Another suicide bomb

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 08 2002,03:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ May 08 2002,02:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What about Forrestal? Its pretty big and still in service (if i remember correctly) and offers about the same size of firepower as the Enterprise used to when it first came out.<span id='postcolor'>

Forrestal was decommissioned in '93. I think that she is a (or will be a) floating museum in Baltimore.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh?

Shame

[IceFire 0]

Who knows? All I know is USSOLDIER11B is an Army intel analyst.

He must know something we don't.

Regardless, I still don't believe that Saddam is supporting the terrorism.

Saddam Hussein is a secular tyrant, not a fundementalist fanatic. Those two don't see eye to eye.

Saddam Hussein reminds me more of Stalin than a terrorist.

He runs his country with an iron fist. He is not a coward. And he would not be afraid to fight back if he had to.

I think back when he was detained, he fired every round in his handgun at the arresting force that was deployed to catch him before finally surrendering.

And I don't think he's any dummy. He managed to stay in power last time. I can bet he is taking every precaution known to man. Every day he is probably reinforcing his defences and readying for an attack and revising his intel.

Plus, he has a good army. I'm sure he's fortifying them daily.

If we do attack Iraq I couln't imagine how many men both sides may lose.

Plus, who know's what he has up his sleeve.

This may turn into WW3. I'm sure when it comes down to it, all the other Arab countries are going to support him rather than fight a fellow Arab state.

If we do go in and it becomes a long fight, the British, Australians and French may come in.

I don't know about Russia, but they are friendly with us also.

Who know's what may turn out of this. But I'm sure it's gonna be ugly.

[USSoldier11B 0]

I'll say this. We've got Major military activity going on in the U.S. and it has nothing to do with Afghanistan. I haven't seen reserve/Guard activity like this since Desert Storm. I think there is a reason that my Bn commander is so groucy about our unit doing well at JRTC next month. With the amount of troop activity at the present time, I'd say we are expecting to do something. Now Denior tsk.tsk. do you really think that China would attack the U.S. and lose thier MFN trade status which would decimate thier economy? I think not. What does carrier activity have to do with anything? Yes we will need at least one carrier battle group in the area, but there are plenty of allied air bases in the area to conduct large scale air operations utilizing both air force and Marine air superiority assets.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus, he has a good army. I'm sure he's fortifying them daily.<span id='postcolor'>

How is this? I would say he has one of the most poorly trained and demoralized armies on earth. Sure his army is probably built back up to the formidable size that it was in 1990, but what good is alot of troops if they all surrender because they are starving?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He is not a coward.<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps not, but his arrogance will be the end of him.

Saddam Hussien and his Army do not know how to deal with the blitzkrieg type tactics of a heavy mechanized ground war. He is an expert in guerrilla warfare, at least he should be, we trained him to fight Iran back when I.K. was in power. The fact is that guerillas need a rich auxillery (3rd party support nation) to fight UW effectively. The NVA had the Chinese. Who will Iraq have? Probably not much of anyone. I think now is a good time to destabilize the balance of power in the middle east. The only problem is who will fill the vacuum when it is all said and done? It would also mean a NATO military occupation of Iraq for the next decade of so. Yuck.....

[Longinius 1]

"What the hell are the Palestinians thinking???"

Revenge, hate, dispair, insanity and selfdefense? Just recently a woman and two small children were killed by Israeli soldiers after their vehicle had been attacked. The woman and her kids were running away from the explosion and were gunned down. That is fuel enough to spark more hate. Or have we seen an increase in explosive toting 2 year old lately?

"Things are finally starting to cool down a little so that negotioations can happen, and some extremist does something like this! Hasnt any of their leaders explained to them how important the opinion of the outside world is? And public opinion lately has been more pro-palestinian. Watch that take a tumble now."

Cooled down? Oh, you mean the Israelis have pulled back a bit. Do you really think that stops the hate and fear the Palestinians feel? Doubtful. The suicide bombings wont stop until the hatred and fear goes away. Which is never, the way it looks now.

[ralphwiggum 6]

US attacking Iraq by itself would be 2nd Vietnam.

Although logistics can be funneled through Kuwait at worst situation, it would still cuase enough headache to send 200,000 troopson desert.

If you look at recent armed conflict on international scale, international community's approval is absolutely needed. Just take a look at war on terror. Brits and Canadians and Germans and other nations are also in it. no international community memeber with half-brain opposed it out right.

Right now, if US commences attack on Saddma Insane, theer will be little support for it from international community. ALthough noone likes how he is starving his ppl, but that doesn't mean that someone going in to get him is approved either.

