U.S. Refuses to Hand Over Fighter Source Code to UK 558
orbitalia writes "The UK is heavily involved in the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter program) but has recently considered abandoning the project because the US refuses to share the source code. The UK had intended to purchase $120 billion dollars worth of aircraft to operate on two new aircraft carriers, but is now seriously considering Plan 'B'. This is likely to be further investments in the Eurofighter Typhoon project." From the article: "It appeared that Tony Blair and George Bush had solved the impasse in May, when they announced an agreement in principle that the UK would be given access to the classified details on conditions of strict secrecy. The news was widely seen as evidence that the Prime Minister's close alliance with the American President did have benefits for Britain ... 'If the UK does not obtain the assurances it needs from the US then it should not sign the Memorandum of Understanding covering production, sustainment and follow-on development,' the MPs insisted."
Meh the EF is better anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
from the should-have-read-the-EULA-first dept? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the dept. line for this one. The UK is reading the "EULA" first, and that's why we're threatening to cancel a multi-billion dollar order.
After all, would you leave the ability to maintain your air force in the hands of another nation? (And seriously, even if the order goes ahead, would the US seriously expect the UK to honour some contractual agreement not to install working software in its military aircraft?)
Re:Let them squabble (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad thing is that it has takes three years and almost 3,000 coalition deaths for the military authorities to acknowledge this.
Single battles have gone over 46,000 or 51,000 even... small scuffs can raise several dozen or even a couple hundred. 3,000 is quite a low number for a few months of occupying a country.
Re:Can't they just reformat the planes? (Score:3, Insightful)
All out rejection (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly without this agreement the UK really should simply say no to any involvement, however I would suggest that the UK will still splash out anyway. The entire US/UK Special relationship is pretty much a myth anyway and more to the point it has been regarding foreign policy matters for a long time, placing even more dependence on the US in areas of defence is a bad idea.
There seems to be (in the UK at least) a memory lapse within political circles, that the US has in the past simply not stood with the UK.
The Lack of US support during the Falklands war, and outright opposition to the Suez crisis, should show that the UK cannot rely on US military power to support the UK's own operations and aims, and nor should it. The US will always look after itself, it will only take action when it feels its own perceived interests are involved or if there is sufficient domestic political pressure to do so, and the UK really should follow suit. Frankly that is a sensible position for any nation state to take. The UK governments current position of "follow the US's lead wherever it is demanded" is downright treasonous.
The UK needs to continue to maintain forces, equipment and any other capabilities independently or with allies as long as the UK is capable of maintaining the same, in the absence of their allies. It would be foolhardy to rely on the US (or France/Germany/Italy etc..) for equipment, parts, support, or armaments in the case of war, especially if any of those allies were opposed to the conflict.
The one thing I do feel that is surprising with this scenario is that the US will happily sell the aircraft to the UK. I would have assumed that any sensitive information about the aircraft would be available from the aircraft itself, which of course presents the question as to whether there are either surprises in the software that would give the US any advantage in the unlikely event that these aircraft were used against them. Although ignoring that (slight conspiracy theory) surely it should also raise questions about the quality of the software.
Anyway, I see no reason why the UK cannot simply continue to work on its own or with allies who full trust the UK, rather than be treated as an interloper or a poor cousin by the US.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
So you want them to engage you on your terms so that you destroy can them as you mention? No way! These guerrillas (or insurgents as you call them), are smarter than that.
In fact they are engaging you on their terms and from what I have seen and heard, it's working for them. Again, it's very saddening that the war had to take all these many lives and time, for American military leaders to realize that it's not working.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:2, Insightful)
Only because of restraint. Unleash the military, and you'd have it mopped up quickly. You'd also have no population left, but that's the choice you make.
The US military (and allies) made quick work of Iraq's military, twice. The police action that has followed this second time is more problematic. But that is not a military problem.
Algorithms (Score:3, Insightful)
...are the only thing of value in aerospace code. Once you have seen the implementation (in Ada, most likely) you can re-implement it in a different language and along the way make it very difficult to prove that you ripped it off.
