DC Tom Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Anyone here remember while Katrina was hitting N.O., and Nagin was crying about no federal help, someone on the board -- out of desperation -- wrote something like "Why aren't we air-dropping bottled water to these people?" I remember it was, I think, DC Tom pointing out it would take a moron of epic proportions to drop food and water out of a plane from 15,000 feet. Case in point... You actually get a better recovery rate dropping supplies without a parachute than with - IF you're at about 300 feet altitude and going slow (below 300 feet, material doesn't have time to lose enough forward momentum; above, it gains too much downward velocity). You get less damage with a parachute...but more loss, since what you drop drifts. You don't recover anything, with or without a parachute, dropping from 15,000 feet. You can't even bomb very accurately from 15,000 feet without guided weapons, never mind parachuting ****.
DC Tom Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 I think it may have been Paul who pointed it out. Watching an A10 and C17 heavy drop is an experience to see first hand. You want to be nowhere around when that stuff hits the ground. Probably me. Paul was too nice to abuse somebody here over something that stupid. We did have a good laugh about it, though. A-10?
IDBillzFan Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Barry Obama sends 100 more "advisers" to Iraq. Whenever they call them "advisers," I feel like 100 men are walking around the desert like Johnny from "Airplane." Obama: Johnny, what can you make out of this? Obama adviser: This? Oh, I can make a hat, or a broach or a pterodactyl... Probably me. Paul was too nice to abuse somebody here over something that stupid. We did have a good laugh about it, though. A-10? Plus, the post was made when the schitt was really hitting the fan in New Orleans. Paul would have never jumped on someone that early. But you...the same guy who, in a thread by someone telling us they just lost their brother, responded with "Did you look under the couch?"
DC Tom Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 But you...the same guy who, in a thread by someone telling us they just lost their brother, responded with "Did you look under the couch?" Uncle. Not brother. And I did that because I knew she'd get a much needed laugh out of it. Which she did - she actually thanked me for it. It's everyone else who got their panties in a bunch over it.
meazza Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Uncle. Not brother. And I did that because I knew she'd get a much needed laugh out of it. Which she did - she actually thanked me for it. It's everyone else who got their panties in a bunch over it. I remember that. Whatever happened to Lori?
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 I remember that. Whatever happened to Lori? She's hiding under the bed. 'Cause, you know...no room under the couch.
GG Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 I remember that. Whatever happened to Lori? It wasn't Lori. It was Cindy.
/dev/null Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 I remember that. Whatever happened to Lori? I think she got sick from the Retatta
GG Posted August 13, 2014 Posted August 13, 2014 I think she got sick from the Retatta And that was a magnitude better contribution than gator.
3rdnlng Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 How much responsibility do we bear for the vacuum? Should we go back into Iraq in force? http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/08/14/nothing-gets-between-obama-and-a-vacation/?subscriber=1 The ISIS barbarisms against the people of Iraq include crucifixions, beheadings, executions and mass burials. Those who managed to dodge bullets and swords are left to die slowly of thirst, starvation and exposure. "The world hasn't seen this kind of atrocity in generations," Mark Arabo, a Chaldean-American businessman told CNN. "They are literally enjoying the act of killing and the fear and suffering experienced by others. This sadism may be the purest manifestation of evil witnessed since the Rape of Nanking during World War II." We have a moral obligation to help these people. And it's going to take more than a few token air strikes. The United States helped create the circumstances for their suffering when Mr. Obama declared victory and pulled our troops out, creating the vacuum filled by radicals whose declared goal is to create a terrorist state -- a caliphate. In 2011, current CIA Secretary and then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennen called fears of a terrorist caliphate "absurd" and a "feckless delusion." Who's feckless now? But quiescence is one thing; callous disregard is another. And that's what this president is showing the genocide in Iraq. No one wants to re-engage in Iraq, but if not us, then who? If not now, when? This is a preventable slaughter, playing out in slow motion in front of all our eyes. The president is no doubt further loath to go back in after claiming mission accomplished and pulling out -- perhaps letting personal pride or reputation interfere with good judgment, while ignoring the rather obvious point that a war does not end simply because one side lays down arms.
Nanker Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 B.O. is comfortable to lead from behind. He's a pitcher, not a catcher.
reddogblitz Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 How much responsibility do we bear for the vacuum? Should we go back into Iraq in force? http://www.gopusa.co...n/?subscriber=1 The ISIS barbarisms against the people of Iraq include crucifixions, beheadings, executions and mass burials. Those who managed to dodge bullets and swords are left to die slowly of thirst, starvation and exposure. "The world hasn't seen this kind of atrocity in generations," Mark Arabo, a Chaldean-American businessman told CNN. "They are literally enjoying the act of killing and the fear and suffering experienced by others. This sadism may be the purest manifestation of evil witnessed since the Rape of Nanking during World War II." We have a moral obligation to help these people. And it's going to take more than a few token air strikes. The United States helped create the circumstances for their suffering when Mr. Obama declared victory and pulled our troops out, creating the vacuum filled by radicals whose declared goal is to create a terrorist state -- a caliphate. In 2011, current CIA Secretary and then-White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennen called fears of a terrorist caliphate "absurd" and a "feckless delusion." Who's feckless now? But quiescence is one thing; callous disregard is another. And that's what this president is showing the genocide in Iraq. No one wants to re-engage in Iraq, but if not us, then who? If not now, when? This is a preventable slaughter, playing out in slow motion in front of all our eyes. The president is no doubt further loath to go back in after claiming mission accomplished and pulling out -- perhaps letting personal pride or reputation interfere with good judgment, while ignoring the rather obvious point that a war does not end simply because one side lays down arms. You ask a very difficult question here. I have been mulling this over the last several days. The mass instability going over there now is at least part our fault. Be it because Obama ended it, or because George Bush started, is really immaterial now. A lot of innocent people are suffering at the hands of major league !@#$s. But then again, that is kindof what was happening before anyway. Maybe not as bad, but maybe not under Saddam and all of the car bombings etc after he was ousted. As a Marine veteran I hate war and think we should wage only when we are threatened. But at the same time since we helped so royally screwed it up, maybe we should? But what would that be? Dropping bombs for a few months is only going to buy a little time and prolong the agony. We always think we can win it with airplanes and bombs, but when has that ever worked? While I continually read ISIS is a terrorist group and I suppose they are, they don't play the usual terrorist game of one off attacks on civilians. These guys have a big conventional army with tanks and mortars and bazookas and rockets and surface to air missiles. If we were really going to run them out of Iraq and back to where they came from, we're talking a huge war like the one in 2004, except these guys will actually fight back big time. Years of fighting. Many many many deaths of service people and many many many more coming back maimed and PTSD. We think we got VA Hospital over crowding now. Arming up the Kurds so they have weapons as good as the ones ISIS has that they took from the Iraqis we trained when they gave up and ran away doesn't really sound like a great idea to me either. Or, we could deploy "boots on the ground" mid terms be damned and use them to get all of the innocent people out and set up refugee camps for them. Bring the ones who will come here here. Not sure what the answer for this long term is either. This is what I believe to be the best strategy now. But, I could "flip flop" later. What do you think we should do 3rdnlng?
