backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 183 comment(s) - last by winterspan.. on Dec 11 at 3:41 AM

An F-15 flies alongside two F-22s  (Source: Aviation Explorer)
Structural failures in the F-15 leads officials to scramble for more F-22s

The last time DailyTech discussed the USAF's F-22 Raptor in detail, the fighter was in the news due to an International Date Line (IDL) bug. When a group of Raptors flying from Hawaii to Japan crossed the IDL, multiple computer systems crashed on the planes forcing them to rely on their accompanying tankers to guide them to safety.

Today, the Raptors are in the news again -- but this time it's not for something negative towards the plane itself. The Defense Department is reportedly making plans to extend the production of the F-22.

The original plan was to produce 183 F-22s at a cost of $132 million USD each. The last F-22 was to be delivered by the end of 2011.

The move to continue production of the F-22 beyond 2011 comes amid recent safety concerns over the 30+ year old F-15. A Missouri Air National Guard F-15C crashed on November 2 during a routine training mission. Early investigations suggested a structural failure as the direct cause of the crash.

As a result, USAF grounded the entire fleet of F-15s. "The whole fleet was already flying on flight restrictions due to metal fatigue," said Lexington Institute military analyst Loren Thompson in early November. "In this case, the planes that are grounded are supposed to be America's top-of-the line air superiority plane. These are the sinews of our global air dominance."

The planes were then put back into service on November 19 only to be recently grounded again. All 442 of the USAFs F-15A, B, C and D aircraft were grounded -- only the newest F-15E Strike Eagles remain cleared for regularly scheduled flights.

Thompson noted that money is being squirreled away into the fiscal 2009 budget to make room for additional F-22 aircraft after the last of the originally planned 183 planes is built in 2011. The Air Force has requested as many as 381 of the aircraft, but it's unlikely that the money being set aside will allow for anywhere near that number of aircraft.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/3/2007 10:02:33 AM , Rating: 3
This is a good thing. Planes do not have 50+ year life spans. Some of the older bombers (B-52) do, but they have been through numerous major overhauls.

By increasing our armament of F-22's we can further solidify our hold on air dominance into the 21st century.




RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 10:10:13 AM , Rating: 4
I agree. Air warfare is really where the US has its stronghold.


RE: Good
By cochy on 12/3/2007 10:18:21 AM , Rating: 5
"Let's give em' an air show!"


RE: Good
By iFX on 12/3/2007 10:20:25 AM , Rating: 1
I agree there is nothing that can touch us in the air, but we are the most devastating open field army on the planet also. Urban fighting has proved to be a challenge but in the open country no country can oppose us.


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 10:24:09 AM , Rating: 1
I think we are still the most advanced urban fighting force...but its still hard to fight in urban areas where the resistance is more familiar with the surroundings than you are.

But i think our future technology in weapons, night vision, heat signals, etc will be prove to be even more successful.


RE: Good
By smitty3268 on 12/3/2007 2:53:53 PM , Rating: 4
Urban areas lend themselves well to guerrilla warfare, which levels out the differences between superior armies and their enemies, especially when the occupying army is hesitant to simply kill any innocent civilians. Still, we're certainly one of the best - I might be inclined to say Israel is better, simply because they've had so much experience in this area.

Where the US really wasn't very good was in peacekeeping, and acting like police/diplomats rather than a military organization. Which isn't really a surprise given that this was really frowned upon by our military for decades. Patreus has really worked on changing this recently.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Even in Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) or Urban warfare, technology plays a key role. It can give you the upper hand if employed properly but if you become too dependent, when your shit fails, it'll be a long day ;-)
Either way training is the key. It's where the boots hit the ground.

Israelis definitely know Urban warfare. Unfortunately they've learned through trial by fire. The Brits have had there share with Ireland.

Now as for who's better, well, Ask a US Marine, a Royal Marine or their Israeli counterpart who's better!

The US has done a lot of peace keeping efforts. Usually there are very strict rules on the amount of time we are there and we do prefer that the UN or a multi-national peacekeeping force replaces us. This is because, like you said we aren't designed to be a peacekeeping force and secondly we don't want to be viewed as an occupying force.


RE: Good
By maven81 on 12/3/2007 11:05:58 AM , Rating: 3
I think history has shown time and time again, that a technologically superior army can be fought to a standstill by one that is less advanced but has a greater numbers, and even more so if it has home field advantage.
Such thinking is therefore dangerous and misguided, since this perceived invincibility can totally blind someone to the harsh realities of war.
Frankly I think future warfare will mainly consist of very small, localized conflicts, where this open field advantage is even less relevant.


RE: Good
By iFX on 12/3/2007 11:15:51 AM , Rating: 1
This is why I said urban fighting has been a challenge.


RE: Good
By Regs on 12/3/2007 1:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Urban fighting will remain a challenge since it causes a death rate amongst our troops which is not acceptable to our public or politicians.

