If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Hey, by the way while you were distracted by secret recordings and replacement referees, the US suffered its worst airpower loss since the Vietnam war in Afghanistan   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 169
    More: Interesting, Afghanistan, Vietnam, aviation, military uniforms, opinions  
•       •       •

24729 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2012 at 3:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-27 01:04:12 PM  
i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.
 
2012-09-27 01:06:06 PM  
The Vietnam War was in Vietnam, subby.
 
2012-09-27 01:07:08 PM  
why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?
 
2012-09-27 01:09:30 PM  

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


And why would we leave a squadron of highly valuable Harriers lying around the desert when we do everything via drone these days?
 
2012-09-27 01:13:46 PM  

Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.


This

/Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.
 
2012-09-27 01:18:17 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The Vietnam War was in Vietnam, subby.


Yeah, which we fought when the Gremans Bombed Pearl Harbor.
 
2012-09-27 01:19:14 PM  
"Bogey's air speed not sufficient for intercept. Suggest we get out and walk."
 
2012-09-27 01:37:50 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.

This

/Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.


..and sell them on eBay so kids like this 7-year-old can buy them.
 
2012-09-27 01:37:53 PM  
Damn, now we'll never be able to win in Afghanistan.
 
2012-09-27 01:41:26 PM  
that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.
 
2012-09-27 01:45:17 PM  
No I wasn't distracted, I read about this the other 500 times it has been submitted and redlit in the past week.
 
2012-09-27 01:49:11 PM  
Maybe it's because I'm a ground-pounder, but I was more upset by the thousands of ground vehicles blown up by IEDs with guys actually inside them, rather than a bunch of unmanned hangar queens getting fragged..
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-09-27 02:00:00 PM  
Actually I did hear about this, since I tend to tune out negative campaigning and don't follow sports closely.

Marcus Aurelius

I thought the Vietnam War was in Cambodia and Berkeley.
 
2012-09-27 02:07:41 PM  
Those Talib must like those drones.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-27 02:11:04 PM  
If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.
 
2012-09-27 02:15:51 PM  

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Well, that and we did sort of dismantle their government...
 
2012-09-27 02:46:21 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.




img839.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-27 02:50:01 PM  

hubiestubert: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Well, that and we did sort of dismantle their government...


They've never had a government. Whoever has the most machine guns is their ruler.
 
2012-09-27 03:00:37 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: NuttierThanEver: Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.



[img839.imageshack.us image 300x225]


I said Planes, not some bastard cross bred monster that should have been aborted after 20th test flight crashed
 
2012-09-27 03:11:01 PM  

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


We're still there, because when we leave the Taliban is probably going to resume the reins of power in the country, and we can't be having that. Better to stay there and get shot at indefinitely because the alternative is a government we don't like.
 
2012-09-27 03:11:44 PM  

vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something,


He takes credit for bagging Bin Laden, why shouldn't he take the blame for this?
 
2012-09-27 03:12:01 PM  

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?



Well obviously after 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and the funding came from Saudi Arabia, obviously the best option was to demand Afghanistan "hand over" terrorists in areas of their country not even Pakistan could control. It's like America demanding Mexico hand over all the cartel leaders in 24 hours or face invasion.
 
2012-09-27 03:13:45 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: hubiestubert: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Well, that and we did sort of dismantle their government...

They've never had a government. Whoever has the most machine guns is their ruler.


But our nation-building democracy bombs are going to change all that?
 
2012-09-27 03:14:43 PM  
It's not really a distraction if someone chooses to be ignorant, subby. It's why I don't work well with sports fans who worship athletes.
 
2012-09-27 03:17:07 PM  
So it was 8 planes but it was a new record?
 
2012-09-27 03:17:11 PM  

Mighty_Joe: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something,

He takes credit for bagging Bin Laden, why shouldn't he take the blame for this?


Did you allow him credit for bin Laden, or were you one of the ones shrieking it was all the SEALs and he did nothing?

If you allowed him the credit, you may assign the blame. Otherwise, STFU.
 
2012-09-27 03:17:31 PM  
Let's put it in real perspective: Over the last 40 years, we lose about 1.375 Harriers per year to training accidents. During the 1990s, we lost an average of 2 per year, so this would be about 3 to 4 years worth of training accidents, except we lost fewer personnel.
 
2012-09-27 03:18:54 PM  

ZAZ: I thought the Vietnam War was in Cambodia and Berkeley.


mostlywater.org
Sees what you did there.

