The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I've not seen any indication of spec op teams doing much more than guarding the embassy in Baghdad and other installations and US personnel in other Iraqi cities. I'm talking about actively seeking out and eradicating the ISIS leadership and command structure, whether in Iraq or Syria. Of course, he'd have to get Congressional approval for that.

As for Sic's suggestion, not a bad idea, but not totally necessary. The limited airstrikes have been, well, limited in their effectiveness. Bush 41 undersecretary of defense Jed Babbin has a better idea:



Time to bring the A-10 Warthog back to operational status!

You do realize the special forces probably aren't broadcasting their location live to Fox News but are more likely bagging enemy targets in secret so you wouldn't be too up to date on what they're doing?

But, to the larger point, bombing ISIS most effectively happens when the Kurds or the useless Iraqi armed forces are engaging with them. Randomly dropping bombs isn't going to work nearly as well as they'll most likely hide within the existing civilian population. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of us, they have to come out when faced with an invading army. This however takes time as those forces slowly advance as this isn't a video game we're playing here. ISIS is getting what's coming to them, slowly but surely. If they weren't they wouldn't be trying the desparate tactic of killing reporter hostages in order to get the US to back off.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

You can't seriously effing think that's a relevant reply.

Often it is helpful to look at what has worked well in the past and see what part of it can be replicated. The difference between those successes and the failures listed by Scooby could provide very useful contrasts that we all could learn from. (cf SJHovey post # 1057)

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Often it is helpful to look at what has worked well in the past and see what part of it can be replicated. The difference between those successes and the failures listed by Scooby could provide very useful contrasts that we all could learn from. (cf SJHovey post # 1057)

rotflmao

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Option 2 is the so-called Marshall Plan option that we apparently tried in Iraq. This option has had some proven success. However, as far as I can tell it really only works when the subjugated people is homogeneous, has you as it's common enemy. You beat them down, tell them to behave, help them get back on their feet financially, let them go. But if they can't get along with each other, let alone you, it won't work. As noted, you're just left with civil war.

It worked in Germany and Japan, both of which had developed their own technocratic class and the economic and educational institutions that supported it long before we ever got near them. Basically, it works as long as the nation has already made it on its own merits. It doesn't nation-build, it nation-restores.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

It worked in Germany and Japan, both of which had developed their own technocratic class and the economic and educational institutions that supported it long before we ever got near them. Basically, it works as long as the nation already has a history of productivity. It doesn't nation-build, it nation-restores.

Ding Ding Ding.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Rand Paul has flipped flopped. He would go to war against ISIS.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-evolution-rand-paul



I knew he'd flip. He's flipping on other stuff too.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/rand-vs-rand-paul-past-hits-future-109746.html

Not a surprise. Ron is a genuine ideologue, Rand is just another opportunist.

And while the ideology of libertarianism was probably the best we could hope to emerge from the cesspool of the right, it is still better to have pragmatists than purists in power. They cause far less damage.

 

[joecct]

Not a surprise. Ron is a genuine ideologue, Rand is just another opportunist.

And while the ideology of libertarianism was probably the best we could hope to emerge from the cesspool of the right, it is still better to have pragmatists than purists in power. They cause far less damage.

I was against it until I was for it.

Lots of people have said it. Charles Lindbergh was one.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Time to bring the A-10 Warthog back to operational status!

Absolutely my favorite piece of airborne hardware. Cheap, slow, takes an absolute pounding, gets the job done.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Absolutely my favorite piece of airborne hardware. Cheap, slow, takes an absolute pounding, gets the job done.

"The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Today in derp.

It should be noted that, purely coincidentally, Frank Wolf represents VA-10, which is Ground Zero for defense contractors looking for something new to squeeze with Iraq and Afghanistan down to their last drips of budgetary juice.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Absolutely my favorite piece of airborne hardware. Cheap, slow, takes an absolute pounding, gets the job done.

And its cannon packs quite a punch. From XKCD - What If:

The GAU-8 Avenger fires up to sixty one-pound bullets a second. It produces almost five tons of recoil force, which is crazy considering that it’s mounted in a type of plane (the A-10 “Warthog”) whose two engines produce only four tons of thrust each. If you put two of them in one aircraft, and fired both guns forward while opening up the throttle, the guns would win and you’d accelerate backward.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Often it is helpful to look at what has worked well in the past and see what part of it can be replicated. The difference between those successes and the failures listed by Scooby could provide very useful contrasts that we all could learn from. (cf SJHovey post # 1057)

Like I said. You won't even get an A for effort with this latest troll string.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And its cannon packs quite a punch. From XKCD - What If:

As it is, the one gun slows the airplane down so much during a good strafing run that you have to be sure to start out going fast enough that the momentum transferred to the bullets doesn't cause the aircraft to drop below stall speed. Really, really impressive piece of hardware all the way around.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

As it is, the one gun slows the airplane down so much during a good strafing run that you have to be sure to start out going fast enough that the momentum transferred to the bullets doesn't cause the aircraft to drop below stall speed. Really, really impressive piece of hardware all the way around.

I've heard 4 seconds is the threshold at whatever their airspeed is on a normal strafing run. That's just through the pilot rumor mill, though.

I'm guessing stall recovery was harped on a little harder in A-10 training.

 

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I've heard 4 seconds is the threshold at whatever their airspeed is on a normal strafing run. That's just through the pilot rumor mill, though.

I'm guessing stall recovery was harped on a little harder in A-10 training.

Yeah, that's about right!

http://youtu.be/JwsplkkIdaU

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Absolutely my favorite piece of airborne hardware. Cheap, slow, takes an absolute pounding, gets the job done.

Yeah, it's high on my list, too. Although I've got a soft spot in my heart for the B-52 (BUFF, Big Ugly Fat. . .Fellow). By the time the last one leaves service this terrific aircraft will have served America for nearly a CENTURY. As a kid, I had a love affair with the B-36 ("six turning, four burning") that Jimmy Stewart flew in Strategic Air Command. Man, that was an impressive aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGjyH2ulsCk

 

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Yeah, it's high on my list, too. Although I've got a soft spot in my heart for the B-52 (BUFF, Big Ugly Fat. . .Fellow). By the time the last one leaves service this terrific aircraft will have served America for nearly a CENTURY. As a kid, I had a love affair with the B-36 ("six turning, four burning") that Jimmy Stewart flew in Strategic Air Command. Man, that was an impressive aircraft.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGjyH2ulsCk

There was a B-17 doing flights over Happy Valley a couple of weeks ago. I could see a sky full of them over Germany.

My soft spot is the Spitfire, arguably the best fighter of WW 2. Hey what can I say, I'm from a Commonwealth nation!

 

[joecct]

There was a B-17 doing flights over Happy Valley a couple of weeks ago. I could see a sky full of them over Germany.

My soft spot is the Spitfire, arguably the best fighter of WW 2. Hey what can I say, I'm from a Commonwealth nation!

Mustang - us
Spit - you
FW-190 - them

 

[SteveP]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Mustang - us
Spit - you
FW-190 - them

That's why I said arguably. . You can add the Me-109 to the list.

The Spit and Hawker Hurricane pilots saved Britain.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Mustang - us
Spit - you
FW-190 - them

Is it fair to include the ME 262 Swallow on the list?

I think Admiral Yamamoto's favorite US aircraft was the P-38. I believe his last words were: "@#$%^& P-38s" LOL