The technology to fight urban war from a distance with minimal collateral damage is out there but is very costly.

I don't see our Marines being equipped very well with modern armor and vests. So I can't imagine their weaponry being any different. Maybe special forces, but special forces do more recon, rescue, and counter-intellgence than combat.


RE: Good
By timmiser on 12/3/2007 3:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
The strives we have made on the technology behind urban fighting has been huge. Due to the soldier armour technology, we have seen a huge number of dismemberments in the US forces but very little torso injuries by comparision. This is just another step on what will be a future focus on leg and arm armour.

There is also a trend being developed in robotic recon. In a urban situation, knowing where the enemy is hiding is the key and what better way to find them by hooking up cameras to an R/C helicopter and fly around the suspected building looking on the roof and in the windows and into the rooms. Kind of an evolution of the unmaned predater drone aircaft.


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 11:40:32 AM , Rating: 3
Thats because the US has to play by the rules. If we were allowed to throw the rule book away in a war situation then it would be a very different story.

Our enemies fire from Churches, Schools, and hospitals and we take a more civilized manner in fighting back.

We fight more of a politically correct war then our adversaries. If we didnt have to fight this way then no one would stand a chance.


RE: Good
By FITCamaro on 12/3/2007 12:06:24 PM , Rating: 1
Hit the nail on the head. We have to follow rules. They don't. Iraq has been a disaster because politicians have tried to run the war.


RE: Good
By SeeManRun on 12/3/2007 1:07:52 PM , Rating: 3
Well, when your country is getting invaded, you'll probably go to greater lengths than an invading army. The invading army can just go home if they lose, but if you lose, you may very well die, or be a prisoner. Makes one fight harder than the hired army of an invader.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/3/2007 2:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
No. They're just plain dogs, doing things like hideing caches of weapons and ammo in families basements, then making a fuss when an airstrike takes the place out, killing the family, as seen in the Lebanon conflict last summer.

Reconciliation is the ultimate outcome; look at Northern Ireland, isn't the present leader a former IRA guerilla? This sort of after-the-fact inclusiveness has a strong enough precedent, not to mention our success in places like Anbar province is based on working with people who previously were fighting against us -- or at the very least, they expressed hostile neutrality.

They're dogs. Lets not be PC. They are dogs.


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/4/2007 12:06:03 AM , Rating: 1
-1 rating, but am I wrong? There's no justification for their tactics; they terrorize their own people to push them to radicalize, and they don't have to fight like animals due to the threat of certain death if they fail because an argument could be made that reconciliation without mass executions is in fact probably the best way to end civil strife.

Did the French or Germans take it to this level in WW1? No. Did the allies in WW2? Not systematically; we did drop pamphlets in the targetted towns of nuclear strikes warning them to leave soon, and there was an "ends justify the means" rationale which these people don't have. Did Americans take it to this level when fighting the Civil War? Except for nuts in Kansas, no.

We didn't treat the Tories very nicely in our own Revolution, but nothing on the scale these people have got in killing civilians, and we did have regular armies in the field despite British superiority and their hired German mercenaries.

They don't have an excuse, and wont apologize for pointing it out. Down-mod this too. :P


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/3/2007 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 1
The US ignores rules it wants to. For instance the invasion was a war crime as defined by the US, the Nazi were executed for doing the same thing the US/UK did. Its illegal to bomb or use Chemical weapons in cites with civilians present. Doesn't stop the US doing it.

I suppose the most effective way would have been to nuke the cities - however once you dis-regard the rules don't expect other countries to play nice. If China, Russia, Pakistan decide to start handing out nuclear weapons US military advantage will count for nought.

Remember, you enemy will not fight you where you are strongest, that would be stupid. The US commands the Air and open countryside, great... you can have it. Thats why Iraqi Information Ministers parting words were that 'they had the American just where they wanted them - in Baghdad'. Four years later the war is still being fought.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 1:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats why Iraqi Information Ministers parting words were that 'they had the American just where they wanted them - in Baghdad'. Four years later the war is still being fought.

His words were not ominious foreshadow, they were delusional ramblings of a complete idiot and/or liar. The Iraqi military forces that we faced when we invaded Iraq have long since melted away, and the enemy we face today is a much different beast. The former Iraqi government neither planned on nor counted on this as part of their plan.


RE: Good
By BMFPitt on 12/3/2007 11:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His words were not ominious foreshadow, they were delusional ramblings of a complete idiot and/or liar.
Or comic genius.


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/4/2007 6:18:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yet he accurately predicted exactly what was going to happen. They trained hundred's of thousands in guerilla warfare and left the country scattered with 500,000 tons of weapons. Large parts of the insurgency are ex-Iraqi Military.

It wasn't a fluke, it was planned.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/4/2007 8:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It wasn't a fluke, it was planned.

