March 09, 2011
— Ace Earlier it seemed as if Qadaffy was on his way out -- circumstances had unfolded so quickly the regime was being panicked out of power. It would have taken just a little bit more to push the situation towards a speedy resolution -- which is in virtually everyone's interests, minus Qadaffy and his sons and his various mercenaries.
But the regime has now regrouped, and is fighting back, possibly effectively. What could have been a Bum's Rush out of power may now settle into a long civil war and/or two two different states at war.
This has direct impact on America, because as long as this goes on, oil supply is threatened, and we all pay an Instability Tax at the pump. A big one.
And now he's going directly after the pipes.
If he can't have it, no one will. I have to ask: Would he try this shit with Bush? Or Hillary, for that matter?
Weakness breeds contempt. Obama is the weakest president in memory -- even Jimmy Carter was willing to approve a dangerous-as-hell helicopter commando raid to get our hostages out of Iran.
Obama, meanwhile, golfs.
Colonel Gaddafi's forces today blasted an oil terminal to smithereens as Libya's bloody civil war entered its blackest day.Rebels retaliated by firing back with rockets as a fireball exploded from one of the oil tanks and the sky above the Es Sider terminal, in the east of the country, filled with hideous smoke.
A witness said one of the smoke plumes was the biggest he had seen in the conflict so far.
The fresh onslaught came as Gaddafi deployed tanks and snipers to 'shoot anything that moves'.
Forces loyal to the Libyan dictator poured into the city of Zawiyah in a desperate bid to oust the hardcore band of protesters and army defectors who have taken control.
Witnesses said dead bodies were lying in the ruins of many buildings destroyed in air raids earlier in the week and there was no one in the streets of the centre of the city of 290,000.
'We can see the tanks. The tanks are everywhere,' one rebel fighter said by telephone.
Eye witnesses said that the city had been almost flattened after a 13-and-a-half hour barrage from rockets, tanks and war planes
The hellish scenes unfolded as senior officials in the U.S. spoke of their fears that the country had reached a painful stalemate.
Click on the link to see daylight skies blackened with oil smoke.
Gadaffy's strategy seems to be an economic siege -- take away the rebels' money (in the form of oil), and in a half year or year they'll be starved out of the fight.
I can't help but think there is a fairly low-cost, high-impact option available -- one even the Arab League is calling for.
Gadaffy's advantage is that he has the typical equipment a tyrant has -- tanks, big artillery guns, jets. Without these -- which are frankly the softest targets in the world for airpower to take out -- he has what the rebels have, which is a bunch of guys with guns.
It seems to me the battle is turning in his favor. I sure wish we had a president intellectually curious enough to ask if that is in America's best interests.
No Fly Zone or No Jet Zone? We don't need a no-fly zone, by the way. A no-fly zone is difficult to enforce. You have to have planes up all the time (which could in fact be shot down).
There is a much easier method of denying an enemy use of the skies. And that's not enforcing a no fly zone, but enforcing a no jets, period, zone.
We have ordnance specifically designed to take out airports and all aircraft parked within them. And if we're all out of those, we can ask the French if they'll sell us some of theirs.
It's a bomb with thousands of small sub-munitions which scatter and bounce about upon impact, spreading out over a large area, and then blowing up in small explosions.
These explosions are not huge but aircraft are the flimsiest, softest weapons platforms in war. You don't need to score a direct hit on them with a large, penetrating munition to take them out of the fight.
Aircraft are on the ground 90% of the time. The easiest way to create a no-fly zone is to blow planes up where the sit, helplessly, on the tarmac.
And they need strips to land on. And the bombs I'm talking about blow lots of pockmarks in landing strips making them hazardous to land upon (if usable at all).
This idea that we need to enforce a no-fly zone -- it's crazy. It's another example of taking the best, most logical option off the table in the interest of some gauzy sentimentalist idea of "peace" and only discussing far more difficult and ineffectual options.
No planes = no flying. We could do this within the hour.
I keep thinking about this bizarre incentive system Obama's created: conduct terrorist campaigns against US citizens and you shall have protection and license from the US. But if you're a US ally, we'll work to put you out of office.
Posted by: Ace at
12:36 PM
| Comments (258)
Post contains 880 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: Bob Farrall at March 09, 2011 12:40 PM (SZy+Y)
Posted by: Hon. Barack H. Obama at March 09, 2011 12:41 PM (BAtLQ)
If we were to intervene now, it would be perceived by the Labian resistance to be solely because Moammar was necrotizing his oil producing capacity.
If we had intervened sooner, we would have had greater acceptance and would have offset the misery that will now descend upon Labia.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 09, 2011 12:43 PM (gSGAu)
I sure wish we had a president intellectually curious enough to ask if that is in America's best interests.
And I wish we had an opposition party with the balls and motivation to blast this nincompoop over his incompetence.
Posted by: Soothsayer's Tales of the Great Fiscal Crisis at March 09, 2011 12:43 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: B. Hussein Obama at March 09, 2011 12:44 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: George Orwell at March 09, 2011 12:45 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: Jessie Junior at March 09, 2011 12:45 PM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: palin rules at March 09, 2011 12:47 PM (3K4jG)
Posted by: B. Hussein Obama at March 09, 2011 12:49 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: Bob Henery at March 09, 2011 12:49 PM (SZy+Y)
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 09, 2011 12:49 PM (gSGAu)
Now that's just crazy talk.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at March 09, 2011 12:49 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Barack Obama at March 09, 2011 12:50 PM (SZy+Y)
If we knocked out his airforce, he would still have ground vehicles, including armor. And it seems that he's using it. China didn't need a single aircraft in Tianamen square. They needed the resolve to run over their own kids with tanks, which they had. Kdaffy is now showing that resolve, or perhaps it should be termed, ruthlessness.
Also remember the ego hit that the arab world took when the pesky Joos knocked out the airforces of their opponents. We actually heard some of this crap after Desert Shield/Storm.
Do we have this resolve? I doubt it. The Europeans apprantly do not.
it would be intieresting to see if the same assholes who derided "unilateral action" are still keeping to that line.
Posted by: Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 12:51 PM (R2fpr)
During the last Israel-Hezbollah war, lefty pantywaists were getting their knickers in a twist and accusing Israel of war crimes over using bomblets.
