April 24, 2011

"I believe that with sufficient and efficient, sufficient and efficient use of airpower, we can bring Gadhafi to his knees. "

"It's ideal terrain and situation for doing so.  Have no doubt, though, that he and his forces are adapting to this situation by hiding in houses and doing various things that prevent the airpower from being so effective.  But I'll tell you, when you're flying around at 25,000 feet, it's pretty hide--it's pretty easy to hide from them.  But we need to recognize the government as a legitimate voice of the Libyan people so they can have access to the funds that we have frozen of Gadhafi's.  We need to help them with communications, we need to help them with humanitarian assistance.  We need to--my view, would be very helpful if we took out Gadhafi's television because when the Libyan people see Gadhafi on television it scares them.  This guy is, you know, in the--by the courthouse in Benghazi, there are pictures of the 1,200 people that he had massacred in one day in a prison.  And so we need to, we need to be more helpful, but troops on the ground is out of the question."

John McCain, in full babble mode, on "Meet the Press" this morning. I'm only reading the transcript. I didn't watch it on the television, which I don't find very helpful, because when I see  John McCain on television, it scares me. Maybe you can explain what he's saying. Libya has "ideal terrain and situation" for doing what we need to do from 25,000 feet in the air. No boots on the ground ever ever ever. But because we're only in the air it's easy for them to hide from us, despite the "ideal terrain and situation." But surely if we're sufficient and efficient — such a cute phrase, he said it twice — we'll somehow get rid of Gadhafi and find the right people to give Gadhafi's frozen money to, because people are dying there, and we need to help them. But we can't go anywhere near them, so here, catch, it's $30 billion. Thrown from a plane! Hope the right people catch it!

David Gregory asks whether airpower alone is enough, and McCain says:
I think you can do it with airpower and sufficiently trained and equipped liberation forces.  Look, these people hate Gadhafi.  That's why I think there's still hope and a chance he may crumble from within.  But the longer we delay, the more likely it is there's a stalemate.  And if you're worried about al-Qaeda entering into this fight, nothing would bring al-Qaeda in more rapidly and more dangerously than a stalemate.
So they're already there, in all likelihood.  As long as we're talking about things one can still hope for, I hope al Qaeda doesn't get the $30 billion.

120 comments:

bgates said...

Maybe you can explain what he's saying

Sounds like he's trying to be supportive of the foreign policy of the guy you voted for.

TS said...

McCain is a good man, a smart man and the fact that you always dis him shows more about you than it does about him.

MP said...

Terrain does matter even from 25000 feet. Vietnam should show you that.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



I voted for PALIN, not McCain, Mr Crankypants is no great shakes....'Dissing him doesn't say much about someone, there's a lot to 'diss....

magpie said...

I think AA always demeans McCain because she thinks it helps to show that she was right to vote for Obama, even though he turned out to be a very bad choice.

Ann Althouse said...

"Terrain does matter even from 25000 feet. Vietnam should show you that."

I realize that, but as McCain says, the enemy is nevertheless able to hide.

ironrailsironweights said...

The problem is that the rebels barely qualify as a military force, being largely untrained and disorganized. The main reason they've done as well as they have is that most of Qaddafi's army is comprised of mercenaries, who have no loyalty to his regime and no incentive to do more than the bare minimum of fighting.

Peter

Rialby said...

This a horrible situation and, now that we're in, we will not be able to extricate ourselves for decades. Obama has basically kicked the can down the road until his next term - when he will not adequately deal with it - or until a Republican can own it. This is the point at which the anti-war protests will begin anew.

Rialby said...

To reiterate - you cannot walk into the crappiest bar in the world (the Arab world), isolate the craziest guy in the room, punch him in the face and leave the bar.

He may not fight you face-to-face in front of his friends. He will, unfortunately, follow you home and begin killing your children while they sleep.

Nice work guys!

TS said...

Hate to break it to you Joe, but if you voted for Palin, you voted for McCain.

Douglas said...

New flash: Al Qaeda is already there. The side they're on should come as no surprise.

Maguro said...

Well, that's exactly the problem. Airpower can't be used "sufficiently and efficieciently" for the types of tagets he's talking about - personnel and civilian-looking vehicles - without spotters on the ground who know what they're doing.

You can do stuff like blow up the TV station, but that's not going to much.

Not that supporting these people is really something we need to be doing in the first place, but still.

murgatroyd666 said...

In 2008 we were offered the choice between a shit sandwich with cheese and a shit sandwich with chocolate sprinkles. Gee, thanks.

There's nothing in the Constitution that requires the bizarre systems of caucuses and primaries that the parties use now -- hell, there's nothing in the Constitution about parties, period. As things stand, we have candidates chosen by a combination of rabid activists and people who don't know much about the candidates but are easily manipulated by slogans and TV ads.

We'd be better off if we went back to the old system of candidates being chosen by party fat cats in a smoke-filled room, although that won't happen for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps our best bet would be to switch to an approval balloting system for primaries, in which party members (and only party members) vote for the as many candidates on the primary ballot as they think they could tolerate if elected.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)







Hate to break it to you Joe, but if you voted for Palin, you voted for McCain.
1)

No I voted for Palin, UNTIL she was on the ticket I wasn't going to vote. Mr. CrankyPants is no great deal..a nasty thin-skinned Progressive a la Teddy Roosevelt. Please don't try to make him some kind of hero or great alternative to Obama.

In fact, I'm glad he lost. With him as POTUS there would be no TEA Party, or certainly not one as strong. FIRST, we'd have to throw out Boehner and the GOP before we could grapple with the Democrats. The GOP and Obama would be “reaching across the aisle” to be “bi-partisan” and to “get things done”...in short ObamaCare-lite and a smaller Porkulus and a smaller QE2.....

Don't think America under McCain would be any richer or more productive that Obama's.

cokaygne said...

Did they ask McCain what happens next. Does he know or care?

Meanwhile, Assad, the one Hilary called a reformer, and who also won praise from Pelosi, has turned his country's streets into a virtual free fire zone for his army.

Does anyone remember the late 1970s when our friend, the Shah, brutally repressed protests in his country and was overthrown by Islamists while JC dithered? And, oh yes, we were suffering high unemployment and high fuel prices at home.

Sure, it is not exactly the same now; but it is the same in that we have elites in DC who, despite the billions we spend on propping up various tyrants in that part of the world, do not have a clue about what is going on, and have no idea, none, about what happens next and what, if anything we do about it.

