The U.S. military spokesman at Bagram, Lieutenant-Colonel Roger King, said the tests were routine practice.Posted on 10/22/2002 9:55:42 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
BAGRAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) - The U.S. army carried out live-fire exercises using Apache attack helicopters in Afghanistan Tuesday and said the aircraft could have an important role in any war on Iraq.
The Apache, the U.S. military's primary attack helicopter, was widely used against Iraqi air defenses at the start of the 1991 Gulf War.
The test-firing of its Hellfire missile system was carried out near Bagram air base, the U.S. military headquarters north of Kabul. Apaches fired three of the laser-guided missiles, worth around $45,000 each, at targets in hills around the base.
The U.S. military spokesman at Bagram, Lieutenant-Colonel Roger King, said the tests were routine practice.
"I imagine if there was going to be an attack (on Iraq)...that Apaches would play a part in it," he said. "But the Apaches that we have here have a function in Afghanistan."
"As far as I know, they are staying here in Afghanistan, but they still have to maintain the efficiency of their weapons systems."
Operations officer Major Don Fallon said the Hellfire system proved effective in the Gulf War.
"I know there had been some discussion about Iraqi operations, but we haven't been read in on any of that. Our focus is still on Operation Enduring Freedom."
He was referring to the operation involving U.S. and coalition troops pursuing remnants of Afghanistan's former Taliban regime and fugitive Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, which the U.S. blames for the September 11 attacks.
The U.S. military has said any attack on Iraq would not affect its Afghan mission. However, there has been speculation that some forces might need to be switched to Iraq.
King said six Harrier jump jets had arrived at Bagram and were preparing for combat operations in Afghanistan. He said this would allow quicker responses than if they were based on an aircraft carrier.
Asked if the planes were brought in to free up carriers for possible operations against Iraq, he replied: "What we do is voice a requirement to the navy and the air force for air support. How they decide it is up to them. They decided they wanted to put Harriers here as part of their commitment."
Then I encourage you to form a regiment of like minded souls and hightail it over there and make sure things meet your personal satisfaction. I'm tired of paying to protect assets that aren't mine.
We squat troops on countries all over the Middle East. Locals attack the 'foriegn' troops they see helping prop up the local dictatorships. That doesn't get much response, so they attack the civilians that support those troops. That gets some attention.
Instead of realizing it's not the purpose of the U.S. military to defend every dictator that befriends the White House we find ourselves increasing those commitments. George Washington's Farewell Address has never been more relevant!
Osama Bin Laden set a big, fat tar baby down in front of the U.S. when he pulled off 9/11. With the hope of drawing us far enough in to make us pay attention to the fact we don't want to be there in the first place.
Now Freepers are talking about sending troops to Lebanon? Do you remember why we left!?!
Tell me, if the Mohammedans placed thousands and thousands of troops in the U.S. would YOU quit fighting them? Why do you expect them to?
After the billions of taxpayer dollars we've poured into the Middle East 'peace process', not to mention wars and troop deployments and after the thousands of lives we've lost since we decided to put troops in the middle of that mess - what has America gained? What's the benefit to us in exchange for the emnity of homicidal mystics?
If you're going to tell me it's oil, I got news for you:
In 2001 the United States economy consumed ~19.4 million barrels of oil per day. At the current price price of ~$25 that comes to a shade over 177 billion dollars spent on oil in the United States. Now, of that oil a little over half is imported. Of the half that is imported about one quarter comes from the Middle East. (Over half of our imported oil comes from the Western Hemisphere.) So, we taxpayers funded a military to the tune of ~$279 Billion (Bush wants $343 Billion next year) in order to protect "business interests" that only amounts to ~23 billion dollars to the U.S.?
Do you consider that wise? Whose investment are we protecting here?
Can someone explain why we have to position targets in front of these maniacal mystics?
I think the story here is that these weapons would have been handled by normal ground crews, on normal helicopters, flown and fired by normal pilots. IOW, the missiles are all but operational, and this is training for folks who would be using them.