LOL, I wondered why the information minister was spewing out all that junk, like who would fall for it? I guess I know now - you. :o)

Seriously, what you're saying is wrong. The current tactics you see are the result of training by Iran and al Queda after the war started. You can tell this because of the tactics that have changed since we first invaded. For example, there were few if any roadside bombs/IEDs when we first invaded - these only came later.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 5:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US ignores rules it wants to. For instance the invasion was a war crime as defined by the US, the Nazi were executed for doing the same thing the US/UK did.


No it wasn't. I'm pretty sure the Nazis were executed for committing genocide against the Jews.

quote:
Its illegal to bomb or use Chemical weapons in cites with civilians present.


It's not illegal to bomb in cities, not all chemical weapons are illegal but their application is. Tear Gas anybody? The US has lawyers(yeah thats right)whose sole purpose is to make sure we fight within the rules.

These rules are called the Law of Armed Conflict. This lays down the basic rules governing warfare. Then you have the Rules of Engagement which change depending on the situation. There is no blanket all in one rule.


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/4/2007 6:30:12 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure?

They were charged with multiple crimes, one of which was starting an 'aggressive war' based on a legal argument.

Claiming that war can be justified by laws is an war crime in itself. The only reason to fight war is in self defense - anything else is a crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

It IS illegal to bomb when civilians are present, there is no excuse that the enemy endangered the civilians in the first place, its still illegal to kill them. Say sorry and claiming they 'we try to avoid collateral damage' cuts no ice - dropping 500lb bombs on a city will kill civilians every time. It deliberate murder.

Tear gas is tear gas, the chemical weapon we are talking about is Phosphorus, use by US forces (admitted and documented) in Iraqi cities.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/4/2007 11:23:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well you post made it sound like that was the primary reason they were executed. It was one of many. If you're going to compare things be more specific otherwise people will read and interpret it differently. You also make it sound like the US attacked unprovoked. You ignore the fact that Saddam ignored countless UN mandates and resolutions that stated action would be taken if they didnt cut that shit out. As far as the whole self defense thing goes. Hitting first is always an option. For example if you know someone is about to bitch slap you across the face and kick you in the balls are you going to wait for them to do it or are you goin to kungfu punch them in the face first to prevent them push slamming your testicles into your throat? Anyways we could debate the justification of this war until we turn blue and neither of us would yield.

Again bombing in a city is not illegal but the application of such tactics is restricted. Collateral damage is always a determining factor when deciding wether or not to use bombs. Their are different bombs for different applications. Actually dropping a 500 pound bomb will not always kill civies.

The white phosphorous is used and considered an incendiary weapon not a chemical weapon. The caveat to that though it is considered a chemical weapon if used on civilians. It was used in Fallujah, not against civilians, but was used against enemy combatants to flush them out of covered positions, and to illuminate targets.

You are either skewing the facts to support your opinion or you have simply been misinformed. Go read the Law of Armed Conflict and if you have any more questions about weapons and their application I'll be happy to answer them.


RE: Good
By eatme01 on 12/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Manch on 12/4/2007 5:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They did


That's a convincing argument. OK my turn:

Did not!!

and for your other replies:

No it's not! No it's not!

See where we're going with this?

By your logic all wars are illegal and only when some one has attacked you are you then justified in retaliating. That's a dangerous stance to take. By that logic if I wait for someone to hit me, well that hit could be the first, the only, and the last.

Please, by all means show me this law that says attacking first is always a war crime and I guarantee I'll find the exception to it.

Of course if you send me the Laws of War: eatme01 edition maybe I may find what you allude to.

One more thing, in your opinion was the first Gulf war also a war crime?


RE: Good
By SleepyGreg on 12/3/2007 12:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes because invading another country under false pretenses is so P.C.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 12:19:48 PM , Rating: 1
That's obviously a pretty cheap shot since most everyone agrees that the decision to invade Iraq turned out to be a bad one.


RE: Good
By Crazyeyeskillah on 12/3/2007 12:27:38 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Good
By SleepyGreg on 12/3/2007 12:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well it's hypocritical of Mitch101 to suggest that "We fight more of a politically correct war then our adversaries" when the very foundations of the war are politically incorrect


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 12:38:04 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree - the two are separate. As I already said, I think the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. Just because that mistake was made doesn't imply that we should be immoral or unethical in how we execute the war after we are there.


RE: Good
By Felofasofa on 12/3/2007 4:41:52 PM , Rating: 1
A mistake? Some of the most amoral foreign policy ever contrived from an appallingly mendacious administration and you call it a mistake? Say that to the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or maimed because of your mistake. Your lack of humanity is dreadful, what do you do, push stats for the pentagon?


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Strunf on 12/3/2007 5:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
What you guys are forced to be in the army?... my god and I thought the US had abolished slavery "long" time ago.


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/3/2007 6:31:48 PM , Rating: 1
What? Perhaps im dyslexic, because im sure what you were saying.