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 09, 2011 12:52 PM (EDSBe)
Posted by: Luke Skypooter at March 09, 2011 12:52 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at March 09, 2011 12:53 PM (8uZ8A)
"As long as the Labian Air Force can strike at will, the rebel base at Tatooine will be vulnerable. "
Question: is the Labian Air Force an arab expression for a basket job?
Posted by: President Bill Clinton at March 09, 2011 12:53 PM (Q5+Og)
Or just send in a whole shitload of Tomahawks. Dear God, a single carrier group could probably put an end to this.
But no, Obama is busy partying tonight, for what I can't remember.
I hope the evil bastard trips over his clown shoes and falls face first into the punch bowl.
Posted by: ErikW at March 09, 2011 12:53 PM (AOr5V)
Where does the Sarlacc fit in? IYKWIMAITTYD
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 09, 2011 12:54 PM (EDSBe)
If we knocked out his airforce, he would still have ground vehicles, including armor. And it seems that he's using it. China didn't need a single aircraft in Tianamen square. They needed the resolve to run over their own kids with tanks, which they had. Kdaffy is now showing that resolve, or perhaps it should be termed, ruthlessness.
Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 04:51 PM (R2fpr)
I guess we'd have to take out the ground vehicles and armor too.
But yeah, mission creep. It can be a mutha.
Posted by: ed at March 09, 2011 12:54 PM (Y2WVW)
Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at March 09, 2011 04:53 PM (8uZ8A)
Are you a woman, or just think feminine French sounds cooler than masculine?
Posted by: ParisParamus at March 09, 2011 12:55 PM (cdCC7)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at March 09, 2011 12:55 PM (V+/pV)
During the last Israel-Hezbollah war, lefty pantywaists were getting their knickers in a twist and accusing Israel of war crimes over using bomblets.
One of those so-called "bomblets" can cause a genocide.
Posted by: WaterCow at March 09, 2011 12:55 PM (k3RPu)
Posted by: Oldsailor at March 09, 2011 12:55 PM (oBXlb)
I was told that high gas prices were the fault of George W Bush and his rich oil company pals' price fixing schemes.
What has changed?
Posted by: BDJ at March 09, 2011 12:56 PM (cUNcx)
Bulls vs Bobcats! It's a Big Fuckin' Deal!
Posted by: Waterhouse at March 09, 2011 12:56 PM (EDSBe)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 12:56 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: John Gorgan at March 09, 2011 12:56 PM (SZy+Y)
Posted by: Honey badger trying to digest Justin Bieber at March 09, 2011 12:57 PM (F/4zf)
Posted by: Moochelle Obama at March 09, 2011 12:57 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 09, 2011 12:58 PM (B+qrE)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 12:58 PM (nj1bB)
Bulls-Bobcats...ah, Obama's hoping to go one on one against MJ.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 09, 2011 12:58 PM (gSGAu)
He also thought an enema was a single-celled organism, until I gave him a practical demonstration.
Posted by: Kal Penn at March 09, 2011 12:59 PM (EDSBe)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 12:59 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Mooooooooooooochel Obama at March 09, 2011 12:59 PM (SZy+Y)
Your 'no-jets' idea is perhaps not so good... that's what we did in Iraq in '91. Saddam just used helicopters- which are a terror weapon against dismounts.
A 'no fly zone' has to mean "If It Flies, IT DIES."
Then we get to the armor problem. Based on this report, it seems that Qadaffy is using the Assad playbook... and killing 20K+ people will definitely give the rebels a gut-check.
Posted by: U Luze at March 09, 2011 01:00 PM (0LZTz)
But yeah, mission creep. It can be a mutha.
Posted by: ed
I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but striking ground forces while they maneuver is a helluva mission creep. Striking Kdaffys airfields can be bullshitted away. But how do we explain multiple strikes against ground targets? How about the first time close air support decides a battle and the rebels use that air cover to commit atrocities?
And what happens if the French or Iranians or whomever try to fly in replacement aircraft? We did exactly this in 1973 to Israel and Nixon dared the Soviets/Egyptians to shoot down a C-5 flying into Haifa.
Posted by: Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 01:00 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 01:00 PM (FIDMq)
sorry OT
Julianne Moore To Play Sarah Palin In HBO Movie About 2008 Presidential Election
and hatchet job in 3... 2... 1...
Posted by: BDJ at March 09, 2011 01:00 PM (cUNcx)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:00 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: B. Hussein Obama at March 09, 2011 01:00 PM (AZGON)
Posted by: Chuckit at March 09, 2011 01:00 PM (wYFHo)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at March 09, 2011 01:01 PM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Hous Bin Pharteen at March 09, 2011 01:02 PM (V+/pV)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:03 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: toby928™ at March 09, 2011 01:03 PM (GTbGH)
We should use them whenever we have an excuse to do so.
Posted by: garrett at March 09, 2011 05:02 PM (AWlIe)
Best way to find flaws and make them more 'efficient'
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 01:03 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: President Bill Clinton at March 09, 2011 01:04 PM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: maddogg at March 09, 2011 01:04 PM (OlN4e)
We don't even have to strike Labian targets...just maneuvering our forces into place would have an effect. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't positioned an aircraft carrier near the GOS, nor have we deployed fighters/bombers in theater.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at March 09, 2011 01:04 PM (gSGAu)
It will look like we intervened because oil is involved though. That is bad because it fits the meme the leftists have pushed for years.
If you start targeting tanks and such, it becomes even more hazardous to tell which side is which without solid on the ground intel.
Difficult choices.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 09, 2011 01:04 PM (h0RtZ)
Two things:
1. We have specialized runway cratering munitions also. I don't think the Libyans are set up for rapid repair of giant holes in their runways.
2. Saddam Hussein slaughtered rebels with helicopter gunships when prohibited from flying fixed-wing aircraft in the Gulf War truce of 1991. So, "no fly zone" should mean nothing flys.
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at March 09, 2011 01:05 PM (w41GQ)
You have to look at the downside of nonintervention, which is beginning to look like a long siege which Qadaffy will probably win with Libyan oil disrupted for this whole period.
