Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Romney and Ships (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Romney and Ships
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We've had attacks on embassies before, and protests/riots at the gates more often than I can recall. Have we ever called in air strikes in response?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Has a security contractor ever called in airstrikes on a mortar position he has targeted with a laser designator eight hours into a terrorist attack?

[ November 12, 2012, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I don't know, but I also don't know if that was the right tactic. The hearings this week should help clarify some of that. I don't expect this issue to go away no matter how clean a bill of health the Administration is given (or how poor one they get). It's too sharp a stick to poke them with since there will always be some judgment and unknowns that can be taken for whichever point of view one wants to pursue.

Fair enough. My point is that whether or not sending planes was the right thing to do, that given the fact that we're in an ongoing state of war against Al Qaeda, plus other conflicts in that region, that we should have been able to make such a deployment at a moment's notice.

If we can't afford our present commitments, then we can retrench. Tell Taiwan that we won't continue to maneuver there to deter a PRC attack, for example. Tell South Korea that it's on the own against the psycho Northrons. But we can't maintain current commitments while stretching our deployments. In my view, if we were incapable of deploying planes on 9/12 to Lybia, that would would suggest stretched forces.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[MattP:] "We've had attacks on embassies before, and protests/riots at the gates more often than I can recall. Have we ever called in air strikes in response?"

There were over a dozen under Bush that resulted in deaths of US personnel or local enforcement personnel, but I don't think any of them had air strikes or resulted in hearings or investigations.

[Pete:] "If we can't afford our present commitments..."

I quite frankly don't understand what the scope of our commitments is. Do we have to be prepared for any level of conflict anywhere in the world where there are official US representatives? Do we have agreements with local governments to protect or inform us of impending attacks? Is *any* fatality a reprehensible failure of intelligence, military preparedness or leadership?

I'll wait until the hearings have made progress before commenting further. What I see in this thread is more than a rush to judgment, but a judgment in search of facts from which it can be derived.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Do we have to be prepared for any level of conflict anywhere in the world where there are official US representatives?"

No, I don't think so. But I do think we need to be ready to make instant drone and plane strikes within Al Qaeda's most common kill zones, i.e. North Africa, Somalia, and the Middle East.

If we can't do that, then we should negotiate our surrender to Al Qaeda.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why on Earth should America surrender to someone making strikes in north Africa?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Irony:
quote:
noun, plural i·ro·nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

FWIW, I think your comment was hyperbole, not irony.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete did you really mean that you do NOT "think we need to be ready to make instant drone and plane strikes within Al Qaeda's most common kill zones, i.e. North Africa, Somalia, and the Middle East"?

If so, it wasn't clear.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that we DO need to be ready to make instant drone and plane strikes within Al Qaeda's most common kill zones, i.e. North Africa, Somalia, and the Middle East.

I find the alternative unpalatable and comparable to abject surrender to Al Qaeda.

Was that really not clear?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You *originally* seemed to me clear enough about that, but then you gave us a definition of "irony" which implied that you had been using words in the opposite of their literal meaning.

So I no longer was clear about what you had meant: You now seemed to be clear that you didn't mean what I had thought you had meant.

Right now it seems that my original reading was correct, but I no longer understand what you meant by the definition of "irony" post.

I just wish people communicated clearly to each other.

[ November 13, 2012, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought that the last statement that Tom seemed to be confused about was "ironic." Perhaps Velcro is right and hyperbole would be a better descriptor. Seems to me to be a bit of both. But one ironic afterthought in a post should not render the entire post ironic.

Swift's modest proposal is usually the touchstone for irony, and I think I followed that: when I say "if we can't do x, then we should do [outrageous proposal]" it seemed obvious to me that I was proposing that we really need to do x.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I find the alternative unpalatable and comparable to abject surrender to Al Qaeda.
Again, why do you think this?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems clear that the number of ships will be in flux a little bit, nobody seems to have a good reason why keeping the Enterprise in action a little bit longer would prevent car bombs or other sorts of terrorist acts that might occur in the US or elsewhere?