Source Not Theirs To Give (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let them squabble (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, even the ones that can't walk yet. One problem is the troop numbers are far less than the operation in Kuwait and there have been a lot of situations where the best of a bad situation was to shoot everything that moved, and it's easier to count unknown dead bodies than spotting live insurgents first. Unfortunately this turns others against the army and there is this new situation of a seemingly endless supply of suicide bombers. What to do? The British couldn't work it out in Iraq with comparitively bigger forces and a similar technology advantage in 20 years but that doesn't mean there is no answer. The nationalists still see it as a puppet government - if we can work out why that could solve some of the problems. They've had sixteen years of war that sent Iraq into the third world and a long war with Iran before that that drove the nation so broke they invaded Kuwait to do a bank robbery on a national scale - a few more bombs alone are not going to stop them.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern weapon systems do not occupy the country, soldiers do. Occupation is required if you want a friendly regime to take power. Anytime you have a foreign army occupying your streets, there's going to be deaths on both sides. Take away the AKs and give them sporks and you will still see people on both sides die.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, lets maintain the status quo. When I balance up the "equation", Americans do not have much to show for the almost 3,000 coalition lives lost so far. An average of 4 have been killed this month alone. Please pay a visit to http://www.icasulaties.org/ [icasulaties.org] to see what I am talking about.
You want to know which battle the insurgents won in IRAQ? Please have a look at http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_0105 _Fallujah-P1,00.html [military.com] then come back and tell me.
You could also tell me who controls Sadr City now. The only place the US has total control in IRAQ is the Green Zone. That's why the Commander in Chief, and all important US officials will NOT venture outside the Green Zone. To me, that means that someone else and NOT the Americans, are in control in areas outside on the Green Zone.
Re:All out rejection (Score:2, Insightful)
There was quite a bit of US support during the Falklands war. Go ask Lady Thatcher. There wasn't boots on the ground though. You can't honestly tell me that losing the Falklands, a few rocks with a few sheep, was a genuine threat to the UK. It was a threat to the UK's pride though.
and outright opposition to the Suez crisis,
Perhaps the US saw the seizing of the Suez canal by UK and France as against its interests?
Anyway, I see no reason why the UK cannot simply continue to work on its own or with allies who full trust the UK, rather than be treated as an interloper or a poor cousin by the US.
Think that one over. Which countries do you trust more than the US? France? Germany? Spain?
Re:Let them squabble (Score:5, Insightful)
But the thing that puts Americans over the edge is the deaths of their troops? I don't quite understand that logic. Can someone be so kind as to explain that?
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
But... We don't want to give them the source code for the avionics so they can reprogram and update the plane themselves! Most Forgien countries get the "base" version of military hardware... they get the plane, but not all the radar, guns, missles, radios, etc.. but new planes are heavily "fly by wire" we don't want to give them that code... so they can't update the plane. Worse than that they can't prove it's really THEIR plane.. that the US hasn't somehow sabotaged it so that if we might have a security leak they could end up with hacked planes they can't fix... or worse WE could hack the planes so they wouldn't fly if Britian Crossed us. Think "Microsoft Windows Advantage" ....for nuclear weapons!!!!
Re:Why go to war at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
There comes a time when all diplomacy has failed and there is no other choice. The hand has been dealt and the bluffs, raises, and calls have all been made and it is time for one side or the other to lay their last card on the table or else concede defeat. The appeal of last resort to combat and the use of lethal force is the basis for our entire society and thus it remains, for those who elect the way of war, available to us today as the oldest and most final form of dispute resolution. Why go to war at all? Because the other guy refuses to relent and says, "I will see you in hell before I accede to your demands" and it is important enough for you to risk life and limb to get what you want. Admittedly, not many things are that important, but some things are worth fighting for and always remember that he who can destroy a thing controls a thing and that includes our fellow man.
I don't care if you're a liberal, conservative, libertarian, communist, fascist, moderate, or anything else. Regardless of your political beliefs, it has to be admitted that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with justice, freedom, or "weapons of mass destruction". They were merely done to exert increased Western geopolitical influence in central Asia. A major part of this is to counter the ever-growing power of China, but also because of the extensive energy supplies available in the region.
