhere might do something sometime. won't someone think of the children?"

[Edited on August 1, 2007 at 4:10 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2007 4:05:02 AM

Quote :

"well what does the US get out of it"

Planes flown into our buildings.

8/1/2007 2:42:17 PM