Military wise, US is un-touchable. However, war is not something that has outcome soley based on that. it's product of numerous factors.

and could increased activity be attributed to the fact that there are more needs for guard at US places abroad?

[IceFire 0]

Yeah, Saddam Hussein starves his people. That is horrible.

But I don't see a plausible reason to invade Iraq. I mean if he were attacking neiboring countries again, or was suddenly an overt threat to the U.S or our allies. That is an understandible reason to attack.

I think the reason the U.S. want's to attack him is because we just want him out of action. He stood up Bush senior and Bush jr has made it his mission to finish what his dad started.

I dunno. I just don't see a reason to attack him so immediately. Especially if it risks killing many of our armed soldiers.

And I think you underestimate his military power. I don't think he is going to make the same mistakes from the gulf. Back then his men would surrendur real fast because they were miserable.

I just think Saddam Hussein would realize that his men need improved morale or risk his men surrendering again or not trying hard in combat. And especially in preparation for war, I can't imagine him not improving the quality of life of his soldiers in order to mimamize attrition.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ May 08 2002,00:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or here's an idea!

Why don't they just live in Isreal peacefully??  Hmm?

Then they can pray and live at the site of their holy land just like the Isrealis do.

Hmm?  Wouln't that be a better idea than killing innocents for glory??<span id='postcolor'>

Only one problem: They don't have and cannot get an israeli citizenship, because they belong to the wrong ethno/religious group. Bummer.

[IceFire 0]

No, I seem to remember reading that there ARE palestinian Isrealis in Isreal. They can and do have Isreali citizenship.

[Oligo 1]

Yes, but the teeming masses of pals in West Bank and Gaza cannot get it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ May 08 2002,04:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll say this. We've got Major military activity going on in the U.S. and it has nothing to do with Afghanistan. I haven't seen reserve/Guard activity like this since Desert Storm. .<span id='postcolor'>

Hmmm.. you havn't seen that much activity since Desert Storm, you say.. hmm .. How old were you then.. like ten?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think there is a reason that my Bn commander is so groucy about our unit doing well at JRTC next month. With the amount of troop activity at the present time, I'd say we are expecting to do something<span id='postcolor'>

National Guard training is not very correlated to invasions. And training and doing something are two completely different things. You train for many different scenarios, but only a few are ever implemented.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now Denior tsk.tsk. do you really think that China would attack the U.S. and lose thier MFN trade status which would decimate thier economy? I think not.<span id='postcolor'>

It has nothing to do with China wanting to attack the US. It has everything to do about the fact that US will never reduce WestPac into a frigate navy. On the contrary, I believe that they are pushing it already and are probably going to move in another carrier to seventh fleet to support the Kitty Hawk.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What does carrier activity have to do with anything? <span id='postcolor'>

Hehe.. I thoguht that you were in intel! Carrier activity is the alpha and omega in US military practice. Nothing is done without knowing you have the support of the CVBGs. When the shit hits the fan in the world, the first question asked in Washington is "where are the carriers". Carriers porject power and are a crucial part of the US military. Without the proper carrier support, US will not go to war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes we will need at least one carrier battle group in the area, but there are plenty of allied air bases in the area to conduct large scale air operations utilizing both air force and Marine air superiority assets.

<span id='postcolor'>

Where from? Israel? I doubt that the Saudis will help you out this time. You need forward deployment land bases - you cant get rid of Saddam through just bombing. Add to that the lack of proper support from your Allies, I would put my money on that currently a military invasion of Iraq is not possible. Such things have however never stopped politicians before, so there is no telling of what might happen. But I think that looking on the already strained resources of your military today shows that a successful invasion of Iraq today is impossible.

You had some luck in Afganistan because of the Northern Allience ground troops doing the actual winning of land. You can expect no such thing in Iraq. In Afganistan, which was a small operation compared to an invasion you had at most four active carriers. There is no way you can get so many operational in the Gulf within a year without seriously compromising existing national interests.

[IceFire 0]

Denoir, what is a CVBG? And explain more about the importance of "carrier activity". Why are they so important?

That stuff is interesting to me.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ May 08 2002,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, what is a CVBG?  And explain more about the importance of "carrier activity".  Why are they so important?

That stuff is interesting to me.<span id='postcolor'>

The Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups (CVBG) consist of a carrier, its embarked air wing, and various escorts -- cruisers, destroyers, frigates, attack submarines, and attached logistics ships.