And when it's over, we have Qadaffy in power again, and angry at us, and looking to whip up support by blowing up civilian airlines again.
Posted by: ace at
Agreed. I'm also looking at the downside of intervening, especially with a CinC that hates our military. The last one so minded ignored Rwanda but got us stuck in the Balkans.
Posted by: Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 01:05 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 05:03 PM (nj1bB)
And working on enriching uranium, again.
Posted by: ErikW at March 09, 2011 01:05 PM (AOr5V)
Posted by: toby928™ at March 09, 2011 05:03 PM (GTbGH)
I know our AF used to use those, but didnt they phase those out as it requires low level passes over an airfield to deliver...not good for low level high threat envrionments
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 01:06 PM (FIDMq)
Best way to find flaws and make them more 'efficient'
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 05:03 PM (FIDMq)
also.
Stimulus!
Posted by: garrett says drop the bombs at March 09, 2011 01:08 PM (AWlIe)
Posted by: The Haunted Pussy at March 09, 2011 01:08 PM (YVZlY)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 09, 2011 01:09 PM (1fB+3)
And they need strips to land on. And the bombs I'm talking about blow lots of pockmarks in landing strips making them hazardous to land upon (if usable at all).
So, you're saying John effin Kerry was right?
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 01:09 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: President for Life Barrack Hussein Obama at March 09, 2011 01:10 PM (Q5+Og)
We don't even have to strike Labian targets...just maneuvering our forces into place would have an effect. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't positioned an aircraft carrier near the GOS, nor have we deployed fighters/bombers in theater.
Posted by: Big Fat Meanie
If it that works, then great. Remember the Marsh Shi'ites and Kurds in Iraq, when they thought that we were coming and didn't. The bay of Pigs isn't dissimilar. If peole act because we deployed, then we get to either watch and join in on the celebration, join in earlier to save their asses, or steam away when they get smeared.
Now think about the CinC who will be making the decision.
Posted by: Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 01:10 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: joncelli at March 09, 2011 01:10 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: maddogg at March 09, 2011 01:10 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: dfdfd at March 09, 2011 01:10 PM (xW/nO)
Posted by: Oldsailor at March 09, 2011 01:10 PM (oBXlb)
Posted by: Weeping Civilian on CNN at March 09, 2011 01:12 PM (w41GQ)
"Give them enough rope, and they will Hang themselves.
I don't recall who said that?"
Billy the Exterminator?
Posted by: President for Life Barrack Hussein Obama at March 09, 2011 01:13 PM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: willow at March 09, 2011 01:13 PM (h+qn8)
Who cares a bloody hell about those dam moon god worshipers. Invade Mexico now with everything we have. Pull all troops from Iraq, and Afganistan to the mission. Let the Middle East go tits up! Europa can protect it's own oil supply.
Who the hell let anginas into my Marine Corp!
Posted by: Lt. Gen. Chesty Puller at March 09, 2011 01:13 PM (alRN7)
Right, let's get ourselves involved in another war in the Middle East, just what we need.
Believe it or not, the rest of the world doesn't exist to service America's needs.
Posted by: Carlito at March 09, 2011 01:13 PM (yaA8O)
Why send a fighter or bomber that can be shot at? We have variants of the Tomahawk that can do that.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at March 09, 2011 01:14 PM (/U/Mr)
Posted by: Oldsailor at March 09, 2011 01:14 PM (oBXlb)
I'm not sure the rebels have a decent supply of SA-7/Stinger type weapons- in fact I doubt it.
But I am in full agreement with you wrt what happens if Qadaffy stays in power. Apologies for my sloppy commenting.
If we are going to do something, we need to GO FAST and GO BIG. Probably not regular infantry, but we could at least threaten to use the 101st?
But going fast is not something that our socialist-in-chief is cut out for.
Posted by: Ace is WINNING at March 09, 2011 01:14 PM (0LZTz)
Posted by: Hans Brink at March 09, 2011 01:14 PM (Q5+Og)
Munitions, Sub-Munitions, Bomblets and etc.. Don't matter cause we are FUCKED! At a time in the entire world when only a Great President of the U.S.A. could have made a difference, who do we got?
The world desperately needed a strong, ethical, smart, tough and robust President. When the final words are on this shitty chapter of America and the globe is finally penned, that'll be the only thing of note. The world needed something special. We got Teleprompter Jesus. I just got my new ginny and another 1000 rounds of 7.62 x 39. Advise same-same for you morons.
Posted by: Sgt. Fury at March 09, 2011 01:14 PM (x1CBb)
Posted by: Adrienne at March 09, 2011 01:15 PM (TFSHk)
Posted by: maddogg at March 09, 2011 01:15 PM (OlN4e)
Believe it or not, the rest of the world doesn't exist to service America's needs.
Posted by: Carlito
What the fuck does this even mean? We were talking about whether we should help people overthrow a dictator.
Posted by: Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 01:16 PM (R2fpr)
I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but striking ground forces while they maneuver is a helluva mission creep
Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 05:00 PM (R2fpr)
Yeah, it is. As soon as I typed that first sentence of mine, I realized...hmm, that's definitely mission creep. After taking out armor, what's next? Close air support in support of rebel attacks? That mean American troops on the ground, calling in air strikes.
So I wasn't being snarky when I said "Mission creep. It can be a mutha."
Posted by: ed at March 09, 2011 01:16 PM (Y2WVW)
FIFY
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 09, 2011 01:16 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Dr Spank at March 09, 2011 05:09 PM (1fB+3)
There's another evil that Obama should answer for. Could he have changed the course? I honestly don't know but he could've at least supported real freedom loving protesters who ended up being executed.
Posted by: ErikW at March 09, 2011 01:16 PM (AOr5V)
"Believe it or not, the rest of the world doesn't exist to service America's needs."
Posted by: Carlito
"What the fuck does this even mean? We were talking about whether we should help people overthrow a dictator."
I don't know, but I am sure Carlito works for NPR.
Posted by: Vivian Schiller at March 09, 2011 01:17 PM (Q5+Og)
Take a breath and calm down.
Now explain to me, why this would necessitate the US intervening? All countries use oil. Do we intervene in Nigeria when the rebels cut those pipelines?
