Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

All things Libya

Recommended Posts

The descriptions of what the French did to the armored brigade outside of Benghazi indicate they are not messing around. They want this thing over in a hurry.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-air-strikes-rain-down

 

Good on 'em. And I doubt its just the French who want this over with quickly. I think its in everyone's interest to get this over quickly before public sentiment turns.

 

They don't want to get strung along by no tin-pot Milosevic for years like we were. They are on a budget.

 

I think this is part of their military culture too. All the cheese-eating surrender monkey funning aside, the ones that rolled into Mogadishu were seriously mean SOB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should take the French approach to a situation in which other nations want to intervene in Libya, but our representatives have not indicated that we do.

 

Something tells me that if another nation wanted to fuck with Libya and they did not agree, the French would not even let them fly overhead, let alone help in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBTW- who exactly are these "sources" in Libya who are reporting this? Would you please link them here?

 

Eghemmm.... I have it on good authority that Dory Dude has a direct line to Baghdad Bob.

 

That Bob says the darndest things in time of war, doesn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBTW- who exactly are these "sources" in Libya who are reporting this? Would you please link them here?

 

Eghemmm.... I have it on good authority that Dory Dude has a direct line to Baghdad Bob.

 

That Bob says the darndest things in time of war, doesn't he?

I also have it on good authority that the reason the French are so pissed off at Qadaffi is because he was making fun of some French guy in a video by saying: "Oooooo, ching chong, ling long, ting tong" and Sarkozy just flipped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was watching anderson Cooper last night and they were showing video of pro-Qadaffi forces massing near Benghazi. It was like a SAM and AAA vis-recce test. I counted a couple of ZSU23-4s, an SA-8 and an SA-13. None of those are to be taken lightly despite being 1980s technology. SA-6s are the same. I would really rather not go up against one if I could avoid it. Any one of those could ruin your day.

 

Believe me. They might be old, but give me a few of my friends and we could kick anyone's ass with those old systems.

NS, I suspect some of your friends are working on the Nellis threat replication ranges. Because those guys rotinely kick our ass with those old systems

 

Guilty as charged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK media says the SAS have been on the ground for at least three weeks zeroing in on targets of opportunity.

The Brits rang senior people in Gaddafi's security and army units and told them to bend over - Nothing like a direct, personal threat to bring reality home to some of these cretins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - for all you hearts and minds folks - thinking the Arab street is behind this - here's some cold water for you:

The Arab League speaks for the Arab street? Seems to me most their streets are filling with people who are seeking leadership change.

 

Great comment. Outstanding illustration of reality.

 

Well, we had better start adjusting our budget priorities. It sounds like the idea here is that whenever people are rising up against a tyrannical government, we have a duty to support them. Pretty much every government over there falls under my definition of tyrannical, and Mark says all of their streets are filling with people who want a coup, uh, leadership change.

 

We're going to have to remake the whole Middle East, or face being immoral in our foreign policy. Which shall it be? Can it really be true that the only moral thing to do is to impose our ideas about government on a whole region? Can it really work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - for all you hearts and minds folks - thinking the Arab street is behind this - here's some cold water for you:

The Arab League speaks for the Arab street? Seems to me most their streets are filling with people who are seeking leadership change.

 

Great comment. Outstanding illustration of reality.

 

Well, we had better start adjusting our budget priorities. It sounds like the idea here is that whenever people are rising up against a tyrannical government, we have a duty to support them. Pretty much every government over there falls under my definition of tyrannical, and Mark says all of their streets are filling with people who want a coup, uh, leadership change.

 

We're going to have to remake the whole Middle East, or face being immoral in our foreign policy. Which shall it be? Can it really be true that the only moral thing to do is to impose our ideas about government on a whole region? Can it really work?

That's only when democrats are in charge. Othewise, mideastern tyrants should feel free to use WMD on their own people and attack neighboring countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Diplomacy does not always have to be mamby pamby touchy feely, sometimes it can be direct."

 

This might be helpful for some of you.

 

hipster-hippie-20100507-102718.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to have to remake the whole Middle East, or face being immoral in our foreign policy. Which shall it be? Can it really be true that the only moral thing to do is to impose our ideas about government on a whole region? Can it really work?

 

When the leader is a madman and/or the regime has attacked Americans, the policy should be open season.

 

Three down or almost down.

