Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

U.S. Coalition Drone, Shot Down Over Iran Nuke

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Author
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 1:01pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

This whole episode is just a reinforcement of the tried and true Democrat War vs Republican War media battle, if the bombs have a 'D' on them it is a just a legal action, if the bombs have a 'R' on them it is a unjust an illegal 'war'.

For all the claims of Bush's 'Wars for Oil' not one barrel of Iraqi crude has offloaded in the US, yet the perception from the left it was and still is a War to sieze Iraqi oil.

This new 'No Fly Zone' fiasco will mimic the last two fiasco's of the post Gulf War 1 (Desert Storm) Northern Iraq 'No Fly Zone' as well as Clinton's Balkan 'No Fly Zones'. US and co-allition aircraft will be shot down by SAM's, orders will be given to take out SAM and AAA sites, pilots will go down, ground troops will need to go in to rescue downed airmen (Air Force Search and Rescue, as well as Navy will begin to demand ground troops to defend rescue and pickup sites) and then in order to decrease response times to go after downed pilots ground bases, for search and rescue as well as the security troops (Marines) will be established. Escolation in situations like this are natural in the face of military as well as political concerns of the lives of the aircrews performing the missions, both No Fly and Search and Rescue.

Look at Bosnia and the Balkans, when an aircraft went down it was a S&R Bird with troop slicks, ground troops went in secured rescue site, S&R bird went in and grabbed the crew. Now when the inevitable clash between Libyan forces and rescue forces occurs, the natural escolation process will begin.

This whole fiasco has nothing but bad written all over it, and wait till the first captured airman video hits the news media, won't be pretty.


Even that course of events would be worth it to prevent Ghaddafi waging war on his own population.

His attacks are continuing, by the way. Ghaddafi's forces are assaulting Misrata, and are expected to hit Zintan tonight.

Put it this way- if you saw the guy down the street beating his fourteen year old son around the front lawn with a baseball bat, would you not step in and stop it because you might take a few licks?
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 4:17pm
I've got a question.

But before I ask it, I'm not trying to make a point, I'm really interested in the logic.

Back when W. committed US Forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama was amongst the group of people that said that the President of the United States had no right to order military action unless there was imminent threat to the people of the US.

W. Rationalized his move by citing intelligence reports that indicated the presence of WMDs (legitimacy of the reports aside) And that the WMDs therein posed the threat needed to justify his unilateral decision to order military action.

Where is the justification that Obama himself said was needed in the Libya case? Where is the threat posed by Ghadafi?

I understand the humanitarian angle, I really do. But if you're going to cite the constitution when your political opposition does something, you can't ignore it to do exactly the same thing- at least W. made an attempt to justify his actions to satisfy the demands of the Constitution. O. just went and did it.

Now before you go and get all huffy, I don't condemn Obama's actions here- because I don't believe any person has the right to slaughter others to satisfy his own means, and if the US has to play a part in the global community to rid this guy's threat to his own people, cool.

But do it right. Either dig for justification like W. did, or obey the constitutional laws that you so readily cited when you were waving the campaign flag.

If I missed something, by all means, fill me in. I don't mind being proven wrong. Its educational.


Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 4:22pm
I guarantee our government would do anything in their power, to squash any revolution or uprising. Including shooting "civilians" with aircraft.

The people wanted a revolution, if they can't accomplish it, they can't accomplish it. They will need to feel the consequences of trying to over throw a government.

So I read a story the rebels ran out of weapons. Did the CIA somehow mess up the delivery?
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 4:29pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

I guarantee our government would do anything in their power, to squash any revolution or uprising. Including shooting "civilians" with aircraft.


Despite historical prescient, I'm inclined to disagree with you. These sort of things happen when a single person or few select people have absolute power and attempt to cling to it in the face of public opposition. There is no single entity within the U.S. with the kind of power that would even require armed revolt to dislodge.

There are far too many things in place to prevent that from ever happening here. Stop trolling.




Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 4:38pm
Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

I guarantee our government would do anything in their power, to squash any revolution or uprising. Including shooting "civilians" with aircraft.


