PDA

View Full Version : US launches first attack against Qaddafi



namvet
03-19-2011, 04:18 PM
The U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader's Muammar al-Qaddafi's air defenses Saturday.

The Pentagon says 112 missiles have been launched from U.S. and British ships in the Mediterranean, hitting 20 Libyan targets.

FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/19/france-fires-libyan-military-vehicle/#)


why in the holy hell do we need to get involed here ??? the tomahawks fly. Obama is biting off more than we can chew

Dan D. Doty
03-19-2011, 04:56 PM
Since when do we need 112 missiles to knock out twenty targets?

And BTW those Tomahawks are at least a $ 1 million a piece. A squadron of attak helicopters could have done the same job and confirmed if the target was destroyed.

namvet
03-19-2011, 05:04 PM
Since when do we need 112 missiles to knock out twenty targets?

And BTW those Tomahawks are at least a $ 1 million a piece. A squadron of attak helicopters could have done the same job and confirmed if the target was destroyed.

that includes the brittles. im more concerned about our people who are once again in harms way.

and the biggest problem is we don't even have a CNC !!!!

Rockntractor
03-19-2011, 05:08 PM
The entire world is led by crazy people now, get used to it.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 06:15 PM
Its a UNSC binding resolution, so any money spent enforcing it is covered by the UN. Not to mention there's probably not much left on Qaddafi's army, so any combat missions we fly in Libyan borders will probably be cakewalks.

Lager
03-19-2011, 06:24 PM
Wow shoe, you liberals found a military action you can support. Congrats! UN's gonna pay for those missiles. Too cool.

lacarnut
03-19-2011, 06:24 PM
That is just f...up. A no fly zone..maybe. Who the hell does the US and the UN think they are deciding on who the good guys and the bad guys are in Libya. My thought is there are no good guys. Let the sand monkeys kill each other. Whomever thinks that this attack is going to bring about freedom and democracy is a lunatic.

If the Rebels win, watch them tell the US and it's allies sorry Charile we are selling our oil to the highest bidder. In other words, screw you. No thanks coming from us.

lacarnut
03-19-2011, 06:29 PM
Since when do we need 112 missiles to knock out twenty targets?

And BTW those Tomahawks are at least a $ 1 million a piece. A squadron of attak helicopters could have done the same job and confirmed if the target was destroyed.

We could have blown up all kinds of shit bombarding Iran with 112 missiles and probably killed 3/4 of their leadership in the process. That would require courage though rather than picking on a weakling country like Libya.

BadCat
03-19-2011, 08:51 PM
Its a UNSC binding resolution, so any money spent enforcing it is covered by the UN. Not to mention there's probably not much left on Qaddafi's army, so any combat missions we fly in Libyan borders will probably be cakewalks.

Oh look.

A commie moonbat obama boy SUPPORTING A WAR.
Fucking hypocrites.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:05 PM
Justified military intervention as agreed upon by well established and internationally recognized standards vs. "Screw the evidence and international support, America Fuck Yea!" and jumping into the graveyard of empires with ridiculous amounts of hubris.

But yea, this is all politics. Whatever.

Rockntractor
03-19-2011, 11:11 PM
Justified military intervention as agreed upon by well established and internationally recognized standards vs. "Screw the evidence and international support, America Fuck Yea!" and jumping into the graveyard of empires with ridiculous amounts of hubris.

But yea, this is all politics. Whatever.

How many wars can you remember when we said there would be no ground troops and we didn't actually have to send any?

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:13 PM
How many wars can you remember when we said there would be no ground troops and we didn't actually have to send any?

How many wars in recent memory have we not charged in to "lead the way"?

lacarnut
03-19-2011, 11:13 PM
Justified military intervention as agreed upon by well established and internationally recognized standards vs. "Screw the evidence and international support, America Fuck Yea!" and jumping into the graveyard of empires with ridiculous amounts of hubris.

But yea, this is all politics. Whatever.

Did Obama consult Congress? How many M.E. countries are supporting this action militarily? What are our national interests? If you say humanitarian, why did we not invade Iran, Yemen, Rwanda, etc.

Lager
03-19-2011, 11:13 PM
Justified military intervention as agreed upon by well established and internationally recognized standards vs. "Screw the evidence and international support, America Fuck Yea!" and jumping into the graveyard of empires with ridiculous amounts of hubris.

But yea, this is all politics. Whatever.

We had plenty of international support, and why is this "brutal dictator" worse than the previous one in Iraq? Justified military intervention my ass. You simply justify it because it's your guy and you can't dispute that.

Rockntractor
03-19-2011, 11:17 PM
How many wars in recent memory have we not charged in to "lead the way"?

Answer my question!

djones520
03-19-2011, 11:20 PM
How many wars can you remember when we said there would be no ground troops and we didn't actually have to send any?

Kosovo?

Rockntractor
03-19-2011, 11:23 PM
Kosovo?

And what happened.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:23 PM
Whats saying you all aren't strictly against this because Obama is president? I mean really, on one hand you tout the two absolute fucking disasters we've dug ourselves into, but on the other hand this, something we are barely even taking the lead on, is a terrible idea.

We might actually buy ourselves some international cred with this, a large amount of ME states who have been hostile in the past have shown their support of it. France and the UK have done the same amount of work, if not more, than we have thus far. Canada and Scandanavia are going to get involved now too. And! We arent going to pay 100% of the bill!

Honestly, whats not to like about this? Its the best war we've had since the 1st Gulf War, we get to kick ass and flex our muscles on some else's dime while doing the world a pretty huge favor.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:23 PM
And what happened.

NATO =/ USA.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:25 PM
Answer my question!


Kosovo?

Question answered.