 

The big question now becomes what do we do with Iran and Pakistan? Sitting back and watching Iran, and pouring money into Pakistan will likely provide diminishing results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're going to have to remake the whole Middle East, or face being immoral in our foreign policy. Which shall it be? Can it really be true that the only moral thing to do is to impose our ideas about government on a whole region? Can it really work?

 

When the leader is a madman and/or the regime has attacked Americans, the policy should be open season.

 

Three down or almost down.

 

The big question now becomes what do we do with Iran and Pakistan? Sitting back and watching Iran, and pouring money into Pakistan will likely provide diminishing results.

 

I thought Reagan already bombed Kqwadafi for attacking us, and the French made us go around to do it.

 

We chased Osama to Afghanistan, and by all reports he has fled to the place we give money to, not the one we are watching. I'd say watching is working at least as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the leader is a madman and/or the regime has attacked Americans, the policy should be open season.

 

Three down or almost down.

 

But we Made Nice in 2008, with this particular madman and/or regime that had already attached Americans.

 

5_63_rice1_320.jpg

 

Should it be open season on bad guys who in the interim had changed their ways and received recognition for such a change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Will on Sunday

 

"Do you think this was the right thing to do?" ABC's Christian Amanpour asked Will.

 

"I do not," Will said. "We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we've taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Will on Sunday

 

"Do you think this was the right thing to do?" ABC's Christian Amanpour asked Will.

 

"I do not," Will said. "We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we've taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know."

 

George is right, and I keep reading that we are protecting the "rebel held areas."

 

Umm... he's machine gunning his people! Everyone is against that, right? Why are there areas that are NOT rebel held? Suggests to me he is selectively machine gunning some of his people. Now we're on the side of those people against the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the leader is a madman and/or the regime has attacked Americans, the policy should be open season.

 

Three down or almost down.

 

But we Made Nice in 2008, with this particular madman and/or regime that had already attached Americans.

 

5_63_rice1_320.jpg

 

Should it be open season on bad guys who in the interim had changed their ways and received recognition for such a change?

 

His people turned on him for handing over the parts from their "Whiplash!" carnival ride as a "nuclear weapons program".

 

They liked that ride. A lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Will on Sunday

 

"Do you think this was the right thing to do?" ABC's Christian Amanpour asked Will.

 

"I do not," Will said. "We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we've taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know."

 

George is right, and I keep reading that we are protecting the "rebel held areas."

 

Umm... he's machine gunning his people! Everyone is against that, right? Why are there areas that are NOT rebel held? Suggests to me he is selectively machine gunning some of his people. Now we're on the side of those people against the rest.

 

 

Can't figure out what Obama is up to here. Maybe these rebels are like SEIU members or something.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going about this all wrong, which is no surprise, given Obama's choice of party. What we should have done is have the former Secretary of State give the Colonel a call. Based on his prior comments, it might have worked.

 

"I support my darling black African woman," he said. "I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. ... Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin."

Cite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are going about this all wrong, which is no surprise, given Obama's choice of party. What we should have done is have the former Secretary of State give the Colonel a call. Based on his prior comments, it might have worked.

 

"I support my darling black African woman," he said. "I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. ... Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin."

Cite

 

She could get a Nobel Peace Prize for that, although the spelling would be a little different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News report that a US F15 is down in Eastern Libya. Crew OK. Picked up by chopper, but some shooting involved.

 

Yeah, I heard that on the way into work this am on NPR. It was an F-15E if it had two crewmembers. I'll be interested in what happened. DOD is saying mech failure, which is not out of the question. At least our CSAR is on their game. PJs never buy a drink in any bar I'm in for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News report that a US F15 is down in Eastern Libya. Crew OK. Picked up by chopper, but some shooting involved.

 

Yeah, I heard that on the way into work this am on NPR. It was an F-15E if it had two crewmembers. I'll be interested in what happened. DOD is saying mech failure, which is not out of the question. At least our CSAR is on their game. PJs never buy a drink in any bar I'm in for that reason.

 

Well a Libyan fired SAM will cause 'mech failure'! We will never know the truth. Glad the crew are safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News report that a US F15 is down in Eastern Libya. Crew OK. Picked up by chopper, but some shooting involved.

 

Yeah, I heard that on the way into work this am on NPR. It was an F-15E if it had two crewmembers. I'll be interested in what happened. DOD is saying mech failure, which is not out of the question. At least our CSAR is on their game. PJs never buy a drink in any bar I'm in for that reason.