Despite historical prescient, I'm inclined to disagree with you. These sort of things happen when a single person or few select people have absolute power and attempt to cling to it in the face of public opposition. There is no single entity within the U.S. with the kind of power that would even require armed revolt to dislodge.

There are far too many things in place to prevent that from ever happening here. Stop trolling.



As time passes, more liberties are stripped. Most recently the Patriot Act. We will give away all liberties for a sense of security.

There is no single entity in the US with the kind of power, that would require a revolution? Homeland Security is getting to that point. 

Frog in the pot theory at play.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

I guarantee our government would do anything in their power, to squash any revolution or uprising. Including shooting "civilians" with aircraft.

The people wanted a revolution, if they can't accomplish it, they can't accomplish it. They will need to feel the consequences of trying to over throw a government.

So I read a story the rebels ran out of weapons. Did the CIA somehow mess up the delivery?

I'm getting the distinct impression that you're one of those poor, oh-so-political creatures who will read and accept anything he's fed so long as it conforms to his ideology. I imagine you also believe we're in Afghanistan for the oil  natural gas lithium?

You speak so very coldly to 'if they try to have a revolution and fail, they deserve the consequences'. Bull, and frankly I consider you a moral coward for your stance. A state has the unique capability of amassing coercive force under its legitimate auspices. A civilian population likely cannot. You seem to sugegst that any state that CAN brutally repress its own is justified in doing so, because it means we don't need to intervene. Might makes right; a purely Hobbesian view of international politics; the weaker you are, the nastier, harder, more brutal and short your political life should be.

I think you would be advised to ask the serving military members on this board just what the government would - or more properly, COULD - do to suppress popular revolt. The 'government' is nothing; it relies on its citizens in voluntary service to enforce its will. I say this as someone in uniform myself, for whom the consideration of deadly force is NOT merely something I've juggled with academically.

If your politics can justify a 'head in the sand' approach to a population trying to overthrow 40 years of dictatorship, well, you're welcome to it I guess. That's your right. But you'll not convince me or anyone else with a global view that you're peddling anything but wind.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 4:52pm
Members of the ACLU might not be arrested on conspiracy charges, but it's not hard to plant evidence. Even DNA evidence. If you want to get that deep.

People vanishing for speaking out against the Patriot Act? No reason, everyone knows what the Patriot Act, it's not a secret. 

I'm not saying our government is in a position of tyranny, yet. But people need to be diligent on asking, why? A event/catastrophe happens, the gov. gets an excuse to for more control. Some argue the event was no accident (9/11, 7/7 bombings, Katrina). There is no point of debating that issue, it will only end in hurt feelings.

People need to stop being spoon fed. Watch something other than Faux news and CNN.

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:03pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

Members of the ACLU might not be arrested on conspiracy charges, but it's not hard to plant evidence. Even DNA evidence. If you want to get that deep.

People vanishing for speaking out against the Patriot Act? No reason, everyone knows what the Patriot Act, it's not a secret. 

I'm not saying our government is in a position of tyranny, yet. But people need to be diligent on asking, why? A event/catastrophe happens, the gov. gets an excuse to for more control. Some argue the event was no accident (9/11, 7/7 bombings, Katrina). There is no point of debating that issue, it will only end in hurt feelings.

People need to stop being spoon fed. Watch something other than Faux news and CNN.


You keep shifting the topic away form whichever of your points are specifically contested, and isntead throwing out vague accusations against the government that are purely hypothetical, and thus cannot be disproven.

I ask again- what are your specific critiques with regards to Libya, what alternative course of action would you prefer, and what ulterior motives do you contend are being served?
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:03pm
Bri. already ended you.




Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:06pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

I guarantee our government would do anything in their power, to squash any revolution or uprising. Including shooting "civilians" with aircraft.

The people wanted a revolution, if they can't accomplish it, they can't accomplish it. They will need to feel the consequences of trying to over throw a government.

So I read a story the rebels ran out of weapons. Did the CIA somehow mess up the delivery?