If you are asking if we are forced to be in the military - then the answer is no. Its a complete volunteer army. But once you are in the military, you take direct orders. If you are enlisted military, and told you are going to war, then you go to war and do what you are told to do when you get there. Is that really a hard concept?

Not sure what that has to do with slavery, or how that differs from any other military in any other country.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 8:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, we take orders directly and indirectly and we also give them. Orders are not the exclusive right of Officers.

Enlisted and Officer both deploy to various locations for various reasons. Combat is not the exclusive domain of enlisted men and women. Officers though far less numerous go to battle as well.

In the Army & Marines the enlisted do the bulk of the fighting but their officers are there beside them in battle.

In the Air Force & Navy the Officers(pilots) do the bulk of the combat while enlisted provide the support generating Sorties, running the ships(not commanding).

Of course their are exceptions to the rules.


RE: Good
By Felofasofa on 12/4/2007 1:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps im dyslexic,

There's no perhaps in it, you are most definitely dyslexic, illiterate, and totally unencumbered with the ability to comprehend meaning from written text. Give up now and spare us all.


RE: Good
By Strunf on 12/4/2007 3:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
hmm Everyone in the army knew it before enlisting what they could do once inside, is like joining a gang of drug dealers and after saying “no guilty” of whatever they did just cause you were forced to… hell at least the army won’t kill you if you don’t obey.

To me everyone is responsible for their actions, unless forced to do them, and by forced I mean when your life is at the stake.

But yeah the US army is no different than any other army… but the chances of actually getting into a war are higher in the US than in most other countries.


RE: Good
By just4U on 12/4/2007 3:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Say that to the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed or maimed because of your mistake.


I really only have one question to ask after this comment. How many Iraqi civilians were killed while Saddam was in power?

Btw, I am not American... and the only mistake I think was made is Afganistan should have been taken care of before even thinking of moving on to Iraq, which ofcourse was always a possibility all things being considered.


RE: Good
By Felofasofa on 12/4/2007 3:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
As appalling as Saddams regime was, the general consenus is that things are much worse since the war and invasion. America's standing in the world has also taken a frightful beating. There aren't to many positives to take from this regardless of your perspective.


RE: Good
By Clauzii on 12/4/2007 6:46:29 PM , Rating: 3
Regarding the new airplanes - They should have done it 6 years ago instead of now..

But hey, if 9/11 had been avoided, no reason for global fear and terror...

My rant of the day:
------------------------
I see only one reason for the US to be fighting on the other side of the globe: SOMEONE want's more power! Don't give me bulls... about "Liberation" and all that. It's ALL about POWER and money to buy even more power.

FINDING Osama was okay with me IF he really did 9/11. I simply don't accept the US saying "We can't find him!" or "I'm really not that concerned about finding Osama" - GWB (2003, I think..)

"Let's say Saddam was in it on 9/11 and that he has WMDs!! (WE can have WMDs - not the others! Because >WE are the MASTERs and You are the puppets!< (Rich a-holes points at all the 'suckers' that makes the rich a-holes even richer and more powerfull..) :-/. Then we can also protect the pipeline thru Afghanistan to Kasakstan! Brilliant idea."

"Oh? - NO WMDs! Ok, let's spend billions and "liberate" the Iraqis - so we don't go emptyhanded home..

This whole Iraqi war is one big agenda. One that is NOT connected at all to 9/11.

--

There are two kinds of people in the world:

The ones who kill,
and the ones who don't.


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/3/2007 1:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
Usually we agree on stuff, but on this, I do not feel the same.

Going into Iraq was not a mistake. I cannot imagine that taking out a ruthless dictator such as Mr. Hussein was such a "bad thing". Have you seen the recent reporting on the country itself? Things are starting to turn around. When you have had a brutal dictator, it takes time to clean up afterwards. (Japan anyone? How about Germany?)

Entering Iraq and freeing those people was reason enough to go in, but public support was not there for that mission, so for years we sat on our hands. Once reports of WMD started coming in from every single intelligence agency on the planet, the seriousness started to become apparent.

Now I personally find it impossible to believe every intelligence agency could have gotten it wrong, and personally I feel there is probably more to the story than what we know so far. That is a huge desert, with many allies to Saddam nearby. If you have read the news recently about the Israeli strike in Syria, you would notice, Syria was putting together a bomb for Korea, using Korea's plutonium. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle...

Call me crazy, but if this could be occurring beneath the world's noses, do you not think they could also be holding stuff for the former Iraqi regime? Could the mere sophistication of the actual bomb product plant be technology shipped from Iraq? Just speculation, but makes sense to me.