I don't have time now to explain the importrant role of carriers now, but I'll post as soon as I get back home.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">National Guard training is not very correlated to invasions. And training and doing something are two completely different things. You train for many different scenarios, but only a few are ever implemented.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is not true. The active military is too understrength right now to cover the manpower needed for full scale invasion. Guard units are needed for force protection. Reserve units are strictly combat/service support. No combat arms in the Army reserves. Guard units like the one I'm in are fully integrated into active SF ops. Things are really buzzing right now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm.. you havn't seen that much activity since Desert Storm, you say.. hmm .. How old were you then.. like ten?<span id='postcolor'>

So what? I knew alot of people who were guard soldiers that went to fight in that war. I remember. You don't have to be a prick about it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where from? Israel? I doubt that the Saudis will help you out this time.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe Israel. I think you are wrong. Saudi would let us stage from there. They need our $$$ from oil sales.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehe.. I thoguht that you were in intel! Carrier activity is the alpha and omega in US military practice. Nothing is done without knowing you have the support of the CVBGs. When the shit hits the fan in the world<span id='postcolor'>

I hope to hell not. Carrier = bomb magnet.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, Saddam Hussein starves his people. That is horrible.

But I don't see a plausible reason to invade Iraq. I mean if he were attacking neiboring countries again, or was suddenly an overt threat to the U.S or our allies. That is an understandible reason to attack.

<span id='postcolor'>

Negative, that's not what I meant. If it can be proven that Saddam is harboring terrorists, that is reason enough to invade. According to president Bush anyway.

I respect your military opinion Denoir, but you far underestimate the military capabilities of the U.S.

When terrorism threatens the national security of our country, I believe our previous national interests take a back seat. If it was Sweden that got hit on Sept 11th you'd be looking to kick some ass to would you not? I guess that only time will tell who is right. Also, how accurate do you think your intel is? After all you aren't in the U.S. military, much less you don't have a U.S. security clearance. There are alot of things I cannot say concerning deployment. I'm sure you understand operational security though. Unless the Bush administration gets a case of cold feet, I would count on seeing decisive ground operations in various locations in the near future.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US attacking Iraq by itself would be 2nd Vietnam.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not. Iraq has no weathy nation to finance it's military operations. Besides, since when does the U.S. attack anyone alone anymore? Everything is a NATO operation now. During Desert Storm Secretary Powell was a JCS. He stated that the Coalition forces were expecting upwards of 60% casualties in the ground war. Result, less than 1% in all NATO forces. I doubt any of Mr. Hussein's neighbors will be willing to help him. He has caused too much trouble for them over the past few decades.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just think Saddam Hussein would realize that his men need improved morale or risk his men surrendering again or not trying hard in combat. And especially in preparation for war, I can't imagine him not improving the quality of life of his soldiers in order to mimamize attrition.<span id='postcolor'>

The guy is a moron. He doesn't have the resources to improve soldier morale. Nor do I think he really cares. I think he would feed his military to the U.S. and escape to another rogue nation for political asylum.

[IceFire 0]

Hey, I'm 20 (turn 21 next October), and I remember the Gulf damn clearly.

That's all we talked about back in the 3rd or 4th grade. I am a sophmore in college now. ... Hmm

I remember seeing the TV footage, I remember seeing Bush senior on TV talking about the damn thing.

In school we were all tought what was going on in the Gulf at the time. So I was well aware at the time. We watched the news in class and the war was explained to us on the maps and chalk boards. Espesially since several of our folks were involved in the war at the time and it was a private school I was attending so they kept us constantly informed.

And if my memory correctly serves me, USSOLDIER11B is about my age.

[theavonlady 2]

Another one, this time a work accident fortunately.

[USSoldier11B 0]

How do you sleep at night Avon? If this shit was happening in my country I'd be awake all night sitting in front of a window with my shotgun, sniper rifle, and FAL.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ May 08 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd be awake all night sitting in front of a window with my shotgun, sniper rifle, and FAL.<span id='postcolor'>

If I had those in my house, then I really wouldn't be able to sleep at night!

Indeed, we have lost much sleep over the last two years.

[Oligo 1]

If this shit was going down in U.S. the pals would be extinct by now.

[USSoldier11B 0]

What can you own in Israel? Is the private ownership of all firearms illegal?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ May 08 2002,13:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What can you own in Israel? Is the private ownership of all firearms illegal?<span id='postcolor'>

My husband recently wanted to apply for a weapons permit but he can't.

Some people who can get licenses are:

1. IDF and police officers.

2. Residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

3. People who, for livelihood, often travel in those areas.

4. People employed as guards, watchmen, etc.

Otherwise, your chances are slim to get approved.