I would characterize myself as a right of center Republican with Libertarian sympathies and I disagree. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, misguided and ill timed though they may be, were most certainly about justice and freedom and, to a lesser extent, WMD and the president has said as much. Should we not at least on this, his beliefs, take him at his word? You can disagree with his decisions and his convictions, but the President thought that war was the only option remaining with a reasonable possibility of actually achieving these goals. You can disagree with that too, but that it is what is great about democracy...we have the right to disagree and make our voices heard. It is because of this freedom that we seek to liberate others because the President believes, as I do, that the best probability for long term peace lies in democracy and freedom. When I say long term peace I mean the kind that President Kennedy spoke of following the Cuban Missile Crisis,
"What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."
We do not fight to occupy and oppress or to steal natural resources or to subdue and destroy merely for own security. It is indeed unfortunate that certain people, namely Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and all who support the mission of terror have decided to force our hand in these matters, but we are not likely to achieve the sort of lasting peace that Kennedy spoke of when there are men like this loose in the world bent on the ultimate destruction of our way of life.
Now I know that you will argue that they fight us because they say that they want us out of the Middle East and I take them at their word that they do indeed want us out of the Middle East, but what do you suppose that they will do when we are gone? Will they be satisfied with the restoration of the Islamic caliphate, the oppression of their women, and the brutal imposition of Sharia law or will they turn their eyes next towards Europe and ultimately the United States? Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to allow this menace to grow and sustain itself in the Middle East in exchange for a
Someone's been watching Battlestar Galactica (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't blame the brits at all. I certainly wouldn't trust the US military not to make
Re:All out rejection (Score:3, Insightful)
There was quite a bit of US support during the Falklands war. Go ask Lady Thatcher. There wasn't boots on the ground though. You can't honestly tell me that losing the Falklands, a few rocks with a few sheep, was a genuine threat to the UK. It was a threat to the UK's pride though.
Not true - Some members of the US Government saw it as in the US's Interest to side with the UK, and some wanted to remain neutral, others believed that they needed to back Argentina to prevent further communist expansion in South America. So in this instance the US did not, openly support the UK, nor push the UK's case in diplomatic efforts. As for being a threat to the UK, I assume that in your opinion it is OK for a country, run by a military dictatorship, (at that time) supported by the US, and an aggressor to invade another countries territory? Under the circumstances I don't see what options other than retaking the Falklands, the UK had.
Perhaps the US saw the seizing of the Suez canal by UK and France as against its interests?
Indeed, that is correct they did see it as counter to US interests, however the point I am making is that we should not blindly assume that the US will support the UK, so lets assume that a similar situation arose and the UK was reliant on the US to keep its military aircraft working, but the US decides that the UK cannot have the modifications / updates or whatever the UK requires - that is in the US interest, but counter to the UK one. In essence, you are making my point here.
Think that one over. Which countries do you trust more than the US? France? Germany? Spain?
I don't think that the who do you trust "more" argument is valid, I (or rather the UK) shouldn't *need* to trust anyone, but since you are asking; I would trust Germany and Belgium more than the US. Frankly France has interests closer to those of the UK than the US, so again considering that, I would trust France more than the US. (although France like the US will only do what she perceives is in her own interest, so that "trust" would require regular review, just as it should with the US). If nothing else at least these states have a global outlook that is more aligned with the UK, even if it diverges occasionally. I think that it is clear that the UK need to follow most of the rest of the world, and get back to being self reliant, and formulating its own foreign policy, not taking orders and instructions from, or relying on a foreign power.
Re:Source Not Theirs To Give (Score:3, Insightful)
Precisely. And you do realize that BAE is a British company, right? (The B in the name used to stand for British) In other words, America is not telling a British company that it's not allowed to sell the source code it co-developed to its own government...
Re:Falklands (Score:4, Insightful)
Its interesting, I have read that the US actively tried to dissuade the UK from its plans for an invasion as there was a belief that it would cause problems for the (US supported) military dictatorship that was running Argentina at the time, the US hoped that there could be an alternative solution, one that could be acceptable to both the UK and Argentina, - with both giving ground. Remember that they US officially remains neutral as to the sovereignty of the Falkland islands.