I have not even touched on the War on Terror implications of changing the face of the Middle East. Strategically, the US is in a far more dominant position than we were 6 years ago. Not only do either we or our allies have prominent roles in the Middle East, but we conveniently surround such tyrannical regimes such as Iran and Syria. (Afghanistan, Iraq, & Israel)

This also has greatly aided in our ability to stabilize a rather turbulent area. These are real dangers, and real threats to not just our (the United States') safety, but also to the safety of the world.

I would hardly call removing Saddam from power to be a "mistake".

- Creathir


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/3/2007 1:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
The link for the Times article. (The DT engine misread the link, sorry about that)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle...

- Creathir


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would hardly call removing Saddam from power to be a "mistake".

I agree that removing Saddam is a good thing, however, it wasn't really a problem that required a solution by the United States. And especially not at the cost to us in terms of killed and injured soldiers, $1-2T, damage to our moral reputation and political capital throughout the world, and the increased hatred we caused to ourselves in the Middle East (which will probably haunt us for generations to come).

We were lied to about the reasons and the costs. The costs are too great for even the best case outcomes, which themselves seem very unlikely. Most of America agrees on this.

Unfortunately, by getting involved we own the mess now, and it's our responsibility to try to fix it now.

If I could meet an ordinary Iraqi citizen whose life has been detroyed by our actions, all I could say is "I'm sorry."

War is terrible and sometimes necessary, but not in the case of Iraq was it necessary.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/3/2007 8:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
How about an Iraqi who's life has been made better because of it? What would you say to him?

If you go to Northern Iraq, most places it's safe enough to move around without body armor or Kevlar. The Kurds are no longer being repressed because of this war. The place looks very normal. They police themselves and they "take care" of the ones that come in to make trouble. Even in the Anbar "triangle of Death" things have gotten better not as good as up north but the progress is their.

I agree with your point about we own it we need to clean it up. Most people I feel fail to realize is it was our mess to clean up a long time ago. The fact that we provided Saddam weapons to deal with Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a piss poor foreign policy. After the first Gulf war we halted outside of Baghdad because the U.N. said so. We the US then encouraged the Shiite to revolt. The UN would not authorize us to back them up even though they had advocated regime change, we obeyed their ruling and the Shiite were crushed, murdered, and slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. We broke our promise to them. Their blood is on our hands.

So fast forward to the beginning of this war. After we invaded we expected them to welcome us with open arms. Some did but a lot did not and don't trust us. This is because they were afraid we would abandon them like we did before. It's taken us a long time to regain that trust. We paid for it in money, blood, friends, family.

Aside from all of that though, the politicians need to let us fight this and finish it. The good will of the Iraqis is starting to turn for the better but that won't last forever. The Brits found that out the hard way. Sadly I feel that was our fault too. I understand why you feel that this could have been avoided. I feel we lost that chance a long time ago and it was just a matter of time.

It's a very complex and a very gray issue and it's impossible not to color it with emotion.


RE: Good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/4/2007 3:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with you. So many people don't understand the history between Iraq and previous American presidencies. Saddam, and Iraq is a problem that we created (Previous presidents) and was one we left to fester time and time again. Frankly, if we had the balls to clean the mess up the first time, it would never would have come to an occupation to get the job done. The reality is that we had several opportunities to fix the situation and everyone passed or got brick walled by foreign policy(UN). It's our mess and while I don't always agree with Bush, I have to respect the fact that someone, (for better or worse) finally had the guts to do something about it. Historians will debate this for years to come.

My opinion on the matter is to let our military do what it was trained to do. This is not a political problem, this is a military problem. Senators sitting around saying "bring the troops home" are not what I would call, reliable.


RE: Good
By Manch on 12/4/2007 5:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Damn skippy! Keep the politicians out so I can do my fricken job!!


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 4:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nice post Creathir.

I will go a step farther as I am a former NY/NJ resident. The World Trade centers were attacked not once but twice. 9-11 was the second attack on the trade centers and the reason there was a second attack was because after the first attack we didn't do anything about it and history repeated itself.

I will let you in on a very little known fact because friends of mine were working at Allied Signal where the first bombing was planned from. My IBM friends were interviewed by the FBI and one of them heard an FBI official state that had the original bomb gone off where they wanted it placed it would have toppled the one tower into the other. After hearing this if you examine the explosion damage the first bomb made it could have easily done enough damage to the tower to topple in into the second tower. We were very lucky on the first bombing.

As someone who has lost 2 friends to 9-11 I am disappointed we didn't go into IRAQ the first time around and because we didn't they got a second chance and 9-11 is the result. We played the political role in an attack and it got people here killed. Imagine what else they would have done had we not done anything a second time? We need to go into Pakistan because there should be no safe haven for terrorist groups.

Saddam also committed many crimes against humanity but we don't talk about how he poisoned his own people/villages in the testing of weapons. He wasn't hung because of anything on our part. He was hung because of the crimes he committed upon his own people.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 4:53:11 PM , Rating: 3
The fault in your reasoning is there is absolutely no connection between Iraq/Hussain and 9/11 - none at all. Being as well-informed as you appear to be, how could you overlook that fact?