Actually the Vietnam War was in my uncle's house last weekend. Good to see them get together and say "I lost so many friends over there" and "That was pointless nobody cared about us" and not get upset.
 
2012-09-27 03:19:07 PM  
Ok, so the number of aircraft lost in Afghanistan is the worst since Vietnam. The number of aircraft lost in Afghanistan is 150 including NATO allies. We lost 2251 aircraft in Vietnam.

Here's the ratio of aircraft lost to number of sorties flown for WW2, Korea, and Vietnam: A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.

I'm not exactly outraged at our air performance in this war.

/statistics provided by Wikipedia
 
2012-09-27 03:19:20 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.

This

/Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.


Good god, moths attack them too?
 
2012-09-27 03:19:42 PM  

vudukungfu: Marcus Aurelius: The Vietnam War was in Vietnam, subby.

Yeah, which we fought when the Gremans Bombed Pearl Harbor.


And we never gave up.
 
2012-09-27 03:19:52 PM  
I was going to say "yeah but it's only harriers"

Then they mention that without the harriers they have no fixed wing air support at camp freedom.

wtf?
 
2012-09-27 03:21:35 PM  
Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?
 
2012-09-27 03:21:50 PM  

Mighty_Joe: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something,

He takes credit for bagging Bin Laden, why shouldn't he take the blame for this?

That

was credit. This is blame. Sheesh, can't you see the difference?
 
2012-09-27 03:22:35 PM  

intelligent comment below: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Well obviously after 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and the funding came from Saudi Arabia, obviously the best option was to demand Afghanistan "hand over" terrorists in areas of their country not even Pakistan could control. It's like America demanding Mexico hand over all the cartel leaders in 24 hours or face invasion.


Except they didn't say "Hey, we'll do our damnedest to get him for you". They said "Fark off and die, we'll try him for it here".

Also, we didn't give them 24 hours. Bush gave the ultimatum on September 20th. The Taliban responded on October 5th saying they would try him, which was of course unacceptable, and we started military operations 2 days after that on October 7th.

They had a bit over 2 weeks.
 
2012-09-27 03:23:47 PM  

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Dont worry, obama is going to get us out in his second term, thats what he really meant.


Also subby missed one little phrase:
noting that it is "arguably the worst day in [U.S. Marine Corps] aviation history since the Tet Offensive of 1968."
 
2012-09-27 03:23:49 PM  
I seems like if we weren't in Afganistan, this wouldn't have happened.
 
2012-09-27 03:24:43 PM  

intelligent comment below: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Well obviously after 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and the funding came from Saudi Arabia, obviously the best option was to demand Afghanistan "hand over" terrorists in areas of their country not even Pakistan could control. It's like America demanding Mexico hand over all the cartel leaders in 24 hours or face invasion.


i216.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-27 03:25:07 PM  

dittybopper: Except they didn't say "Hey, we'll do our damnedest to get him for you". They said "Fark off and die, we'll try him for it here".



And? So what? You can't tell a country what to do when you want to. America can't tell a country to arrest someone and hand them over just because they want to

dittybopper: Also, we didn't give them 24 hours. Bush gave the ultimatum on September 20th. The Taliban responded on October 5th saying they would try him, which was of course unacceptable, and we started military operations 2 days after that on October 7th.

They had a bit over 2 weeks.


You're playing semantics I was just using that time frame as an example of how ridiculous it was.

... and it changes nothing.
 
2012-09-27 03:27:03 PM  

steamingpile: Dont worry, obama is going to get us out in his second term, thats what he really meant.



0bama campaigned on ramping up Afghanistan, ending Iraq, and then setting a proper timetable to get out of the war he believed was justified. Sounds like he's actually living up to his campaign promise. I know that rakes you how a Democrat is far better at foreign policy than your compassionate conservative heroes.
 
2012-09-27 03:27:13 PM  

Oakenshield: I seems like if we weren't in Afganistan, this wouldn't have happened.


They are Harriers. They regularly crash. It would have happened anyway, just over a slightly longer period of time.
 
2012-09-27 03:27:36 PM  
I'm pretty sure that the Lightening II targeting pods and the APG radar are standard issue these days for aircraft dropping laser guided bombs. They're expensive sure, but not irreplaceable.
 
2012-09-27 03:29:03 PM  

dittybopper: They are Harriers. They regularly crash. It would have happened anyway, just over a slightly longer period of time.