Aircraft carriers seem much more suited for conventional warfare... though at least the newer ones should have the ability to launch drones and newer types of airplanes, etc...

In case you haven’t noticed, hysteria is what the terrorists want. In fact, it’s the only win a decapitated, weakened al-Qaida can get these days. The only hope that these bad guys possess for success lies in compelling the U.S. to spend its way into oblivion and pursue ill-conceived wars.

[ November 13, 2012, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: LinuxFreakus ]

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Aircraft carriers seem much more suited for conventional warfare..."...

They are the Swiss Army Knife of military force projection, which is why we invest so heavily in them.

"... though at least the newer ones should have the ability to launch drones... "...

That capability will not come until, at least, 2020 with the commissioning of CVN-79. Obama budgeted the Navy into delaying its launch.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I find the alternative unpalatable and comparable to abject surrender to Al Qaeda.
Again, why do you think this?
Because we cannot otherwise pretend to be seriously engaged in war with a force of Al Qaeda's specific asymmetrical capabilities and weaknesses.

Since I know how much you adore my analogies, I'd say that fighting Al Qaeda with conventional weapons is like playing Whack-a-Mole. You can't play whack-a-mole while wandering away from the machine. You've got to hover over it. The area ranging between Tunisia and Pakistan is the whack-a-mole machine -- the area where AL Qaeda can plausibly establish safe haven while maintaining its operations.

(AQ might plausibly establish safe-haven within some areas of the South Pacific but would do so at the expense of a number of operations that it considers critical).

So that's why failing to maintain an ability to instantly strike anything from Tunisia to Pakistan is key to this fight.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obama budgeted the Navy into delaying its launch.
I assume you mean Obama (well, his administration) directed the navy to divert resources leading to a delay?

The president doesn't control the purse strings.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The president doesn't control the purse strings."...

Well, he isn't supposed to, right? The sequestration ploy is good evidence that this line can be blurred with sufficient effort.

Naval budget priorities are actually spelled out by Congress, and a waiver had to be granted to reduce carrier numbers. When given the choice of meeting payroll, or disposing of hardware... it becomes problematic.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So how do carrier(s) prevent car bombs, and other types of terrorist acts? Seems difficult at best to defend against.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because we cannot otherwise pretend to be seriously engaged in war with a force of Al Qaeda's specific asymmetrical capabilities and weaknesses.
Then we simply stop pretending to be seriously engaged in this war. As we are in all cases the superior party, and have not been materially harmed and are not materially at risk, it continues only at our behest anyway. There's no need for surrender; we can simply stop.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LF,

I am pretty sure that you are the only person in this thread that wants to prevent car bombings with aircraft carriers, so I will bite; How do they do it? [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

We" ... are not materially at risk... "...

Really? Do you participate in a global economy based on oil?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Because we cannot otherwise pretend to be seriously engaged in war with a force of Al Qaeda's specific asymmetrical capabilities and weaknesses.
Then we simply stop pretending to be seriously engaged in this war. As we are in all cases the superior party, and have not been materially harmed and are not materially at risk, it continues only at our behest anyway. There's no need for surrender; we can simply stop.
Tell the ambassador's family that there was no harm done.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
LF,

I am pretty sure that you are the only person in this thread that wants to prevent car bombings with aircraft carriers, so I will bite; How do they do it? [Wink]

Based on what I'm reading, I have seen several insinuating that we need X number of ships in order to be safe from terrorists, etc... so I was just wondering how it is that those folks thought that we would be safer from these types of attacks had we not decommissioned Enterprise or delayed newer ships, etc.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Really? Do you participate in a global economy based on oil?
Ah! We are now engaging in hegemony to protect our access to foreign assets, eh? Is that what this "war on terror" is about after all?

quote:
Tell the ambassador's family that there was no harm done.
Fascinating. How many foreigners should die because a given American did? Does the fact that one of them was an ambassador make him worth more foreigners? I have a friend whose roommate was killed by some drunken skinheads while visiting Germany. Interestingly, no one I know suggested that we should surrender to Germany because we weren't prepared to save her with an airstrike.