B-Man Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Barack Obama's half-truths about US intervention in Iraq could come back to haunt him Original Article Barack Obama is playing a dangerous game of semantics with the America people right now, promising that there will be "no boots on the ground" in Iraq even as teams of "advisers" (including US Marines) yesterday landed for the first time on Mt Sinjar. Chuck Hagel, the US defence secretary was "crystal" on this point last week, telling reporters that "under no circumstances would he [Mr Obama] be sending American troops, boots on the ground, back into combat in Iraq". By Tuesday, when he announced another 130 advisers, including Marines, would be joining the 800 or more advisers already in Iraq
reddogblitz Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Barack Obama's half-truths about US intervention in Iraq could come back to haunt him Original Article Barack Obama is playing a dangerous game of semantics with the America people right now, promising that there will be "no boots on the ground" in Iraq even as teams of "advisers" (including US Marines) yesterday landed for the first time on Mt Sinjar. Chuck Hagel, the US defence secretary was "crystal" on this point last week, telling reporters that "under no circumstances would he [Mr Obama] be sending American troops, boots on the ground, back into combat in Iraq". By Tuesday, when he announced another 130 advisers, including Marines, would be joining the 800 or more advisers already in Iraq I wonder how many "contractors" they are sending and just not telling us about?
Gary M Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 If we were really going to run them out of Iraq and back to where they came from, No, they all need to be sent straight to Allah.
3rdnlng Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 You ask a very difficult question here. I have been mulling this over the last several days. The mass instability going over there now is at least part our fault. Be it because Obama ended it, or because George Bush started, is really immaterial now. A lot of innocent people are suffering at the hands of major league !@#$s. But then again, that is kindof what was happening before anyway. Maybe not as bad, but maybe not under Saddam and all of the car bombings etc after he was ousted. As a Marine veteran I hate war and think we should wage only when we are threatened. But at the same time since we helped so royally screwed it up, maybe we should? But what would that be? Dropping bombs for a few months is only going to buy a little time and prolong the agony. We always think we can win it with airplanes and bombs, but when has that ever worked? While I continually read ISIS is a terrorist group and I suppose they are, they don't play the usual terrorist game of one off attacks on civilians. These guys have a big conventional army with tanks and mortars and bazookas and rockets and surface to air missiles. If we were really going to run them out of Iraq and back to where they came from, we're talking a huge war like the one in 2004, except these guys will actually fight back big time. Years of fighting. Many many many deaths of service people and many many many more coming back maimed and PTSD. We think we got VA Hospital over crowding now. Arming up the Kurds so they have weapons as good as the ones ISIS has that they took from the Iraqis we trained when they gave up and ran away doesn't really sound like a great idea to me either. Or, we could deploy "boots on the ground" mid terms be damned and use them to get all of the innocent people out and set up refugee camps for them. Bring the ones who will come here here. Not sure what the answer for this long term is either. This is what I believe to be the best strategy now. But, I could "flip flop" later. What do you think we should do 3rdnlng? As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you fix it". We have an obligation to do the right thing. We never should have pulled all of our troops out in the first place. In doing so we sent a message that we weren't going to stand by Iraq until they could stand by themselves. Regardless, we have a group that wants to kill all infidels trying to take over both Syria and Iraq and possibly Jordan too. They are our enemy. That enemy is attacking a friend that we weakened. Nearly all of the Arab world is afraid of ISIS (Muslim Brotherhood) and I would assume they are ripe for not only a coalition but funding our involvement. With that said, let's fight our enemy over there before they gain any more strength. If only we had a Commander-in-Chief.
DC Tom Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 I wonder how many "contractors" they are sending and just not telling us about? You mean "embassy guards?"
truth on hold Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) No, they all need to be sent straight to Allah. Sending them back from where they came would be one-way tickets to places like France and UK as many came from the western countries who supoorted the uprising in Syria. When they were doing the exact same thing against Assad they were "rebels" and *freedom fighters". Edited August 15, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
/dev/null Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Sending them back from where they came would be one-way tickets to places like France and UK as many came from the western countries who supoorted the uprising in Syria. When they were doing the exact same thing against Assad they were "rebels" and *freedom fighters". Wait, but I thought sending people back to their country of origin was racist?
Recommended Posts