Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Libyan air defenses are being taken out by US tomahawk missiles.


Cool, another conflict.

Hope we're successful against Gaddafi's "humpty-hump" defense system...


...surrounds all anti-aircraft facilities with thousands of long-necked, inquisitive camels.

I have noted how those are American Tomahawk missiles.

I wonder how many $50,000 AAA guns we can take out with just one of those? (I hope Qaddafi is parking them really close together to help us out).

I forget the exact figure so I won't throw out how much I THINK those things cost per shot.

(That way I am not Googled by the resident Obama/UN apologists as being completely wrong because I got the cost of a multi-million dollar missile wrong).

CID1990 wrote:I have noted how those are American Tomahawk missiles.

I wonder how many $50,000 AAA guns we can take out with just one of those? (I hope Qaddafi is parking them really close together to help us out).

I forget the exact figure so I won't throw out how much I THINK those things cost per shot.

(That way I am not Googled by the resident Obama/UN apologists as being completely wrong because I got the cost of a multi-million dollar missile wrong).

We could get the US Tax Payer to pay for advertising about the Missiles...
That's probably in the defense budget fine print

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I have noted how those are American Tomahawk missiles.

I wonder how many $50,000 AAA guns we can take out with just one of those? (I hope Qaddafi is parking them really close together to help us out).

I forget the exact figure so I won't throw out how much I THINK those things cost per shot.

(That way I am not Googled by the resident Obama/UN apologists as being completely wrong because I got the cost of a multi-million dollar missile wrong).

We could get the US Tax Payer to pay for advertising about the Missiles...
That's probably in the defense budget fine print

Hah hah!

Too bad.

So sad.

Not the fad.

I do appreciate your hyperbole though.

Two American F-15 pilots ejected over Libyan soil today after a reported equipment malfunction. One was rescued by a V-22 Osprey. The other was rescued by Libyan rebels, treated well, and handed over to the US military. Pretty cool to hear that.

We got an e-mail from a guy we met last fall who is serving on the USS Barry - he couldn't say much obviously, but they're one of the ships depicted in recent media as lobbing Tomahawks into Libya. He said he's practiced for combat operations for 12 years but watching one of these go off "made my naval career".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Barry_(DDG-52" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Any chance we can hit that guy from the Lockerbee Scotland bombing who was released almost 2 years ago because he only had weeks to live due to a terminal condition? And is still alive of course.

Frankly
This whole thing is ridiculous
This "new war" is an embarrassment to anybody who voted for Obama



(that includes me)

Chizzang wrote:Frankly
This whole thing is ridiculous
This "new war" is an embarrassment to anybody who voted for Obama



(that includes me)

I agree, but in BO's defense (never thought I'd say that ) he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Everybody was screaming for action and he waffled - then he acted and everybody's screaming.

ASUG8 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Frankly
This whole thing is ridiculous
This "new war" is an embarrassment to anybody who voted for Obama



(that includes me)

I agree, but in BO's defense (never thought I'd say that ) he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Everybody was screaming for action and he waffled - then he acted and everybody's screaming.

Bingo. Not a job I'd ever want.

ASUG8 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Frankly
This whole thing is ridiculous
This "new war" is an embarrassment to anybody who voted for Obama



(that includes me)

I agree, but in BO's defense (never thought I'd say that ) he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Everybody was screaming for action and he waffled - then he acted and everybody's screaming.

Actually if he just said "Fuck you all - I said no to Iraq and I'm saying no to Libya - we're keeping our big fat noses out of it" he would've been just fine.

The rebels can't beat Qaddafi's army by themselves. So it's a stalemate, an invasion, or we get bored and run away, (er, declare "Mission Accomplished") at which point Qaddafi will retake his country. None of these outcomes is better than us simply staying the hell out.

Rob Iola wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I agree, but in BO's defense (never thought I'd say that ) he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Everybody was screaming for action and he waffled - then he acted and everybody's screaming.

Actually if he just said "Fuck you all - I said no to Iraq and I'm saying no to Libya - we're keeping our big fat noses out of it" he would've been just fine.

The rebels can't beat Qaddafi's army by themselves. So it's a stalemate, an invasion, or we get bored and run away at which point Qaddafi will retake his country. None of these outcomes is better than us simply staying the hell out.

There's probably some truth to that, but there's also a LARGE segment of the public who would've said "see, we TOLD you he was a pussy when it comes to foreign policy/national security!".

Rob Iola wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I agree, but in BO's defense (never thought I'd say that ) he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Everybody was screaming for action and he waffled - then he acted and everybody's screaming.

Actually if he just said "**** you all - I said no to Iraq and I'm saying no to Libya - we're keeping our big fat noses out of it" he would've been just fine.

The rebels can't beat Qaddafi's army by themselves. So it's a stalemate, an invasion, or we get bored and run away, (er, declare "Mission Accomplished") at which point Qaddafi will retake his country. None of these outcomes is better than us simply staying the hell out.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: Actually if he just said "Fuck you all - I said no to Iraq and I'm saying no to Libya - we're keeping our big fat noses out of it" he would've been just fine.

The rebels can't beat Qaddafi's army by themselves. So it's a stalemate, an invasion, or we get bored and run away at which point Qaddafi will retake his country. None of these outcomes is better than us simply staying the hell out.

There's probably some truth to that, but there's also a LARGE segment of the public who would've said "see, we TOLD you he was a pussy when it comes to foreign policy/national security!".