 

Well a Libyan fired SAM will cause 'mech failure'! We will never know the truth. Glad the crew are safe.

Sure We will. The AF has never kept it a secret if one of our jets got shot down by enemy fire by blaming it on mechanical failure. They have no reason to. And I would suspect that not only will they be able to know from crew testimony, but they are probably right now recovering the wreckage to do an investigation. It appeared to crash in rebel held territory, it it shouldn't be that hard to go in and get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, any speculation on what could have gone wrong? Are there known gremlins in the F15 that could be the culprit?

Cruising along and suddenly your $35 million plane just plops out of the sky is a head-scratcher.

 

Shiny red button space madness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, any speculation on what could have gone wrong? Are there known gremlins in the F15 that could be the culprit?

Cruising along and suddenly your $35 million plane just plops out of the sky is a head-scratcher.

 

Shiny red button space madness?

The Eagles are old. The entire fleet has been grounded a couple of times and the flight envelope reduced to prolong life. We'll need to see what the report says when it comes out. If you want to see some of the issues just search on 'f15 fleet grounded'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, any speculation on what could have gone wrong? Are there known gremlins in the F15 that could be the culprit?

Cruising along and suddenly your $35 million plane just plops out of the sky is a head-scratcher.

 

Shiny red button space madness?

The Eagles are old. The entire fleet has been grounded a couple of times and the flight envelope reduced to prolong life. We'll need to see what the report says when it comes out. If you want to see some of the issues just search on 'f15 fleet grounded'.

Yes and no. The grounding issue stemmed from the older F-15C models. The "E's" were grounded briefly but returned to service after a they cleared inspections. The Strike Eagles are a good 20 years newer than the older C's that had issues. The E is pretty much a completely different jet in many ways.

 

SO the answer to CND is "I have no idea". We considered the F-15E a very reliable jet and in 16+ years of flying it, very few just quit flying for no apparent reason. Having two engines really mitigates that problem. Yes, engines quit, but its so rare to have both quit or to have a catastropic problem where you can't get home. We have triple redundant hydraulics and backups to the backups on the motors. BUT..... like anything with that many moving parts, something eventually is going to fail.

 

With as much as these jets get inspected routinely, overhauled, etc - its unlikely that something is just going to break, but it happens. Usually, human error comes into play somewhere in the chain. For example, we lost a jet at SJAFB because a MX crew chief forgot to put the retaining lock washer on a bolt that held the rear stabilizer on. The crew was in the middle of a training dogfight and it suddenly went out of control. The crew got out safely and the jet crashed a few miles from my house. So who knows what happened. But events like the above are very rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, any speculation on what could have gone wrong? Are there known gremlins in the F15 that could be the culprit?

Cruising along and suddenly your $35 million plane just plops out of the sky is a head-scratcher.

 

Shiny red button space madness?

 

SO the answer to CND is "I have no idea". We considered the F-15E a very reliable jet and in 16+ years of flying it, very few just quit flying for no apparent reason. Having two engines really mitigates that problem. Yes, engines quit, but its so rare to have both quit or to have a catastropic problem where you can't get home.

 

Yeah, yeah. Tell that to these guys!

 

top_gun_goose_and_maverick-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, any speculation on what could have gone wrong? Are there known gremlins in the F15 that could be the culprit?

Cruising along and suddenly your $35 million plane just plops out of the sky is a head-scratcher.

 

Shiny red button space madness?

 

SO the answer to CND is "I have no idea". We considered the F-15E a very reliable jet and in 16+ years of flying it, very few just quit flying for no apparent reason. Having two engines really mitigates that problem. Yes, engines quit, but its so rare to have both quit or to have a catastropic problem where you can't get home.

 

Yeah, yeah. Tell that to these guys!

 

top_gun_goose_and_maverick-1.jpg

Why would guys pretending to be Navy pilots give a shit about the F-15 except for export models which are potential targets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News report that a US F15 is down in Eastern Libya. Crew OK. Picked up by chopper, but some shooting involved.

 

Yeah, I heard that on the way into work this am on NPR. It was an F-15E if it had two crewmembers. I'll be interested in what happened. DOD is saying mech failure, which is not out of the question. At least our CSAR is on their game. PJs never buy a drink in any bar I'm in for that reason.

