Jack Weber Posted March 8, 2011 Report Posted March 8, 2011 most likely to do with the 80% of their oil and the big investments they've made in libya. my point still stands. most western governments support israel, but the west does not support (with the exception of italy) ghaddafi. this enables israel to continue violating international law. Everything somehow gets back the Israel/Palestine question to a one trick pony like you,does'nt it??? Have you sent away for your Muslim Brotherhood membership card yet,Bud/Naomi/Dub??? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
jbg Posted March 8, 2011 Author Report Posted March 8, 2011 Everything somehow gets back the Israel/Palestine question to a one trick pony like you,does'nt it??? Have you sent away for your Muslim Brotherhood membership card yet,Bud/Naomi/Dub??? Exactly as I say, anti-Zionism = anti-Judaism (the term "anti-Semitic" being non-sensical in this context). Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Black Dog Posted March 8, 2011 Report Posted March 8, 2011 Exactly as I say, anti-Zionism = anti-Judaism (the term "anti-Semitic" being non-sensical in this context). Bullshit. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 8, 2011 Report Posted March 8, 2011 Exactly as I say, anti-Zionism = anti-Judaism (the term "anti-Semitic" being non-sensical in this context). Zionists are not Jews. This much I am pretty sure of. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 8, 2011 Report Posted March 8, 2011 The west was feeble when they helped in Afganistan - in Iraq...in Central Amercia...I could go on and on...Everywhere the west meddled turned into a perpetual hell hole instead a semi hell hole a full and bottomless one...LET the people of Libya handle there own familiar affairs...The way we in the west practice that intrusive and insulting thing called family law...which is to control those through the things they love.........we try to inflict this coersive method on whole national families...time for us to butt out....I does not matter if people die getting rid of a crazed and murderous father....let nature take it's course.....Nothing worse than an oil company waging war from a board room.....Look at Dick Cheney...he took Iraq and turned it into a shit hole...of course I am sure the Iraqis love the new democratic government that is a kinder and more shifty version of the more honest and cut throat Saddam Hussein. Quote
jbg Posted March 9, 2011 Author Report Posted March 9, 2011 Exactly as I say, anti-Zionism = anti-Judaism (the term "anti-Semitic" being non-sensical in this context). Bullshit. Zionists are not Jews. This much I am pretty sure of. The problem is that anti-Zionists, at best, give absolutely no priority to the right of the Jews to national self-determination. They look for reasons that someone else's claim is more worthy. In terms of self-defense they criticize any collateral damage inflicted by Israel in its drive to survive. They find reasons that the brutality of the Arab world, as now illstrated in Libya, is not sui generis. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bud Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 The problem is that anti-Zionists, at best, give absolutely no priority to the right of the Jews to national self-determination. oops. there you go again with the 'self-determination' comment like anyone here is against the state of israel's right to exist. get it through your thick head, jbg, that most of the problem here is israel's expansionism into land that does not belong to them. it's the illegal settlements. the blockades. the control of drinking water coming from palestinian land. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 oops. there you go again with the 'self-determination' comment like anyone here is against the state of israel's right to exist. This notion is moot. Israel exists as a sovereign state regardless of any such sentiments. For example, one may as well say that nobody is against Canada's "right to exist". get it through your thick head, jbg, that most of the problem here is israel's expansionism into land that does not belong to them. it's the illegal settlements. the blockades. the control of drinking water coming from palestinian land. Of course....Palestinian transgressions would not exist were it not for such things. It would be peaches and cream for all in the desert! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 The problem is that anti-Zionists, at best, give absolutely no priority to the right of the Jews to national self-determination. They look for reasons that someone else's claim is more worthy. In terms of self-defense they criticize any collateral damage inflicted by Israel in its drive to survive. They find reasons that the brutality of the Arab world, as now illstrated in Libya, is not sui generis. So is this a Libya thread of another Israeli thread? Quote
