Also, liberal defense writers are usually so wrong in many ways that it disgusts me. And their Pentagon contacts are usually disaffected personnel looking to gripe. Personally, if they're military personnel, they're doing a lousy F-ing job if they're shooting their mouth off to civilians. There are plent of other more proper channels they could use. The version of the EP-3 info I'm getting is from the Navy Times. I don't know, maybe the Pentagon is covering their ass. But if you ask me, I see no reason why the crew WOULDN'T have done what they said they did(sabotage ELINT gear), as they had plenty of time to do it too. And when I corrobrate the incident with what I've heard from pilots who've had encounters with the PLAAF, I tend to believe it really was an accident and the PLAAF pilot just screwed up.

Ok what I think happened with the EP-3 was that yes, the collision was an accident. But look, after the fact, are you really going to want to land in China? Especially since you are US Navy officer, not some reporter from CBS, and you know that China is an undeclared enemy? And I remember how the administration lied, and originally told the press that the EP-3 had not received the latest block upgrades, but months later were forced to admit that indeed, the Chinese HAD gotten the ultra-modern stuff. Some of it got destroyed, I'm sure. But all of it? We know that the Chinese did make one quick discovery - that the EP-3s carried operators and equipment that had the ability to recognize important Chinese military officers by their voice alone. This resulted in Chinese countermeasures. We'll never know the real story, but the results ARE known. China took many loads of equipment off that plane, embarrassed the US for almost 2 weeks, interogated a US flight crew they held as POWs, and even sent the US a bill for services rendered for the whole affair. It was a jump in global prestige for the US, and it made the US look weak. And brace yourself - The United States official policy is that Taiwan is a part of China. There are no formal diplomatic contacts or embassies between the US and Taiwan, and Taiwanese leaders are not allowed to visit the US for diplomatic activities. The US actually has an agreement with China that we will not supply Taiwan with advanced weaponry. The Taiwan Relation Act and this agreement are actually juxtaposed, but lawyers somehow rationalize it all. Check out the CIA World Factbook and you will not see Taiwan listed with the rest of the world's countries, but it is tacked on at the end. Nor is it refered to as the Republic of China. Taiwan is not recognized at the United Nations. Taiwan, as far as the world is legally concerned, is a part of China, not an independent nation. I realize this is completely disingenuous but the world is able to abide many abhorent twists of logic. Where terrorism is concerned, the time to sit back and do nothing has run out. What was the rationale' (the stated one, anyway) for Bush attacking Iraq? That Iraq had WMD, was close to nukes, and Iraq was a terrorist sponsor and could transfer the WMDs to terrorists. Now, of course, Bush won't tell us where the weapons really are (Syria and the Bekaa Valley). But who is the greater terrorist nation, Iraq or Iran? And we know Iran has chemical and bio weapons but the big deal with WMDs, as defense watchers know, is nukes. And Iran is far closer to them than Iraq ever was. Iran will have WMD THIS YEAR, and then everything will have changed. North Korea is proving that terrorist nations, once they acquire nuclear weapons, can remain immune to American power and even blackmail the US for great concessions. We should be dealing with this problem right now - instead the president has behaved timidly in order not to upset his reelection chances. And once terrorists get nuclear weapons, we have a real problem. Why? Because then ANYONE can set off a nuke in the US and then, considering how a nuke doesn't leave much forensic evidence of the culprit, "terrorism" can be used as the scapegoat. The quickest way to Armageddon is to allow gangster-radical states like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. With North Korea having them it may already be too late. Hey, that's probably the argument Bush's advisors are giving him - the genie is already out of the bottle so we need to develop a workable "inducement package" to pay off countries that want and make nukes.

Yeah, I know we don't officially recognize Taiwan. However, we have officially also stated that we will protect Taiwan from mainland aggression as well. That's just nice wording to keep the PRC from throwing another infatile tantrum. We HAVE sold Taiwan advanced weapons, they had F-86s and Sidewinders almost as soon as the two came out, and we're giving them new AEGIS ships, slightly scaled down, as a response to their missile tests. The problem which you don't seem to get with attacking either Syria or Iran, or any other terrorist sponsor, is that such a move would completely alienate the entire Arab community, without exception. At least in Iraq, Saddam was an object of revulsion throughout the entire world save a few wackos, but Iran has the popular support of the Arab community. There's also Iran's political situation. If you pay attention to reports from that region, the reform movement is growing in strength, by playing within the system. Unlike Iraq, there is a possibility for change from within in Iran.