This is a Libyan issue and they need to solve it.
Do you really want 30k more US troops in another shithole getting picked off for oil for 10 years?
Posted by: JTT at March 09, 2011 01:17 PM (Yn0Jp)
They don't have the means because they've gutted their own militaries and stretched what little they have in Iraq & Afghanistan (mainly Afghanistan). That's not to belittle our allies' forces, btw.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 09, 2011 01:18 PM (UO6+e)
Posted by: A.G. at March 09, 2011 01:18 PM (oAVyq)
Posted by: Oldsailor at March 09, 2011 01:18 PM (oBXlb)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:19 PM (nj1bB)
imagine the east without Oil Money Carlito.. also imagine riding a bicycle to work.
they sale others buy. not free ya know.
Posted by: willow at March 09, 2011 01:19 PM (h+qn8)
This is a Libyan issue and they need to solve it.
I just got a little chubby after reading your post.
Posted by: Ron Paul at March 09, 2011 01:20 PM (AWlIe)
A few airstikes might get this thing over with. Why do we care? Global commodity. $5/Gal here we come.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 09, 2011 01:20 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: willow at March 09, 2011 01:20 PM (h+qn8)
Now imagine that bike without a seat...that's Carlito's Way.
Posted by: garrett at March 09, 2011 01:21 PM (AWlIe)
As far as this issue is concerned, I don't even think you need to drop bombs. Take out 1 Libyan plane and the other guys will get the message.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 09, 2011 01:21 PM (qqrPQ)
Posted by: joncelli at March 09, 2011 01:21 PM (RD7QR)
I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but striking ground forces while they maneuver is a helluva mission creep
Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 05:00 PM (R2fpr)
Yeah, it is. As soon as I typed that first sentence of mine, I realized...hmm, that's definitely mission creep. After taking out armor, what's next? Close air support in support of rebel attacks? That mean American troops on the ground, calling in air strikes.
So I wasn't being snarky when I said "Mission creep. It can be a mutha."
Posted by: ed
I know, and it's cool. We'll put you down as the winner of the "understatement of the day" competition.
The most likely scenario would be a pop a column with the fist of an angry-my-period-came-early-goddess. Then see if the rebels can coalesce and make use of that. If we're lucky, then the rest of Kdaffy's guys realize that being in a tank is no longer a healthy lifestyle and book it. If they have more staying power, then we're in the shit, and the question becomes how long we can maintain the tempo of operations. And from where? A-10s are the perfect choice, but would need to be land based. That means one European nation grows a pair.
Posted by: Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 01:21 PM (R2fpr)
"They don't have the means because they've gutted their own militaries and stretched what little they have in Iraq & Afghanistan (mainly Afghanistan). That's not to belittle our allies' forces, btw"
Not true. They are fat and happy in Europe waiting for the Americans to clean things up for them. It what they do.
BTW - Europe has a population equal to ours with an average GDP equal to ours. They just smell and are lazy.
Posted by: Napoleon Boned Apart at March 09, 2011 01:22 PM (Q5+Og)
She recommended to write your Congresscritter and tell them to defund this thing properly right now in the next CR, because another opportunity like this may not arise again.
Posted by: Geronimo at March 09, 2011 01:22 PM (fnBVp)
Believe it or not, the rest of the world doesn't exist to service America's needs.
Posted by: Carlito
Good. Now stop bugging us, you worthless leeches.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at March 09, 2011 05:18 PM (G/MYk)
Word!
Posted by: ErikW at March 09, 2011 01:22 PM (AOr5V)
actually Miss80s europeans and Lybians will be screwed. prices through the roof even if oil can be obtained.
the world burns . let's play golf i'm a little stressed out.
Posted by: willow at March 09, 2011 01:22 PM (h+qn8)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:22 PM (nj1bB)
He's made the world more unstable by throwing more control over the most important economic resource in existence to isolated, unstable regimes in backward parts of the world. He's wide open vulnerable on this.
Posted by: nickless at March 09, 2011 01:22 PM (MMC8r)
Are you a woman, or just think feminine French sounds cooler than masculine?
Posted by: ParisParamus at March 09, 2011 04:55 PM (cdCC7)
I'm a woman, and I think we live two 'hoods away from each other. Look me up in the Yahoo group and give me a holler.
Posted by: La Mauvaise New Yorkaise at March 09, 2011 01:23 PM (8uZ8A)
Believe it or not, the rest of the world doesn't exist to service America's needs.
Who here said it did?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 09, 2011 01:23 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: AE at March 09, 2011 01:23 PM (YYjeh)
Still on the 'No War for Oil' mantra are ya?
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 01:23 PM (UK9cE)
augmented attack plan
Posted by: Radagast the Tactician at March 09, 2011 01:23 PM (AWlIe)
I think it's time for a major insurrection here in the USA. Not a violent one, but say, like, the Alaska governer saying he's opening up ANWR for drilling despite what the fed says. Same goes for the gulf states, or any other state that have energy resources (coal). Until Dear Leader and his regime start abiding by the law, I think the states should start proclaiming their sovereignty. A tax revolt would also be a nice touch.
What we have in DC right now is a 30% minority ruling our nation. I'd be willing to try anything to get it back.
Posted by: Soona at March 09, 2011 01:23 PM (r416o)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:23 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: joncelli at March 09, 2011 01:23 PM (RD7QR)
He's a murdering dictator.
:Support Freedom Check.
He's deliberately killed US Citizens.
:Security of American People Check.
He's threatening a vital commodity essential to our economy.
rotect US economic interests. Check.Explain to me why we shouldn't support ousting him? It's not like our relationship with him could be a lot worse.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 09, 2011 01:24 PM (0q2P7)
I agree with your point about a "no jets zone." But as it was pointed out above, tanks and artillery are nasty things when used against rebels with nothing but rifles and light weapons.
A few A10s deployed across Libya would make it, in very short order, a "no tank zone." That would level the playing field and would allow the rebels to resist more effectively.
Yes, it is a pipe dream. Nobody has the balls to order it, even though it would be a minimal risk for our pilots, who train against formidable ground-to-air defenses, not the 1980s technology of the Libyans Labians.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 01:24 PM (LH6ir)
Ace of Spades: A smart military blog and online dating service.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 01:25 PM (LH6ir)
Geez, Ace, it sounds like what you're suggesting is a level of assistance that would give the rebels a fighting chance, so that when it's all over the country will belong to those who will have earned it through the fighting that they did themselves, while the new country that takes root over there will start with at least one friend, Lafayette-style.
Now I'm convinced that you're totally nuts.
Posted by: FireHorse at March 09, 2011 01:26 PM (k3RPu)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:27 PM (nj1bB)
A few A10s deployed across Libya would make it, in very short order, a "no tank zone." That would level the playing field and would allow the rebels to resist more effectively.
Yes, it is a pipe dream. Nobody has the balls to order it, even though it would be a minimal risk for our pilots, who train against formidable ground-to-air defenses, not the 1980s technology of the Libyans Labians.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
This, and we'd need European or Mid East bases from which to fly. Fly from Egypt? Israel? From Iraq, inolving overflight issues and tanking?
Posted by: Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 01:27 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:28 PM (nj1bB)
My solution is to send over all the TSA agents to grope them and wash their junk. They sure have screwed up our flying here.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 09, 2011 01:28 PM (qqrPQ)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 05:27 PM (nj1bB)
TWO words, OK?!? Nuclear fucking Weapons!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Denis Leary at March 09, 2011 01:29 PM (UK9cE)
I think it's time for a major insurrection here in the USA.
While we're at it, we could turn on the water to California's Central Valley and start growing food again.
Just sayin'
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 09, 2011 01:29 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: brian at March 09, 2011 01:29 PM (y05cf)
Posted by: ace
You're correct. It gets in much closer, but it does carry smart munitions, as well as that glorious cannon.
The reason we developed cruise missiles and maintain carrier groups is because of the issues I raise regarding basing and overflight.
Posted by: Blue Hen at March 09, 2011 01:30 PM (R2fpr)
A10s were designed specifically to be tank killers for the predicted huge tank battles in Europe when the Soviets sent 10,000 tanks through the Fulda Gap. They are amazingly efficient at killing tanks, and can nail many more than F16s flying above using missiles.
A10s are also incredibly tough to shoot down, and their ordnance is less expensive than missiles.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 01:30 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: kansas at March 09, 2011 01:30 PM (mka2b)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 05:28 PM (nj1bB)
Can carry Mavericks for 'long range' plinking 15 miles range or so
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 01:31 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: nickless at March 09, 2011 01:31 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: mpurinTexas(kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at March 09, 2011 01:31 PM (jxuSt)
What good is it then?
BTW, why not use predator drones with hellfires against both tanks and parked aircraft?
Posted by: toby928™ at March 09, 2011 01:31 PM (GTbGH)
Posted by: frankg at March 09, 2011 01:32 PM (NlJsJ)
A10s are also incredibly tough to shoot down, and their ordnance is less expensive than missiles.
Mmmm, depleted uranium rounds....
Posted by: BackwardsBoy channelling Cpl. Homer Simpson at March 09, 2011 01:32 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: nickless
We've got top men on that. And women. We're diverse over here, unlike those pricks in the military. Our grasp on the situation is as concrete as our pension program.
Posted by: CIA at March 09, 2011 01:32 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: kansas at March 09, 2011 05:30 PM (mka2b)
Um, it helps the Democrat party. They want gas prices really high to force their Green Agenda© and fuck our economy into the ground. Gotta keep the peasants down, ya know.
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 01:32 PM (UK9cE)
Once more folks. Why do anything? Doing nothing is our current Foreign Policy. Better known as "passive agression". It is modeled on the personality of our second black President. As such, this represents a perfect example of his leadership skills and vision. Let it roll.
Maybe there are some grown ups in Europe who feel like doing something, but I doubt it. My guess is the French will secretly support Daffy and insure he wins. I am sure one of our Czars knows this and as soon as he meets with the President will inform of the plan. Sparky and Moochelle like French things, so they will be cool with it.
Posted by: Napoleon Boned Apart at March 09, 2011 01:33 PM (Q5+Og)
The main weapon of an A10 is a 30mm Gatling gun firing depleted uranium rounds. They say that it can cut a freeway overpass in two. They also carry a variety of other fun stuff, but the Gatling gun is what works well against tanks.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 01:33 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: maddogg at March 09, 2011 01:33 PM (OlN4e)
My fuel prices which fund Venezuelan socialism and the Saudi welfare state remind me constantly that the rest of the world expects us to pay for what they have.
But I don't see the relevance to ousting a brutal dictator.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 09, 2011 01:33 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: kansas at March 09, 2011 05:30 PM (mka2b)
Um, it helps the Democrat party. They want gas prices really high to force their Green Agenda© and fuck our economy into the ground. Gotta keep the peasants down, ya know."
Yes and yes. But it also insures Sparky and a number of his Senatorial flunkies will be looking for work come 2013. I can take another slide in economic numbers, Sparky and the gang, not so much.
Posted by: Napoleon Boned Apart at March 09, 2011 01:35 PM (Q5+Og)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 09, 2011 01:35 PM (0q2P7)
Because that requires lots of Predators and lots of Hellfire missiles. And Predators can't carry more than one or two (not 100% sure). An A10 can rip up lots of tanks in one mission, especially the bullshit 30 year old Libyan tanks.
Tactically I think that the A10 is the most logical choice. Politically? Fuck, I have no idea.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 01:36 PM (LH6ir)
115 Not true. They are fat and happy in Europe waiting for the Americans to clean things up for them. It what they do.
Blair and Brown cut the UK's military budget for years. If the UK could gather a large-enough coalition of allies to address this problem, then something might get done, but I don't see it happening.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 09, 2011 01:36 PM (UO6+e)
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 01:36 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 05:36 PM (LH6ir
I think Zombie Reagan would have said...you had your chance Col. And an alpha strike of BUFF's would be over Libya...Linebacker part 2 squared
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 01:38 PM (FIDMq)
Other than erg weeping on the poetry thread, no. Sally Ann popped in to, which has become a rarity.
Posted by: toby928™ at March 09, 2011 01:38 PM (GTbGH)
Obama is our President, and the only people he will defend are NPR, the Unions and the Iranian regime.
Hell, if my scrunt donated $8Million to the Dem coffers, he'd defend it to
Pres. Obama: 'I hereby sign this Executive Order calling for March 10, of every year here after, to be a Federal Holiday, celebrating the importance of Momma's scrunt!'
Posted by: momma at March 09, 2011 01:38 PM (penCf)
Posted by: kansas at March 09, 2011 05:30 PM (mka2b)
We also must remember that Daffy is good buddies with Dear Leaders mentor Jerry Wright and Calypso Louie. Yeah, I think this was the plan all along. Dear Leader is sitting back in the WH celebrating this like a palastinian.
Posted by: Soona at March 09, 2011 01:38 PM (r416o)
yes its a game, one side says eliminate funding, the other says increase to try to save it in the middle, but come on, NPR? Really? Dumbass.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at March 09, 2011 01:38 PM (qqrPQ)
Another neat feature of that Gatling gun on the A-10, if they could fire it long enough without the barrel melting, it would stop it's forward motion.
That is one seriously bad-assed little plane. Friends have sent me pix of them all shot up when they landed. I would not want to be on the outside of one of those things, IYKWIM.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 09, 2011 01:39 PM (d0Tfm)
You make good sense ace but Dear Reader is playing with a different deck.
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 09, 2011 01:39 PM (h0RtZ)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at March 09, 2011 05:33 PM (0q2P7)
When the situation has the potential to derail the nascent global recovery and make life much more difficult for about 6,000,000,000 people? That's relevant.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 01:40 PM (LH6ir)
Over some tiger blood, of course.
With a competent psychiatrist.
Posted by: Double Ply at March 09, 2011 01:41 PM (ezdtY)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:41 PM (nj1bB)
Okay, I admit it. I am an A-10 fanboy.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 01:42 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: maddogg at March 09, 2011 01:42 PM (OlN4e)
He's made the world more unstable by throwing more control over the most important economic resource in existence to isolated, unstable regimes in backward parts of the world. He's wide open vulnerable on this.
They're too busy trying to decide which pet energy wins in the upcoming energy bills. Otherwise, a handful have been hitting him on this-- esp. those in the oil-rich states-- but it didn't/isn't making news.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at March 09, 2011 01:42 PM (UO6+e)
Posted by: bigred's a poet, too! at March 09, 2011 01:43 PM (WaOfA)
Based where? The mainland U.S.?
Air superiority will come off the deck of a carrier.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 01:44 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:45 PM (nj1bB)
serious question, I have not seen any info on the libyan rebels.
who are they? what are their goals? I somehow don't think it is a bunch of Jeffersons and Washingtons over there.
What happens if the rebels win?
There are supposedly 5 major tribes there
Posted by: Jake_in_Idaho_ at March 09, 2011 01:45 PM (vrDK+)
Well this makes perfect sense as it becomes more clear that Obama is not an ally of the United States.
Posted by: kansas at March 09, 2011 01:46 PM (mka2b)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:46 PM (nj1bB)
Other than erg weeping on the poetry thread, no. Sally Ann popped in to, which has become a rarity.
Posted by: toby928™ at March 09, 2011 05:38 PM (GTbGH)
well palin steele has been showing up using the name Cain's Pizzeria, probably thinking that no one has figured out its him.
Posted by: buzzion at March 09, 2011 01:47 PM (oVQFe)
Okay, I admit it. I am an A-10 fanboy.
As am I. The best/worst part of that is that we have so many more flying good things, of which the A-10 is merely an appetizer.
As Tony Snow once commented, the military is where superior intellect is combined with awesome destruction. May it forever be used for Good.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 09, 2011 01:47 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 05:41 PM (nj1bB)
depending on targets...cruise missiles are cheaper than planes, and ALOT cheaper than pilots, especially if one goes down and gets captured.
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 01:48 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: GnuBreed at March 09, 2011 05:39 PM (h0RtZ)
Far short of a full deck.
Posted by: Catlady at March 09, 2011 01:48 PM (CyPWX)
Posted by: maddogg at March 09, 2011 01:48 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:49 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 05:41 PM (nj1bB)
Unless you are going to use stealth aircraft you need to take out Libyas air defense before you start bombing airports. I don't know what they have but it has to be dealt with. I don't know about know but their used to be two ways to do that. One was let them light you up and probably fire a missile at you while you fire one back that follows the radiation from the radar.
The other is know where they are at and get in close an fire a missile at them.
Either way it's dangerous
Posted by: robtr at March 09, 2011 01:49 PM (MtwBb)
I saw the A10 in full action, sans weapons of course, flying in and making its swooping bomb runs and such. It was REALLY impressive the way it could stop on a dime, flair up and literally fling it's payload forward, away from its belly and tend upward almost Harrier like.
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 01:50 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:51 PM (nj1bB)
#190
What if they are worse and start sending jihadi teams into Europe or here.
Is it possile that the new Libya is worst than the old?
Posted by: Jake_in_Idaho_ at March 09, 2011 01:51 PM (vrDK+)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 01:52 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Jake_in_Idaho_ at March 09, 2011 05:45 PM (vrDK+)
Excellent questions. Let's let our intelligence community answer that.
I keed!
Posted by: ErikW at March 09, 2011 01:53 PM (AOr5V)
Posted by: Dan at March 09, 2011 01:53 PM (mXBxH)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 05:45 PM (nj1bB)
I agree. There's also another option that Dear Leader took off the table as soon as he took office. It marked this nation as weak from the moment it was done. That's the nuke option. I know that it would probably never be considered for this conflict by any administration, but it did set the general tone of our backing down as a super power.
Posted by: Soona at March 09, 2011 01:54 PM (r416o)
Is it possile that the new Libya is worst than the old?
Posted by: Jake_in_Idaho_ at March 09, 2011 05:51 PM (vrDK+)
It's very possible, if this goes the wrong way you will have terrorists being funded by massive oil fields.
Posted by: robtr at March 09, 2011 01:54 PM (MtwBb)
I thought this WAS the intelligence community!?!
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 01:54 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 05:54 PM (UK9cE)
Wait, I;'ll turn on CNN
Posted by: robtr at March 09, 2011 01:56 PM (MtwBb)
A source confirms to News 3 that Republican Senators intend to remove fiscal portions of Budget Repair bill in order to pass w/out Dem Sen.
Posted by: Waingro at March 09, 2011 01:56 PM (uAytX)
What are we trying to accomplish?
How do we accomplish it?
We can't answer any of those questions fully. You can do the last two without the first, but you sure can't do the last one without the second.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 09, 2011 01:56 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 05:50 PM (UK9cE)
OK, now I need a cigarette.
Many moons ago, I was at an air show down here where a B-2 bomber put on a little demo. The last thing it did was a maneuver where it climbed straight up (after the necessary traffic clearance, of course) using only two of its four engines.
At the count of three, it was no longer visible.
Awesome doesn't begin to describe it.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 09, 2011 01:57 PM (d0Tfm)
It's very possible, if this goes the wrong way you will have terrorists being funded by massive oil fields.
That's why I favor a long and drawn-out conflict that whittles both sides down to nothing.
Unless there is some reason to believe the 'democratic freedom fighters' aren't just MuzBros. in happy-face t-shirts.
Posted by: nickless at March 09, 2011 01:57 PM (MMC8r)
If I'm wrong, fine, even better, because I'd prefer absolutely no pilots at risk. I think though these missions require human pilots.
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 05:51 PM (nj1bB)
Tomahawks are antirunway capable, some having the antirunway bombs + proximity mines to make repairs hazardous, other variants exist too
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 01:57 PM (FIDMq)
Yes that was my idea, that we'd do the radar/aa site blitz first, most likely with cruise missiles for those known, identified, programmable sites.
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 05:52 PM (nj1bB)
Welcome to Fantasy Island, gentlemen.
Posted by: Zombie Ricardo at March 09, 2011 01:57 PM (r416o)
Posted by: Oldsailor at March 09, 2011 01:58 PM (oBXlb)
Should the government provide funding for public broadcasting?Go vote!!
Posted by: sock puppeh at March 09, 2011 05:56 PM (VcPAo)
That's too funny. Read the Headline to the story, then read the way the poll question is worded. You think they're counting on confusion to keep the numbers close?
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 01:59 PM (UK9cE)
It's very possible, if this goes the wrong way you will have terrorists being funded by massive oil fields.
Posted by: robtr at March 09, 2011 05:54 PM (MtwBb)
Kind of like Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 09, 2011 01:59 PM (yQWNf)
I only host UAV's.
Barack would never risk a manned landing at my facility
Posted by: Michelle Obama's Landing Strip at March 09, 2011 02:00 PM (AWlIe)
Awesome doesn't begin to describe it.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 09, 2011 05:57 PM (d0Tfm)
Saw a B-1B, 'The Bone', flyby with full afterburners...after that that flowing sense of pride...yeah..thats our badass shit.
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 02:00 PM (FIDMq)
Why get involved at all?
Just tell whicherer the "strong horse' is that comes out on top....
"Look bro, don't get any ideas, we got some ageing ordinance over here and if you poke your towel covered head up we are going level your little piss-ant country with it to open up some space for all the new stuff we need."
but hey we got BHO at the helm and remember 'weakness is provocative'
Posted by: Jake_in_Idaho_ at March 09, 2011 02:00 PM (vrDK+)
Awesome doesn't begin to describe it.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 09, 2011 05:57 PM (d0Tfm)
We had the Stealth Bomber fly over Texas Motor Speedway once several years ago. It was like they didn't really know how high to fly it overhead, but it came in really low. You really didn't hear it coming....then when it passed, it scared the SHIT outta ya, literally!!! Really sweet......
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 02:02 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Evil libertarian at March 09, 2011 02:02 PM (qkj7z)
Posted by: robtr at March 09, 2011 02:03 PM (MtwBb)
I guess I'll play the contrarian.
First, the "No Jet Zone" is untenable due to many tactical, strategic, and political reasons. But since this isn't ML101, I'll move on.
This is not peaceful demonstrators picketting for freedom; this is a full blown civil war. Ace is the first person I've seen advicating US military action to protect US interest, so kudos for that. Heretofor, the argument was this was Eqypt with planes bombing civilians. To that, I say fuck that- let 'em kill each other.
What is the US interest here? Maintaining global oil production and supply, or adequate availablity to our Eurpoean allies? As regards the former, that's just not possible. Our best course is to tap domestic supplies. There is no requirement for ordinance or dead soldiers, saliors, or airmen; and the advantages are obvious. So, instead of promoting armed conflict, let's return to the mantra of drill baby, drill. As for the latter, let Europe take the lead as they have. And, if they ASK NICELY- loose the dawgs of war. And, DRILL.
Posted by: Beefy Meatball at March 09, 2011 02:03 PM (YYaIP)
Posted by: sickinmass at March 09, 2011 06:01 PM (1rflU)
And why is we are told that we have to kiss independant ass to have any shot at the WH? People should be trampling each other to get to the polls to vote against this tool - IF they have any conservatism in them
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 02:04 PM (FIDMq)
I've decided on "Metrosexual Klingon."
Must credit Circa Multinational Conspiracy Enterprises.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 09, 2011 02:05 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: bigred's a poet, too! at March 09, 2011 02:05 PM (WaOfA)
I thought this WAS the intelligence community!?!
Posted by: © Sponge at March 09, 2011 05:54 PM (UK9cE)
It's a damn sight smarter than any government run intelligence agency.
Posted by: ErikW at March 09, 2011 02:06 PM (AOr5V)
It's a damn sight smarter than any government run intelligence agency.
Posted by: ErikW at March 09, 2011 06:06 PM (AOr5V)
too bad we cant simulate the moron economy, it would be interesting to see how it would turn out
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 02:08 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: bigred at March 09, 2011 02:08 PM (WaOfA)
Oh wait, you ask? Didn't AF General Schwartz put the kibosh on this Boeing project?
Aye, that he did, me hardies.
Posted by: Fritz at March 09, 2011 02:08 PM (/8mBu)
Posted by: FlaviusJulius at March 09, 2011 02:08 PM (qIHlG)
America can just take all the com, reword it, and send it back to both forces. Sending both the rebels, and the Empire moving in two different directions.
"Yea Sgt, we're going in the wrong direction. You never stop for directions! Shut up pvt., and give me 20 puke face! Just take your time. We have all day."
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 09, 2011 02:10 PM (alRN7)
Please, I beg of you; no more. The image is too much to tolerate.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 02:10 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: texette at March 09, 2011 02:10 PM (3nX/9)
Which weapons to use are tactical decisions, which I presume are made by uniformed people. Whether Muammar keeps his current job is the one Obama ought to be addressing. I'm thinking he could make a phone call:
"Q? This is O. Listen: You've helped us against the terrorists for, what? seven, eight years now? That counts for a lot in the eyes of the United States. As such, we'll help you in this transition period. Yeah, Q, I'm talking about your retirement. That's going to start in two weeks. Just so you can start planning, you can take out whatever you can carry in two suitcases -- family photos, gold; it's up to you -- and two Soviet artillery cannons, if you know what I mean. 'K? My peeps know your peeps; we'll go from there. Later, Q. Keep it real."
(Of course he'd need to cross his fingers for the first part, but whatevs.)
Posted by: FireHorse at March 09, 2011 02:12 PM (k3RPu)
And why is we are told that we have to kiss independant ass to have any shot at the WH? People should be trampling each other to get to the polls to vote against this tool - IF they have any conservatism in them
Posted by: Red Shirt at March 09, 2011 06:04 PM (FIDMq)
You'd be surprised at the damage to this country the public school system has done to the last couple of generations. They're national and worldview is almost non-existant. And what they do support is totally in line with socialism/communism. There, I said it!
Posted by: Soona at March 09, 2011 02:14 PM (r416o)
Yes we could. But. It's an act of war. Before a president does something like that he needs to go to Congress and get the authorization. We can't very well complain about leftist judges and politicians ignoring the constitution and then rip Obama for not ignoring the constitution.
Posted by: Ace's liver at March 09, 2011 02:23 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 02:26 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Steph at March 09, 2011 02:26 PM (AkdC5)
Posted by: ace at March 09, 2011 02:28 PM (nj1bB)
OK, Grandpa.
You keep following that ancient manuscript...
Posted by: Ezra Klein at March 09, 2011 02:29 PM (AWlIe)
These are tough planes.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 09, 2011 06:18 PM (LH6ir)
Before smart bombs the only way to do CAS was to fly low and slow. An A-10 can fly with one engine. It can fly with half the tail shot off. The wing sections are designed to break away cleanly if they get catastrophic damage, so you might lose, say, half a wing and still be able to fly well enough to land safely. The pilot sits in a titanium and kevlar "bathtub".
Oh yeah, those things are designed to take a punch.
I'm not sure it matters that much any more, though. Sniper pods can be used to identify and paint targets from more than 10,000 feet. So you really don't need to go low and slow any more - you can fly above the gunfire and drop precision munitions (GPS or laser guided).
Posted by: Ace's liver at March 09, 2011 02:32 PM (XIXhw)
I don't see any reason to think they'd be worse than Kadaffi.
I doubt Libya will end up truly free, but if it ends up saner and more open, that's good for all of us.
Posted by: sandy burger at March 09, 2011 02:55 PM (twiRb)
@21: "I would happily pay $20/gallon until 2012 if Obama's downfall would be assured."
Enjoy the starvation, riots, and societal collapse that would come with it. At $20/gal, there would be very little food production or delivery, and prices would be astronomical. Police, fire, sanitation, ambulances, etc. would also be pretty effectively knocked out.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 09, 2011 03:34 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: John Morris at March 09, 2011 03:42 PM (sCRhB)
@55: "Against rebels armed with rocket launchers, they're sort of about evenly matched."
Not really. Don't read too much into Blackhawk Down. The Habr Gidr clan used up nearly all of its supply of RPGs and got 2 helos down and 2 more damaged. Likewise, Afghanistan - the Mujads got some Russian choppers in canyons with RPGs, but weren't really successful until they got Stingers. The NVA/VC had essentially the same armament as the other two groups, and they fared poorly against gunships. Their AA guns were more effective, but those are hard to hide in flat desert.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at March 09, 2011 03:42 PM (xy9wk)
Coming soon, fewer power plants and lots of rolling black outs.
Posted by: Beto at March 09, 2011 03:42 PM (H+LJc)
Posted by: JTT at March 09, 2011 03:54 PM (HfA9V)
True. The president's security powers have been much abused. But that makes it even more imperative Obama goes to Congress - I'd like to see it become part of SOP. I'd like to see every president forced to answer the question:
"You know, Obama went to Congress before he bombed Libya. What's so immediate about this situation that you couldn't do that as well?"
Posted by: Ace's liver at March 09, 2011 04:07 PM (XIXhw)
Posted by: pd at March 09, 2011 04:24 PM (ZR8/4)
Posted by: Zombie Bill Hicks at March 09, 2011 05:31 PM (AWlIe)
----------------------
Da! And you stop stealing mine! Well, I guess you have stopped since you died.
Posted by: Mummified Vladimir Lenin at March 09, 2011 04:26 PM (xy9wk)
Posted by: sexypig at March 09, 2011 06:03 PM (Yh4Rc)
Posted by: NHL Jersey at March 11, 2011 03:31 AM (+rqgT)
Posted by: Custom Thesis Writing Services at April 19, 2011 02:10 AM (GAwIk)
Posted by: cubs hats at June 09, 2011 12:22 AM (IWZcJ)
Posted by: cubs hats at June 09, 2011 12:24 AM (IWZcJ)
Posted by: sac at June 21, 2011 01:47 AM (nWvzT)
radii straight jacketWith futuristic designs and materials, each Radii Shoesexudes confidence for the ambitious forward-thinkers of the world. The Thriller is a high top lace-up sneaker with alluring urban design and detail. This style is a hot star in ourRadii Shoes Outletnow, radii 2011come and order at once!
Posted by: radii shoes at July 06, 2011 11:42 PM (Gxlj7)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3198 seconds, 386 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
And Ukrainian nurses.
Posted by: andycanuck at March 09, 2011 12:38 PM (7H/n0)