As for me, I'm glad we bought a Prius last year.

bagoh20 said...

I wish our leader was more scary. Imagine how scary our power would be, and how effective our rhetoric. We might actually be able to save lives, and push peace.

WV: "bully" Amazing!

Paco Wové said...

It's as if McCain is trying to assure all the remorseful Obama voters, "It's OK! My foreign policy would have sucked just as bad!"

vnjagvet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ut said...

"Sounds like he's trying to be supportive of the foreign policy of the guy you voted for."

Yes. This.

If John McCain sounds like an idiot it's only because he is stupidly championing the cause of Barack Obama's undeclared war of aggression against brown people.

Who the fuck authorized either John McCain or Barack Obama to make war on the Libyan people?

Fuck John McCain.

Other Repbulicans should take note ... when you try to support Obama's policies you sound like a complete fucking buffoon.

If Obama's for it ... you 'outta be 'agin it if you're a Republican.

Cause if you're FOR Obama or his stupid policies, then we're fucking coming for your seat whether you're a Republican or a Democrat.

And we're going to take your fucking seat, your money, your power and everything else you cherish.

vnjagvet said...

There's a bit of once a pilot, always a pilot in this McCain ramble. Since WWII, the fly boys have always thought that all you needed to win was to bring awesome air power to bear on the enemy.

It has never worked, and it won't this time.

Ut said...

"Meanwhile, Assad, the one Hilary called a reformer, and who also won praise from Pelosi, has turned his country's streets into a virtual free fire zone for his army."

Yeah, but he has a hot wife, so how bad could he be really?

Reformer!

Hagar said...

Nobody knows what Joe Biden is going to say next - not even Joe Biden - but he can be relied upon to do as he is told when it comes time to vote.

McCain is scarier, there is no telling what he is going to do next.

The Drill SGT said...

Libya has "ideal terrain and situation" for doing what we need to do from 25,000 feet in the air. No boots on the ground ever ever ever. But because we're only in the air it's easy for them to hide from us, despite the "ideal terrain and situation."

we can punish Libyan forces, but we can't win a war, until and unless we covertly target Gaddifi directly. Whether we admit it or not, absent an effective ground force, the only way we can settle this is by putting a JDAM on Gaddifi's head. Nccain may be ex-military, but like his USAF brethren, he has a tendency to over value airpower.

Michael K said...

Machiavelli said "Never strike a prince unless you kill him." Of course, Obama knows no history.

McCain would have been better than Obama because he has always been a deficit hawk although he was a tax raiser.

I think we will see continued decline until Obama leaves the presidency. God help us if that is 2016.

Ut said...

"Terrain does matter even from 25000 feet. Vietnam should show you that."

McCain is a fucking moron. Look at it this way ... when he was a pilot, they shot him down.

Get me? Guy's not the best tactician if you get my meaning. The only reason he's anything is because of his father and the fact that he took a few punches before ratting out on his country to the Vietnamese.

The only thing you can do with air power is break shit and kill people.

You cannot take, nor hold, territory with an aircraft from 25,000 feet. And if John McCain tells you that he's fucking lying to you. Remember, he was a shitty pilot. He fucking shot his own missiles while sitting on an aircraft carrier. Guy is a fucking buffoon.

These guys are so terrified of just telling the American people what they're doing ... they're are going to be American soldiers put into Libya ... boots on the ground.

They sound so stupid because they're trying to lie to the American people about what it takes to win a war nobody really thought out.

Ut said...

Here's some video of Mr. 25,000 Feet shooting up his own fucking aircraft carrier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuiyXQKw3I&feature=player_embedded#at=24

rick said...

Airline pilots were forced into retirement at 60 (not sure if that's still the case). We should due the same for our Congress critters ...... or at least the age of 70.

McCain is one hair-brained fool.

I voted for Palin also... hoping the white-haired geezer would resign should he have defeated the Bamster. McCain was the worst GOP candidate since Bob Dull.

Hagar said...

Given the choice between Obama and McCain, I crossed my fingers and voted for McCain.

However, if Hillary had been the Democrat nominee, I would have voted for Hillary. She is not stupid, and she wants to protect and keep her ill-gotten gains.

Tommy said...

As another former fighter pilot...

Even in the case where air power is totally successful, you're still left with a pile of rubble until someone on the ground does something about it. There are situations where the pile of rubble is enough, but most times you really do need some sort of ground force to make it worth doing.

The idea about terrain is mostly line of sight issues (no trees, no mountains and reasonably low humidity) and the ability to see the enemy if they're moving. You don't really care about the ability to hide so long as you have the ability to make them keep hiding instead of doing something else.

The infatuation with air power has more to do with the fact that for the last 40 years or so no one has really challenged us there, so we've kinda had free run of airspace and it's seen as a relatively low risk use of force. It's a weird sense of hope that good things are going to happen if we just keep doing this thing we can do with little risk. We possibly could bring Gadhafi to his knees with air power alone if we'd open up the rules to allow the stuff that we'd have to do. No one is willing to accept the consequences for that so it's all a pointless discussion.

edutcher said...

O'Connor, Wavell, Auchinleck, and Montgomery all learned air supremacy doesn't obviate the fact you still have to win on the ground.

vnjagvet said...

There's a bit of once a pilot, always a pilot in this McCain ramble. Since WWII, the fly boys have always thought that all you needed to win was to bring awesome air power to bear on the enemy.

Goes back to Billy Mitchell and Giulio Douhet in the 20s.

Ut said...

"We possibly could bring Gadhafi to his knees with air power alone if we'd open up the rules to allow the stuff that we'd have to do."

Dude, his son was an invited guest of Hillary Clinton in the United States as late as February 17.

He's now killing innocent Libyans with his dad thanks in part to the training he received in the US courtesy of the Democrat Party.

WaPo: "The State Department on Friday acknowledged that U.S. officials greeted the young Gaddafi on his arrival in the United States but said the government did not officially sponsor the visit. Gaddafi is the commander of Libya’s 32nd Reinforced Brigade, a special-forces unit that has been heavily involved in the fighting against rebel groups."

Buffoons are in charge. Expect chaos and indecision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-officials-assisted-visit-by-gaddafi-son/2011/03/25/AFT017YB_story.html

bagoh20 said...

What's happening in Syria now is what we've been told we prevented in Libya. I've watched some of the most disturbing video today from there. Take a minute and imagine carrying your child down your street with their brains falling out because your government didn't like your town's political dissent. That what people are dealing with right now.