Lager
03-19-2011, 11:26 PM
Yeah, Saudi Arabia supports our actions, even as they send help to quell a similar uprising in Bahrain. Some good cred there.

Rockntractor
03-19-2011, 11:27 PM
NATO =/ USA.

I'll let you and djones play games, I asked you a simple question.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:28 PM
I'll let you and djones play games, I asked you a simple question.

And its been answered already.

djones520
03-19-2011, 11:31 PM
And what happened.

We bombed the hell out of them, they retreated, and an international peace keeping force was sent in to the cheers of the people.

Lager
03-19-2011, 11:34 PM
Didn't the massacre of bosnian muslims happen even with the no fly zone? So if this one doesn't work, you support invasion? Or what? If this leaves Gadhaffi in power, how far do we go to remove him?

lacarnut
03-19-2011, 11:38 PM
We had plenty of international support, and why is this "brutal dictator" worse than the previous one in Iraq? Justified military intervention my ass. You simply justify it because it's your guy and you can't dispute that.

Plus, we went to war in Iraq in part to stabilize oil markets. Libya oil fields are minuscule compared to Iraq which has huge oil reserves comparable to the Saudis.

We should stay out of this. If the Brits, French and Canadian can not do the job, we will get pulled into. We have our hands full in two shit hole sand monkey countries. We do not need a third.

Rockntractor
03-19-2011, 11:41 PM
Plus, we went to war in Iraq in part to stabilize oil markets. Libya oil fields are minuscule compared to Iraq which has huge oil reserves comparable to the Saudis.

We should stay out of this. If the Brits, French and Canadian can not do the job, we will get pulled into. We have our hands full in two shit hole sand monkey countries. We do not need a third.

I don't think you can get into something like this saying you will use air only, you need to go in prepared to use whatever it takes.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:42 PM
Plus, we went to war in Iraq in part to stabilize oil markets. Libya oil fields are minuscule compared to Iraq which has huge oil reserves comparable to the Saudis.

We should stay out of this. If the Brits, French and Canadian can not do the job, we will get pulled into. We have our hands full in two shit hole sand monkey countries. We do not need a third.

Openly admitting it was an oil war. Lol, you're arguing against your own positions.

People dont understand the meaning of "no ground troops", you just want to exist in a suspended reality where you can blame Obama for doing the same retarded shit Bush pulled.

lacarnut
03-19-2011, 11:43 PM
Whats saying you all aren't strictly against this because Obama is president? I mean really, on one hand you tout the two absolute fucking disasters we've dug ourselves into, but on the other hand this, something we are barely even taking the lead on, is a terrible idea.

We might actually buy ourselves some international cred with this, a large amount of ME states who have been hostile in the past have shown their support of it. France and the UK have done the same amount of work, if not more, than we have thus far. Canada and Scandanavia are going to get involved now too. And! We arent going to pay 100% of the bill!

Honestly, whats not to like about this? Its the best war we've had since the 1st Gulf War, we get to kick ass and flex our muscles on some else's dime while doing the world a pretty huge favor.

I already told you why this is a bad idea. How about addressing my post (#13)

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:44 PM
I don't think

No you clearly do not. Nobody gives a shit what your opinion on what it will take to oust Qadaffi, and I honestly trust the combined military brainpower of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's assessment on the situation more than I do some partisan bozo on the internet.

Lager
03-19-2011, 11:46 PM
Openly admitting it was an oil war. Lol, you're arguing against your own positions.

People dont understand the meaning of "no ground troops", you just want to exist in a suspended reality where you can blame Obama for doing the same retarded shit Bush pulled.

What do you hope to achieve with "no ground troops"? Tell me what your desired outcome is with this. If this is justified, and Iran's populace decides to rise up against their government, do you approve of cruise missile strikes there as well? What about North Korea?

txradioguy
03-19-2011, 11:48 PM
Justified military intervention as agreed upon by well established and internationally recognized standards vs. "Screw the evidence and international support, America Fuck Yea!" and jumping into the graveyard of empires with ridiculous amounts of hubris.

But yea, this is all politics. Whatever.

Amazing that you are now FOR military action in a Muslim country...for the very same reasons that you were AGAINST military action in a Muslim country 8 years ago.

Fucking hypocrite.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:49 PM
I already told you why this is a bad idea. How about addressing my post (#13)
Does anyone consult Congress anymore unless the political landscape is abnormally unified after a very traumatic event (9/11)? No. The War Powers Act has never been enforced, as much as it should be, maybe you should pressure your Republicans to use their new pull in congress to have it looked at?

Militarily we are not going to get much support from Middle Eastern countries. If you haven't noticed they sort of have a crisis on their hands right now.

Our interests are humanitarian. Just because we've failed to stop other bloodbaths does not mean we shouldn't try and stop this one. Invading Iran is a terrible idea and in no way can be compared with stomping the Libyan military, which could barely control its own people.

Rockntractor
03-19-2011, 11:50 PM
No you clearly do not. Nobody gives a shit what your opinion on what it will take to oust Qadaffi, and I honestly trust the combined military brainpower of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's assessment on the situation more than I do some partisan bozo on the internet.

You care enough about my opinions to avoid my questions and let others answer for you.

txradioguy
03-19-2011, 11:50 PM
No you clearly do not. Nobody gives a shit what your opinion on what it will take to oust Qadaffi, and I honestly trust the combined military brainpower of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's assessment on the situation more than I do some partisan bozo on the internet.

Funnny...those of us actually IN the military think the same thing about Armchair Generals like you.

Lager
03-19-2011, 11:51 PM
Okay, so we provide military aid for humanitarian reasons, as long as the country we bomb isn't strong enough to cause much damage back to us. Well, it's a logical reason and at least you're being honest, which I appreciate.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:52 PM
Amazing that you are now FOR military action in a Muslim country...for the very same reasons that you were AGAINST military action in a Muslim country 8 years ago.

