Obama: It's time for Libya's Gadhafi to go

[Hot Mega]

After action reports are made from pilot debriefings......i.e. from the pilot's own accounts.

They are made by men.

Yes they were warned and painted US aircraft with radar (which in itself is considered an offensive action by the enemy)

Since their radars were apparently manned, what else would they be used for?

The fired upon US aircraft on their ingress, while over target and egress. You claim and someone at GS claim falsely it was only on egress.

I don't claim anything. I wasn't a part of the operation nor were some high 90 pct. figure of the military either. GS has gotten their information from somewhere. Unless you were part of the operation itself you don't know which account is accurate either. I'm not sure where you gather in your mind that every member in the military has some intricate knowledge of every military operation...they don't. Members of the same branch wouldn't even have intricate details of every operation undertaken by their branch. Unless it's information they needed to know or it's become public enough and you seek it out. Anyone can attest to this. 'The military' isn't some neighborhood watch group where everyone knows every single detail of every single operation.

To that end, if you weren't involved in it all you're doing is repeating second or third hand information just like I'm doing and just like GS.

The Libyans were not dumb enough to try and get an aircraft airborne.........the F-14s on hand would've nailed them within minutes.

They're not?

But make up your mind....were they 'formidable' however, not dumb enough to use the shit they have to defend themselves?

"Relatively unarmed" now means feeble and inept? Yeah right tell that to the pilots who faced AAA and SAM's

So some guys ran. Let's see explosions, AAA going off, roar of aircraft overhead, people shouting screaming, yeop no surprise there.

Your turn.:clap:

My original point was Reagan launched an 'extravagant' operation against a 'relatively unarmed' nation.

What has been demonstrated is various sources (other than me) considered it excessive and Libya though possessing 'formidable' armament, didn't launch a single fighter in it's defense and of the trip A batteries they didn't abandon...they managed to shoot down 1 of over 100 involved aircraft. 'relatively unarmed' - feeble and inept.....pick one...I guarantee you are at about the same results with either.

You would have us believe they were laying in wait for us having benefit of being forewarned when their actions suggest otherwise.

Sounds like you won this debate. (Where you win all of them, in your mind.)

 

[vodkazvictim]

Imma get me sum moar

 

[bazza599]

go where what crazy country would take him if even he was to go come or be pushed .to britain why not we will probably end up housing his sorry mad man arse

 

[vodkazvictim]

go where what crazy country would take him if even he was to go come or be pushed .to britain why not we will probably end up housing his sorry mad man arse

I wouldn't be surprised if we did take him in. Didn't one of Mubarak's sons flee here?
We need a revolution; we can't have our dictators supporting other dictators 'cos sooner or later the rest of the world will be free, declaring war on the English dictatorship.
Or more likely just laughing at us. Even more than they do now

 

[Trident1]

They are made by men.

Since their radars were apparently manned, what else would they be used for?

I don't claim anything. I wasn't a part of the operation nor were some high 90 pct. figure of the military either. GS has gotten their information from somewhere. Unless you were part of the operation itself you don't know which account is accurate either. I'm not sure where you gather in your mind that every member in the military has some intricate knowledge of every military operation...they don't. Members of the same branch wouldn't even have intricate details of every operation undertaken by their branch. Unless it's information they needed to know or it's become public enough and you seek it out. Anyone can attest to this. 'The military' isn't some neighborhood watch group where everyone knows every single detail of every single operation.

To that end, if you weren't involved in it all you're doing is repeating second or third hand information just like I'm doing and just like GS.

They're not?

But make up your mind....were they 'formidable' however, not dumb enough to use the shit they have to defend themselves?


My original point was Reagan launched an 'extravagant' operation against a 'relatively unarmed' nation.

What has been demonstrated is various sources (other than me) considered it excessive and Libya though possessing 'formidable' armament, didn't launch a single fighter in it's defense and of the trip A batteries they didn't abandon...they managed to shoot down 1 of over 100 involved aircraft. 'relatively unarmed' - feeble and inept.....pick one...I guarantee you are at about the same results with either.