That's not our fault, but it is hard for me to accept that we will do nothing to try and stop it, even if our efforts are less than sufficient or efficient.

Men who so easily kill their own people should at least expect more trouble than some damning rhetoric and news coverage, while they fill the secretive mass graves. It's bad enough that we support them in one way or another when they are not openly doing this, but when they are, the most powerful nation that ever existed should not be useless to their innocent victims.

I feel this is a much higher calling than much of what our resources are used for domestically. I rather kill a murderer in a far away land than buy another welfare cheat a big screen TV.

Peano said...

John McCain, in full babble mode, on "Meet the Press" this morning.

Althorse in full blonde mode commenting.

:: turns page ::

traditionalguy said...

McCain is in hie element. His answers are true to the situation. Whether the truth is desired at all is questionable. The goal is now and has been stalemate. That sends oil through the roof and gives the Soros Brazilian consortium a "redistribution of our wealth". Obama never meant redistribution to other Americans when he admitted he would destroy us so that the USA's wealth could be redistributed fairly. Look at the World Wide UN CO2 hoax's attempt to redistribute the American wealth to every place but the USA.

rick said...

"John McCain, in full babble mode, on "Meet the Press" this morning."

McCain has been in full babble and slobber mode for years. The media darling until he won the GOP nomination. Then he was cast overboard by the formerly loving media.

Rush has this clown pegged to a "T". There is no better mocking impersonation of "McClain" than Rush's.

The Drill SGT said...

Ut said...Remember, he was a shitty pilot. He fucking shot his own missiles while sitting on an aircraft carrier. Guy is a fucking buffoon.

That is a bold face lie. Or at least a ignorant misstatement of the facts.

The trigger was a Zuni rocket fired from an F-4. McCain was piloting an A-6 parked (in a row) ahead of the aircraft that triggered the accident. His A-6 had no Zuni rockets. Showing a high degree of proactive thought, McCain, climbed out of his cockpit, walked out the refueling probe on the front of his bird and jumped clear of the flames burning below him...

He did not cause the accident. period...

He did volunteer to transfer to another carrier headed back to war, when the Forrestal went to rebuild.

however, he is wrong in expecting airpower to solve all problems.

No Name said...

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Tripoli;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Ut said...

"The trigger was a Zuni rocket fired from an F-4. "

Bullcrap.

The trigger was a hot-shit pilot wet-starting his aircraft in defiance of all safety protocols.

Look: One person was transferred from the USS Forrestal following this event: John "Wet Start" McCain.

And for good reason ... most of his shipmates wanted to throw his ass overboard.

John McCain is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an aircraft or an air war.

Ut said...

"Showing a high degree of proactive thought, McCain, climbed out of his cockpit, walked out the refueling probe on the front of his bird and jumped clear of the flames burning below him."

You mean he ran away from the fire he started?

Sheesh ... Mr. Proactive.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



No UT the fire began from connecting the Zuni rockets up prior to launch, there were some design problems and unsafe shortcuts taken, the result was a Zuni across the deck and the resulting HUGE fire...
Next you'll be telling us how McCain isn't a “natural born citizen”?

Synova said...

I've been known to say that if we ever had to go to war with Iran that air power alone would do it.

But I don't see how destroying a country's ability to wage war by blowing stuff up is sufficient to stop the people who *are* on the ground from killing each other.

Ut said...

FactCheck.org:

McCain did lose two Navy aircraft while piloting them. One crash was found to be be McCain's fault, the other due to an engine failure of undetermined cause. A third was destroyed on the deck of the carrier USS Forrestal when a missile fired accidentally from another plane hit either the plane next to McCain's or, less likely, his own aircraft, triggering a disastrous fire that killed 134 sailors and nearly killed McCain. A fourth plane was lost when he was shot down over North Vietnam on a bombing mission over Hanoi.

A fifth alleged "crash" turns out to be a misinterpretation of a flight accident that did not result in the loss of the aircraft. McCain admitted to causing that incident through "daredevil clowning" but returned safely."

So, five aircraft and 134 people dead.

I think Johnny Wet Start has done just about enough for his country, don't you?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



No UT he ran away from the fire SOMEONE else caused....SHEESH! So HE starts the fire, but has to run from it, no Goober, the planes near him were burning, and he decided to leave the A-4. Other pilots waited for the fire to be contained, they burned alive.

You might want to try reading Sailors to the end

Just because he was a lousy candidate doesn't make him a lousy everything, sorry to spoil your nasty need for total symetry.

Bob_R said...

I voted for McCain because I believed him to be the lesser of two evils. Never any question in my mind that he was an evil.

Paul said...

This is just crazy...

Syria DESERVES to be overthrown right now. They are actually killing THOUSANDS. They DO promote terrorism. They DO harbor some of Saddam's WMD. Yet they get off scot free!

But Libya, where TEN YEARS ago they stopped all nuke research, gave up all WMD, stopped all terrorism (all cause Gadhafi was scared spitless of Bush), are now being attacked!

And I hear Western leaders want to assassinate Gadhafi. If those fools open that door and then it's legal for ANY government to assassinate leaders of other governments. What is good for the goose will be good for the gander and then Gadhafi’s goons could go after any leader (so be warned!!)

Joe said...

The Crypto Jew)







A third was destroyed on the deck of the carrier USS Forrestal when a missile fired accidentally from another plane hit either the plane next to McCain's or, less likely, his own aircraft, triggering a disastrous fire that killed 134 sailors and nearly killed McCain


you don't read your OWN “evidence” do you, UT...McCain's plane may have been HIT, not started the fire, sorry.

The Drill SGT said...

I'm with Joe, UT clearly wants to slander McCain rather than reading the actual analysis done on thw eb site he cites:
As he was in his A-4 Skyhawk, loaded with two, 1,000-pound bombs and waiting on the carrier deck for his turn to launch, a Zuni missile accidentally fired from another aircraft, swooshed across the carrier deck and struck either McCain's plane or one next to it.



Being a self absolved hot shit asshole fighter pilot (but I repeat myself), is not the same as falsely claiming that his actions caused the deaths of more than a hundred sailors.

Ut said...

"No UT the fire began from connecting the Zuni rockets up prior to launch ..."

Not according to the Captain of the Forrestal, John K. Beling, who told the N.Y. Times two days after the event that McCain's irresponsible hot-rod wet start ignited the Zuni.