Fucking hypocrite.

These are very different forms of military intervention. The only similarity is that it is an Arab state with a predominantly Muslim population, if we were doing this in any other part of the world your argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

txradioguy
03-19-2011, 11:52 PM
Does anyone consult Congress anymore unless the political landscape is abnormally unified after a very traumatic event (9/11)? No. The War Powers Act has never been enforced, as much as it should be, maybe you should pressure your Republicans to use their new pull in congress to have it looked at?

Militarily we are not going to get much support from Middle Eastern countries. If you haven't noticed they sort of have a crisis on their hands right now.

Our interests are humanitarian. Just because we've failed to stop other bloodbaths does not mean we shouldn't try and stop this one. Invading Iran is a terrible idea and in no way can be compared with stomping the Libyan military, which could barely control its own people.

All of these arguments were made by President Bush for going into Iraq.

Were you this favorable of the actions of the Commander in Chief then as you are now?

txradioguy
03-19-2011, 11:54 PM
These are very different forms of military intervention. The only similarity is that it is an Arab state with a predominantly Muslim population, if we were doing this in any other part of the world your argument wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Muslim country with a brutal dictator victimizing his people and ignoring U.N. resolutions. Who has oil and a past history of a robust WMD program.

Sound familiar?

KhrushchevsShoe
03-19-2011, 11:55 PM
All of these arguments were made by President Bush for going into Iraq.

Were you this favorable of the actions of the Commander in Chief then as you are now?

Except President Bush was pining for an open invasion with ground troops and full power of the United States military. We are launching missiles are Libya, and until the airstrikes start, that's going to be the extent of it.

Rockntractor
03-19-2011, 11:59 PM
Except President Bush was pining for an open invasion with ground troops and full power of the United States military. We are launching missiles are Libya, and until the airstrikes start, that's going to be the extent of it.

You don't get into a fight without being prepared to do everything you need to win it, and your enemy should no that.

txradioguy
03-19-2011, 11:59 PM
Except President Bush was pining for an open invasion with ground troops and full power of the United States military. We are launching missiles are Libya, and until the airstrikes start, that's going to be the extent of it.

And this matters how exactly? The reason for military action were the same. Damn near word for word form what I've heard on the news this weekend.

The ONLY difference is NOW Code Pink has swallowed its tongue....the Congress Critters that wailed and howled about going to Iraq last time are silent and Libtard trolls like you are defending the action and practically justifying it.

HOW the military actions were implemented is splitting hairs on your part and an attempt to avoid a very uncomfortable fact.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-20-2011, 12:00 AM
You don't get into a fight without being prepared to do everything you need to win it, and your enemy should no that.

So your argument is: If its not a quagmire that costs trillions of dollars the lives of thousands of American soldiers, its not worth doing.

lacarnut
03-20-2011, 12:02 AM
Openly admitting it was an oil war. Lol, you're arguing against your own positions.

People dont understand the meaning of "no ground troops", you just want to exist in a suspended reality where you can blame Obama for doing the same retarded shit Bush pulled.

Learn how to read dummie. WMD's was the stated main reason. Congressional Democrats approved both wars; however, stabilizing the oil market was also a consideration.

I don't carry water for Bush. So, your stupidity is showing. I also blame Bush for the debt, the bailouts, not vetoing spending bills for 7 years while President. We should get out of the M.E. Eight years of war is too fucking long. We do not need to start another. You know how V.N. started don't you? It got out of hand. I think US intervention is the only way Qaddafi will be defeated.

What a joke you are stating that this is a win win proposition. We will spend billions of dollars we do not have. It would not surprise me if Americans soldiers are killed in support of this encounter. I will remind a dumb shit like you if it happens. Have you ever been in the service?

txradioguy
03-20-2011, 12:02 AM
So your argument is: If its not a quagmire that costs trillions of dollars the lives of thousands of American soldiers, its not worth doing.

If your enemy know you're only going to do a half ass half hearted attempt at "action"...they've won before you fire the first shot. If you don't believe me look at Somalia.

If you're truly interested in winning...your opponent has to know you will do whatever it takes to win and make sure they lose.

It's a concept you linguini spined Libs have a hard time grasping.

Rockntractor
03-20-2011, 12:05 AM
We bombed the hell out of them, they retreated, and an international peace keeping force was sent in to the cheers of the people.

And now those same Muslims we saved are training terrorists against us. We just had one in Germany.

Rockntractor
03-20-2011, 12:11 AM
So your argument is: If its not a quagmire that costs trillions of dollars the lives of thousands of American soldiers, its not worth doing.

Quagmires start by announcing to your enemy what your limits are.

txradioguy
03-20-2011, 12:18 AM
Kosovo?


Yeah and how well did that work out for us? Another case of a CINC who had no concept of how to use military force thinking it could all be won from the air.

Didn't work out so hot. Not sure what cheers you're talking about. I sure don't remember them.

We ended up with scouts taken at POW's. China now has stealth fighter technology thanks to Billy Jeff using the F-117 for daytime ops and getting blasted out of the sky and...oh yeah...we're still there.

AFTER Clintoon promised we'd be home in a year.

Hate to burst your bubble Jonesey...but Kosovo is not the rousing success you think it is.

It's not going to be taught at the War College as an example of a well executed operation.



ETA: And lets not forget the 4 Star ground commander and future Dem Presidential Candidate that damn near started WW III with the Russians and was relieved of his command in that engagement.

lacarnut
03-20-2011, 12:18 AM
So your argument is: If its not a quagmire that costs trillions of dollars the lives of thousands of American soldiers, its not worth doing.