That is hardly giving "loads of support", but it was appreciated. My point is that the US felt it could not outright support the UK, as it had interests in the region, and those interests were at least of equal importance as the UK.
The situation with the Suez crisis is probably better as an indicator of UK and US interests clashing, but the fact remains, the UK cannot trust the US, if the UK's actions are not in the US's interests.
As such, the UK should not be reliant upon the US for any defensive or offensive military capability especially if the US does not trust the UK sufficiently to give the UK access to the software that has any bearing on that capability that
Re:Let them squabble (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just the point, isn't it. The outcome of 'battles' is a metric for conventional war, and a bad measuring stick for uncoventional/asymetric war.
One side can claim all the battle victories they want, but if the other side is not fighting battles (nor has any interest in doing so) then the claim of victory is meaningless. How many conventional battles did Geronimo win? Is he revered as a tactical genius because fought on his enemy's terms or because he tied up massive numbers of troops while continuing to raid and elude capture for 30 years?
The greatest mistake the US makes about Iraq (other than being there in the first place) is thinking that it is about battles and direct confrontations, or imagining that once troops are in a town then that town is 'held'.
American troops can raise all the flags they want in all the provincial outposts they want but it will do very little good when the 'enemy' simply melts away, returning sporadically to disrupt supply lines and make actual administration impossible. Raising a flag only means something when the local population recognizes the flag as symbolic of control and submits accordingly. Geronimo did not, Ho Chi Minh did not, and the internecine groups in Iraq do not
As long as the US keeps thinking that this fight in Iraq is about territorial control (particularly when the US military cannot even control Bagdhad), they are destined for failure. The insurgents don't need to control cities. They don't need to win or even fight battles. As long as they disrupt the business of running a military occupation and survive, they achieve their goals. Strike and evade, strike and evade. There's no need to hold any particular ground since they have far more ground on which to hide than the occupier can possibly cover.
And the harder the US tries to hit them, the more collateral damage is done; the more collateral damage, the stronger the insurgent groups are supported. The more support they have, the more sophisticated their attacks become and the easier it becomes to melt away and evade the counterattack (which of course does more collateral damage and begins the cycle anew).
If insurgent groups in Iraq were dumb enough to stand together and fight the occupying US Army head on, of course they would be obliterated. But the situation is far more analogous (though by no means akin) to that of competing gangs -- their real beef is with each other. One or another side may try to use the police (the occupiers or their puppets) as intermediaries to get at their enemy but only as a means to an end, and without trust. The intermediaries are disposable, and subject to attack at any time.
Such is the nature of occupations, and why they rarely work out.
Note: My sympathies go out to all those in uniform in Iraq. I truly believe that the vast majority of you are good people (and those that aren't weren't before they were sent there). You have sacrificed far beyond what you were asked to, and have served well and admirably. I only wish that those who sent you were compelled to learn from your experience, and forced to undergo the same danger and hardships to at least understand and appreciate your stories.
Re:I was really outraged myself (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:from the should-have-read-the-EULA-first dept? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's fascinating that you, and Mr. Blair, make a big deal of this - without mentioning that the UK's strategic deterrent is already in the hands of another country. The U.K. is utterly dependent on the U.S. for software and spares for the Trident-II submarines.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
The smart thing to have done would have been to leave Iraq completely shortly after capturing Hussein, turn him over to be executed, and to let the various Iraqi factions kill each other to their hearts content. Instead, Bush chose to keep troops there "until the nation was stable". Big mistake.
If you're going to forcibly stabilize another country (which I don't recommend), you have to actually be FORCEFUL. That means eliminating whomever opposes you quickly and decisively, shrugging off civilian casualties and international opinion. Right now, the US is trying to do it "nicely", which simply doesn't work. The different factions just laugh at the US soldiers knowing that they aren't authorized to do anything that will really have an effect, or even effectively defend themselves.
Whenever US troops do take a major action, civilians are killed and citizens are horrified. Occasionally a few soldiers get pissed, go crazy, and kill innocents, and citizens are horrified. It's like fighting a small dog. You can easily kill it, but everyone will hate you for doing it. You can try to capture it without hurting it, but you'll get bitten a lot and everyone will laugh their ass off at you.