McCain started the entire conflagration because he's an admitted irresponsible daredevil clown.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0913FD355E137A93C3AA178CD85F438685F9

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)







Not according to the Captain of the Forrestal, John K. Beling, who told the N.Y. Times two days after the event that McCain's irresponsible hot-rod wet start ignited the Zuni.









AH UT, that's NOT what the USN concluded, I doubt Beiling said ANYTHING to the NYT within two days of the incident, much less about a “cause”.

Ut said...

"Being a self absolved hot shit asshole fighter pilot (but I repeat myself), is not the same as falsely claiming that his actions caused the deaths of more than a hundred sailors."

Okay, then let's set that one aside for a moment.

What about McCain's other two crashes? One he wasn't paying attention to his altitude and lied about it to Navy investigators. And in the next one he was flying so low to the ground hotrodding that he clipped power lines shutting off electricity to an entire town.

Separate from the Forrestal event, my point is that John McCain is a dangerous pilot, a bad pilot and an irresponsible pilot. The facts about this are pretty much undisputed - even by John McCain - who called himself a "daredevil clown."

Finally, nobody authorized this fucking clown to kill any Libyans so maybe he ought to pack it up and get back to his constituents in Arizona instead of trying to remake the Middle East in his tattered, flaming image.

TS said...

McCain goes to Libya, notes that the state television should be taken off the air, and today, it's done.

@habibahamid
"@Libyus: Just got a call from friend in Tripoli who lives by main broadcasting tv station in Libya: It's been hit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Ut said...

"AH UT, that's NOT what the USN concluded"

The Navy did a bang-up job covering for the Admiral's son the clown.

Nevertheless, airplanes have a weird way of repeatedly bursting into flames if they get too close to John McCain ... 'didja ever notice that?

The Drill SGT said...

again, I agree with Joe (CJ) and against UT, who doesn't read the factcheck.org site that he quotes, they say in part:

And while pilots tell us that a “wet start” is possible even without an afterburner, the theory fails for another reason. The tail of McCain's plane was pointed over the side of the carrier and away from other planes at the time, and the F4 Phantom fighter that fired the missile was facing McCain's plane from the opposite side of the deck, as shown in Caiella’s diagram, in other diagrams, and in Navy film of the fire.

This bogus theory appears to have gotten its start from a report by New York Times reporter R. W. Apple. Jr, who reported on July 31, 1967 – two days after the fire – that the Forrestal’s captain, John K. Beling, believed an “extreme wet start” had created “a thick tongue of flame” that set off the Zuni. Beling did not identify McCain’s plane as the source, however, and said only that the aircraft was “parked near the carrier’s island,” which would have put it far forward and on the opposite side of the flight deck from where McCain’s plane was getting ready to launch. Not usually noted by the conspiracy theorists is that Capt. Beling “repeatedly said that he had been unable fully to sort out the conflicting reports” that circulated on the 5,000-man vessel in the hours after the fire, according to Apple, who also called the wet-start theory “tentative.” In any case, Beling’s early theory was soon dismissed by Navy investigators, who found that the Zuni had been touched off by a stray electrical charge, not by a jet exhaust. Author Freeman summarizes the findings succinctly in in "Sailors to the End:"

Freeman, 2002 (p. 250): The investigation revealed that the rocket (fired) because a freak surge of electricity jumped through the plane's system at the moment the pilot switched from the outside electrical generator to the plane's internal power system.

And as Caiella also notes in his account, the investigation found that in the wartime pressure to get planes launched quickly crews had not observed two key safety precautions that could have prevented the stray spike of electricity from firing the rocket. The “pigtail” that connects the plane’s wiring to the missile had been plugged in prematurely, before the plane was on the catapult, and a safety pin that also would have prevented the firing also had been removed.

Freeman has posted an item on his own Web site flatly stating that McCain was in no way responsible for the accident. "McCain was never suspected of causing the fire because investigators determined immediately that the rocket misfired from the other side of the flight deck," writes Freeman.

Caiella agrees. He told us: “There is no possible way John McCain could have caused the fire on board the Forrestal. ... McCain's only connection with the investigation was as a witness, in both a written deposition shortly after the fire and later in sworn testimony to the board.”

Ut said...

"McCain goes to Libya, notes that the state television should be taken off the air, and today, it's done."

Gee ... no generals over the past two months thought it would be a good idea to bomb the TV towers until McCain thought of it today?

Fucking amateur hour. The junior varsity is definitely not ready to take the field.

McCain should be careful who he latches his wagon to.

Ut said...

Sarge,

Set aside the Forrestal for a moment.

Is John McCain a responsible pilot? Someone you would trust to lead you into war?

Or is he - by his own admission - a daredevil clown who repeatedly crashed aircraft?

There's a lot in dispute about the Forrestal incident ... but very little in dispute about the rest of McCain's capers. He lied to Navy investigators about his first crash and continued hot-dogging it throughout his career, endangering himself and everyone around him, not to mention life and property on the ground.

This is not a guy I want giving me advice about anything related to aircraft except how to eject from one.

Chef Mojo said...

UT, you are beneath contempt. You slander a man's honorable service to his country in the vilest terms, and when you get called on it, you want to set that aside for now?

You are a lying, cocksucking, douchenozzle sonofabitch, whose arguments are not worthy of consideration.

Ut said...

"You are a lying, cocksucking, douchenozzle sonofabitch, whose arguments are not worthy of consideration."

Name-calling? Really? Address the facts.

John McCain is a dangerous and unfit pilot. As evidenced by the many aircraft he's crashed and hot-dogging incidents he was by his own admission involved in.

Nobody authorized his little war in Libya. So he's a traitor to the United States Constitution he swore an oath to.

He - and Barack Obama - should be arrested for conspiracy to commit war without Congressional approval.

Tommy said...

There is plenty to dislike about McCain, you don't have to look very far to find it. If you're choosing to attack him based on his military and flying record, there isn't anything to dislike there.

Is John McCain a responsible pilot? Someone you would trust to lead you into war?

Yes.

I don't know McCain, but I know several people who flew with him in the Navy, and I've never heard anyone express anything to make me think they feel differently.

Ut said...

"Next you'll be telling us how McCain isn't a “natural born citizen”?"