Unprovoked in what sense? He sees American troops helping prop up an oppressive dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and fights against it as he did in Afghanistan when the Russians tried to prop up their own oppressive puppet government. Those U.S. troops aren't defending liberty and freedom in Saudi Arabia. That govt. violates our own principles. Those troops aren't defending the Constitution of the United States by being in Saudi Arabia. So I ask again, why are they there? We're making targets out of the young men and women who signed up to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the king of some pissant desert dictatorship.
Furthermore, how would retreating from our policies after 9/11 do anything but show the cowards who planned this attack anything but weakness?
So it was weakness, not good sense, that led Ronald Reagan to pull U.S. troops out of Lebanon after locals attacked and killed 240 of them?
If you stop a bad policy, is that cowardly?
I'm sorry, but the more applicable lesson here is Munich, 1938.
At Munich Britain and France gave away portions of another country (not represented at the talks) to appease a tyrant looking for an excuse to embark on war. How does that in any way parallel what is happening in the Middle East? Is anyone advocating giving Saddam Hussein Kuwait if he promises "that's all I want"? Is he even demanding that he be given part of another country?
We have no choice in this situation - if we do not fight, if we do not back our allies, then the terrorists and the likes of Saddam Huseein will win, and when they DO threaten us, we face a longer, deadlier, and more costly war to end that threat.
Why is it our war? They want us to get our troops out of their countries. It is because we have ignored George Washington's advice in his Farewell Address that we find ourselves stationing troops in these countries and then fighting these fanatics. Why does MAD work for Stalin, but not Saddam Hussein? They're cut from the same cloth. Their biggest interest is in their own well being and hold on power.
Our interventionist foriegn policy in the Middle East has thus far cost us billions of dollars annually(with no end in sight to the spending), it has cost us thousands of American lives, it has cost us liberties at home, and has served to gain U.S. citizens the emnity of the region. For what? What has this policy, concocted and carried out by American politicians, done to benefit the Americans who bear it's price?
I'm of the opinion the U.S. military exists to uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States. I don't hold the opinion that we should go around the world starting wars or using U.S. troops to defend repressive dictatorships. That's the policy you think it would be showing 'weakness' to put an end to? I have to ask, what is it that you get out of our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia? Do you own stock in companies that purchase oil from there? Do you own stock in companies that sell American made weapons to Saudi Arabia? Otherwise all you're getting from our occupation of Saudi Arabia is the privilege of footing the bill, a loss of rights in America, and target on your back.
It was an interesting read, and did well to detail just some of the Israeli/Arab fighting as it pertains to Hezbollah. My question is, where does America fit in this?
"Hezbollah, he said, holds no brief against the American people; it is opposed only to the policies of the American government, principally its "unlimited" support for Israel."
Gee, look! Americans are made targets because we've thrown away George Washington's advice on the matter. What has pissing on Washington's warning earned us? Billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain, thousands of Americans killed, a burgeoning police state at home, and, oh yeah, Jimmy Carter's Noble prize...
I'm glad Reagan was president instead of you.
Why exactly would we launch this war? For what American interest? American occupation of Lebanon and Syria would provide targets for the terrorists, as well as validate their recruitment arguments about 'crusading' westerners trying to take over their homes. Why are you trying to turn us into the bad guys they portray us as?
What you propose is nothing less than the abandonment of allies like Israel - and that creates a perception of a lack of will that WILL threaten vital interests later. The time to debate whether we made good decisions prior to 9/11/01 is AFTER we have achieved victory.
The only abandonment is of the American Republic's values. We've traded in a legacy of peace and neutrality for war and interventionism. Do you think the IDF can't defend Israel? Isn't it America that is holding them back from taking on their enemies? They're willing to fight their battles, so let them, don't make them our battles too, because the fact is they're not.
Win the war, then re-examine the polices. But first you win the war and teach other countries NOT to mess with us.