Re:from the should-have-read-the-EULA-first dept? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fascinating that you, and Mr. Blair, make a big deal of this - without mentioning that the UK's strategic deterrent is already in the hands of another country. The U.K. is utterly dependent on the U.S. for software and spares for the Trident-II submarines.
Because of course - making the same mistake twice is a good idea.....
Re:All out rejection (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw the UK as more of a partner in this, and this is a pretty poor way to treat your partner. If they're not a partner, then they should buy the planes (if they want to) when the US actually has a product to sell. All in all, it would seem they would be better served by participating in a project with countries they share a close economic AND military alliance with.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Can't they just reformat the planes? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a bit of a "keep our own defense industries viable", which comes down to a technology and job protection program (and probably much more important in British politics than even in the US).
The sad part of it is that Britain is probably the US' last firm ally in the world right now. With Britain wanting to upgrade its nuclear missile submarine program in a few years, what are they going to do then if we are still being so schizoid, buy their nukes from France? I bet that Britain shared the World's Deadliest Joke with the US. Only it wouldn't have worked on people here who would have worked on it (hence, safe for US to translate it into other languages), because we have no sense of humor, or at least one that includes wordplay, sarcasm and irony and doesn't include swearing or racial slurs.
Re:Why go to war at all? (Score:1, Insightful)
>"..., his beliefs,..."
Or his cover story?
Re:Why go to war at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
--John Quincy Adams
Re:Let them squabble (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's be careful with blanket statements. Anyone who's spent more than 15 minutes studying the military history of the late 20th century knew damn well that Iraq was going to turn into a guerrilla nightmare. You can be assured that the military academy graduates who run the US armed forces fall into that category.
One of the problems with being a senior military officer in a democracy is having to say, "Can do, Sir!" with a smile on your face when your civilian leadership asks you to carry out an order. Even when you know those orders are stupid.
Re:Why go to war at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a minority of about 20 to 30 percent of americans who would rather enjoy killing ten million iraqis but since most americans would revolt at the thought it would be political suicide.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:5, Insightful)
In the first place, not enough troops were sent to occupy Iraq. Then the Pentagon disbanded the Iraqi Army and ripped apart the Ba'athist infrastructure leaving a lot of *trained guys running around with grudges against the US military. Privatisation of occupation duties plus lack of control (for the sake of "efficiency") has led to rampant corruption - http://lrb.co.uk/v28/n21/harr04_.html [lrb.co.uk] This has led to an almost complete failure by US corporations to restore Iraqi infrastructure.
Let's face it, the US Main Stream Media has been controlled and castrated for years now - see the NY Times and it's suppression of the wire-tapping. The US military embedded journalists so as to control them. I see you're polling for control of the internet as well. How much does it take for you to say that the US fucked up? You sound almost like these guys: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/
As for the justness of this war, the sheer number of so-called honest people telling us lies in order to get us to go to war have been astounding. Weapons of mass destruction? Non-existent. Uranium? ditto. Saddam and Al Qaeda? Wrong. In the US, the neo-cons have even gone to the extreme of committing crimes (re: Valerie Plame) in order to justify this war. In the UK, the pressures of this power has forced an honest man to commit suicide. If the need to go to war was that just, why all this pressure?
And I have to say that the current US intransigence towards their supposedly closest ally smacks of, at the least, ingratitude. Brits are currently dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan, paying in blood for a "speicial relationship" which is being revealed as worthless when push comes shove. In contrast, I bet the US would hand the code over to the Israelis in a similar situation.
Re:All out rejection (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, the supply of missiles to the UK from the US is something that I wasn't aware of, mainly as it doesn't seem to be something that is common knowledge. Given that most of the history I have seen of that conflict and the various commentaries of US involvement seem to stop at the point were there is a discussion of America's ability to assist (due to treaty obligations and the Monroe doctrine), I would suggest that I made a mistake, and will happily agree that the US did, support the UK in the Falklands.