Right. He was born in Panama. So ... not a "natural born" American. He'd have to have been born in the United States to be "natural born."

virgil xenophon said...

ut/

Look, McCain is not my ideal Presidential candidate OR Senator, but as a contemporary USAF ex-fighter pilot whose tour in Vietnam roughly coincided with his pre-shootdown days and who was hosed down plenty by the same guys that shot McCain down during my missions north,I've GOT to come to his defense. The Forrestal bit has already been covered by others, but he MOST DEFINITELY DID NOT rat out his country while a POW! Yes, he, like ALL others was physically broken (he was near death from his shoot-down injuries anyway) and signed a meaningless "confession" like ALMOST ALL did. But he was TRULY heroic in that he was offered early repatriation, but refused in order to avoid the charge of "special" or "favored" treatment as an Admiral's son in order to remain with his fellow POWs in a show of solidarity and not give the N. Vietnamese a propaganda victory.

Further, it MUST be noted that because of the severe nature of his wounds and fragile health he was given official permission by the POW camp Sr commanding officer to do so, but he refused anyway. Argue his politics if you want, ut, but lets keep the record straight..

Ut said...

"If you're choosing to attack him based on his military and flying record, there isn't anything to dislike there. "

He lied to Naval investigators about his first crash. (This is undisputed.)

I don't like that.

He also put people in danger hot-dogging in France when he clipped those power lines.

I don't like that.

Shows an irresponsible and dangerous pilot with no regard for the people or property around him.

Plus, he's a traitor to the Constitution. Tried to rewrite the First Amendment, and now is supporting a war that isn't authorized by the United States Congress.

The guy is a scumbag on top of being a poor pilot.

Next think you know, he'll be for open borders.

Wait ...

Terrye said...

John McCain makes a lot more sense to me than Obama ever has. At least he is consistent. So when I see him on TV..I don't think he is babbling, I just think that I wish he was president instead of Barack Obama.

And that tells you just what a sorry president I think Obama has been.

Largo said...

Nice takedown. Utter foolishness.

Ut said...

I'll ask this question again, since nobody (so far) has addressed this:

Who authorized either John McCain or Barack Obama to make war on the Libyan people?

Set everything else aside and answer this simple question.

The fact of the matter is that it is unconstitutional what John McCain is advocating.

Just like it was unconstitutional for him to restrict free speech. He had to be slapped down by the United States Supreme Court for violating the very Constitution he swore to protect and defend.

Who authorized the war in Libya?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



There are many reasons to dislike McCain, now and in 2008 and 2000...McCain believes that DC knows what to do better than you. I certainly don't regret his loss.

I think he's being an idiot, in Libya. Without troops, on the ground, Air Power will NEVER triumph. Afghanistan wasn't a triumph of air power, it was the Northern Alliance, US Special Operations forces, AND air power that triumphed.

But the two paragraphs above have NOTHING to do with his Naval career, UT give it a rest.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

the POTUS, as CinC....

IF Congress objects, they can suspend funding...BUT until they do, the POTUS, be s/he named George, Sarah or Barak can “authorize” Libya.

Congress DECLARES WAR, but POTUS is the CinC and controls the Armed Forces.

David said...

We have $30 billion to play with?

Then I urge we put boots on the ground.

Get the Navy, Marines and Air Force over there asap with plenty of planes.

Load those planes with boots, and then start dropping boots everywhere we can. We can also broadcast Nancy Sinatra as psychological warfare.

$4-5 billion worth of boots falling on the country, and two straight months of Nancy Sinatra 24-7? Trust me. We will get anything we want.

It's as good as what Obama and McCain are proposing.

ricpic said...

McCain's falling all over himself to pull Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. For a second time.

Carol_Herman said...

Q-Daffy is winnign!

If you read otherwise, then you've been reading crap the UN gets the media midgets to print!

Who are the "rebels" anyway?

Meanwhiles, just as a tidbit, I was listening to Caroline Glick in an interview that Breitbart ran yesterday.

At one point in the 20 or so minutes, she remarked how bad things were coming from Egypt. And, how Israel watched as Egypt allowed two Iranian vessels to sail through the Suez, unmolested.

Okay. They arrived at their Syrian port.

Now, that port is in fire. (Because Syria has erupted in revolution.)

Good things don't happen overnight.

I have no idea how we can ever improve things in the Mideast.

But NATO? We are depending on NATO? TO DO WHAT MAY I ASK?

And, add this: Russia is giving Q-Daffy military and logistical support. And, any ammunition he needs.

Carol_Herman said...

Are you still trying to figure out why McCain didn't win in 2008?

Big Mike said...

For the benefit of anyone still hung up on what did or did not happen on the Forrestal, here is a dispassionate review of the disaster.

If there are villains in this disaster then they would have to be LBJ and Robert McNamara, the former for stepping up the frequency of the bombing raids without verifying that the Navy had sufficient munitions, and the latter for not pushing back until the munitions were available.

Be that as it may, bomber pilots, from both flying services, tend to overestimate the effects of their sorties. Dropping ton after ton of bombs on North Vietnam year after year did not cause the Hanoi government to sue for peace, did it? Dropping a comparatively small amount of bombs on Serbia did cause the Serbian government to decide that Kosovo was more trouble than it was worth, but how do we convince Qaddafi that hanging onto power is more trouble than it's worth, especially when the rebels want to hang him?

Ralph L said...

I think McCain was trying to say we can't bomb successfully from 25,000 feet--we'll have to fly lower and risk being shot down. People made a similar argument in the 1999 attack on Serbia.

WV - mastub - some people have a hair trigger even when alone

Carol_Herman said...

Americans, by the way, VOTE FOR STRANGERS!

Starting with #7. Andrew Jackson. American voters did not want any of the insiders. So they voted for Old Hickory!

Henry Clay, back in 1832, was the Speaker of the House. And, he threw the race to #2: John Quincy Adams. The son of the first one. Who got ONE TERM. And, then he got kicked out of office by Andrew Jackson. (The insiders thought Andrew Jackson was so old he'd drop dead.) Didn't. Made two full terms.

Henry Clay couldn't get elected dog catcher. And, the WHIGS wee sailing to oblivion. Even though Lincoln was on board that ship.

Americans happen to favor outsiders. Even Teddy Roosevelt, who got the job by a fluck (McKinnley was shot one month into his 2nd term) ... got elected because he was a STRANGER to the political system.

Next up is Woodrow Wilson. Never held a day of office, outside of Harvahd. In his life.

After LBJ & Nixon (who were inside players), you got Jimmy Carter.

Even Reagan was a stranger to DC.

Then we had Ross Perot. Who gave Bill Clinton the edge. (Clinton was from Arkansas. Which was pretty strange, to me.)

Next up is Trump.

I think strangers get to run for the spot, when Americans get good and disgusted with those "inside."

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

McCain is a good man, a smart man

McCain-Feingold.