I'm getting the distinct impression that you're one of those poor, oh-so-political creatures who will read and accept anything he's fed so long as it conforms to his ideology. I imagine you also believe we're in Afghanistan for the oil  natural gas lithium?

We sure as hell are not there to find Bin Laden. Some argue money hungry defense contractors. So argue strategics of having strong military forces surrounding Iran. Or having military bases/installments all over the world, including the middle east. Taking a chapter from the british. We are not in Afghanistan for natural resources, we control Iraq,Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. 



You speak so very coldly to 'if they try to have a revolution and fail, they deserve the consequences'. Bull, and frankly I consider you a moral coward for your stance. A state has the unique capability of amassing coercive force under its legitimate auspices. A civilian population likely cannot. You seem to sugegst that any state that CAN brutally repress its own is justified in doing so, because it means we don't need to intervene. Might makes right; a purely Hobbesian view of international politics; the weaker you are, the nastier, harder, more brutal and short your political life should be.

Yes, we entered Iraq to free the people......... While we let North Korea run death camps.

I think you would be advised to ask the serving military members on this board just what the government would - or more properly, COULD - do to suppress popular revolt. The 'government' is nothing; it relies on its citizens in voluntary service to enforce its will. I say this as someone in uniform myself, for whom the consideration of deadly force is NOT merely something I've juggled with academically.

Good, hopefully our military members have the intelligence, and are not completely brain washed to go against our constitution.  But our definition of the constitution is always changing. More to the side giving the government, more control. Not the people.

If your politics can justify a 'head in the sand' approach to a population trying to overthrow 40 years of dictatorship, well, you're welcome to it I guess. That's your right. But you'll not convince me or anyone else with a global view that you're peddling anything but wind.

If we are going to play world police. I can think of a lot of countries leaders that could use their head on a platter. But let Canada,France etc. be dumb enough to be a occupying country. Christ let the Brits do it, they have done it for hundreds of years. They should know how to do it by now. Or let Canada give a crack at it. Let them waste their money, so it turns into monopoly money like ours.
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:08pm
...So you don't actually have a substantive position regarding Libya, it's just a reflexive WHARGARBL against the state?
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:11pm
TROLOLOLOLOLOL
Que pasa?


Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:16pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

...So you don't actually have a substantive position regarding Libya, it's just a reflexive WHARGARBL against the state?

Why does the UN pick and choose who they are going to help? Do you really think, and I mean honestly think. We use military force, to protect civilians? Why don't we go after North Korea? Why don't we go after Iran?

No because those conflicts would cost TOO much money. Libya will be a fraction of the cost, and we will have control over the country in a shorter period of time.

Do you really think Ghadafi is going to say "Hey, sorry guys. I'm sad you blew up my stuff, but I forgive it. I was in the wrong, I will treat my people better. Thanks for the lesson"

Ghadafi already stated this is going to be "a long war". I.E. He will be kicking and screaming to remove him from power. We WILL have troops on the ground. We WILL have troops get killed and injured. Mostly going to be US and British troops doing the grunt work. It will be the US and British coming home in wooden boxes. 

What I think the U.S. should do? Nothing, let France and Canada prove how big their <egos> are, not us.


Edited by Reb Cpl - 21 March 2011 at 5:21pm
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:23pm
Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:


If I missed something, by all means, fill me in. I don't mind being proven wrong. Its educational.

No, I pretty much agree with you. It's a case, I would suspect, of it just being easier to do it the way everyone has done it since LBJ than trying to either 1) Going through congress or 2) Only using the executive ability to move troops when the country is under duress, which is what he claimed as a senator. 

If you're - being Obama - going to make a claim that you'd do it differently, you really aught do it differently. 

Now, that said, because of LBJ, Obama is well with the legal established rights to launch as many things at Libya as he wants. But, ethically, he said he wouldn't, which is where the rub comes in. 

Also, for OS, I'm consistently hearing the same people who complained about Iraq for the sake of it being aggravated war complaining about our involvement in Libya. Although I doubt that will stop the right-wing from asking where all the outrage is. It's been established that it will be the talking point du jour. 


