Well, it would give us a good excuse to re-arrange the topography.
Posted by Bagley at December 2, 2005 04:25 PMActually, it sounds like part of the plan outlined by Juan Cole awhile back--which sounded pretty good to me.
Posted by DL at December 2, 2005 05:07 PMl Gr's ffc ws nt vlbl fr cmmnt n th Gr-Chrnmyrdn prtcl whch th Rssns mntn gvs thm jstfctn fr sllng dvncd wpnry t scpths.
[Editor: ignore=off]it would give us a good excuse to re-arrange the topography. Posted by BagleyInasmuch as the Bush army is unable to defeat an insurgency in a third world country like Iraq, your chest thumping braggadocio is even sillier than your usual muddle headed nonsense. Posted by Mike at December 2, 2005 05:16 PM
Mike,
"... army is unable to defeat an insurgency in a third world country like Iraq"
May I respond with a quote from your post:
"... muddle headed nonsense."
Posted by Bagley at December 2, 2005 05:28 PMSomeone once said that, "all's fair in love and war" and someone else said, "what goes around comes around." One of the reasons the US attacked Iraq is that it couldn't defend itself against our airpower. Iran doesn't seem to want to make the same mistake. You really can't blame them, I guess. No country has to be a sitting duck for Commander Empty Flight Suit.
Posted by Red_Neck_Repub at December 2, 2005 05:40 PMThanks for the laugh, bags. "I know you are, but what am I?" Funniest neener neener ever!
From now on, when I see your sig, my image of you will be Pee Wee Herman.
"Thanks for the laugh, bags. "I know you are, but what am I?" Funniest neener neener ever!
From now on, when I see your sig, my image of you will be Pee Wee Herman."
And I will continue to be impressed by your grasp of rational argument.
Cheers!
Posted by Bagley at December 2, 2005 06:15 PMIt's a deal! *snicker*
"I meant to do that..."
heh, you're a riot, bagman!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 2, 2005 06:20 PM"It's a deal! *snicker*
"I meant to do that..."
I am sure that you did. Good for you!
Posted by Bagley at December 2, 2005 06:25 PMneo-con asswipe bagley stuff it snark jerk expletive deleted
Posted by buttheadxray at December 2, 2005 06:25 PM"....neo-con asswipe bagley stuff it snark jerk expletive deleted..."
How is that little problem that you are having with acne and girls?
Posted by Bagley at December 2, 2005 06:29 PMAnother troll dispatched to hijack another thread. Gets old after awhile, doesn't it?
Posted by CapD at December 2, 2005 08:27 PMHow bad would it be for our pilots if the Iranians, a newly destabilized Syria, and the insurgents inside Iraq suddenly all had access to SAMs, compliments of the Russians?
I think this scenario is just a matter of time. Anybody that wants to test their new generation weapons on the latest american stuff knows where to send it.
All part of the new and improved Cheney administration show your ass to the whole world program.
Tactical geniuses at work{/snark}
Posted by SnarkyShark at December 2, 2005 08:29 PMMuddle headed nonsense is a rational argument? I guess for a Republican it would be.
Posted by Goose1 at December 3, 2005 03:54 AMIt's worth noting that there have been comparatively few aircraft shootdowns using MANPADS thus far - as regards fixed wing aircraft, only a DHL cargo plane and an MoD Hercules have been hit to my knowledge, with the DHL plane managing to survive the attack. A small number of helicopters have been taken out.
Now, there were plenty of old Russian MANPADS available to the Iraqis, as well as some highly advanced French Roland systems - either these are now unusable due to dud batteries, lost, or they're being held back for the time being for some reason ( this strikes me as unnlikely).
The SAM's that are being referenced in the article that has been linked to are not for guerrila usage - they're part of an integrated air defence system that requires sophisticated radar, industrial-strength infrastructure and command and control systems to function.
Now it is of course entirely possible that insurgent groups will source Strela, Igla or Chinese Manpads on the international arms market for deployment against US air assets; they will not be acquiring high-end systems like those mentioned in the article.
Posted by dan at December 3, 2005 06:19 AMThanks, dan, what a nice rundown.
Posted by iamcoyote at December 3, 2005 08:40 AMDan, thanks for that clarification. Based on what you know, how likely would it be that the insurgents would be able to acquire an up-to-date stock of shoulder-fired "Stinger" type weapons?
Posted by Steve Soto at December 3, 2005 09:34 AMSteve
I honestly haven't got a clue. It hasn't happened so far, and it strikes me that it would be rather difficult for the insurgents to acquire anything substantial on the black market without attracting an awful lot of attention.
Essentially this would require a third-party supplier that was prepared to risk severe retribution, and I honestly cannot see Syria, Saudi, the Gulf emirates or Jordan bunging anything the insurgent's way at this stage; they might if the US military is heading for the exits - but then SAM's ain't much use against an opponent that has no airforce and no attack helicopters!
I think it's very likely that the Iranians either have the means to rapidly introduce these, or have already stockpiled them, with their chums in the South as a retaliatory option should Bush wish to continue winning dimwit of the year awards by bombing an industrial site or two near Teheran.
The only thing that I've noticed is that there have been comparatively few shoot downs using SAM's this year, perhaps as few as 2, - which suggests that there are issues with the old stockpiles that are rendering them unusable.
Posted by dan at December 3, 2005 12:29 PM