Your treatment of the Suez Crisis is facile. While you pan the United States, I don't see that the Commonwealth was particularly warm to the UK action in the Suez Crisis either.
As for that, the point of my post was to indicate that the UK should not rely on the US for military support as when the UK wishes to act in a manner which is not in the US interest, (just as the US may wish to act in a manner that is not in the UK interest) she should still be in a position to do so.
Who does the US share nuclear weapons secrets with?
As you have so eloquently pointed out above, the US shares nuclear secrets with the UK, if the US is willing to do that then why would they stop at providing the source code for aircraft?My point is simple, The UK should not be reliant on another power, who may or may not support the UK in future, this source code issue is a major one, as it implies a lack of trust.
The US is doing what it can to help the UK in one of the key battles of it's existence: the battle for Londonistan. Maybe it's just a selfish act to avoid ending up as America Alone.
The UK has fought terrorism in various guises for a long time, I dont think that any terrorist group is going to threaten the existence of the UK, although our politicians seem to be intent on destroying our way of life to help fight that same threat. Moreover I doubt that the terrorist threat to the UK (and indeed to the US) would be as great as it is apparently at the moment, if the US and UK had not invaded Iraq. An invasion that was supported by the UK, but not in my opinion, in her national interest (any more than say invading Sudan, Uzbekistan, Somalia, or anywhere else where there is a dictator, or cruelty by the state against the population), .The invasion of Afghanistan was sensible and needed, but I would question the benefits and rationality of invading Iraq.
As for the Londonistan reference, it generally worries me when people start believing media hype and inciting fear where it is not required. The UK is a multi-cultural society, and frankly it works quite well, not without exception given recent events, but considerably better than the view given by both our media and that of the US. There seems to be rather too much of the Muslim == Terrorist mindset (and worse the non-Muslim/foreign looking != Terrorist), and the press are happy to replay it at every opportunity, all that achieves is false fears, and alienation.
Anyway, I digress, I have a question for you, would the US buy British Harriers if the UK refused the US access to the avionics and weapons system software?
It appears you mistook my post as an attack on the US, - it wasn't, it was an argument against over reliance on the US, and the blind acceptance of US foreign policy, both of which are something the UK already does far to much of.
Re:Someone's been watching Battlestar Galactica (Score:3, Insightful)
My recollection is that the US dropped all plans for war against Canada in the 1920s or 1930s.
Up until recently, the DoD still maintained battle plans for a potential war against Britain.
I would love to see a source on this as I highly doubt that the US has had any actual plans for a war against the UK since the 1920-30s, if not before then. I would be willing to believe that the US had plans to invade the UK to liberate it in the event that a German invasion plan, such as Operation Sea Lion [amazon.com], had been successful, but that is war against Germans in the UK, not against the UK. I could possibly see there being a similar plan in the event that the former Soviet Union had dropped all six of its airborne divisions and added its couple of division equivalents of naval infantry regiments against the UK in a sort of super Red Storm Rising [amazon.com], but once again, this is war against enemy forces in the UK, not against the UK. I doubt that any plans against a German or Soviet occupation of the UK got past the formative stage, unless they were purely for exercises since the German threat passed and the Soviet threat was very unlikely. Or, have I been trolled?
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't they just reformat the planes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Still bitter about Iraq 1. We (the UK) lost more troops to "US cowboys" than Iraqis. Bah.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:1, Insightful)
The notion of "foreigner" is quaint and should be abandoned. The instinct to defend our "tribe" is there, but you must remember that the US was supposedly invading Iraq to "liberate" the population from the oppressive government. It then has a really bad smell to kill 2.5% of said population. Myself I feel a stronger allegiance to my family and friends than to national borders. My friends have perhaps 50 different nationalities. Don't kill my friends, please.
And let's not forget that Bush did this for Halliburton and oil. Just like Vietnam, a US president started something that was bigger than he could not control.
I don't really think there is (Score:3, Insightful)
Let us suppose for a moment it was reversed and the Iraqi army had invaded the US. You might have really hated Bush, you might have gone to protests against him, but I can't quite imagine US citizens welcoming in an invading force.