 

Well a Libyan fired SAM will cause 'mech failure'! We will never know the truth. Glad the crew are safe.

Sure We will. The AF has never kept it a secret if one of our jets got shot down by enemy fire by blaming it on mechanical failure. They have no reason to. And I would suspect that not only will they be able to know from crew testimony, but they are probably right now recovering the wreckage to do an investigation. It appeared to crash in rebel held territory, it it shouldn't be that hard to go in and get it.

 

I don't know jack shit about military hardware of any kind. But I do know that with public domestic opinion so divided about this latest foray into stupidity by your government there is no way that they would admit that one of their planes was brought down on the third day of your newest war. Yes it was absolutely the right thing for the UN to intervene against this arsehole, but the US should have bullied the allies into doing it, but not us Aussies. Our body count over the last few years is disgusting. As is the US's and the UK's. But more US planes shooting Muslims will not win any hearts or minds. As I said before I am just glad that those brave crew are safe.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LB 15, if that jet was shot down, the only thing Americans will really care about is whether the shooter got lucky, or has technology that can easily do that again. I don't see our government covering up something like that, and I have at least a healthy dose of suspicion about our government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LB 15, if that jet was shot down, the only thing Americans will really care about is whether the shooter got lucky, or has technology that can easily do that again. I don't see our government covering up something like that, and I have at least a healthy dose of suspicion about our government.

unless it's a matter of who (if anyone) shot it down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are just about reaching the end of what we can do without boots on the ground. There is no effective libyan airforce and we've hit their heavy armor.

 

From now on in, you have basically urban warfare where a presumably trained army with access to heavy weapons is up against an untrained mob.

 

Unless somebody gets lucky and takes out Mo or there is an uprising in the army the conclusion won't be pretty.

 

But, now we have an example of the kind of support the rest of the mideast can expect from America and Europe.

 

If it goes the way I suspect will, we are losing a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LB 15, if that jet was shot down, the only thing Americans will really care about is whether the shooter got lucky, or has technology that can easily do that again. I don't see our government covering up something like that, and I have at least a healthy dose of suspicion about our government.

 

 

I will stop sniffing glue and reading so many Clive Cussler novels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

 

 

Shit sorry Ben. Stupid of so many of us not to have found sailing anarchy earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

 

On board, just like with Padilla. Shall I prove it again, or do you want to take my word this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

This thread will come in handy in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

The only possible explanation is: electing Democrats makes us smarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A conservatives quide to speaking about Libya

 

Are you a conservative pundit, elected official or presidential contender? Having trouble figuring out what you're supposed to say about this whole thing in Libya? Obama bad, sure. But Gadhafi also bad, and bombs good! What a conundrum! :lol:

 

 

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/23/libya_response_chart/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we declare this thread closed thanks to the return of the village idiot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we declare this thread closed thanks to the return of the village idiot?

 

I didn't think you were that self aware.

 

But yes given you're return I declare this thread closed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something Obama said back when he was a candidate - Link

 

SUNAPEE, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

 

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we declare this thread closed thanks to the return of the village idiot?

 

I didn't think you were that self aware.

 

But yes given you're return I declare this thread closed..

No sorry, it doesn't work that way. You of all people here (and I use the term 'people' lightly) aren't declaring squat. Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? I didn't think so.

 

What I find interesting is that Obama is starting to catch some major flack from his own party and not just the nutcases like Kucinich. Even Nancy, his main watergirl, is showing tepid support. I do think Obama made the right decision and he was damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But he's done a REALLY shitty job of communicating his intentions and explaining his reasons to John Q Public. Maybe he should hire Glen Beck to do a skit and explain military intervention using crayons and stuffed animals.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sorry, it doesn't work that way. You of all people here (and I use the term 'people' lightly) aren't declaring squat. Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? I didn't think so.

 

What I find interesting is that Obama is starting to catch some major flack from his own party and not just the nutcases like Kucinich. Even Nancy, his main watergirl, is showing tepid support. I do think Obama made the right decision and he was damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But he's done a REALLY shitty job of communicating his intentions and explaining his reasons to John Q Public. Maybe he should hire Glen Beck to do a skit and explain military intervention using crayons and stuffed animals.....