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 5:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
That would mean your OK with countries that allow terrorists to run free, train terrorists, and plan attacks on other countries and cannot be held accountable for their actions?


RE: Good
By Locutus465 on 12/3/2007 5:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would guess he is more interested in actually applying military force in the territories where terrorists actually are being given safe haven rather than baselessly attacking a country because you don't like the current regime.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 5:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would guess he is more interested in actually applying military force in the territories where terrorists actually are being given safe haven rather than baselessly attacking a country because you don't like the current regime.

Exactly. Like Afghanistan, which was a good response and was effective. The Taliban were clearly harboring terrorist training camps, and they no longer exist there. I believe that the US should engage in those types of military strategies. The problem is that Afghanistan emboldened the Bush Administration and hence Iraq, I believe.


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 5:42:01 PM , Rating: 1
Thankyou Yes I am all for going into countries that safe harbor terrorist groups. There should be no safe havens for them.

Side note:

It is poor for anyone to say Saddam did not have a hand in those terrorist groups. By allowing them safe havens, training etc in his country he is supporting those groups actions even if he is not working directly with them or related to them.

Pakistan is doing the same and we need to show that there are no safe zones for terrorist organizations.

There were many reasons Saddam needed to be taken out of power. Our reasons may not have been well established with the WMD issues but there were plenty of other crimes Saddam did against his own poeple to warrant the removal.


RE: Good
By rcc on 12/3/2007 7:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Bottom line is that Hussein could have avoided the invasion simply by allowing the UN inspectors to do their jobs. Had he not been stonewalling, it never would have been an issue.

If there was nothing to be found it makes his mistake all the greater. The moron played at brinksmanship with tinfoil tanks and toys..... ok, with good hardware poorly handled. You'd think he'd have know better by then.

But... the UN decreed that he should let in the inspectors, he refused, and got his butt kicked; with tragic consequences for his citizens. Not that they aren't better off without him, but it is a tough transition.


RE: Good
By Locutus465 on 12/3/2007 9:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bottom line is that Hussein could have avoided the invasion simply by allowing the UN inspectors to do their jobs. Had he not been stonewalling, it never would have been an issue.


Funny you should bring that up, because he actually did. UN inspectors went in, from what I remember there were no major "we're not getting access to..." issues, what the inspectors wanted to see they saw. They reported back to the UN (and US) that they didn't find anything, and Bush responded by saying "He's hiding them, he sent them to iran, we're invading because saddam isn't cooperating".... I hate to say it, the US was a blind agressor in this case and it angers me.


RE: Good
By rcc on 12/4/2007 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, as I recall, the whole year prior to the invasion was a series of "no, you can't go there, get out", etc. stalls, harassments, and general non-cooperation.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 7:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is poor for anyone to say Saddam did not have a hand in those terrorist groups. By allowing them safe havens, training etc in his country he is supporting those groups actions even if he is not working directly with them or related to them.

That's factually incorrect. There is no public evidence that Hussain harbored terrorists in Iraq. See my other posts.
quote:
Pakistan is doing the same and we need to show that there are no safe zones for terrorist organizations.

I agree with you there. I personally think we should have a number of smart-bombs accidently "go off course" into Pakistan and take out some of these Taliban and al Queda groups that are clearly known to exist there. Musharrif doesn't want to be viewed as a "lap dog" to the US, however on the other hand, he's not living up to his responsibility of controlling the tribal areas of Pakistan to keep bad guys out.
quote:
There were many reasons Saddam needed to be taken out of power. Our reasons may not have been well established with the WMD issues but there were plenty of other crimes Saddam did against his own poeple to warrant the removal.

I agree, but in my view, none of that justifies our action in invading Iraq. Heck, we've let Castro exist just off the coast of Florida all these years. I'm sure the military could solve that problem in a matter of hours, but it's just not a justifyable action either.


RE: Good
By BMFPitt on 12/3/2007 11:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree with you there. I personally think we should have a number of smart-bombs accidently "go off course" into Pakistan and take out some of these Taliban and al Queda groups that are clearly known to exist there.
Wouldn't it be great if we could invade Pakistan and secure their nukes in the event of a coup by hardline Islamic forces? But our army is otherwise occupied by something.


RE: Good
By CascadingDarkness on 12/3/2007 6:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nice reply. Except that all intelligent agencies agree we have created the newest, best terrorist training ground in the world. Activities in Iraq are far greater that they ever were before the invasion (as they were almost non-existent before). Huge net loss for number of terrorists with know-how to kill us and our allies. Not only that but there are now Americans close at hand to practice on and in harms way.

Sorta put a hole in that boat. Want to keep bailing?

quote:
That would mean your OK with countries that allow terrorists to run free, train terrorists, and plan attacks on other countries and cannot be held accountable for their actions?