Shady Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 So is this a Libya thread of another Israeli thread? Good question. Bringing it back to Libya, I don't believe the west should get involved. These people are the same people that cheered when Pan-Am 103 went down, and also cheered when the Lockerbie bomber was returned home. I say the sort out their own civil war. I don't see a particular side that's necessarily any better than the other when it's all said and done. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 .... I say the sort out their own civil war. I don't see a particular side that's necessarily any better than the other when it's all said and done. I agree....this "organic" process will be repeated in other places to a local flavor, not anything to be imposed short of a full blown invasion. Even the humanitarian angle can turn into a fiasco. Go big or stay home. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 I dunno, there's pros and cons to intervening. Right now, the rebels are asking for Western aid. If we help and they come in power, that may lead to a better relationship between the West and the new ruling faction. But, it may lead to fears of Western meddling in other Arab countries and further sour our relations with them. On the other hand, if we help and they lose anyway, that would be a very bad outcome for the West, since we would now be the enemies of the prevailing government. That would essentially mean that losing would not be an option, and we could well be drawn into a drawn-out guerrilla war scenario similar to Iraq or Afghanistan, and this is something we cannot afford. If we do not help and the rebels win, they may well value their own achievements more and be more committed to implementing and keeping democracy, assuming that there is a real democratic nature to the uprising. Provided that we do not support the rebel's enemies and provide humanitarian aid and recognition after the rebel victory, we may still have relatively good relations with the new government even without having helped them militarily. And, the new regime will be seen as more legitimate by its Arab neighbours. This is probably the best outcome. If we do not help and the rebels lose, well, we'll be right back where we started. One has to analyze the probability of these various outcomes and determine a rational course of action. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 I dunno, there's pros and cons to intervening.... ...One has to analyze the probability of these various outcomes and determine a rational course of action. A reasoned approach, but I am not convinced that Libya is a sand dune worth dying on. Now if one were to raise the ante to...say...Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producing nation on the planet, then you have my full attention. And where else would I get such fine granite for kitchen countertops? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted March 9, 2011 Report Posted March 9, 2011 A reasoned approach, but I am not convinced that Libya is a sand dune worth dying on. Right, that's why we'd definitely want to avoid getting drawn into a prolonged land conflict like in Afghanistan/Iraq. But if we did want to intervene militarily, we do have options that would have no risk of Western (American) casualties (drone/missile strikes) or very low risk (air strikes / no fly zone). Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Right, that's why we'd definitely want to avoid getting drawn into a prolonged land conflict like in Afghanistan/Iraq. But if we did want to intervene militarily, we do have options that would have no risk of Western (American) casualties (drone/missile strikes) or very low risk (air strikes / no fly zone). America's carrier capacity isn't what it used to be. There's what...eleven or twelve CVNs? Some of those would be in refit/training/repair. Others are busy in far flung theaters. Apparently, there's no longer a permanent carrier fleet in the Med. As I understand it, for every 2 carriers decommissioned since the early 90s, only one has been built as a replacement. Not a good ratio... Maybe BC2004 can confirm or clarify... Edited March 10, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bonam Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 America's carrier capacity isn't what it used to be. There's what...eleven or twelve CVNs? Some of those would be in refit/training/repair. Others are busy in far flung theaters. Apparently, there's no longer a permanent carrier fleet in the Med. As I understand it, for every 2 carriers decommissioned since the early 90s, only one has been built as a replacement. Not a good ratio... Maybe BC2004 can confirm or clarify... The US has 10 Nimitz class carriers and the one older USS Enterprise carrier. The first new carrier of the new Ford class is expected to enter service in 2015, barring budget cuts. Only one carrier is presently undergoing RCOH, their lengthy overhaul/upgrade procedure. The carriers that have been being decommissioned are smaller and older than the carriers that have entered service in the 1990s. Anyway, drone strikes, missile strikes, and air strikes do not necessarily require the presence of a carrier fleet. Not that I am necessarily advocating this option, just saying that it is not a logistical impossibility. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 The US has 10 Nimitz class carriers and the one older USS Enterprise carrier. The first new carrier of the new Ford class is expected to enter service in 2015, barring budget cuts. Only one carrier is presently undergoing RCOH, their lengthy overhaul/upgrade procedure. The carriers that have been being decommissioned are smaller and older than the carriers that have entered service in the 1990s. Anyway, drone strikes, missile strikes, and air strikes do not necessarily require the presence of a carrier fleet. Not that I am necessarily advocating this option, just saying that it is not a logistical impossibility. Post WW2, the US had many Essex & Midway class CVs that were refited with slant decks and steam catapults. Those days are obviously done, but, it has indeed left a 'carrier gap' that even huge modern CVNs have a tough time covering. Maybe America needs a modern version of the CVE/CVL. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Post WW2, the US had many Essex & Midway class CVs that were refited with slant decks and steam catapults. Those days are obviously done, but, it has indeed left a 'carrier gap' that even huge modern CVNs have a tough time covering. Maybe America needs a modern version of the CVE/CVL. Congress has mandated by law that there be no less than eleven active carriers at any one time, even as the US Navy tries to right size for current operations, meet growing littoral threats (i.e. pirates or mine warfare) with the Freedom Class, a surging China, North Korean sabre rattling, missile defense, etc. Gone are the Cold War days of a 600 ship blue water navy poised to do battle with the Soviets, but op tempos haven't been as high since the Vietnam War and Yankee Station. Edited March 10, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Congress has mandated by law that there be no less than eleven active carriers at any one time, even as the US Navy tries to right size for current operations, meet growing littoral threats (i.e. pirates or mine warfare) with the Freedom class, a surging China, North Korean sabre rattling, missile defense, etc. Gone are the Cold War days of a 600 ship blue water navy poised to do battle with the Soviets, but op tempos haven't been as high since the Vietnam War and Yankee Station. When I was in San Diego once back in the late 80s, I saw an 'endless' row of carriers and assault ships. Impressive, I thought. Then the cabbie told me they were all heading to the scrap heap or a 3rd world navy. Has a modern CVL class ever been pondered by the Navy as of late? Sort of comparable to the Independence class WW2 era CVL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_class_aircraft_carrier Edited March 10, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Didn't know about the 11 carrier minimum. Cool. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 ...Has a modern CVL class ever been pondered by the Navy as of late? Sort of comparable to the Independence class WW2 era CVL? They are pondered all the time because the Ford Class will run about $10 billion each in today's dollars. That's without aircraft! But every time they crunch the numbers and mission requirements, the bird farm admirals insist on big nuclear powered steel. Replacing all of the Nimitz Class with Ford's may not be economically feasible, even with a five year build schedule. It just gobbles up too much of the shipbuilding budget. So many missions....whatever happened to just sinking ships? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 When I was in San Diego once back in the late 80s, I saw an 'endless' row of carriers and assault ships. Impressive, I thought. Then the cabbie told me they were all heading to the scrap heap or a 3rd world navy. Has a modern CVL class ever been pondered by the Navy as of late? Sort of comparable to the Independence class WW2 era CVL? The US Navy does operate what are, effectively, smaller carriers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa_class_amphibious_assault_ship And, currently in development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_class_amphibious_assault_ship Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 The US Navy does operate what are, effectively, smaller carriers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa_class_amphibious_assault_ship And, currently in development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_class_amphibious_assault_ship They aren't fleet carriers, though...20 kts or so only...you need de speed. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bonam Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 They aren't fleet carriers, though...20 kts or so only...you need de speed. I'm sure you might need speed in some applications, although I am hard pressed to think of these in the context of modern asymmetric warfare. However, parking one (or several) off the coast of Libya to launch air strikes from certainly doesn't require speed. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 They are pondered all the time because the Ford Class will run about $10 billion each in today's dollars. That's without aircraft! But every time they crunch the numbers and mission requirements, the bird farm admirals insist on big nuclear powered steel. Replacing all of the Nimitz Class with Ford's may not be economically feasible, even with a five year build schedule. It just gobbles up too much of the shipbuilding budget. Yes...it's incredible the costs for just one. Not to mention the crew! So many missions....whatever happened to just sinking ships? The Japanese were the last go at that. Worthy opponents...especially at night surface combat and torpedo attacks. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.