Sadly a bunch of marines died and now they have no fixed wing air support for that base. From a strategic viewpoint, It's a significant loss.
 
2012-09-27 03:29:04 PM  
Sgt Otter: "I was more upset by the thousands of ground vehicles blown up by IEDs with guys actually inside them"

This.
 
2012-09-27 03:30:23 PM  
When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.
 
2012-09-27 03:32:43 PM  
The Vietnam War was in Vietnam, subby.

stop reading my mind!
 
2012-09-27 03:33:31 PM  

intelligent comment below: dittybopper: Except they didn't say "Hey, we'll do our damnedest to get him for you". They said "Fark off and die, we'll try him for it here".


And? So what? You can't tell a country what to do when you want to. America can't tell a country to arrest someone and hand them over just because they want to


Yes, you can, for an act of war. To put it in perspective, more people died in the 9/11 attacks than died in the Pearl Harbor attack.

dittybopper: Also, we didn't give them 24 hours. Bush gave the ultimatum on September 20th. The Taliban responded on October 5th saying they would try him, which was of course unacceptable, and we started military operations 2 days after that on October 7th.

They had a bit over 2 weeks.

You're playing semantics I was just using that time frame as an example of how ridiculous it was.

... and it changes nothing.


Yep. Act of war. You side with the enemy, you become the enemy. That simple.
 
2012-09-27 03:34:06 PM  

violentsalvation: No I wasn't distracted, I read about this the other 500 times it has been submitted and redlit in the past week.


So that's what you gain in return for $5 a month for TF? You get to read 500 failed submissions for every greenlit one. What a wise investment.
 
2012-09-27 03:35:52 PM  

The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.


yup.
 
2012-09-27 03:37:36 PM  

intelligent comment below: dittybopper: Except they didn't say "Hey, we'll do our damnedest to get him for you". They said "Fark off and die, we'll try him for it here".


And? So what? You can't tell a country what to do when you want to. America can't tell a country to arrest someone and hand them over just because they want to

dittybopper: Also, we didn't give them 24 hours. Bush gave the ultimatum on September 20th. The Taliban responded on October 5th saying they would try him, which was of course unacceptable, and we started military operations 2 days after that on October 7th.

They had a bit over 2 weeks.

You're playing semantics I was just using that time frame as an example of how ridiculous it was.

... and it changes nothing.


This word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
 
2012-09-27 03:38:04 PM  
We have always been at war Eastasia, or is Eurasia, nevermind nothing to see here.
Modern
Industrial
Coruption
 
2012-09-27 03:39:10 PM  

Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.


Sorry, but... THIS!
 
2012-09-27 03:39:24 PM  

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Because a terror network based out of there recruited some Saudis and killed three-thousand Americans. Then, when we moved in to take out said terror network, the extremist government there took issue with it and decided they'd rather kill people than let them have any real say in their own government.

It's not that hard to understand, and while I think we could be more cost-effective in what we're doing in that country, the idea that leaving Afghanistan means that the problem will just go away is insane. The Taliban is in the same vein as all of those people who attacked embassies over that film. If you give them a foothold, they'll use it to make everyone in the region miserable, which, in our current global society, means we'll be made miserable.
 
2012-09-27 03:40:51 PM  

Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.


DAMN STRAIGHT!
 
2012-09-27 03:41:53 PM  
Blowing them up on the ground doesn't count.
 
2012-09-27 03:42:38 PM  

fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.


Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.
 
2012-09-27 03:44:52 PM  

MAYORBOB: violentsalvation: No I wasn't distracted, I read about this the other 500 times it has been submitted and redlit in the past week.

So that's what you gain in return for $5 a month for TF? You get to read 500 failed submissions for every greenlit one. What a wise investment.


No reacharound? I thought the $5 at least got you reacharound.
 
2012-09-27 03:44:53 PM  
Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?


THIS.

Can't let their guy look bad...
 
2012-09-27 03:44:59 PM  

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


The argument could be made that Libya had one in the 1980s. Same goes for the First Persian Gulf War. Now, the air force wasn't working once the USAF and USN had their way with it, but that's a different story.
 
2012-09-27 03:45:18 PM  

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.
 
2012-09-27 03:46:13 PM  

fluffy2097: dittybopper: They are Harriers. They regularly crash. It would have happened anyway, just over a slightly longer period of time.

Sadly a bunch of marines died and now they have no fixed wing air support for that base. From a strategic viewpoint, It's a significant loss.