You would have us believe they were laying in wait for us having benefit of being forewarned when their actions suggest otherwise.

Sounds like you won this debate. (Where you win all of them, in your mind.)

A pilot report is what the pilot(s) witnessed with their own eyes and actions taken. So I trust their statement over third or fourth hand GS.
The idea that the strike was "extravagant" doesn't hold water. The number of aircraft, targets, size of the country demanded a substantial force. The aircraft were conventional aircraft not stealth aircraft. Each conventional fighter bomber requires several other aircraft to fly support for it's mission.

Describing Libya as "feeble" because it didn't launch a fighter doesn't stand up either.
A fighter once airborne requires ground control to direct him to the target(Soviet doctrine). Not much use if said GC is under attack.
the interceptor needs CAP to protect him from being shot down. Not much use if the CAP can't even get off the ground.
Libya's air defense system was formidable with integrated AAA and SAM weaponry. We dismantled their defense because our forces have had experience doing so.......Vietnam and because of our training for a NATO/WP showdown in Europe.

 

[Hot Mega]

A pilot report is what the pilot(s) witnessed with their own eyes and actions taken. So I trust their statement over third or fourth hand GS.

Who's witness accounts created the basis for Corporal Tillman's posthumous Silver Star? While I'm not impugning the integrity of any pilot associated with this op the point is whatever report you may have been privy to is the creation of men. Taking your word for it (I know, big fucking mistake) you dispute GS on the basis of what you claim is access to eyewitness assertions. Well, not to presume anything but considering whatever you have had access to in the public domain, they most likely do as well.

Since you dispute their assertions with what has to be information available for public dissemination, post online locations to where the rest of us can see this irrefutable proof.

The idea that the strike was "extravagant" doesn't hold water. The number of aircraft, targets, size of the country demanded a substantial force. The aircraft were conventional aircraft not stealth aircraft. Each conventional fighter bomber requires several other aircraft to fly support for it's mission.

You still don't get the point. You sure you don't live in an anechoic chamber??

How many other people witnessing this exchange understand the simple point that the extravagance or excess was in the design of the mission objectives which called for the commitment to a force this size??

I know your retort is, well we attacked target x, y, z, blah blah blah blah therefore blah blah...But you don't seemed to be getting is the scalability of a mission at the operational level for a mere retaliatory policy...You know what...don't worry about that part...you don't or refuse to understand that point and I'm tired of trying to douse you with it.

Describing Libya as "feeble" because it didn't launch a fighter doesn't stand up either.
A fighter once airborne requires ground control to direct him to the target(Soviet doctrine). Not much use if said GC is under attack.
the interceptor needs CAP to protect him from being shot down. Not much use if the CAP can't even get off the ground.

So since you're carrying all the water..which of your opposing positions here is holding it? The notion of them being forewarned but then for some reason not engaging. Or the notion that they were formidable but just couldn't defend themselves because they lacked forewarning?:o

Libya's air defense system was formidable with integrated AAA and SAM weaponry. We dismantled their defense because our forces have had experience doing so.......Vietnam and because of our training for a NATO/WP showdown in Europe.

That's one explanation.

 

[Trident1]

Taking your word for it (I know, big fucking mistake)

I can say the same regarding another issue.

How many other people witnessing this exchange understand the simple point that the extravagance or excess was in the design of the mission objectives which called for the commitment to a force this size??

Your idea seems to try and point the finger at Reagan and say "see he's extravagant."
I'm telling you that the military planners make the mission the Pres. okays it.
With conventional strike aircraft especially going back to the 1980s any air strike mission along with support aircraft will look "extravagant" when it's not.

So since you're carrying all the water..which of your opposing positions here is holding it? The notion of them being forewarned but then for some reason not engaging. Or the notion that they were formidable but just couldn't defend themselves because they lacked forewarning?:o

They were forewarned and engaged. It doesn't make sense to send up and lose aircraft so they kept them on the ground. The Libyans weren't stupid. As an officer you try not to lose assets. Yes the Libyan Armed forces were formidable and not "relatively unarmed" as you claim. A claim you made for some reason to get back at Reagan.