My best guess would be that the US hoped to get what they had in Iraq - puppet government to control their people, given the tools and blind-eye to do so by the US (in return for smoothly flowing oil).
The entire argument that the intention was merely to bring democracy is obvious jive. Take for example the recent elections in Palestine (which were considered to be free and fair) - the democratically elected government there was fair less corrupt than the PLO, but as the democratically elected view of the country moved away from desired US policy funded was halted (EU did the same). This was funding for hospitals etc and the lack of is is accepted as causing deaths of civilians.
You can only draw the conclusion that the stopping of funding was to punish the country for electing the 'wrong' democracy. While this punishment for voting the wrong way continues, I cannot see how any election result produced can be considered democratic.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:4, Insightful)
very true. As I recall my history there was another army that was absolutely devestating when fought on its own terms. That was the british army in the days of cavalry and muskets. We even built a sizeable empire around it (and our navy). That army even defeated the supposudly unstoppable napoleon.
Then some people in one of our colonies learned to fight us on their terms. As I recall, they didnt march out with flags to meet us like gentlemen on the field of battle, but would ambush us.
The effect was devestating, and that army won. In fact they kicked us back to our own country and declared independence.
I believe its now called the united states of america.
Its amazing how many empires there have been, the greeks, the romans, the british, the french, we have all controlled vast empires through military might at one stage. And we have all learned the futility of relying purely on force of arms to maintain control of foreign countries.
I guess it's impossible to accept that lesson when you *are* the current military top dog. It took humiliation of our army to learn that lesson. I'd rather the US learned it without having to lose any more of its own servicemen.
Re:from the should-have-read-the-EULA-first dept? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Score:2, Insightful)
Kirk stalls, claiming difficulty in retrieving the data. This allows Kirk and Spock precious moments to retrieve the Reliant's security access prefix code from the Enterprise's computers. The transmitted code lowers the Reliant's shields, allowing the Enterprise to use its last bit of phaser power to damage the Reliant enough to force its retreat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wr
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
What lunatic thought *that* could work? It will have had exactly the opposite effect.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
Our goal in the first Gulf War wasn't to make the Iraqi people suffer, but to cripple the Iraqi war machine. Armored vehicles and supply trucks generally need bridges to cross deep water, and wars don't go well without them. Supply trucks and many military units need roads. Roads that have craters from bombs make for slow driving, assuming you can do it at all. Aircraft need landing strips to fly and fight. Airport landing strips are unusable with craters on the runway. Military units that can't move, fly, or fight are going to fail. Factories making ammunition, weapons, spare parts, and other essentials for war don't get work done without electricity. Government workers without electricity for light and computers aren't very producctive. The Coalition forces went out of their way to avoid damaging protected classes of targets. What you've written is false.
It wasn't we who killed Iraqis due to sanctions; it was Saddam. If Saddam hadn't abused the Oil for Food [nationalreview.com] program to buy weapons and build palaces instead of buying food, far fewer Iraqis would have died. If you have 10 kids and spend all of your paycheck on booze and drugs, whose fault is it if your kids are starving? Is it your fault, or your employer's?
Economic control (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point: the Tet offensive. Technically, we won that campaign. But we lost the war largely as a result. The North Vietnamese and VC weren't supposed to be able to do that kind of anymore. We didn't lose. We found out that most of the progress we'd thought we made wasn't real.
When the enemy knows our history better than you do, you're in trouble.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:2, Insightful)
What would G.W call a victory? A stable country? There never will be a stable country given sectarian divides and a lust for power, with or without American troops. Saddam kept it stable using tyranny to repress the Shiite desire to rule (the doctrines of that sect are political by nature). We cannot do the same. In addition, we cannot be satisfied with stability if it involves a shiite theocracy that crushes the other groups into submission.
Weird thing about dictatorships is: people come to accept them, to be content with them. War wakes the ambitions in people up. To succeed, we need to crush those ambitions and force our version of "democratic" government on the citizens, then be ready to go back and do it again if needed.
Of course, that is a kind of success we could do without.