Edited by agentwhale007 - 21 March 2011 at 5:24pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
GroupB View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 September 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1255
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GroupB Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:33pm
Oh my god.  You are completely serious, aren't you?
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by GroupB GroupB wrote:

Oh my god.  You are completely serious, aren't you?

OMG my opinion differs? Stop the presses, I went beyond FE. Tongue
Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:45pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

...So you don't actually have a substantive position regarding Libya, it's just a reflexive WHARGARBL against the state?

Why does the UN pick and choose who they are going to help? Do you really think, and I mean honestly think. We use military force, to protect civilians? Why don't we go after North Korea? Why don't we go after Iran?

No because those conflicts would cost TOO much money. Libya will be a fraction of the cost, and we will have control over the country in a shorter period of time.

Do you really think Ghadafi is going to say "Hey, sorry guys. I'm sad you blew up my stuff, but I forgive it. I was in the wrong, I will treat my people better. Thanks for the lesson"

Ghadafi already stated this is going to be "a long war". I.E. He will be kicking and screaming to remove him from power. We WILL have troops on the ground. We WILL have troops get killed and injured. Mostly going to be US and British troops doing the grunt work. It will be the US and British coming home in wooden boxes. 

What I think the U.S. should do? Nothing, let France and Canada prove how big their <egos> are, not us.

For an intervention to be justifiable it must be legitimate, the goals must be achievable, and it must not cause more harm that it would stop. The latter two in particular rule out most otherwise justifiable interventions.

The unwillingness or the inefficacy of intervention elsewhere does not negate the legitimacy or efficacy of this one, however.

What Ghadaffi says is all well and good. It's moot if the rest of his army changes sides, or if allied air power allows the rebels to achieve success, his words are merely those. In any case, his armies continue to assault rebel cities at this moment, and hopefully our forces are in the air ready to help fight off the attacks.

As for 'we will have control' over Libya? Pure bunk, They'll establish their own new government.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 5:54pm
That is wishful thinking, I truly hope it turns out that way.

But why does the U.S. have to partake? I don't see Germany in the names of the coalitions. Do they have a doctors note?

Bringing the U.S. into ANOTHER conflict. Is like bringing a broke college student to a steak house, and expecting him to pick up the bill.

We keep getting fronted money from China. They have been a been cool about it, like a lazy drug dealer. But one of these days he's going to get pissed, and start breaking knee caps.


Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 6:08pm
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

That is wishful thinking, I truly hope it turns out that way.

But why does the U.S. have to partake? I don't see Germany in the names of the coalitions. Do they have a doctors note?

Bringing the U.S. into ANOTHER conflict. Is like bringing a broke college student to a steak house, and expecting him to pick up the bill.

We keep getting fronted money from China. They have been a been cool about it, like a lazy drug dealer. But one of these days he's going to get pissed, and start breaking knee caps.



Germany voted against the resolution and chose not to take part. I have already noted the long list of countries who are involved.

China can't do anything about U.S. debt. If you think 'kneecaps' are in play in international sovereign debt at that level, you truly lack a clue.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 March 2011 at 6:20pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

That is wishful thinking, I truly hope it turns out that way.

But why does the U.S. have to partake? I don't see Germany in the names of the coalitions. Do they have a doctors note?

Bringing the U.S. into ANOTHER conflict. Is like bringing a broke college student to a steak house, and expecting him to pick up the bill.

We keep getting fronted money from China. They have been a been cool about it, like a lazy drug dealer. But one of these days he's going to get pissed, and start breaking knee caps.



Germany voted against the resolution and chose not to take part. I have already noted the long list of countries who are involved.

China can't do anything about U.S. debt. If you think 'kneecaps' are in play in international sovereign debt at that level, you truly lack a clue.

They wished not to partake because they realized the retarded decision of going into Afghanistan? Good for Germany, and even better for their troops. They truly despise being that that country. And I don't blame them. 

So when the rebels take over, are they going to pay us back? Or just let us put in some military bases?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.