That's one explanation.

It's the only one.

 

[Hot Mega]

I can say the same regarding another issue.

It's irrelevant as to whether you take my word on whether I served in the military under Reagan..or not. The point of it isn't germane to any point I made about Reagan but to your speculation of who was around or not. The fact that I was in the military under Reagan is an anecdote to the point of me being around. Believe it or not.:tongue:

Your idea seems to try and point the finger at Reagan and say "see he's extravagant."
I'm telling you that the military planners make the mission the Pres. okays it.
With conventional strike aircraft especially going back to the 1980s any air strike mission along with support aircraft will look "extravagant" when it's not.

I already stated what my idea was. It is in essence supported by other accounts and characterizations published on the web. You're the one arguing now with other accounts too....on just your word. Which as we've seen (not speculated) has been quite dubious when it comes to wordsmithing of facts. Do you have anything we can read for ourselves and take to the bank beyond your word? :1orglaugh

They were forewarned and engaged. It doesn't make sense to send up and lose aircraft so they kept them on the ground. The Libyans weren't stupid. As an officer you try not to lose assets. Yes the Libyan Armed forces were formidable and not "relatively unarmed" as you claim. A claim you made for some reason to get back at Reagan.

It doesn't make sense to send your aircraft up to lose them when you don't know if you will simply lose them to your enemy sitting on the ground...having benefit of forewarning no less?? Who do you take us for??:1orglaugh:dunno:

Yeah they were forewarned...by their radar systems.

It's the only one.

Only because of the numbers of points of views you have.

 

[Trident1]

I already stated what my idea was. It is in essence supported by other accounts and characterizations published on the web. You're the one arguing now with other accounts too....on just your word. Which as we've seen (not speculated) has been quite dubious when it comes to wordsmithing of facts. Do you have anything we can read for ourselves and take to the bank beyond your word? :1orglaugh

The idea of me scanning these pages and putting on a public forum isn't a good idea..........sound familiar?

It doesn't make sense to send your aircraft up to lose them when you don't know if you will simply lose them to your enemy sitting on the ground...having benefit of forewarning no less?? Who do you take us for??:1orglaugh:dunno:

Having them on the ground assures you of one thing..........it keeps your pilots alive and well.

Yeah they were forewarned...by their radar systems.

By Western media, the Maltese government and the Libyan's own radar(detected by the F-111's DEW system).

Only because of the numbers of points of views you have.

I have one point of view and that's defending those who have served.

 

[Hot Mega]

The idea of me scanning these pages and putting on a public forum isn't a good idea..........sound familiar?

So, you're cleared to view information not in the public domain? My DD-214 is not in the public domain and not subject to public dissemination.

If this stuff is classified above unclassified...how do you have your hands or eyes on it???

Having them on the ground assures you of one thing..........it keeps your pilots alive and well.

No it doesn't. It only ensures that they won't engage an invading enemy. Having them on the ground only assures the risk of losing your aircraft, command structure, head of your state along with your pilots.

By Western media...

They were warned their country was under attack and did virtually nothing? That's not so unbelievable when you think about it.

I have one point of view and that's defending those who have served.

Your point of view is protecting the myth of Reagan. That's quite clear as you've sought to attribute things to him repeatedly that are thoroughly debunked. No member nor fellow former member of the military has been assailed in our exchange. Save the histrionics.

 

[Trident1]

So, you're cleared to view information not in the public domain? My DD-214 is not in the public domain and not subject to public dissemination.

If this stuff is classified above unclassified...how do you have your hands or eyes on it???

I can't and won't tell you that.

No it doesn't. It only ensures that they won't engage an invading enemy. Having them on the ground only assures the risk of losing your aircraft, command structure, head of your state along with your pilots.

Yes it does. You can always replace an airframe not so with a pilot. Apparently you would have a pilot be sent on a virtual suicide mission. How nice.

They were warned their country was under attack and did virtually nothing? That's not so unbelievable when you think about it.