The sponsor of that legislation was either an idiot, or knew full well that he was supporting the greatest affront to the First Amendment in decades.

Ralph L said...

Dropping ton after ton of bombs on North Vietnam year after year did not cause the Hanoi government to sue for peace, did it?
Actually, that and mining their harbors did make them sue for peace, brief as it was.

Rick said...

The reality of another 5 1/2 years of McCain is distressing. It is wonderful that he agrees with Obama that supporting radical, torturing jihadists is a good thing for America to do.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)







Actually, that and mining their harbors did make them sue for peace, brief as it was.
.

Read Pape's Bombing to Win the 1972 bombings, worked to the extent they did work, because, at that point, the US was merely negotiating the terms of its withdrawal from S. Vietnam.

Michael K said...

You cannot take, nor hold, territory with an aircraft from 25,000 feet. And if John McCain tells you that he's fucking lying to you. Remember, he was a shitty pilot. He fucking shot his own missiles while sitting on an aircraft carrier. Guy is a fucking buffoon.


This is bullshit but not unexpected. Libya is where Rommel and Montgomery fought and it is ideal for airpower. Iraqis, in similar terrain, were surrendering to Apache helicopters in 1991. The assumption, as it was in Afghanistan in 2001 an 2002, is that the rebel force will provide the boots on the ground.

Now, I have no respect for Obama's sense of strategy and McCain is getting old but your slanders do nothing to convince anybody.

rick said...

rick with a small r

@Revenant "The sponsor of that legislation was either an idiot, or knew full well that he was supporting the greatest affront to the First Amendment in decades."

Couldn't agree more.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)








The assumption, as it was in Afghanistan in 2001 an 2002, is that the rebel force will provide the boots on the ground.


Too bad the rebels lack:
1)Tactical Air Control Parties; and
2)Any Combat Ability, whatsoever.

Michael K said...

Fucking amateur hour. The junior varsity is definitely not ready to take the field.

Speaking of that, Ut, let's see your credentials. You have been dominating this thread with a lot of unsupported and irresponsible comments that show you have no common sense and are on some sort of vendetta.

I don't personally like McCain, based on some private information, but that has nothing to do with his record since Vietnam. He has admitted he was a hotdog until he was shot down over Hanoi. I would have serious questions that you would have the balls to dive into that AAA.

Why don't you go someplace where this kind of BS is welcome ?

Chef Mojo said...

@UT:

Name-calling? Really? Address the facts.

"Address the facts," you witless fuck? After what you just did?

As others have said, there is plenty about McCain the politician to find fault with, but to smear him on his record as a Naval officer is despicable. Not only are you smearing him, you are smearing the Naval service (bullshit about coverups and corrupt investigations).

So, yeah. I'm resorting to namecalling, you lying, cocksucking, douchenozzle sonofabitch. You lied about McCain and USS FORRESTAL, which makes you a flatout liar. The rest is because that's the sort of person who says, "setting that aside for now," when called on his lies.

John McCain served his country well and honorably. He may not have been the greatest pilot in the fleet, but he was by no means shitty. The shitty pilots wash out during training, you moron. By the time they reach the fleet, there are only good pilots. You imply that McCain is responsible for getting shot down over DRVN. Funny. I thought the North Vietnamese were responsible for bringing him down. 530 aircraft were lost in combat by the Navy alone in the Vietnam War, you fucking moron. That resulted in the deaths of 377 naval aviators, with 64 airmen reported missing and 179 taken POW. Yeah, I guess the Navy had a lot of shitty pilots, right UT?

You besmirch his conduct as a POW. Have you no shame, you ratbastard? He conducted himself with honor and bravery and refused an early release based on favoritism due to his father's role as CO US Naval Forces Pacific. That took guts, which is something you obviously lack, you worthless punk.

Clipping powerlines? Give me a break! No military pilot would respect another who didn't hotdog, hassle or buzz at sometime or another. It's what military aviators do, especially young ones out to prove something. Chuck Yeager was notorious for that sort of behavior.

Lying to accident investigators? Happens all the time. Read Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff. If the pilot isn't killed, then it's the plane's fault, which is why nobody gets worked up about it, because you can replace planes. Not so easy to replace pilots. Just ask the thousands of shitty pilots that got shot down or lost aircraft over Vietnam.

Michael K said...

Joe, I have a strong suspicion that anyone who wanted to win this and oust Gaddaffi would send some TAC folks in there and see that the rebels are better organized. I don't think they would want it on the front page of the NY Times. Now, the question is whether anybody with any tactical sense is in charge.

What we see right now is how an adjunct law professor would run a war.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


I don't think they would want it on the front page of the NY Times. Now, the question is whether anybody with any tactical sense is in charge.

I think the answer to that is sadly, obvious.....

AJ Lynch said...

Even the camera-loving Beltway mahoffs are hard to find for the talking head TV shows on Easter sunday morning.

But I noticed McCain & Santorum were available - what does that tell you? Two F-ing losers who should just go away and never return.

AJ Lynch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rick said...

rick with a small r

One thing is absolutely guaranteed in Libya. Whoever wins - the rebels or Quaddafi - will hate the US.

As Mark Steyn said.... the US gets criticized for only dealing with tyrants, terrorists, and despots. In the Middle East, who else is there?

I would suggest let them have at each other.

rick said...

rick with a small r

@AJLynch Santorum is my guy. Not a loser. Sorry. He represented the TEA party before there was a TEA party. His views closely resemble my hero .. the Gipper.

Chef Mojo said...

@UT:

Let me put it another way, you cockknocker...

I don't much like John McCain as a politician; he should have gone down over being one of the Keating Five. He's been a politician longer than he was a Midshipman/Naval Officer, and I think that's his problem. I don't like his policies and stance on immigration or McCain-Feingold.

But I will judge him as a politician, and not on his career as a Naval Officer.

Another example: Duke Cunningham, one of the finest combat aviators to fly over Vietnam. Navy Cross, 2 Silver Stars, 15 Air Medals and a Purple Heart. TOP GUN instructor.

Then he became a politician.

Cunningham is serving time now in a federal prison in Arizona, and yet nothing can take away what he accomplished as a combat aviator. But that didn't, and shouldn't have, mitigated his sentencing, as many thought it should.

There are plenty of honorable veterans who went on the become questionable politicians. Joe McCarthy, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, John Murtha; just a few of the corruptocrats. It happens. Judge McCain as a US Senator, not as the Naval Officer he once was

Milwaukee said...