The whole thing came across as the modern day equivalent of

 

Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

 

He was smart to wait until the talking heads were jabbering about nothing being done, and getting their support for action on record. He got the La-Z-Boy Warrior Division ® hook-line-and-sinker with that bit. Now the only think upon which they can hang their hat is not consulting Congress, which has been done in the past, but is still, I think, unconstitutional. But I think that sending troops into harms way without a declaration of war is unconstitutional by definition, so that doesn't help us much.

 

But as the time for the rebels grew short, something had to be done toot sweet, so they lashed together a response without planning what happened next, assuming they could agree on that later. So much for that idea. Give everyone a bunch of paddle balls, just stop borrowing money to give to Raytheon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

 

Good point. It appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong, nor the patience to build one.

 

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sorry, it doesn't work that way. You of all people here (and I use the term 'people' lightly) aren't declaring squat. Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor? I didn't think so.

 

What I find interesting is that Obama is starting to catch some major flack from his own party and not just the nutcases like Kucinich. Even Nancy, his main watergirl, is showing tepid support. I do think Obama made the right decision and he was damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But he's done a REALLY shitty job of communicating his intentions and explaining his reasons to John Q Public. Maybe he should hire Glen Beck to do a skit and explain military intervention using crayons and stuffed animals.....

The whole thing came across as the modern day equivalent of

 

Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

 

He was smart to wait until the talking heads were jabbering about nothing being done, and getting their support for action on record. He got the La-Z-Boy Warrior Division ® hook-line-and-sinker with that bit. Now the only think upon which they can hang their hat is not consulting Congress, which has been done in the past, but is still, I think, unconstitutional. But I think that sending troops into harms way without a declaration of war is unconstitutional by definition, so that doesn't help us much.

 

But as the time for the rebels grew short, something had to be done toot sweet, so they lashed together a response without planning what happened next, assuming they could agree on that later. So much for that idea. Give everyone a bunch of paddle balls, just stop borrowing money to give to Raytheon.

I agree with the un-connie part. But sometimes real life requires a 90% solution NOW rather than a 100% solution in 6 months. Its absolutely NOT uncommon to use the military in some ways without kknowing the FULL end-state. A great example was last year's Haiti mission. I led a team down there to fly Pred's to help with the relief effort and I got on an airplane and headed down there with little to no planning. The goal was: just get there and figure it out. Sometimes you just have to start moving in time critical situations and make it up on the fly. I would say the Libyan thing was most DEFINITELY time-critical because another day or two and Benghazi would have fallen. I can't really fault the US and the coalition for pulling th trigger without a perfect plan in place. Shit happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

 

Good point. It appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong, nor the patience to build one.

 

Ben

So, the kurds and shia weren't being killed with WMD? Some of them are non-nuclear you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hello boys, have a good night's rest? I missed you.

 

But he's done a REALLY shitty job of communicating his intentions and explaining his reasons to John Q Public. Maybe he should hire Glen Beck to do a skit and explain military intervention using crayons and stuffed animals.....

 

He's done a really shitty job selling a lot of things. Surprising...to me at least.

He's a great orator but not a very good communicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say the Libyan thing was most DEFINITELY time-critical because another day or two and Benghazi would have fallen.

 

There was time to consult the UN and the Arab League. That tells me there was time to consult Congress, just no will to do it and no consequences if it was not done (we're in that phase now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

 

 

I see you joined in '04.

That tells us you weren't here in '03 either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

 

Good point. It appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong, nor the patience to build one.

 

Ben

So, the kurds and shia weren't being killed with WMD? Some of them are non-nuclear you know.

 

 

I didn't say anything about WMD. I said that it appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong. The inference drawn from G.W. Bush's admissions after Charles Duelfer's report was released. But don't stop milking that cow. There's gotta be at least 2 more buckets of excuses to come up with.

 

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see so much questioning as to specific reasons and expectations when we go to war. Nice to have everyone on board with me. I just wonder where the fuck you all were in '03.

 

Ben

I guess you weren't there either.

 

I seem to recall a lot of debate as the troops were building up and an actual congressional vote. Heck, there was even a call by Clinton for regime change which was voted on by congress. There was further discussion and voting as UN Resolutions were passed and troops were deployed to the mideast. Right up to the day the attack was launched.

 

Good point. It appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong, nor the patience to build one.

 

Ben

So, the kurds and shia weren't being killed with WMD? Some of them are non-nuclear you know.