Shouldn't we just be able to ferry over some replacement aircraft for them in a day? Even if we had to strip another Harrier squadron of their planes? Sure, someone is going to be short aircraft until some of the ones at AMARC get unmothballed, but it shouldn't be the guys at the sharp end, it should be the squadrons doing routine training. Surely there isn't only a single Harrier squadron left at this point.
 
2012-09-27 03:46:16 PM  

Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Its really not that complicated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan holds enormous bounty of rare earths
 
2012-09-27 03:47:56 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: NuttierThanEver: Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.



[img839.imageshack.us image 300x225]


www.fas.org
/Osprey doesn't poison its pilots. It just stops flying. Kinda hard to glide a brick at dead-stick. Even harder if you're not breathing at the time.
 
2012-09-27 03:47:58 PM  

charttn: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Its really not that complicated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan holds enormous bounty of rare earths


Oh, look kids... it's that theory again.

I mean, we only found out about those deposits ten damned years after the start of hostilities, but obviously, that's why the US has stuck it out for so long.
 
2012-09-27 03:48:57 PM  

Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.


More give a shiat due to the effectiveness / cost of the attack. In terms of man hours, ordinance spent, and life lost on Taliban side, this is likely their most effective military strike all year, if ever.

Note: I hope the Marines track down and kill every person involved in this attack. All those who carried it out, all those who planned it, all those who supplied it.

But that being said, I "don't mind" these types of attacks. While I'd rather the Talibran would just stop attacking anyone in general and us in particular, I can at least understand an attack of this nature. It's a military strike on a military target and one against our most effective tools, air power. It's a far more "moral" attack then attacking civilians.
 
2012-09-27 03:49:11 PM  

dittybopper: Yes, you can, for an act of war. To put it in perspective, more people died in the 9/11 attacks than died in the Pearl Harbor attack.



An act of war? Afghanistan never attacked on 9/11. It was a criminal act, and unless Afghanistan and America have an extradition treaty, you can't demand then invade a country to hand over criminals in it. That's not how diplomacy works


dittybopper: Yep. Act of war. You side with the enemy, you become the enemy. That simple.


How can a group of people create an "act of war"? They are not flying a banner of a country. They committed a criminal act and should have been brought to justice. Overthrowing a government not responsible for the attacks was a huge mistake that sadly your bias still cannot see today
 
2012-09-27 03:49:43 PM  

ronaprhys: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.



I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.
 
2012-09-27 03:49:50 PM  

Marine1: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Because a terror network based out of there recruited some Saudis and killed three-thousand Americans. Then, when we moved in to take out said terror network, the extremist government there took issue with it and decided they'd rather kill people than let them have any real say in their own government.

It's not that hard to understand, and while I think we could be more cost-effective in what we're doing in that country, the idea that leaving Afghanistan means that the problem will just go away is insane. The Taliban is in the same vein as all of those people who attacked embassies over that film. If you give them a foothold, they'll use it to make everyone in the region miserable, which, in our current global society, means we'll be made miserable.


Or they might just be content to oppress their own people and not try and provoke us to come and kick them out of power again.
 
2012-09-27 03:50:57 PM  

ronaprhys: This word. I don't think it means what you think it means.



Of course I know what it means. It means that the world then hates you and refuses to listen to you from then on. You see how many countries are so friendly with America now? Your going against all rules of diplomacy and law mean your allies are few and far between and more countries stand up to you because they see you as a bully.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:16 PM  

mark12A: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?

THIS.

Can't let their guy look bad...


Riiight, like the way they ignored that whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:25 PM  

Marine1: The argument could be made that Libya had one in the 1980s. Same goes for the First Persian Gulf War. Now, the air force wasn't working once the USAF and USN had their way with it, but that's a different story.


Okay, I'll give you Libya and Iraq Part I, but neither of them had anywhere NEAR an actual organized air force. But yes, I'll take out Libya in the 80's and the first day or so of Iraq Part 1.

ronaprhys: If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.


People firing AK-47's and the odd Stinger at attack helicopters isn't exactly "anti-aircraft" capabilities (see Somalia and "Black Hawk Down"). Neither was the "Shock and Awe" of Iraq Part II where people were firing AA from roofs in Baghdad at bombers that were way too high and fast to even consider hitting.

I'm talking actual armed forces with AA capabilities, not the odd lucky shot.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:54 PM  

fireclown: ronaprhys: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.