McCain is an Air Force guy. They think they can do it all from the air, without getting their hands dirty. Never been done. Air power can sink ships at sea, but they can't stop entrenched forces on the ground. In the First Iraqi war the monster bombs buried themselves in the sand, which absorbed a lot. Some bombs work, and smarter bombs are smarter, but they are not all that is needed. That takes boots on the ground. In WWII, German war production reached it's peak just a couple of weeks before surrendering. The only thing that stopped the factories were Allied troops being in them. Libya is no different.

We have no business spending one dollar on munitions in Libya.

rick said...

McCain was a Navy pilot. The runways are a bit different from the Air Force's ...the Navy's runways pitch and roll, bob and weave. Navy pilots are a different breed.

McCain is still an idiot.

Tommy said...

McCain is an Air Force guy. They think they can do it all from the air, without getting their hands dirty.

It's not the Air Force guys that feel that way, or any of the other air power types in the U.S. Military (McCain was USN for the record). It's the political types that push that and yes, some of them are still in uniform but it's very uncommon. The greatest achievement of U.S. air power is that no U.S. soldier has died to enemy air power in the last 50 years or so. Keeping him or her alive and making their job easier is where it's at.

The enemy always has the option of surrender because they don't want to suffer any more air power attacks (Japan in WW2) but in and of itself, it's pretty much a support thing. I don't recall ever being in any sort of military doctrine classroom that said otherwise.

Synova said...

"Who authorized either John McCain or Barack Obama to make war on the Libyan people?"

Darn good question. But we're pretending that a "kinetic military action" isn't war so it doesn't count.

"Set everything else aside and answer this simple question."

Looks to me like you were the one getting into "everything else" and now you want to quit?

"The fact of the matter is that it is unconstitutional what John McCain is advocating."

John McCain can advocate anything he likes. It's not unconstitutional until someone (Obama) gives the order.

John said...

Will we next say that McCain is not a "Natural Born" citizen?, someone asked scoffingly.

I have probably read more about citizenship and natural bornness than most non-lawyers and probably more than many lawyers.

My conclusion is that while it is not clearcut, it seems that to qualify as "natural born" as a presidential qualification, one must be born in one of the states.

As I said, it is not clear, mostly because it has never been an issue before 2008. We have never had a president, or even a major presidential candidate (Yes, I know about Goldwater) who was not born in one of the states. (I also know that there are some unproven rumors about Arthur)

In 2008 we had one who definitely was not, McCain. This was seen as such a potential issue that the Senate passed a resolution declaring that both McCain and Obama were "Natural born". This was passed unanimously, IIRC.

So FWIW, I do not believe that McCain is constitutionally qualified to be president. I may well be wrong but the arguments against are at least as solid as the arguments for.

And, we have 200+ years of tradition that would be broken with had he been elected. I think tradition and precedent is important.

I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii. I am curious as to what he is hiding, though. White race? Muslim religion? Something else?

John Henry

John said...

Rick, and others,

Just a point of clarification.

McCain was not a "Navy Pilot"

He was a "Naval Aviator"

There is a big difference between Naval Aviators and other people who fly planes such as AF pilots.

John Henry

John said...

Speaking of abbreviations, Obama is pretty good with them, isn't he?

First we had "Win the Future" or "WTF? Yeah that sounds about right"

Now we have a "Kinetic Military Action" as in KMA, Congress, I'll do what I please.

John Henry

John said...

Blogger Sixty Grit said...

McCain is insane, but he is old and increasingly senile. But he is still twice the man and ten times smarter than Obama.


No disagreement there.

But it is a pretty low bar. Sort of like being the tallest smurf.

Gene said...

McCain never saw a war he didn't want to escalate. I remember when Georgia and Russia starting fighting he was out saying things like, "We are all Georgians now."

Well, I wasn't. And neither were most Americans. Yet McCain wanted us to go to war over a country that 99% of us couldn't find on a map. I don't know how he expected us to fight Russia on its own border--airlift in 10,000 heavy tanks?

Synova said...

John Henry.

I wonder if you realize just how profoundly offensive the notion is that someone defending this country in its armed forces, risking his or her life, can give up the *citizenship* of his or her natural child during that service.

People are citizens by birth or by naturalization.

Serve your country... and by serving your country... your children are less than the top-tier sort of citizen? Because you were serving your country?

At what point do we check our brains at the door here?

hombre said...

What the hell are we doing softening Libya up for the Islamists? Where are the anti-war demonstrators? Where are the anti-stupid demonstrators?

How dumb are we?

Revenant said...

As I said, it is not clear, mostly because it has never been an issue before 2008.

And, we have 200+ years of tradition that would be broken with had he been elected.

If it was never an issue before, then there wasn't a tradition associated with it.

Milwaukee said...

My bad, McCain was a naval aviator. As such he believes in the almightiness of air power. The Raison d'ĂȘtre for the carrier, and the fleet that goes with it, are the naval aviators. My guess is that they are quite capable of being arrogant. But then, that is what we want in that role. The guys in the planes, as previously noted by Tommy, have helped keep the bad guys' planes and jets from hurting our people from the air. And yes, if our air power can make things hellish enough, the people on the ground will surrender. But the firebombing of Dresden didn't prompt the Germans to surrender. Short of atomic bombs, people on the ground can withstand a lot of punishment, if there are no enemy troops to back things up. How high are we going to make the rubble bounce? Once a building has collapsed, how many more times is it going to be bombed? Are we going to take out all infrastructure from the air? We can, but then what? Our "Allies" need the oil, so we can't destroy too much. Since Qadhafi is both a Muslim and an Arab he won't mind using human shields. If Qadhafi has his people dress in civilian clothing, how are we going to know, from the air, who is who? Even if we are on the ground, how will we know? This is a domestic dispute, and we should not be there without a declaration of war.

Didn't Truman believe that the Japanese would continue to resist if we continued to use conventional ordinance? Are we going to nuke Libya? No. We should claim that we have done enough to destabilize Qadhafi, and now it is up to the people and their allies in other Arab nations to help out. We have spent enough on this venture. We would not want others doing to our country what we are doing to theirs.

Chip Ahoy said...

I cannot explain to you why I found this serious thread, attacking McCain so effectively and defending McCain so ably, to be so terribly and horribly funny, but it had me laughing so hard tears are streaming from my eyes. My ribs hurt.