We have lost too many soldiers in these god forsaking countries in the M.E. I don't want one more soldier killed there. These ungrateful bastards do not appreciate what we have done to save their ass. We get kicked in the ass with OPEC controlling the price of oil. They should be giving it to us at $20 a barrel to pay us back for the money we spent there but most of all the lives lost there. If I was President, I would tell the leaders in Kuwait, Iraq, you owe us a million dollars per soldier that was killed in your fucked up country. Pay up or we will come over there or we will confiscate your oil.

djones520
03-20-2011, 12:22 AM
Yeah and how well did that work out for us? Another case of a CINC who had no concept of how to use military force thinking it could all be won from the air.

Didn't work out so hot. Not sure what cheers you're talking about. I sure don't remember them.

We ended up with scouts taken at POW's. China now has stealth fighter technology thanks to Billy Jeff using the F-117 for daytime ops and getting blasted out of the sky and...oh yeah...we're still there.

AFTER Clintoon promised we'd be home in a year.

Hate to burst your bubble Jonesey...but Kosovo is not the rousing success you think it is.

It's not going to be taught at the War College as an example of a well executed operation.



ETA: And lets not forget the 4 Star ground commander and future Dem Presidential Candidate that damn near started WW III with the Russians and was relieved of his command in that engagement.

Never claimed it was Tx. Was just answering a question. We did Kosovo without ground troops.

txradioguy
03-20-2011, 12:22 AM
We have lost too many soldiers in these god forsaking countries in the M.E. I don't want one more soldier killed there. These ungrateful bastards do not appreciate what we have done to save their ass. We get kicked in the ass with OPEC controlling the price of oil. They should be giving it to us at $20 a barrel to pay us back for the money we spent there but most of all the lives lost there. If I was President, I would tell the leaders in Kuwait, Iraq, you owe us a million dollars per soldier that was killed in your fucked up country. Pay up or we will come over there or we will confiscate your oil.

IIRC Kuwait wanted to give a large bonus of some type to the U.S. soldiers after we kicked Iraq out and Bush 41 said no.

djones520
03-20-2011, 12:25 AM
IIRC Kuwait wanted to give a large bonus of some type to the U.S. soldiers after we kicked Iraq out and Bush 41 said no.

Yeah, cause our Gov was worried about the perception of us acting as Mercenaries. And it was Saudi Arabia who wanted to do it.

lacarnut
03-20-2011, 12:37 AM
IIRC Kuwait wanted to give a large bonus of some type to the U.S. soldiers after we kicked Iraq out and Bush 41 said no.

I did not know that a compensation offer was made by either by the Saudis or the Kuwaitis. Just goes to show you what value politicians put on our soldiers, and it looks like both political parties suck in this regard.
However, that should not stop a President with BALLS to tell these sand monkeys to dramatically drop your price of oil to the US.

txradioguy
03-20-2011, 12:50 AM
Yeah, cause our Gov was worried about the perception of us acting as Mercenaries. And it was Saudi Arabia who wanted to do it.


Oh ok. Thanks. Couldn't remember which one it was exactly. Just remember one of them wanting to give the soldiers cash.

djones520
03-20-2011, 12:52 AM
Oh ok. Thanks. Couldn't remember which one it was exactly. Just remember one of them wanting to give the soldiers cash.

Yeah, remember my dad was a bit pissed about it after he got home.

txradioguy
03-20-2011, 01:13 AM
Yeah, remember my dad was a bit pissed about it after he got home.

I heard that too. that was about a year before I joined. I don't think your dad was the only one that was upset. I seem to recall that a LOT of soldiers were pissed. Especially since some of our allies were allowing their soldiers to take the payments.

That probably cost 41 a LOT of votes the next year.

lacarnut
03-20-2011, 02:47 AM
I heard that too. that was about a year before I joined. I don't think your dad was the only one that was upset. I seem to recall that a LOT of soldiers were pissed. Especially since some of our allies were allowing their soldiers to take the payments.

That probably cost 41 a LOT of votes the next year.

That is just another good reason to never vote for another Bush again. When Jeb runs, he can forget about my vote.

malloc
03-20-2011, 07:04 AM
So your argument is: If its not a quagmire that costs trillions of dollars the lives of thousands of American soldiers, its not worth doing.

This is quite possibly one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read on the internet, and that includes youtube comments! After reading a statement as wretchedly dumb as this one, I'm convinced your IQ is hovering somewhere around legal retardation, and therefore it may be difficult to simplify the description of your error to a point where it is understood by you.

I find it most likely that in your grade school days you found yourself curled into the fetal position, waiting for the recess monitor to come to your rescue, whenever a physical altercation occurred. However, the kid which was pounding on you up until the point of intervention, was willing to do whatever it took to inflict enough harm upon you to make you quit the fight. When you apply this idea to the politics of warfighting, even the daftest of men can see that you must be willing to put the costs at extreme highs in order to even bother with engaging in the conflict. If you attempt to budget how many lives and how many dollars achieving a certain goal is worth, then you must also admit that not achieving that goal wastes whatever lives and dollars you've already anted up to the point of reaching your budget limits. In that case you'd be better off if you either took the full measure or no measure what-so-ever.

If Kuddafi pulls a North Vietnam, hides his military firepower, and uses his civilian sympathizers in a Viet Kong role, to control the population while blending in amongst the populace, do you really think we stand a chance of controlling the outcome of the Libyan conflict without an enormous ground commitment? If we don't make that ground commitment don't we waste everything, including the cost, reputation, U.N. authority we've put on the line thus far into this conflict?

In this thread I've watched you top-toe around like a blind man in a minefield. In reality, there are only three positions you can take without looking like either a complete moron, or dishonest hack.


Obama and Bush are equally idiotic for committing forces when the cost escalation is not known.
Obama and Bush are equally virtuous in the same situation above.
Admit you are a hypocrite and you are only cheer-leading for your team.