 

 

I didn't say anything about WMD. I said that it appears this adminstration does not have enough bad intel to build a case that is wrong. The inference drawn from G.W. Bush's admissions after Charles Duelfer's report was released. But don't stop milking that cow. There's gotta be at least 2 more buckets of excuses to come up with.

 

Ben

Oh, OK then, what specific bad intel were you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

His domestic agenda is in South America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

His domestic agenda is in South America?

Road trip as in American Domestic Policy 1/2009 - 1/2013 - I just can not recall a president appearing completely unconcerned about sharing his reasons for going to war with the American people,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruise missile strikes are downright unfriendly. Some would say an act of war. Ron Paul among them. Me too, BTW.

 

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up "no-fly" zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.

 

Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d'etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers' lives at risk.

 

Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don't have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don't have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed's printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya's civil war.

 

The search for a politician who has been consistent on interventions over the years is really not all that hard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

His domestic agenda is in South America?

Road trip as in American Domestic Policy 1/2009 - 1/2013 - I just can not recall a president appearing completely unconcerned about sharing his reasons for going to war with the American people,

You sound like those broads that bitch if you don't call them the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way? I know he interrupted his Latin tour to make a statement, but isn't this Oval Office material? Some one said it best "he acts like this is nothing but an interruption in his domestic agenda road trip".

His domestic agenda is in South America?

Road trip as in American Domestic Policy 1/2009 - 1/2013 - I just can not recall a president appearing completely unconcerned about sharing his reasons for going to war with the American people,

You sound like those broads that bitch if you don't call them the next day.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever recall a president that did not address the nation almost immediately after putting the troops in harms way?

 

I recall that Nixon bombed Laos and Cambodia secretly for months before it was acknowledged. I don't recall that this was ever approved by Congress.

 

George W. Bush and Barack Obama both bombed targets in Pakistan without Congressional approval.

 

I don't recall Reagan having an authorization to invade Grenada, but I was out of the country then, and could be mistaken. The same goes for George Sr. invading Panama. Can you point me to a reference on those issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruise missile strikes are downright unfriendly. Some would say an act of war. Ron Paul among them. Me too, BTW.

 

In this case, I would like to make sure we actually follow the black letter of the law provided in the Constitution that explicitly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. This week I will introduce a concurrent resolution in the House to remind my colleagues and the administration that Congress alone, not the president, decides when to go to war. It is alarming how casually the administration talks about initiating acts of war, as though Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution does not exist. Frankly, it is not up to the President whether or not we intervene in Libya, or set up "no-fly" zones, or send troops. At least, it is not if we follow the Constitution. Even by the loose standards of the War Powers Resolution, which cedes far too much power to the president, he would have no authority to engage in hostilities because we have not been attacked – not by Gaddafi, and not by the rebels. This is not our fight. If the administration wants to make it our fight, let them make their case before Congress and put it to a vote. I would strongly oppose such a measure, but that is the proper way to proceed.

 

Constitutional questions aside, Congress also needs to consider the interests of the American people. Again, we have not been attacked. Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that the current turmoil in Libya represents an attempted coup d'etat in a foreign country. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business. How can we commit our men and women in uniform to a dangerous military operation in Libya when they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? We must also understand that our intervention will undermine the legitimacy of whatever government prevails in Libya. Especially if it is a bad government, it will be seen as our puppet and further radicalize people in the region against us. These are terrible reasons to put our soldiers' lives at risk.

 

Finally we need to consider the economic cost. We don't have the money for more military interventions overseas. We don't have the money for our current military interventions overseas. We have to rely on the Fed's printing presses and our ability to borrow from China to fund these wars. That alone should put an end to any discussion about getting involved in Libya's civil war.

 

The search for a politician who has been consistent on interventions over the years is really not all that hard...

 

Yes, but are those views reflective of the American public?

 

Skip ahead to 20 minutes in, or (18 minutes in if you want to hear about Kosovo too). George got Ronny to slip a pep-talk for us into a speech he gave at Oxford, 3 days before the invasion. They played this, not HW, the night we loaded up on the Juneau.

 

 

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Ronald-Reagans-1992-Address-at-Oxford-University/10737419324-1/

 

That that we like to believe ourselves to be something somewhat more than what Dr. Paul would have us be just might be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

 

It seems to me that he most certainly DID "notify" congress within 48 hrs of taking action. Now where he might run afoul of the law is if he goes beyond the 60 days without getting congress to "authorize" continuing action.