It was UT's comment, "didn't you notice how jet planes tend to explode into flames when McCain is around?" that set it off. The picture of a war veteran tearing through jets insouciantly causing death and disaster around him, his father an Admiral, born in Panama, storied senator, actually losing an election to a perfect nobody mostly due to silly feelings produced in my head a Greek tragedy mental cloud-image that described to near perfection the sorry ridiculousness of all human existence all at once. I laughed so hard I quite nearly died here laughing tonight.

Terrye said...

Will AlQaida get the money? Well hell, since when did running away keep AlQaida out? We left Afghanistan back in the 80s and here they came...they also came to places like Somalia where there was no real western military presence at all. I would think AlQaida is far more likely to become a threat in Libya if we do nothing and allow a vacuum to exist. They are parasites, they look for failed regimes and chaos. Besides, Gaddafi has murdered hundreds of Americans over the years...he should have been dealt with years ago. I have noticed that allowing these sort of people to stick around for decades rarely makes them anymore palatable.

John said...

Synova,

Have you looked into the laws, history and precedents regarding US citizenship?

Have you read the US Code?

Have you read the various Supreme Court cases dealing with citizenship over the years?

I have. I've even run for president in 1988.

Nobody, certainly not me, is denying that McCain is a citizen by birth. What I do question is whether he is a "natural born" citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. The two things may be different.

Or may not be. As I said it is unclear.

One huge difference between McCain's citizenship and Obama's (Assuming he was born in HI as I believe) is that Obama's citizenship derives directly from the Constitution, 14th Amendment.

That status is crystal clear. Born in the US, you are a citizen regardless of residency, regardless of parentage, regardless of why you were here or how long. Except diplomats.

McCain's citizenship derives from law or statute. His citizenship depends on his parentage, their status as residents and some other things. Congress could change that law tomorrow with no Constitutional issue being raised. It is much closer to Arnold's citizenship than it is Obama's in that regard.

I would point out that once a citizen, by whatever means, it seems impossible for that citizenship to be taken away. It can be renounced by the citizen but absent fraud in obtaining it, it can't ever be taken away as far as I can tell.

The reason I know so much about this is because it has always been a hot issue in Puerto Rico.

The US Code defines Puerto Rico as a "State" for purposes of citizenship. That makes persons born in Puerto Rico natural born, as well as citizens by birth.

But Congress could change the law tomorrow and then what would the status of Puerto Ricans born after that be? Congress could even change it to give Puerto Ricans "national" status without US citizenship like Samoans have.

So go do your homework Synova and then we can talk about this. It is a matter of the law and the Constitution, not how you feel.

John Henry

rick said...

McCain is still an idiot. Sorry for the inane comment. He makes my blood boil.

McCain-Feingold did it for me. One more constitutional right being eroded one drip at a time.

Naval aviator vs. Navy pilot. As a pilot myself, I don't see a difference other than semantics. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

Almost Ali said...

I always get a little nervous when John McCain wonders away from the back-slappers club. Especially since his only sense of inner balance, Russ Feingold, returned to Wisconsin to take up farming.

So, if you happen to see John roaming the streets in typical confusion, please dial the number sewn into his lapel.

Roger J. said...

Seems to me the comments re USAF and Naval Aviation beliefs that air power is all that is needed are simply not true.

As a former ground guy air power is useful to protect me from air attack and is valuable in softening up targets--but ultimately forces on the ground terminate the conflict on terms that are most useful.

I am more concerned about the Libyan adventure because it violates two fundamental principles of war: objective (pray tell what exactly is our objective?) and unity of command.
the CINC in charge based on the area of responsibility should be General Ham (CINC Africa Command)--in fact forces from NATO are being used and I am reasonably sure the Gen Ham has no opcom over them.

A dumb operation, ill conceived and ill thought out. But I am an old Colonel Blimp type who remembers fighting in wars and not kinetic military actions.

Synova said...

John, you might as well tell me to "do my homework" about fire melting steel on 9-11.

It's offensive to common sense and human dignity that a parent's military service strips children of a level of citizenship. (As if there are more varieties of citizen ship than "born" or "adopted.") And that the more hardship associated with that service in uniform the LESS citizenship your child receives.

Is there any possible way that was INTENDED? By anyone?

Is there any possible way that affirming that second-class status to children born to military members serving their country would result in anything other than massive military rebellion or conflict?

It's not MY feelings, it's the feelings of any person who thought that serving their country was important. It's not just a slap in the face, it's more.

Was the fetus in my belly less of a US citizen because I was in harm's way, in uniform, serving my country instead of sitting on my fat ass at home? Is he LESS of a citizen? Is his loyalty suspect?

You can be above it all, all you want. It's irrational and illogical to suppose that service in uniform has that sort of penalty.

That I'm emotional about it is irrelevant to the abuse to common sense and decency involved.

rick said...

@Almost Ali "So, if you happen to see John roaming the streets in typical confusion, please dial the number sewn into his lapel. "

Too funny. The poor guy has oldtimers disease and doesn't know it. But then how could he?

The Drill SGT said...

rick said...
Naval aviator vs. Navy pilot. As a pilot myself, I don't see a difference other than semantics. Maybe someone can enlighten me.


Navy Pilots are the civilians that come out in a small boat to help you get your carrier into the harbor and docked.

Naval Aviators wear wings of gold :)

so when they started flying navy planes, the term pilot was already taken.

The Drill SGT said...

Roger J. said...
but ultimately forces on the ground terminate the conflict on terms that are most useful.


Just ask Scipio Africanus and the city fathers of Carthage :)

The longer version: The war ends when you plant your flag on the buring rubble of the enemy's Capital.

I know, too old school for modern kinetic military actions...

rick said...

@The Drill Sgt.

Thank you for the enlightening me.

Roger J. said...

Drill: you and I need to get together at a local VFW and swap war stories--you do, of course, know the difference between a war story and a fairy tale? A fairy tale starts "once upon a time" war stories start with "this is no shit"

:)

take care and gary owen

rick said...

I should poof read better (a bit of humor).

Should read .. Thank you for enlightening me.

E.M. Davis said...

Can't we just bomb the shit out of somebody and finally get something over with?

There's war, and now there's this other thing we currently do that we call "war."

Phil 3:14 said...

I didn't realize McCain had become such a rorschach.

The Drill SGT said...

E.M. Davis said...
Can't we just bomb the shit out of somebody and finally get something over with?


It will all be worth it, if when we finally do start putting JDAMs on Gaddifi's bedroom, we also drop one on the Lockerbie guy's house.

by accident of course.

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com