Your fourth option, which is to engage moral relativism and abject dishonesty, will only confirm the opinion everyone here has of you.

Odysseus
03-20-2011, 09:26 AM
Your fourth option, which is to engage moral relativism and abject dishonesty, will only confirm the opinion everyone here has of you.

Well, he is a leftist. Would you expect anything else?

namvet
03-20-2011, 07:02 PM
strike photos

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/legacy/2010/09/660/440/Libya4_3-20.jpg
look familar???

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/660/429/031911_libya3.jpg
is it real or Pallywood ????

FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/world/2011/03/19/military-airstrikes-carried-qaddafi-forces/#slide=1)

PoliCon
03-20-2011, 07:23 PM
Justified military intervention as agreed upon by well established and internationally recognized standards vs. "Screw the evidence and international support, America Fuck Yea!" and jumping into the graveyard of empires with ridiculous amounts of hubris.

But yea, this is all politics. Whatever.

You stupid fuck. What we did in Iraq was also sanctioned by the UNSC. You forget - the gulf war never ended. We imposed an armistice with specific criteria to be met by Saddam. Saddam did not meet that criteria and we were more than justified by UNSC resolutions to do what we did. But with you fuckwads it's all about what letter the president has after his name. :mad:

Odysseus
03-20-2011, 09:24 PM
Time to parse KS' leftspeak:


So your argument is: If its not a quagmire (<kwag-mahyuhr, kwog-> –noun--Any conflict begun by a person not of the left. Not to be confused with righteous military actions against persons not on the left, such as mass slaughter, forced labor and famines). that costs trillions of dollars (<tril-yuhn> -noun--An amount of money that should not be spent on national defense, but is okay as a deficit caused by entitlements, nationalized health care or mandatory high speed rail.) the lives of thousands of American soldiers (<thou-zuhnds; uhv, ov; uh-mer-i-kuhn; sohl-jerz> Collective noun--A group of people held in utter contempt by leftists until it is time to oppose an action by a politician not of the left, at which point they become sympathetic martyrs/dupes of the vast military industrial complex. See also: Dupes, baby killers), its not worth doing.



Justified military intervention (<juhs-tuh-fahyd mil-i-ter-ee in-ter-ven-shuhn> A combat operation in which no US interest is advanced or protected, but which makes leftist politicians look good. See "Wag the Dog") as agreed upon <uh-greed uh-pon, uh-pawn> -adj--Liked by leftists, used to create pretense of consensus)by well established and internationally recognized standards (<wel ih-stab-lishd in-ter-nash-uh-nl-ee rek-uhg-nahyz'd stan-derdz>--Collective noun-- Some BS passed by a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats at an international organization that sounds good to leftists; See: International Law as defined by leftists, "Living Document")vs. "Screw the evidence and international support (<in-ter-nash-uh-nl suh-pawrt, -pohrt>-Noun--Sanctioned by countries that leftists like, but not sufficient to justify actions by non-leftists. Example: The Libya raid, with half a dozen token efforts by other nations, constitutes international support, but the Iraq War, which included ground forces of over thirty nations, doesn't), America Fuck Yea!" and jumping into the graveyard of empires with ridiculous amounts of hubris (<hyoo-bris> –noun excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance, except when applied to leftists who think that they have the wisdom to change the world to their liking).

But yea, this is all politics <pol-i-tiks>-noun--intrigue or manipulation, something truly evil unless done in the name of progressive agendas). Whatever.



I did not know that a compensation offer was made by either by the Saudis or the Kuwaitis. Just goes to show you what value politicians put on our soldiers, and it looks like both political parties suck in this regard.
However, that should not stop a President with BALLS to tell these sand monkeys to dramatically drop your price of oil to the US.

I'd feel odd taking money from a foreign government. We aren't mercenaries, and we don't take money to do the bidding of the Saudis.

lacarnut
03-21-2011, 08:45 AM
[QUOTE=Odysseus;388720]

I was just speaking about compensation for those that were killed or injured seriously.

Odysseus
03-21-2011, 09:14 AM
[QUOTE=Odysseus;388720]

I was just speaking about compensation for those that were killed or injured seriously.

I understand. It's still problematical, as it implies that they were killed or injured in service to the Saudis, and not the United States. OTOH, there's nothing to stop the Saudis from contributing to Fisher House or any of the other charities that take care of military dependents of casualties.

fettpett
03-21-2011, 09:20 AM
[QUOTE=lacarnut;388776]

I understand. It's still problematical, as it implies that they were killed or injured in service to the Saudis, and not the United States. OTOH, there's nothing to stop the Saudis from contributing to Fisher House or any of the other charities that take care of military dependents of casualties.

yep, if the Saudi's had wanted to do something for the troops there are many organizations that they could have donated to or started their own in the US for troops.


US military has always tried to hold it's self to higher standards than other Countries.

lacarnut
03-21-2011, 11:01 AM
[QUOTE=lacarnut;388776]

I understand. It's still problematical, as it implies that they were killed or injured in service to the Saudis, and not the United States. OTOH, there's nothing to stop the Saudis from contributing to Fisher House or any of the other charities that take care of military dependents of casualties.

I feel like we just get a kick in the ass for saving these worthless ungratefull bastards. Case in point..the oil leases were bid so low in Iraq that most American companies did not bid. Some of these companies will be lucky if they make a profit. American compaies should have been given those in my opinion.

Odysseus
03-21-2011, 11:23 AM
yep, if the Saudi's had wanted to do something for the troops there are many organizations that they could have donated to or started their own in the US for troops.

US military has always tried to hold it's self to higher standards than other Countries.
Agreed. Which is why we are the only peacekeepers that anyone ever trusts.