 

Now whether you believe the WPA itself is constitutional or not is a different arguement. But the fact remains it is the current law of the land and its been used numerous times since its enactment and its a given that the POTUS has the right to operate under that statute. If you think the WPA is un-connie, then I suggest you file a brief with the Supreme Court. But the POTUS is being consistant in his actions with current law because there is nothing in the WPA that requires "authorization" for the 1st 60 days, just notification. However, beyond that 60 days, absolutely....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

 

We're out? Really? Wanna take a bet on that? Last I check we were also part of NATO. I see the break did nothing for your IQ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

 

It seems to me that he most certainly DID "notify" congress within 48 hrs of taking action. Now where he might run afoul of the law is if he goes beyond the 60 days without getting congress to "authorize" continuing action.

 

Now whether you believe the WPA itself is constitutional or not is a different arguement. But the fact remains it is the current law of the land and its been used numerous times since its enactment and its a given that the POTUS has the right to operate under that statute. If you think the WPA is un-connie, then I suggest you file a brief with the Supreme Court. But the POTUS is being consistant in his actions with current law because there is nothing in the WPA that requires "authorization" for the 1st 60 days, just notification. However, beyond that 60 days, absolutely....

 

There is the problem of "...only by authorization of Congress OR the United States is already under attack or serious threat."

 

Yet it has been done many times, and in Kosovo, in the face of Congressional opposition.

 

 

So, in practice, this has traditionally been used as grounds for impeachment only against presidents who send millions of brave soldiers to their needless deaths on a blue dress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

 

We're out? Really? Wanna take a bet on that? Last I check we were also part of NATO. I see the break did nothing for your IQ....

 

 

Yup just announced we will only provide support.

 

Brilliant move by the admin and effectively neuters the far right opposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UAE is in as well.

 

Great job by the Obama admin in swifting getting in and out.

 

If only the previous admin had been so adroit in Afghanistan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

 

It seems to me that he most certainly DID "notify" congress within 48 hrs of taking action. Now where he might run afoul of the law is if he goes beyond the 60 days without getting congress to "authorize" continuing action.

 

Now whether you believe the WPA itself is constitutional or not is a different arguement. But the fact remains it is the current law of the land and its been used numerous times since its enactment and its a given that the POTUS has the right to operate under that statute. If you think the WPA is un-connie, then I suggest you file a brief with the Supreme Court. But the POTUS is being consistant in his actions with current law because there is nothing in the WPA that requires "authorization" for the 1st 60 days, just notification. However, beyond that 60 days, absolutely....

 

There is the problem of "...only by authorization of Congress OR the United States is already under attack or serious threat."

 

I'm not a lawyer (thank god) but I have stayed at a Holiday inn in the last year. I think that sentence you refer to is the overall intent of the WPA.... the executive summary if you will. But that the specific timeline is that the POTUS merely has to notify with 48 hrs of his intent and then he has carte blanche for 60 days. AFTER THAT, he needs actual "authorization". Think about it.... if he needed full congressional authorization from day one - why would they have the part in there about needing an authorization at the 60 day point? If he already HAD authorization on day 1, he wouldn't need it again 2 months later, would he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

 

We're out? Really? Wanna take a bet on that? Last I check we were also part of NATO. I see the break did nothing for your IQ....

 

 

Yup just announced we will only provide support.

 

WTF do you think "support" means? You don't think we'll be flying armed missions over Libya in addition to providing tankers, AWACS and other non-shooters for as long as this thing is in effect? Again, PLEASE take me up on that bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

 

We're out? Really? Wanna take a bet on that? Last I check we were also part of NATO. I see the break did nothing for your IQ....

 

 

Yup just announced we will only provide support.

 

WTF do you think "support" means? You don't think we'll be flying armed missions over Libya in addition to providing tankers, AWACS and other non-shooters for as long as this thing is in effect? Again, PLEASE take me up on that bet.

 

 

no live fire.

 

 

maybe some refueling op's and sat surveilence according to sources..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a really good day for america for the first time we've let Nato take the lead outside of Europe.

 

Brilliant!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

 

It seems to me that he most certainly DID "notify" congress within 48 hrs of taking action. Now where he might run afoul of the law is if he goes beyond the 60 days without getting congress to "authorize" continuing action.