Re:I don't really think there is (Score:2, Insightful)
In the case of the Palestinians, the US fully supports their right to democracy, and in fact supports a full state for the Palestinians. That does not obligate the US to financially support a Hamas government that refuses to recognize that Israel should have those same rights.
There's no reason to believe that democracy should come without responsibility or accountability. The people and leadership of democracies must decide where their own interests lie. The Palestinians were faced with such a choice, and unfortunately for both them and the rest of the world, their options were lousy. On the one hand was the corruption of Fatah, and on the other hand was the anti-peace agenda of Hamas.
I don't blame the Palestinians for trying to end the corruption. But neither to I blame the US for refusing to support Hamas when it refuses to work for peace.
One can only hope that in time, democratic pressure will either force Fatah to clean itself up in order to regain power, or will force Hamas to work towards a settlement in order to stay in power.
Re:Why go to war at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Show him the permanent seat the United States has on the UN Security Council.
"Show him a stealth bomber."
Show him the European bases they operate from.
"Explain to him the functioning of a nuclear weapon."
Show him the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
"Show him a video of a Jihadi."
Show him US support for the House of Saud and Saddam Hussein.
"THEN see what he says."
Re:All out rejection (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let them squabble (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ada? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the DoD never really "used" Ada. There was a mandate for a while. Some programs used Ada during this time. Most did not.
There was lots of talk about it and in general it was a success (though Ada initially was somewhat ahead of its time and it clearly showed).
When programs failed for a variety of reasons, people would try to point to the Mandate, Ada, their dogs or anything. Eventually, the mandate was repealed and replaced with a saner DoD statement that said "Just figure out what the right thing is to do on each job.". Which then got interpreted as "Quick thou shall use C, I mean C++, I mean C#, I mean Python" or whatever the flavor of the day was. Contracts still come in and have mandated languages.
DoD software was and is a mess largely because:
People who know very little about software try to force policies without really understanding anything about software.
There is a constant belief that the COTS world knows what they are doing so we need to do what they are doing (but DoD software is always 5-10 years behind commercial software now so they pick things up just after they have been abandoned by the commercial world.
95% of all software is a mess.
I have not seen any requests for proposal mandate Ada in about 10 years. Some new projects still select it for new development. Most seem to have forgotten that it even exists. There is a new Ada standard getting ready to be released (Actually, the standard has been available for a while but it takes a while to get things through the ISO board). There was a pretty good overview of its new features in Crosstalk magazine a few months ago: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2006/08/inde x.html [af.mil]
In any case, the vast majority of JSF software is indeed C++. There is some Ada 95 in some places but it is the exception rather than the rule and seems to be limited to safety critical areas of JSF.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is thinking you can use an f16 to shoot a guy with an ak47.
The most expensive code in the world (Score:3, Insightful)
That's dummer than Dumbya on a bad day. Scratch that, that's the dumbest shit ever.
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
I will get modded to hell for this, but here we go....
The populace is angry because Saddam (who, don't get me wrong, was a complete mental case) was about the only thing stopping the country descending into all-out civil war. The US have gone in, removed the complete mental case with no plan as to how they will prevent the descent into all-out civil war, and now are finding it hard work because there's angry locals everywhere they look. Well surprise surprise. Wonder why they're angry?
Re:Why go to war at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about if you people stopped the shinny-eyed self-delusion that the US will use it's power for some abstract "greater good" and once and for all admitted that the US does (like all other countries) use it's power for it's own good (in the case of Iraq that would be stability of the US oil supplies).
History is full death and destruction when the greed of some was dressed in the grand, fine clothes of noble objectives - it seems that some people either never learn or keep believing everybody else is ignorant and dumb.
It's not just the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
We're planning on renewing our air-force by buying some new figther-planes, and it looks as if Eurofigther, SAS-Gripen and the JSF are the most likely candidates.
The first suggestion from the US was that we'd not even be allowed to *see* the sourcecode for the JSF under NDA. I think that may have gotten resolved, but being allowed to *change* anything is out of the question.
It's ridicolous. Why would any sovereign nation accept buying military material where they're *dependant* on a foreign power for even trivial bugfixes ?
Re:Let them squabble (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wondering, is it possible in your worldview for a three year old child to be "enemy"?