I feel like we just get a kick in the ass for saving these worthless ungratefull bastards. Case in point..the oil leases were bid so low in Iraq that most American companies did not bid. Some of these companies will be lucky if they make a profit. American compaies should have been given those in my opinion.

The oil leases could have been handled better, but at least we can point out that if we were trading blood for oil, we didn't get much oil out of it. Of course, none of that means anything to a liberal with a catchy slogan.

Ultimately, we ought to go back to the classics for our education in warfighting. How do you deal with a Qaddafi? You conduct a punitive raid and make him sorry that he ever messed with you. Does that raid involve just cruise missiles? Only if you can accomplish your goals with them. Punitive raids must punish. Destroying infrastructure that corrupt thugs don't care about only demonstrates that you lack the courage to really punish them. That's why Reagan launched strikes at Qaddafi's palaces and other hiding places. My take on Qaddafi and how to deal with him is simple: We should launch an MEU to find him and hang him from a lampost in Tripoli, then hand the keys to the next guy in line with the warning that there's plenty more rope where that came from, and don't make us come back. It worked for Germany and Japan, and would have worked fine for Saddam if we hadn't decided to implement the Marshall Plan before we'd won the war. If the locals can't be bothered to clean up after we liberate them, then they can wallow in their filth. If they want our help, they can negotiate for it and we can set terms, or they can go to someone else. If you make us invade, the results are on your head.

lacarnut
03-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Agreed. Which is why we are the only peacekeepers that anyone ever trusts.


The oil leases could have been handled better, but at least we can point out that if we were trading blood for oil, we didn't get much oil out of it. Of course, none of that means anything to a liberal with a catchy slogan.

Ultimately, we ought to go back to the classics for our education in warfighting. How do you deal with a Qaddafi? You conduct a punitive raid and make him sorry that he ever messed with you. Does that raid involve just cruise missiles? Only if you can accomplish your goals with them. Punitive raids must punish. Destroying infrastructure that corrupt thugs don't care about only demonstrates that you lack the courage to really punish them. That's why Reagan launched strikes at Qaddafi's palaces and other hiding places. My take on Qaddafi and how to deal with him is simple: We should launch an MEU to find him and hang him from a lampost in Tripoli, then hand the keys to the next guy in line with the warning that there's plenty more rope where that came from, and don't make us come back. It worked for Germany and Japan, and would have worked fine for Saddam if we hadn't decided to implement the Marshall Plan before we'd won the war. If the locals can't be bothered to clean up after we liberate them, then they can wallow in their filth. If they want our help, they can negotiate for it and we can set terms, or they can go to someone else. If you make us invade, the results are on your head.

Well we do have a bunch of morons running our State Dept & negot. trade agreements.

Let me make my position clear. If you are going to start a fight, fight it to win using max. force short of nukes; not these half ass measures. We have no business in this fight. 8 years of war in the M.E. is enough. What country is next that we are going to meddle in. The President lied when he said that our only particapation was to destroy their missile defense. What's next support ground troops. This will not turn into another V.N.. but it sure has some similarities brewing.

Odysseus
03-21-2011, 05:50 PM
Well we do have a bunch of morons running our State Dept & negot. trade agreements.

Let me make my position clear. If you are going to start a fight, fight it to win using max. force short of nukes; not these half ass measures. We have no business in this fight. 8 years of war in the M.E. is enough. What country is next that we are going to meddle in. The President lied when he said that our only particapation was to destroy their missile defense. What's next support ground troops. This will not turn into another V.N.. but it sure has some similarities brewing.

Why short of nukes? Failed states that refuse to turn over terrorists who've killed Americans make great test sites. If they don't have natural resources, nobody will miss them, and if they do, then we can drill through the glass. The minute that the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden, we should have started nuking Afghan cities until they complied. Kill 3,000 of us, and we'll kill 3 million of you. Don't like it? Don't poke the eagle.

namvet
03-21-2011, 05:54 PM
I heard gates say we will turn this operation over to one of our alleged allies

lacarnut
03-21-2011, 06:15 PM
Why short of nukes? Failed states that refuse to turn over terrorists who've killed Americans make great test sites. If they don't have natural resources, nobody will miss them, and if they do, then we can drill through the glass. The minute that the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden, we should have started nuking Afghan cities until they complied. Kill 3,000 of us, and we'll kill 3 million of you. Don't like it? Don't poke the eagle.

That sounds good to me. I believe in extreme force; the benefit is fewer casualties and a short duration of coflict. As far as I am concerned, one American soldier is not worth a million of those sand monkeys.I think Truman did a great thing by dropping the A-Bomb.

Odysseus
03-21-2011, 07:21 PM
That sounds good to me. I believe in extreme force; the benefit is fewer casualties and a short duration of coflict. As far as I am concerned, one American soldier is not worth a million of those sand monkeys.I think Truman did a great thing by dropping the A-Bomb.

It's more than that. At the end of WWII, the Germans and Japanese looked out over the wreckage of their cities and realized that they had bitten off a lot more than they could chew. The end result was a complete destruction of their will to resist. That is what war is. The strategic goal isn't to finesse your enemy or make nice with him, it's to convince him that war is the last thing that he wants. If you can do that by maintaining a robust defense capability and demonstrate a willingness to use it, you'll have won without fighting, but some people won't accept that. Sometimes, you have to fight and do so with everything that you have, so that the bad guys figure out that they never, ever want to piss you off again. Notice that ever since WWII, whenever someone has suggested deploying their militaries, the Germans and Japanese have found themselves with serious navel lint to contemplate? That's because we adjusted their attitudes. After the Barbary Pirate Wars, we didn't have to worry about attacks on American shipping, because the pirates knew that we'd go ashore and burn their cities.