Riiiiiight. We can mess with them, but if they respond to that, then by god we're gonna mess with them even more, does that sound about right? How about this for a policy. Get U.S. troops out of the Middle East, and quit paying ransom to Israel and Egypt for Jimmy Carter's Noble prize.
The only perspective THAT comes from is having a co-worker who lost her husband in the attacks and who is now raising four kids on her own, as well as the fact my parents lost a friend who used to babysit my younger sister.,/p>
And if America adhered to it's founding principles of peace and neutrality that father would be going home to his children. It is in response to our decision to get involved in this endless war that we have casualties. Go tell her it's worth it. I just can't fathom what it is we get out of this that is worth his life, but maybe you can think of something....
NO reconsideration of jumping in the fire until AFTER we've jumped in the fire. Not a very astute recommendation...
We were not messing in that conflict. As far as I know we are doing TWO things:
1. We are providing aid to a government that is democratically elected (like ours) in a nationthat has hostile neighbors that seek to overrun it.
Find for me where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to appropriate money from American citizens and bestow it upon Israel. (This money of course isn't a cash transfer, it's redeemed in American manufactured military hardware). Do you think that the Israeli's can't defend themselves?
These transfers, to their enemies, are why the arabs have made us their enemy. If you picked up a piece of rocket shrapnel in your living room and it said "Made in U.S.A." wouldn't it piss you off at the Americans for making it and giving it to the Israeli's?
2. We are using our good offices to promote a peaceful solution.
The reward for throwing ourselves in the midst of this war is billions of dollars and thousands of lives lost. How's the 'peaceful solution' coming along?
THAT was "messing" with them?
No, placing U.S. troops, sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States, in various oppressive dictatorships for the protection of said dictators is "messing" with them.
And don't say it's not our battle. After 9/11/01, it BECAME our battle.
And what is in this fight for us? Are we fighting to protect an American prerogative of using U.S. troops to defend dictatorships that curry favor with the White House? American troops are placed in harms way for no articulable American interest, and when we're attacked that becomes their reason for being there? That's a non sequitur. They're fighting us because we're there. We're there because they're fighting us. So explain to me again why we're there in the first place... Oh, I forgot, it's because their King said he wants some of America's sons and daughters to protect his royal highness from the bad guy to the north that America spent 10+ years funnelling money. If they're afraid of him, let them spend some of that oil money on M-1's and F-15's and leave the soldiers sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the fleeced American taxpayer, out of it. You may view American soldiers as the President's mercenary corps, available to any country who asks, but that's certainly not their intent or purpose in a free Republic.
I'm not trying to make America the bad guys. I'm going in to TAKE OUT the bad guys who tried to use murder and terror as a means to FORCE us to change policy
Isn't declaring war on a nation using murder and terror as a means to force them to change policy?
the American people, through their elected representatives in Congress, and through the presidents they have elected, have supported.
By your reasoning then, American citizens are valid targets. If 'we' support American interventionism, 'we' are guilty for it's trespasses. The same could hardly be said for the average Iraqi, whom you know lives under the thumb of a tyrant and has no say in policy, but suffers for it all the same.
I propose, since you feel so strongly about the U.S. defending Israel, that you form your own volunteer regiment and go over there and do it. You're free to raise all the money you want in this country for defending Israel - voluntarily. Just don't force taxpayers like me to foot the bill, or risk the lives of American soldiers sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution, in your Crusade.
I'm sorry, but that alternative is unacceptable. There is a RIGHT way and a WRONG way to get out of this mess, and what you propose is the WRONG way out. The ONLY thing we can do is win the war. Then, and ONLY then, will I contemplate re-evaluating our foreign policy. But the war must be won first.
Win what? What is it you're hoping war will accomplish? What's the trick for stamping out terrorism that the IDF doesn't know and hasn't employed in the West Bank? What is it that the U.S. military knows that they can apply to the whole Middle East that Britian and France never thought of when they tried to maintain their troops in the Middle East?