No, the reform is not growing stronger in Iran. That is what US government apologists keep explaining to us, but Islamic hardliners are solidifying their grip on power. Iran recently held national elections, and the reformist candidates were disqualified from running before they took place. Iran is not about to fall to a revolution. Student protests have been violently suppressed, but Western media never reports on Islamic atrocities. I agree that any further action against Middle Eastern Islamic states is going to cause loud bellyaching across the region. What are we trying to do, stop terrorism or win friends? I am not a fool. Our leaders are. Islam specifically permits lying to advance Islamic agendas. Therefore, any nation that makes any agreement with Islamists is acting foolishly. You know the old joke - Muslims are very nice and hospitable people - until they kill you. Look how Saudi Arabia has stabbed us in the back. And we gave them E-3s. Nice. We need to decide - do we want New York exploding into the atmosphere, or do we want to deal a death blow to terrorist states. Here is a message every Muslim would understand. "We have the capability to kill you all. We will remove your radical leaders. Raise them up again and we will demonstrate our will to kill you all." I tell you, there are many arguing right now that the next time so much as a hand grenade goes off in America, we should nuke Medina and tell them "you have one more chance - Mecca still stands." It seems absurd, but the reality is that Muslim radicals bent on world domination seeking nuclear weapons present a problem that cannot be managed with greasy Western diplomacy. I remember the airport killings in the 80s. Bombings, hijackings, cruise-ship killings, little girls lying dead in the Rome and Vienna airports. Cold War or not, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Libya should have been dealt with then. Because they were not, and because history has taught radical Islamists that terrorism has no serious consequences for its state perpetrators, we are in our current situation. It will get worse. They must be stopped - before nukes become abundant in the hands of these madmen. One quick note: Taiwan is not going to get its hands on Aegis. Taiwan is getting 4 Kidd-class DDGs. They were built in the late 70s I think. Taiwan MAY get PAC-3s. Hell, Bush only recently allowed them to actually take possession of the AMRAAMs they bought. I guess they figured out AA-12s and Flankers mean "bye-bye" to F-16s armed with Sparrows. They are never going to get the subs. They are getting Mk 48s, not 48 ADCAPS. In short, they get export versions of everything. That would be fine, except they face comparable Russian equipment of the non-export variety.

Well I'll quit now as this is beginning to degenerate into a geopolitics thread. I don't like discussing geopolitics as I'm not a world historian, and I hate relying solely on CNN/BBC for my current affairs information. With your remaining points, I agree to say I can't prove you wrong, or even that I'm right, as it's all rather subjective information. How the hell do I know the political situation in Iran?

Well, look, war is primarily a political enterprise in these times. At least we can agree that the current force levels of the US military are insufficient to maintain American military commitments and handle anything else. No harm done I hope.

Well, yes war is political. Which is why I'd rather not go into discussing where or how likely it is that we'd fight. But yes, I agree our current force levels aren't enough.

I think the following ideas should be taken into account when discussing troop strength. The problem America has today is not an insufficient military. It is a soft population. The American people would flip out if three whole divisions of Guards were mobilized to secure Iraq. 9/11 made attacking Iraq and Afghanistan feasible. If in the summer of 2001 Bush (or Clinton in the 90’s) had given Afghanistan an ultimatum to turn over Al Quadea or face an invasion; Congress would have Impeached and found the President guilty immediately. The President is getting resistance to limited Guard call ups now. I cannot fathom what would happen if he called up another five or ten divisions to take on Iran or Syria.

Oops. I mentioned Syria and Iran because I am pretty sure that Darth thinks that should happen immediately. I did some analysis and found about 20,000 infantry that could be trained quickly. Anything else would obviously take a couple of years. The US currently has approximately 5,000 troops in Kosovo, these need to be replaced by NATO immediately. I could only find the following missions besides Korea that the Army is involved in. 1500 in Guantanamo 700 in the Siani peninsula watching Egypt and Israel. 1,000 or so in the Horn of Africa There are probably a couple of thousand training in other countries at any given time. I have counted 6 separate (unattached) artillery brigades in the active army. I have read that around 10,000 artillerymen at the Corp level are being integrated into existing divisions. Artillery is not as needed now as it was in the mid eighties. Four of the existing separate artillery brigades should be converted to Stryker Infantry. Converting these corp and brigade units should provide another 30,000 infantry without affecting any reasonable amount of artillery support.

Think about what you're saying. The active exists so we don't NEED to call the Guard except in emergencies. THREE divisions is a LOT of people...all of them with day jobs. And those employees, by federal mandate, are guaranteed their jobs when they come back. Now, I'm all for the Guard as an institution, but if you deploy that mnay Guardsmen, you'll degrade support for the military(what little there is left anyway) in the country, and the economy will head straight into the crapper. Rational thinking says it's more important to keep the economy strong at the risk of terrorist attack(which is fairly limited as it is), rather than destroy your own economy. Actions like major Guard callups to unprovokely attack foreign nations would be winning the war on terror for the terrorists. Btw Darth Squirrel, I just remembered, you should read up on the Reagan years. We bitch slapped the Iranians in Operation Praying Mantis for messing with the flow of oil, we kicked Qaddafi in the nuts for being a general pain in the ass(which shut him up), and we forced down the Abu Nidal jet. We haven't exactly been taking it sitting down.