 

Now whether you believe the WPA itself is constitutional or not is a different arguement. But the fact remains it is the current law of the land and its been used numerous times since its enactment and its a given that the POTUS has the right to operate under that statute. If you think the WPA is un-connie, then I suggest you file a brief with the Supreme Court. But the POTUS is being consistant in his actions with current law because there is nothing in the WPA that requires "authorization" for the 1st 60 days, just notification. However, beyond that 60 days, absolutely....

So, Comrade, is the Block Captain hosting dinner tonight? Thursday is re-education night, right? Or is it union night?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe I'm actually defending Obama here, but I think all this talk of not declaring war and being un-connie is a bit of melodrama. I think what's he done is completely consistant with the War Powers Act. It states:

 

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

 

It seems to me that he most certainly DID "notify" congress within 48 hrs of taking action. Now where he might run afoul of the law is if he goes beyond the 60 days without getting congress to "authorize" continuing action.

 

Now whether you believe the WPA itself is constitutional or not is a different arguement. But the fact remains it is the current law of the land and its been used numerous times since its enactment and its a given that the POTUS has the right to operate under that statute. If you think the WPA is un-connie, then I suggest you file a brief with the Supreme Court. But the POTUS is being consistant in his actions with current law because there is nothing in the WPA that requires "authorization" for the 1st 60 days, just notification. However, beyond that 60 days, absolutely....

 

There is the problem of "...only by authorization of Congress OR the United States is already under attack or serious threat."

 

I'm not a lawyer (thank god) but I have stayed at a Holiday inn in the last year. I think that sentence you refer to is the overall intent of the WPA.... the executive summary if you will. But that the specific timeline is that the POTUS merely has to notify with 48 hrs of his intent and then he has carte blanche for 60 days. AFTER THAT, he needs actual "authorization". Think about it.... if he needed full congressional authorization from day one - why would they have the part in there about needing an authorization at the 60 day point? If he already HAD authorization on day 1, he wouldn't need it again 2 months later, would he?

 

It would have had to be written, in effect: "The President can order troops to do any damn thing he wants, where ever he wants, as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours."

 

Not going to get that through the mill, so they stipulated the one obvious condition that everybody could agree on. Better than nothing, I guess. It makes it possible for Congress to nail to the wall a president for doing something really egregiously stupid, just after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JBSF, what was the "serious threat"? Or am I going to have to go back to asking when Libya attacked Pearl Harbor? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official we handed off to NATO.

 

We're out..

 

We're out? Really? Wanna take a bet on that? Last I check we were also part of NATO. I see the break did nothing for your IQ....

 

 

Yup just announced we will only provide support.

 

WTF do you think "support" means? You don't think we'll be flying armed missions over Libya in addition to providing tankers, AWACS and other non-shooters for as long as this thing is in effect? Again, PLEASE take me up on that bet.

 

 

no live fire.

 

 

maybe some refueling op's and sat surveilence according to sources..

cite please on the ban on US live fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer (thank god) but I have stayed at a Holiday inn in the last year. I think that sentence you refer to is the overall intent of the WPA.... the executive summary if you will. But that the specific timeline is that the POTUS merely has to notify with 48 hrs of his intent and then he has carte blanche for 60 days. AFTER THAT, he needs actual "authorization". Think about it.... if he needed full congressional authorization from day one - why would they have the part in there about needing an authorization at the 60 day point? If he already HAD authorization on day 1, he wouldn't need it again 2 months later, would he?

 

It would have had to be written, in effect: "The President can order troops to do any damn thing he wants, where ever he wants, as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours."

 

Not going to get that through the mill, so they stipulated the one obvious condition that everybody could agree on. Better than nothing, I guess. It makes it possible for Congress to nail to the wall a president for doing something really egregiously stupid, just after the fact.

Yes, absolutely they (and the US public) can nail him after the fact if the threat doesn't live up to its billing. But he is completely legal to order troops into battle for 60 days with only the 48 hr notification. Certainly its political jeopardy for the POTUS to take that lightly, but its far from illegal according to the WPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no ban but we won't be putting our forces in harms way so no need

 

smart!

 

and you know this how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sources.

 

It's classified.

 

Wow, I didn't know your ass was "classified". I'd say it was a pretty "open source" to your cellmates in Key West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the War Powers Act. It states:

 

the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.

 

 

When did the Libyans bomb Pearl Harbor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites