PDA

View Full Version : War #3



bouncer
03-19-2011, 07:41 PM
8 years to the day:

Taking from the drudgereport

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...

Just what we need.

theonedru
03-19-2011, 08:22 PM
When is enough enough for the citizens of this country? Say goodbye to a few more billion if not trillion(s) dollars we do not have and hello to more war profiteering by Politicians and their cohorts. And it is funny how they step in here yet ignore even more volatile parts of this earth.

INTIMADATOR2007
03-19-2011, 09:36 PM
Where is code pink and the other protesters , Ahhh It's Obama I get it , George Bush was a war monger but Barack is "doing the right thing" .He was in Rio today offering more money we don't have also , I do not agree with anything Godaffi has done to those people and belive he needs to be removed from power , However we have our own problems at Home ...Bring ALL the Troops home .This president dosen't fight to win !

INTIMADATOR2007
03-19-2011, 09:39 PM
When is enough enough for the citizens of this country? Say goodbye to a few more billion if not trillion(s) dollars we do not have and hello to more war profiteering by Politicians and their cohorts. And it is funny how they step in here yet ignore even more volatile parts of this earth.



And it is funny how they step in here yet ignore even more volatile parts of this earth.[/quote

Couldn't agree more here , what about the muslim terrorists they are more a threat to our country than Godaffi ever could be. Lets go Bomb them .

theonedru
03-19-2011, 11:55 PM
And it is funny how they step in here yet ignore even more volatile parts of this earth.[/quote

Couldn't agree more here , what about the muslim terrorists they are more a threat to our country than Godaffi ever could be. Lets go Bomb them .

The two biggest threats to America are as follows

1. Our government
2. Crackpot Americans

Solve these and we would be alright

INTIMADATOR2007
03-20-2011, 12:01 AM
The two biggest threats to America are as follows

1. Our government
2. Crackpot Americans

Solve these and we would be alright


so true !

Hairylemon
03-20-2011, 11:15 AM
And it is funny how they step in here yet ignore even more volatile parts of this earth.[/quote

Couldn't agree more here , what about the muslim terrorists they are more a threat to our country than Godaffi ever could be. Lets go Bomb them .

Hard to bomb them if you can't find them. Gadaffi is a terrorist though, he ok'd the Lockerbie jet bombing, he funded the IRA and provided them with arms and ammunition.

pghin08
03-21-2011, 11:18 AM
Hard to bomb them if you can't find them. Gadaffi is a terrorist though, he ok'd the Lockerbie jet bombing, he funded the IRA and provided them with arms and ammunition.

Boom city.

Hairylemon
03-21-2011, 11:34 AM
Boom city.

Is that good or bad?

theonedru
03-21-2011, 12:20 PM
Hard to bomb them if you can't find them. Gadaffi is a terrorist though, he ok'd the Lockerbie jet bombing, he funded the IRA and provided them with arms and ammunition.

America backs terrorism as well, America put people like Augusto Pinochet into power and look at what he did to his people.

limitedplay50
03-21-2011, 12:24 PM
we should be protecting our borders not Frances.
Since when does the United States military take its marching orders from FRANCE?????????????

Star_Cards
03-21-2011, 04:19 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this right now. I am one to agree that we need to get out of conflicts such a iraq and afghanistan as of how they have ended up over the last eight years. I was okay with the initial conflict/war in afghanistan, but the amount of time the U.S. has had troops there makes me feel they should be home by now.

That said, I'm proud that we can be a country that can help protect l Libya's people from being killed by their own leader. I guess at this point I think it just depends on what course is taken with the conflict on how I will ultimately feel. While I'm okay with the U.S. taking a stance on the issue I don't think I would be okay with ground troops going into Libya.

As far as this being war #3, I don't think this will ultimately end up being to the same degree as what we've had in Iraq or Afghanistan. I could be wrong but that is just my feeling.

duane1969
03-21-2011, 07:28 PM
America backs terrorism as well, America put people like Augusto Pinochet into power and look at what he did to his people.

I think we have different opinions on the term "backing terrorist". Because you help put someone in power and they turn out to be a bad person does not make you a supporter of terrorism.

Also, the CIA helped support Pinochet after the coup. They did not play a role in the coup. So by definition, the US did not put him in power either.

INTIMADATOR2007
03-21-2011, 09:36 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this right now. I am one to agree that we need to get out of conflicts such a iraq and afghanistan as of how they have ended up over the last eight years. I was okay with the initial conflict/war in afghanistan, but the amount of time the U.S. has had troops there makes me feel they should be home by now.


If our leaders would treat it as a war it would have taken us about 6 months to end these wars , We are the superpower why not use it to it's full extent , Wars are no supposed to be nice .

sanfran22
03-21-2011, 10:01 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this right now. I am one to agree that we need to get out of conflicts such a iraq and afghanistan as of how they have ended up over the last eight years. I was okay with the initial conflict/war in afghanistan, but the amount of time the U.S. has had troops there makes me feel they should be home by now.


If our leaders would treat it as a war it would have taken us about 6 months to end these wars , We are the superpower why not use it to it's full extent , Wars are no supposed to be nice .

This is where I'd be. We don't fight wars anymore. We fight politically correct, media driven wars now....

TheTGB
03-21-2011, 10:12 PM
Hard to bomb them if you can't find them. Gadaffi is a terrorist though, he ok'd the Lockerbie jet bombing, he funded the IRA and provided them with arms and ammunition.

Truer words have never been said.

While I agree that we should be worrying more about ourselves, helping to prevent mass genocide of the anti-Gadaffi people is something that SOMEONE needs to help those mostly defenseless people.

Note: While the term genocide is not definitively correct for that statement, I believe that the international law against genocide should include those of political beliefs as well, as originally intended when genocide was included in international law but was not added for diplomatic compromise.

Hairylemon
03-22-2011, 12:40 AM
This is where I'd be. We don't fight wars anymore. We fight politically correct, media driven wars now....

When you don't know who is the enemy and who is the friendly it makes fighting a conventional war impossible. In Iraq and Afghanistan the enemy is not wearing a uniform, so how does the average soldier know who is who?

pghin08
03-22-2011, 09:41 AM
When you don't know who is the enemy and who is the friendly it makes fighting a conventional war impossible. In Iraq and Afghanistan the enemy is not wearing a uniform, so how does the average soldier know who is who?

Spot on. The concept of "conventional war" is dead. For the foreseeable future, conflicts will be like this. War as our grandparents knew it doesn't exist in this world.

Star_Cards
03-22-2011, 12:11 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this right now. I am one to agree that we need to get out of conflicts such a iraq and afghanistan as of how they have ended up over the last eight years. I was okay with the initial conflict/war in afghanistan, but the amount of time the U.S. has had troops there makes me feel they should be home by now.


If our leaders would treat it as a war it would have taken us about 6 months to end these wars , We are the superpower why not use it to it's full extent , Wars are no supposed to be nice .

Well given that these wars are less against another countries and more against unmarked opponents I can see where our leaders don't really want to be less "nice" and take out large numbers of civilians that live in these countries. I agree that when the U.S. fought against actual other military forces (gulf war and the initial invasion in the current iraq war) they've proven to be able top handle business quite fast, but the wars that are going on now are way more surgical. I don't think they should be treated as wars where one could just go in and wipe out everything.

duane1969
03-22-2011, 02:03 PM
A good start would be declaring marshall law when we take over and outlaw the carrying of weapons. I have always said that the #1 reason we failed in the early months of Iraq was because the good guys and the bad guys were all standing around holding AK-47s and grenade launchers. If you outlaw carrying weapons then it's a little easier to identify the enemy since they will be the ones with guns.

Maybe that is a little to simplistic for our government tho :confused0024:

sanfran22
03-22-2011, 03:07 PM
A good start would be declaring marshall law when we take over and outlaw the carrying of weapons. I have always said that the #1 reason we failed in the early months of Iraq was because the good guys and the bad guys were all standing around holding AK-47s and grenade launchers. If you outlaw carrying weapons then it's a little easier to identify the enemy since they will be the ones with guns.

Maybe that is a little to simplistic for our government tho :confused0024:
Exactly...I mean, come on. The mindset of a few in this post shows the problem we have.

Star_Cards
03-22-2011, 03:12 PM
Exactly...I mean, come on. The mindset of a few in this post shows the problem we have.

curious what mindset shows a reason for the problem?

sanfran22
03-22-2011, 03:23 PM
curious what mindset shows a reason for the problem?
The one that doesn't allow us to win. The one that says we can't identify the enemy when we can take steps to deal with that. The one that doesn't allow us to go hard to win because we may make someone not like us. The one where you have to ask permission to shoot.
Go in, go hard, and deal with it. If you can't or aren't willing to do that, then get out and let them deal with the consequences.

habsheaven
03-22-2011, 03:28 PM
The one that doesn't allow us to win. The one that says we can't identify the enemy when we can take steps to deal with that. The one that doesn't allow us to go hard to win because we may make someone not like us. The one where you have to ask permission to shoot.
Go in, go hard, and deal with it. If you can't or aren't willing to do that, then get out and let them deal with the consequences.

Can you please tell me what a "WIN" is in each of these three "WARS"? I'm curious to know, because I don't think that the military leaders or the politicians can define a "win".

theonedru
03-22-2011, 03:31 PM
Can you please tell me what a "WIN" is in each of these three "WARS"? I'm curious to know, because I don't think that the military leaders or the politicians can define a "win".

There is no victory, no win, no glory when it comes to war

Star_Cards
03-22-2011, 04:17 PM
The one that doesn't allow us to win. The one that says we can't identify the enemy when we can take steps to deal with that. The one that doesn't allow us to go hard to win because we may make someone not like us. The one where you have to ask permission to shoot.
Go in, go hard, and deal with it. If you can't or aren't willing to do that, then get out and let them deal with the consequences.

My thoughts are when you have enemies mixing in with non enemies who decides where exactly to go in hard and deal with it? Is it okay to go in and roll over whoever and whatever is in your way as you move across a country?

habsheaven
03-22-2011, 07:30 PM
There is no victory, no win, no glory when it comes to war

My point, exactly!!

Hairylemon
03-22-2011, 09:46 PM
The one that doesn't allow us to win. The one that says we can't identify the enemy when we can take steps to deal with that. The one that doesn't allow us to go hard to win because we may make someone not like us. The one where you have to ask permission to shoot.
Go in, go hard, and deal with it. If you can't or aren't willing to do that, then get out and let them deal with the consequences.

I could be wrong here, but it seems like you are advocating wiping out innocents just to get to the bad guy. As for declaring martial law when "we take over", how is this even possible when "we" don't run the country "we" invaded.

Looks like the US Armed Forces have taken your advice. Headline from a UK newspaper.
U.S. rescue chopper SHOOTS six friendly Libyan villagers as they welcome pilots of downed Air Force jet (http://www.sportscardforum.com/news/article-1368633/Libya-war-US-chopper-shoots-6-villagers-welcomed-Air-Force-F-15-crash-pilots.html)

duane1969
03-23-2011, 07:21 PM
I could be wrong here, but it seems like you are advocating wiping out innocents just to get to the bad guy. As for declaring martial law when "we take over", how is this even possible when "we" don't run the country "we" invaded.


Had we not declared "victory" and instead declared marshall law then we would have been in effect, taking over. We never took over Iraq because the goal was never to take control but to simply oust Saddam. The same is occuring in Libya now. No one plans to take over, they are just putting our troops in harms way to try and overthrow a dictator.

tutall
03-23-2011, 07:49 PM
I could be wrong here, but it seems like you are advocating wiping out innocents just to get to the bad guy. As for declaring martial law when "we take over", how is this even possible when "we" don't run the country "we" invaded.

Looks like the US Armed Forces have taken your advice. Headline from a UK newspaper.
U.S. rescue chopper SHOOTS six friendly Libyan villagers as they welcome pilots of downed Air Force jet (http://www.sportscardforum.com/news/article-1368633/Libya-war-US-chopper-shoots-6-villagers-welcomed-Air-Force-F-15-crash-pilots.html)

For some reason your article would not come up but I think it is a little wrong based on the headline.. The chopper fired some small artilery shells between the downed pilot and the villagers because no one knew if they were friendly or enemies. The 6 that were injured were hit by shrapnal from the shells.... It is my understanding no one was killed by this action but I honestly could be wrong.... It is just that headline makes it sound like the copter was unloading on the villagers which is not true

sanfran22
03-23-2011, 08:01 PM
I could be wrong here, but it seems like you are advocating wiping out innocents just to get to the bad guy. As for declaring martial law when "we take over", how is this even possible when "we" don't run the country "we" invaded.

Looks like the US Armed Forces have taken your advice. Headline from a UK newspaper.
U.S. rescue chopper SHOOTS six friendly Libyan villagers as they welcome pilots of downed Air Force jet (http://www.sportscardforum.com/news/article-1368633/Libya-war-US-chopper-shoots-6-villagers-welcomed-Air-Force-F-15-crash-pilots.html)
Thanks for making my point. It's people like you that scream bloody murder from a headline from the media, Then a bunch of knee jerk reactions occur and we become severely handicapped.
No one likes war, and we all want to avoid it whenever we can. But we need to do what we need to do.

duane1969
03-23-2011, 09:39 PM
For some reason your article would not come up but I think it is a little wrong based on the headline.. The chopper fired some small artilery shells between the downed pilot and the villagers because no one knew if they were friendly or enemies. The 6 that were injured were hit by shrapnal from the shells.... It is my understanding no one was killed by this action but I honestly could be wrong.... It is just that headline makes it sound like the copter was unloading on the villagers which is not true

You are correct. Nobody was killed.

An article yesterday in The Australian said none of the injured saw who fired the rockets.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/libya-locals-fired-upon-wounded-near-downed-us-fighter/story-e6frg6so-1226026529549


None of those injured in the incident could confirm who or what fired the rockets.

"God only knows, we couldn't see any plane," Ali said.

Earlier, media reports suggested that an aircraft involved in the rescue of one of the aircrew who ejected from the F-15 before it crashed may have opened fire as it attempted to extract the American pilot.

But eyewitnesses said it was impossible to tell, and they did not speculate about who was responsible.


In articles that came out today suddenly those who were injured saw American helicopters. :rolleyes:

Hairylemon
03-25-2011, 01:55 AM
I stand corrected,my mistake. I am curious to know how a no fly zone can turn into a bomb the crap out of them zone though. Please be aware I am not being anti American about this, the UK government is neck deep in this also.

11chaos
03-25-2011, 04:40 AM
When you don't know who is the enemy and who is the friendly it makes fighting a conventional war impossible. In Iraq and Afghanistan the enemy is not wearing a uniform, so how does the average soldier know who is who?

More than soldiers are here but I know you mean the Coalition forces as a whole. With a literacy rate of what many say is 28% is actually very false. The majority of local nationals that I come into contact with are illiterate. They can understand a little of the Koran and that is it. Most of the survey's you see are from their capital, Kabul. You have the country broken down into 3 groups hate all coalition (See us as Infidels) - 15%, Don't care and just want to be left alone by all - 70% and finally the ones that love us - 15%. You could also add in the ones from the other countries that are just here to do battle against the Infidels. So with all that being said, it's hard to say who is the enemy until they actually shoot at you.

Listed below is the nations in Afghanistan.

Contributing Nations
NATO Members: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America

Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC): Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrghz Republic, Malta, Republic of Maldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Tonga, Tunisia

Istanbul Cooperation Initiative: Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates

Contact Countries: Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand

duane1969
03-26-2011, 03:20 PM
I stand corrected,my mistake. I am curious to know how a no fly zone can turn into a bomb the crap out of them zone though. Please be aware I am not being anti American about this, the UK government is neck deep in this also.

If I understand correctly, the assertion is that the locals were approaching the downed craft and were supposedly fired upon. Considering none were killed it is my opinion that the shots were warning shots that landed close-by.

Assuming it was American attack choppers (Apache?) then they would have been firing Hydra 70 rockets. At close range a Hydra would turn a human into hamburger. The fact that all survived, most with minor injuries, is testament that the rockets were not fired with intentions of killing.

A short video of an Apache in action in Iraq is testament enough that if those injured were targeted then they would not have survived.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksq43zrVJP8&feature=related