[ November 13, 2012, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sounds like a misunderstanding or a straw man. I don't recall anyone saying that more ships would make us "safe." But reducing AQ to car bombing is itself a pretty good accomplishment, given their capabilities when they have the luxury of a safe haven.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Tell the ambassador's family that there was no harm done.
Fascinating. How many foreigners should die because a given American did?
I cannot have a serious conversation with someone that thinks that military operations are some sort of numbers contest. I will try to confine my arguments to those who admit to grasping the difference between an embassador dying in a car crash or getting killed at the supermarket, versus getting killed in a supposedly protected US facility.

We want as many AQ members to die as we can feasibly strike. And we want to be able to protect our vulnerable and sovereign posts such as embassies and consulates.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete I think the bigger point is that an airstrike is an indiscriminate weapon (even with it hits exactly where we want). What if that mortar position was located on top of an apartment complex next to a hospital. How many bystanders is it acceptable to kill to potentially save some Americans?
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I cannot have a serious conversation with someone that thinks that military operations are some sort of numbers contest.
I submit that this is exactly what military operations are.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We want as many AQ members to die as we can feasibly strike.
No, we want AQ to cease to kill people to advance their agenda. IF we lose track of that primary objective in favor of body count then you are pretty much explicitly advocating for the very same body count metrics that you nominally rejected at the beginning of your post.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We are engaging in hegemony to protect our access to foreign assets... "...

Actually, I am surprised that you did not know this.

It would explain why you believe national security is a back-burner issue. I am curious; are you living a "green" lifestyle? Do you boycott goods and services of those that consume affordable petroleum in the production of "assets" that you want to have?

You don’t present yourself as a homeless person.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I did know this. I just think it's funny that you pretend to get all outraged about the death of Americans when really what scares you is that petroleum might get more expensive.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

Are you able to fully answer the question?

Do you live a lifestyle in accordance with your politics?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heh. I love how you're pretending that I'm dodging your point, noel. But let me again point out that you suck at this. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will take that as a "no", you take full advantage of hegemony in acquisition of material assets.

Fair enough, I will interpret your comments as self-flagellation... and leave you to it.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Pete I think the bigger point is that an airstrike is an indiscriminate weapon (even with it hits exactly where we want). What if that mortar position was located on top of an apartment complex next to a hospital. How many bystanders is it acceptable to kill to potentially save some Americans?

Irrelevant to the question that I was addressing, which was about obtaining the CAPACITY to strike.

"Save a bystander, decommission an aircraft carrier" seems to me a rather flaky red herring, given the subject matter discussed up to this point.

[ November 13, 2012, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I cannot have a serious conversation with someone that thinks that military operations are some sort of numbers contest.
I submit that this is exactly what military operations are.
As a means, not as an end. Otherwise your absurd question of how many X need to die in retaliation for one American, would not have been painfully foolish.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I will take that as a "no", you take full advantage of hegemony in acquisition of material assets.
*laugh* Really, noel, it's a "I don't discuss my lifestyle much, but I'm satisfied with it." You're welcome to conclude that no one can possibly be more decent or principled than you are, if it helps you feel better about the "we must kill the brown people for cheap oil" position you're advocating here, but please don't feel like you've got any actual perspective on my life. Because I haven't given you any.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"witless", "absurd", "painfully foolish"

More heat than light - just saying.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Otherwise your absurd question of how many X need to die in retaliation for one American, would not have been painfully foolish.
And yet you're the one calling for killing as many members of Al Qaeda as possible, as an end goal. Did you misspeak?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1