Now, some people may ask what the difference is between us and our enemies if we are willing to do things that are just as brutal as they are, and the answer is, we don't go around looking for opportunities show how tough we are. We're more than happy to be left alone, but when somebody kills several thousand of us and demands that we convert or die, they need to see that we have a third option, which is to bring their world down around their ears.

AmPat
03-21-2011, 07:33 PM
Its a UNSC binding resolution, so any money spent enforcing it is covered by the UN. Not to mention there's probably not much left on Qaddafi's army, so any combat missions we fly in Libyan borders will probably be cakewalks.

What does Congress say about it, or do we take orders from the UN now?:rolleyes:
Why don't you come along with me on this "cake walk?"

KhrushchevsShoe
03-22-2011, 08:07 AM
Why short of nukes? Failed states that refuse to turn over terrorists who've killed Americans make great test sites. If they don't have natural resources, nobody will miss them, and if they do, then we can drill through the glass. The minute that the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden, we should have started nuking Afghan cities until they complied. Kill 3,000 of us, and we'll kill 3 million of you. Don't like it? Don't poke the eagle.

Because nuclear war is horrifying and not what a civilized country does to people. Thank god you dont make meaningful decisions, holy shit.

fettpett
03-22-2011, 08:19 AM
Because nuclear war is horrifying and not what a civilized country does to people. Thank god you dont make meaningful decisions, holy shit.

you do understand what a rhetorical question and being facetious is right?

Odysseus
03-22-2011, 09:56 AM
Because nuclear war is horrifying and not what a civilized country does to people. Thank god you dont make meaningful decisions, holy shit.

How would you know what civilized people do to each other? Your namesake cut his teeth under Stalin. Spare us the moral scruples of groupies for mass-murderers.

txradioguy
03-22-2011, 02:47 PM
What does Congress say about it, or do we take orders from the UN now?:rolleyes:
Why don't you come along with me on this "cake walk?"

What he's done is severely weakened U.S. sovereignty. Who needs congress when you can rule by fiat wielding a permission slip rom the U.N?

He just gave a big middle finger to the legislative branch.

fettpett
03-22-2011, 04:11 PM
What he's done is severely weakened U.S. sovereignty. Who needs congress when you can rule by fiat wielding a permission slip rom the U.N?

He just gave a big middle finger to the legislative branch.

the worse part about it, only the liberal wingnuts in Congress are really pissed about the action. Hell I heard that guy subbing for Rush yesterday make it sound like it was perfectly fine for us to go in and that Libya was the same war as Iraq and Afghanistan. please.

Arroyo_Doble
03-22-2011, 04:14 PM
It's more than that. At the end of WWII, the Germans and Japanese looked out over the wreckage of their cities and realized that they had bitten off a lot more than they could chew. The end result was a complete destruction of their will to resist. That is what war is. The strategic goal isn't to finesse your enemy or make nice with him, it's to convince him that war is the last thing that he wants. If you can do that by maintaining a robust defense capability and demonstrate a willingness to use it, you'll have won without fighting, but some people won't accept that. Sometimes, you have to fight and do so with everything that you have, so that the bad guys figure out that they never, ever want to piss you off again. Notice that ever since WWII, whenever someone has suggested deploying their militaries, the Germans and Japanese have found themselves with serious navel lint to contemplate? That's because we adjusted their attitudes. After the Barbary Pirate Wars, we didn't have to worry about attacks on American shipping, because the pirates knew that we'd go ashore and burn their cities.

Now, some people may ask what the difference is between us and our enemies if we are willing to do things that are just as brutal as they are, and the answer is, we don't go around looking for opportunities show how tough we are. We're more than happy to be left alone, but when somebody kills several thousand of us and demands that we convert or die, they need to see that we have a third option, which is to bring their world down around their ears.

That jibes with my axiom that in war, the bigger bastard always wins.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-22-2011, 04:25 PM
How would you know what civilized people do to each other? Your namesake cut his teeth under Stalin. Spare us the moral scruples of groupies for mass-murderers.

Not a valid counter-argument. Using nuclear weapons is bad and countries' who have the capability should have (and do have) a sense of responsibility to never use them.

Flash frying a ton of innocent people because the Taliban exists is deranged lunacy.

fettpett
03-22-2011, 04:32 PM
Not a valid counter-argument. Using nuclear weapons is bad and countries' who have the capability should have (and do have) a sense of responsibility to never use them.

Flash frying a ton of innocent people because the Taliban exists is deranged lunacy.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

KhrushchevsShoe
03-22-2011, 04:34 PM
I thought nuclear war was almost universally unpopular. Leave it to CU.

Sonnabend
03-22-2011, 04:41 PM
Not a valid counter-argument. Using nuclear weapons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Weapons) is bad and countries' who have the capability should have (and do have) a sense of responsibility to never use them.


Worked at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


I thought nuclear war was almost universally unpopular. Leave it to CU.

Only to nutcases like you. To the rest of us it's an alternative.


Because nuclear war is horrifying and not what a civilized country does to people.

The "civilised countries"?..paradises like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, would have no hesitation in nuking Israel given half a chance. Then again, you'd lose no sleep over that.

Would you?

Odysseus
03-22-2011, 04:41 PM
That jibes with my axiom that in war, the bigger bastard always wins.
Y'know, I'm starting to like some of your views. Not all of them, but some.

Not a valid counter-argument. Using nuclear weapons is bad and countries' who have the capability should have (and do have) a sense of responsibility to never use them.

Flash frying a ton of innocent people because the Taliban exists is deranged lunacy.

As opposed to starving them by the millions because they are the wrong political class? Spare me.

Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent if your enemy believes that you will use them, just like any other weapon, including the rifle, the bayonet and the fist. Saying that you will never, ever use them, no matter what, is as stupid as throwing them away, since it accomplishes the same thing, which is empowering your enemies. Stalin, Krushchev, Brezshnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev weren't constrained by our sterling characters, they were constrained by the knowledge that we would not go gently into that good night, but would destroy them if they invaded.

As for Afghanistan, we gave them over $100 million in emergency food aid in 2000. A year later, they gave al Qaeda sanctuary when they murdered 3,000 Americans. What would you have done?

fettpett
03-22-2011, 04:42 PM
I thought nuclear war was almost universally unpopular. Leave it to CU.

well it's not like we WANT to go blowing shit up with nukes. but since WW2 we've hamstrung ourselves by not using nuclear weapons. The first time in history that we've refrained from using all available weapons. Even in WW2 chemical warfare was used.

KhrushchevsShoe
03-22-2011, 04:47 PM
Worked at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Against the country that had no means of functioning as a state at the end of the most brutal war in human history, also when the bomb was brand new. The horrors unleashed on those two cities should be reason enough for us to never use it again.

Only to nutcases like you. To the rest of us it's an alternative.
Screaming from the mountaintops "Nuke everyone!" and I'm a nutcase.

The "civilised countries"?..paradises like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, would have no hesitation in nuking Israel given half a chance. Then again, you'd lose no sleep over that.

Would you?
But they haven't, and really only evidence you have that supports that they would is riled up leaders pandering. You're dreaming.

I'm not against states stockpiling nuclear weapons, they are deterrents and since its pretty well established there are very few heads of state insane enough to use them they turn into benevolent metal canisters of peace. If we start using them in every theater we please others will see it as tacit approval of the practice. They key is to not use them.

Odysseus
03-22-2011, 04:47 PM
well it's not like we WANT to go blowing shit up with nukes. but since WW2 we've hamstrung ourselves by not using nuclear weapons. The first time in history that we've refrained from using all available weapons. Even in WW2 chemical warfare was used.

Yeah, but it was only by accident. Both sides actually refrained from using chemical weapons, although the Japanese did work to develop biological weapons.

AmPat
03-22-2011, 09:10 PM
What he's done is severely weakened U.S. sovereignty. Who needs congress when you can rule by fiat wielding a permission slip rom the U.N?

He just gave a big middle finger to the legislative branch.

He's just following up the middle finger he is giving to the judicial branch for the last few months. O Blah Blah is the worst president now officially. He has surpassed Jimmah as the worst in half the time.

AmPat
03-22-2011, 09:17 PM
Because nuclear war is horrifying and not what a civilized country does to people. Thank god you dont make meaningful decisions, holy shit.

Better to allow the neutered, ineffectual strikes and years of aggravation and needless death that we have experienced in our latest wars. :rolleyes:

We should carpet bomb the enemy of our nation and remove all means of military might and resistance. They should know that we will destroy them and their POC country until they get the message that they should NEVER mess with the USA. Of course with pansies like you and your god O Blah Blah making decisions, we'll be left with the option of tolerating a death of a thousand cuts.:cool:

fettpett
03-22-2011, 09:18 PM
Yeah, but it was only by accident. Both sides actually refrained from using chemical weapons, although the Japanese did work to develop biological weapons.

well the European theater was much more of a "gentleman's" war where each side followed the rules of war, when compared to the shit that we had to go through in the Pacific and SE Asian theaters

txradioguy
03-22-2011, 10:10 PM
Not a valid counter-argument. Using nuclear weapons is bad and countries' who have the capability should have (and do have) a sense of responsibility to never use them.

Flash frying a ton of innocent people because the Taliban exists is deranged lunacy.

So you would have preferred the million plus casualties the U.S. was looking taking in a ground offensive against the Japanese in Operation Olympic?

You realize that they manufactured so many Purple Heart medals in anticipation of the number of wounded in that Operation that in 2005 we finally used them all up?

txradioguy
03-22-2011, 10:16 PM
Against the country that had no means of functioning as a state at the end of the most brutal war in human history, also when the bomb was brand new. The horrors unleashed on those two cities should be reason enough for us to never use it again.

Your knowledge of history sucks. They were still a very capable war machine when we dropped the two bombs.

And even then they didn't want to surrender. Imperial command thought it was a trick.



But they haven't, and really only evidence you have that supports that they would is riled up leaders pandering. You're dreaming.
:rolleyes:



I'm not against states stockpiling nuclear weapons, they are deterrents and since its pretty well established there are very few heads of state insane enough to use them they turn into benevolent metal canisters of peace. If we start using them in every theater we please others will see it as tacit approval of the practice. They key is to not use them.

The world is becoming more and more unstable. It used to be that you knew that the professional military's wouldn't just go of half cocked and fire off missiles just because. They are predictable.

Sadly the world is now every day full of more and more amateurs.

fettpett
03-23-2011, 09:20 AM
Against the country that had no means of functioning as a state at the end of the most brutal war in human history, also when the bomb was brand new. The horrors unleashed on those two cities should be reason enough for us to never use it again.


The Japanesse had a very functional Government up to and after Fat Boy and Little Man were dropped. Japan would have become another Korea if we had continued due to the Fact that the Russian's were getting ready to invade the North while we were building up to invade from the South. The war in Japan would have dragged out for another 2 years plus would have had to deal with the Soviets on another front

Odysseus
03-23-2011, 09:47 AM
The Japanesse had a very functional Government up to and after Fat Boy and Little Man were dropped. Japan would have become another Korea if we had continued due to the Fact that the Russian's were getting ready to invade the North while we were building up to invade from the South. The war in Japan would have dragged out for another 2 years plus would have had to deal with the Soviets on another front

KS would have liked a Soviet Japan.

fettpett
03-23-2011, 10:03 AM
KS would have liked a Soviet Japan.

true