By your words the ones that should be held accountable are most likely those within our own government for making things hugely worse by putting us over there. I had the option I would definately hold them accountable, and not just by re-electing. I'm thinking something serious.


RE: Good
By anandtechuser07 on 12/3/2007 4:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Explain to me what the hell did Iraq have to do with the WTC attacks, either the first attempted one, or 9-11? Are you an idiot? Your post reeks of your stupidity.

You say you lost two of your friends at 9-11; you should have been with them.


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 5:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Saddam provided Safe harboring of terrorist groups and allowed groups like Al-Queda to flourish in his country.

If anyone should have been there it should have been you.


RE: Good
By anandtechuser07 on 12/3/2007 5:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
Your stupidity knows no bounds. The 9-11 hijackers were predominantly Saudi. There was no Al Quaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion.

Look, I think it's time you get off the computer and go finish high school. Further, 3000 people died at 9-11. Why don't you go join them?


RE: Good
By Mitch101 on 12/3/2007 5:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
You answered your own posting need you try and say more about stupidity or are you bi-polar and arguing with yourself?


RE: Good
By Locutus465 on 12/3/2007 5:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
Except Al Quida was also a threat to Saddam's regime as well... Perhaps you are under the mistaken impression that pretty much all those people out in the middle east are all the same? For your information Saddam's regime was a secular one something which Osama would have seen as a blight against gods will in the middle east... Iraq being a police state kept it secure, Saddam was not about to allow al quida to get the foothold in Iraq under his rule that the USA has allowed.


RE: Good
By TomZ on 12/3/2007 5:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saddam provided Safe harboring of terrorist groups and allowed groups like Al-Queda to flourish in his country.

Also incorrect. Saddam was a paranoid dictator and he didn't tolerate groups like al Queda in Iraq at all. They only were able to take root there in the security void left after we invaded and removed the Hussain regime.


RE: Good
By just4U on 12/4/2007 3:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also incorrect. Saddam was a paranoid dictator and he didn't tolerate groups like al Queda in Iraq at all. They only were able to take root there in the security void left after we invaded and removed the Hussain regime.


Tom I believe your wrong there. While Saddam didn't have any connection to al Queda and would not tolerate them in Iraq I am pretty positive he allowed other terrorist cells in his country .. well atleast according to CNN 5+ years back.


RE: Good
By winterspan on 12/11/2007 3:41:33 AM , Rating: 1
You are a fucking idiot. Saddam had NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER TO ANY ISLAMIST TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. Read the fucking Intelligence Estimates. People like are you are the ignorant fucking sheep that allow other idiots like bush to control this country. WAKE UP! Go back to highschool!


RE: Good
By anandtechuser07 on 12/3/2007 5:01:43 PM , Rating: 3
If it was such a good idea, why didn't you volunteer to go fight? Oh that's right, you're a goddamn coward. There was no reason to attack Iraq, the WMD accusations were complete lies, and you and your lying kind are traitors to this country. Now go back to your SUV with your yellow-ribbon sticker and guzzle more gas.


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/3/2007 11:48:42 PM , Rating: 3
The only coward sir, is yourself.

The treasonous ones are the ones such are yourself, who stick their head in the sand when a problem arises. Conflict is part of life, deal with it. Thank God folks like you were not as prevalent during WWII as they are today. We would all be speaking German.

I will ride in my truck (not an SUV) and guzzle gas as I go about my daily life. I suppose you walk/ride a bike to your work?

You're lucky you even HAVE a computer to flame people with. Use some sense buddy. Open your eyes. Evil exists in this world, and SOMEONE has to take care of it. If the US won't, who will? Russia? China? How about we just let it fester. The last time we tried that approach the Jewish people were almost wiped off the face of the earth, and almost all of Europe was taken over by a tyrannical fascist.

I suppose the head in the sand approach is the way to go...

I find it SO ironic that you try to accuse me of being a traitor, for having a certain belief, while in reality, you are the one actively working against this country and encouraging defeat of our brave soldiers.

You know, treason is punishable by death according to our constitution. I have a sneaky suspicion you are opposed to the death penalty, except for those whom have a different viewpoint than your own.

- A quite offended Creathir


RE: Good
By Ringold on 12/4/2007 12:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thank God folks like you were not as prevalent during WWII as they are today.


To a degree, they were. We were lucky on two counts:

1) Roosevelt followed Lincoln's model of total disregard of the Constitution on the principle of executive prerogative and that America faced an impending epic crisis even though the American people didn't realize it. While running for election on the platform of peace, even making the promise that no American boys would die on foreign soil, he simultaneously violated all sorts of international law sending equipment to England, and rapidly expanded the military.