Have you considered how many terrorist recruits your policy of waging war on the entire Middle East will create? You're doing exactly what Bin Laden claims the West wants to do, which is win the Crusades.
Instead, we need to direct violence against those who won't change their policies to please us, right? Good for the gander, but not the goose? We expect it to work on them, why shouldn't they expect it to work on us?
particularly when these policies have been arrived at through debate by our elected officals. Are we really going to let the likes of Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden force us to change our foreign policy in a manner that the American people might find unacceptable?
What Article, Section, and Clause of the Constitution permits our elected officials to confiscate our money and give it to foreign governments? Regardless of how many Americans support taking their neighbors money and shipping it overseas, it doesn't mean they have authority within the Constitution to do so.
That's preposterous. Of course we have. It's codified in our Constitution. It's called war. Did no one explain to you that people get murdered in wars? The American president has been given permission by the U.S. Congress to murder Iraqis if their dictator doesn't aquiesce to our demands.
We aren't the ones who decided to fly jetliners into buildings.
Correct, we build cruise missiles and fly those into buildings.
We are not the ones who were attacked. All we did was provide arms to an ally for their defense.
"All we did was pick a side and get in the middle of this war and now we're suddenly in the middle of this war. How unfair! Who could have seen it coming!?"
Furthermore, through the policy you espouse, you would have America CONDONE the indefensible through inaction.
So you condone the slaughter of Tutsi's in Rwanda by the Hutus? You horrible, horrible man. Why didn't we put 20,000 U.S. Marines in there to prevent that slaughter? Yours is an argument for putting the U.S. in the middle of every war on the planet. No thanks. You're free to go take that chore on yourself, but don't involuntarily enlist my earnings, or my neighbors lives, in your crusade.
There is NO neutral ground between good or evil.
Uncle Sam isn't some comic book hero set out to right all the wrongs in the universe.
The wisdom of men like John Quincy Adams is completely lost on you, isn't it?
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
You have to choose one or the other, and inaction in the face of evil is nothing more than granting consent for evil to run its course.
The list of crimes to which you're consenting by not advocating American military intervention grows by the minute. How many wars would you like the U.S. to take on? Surely we'd agree that the communist government of China is evil Should we invade there next?
No standing on the sidelines, Mister. We need you to shoulder a rifle for all the downtrodden the world over. hchutch has decided that every fight is America's fight.
When DO we take action against a Saddam Hussein? When DO we take stand?
What's wrong with the stand we took with Stalin? Attack us and we'll annihilate you. Worked on that murdering tyrant, and he makes Saddam look like a flower child.
If that is imperialism, so be it. If it means taking ALL of Islam on, then I'll do it.
Hop to, buddy. I'm not stopping you. Oh wait, you want to do it with my money and with the lives of the soldiers sworn to defend the Constitution. How interested are you in actually going and doing this yourself?
I'd rather not be in this war, but we have NO choice but to fight.
Appeasement in the face of murder and terror - which is what withdrawing back to the "peace and neutrality" posture you want DOES - will only bring more horrors, and we will have to face them with fewer allies.
There is, in your world view, no possibility of admitting a mistake? Instead we have to compound the problem and aggravate the situation, and hopefully, a few billion dollars, a couple of thousand lives, and god knows how many years later, we can examine the situation and decide if it really was a good idea?!
We've been putting ourselves in the middle of the Middle East mess for decades. To what advantage? We've spent the billions, we've lost thousands of innocent American lives. How much longer do we keep this crap up? "Just a little bit longer, then we can decide if it's actually worth doing..."
Thankfully, YOU are not the President, and we have one who WILL do what we MUST do. If that is imperialism, then so be it. It is better than appeasement.
I know you think it (if caps are any indication of your thoughts), but you haven't explained why we are there in the first place. You've studiously avoided responding to the questions I've posed. "Just fight! We'll worry about why and whether we should after we do!" Your cheerleading doesn't convince me. I need to know what the legitimate U.S. interest is in this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.