I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.


That's because the USAF has the ability to sneak in to enemy airspace and bomb their assets while they're still on the ground.

I'd also consider the Norks a worthy opponent back during the Korean War. Well, maybe not their run-of-the-mill lackeys, but the veteran Soviet pilots that were sent to train the DPRK pilots and their more advanced students gave American pilots a heck of a fight at times.
 
2012-09-27 03:51:55 PM  

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


graphics8.nytimes.com

Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.
 
2012-09-27 03:52:55 PM  
Anything we can do to prevent people from realizing the facts. Distraction, disablement, imprisonment, assassination... it's all on the table. We just pretend that it isn't.
 
2012-09-27 03:52:56 PM  
On a cost basis, it was only a $240 million loss. (8 aircraft @ $30 million each) Compare with a crash of a single F-22 ($150 million) or that B-2 that crashed on takeoff from Guam a few years ago. ($1 billion)

/sucks about the casualties, though.
 
2012-09-27 03:53:41 PM  

Marine1: charttn: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Its really not that complicated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan holds enormous bounty of rare earths

Oh, look kids... it's that theory again.

I mean, we only found out about those deposits ten damned years after the start of hostilities, but obviously, that's why the US has stuck it out for so long.


It's not like the US hurts for rare-earths.

We just don't much feel like sending people in to mine for them.
 
2012-09-27 03:53:42 PM  

mark12A: THIS.

Can't let their guy look bad...



Why would a war that Obama inherited look bad for him when something goes wrong? You think a few military toys getting destroyed is such a huge setback? In what universe?


ronaprhys: If that bolded portion weren't demonstrably false, you'd have a point.


Unless you're talking about shoulder mounted anti aircraft rockets then you're delusional. But you've made it quite clear that you're blindly conservative and pro military so having a debate with you is like talking to the Pope about Islam.
 
2012-09-27 03:54:37 PM  

Bigjohn3592: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?


Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?
 
2012-09-27 03:55:02 PM  

Medic Zero: mark12A: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?

THIS.

Can't let their guy look bad...

Riiight, like the way they ignored that whole Clinton/Lewinsky thing.



And how they painted Gore and an out of touch stiff and Bush as the lovable smart business executive and war hero.
 
2012-09-27 03:55:36 PM  

fireclown: The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.


Thank you. And you said it with more clarity and precision than I did, so, uh, thanks again.
 
2012-09-27 03:56:19 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Mighty_Joe: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something,

He takes credit for bagging Bin Laden, why shouldn't he take the blame for this?

Did you allow him credit for bin Laden, or were you one of the ones shrieking it was all the SEALs and he did nothing?

If you allowed him the credit, you may assign the blame. Otherwise, STFU.


Who takes the blame for letting the Paki copters take Bin Laden and friends out of the Tora Bora in late 2001?
 
2012-09-27 03:56:33 PM  

Medic Zero: Marine1: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Because a terror network based out of there recruited some Saudis and killed three-thousand Americans. Then, when we moved in to take out said terror network, the extremist government there took issue with it and decided they'd rather kill people than let them have any real say in their own government.

It's not that hard to understand, and while I think we could be more cost-effective in what we're doing in that country, the idea that leaving Afghanistan means that the problem will just go away is insane. The Taliban is in the same vein as all of those people who attacked embassies over that film. If you give them a foothold, they'll use it to make everyone in the region miserable, which, in our current global society, means we'll be made miserable.

Or they might just be content to oppress their own people and not try and provoke us to come and kick them out of power again.


See, that's the thing. They don't work that way. They want to spread their influence. That's sort of the point of these hardline religious governments: bring everyone you can underneath your idea of religion. If you can do that to an entire country, continent, or planet, then in their minds, you'd be an infidel not to.
 
2012-09-27 03:57:09 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.


Hell, both in Vietnam and Korea a number of those migs were actually flown by Soviet pilots.
 
2012-09-27 03:59:03 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.

More give a shiat due to the effectiveness / cost of the attack. In terms of man hours, ordinance spent, and life lost on Taliban side, this is likely their most effective military strike all year, if ever.

Note: I hope the Marines track down and kill every person involved in this attack. All those who carried it out, all those who planned it, all those who supplied it.

But that being said, I "don't mind" these types of attacks. While I'd rather the Talibran would just stop attacking anyone in general and us in particular, I can at least understand an attack of this nature. It's a military strike on a military target and one against our most effective tools, air power. It's a far more "moral" attack then attacking civilians.