2) Pearl Harbor, and Hitler's idiocy. Roosevelt was concerned England would fall before pretext for entering the war on grounds acceptable to the people of the nation was found. The Japanese gave us pretext, and then Hitler, for whatever reason, decided to declare war as well. Roosevelt's problems conveniently being solved, we got on to the business of kicking ass.

I agree with the rest of your post though. :)

I'll go further and point out Bush's approval ratings, and the opinion of society of him, isn't much different then those of Truman upon leaving office. Truman is now viewed as one of our great presidents; he foresaw and took action against the coming storm. I don't think Bush will end up so highly regarded, unless Iraq turns out really well in 20-30 years, but he'll at least probably be viewed as the first President to take on this centuries international crisis.


RE: Good
By Locutus465 on 12/4/2007 12:20:07 AM , Rating: 2
I realize the OP may have hit a nerve with you, but please refrain from throwing around the "trator", "treasonous", "un-american", "unpatriotic" and what other basiless attack comes to mind. Something the current administration forgot in it's build up to war is one of the founding principals of this nation is everyone is free to express their opion whether right or wrong (which is why on occation we must endur clan rallies). I do also realize that being the internet this is an international forum by default, but I'm willing to bet that no matter where anyone posting is from, their basic laws are the same.

So please, if you diagree with their opion please try to state your opion with out using these words like this, and particularly with out threatening someone with the death pentalty for exersising their rights as either an american, or likely at the very least from a western nation with the same basic principals that we share. These kinds of posts make the USA (our country) look backwards.


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/4/2007 11:14:21 AM , Rating: 3
I would not usually, but I was just pointing out to him how throwing around terms like that is rediculous, especially from his standpoint.

- Creathir


RE: Good
By mdogs444 on 12/4/2007 7:17:06 AM , Rating: 2
Creathir -

These guys who are flaming this thread are part of that EXTREME "Looney Left", that it does us no good to even argue or counter with. He is about an Anti-American as they come - in fact, I compare him to those extremist groups who protest the military at military funerals, which I wouldn't be surprised if he does. Its quite sad, and frighteningly sick. Our country fights to let this people like this live here - yet in a high % of the global countries, they probably would be hung, executed, or beheaded for treason. These are the types of people I save my breath on, because they are so extreme, and they obviously have some sort of mental disorder. I would say their mental capacity is comprable to that of a suicide bomber. Sometimes, I wish our country did not turn as lenient and civilized as it is now....and still retained some of his hard-nosed tactics of the past in which these people would be dealt with accordingly. Id even go as far as to say that I would not be opposed to a deal with the democrats in which we would allow the illegal mexican immigrants to be citizens, in exchange for the permanent deportation of the left wing extremists!

But I'm with you...I will go on about my life, sucking up gasoline as much as I wish to, fighting their environmental propaganda that destroys our manufacturing & industrial economy, and defending the men and women of our military at all costs.

This guy is nothing more than a psychotic, extremist, & mentally derranged individual - who many would argue is guilty of treason himself. Im with you on being offended as well, and its unfortunate our society has to deal with people like that. But if they are so concerned with evolutionary approach, they should also know that survival of the fittest will eventually take place, thus eliminating the need for their types.

Said my peace.


RE: Good
By theapparition on 12/4/2007 10:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
Little late, but just wanted to re-enforce creathir's original point. Taken from the new report on Iran's potential nuclear activity.

quote:
The intelligence officials said they do not know all the reasons why Iran halted its weapons program, or what might trigger its resumption. They said they are confident that diplomatic and political pressure played a key role, but said the U.S. invasion of Iraq , Libya’s termination of its nuclear program and the implosion of the illegal nuclear smuggling network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan also might have influenced Tehran.


RE: Good
By creathir on 12/4/2007 11:18:47 AM , Rating: 3
Careful there...
facts tend to be ignored when dealing with the subject of Iraq.

I suppose Libya would have just gone ahead and quit the WMD development on their own had Iraq never occured.

The only fault the Bush Administration has with the War on Terror, is not further solidifying the fact that Iraq is a key component towards its success.

- Creathir


RE: Good
By Shining Arcanine on 12/3/2007 11:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that in the 25 years Saddam Hussein was in power, he killed 17 million people. Do you think that the US should have stood still while he killed another 17 million, part of which, would have been in the United States due to his terrorist funding program?

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Hit Ctrl+F and search for the word "check." You should find a scan of a check worth $25,000 that was made as a reward to the family of a suicide bomber, to encourage attacks by those who are disparate to support their families. In the middle east, $25,000 can give financial security for a lifetime, something that Hussein knew when he started that program, which the US military shut-down.


RE: Good
By Shining Arcanine on 12/3/2007 11:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Disparate" should be "desperate." Firefox's spell checker made a mistake when I used it and I did not catch it until after I made my post.


RE: Good
By Polynikes on 12/3/2007 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
That has not bearing on how the war is fought.

Maybe if someone YOU cared about was decapitated on live television you'd understand our point about war restrictions.