"Virtually nothing"? Firing on US aircraft with AAA and SAMs is "virtually nothing"? Your opinion would've changed had your butt been on the receiving end.

Your point of view is protecting the myth of Reagan. That's quite clear as you've sought to attribute things to him repeatedly that are thoroughly debunked. No member nor fellow former member of the military has been assailed in our exchange. Save the histrionics.

No I'm not protecting a "myth". You're a Democrat/Leftist/whatever pissed off that Mondale or Carter wasn't Pres. from 1981-1989. You simply dislike Reagan because he was a Republican. That's quite obvious. Reagan was what the country needed which was to have someone who no longer believed just "containing Communism" was the way to go. All that "Containment" crap led to the Soviets expanding their influence.

Thank God for Reagan.
I'll make sure no actual member of our armed forces is assailed

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes it does. You can always replace an airframe not so with a pilot. Apparently you would have a pilot be sent on a virtual suicide mission. How nice.

Suicide huh? Apparently you're back to the not so 'formidable' side now.:o

"Virtually nothing"? Firing on US aircraft with AAA and SAMs is "virtually nothing"? Your opinion would've changed had your butt been on the receiving end.

Yeah...Although any weapons system aimed against a target it can penetrate is certainly no picnic for you if you're the one being targeted. But yeah, virtually nothing considering the reports many simply abandoned their batteries against the prospect that they all could have then they would have literally done nothing.

No I'm not protecting a "myth". You're a Democrat/Leftist/whatever pissed off that Mondale or Carter wasn't Pres. from 1981-1989. You simply dislike Reagan because he was a Republican. That's quite obvious. Reagan was what the country needed which was to have someone who no longer believed just "containing Communism" was the way to go. All that "Containment" crap led to the Soviets expanding their influence.

Well again, you get to have your opinions but you don't get to substitute them for the facts. Reagan was more myth than reality...I think most here regard some of what's been debated about him recently in these threads enlightening in light of the facts. Thanks for you help in that regard btw.:clap:

I have no affinity for Reagan nor do I particularly dislike him. I don't think I've attacked the man-Reagan once here. I've stated reasonable cases against commonly held perceptions about him in some instances and flatly refuted typical assumptions in others.

The only thing God had to do with Reagan IMO is it must have been in the cards for the Soviets to be fighting tooth and nail in Afghanistan thereby possibly preserving the rest of mankind from them having to take Reagan up on his itchy trigger finger and the notion nuke war could be won.

BTW, containment worked as the Soviets were essentially dead before Reagan tried to razzle-dazzle claims to anything...they just weren't laying down yet.

PS. Anyone want sloppy seconds? I'm pretty much done with Trident.

 

[Trident1]

Suicide huh? Apparently you're back to the not so 'formidable' side now.:o

No I've always known the Libyans were formidable. You mistakenly think they were "unarmed and feeble".

Good thing you're not an officer or in command of anything. Hell you send your pilots to fly in a suicide mission.

Yeah...Although any weapons system aimed against a target it can penetrate is certainly no picnic for you if you're the one being targeted. But yeah, virtually nothing considering the reports many simply abandoned their batteries against the prospect that they all could have then they would have literally done nothing.

Wow, many huh? You made that conclusion from a GS article.

Virtually nothing...........jeez our pilots fly through AAA and SAMs and you call it "virtually nothing".

Well again, you get to have your opinions but you don't get to substitute them for the facts. Reagan was more myth than reality...I think most here regard some of what's been debated about him recently in these threads enlightening in light of the facts. Thanks for you help in that regard btw.:clap:

Enlightened to show he did his part to bringing the Cold War to an end. :clap:

I have no affinity for Reagan nor do I particularly dislike him. I don't think I've attacked the man-Reagan once here. I've stated reasonable cases against commonly held perceptions about him in some instances and flatly refuted typical assumptions in others.