This is pretty much my issue with terrorists in general. Killing civilians who are not allowing themselves to be used as a meat shield for millitary targets is wrong in pretty much all cases. Hit a military target, obviously I am not happy about it if its my country or ally that got hit, but at least the military target is actively engaged in the fight and not just trying to make a living.
 
2012-09-27 03:59:09 PM  
I must have missed the the Vietnam War in Afghanistan, were they using Apple Maps for that one?
 
2012-09-27 04:00:20 PM  

Marine1: I'd also consider the Norks a worthy opponent back during the Korean War. Well, maybe not their run-of-the-mill lackeys, but the veteran Soviet pilots that were sent to train the DPRK pilots and their more advanced students gave American pilots a heck of a fight at times.


AngryJailhouseFistfark: The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.


But nothing compared to the power and sheer numbers of US planes and number of sorties.

And I think the USSR was doing mostly what the US did in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. Throwing a wrench in their Cold War enemy's invasion plans while being careful not to overcommit and break the bank. Or cause an international incident and kickstart WWIII.
 
2012-09-27 04:02:06 PM  

fireclown:

I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.


The Navy formed the Top Gun school in 1969, because the North Vietnamese Air Force was putting up a surprisingly good showing against U.S. aviators, who had become over-reliant on guided missiles.
 
2012-09-27 04:03:37 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Hell, both in Vietnam and Korea a number of those migs were actually flown by Soviet pilots.


A small number. The Soviets didn't want to get dragged into a bigger war and they were trying to slow down the USA more than actually help their so-called "allies". And again, we're talking about the 1950's and early '60's.
 
2012-09-27 04:03:45 PM  

vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.


I don't understand why we need ANY new planes... Between the A-10, the Stealth Fighter, the Apache, and Spectre Gunships, I think we have our manned offensive airpower pretty much sewn up. And I don't care how 'old' these aircraft are, they do a Hell of a job. I don't think we need to dump billions upon billions developing something new when we more or less rule the planet's skies, and do it so effectively.

But that's just me.
 
2012-09-27 04:05:31 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The Vietnam War was in Vietnam, subby.


Since the modmins are not gonna post this....

Link

I'll just leave this here.


Mittens in 1968...


i.dailymail.co.uk

Edited for truthiness...

i865.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-27 04:06:15 PM  

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


0 AAA capabilities?

North Vietnam and Iraq had some of the finest Integrated Air Defense Networks in the world. Even at the end of the first Gulf War the only thing flying over Baghdad was F-117s at night.

An actual working air force? Wow, way to sell short those North Vietnamese pilots who were doing pretty damn well against the US in their MiG-21s and -17s.
 
2012-09-27 04:06:59 PM  

Aikidogamer: Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.

DAMN STRAIGHT!


Second!
 
2012-09-27 04:07:09 PM  

NuttierThanEver: I said Planes, not some bastard cross bred monster


Point taken.

Well played sir.
 
2012-09-27 04:07:38 PM  

Mikey1969: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.

I don't understand why we need ANY new planes... Between the A-10, the Stealth Fighter, the Apache, and Spectre Gunships, I think we have our manned offensive airpower pretty much sewn up. And I don't care how 'old' these aircraft are, they do a Hell of a job. I don't think we need to dump billions upon billions developing something new when we more or less rule the planet's skies, and do it so effectively.

But that's just me.


You should care how "old" the aircraft are.

Airframes don't last forever.
 
2012-09-27 04:10:52 PM  

Spade: An actual working air force? Wow, way to sell short those North Vietnamese pilots who were doing pretty damn well against the US in their MiG-21s and -17s.


Um, not really.

From Wiki:

All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.[1]

0.4 losses per 1000 sorties. So that's 1 plane shot down (or accidentally crashed) for every, uh, 2200 sorties.
 
2012-09-27 04:12:16 PM  

Sgt Otter: fireclown:

I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.

The Navy formed the Top Gun school in 1969, because the North Vietnamese Air Force was putting up a surprisingly good showing against U.S. aviators, who had become over-reliant on guided missiles.


This gives me a hard-on
 
2012-09-27 04:13:18 PM  

Aikidogamer: Satanic_Hamster: Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.

More give a shiat due to the effectiveness / cost of the attack. In terms of man hours, ordinance spent, and life lost on Taliban side, this is likely their most effective military strike all year, if ever.