Agreed - we should have abstained and suppressed our own countrymen just like China and Russia do.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: Actually if he just said "Fuck you all - I said no to Iraq and I'm saying no to Libya - we're keeping our big fat noses out of it" he would've been just fine.

The rebels can't beat Qaddafi's army by themselves. So it's a stalemate, an invasion, or we get bored and run away at which point Qaddafi will retake his country. None of these outcomes is better than us simply staying the hell out.

There's probably some truth to that, but there's also a LARGE segment of the public who would've said "see, we TOLD you he was a pussy when it comes to foreign policy/national security!".

He is a pussy when it comes to foreign policy - bombing the shit out of Libya ain't gonna change that. Everytime he defers to another world leader he dimishes US influence. His influence here should've been to logically state that this is a tribal issue (which it is), there are no WMDs involved, so sad as it may be there's not much that we can do. See Bush, GW on how to properly influence this outcome...

Grizalltheway wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: Actually if he just said "Fuck you all - I said no to Iraq and I'm saying no to Libya - we're keeping our big fat noses out of it" he would've been just fine.

The rebels can't beat Qaddafi's army by themselves. So it's a stalemate, an invasion, or we get bored and run away at which point Qaddafi will retake his country. None of these outcomes is better than us simply staying the hell out.

There's probably some truth to that, but there's also a LARGE segment of the public who would've said "see, we TOLD you he was a pussy when it comes to foreign policy/national security!".

This. No matter what he was screwed. The loudest voices FOR intervention were coming from the right... not surprisingly. Not saying he should have or listened to them or not - just saying what has been the case.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
There's probably some truth to that, but there's also a LARGE segment of the public who would've said "see, we TOLD you he was a pussy when it comes to foreign policy/national security!".

This. No matter what he was screwed. The loudest voices FOR intervention were coming from the right... not surprisingly. Not saying he should have or listened to them or not - just saying what has been the case.

Clinton's on the right?

Rob Iola wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
There's probably some truth to that, but there's also a LARGE segment of the public who would've said "see, we TOLD you he was a pussy when it comes to foreign policy/national security!".

He is a pussy when it comes to foreign policy - bombing the shit out of Libya ain't gonna change that. Everytime he defers to another world leader he dimishes US influence. His influence here should've been to logically state that this is a tribal issue (which it is), there are no WMDs involved, so sad as it may be there's not much that we can do. See Bush, GW on how to properly influence this outcome...

How is reliance on allies a weakness? It's peculiar because I keep hearing contradictory things from conks on this. At once they want "the rest of the damn world to carry their weight" but with that comes their leading things... and yet they want the US to still tell everyone what to do... it's a case of not being able to have it both ways... if we want and expect other countries to step up and take initiative - we can't bemoan "loss of American influence" that was long gone before the current occupant arrived at 1600 - and has as much to do with economics as it does with any military situation (no, i'm not falling back to "it's all bush's fault")

Rob Iola wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
This. No matter what he was screwed. The loudest voices FOR intervention were coming from the right... not surprisingly. Not saying he should have or listened to them or not - just saying what has been the case.

Clinton's on the right?

the neocon right was a hell of a lot louder than Hillary and Bill. which is not to suggest they weren't pushing for it - because they were.

Following France in dropping bombs, firing rockets on Libya to perpetuate a stalemate among rival tribal factions with no particularly real threat to anyone outside of Libya is a stupid idea, no matter where it came from or who executes it.

Rob Iola wrote: He is a pussy when it comes to foreign policy - bombing the shit out of Libya ain't gonna change that. Everytime he defers to another world leader he dimishes US influence. His influence here should've been to logically state that this is a tribal issue (which it is), there are no WMDs involved, so sad as it may be there's not much that we can do. See Bush, GW on how to properly influence this outcome...

This is straight out of the Republican play book...
but it's still a good post (enjoyable)

Chizzang wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: He is a pussy when it comes to foreign policy - bombing the **** out of Libya ain't gonna change that. Everytime he defers to another world leader he dimishes US influence. His influence here should've been to logically state that this is a tribal issue (which it is), there are no WMDs involved, so sad as it may be there's not much that we can do. See Bush, GW on how to properly influence this outcome...

This is straight out of the Republican play book...
but it's still a good post (enjoyable)

Dovish Presidents have always felt pressure to use the military to avoid criticism they are soft, just as hawkish Presidents have felt pressure not to use the military to avoid criticism that they are war mongers. Its the nature of the beast. The art of foreign policy is knowing when to do what will advance American interests and world peace, not to either seek or avoid conflict to bolster ones image or to avoid criticism.

LeadBolt wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

This is straight out of the Republican play book...
but it's still a good post (enjoyable)

Dovish Presidents have always felt pressure to use the military to avoid criticism they are soft, just as hawkish Presidents have felt pressure not to use the military to avoid criticism that they are war mongers. Its the nature of the beast. The art of foreign policy is knowing when to do what will advance American interests and world peace, not to either seek or avoid conflict to bolster ones image or to avoid criticism.

So..you mean not to shoot from the hip, lead with the balls, or say stuff like, "wanted, dead or alive?"

LeadBolt wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

This is straight out of the Republican play book...
but it's still a good post (enjoyable)

Dovish Presidents have always felt pressure to use the military to avoid criticism they are soft, just as hawkish Presidents have felt pressure not to use the military to avoid criticism that they are war mongers. Its the nature of the beast. The art of foreign policy is knowing when to do what will advance American interests and world peace, not to either seek or avoid conflict to bolster ones image or to avoid criticism.

...making George W. Bush the greatest foreign policy president of all time.