Everything tinged with deep animosity for his Presidency. Yes you've shown that.:1orglaugh

The only thing God had to do with Reagan IMO is it must have been in the cards for the Soviets to be fighting tooth and nail in Afghanistan thereby possibly preserving the rest of mankind from them having to take Reagan up on his itchy trigger finger and the notion nuke war could be won.

Ah the speech of a Reagan hater. Very good.

You ignore either out of animosity or ignorance that the Soviets had their strategists who planned on winning a nuclear exchange and their belief to strike first with WMD's. Typical.
Reagan was horrified by the prospect of nuclear war. Btw Where were you on November 20, 1983?

BTW, containment worked as the Soviets were essentially dead before Reagan tried to razzle-dazzle claims to anything...they just weren't laying down yet.

Ah more leftist spin to further reduce Reagan's involvement in ending the Cold War. Containment failed, the Soviets proved that from 1976 onward.

PS. Anyone want sloppy seconds? I'm pretty much done with Trident.

Meh, I done. I have a very clear idea of whom I'm dealing with and it paints a sad picture.

 

[emceeemcee]

No matter how many shitty poll numbers, disasterous economic figures, hugely corrupt and highly unethical dealings, and unwarranted praise for things he never achieved, Trident is going to always maintain that Reagan was awesome, loved by his people, boosted the country and generally saved the world. He certainly doesn't let facts stand in the way.


People might actually be able to take what you say seriously if you just admitted that your Reagan-love was born out of the fact that he wasn't a Democrat. It's not like you've provided a single bit of evidence to support any of your claims about the man and his supposed accomplishments. It's all just mythical talking points and speculation which has been shot down in flames by oodles of links other posters have provided.

 

[Trident1]

No matter how many shitty poll numbers, disasterous economic figures, hugely corrupt and highly unethical dealings, and unwarranted praise for things he never achieved, Trident is going to always maintain that Reagan was awesome, loved by his people, boosted the country and generally saved the world. He certainly doesn't let facts stand in the way.


People might actually be able to take what you say seriously if you just admitted that your Reagan-love was born out of the fact that he wasn't a Democrat. It's not like you've provided a single bit of evidence to support any of your claims about the man and his supposed accomplishments. It's all just mythical talking points and speculation which has been shot down in flames by oodles of links other posters have provided.

Put it in park son.

I admire Reagan and his efforts to end the Cold War. He obviously wasn't loved by everyone.

You're speaking from the usual leftist "I hate Reagan because he isn't a Communist" bandwagon.

The leftists hated Reagan for the sole reason that the Cold War ended on his watch and not a Democrat's. The history books will always remember that fact. They'll always associate him with the ending of the war. So spin it however you want it won't change a damn thing.
He did the best job he could and did a fine one at that.

 

[emceeemcee]

The leftists hated Reagan for the sole reason that the Cold War ended on his watch and not a Democrat's. The history books will always remember that fact.

Opinion pieces written by partisan commentators are not history books.

 

[Hot Mega]

Good thing you're not an officer or in command of anything. Hell you send your pilots to fly in a suicide mission.

Meh, I done. I have a very clear idea of whom I'm dealing with and it paints a sad picture.

What's sad is waking up and Facing the reality of criminally obsessing over the personal details of someone you don't know on the internet. But religious zealotry (Reaganism) knows no bounds...yet.

 

[Ulysses31]

I totally agree with you Hot Mega, Reagan was a terrible actor

 

[Ulysses31]

Major Libyan oil plant ablaze as rebellions erupt in Tripoli after Friday prayers

# '30 people killed including rebel leader' in violence in Zawiyah
# Major oil facility in Zueitina, south of Benghazi, on fire
# British father-of-seven killed in Tripoli pictured for the first time
# Gaddafi regime tries to 'starve out' rebel cities by blocking supplies
# Clashes escalate across Middle East in Yemen and Bahrain
# Prince Harry trip to Dubai polo match cancelled amidst unrest

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...upt-Tripoli-Friday-prayers.html#ixzz1FePnWuga

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/04/article-1362962-0D787B73000005DC-583_634x971.jpg

 

[Trident1]

Opinion pieces written by partisan commentators are not history books.

You don't say.