Note: I hope the Marines track down and kill every person involved in this attack. All those who carried it out, all those who planned it, all those who supplied it.

But that being said, I "don't mind" these types of attacks. While I'd rather the Talibran would just stop attacking anyone in general and us in particular, I can at least understand an attack of this nature. It's a military strike on a military target and one against our most effective tools, air power. It's a far more "moral" attack then attacking civilians.

This is pretty much my issue with terrorists in general. Killing civilians who are not allowing themselves to be used as a meat shield for millitary targets is wrong in pretty much all cases. Hit a military target, obviously I am not happy about it if its my country or ally that got hit, but at least the military target is actively engaged in the fight and not just trying to make a living.


As soon as we started the "Global War on Terror" and all acts of terrorism became de facto acts of war, this kind of thinking went out the window.

Either terrorists are criminals, performing criminal acts against civilians--and should be treated as such; or they are soldiers, performing acts of war against a hostile nation. You can't have it be both that they are criminals murdering civilians AND soldiers engaged in a military action. And yet that's what policy makers are trying to have. We're fighting a war against criminals, ergo, anything the criminal does is a war action. Therefore, blowing up Harrier jets on a runway is JUST AS MUCH an act of war as blowing up a marketplace full of innocent shoppers, at least following this line of thought. (Or to flip it, blowing up military jets is just as much an act of terrorism as blowing up the marketplace)

One reason terrorism was better fought in the 1970's is that there was a sharp distinction between what the terrorists did and what an army did. The IRA was never given the dignity of being called "a terrorist army"--they were first and foremost always criminals. Even acts by the PLO were never perceived to be "acts of war"--they were always crimes, albeit crimes of a horrific scale and scope. (That the army had to deal with both organizations merely speaks to the fact that cops were outgunned by them)

Only since 9/11, when America decided that a small, shadowy terrorist group had commited an "act of war" against us, did these lines become blurred. Now the idea that a terrorist group commits crimes and a government commits acts of war is hopelessly muddled. We need to start thinking that way again, but I really doubt it will happen.
 
2012-09-27 04:14:00 PM  
Nothing takes the mind off the war like watching grown men chase a ball around.
 
2012-09-27 04:15:13 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 361x450]

Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.


As I recall, it was Olds who famously said: "We're going to fly up (to North Vietnam) through flak to drop some iron bombs on trucks, and probably be hassled by MiGs on the way out. But don't worry, I have it on good authority that none of this is happening."

/had the biggest hands of anyone I've met
 
2012-09-27 04:16:45 PM  

Sgt Otter: Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?


Worked for Grant in 1864.

Sometimes realizing you have an overwhelming resource advantage puts you up on the other guys.
 
2012-09-27 04:17:55 PM  

intelligent comment below: dittybopper: Yes, you can, for an act of war. To put it in perspective, more people died in the 9/11 attacks than died in the Pearl Harbor attack.


An act of war? Afghanistan never attacked on 9/11. It was a criminal act, and unless Afghanistan and America have an extradition treaty, you can't demand then invade a country to hand over criminals in it. That's not how diplomacy works


dittybopper: Yep. Act of war. You side with the enemy, you become the enemy. That simple.

How can a group of people create an "act of war"? They are not flying a banner of a country. They committed a criminal act and should have been brought to justice. Overthrowing a government not responsible for the attacks was a huge mistake that sadly your bias still cannot see today


Quite simply.

An act of war doesn't have to come from a nation. It can be from a smaller organization. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, there were planned attacks on the economic (WTC), military (Pentagon), and civilian leadership (Flight 93 was to have target the US Capitol building).

Had it been a handful of guys who put a truck bomb in the WTC, then yes, I would say "criminal act".

When the loss of life exceeds that of the act which directly brought us into WWII, and it was planned by a paramilitary organization being protected by a government, then yes, it becomes an act of war.
 
2012-09-27 04:24:00 PM  

intelligent comment below: 0bama campaigned on ramping up Afghanistan, ending Iraq, and then setting a proper timetable to get out of the war he believed was justified. Sounds like he's actually living up to his campaign promise. I know that rakes you how a Democrat is far better at foreign policy than your compassionate conservative heroes.


Except Iraq still has close to 40K troops when all should have been home by now, and there is no time table to afghanistan withdrawal. Here is Leon Panetta's actual quote on the so called time line: "We are not going anyplace," he said. "We have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan and will continue to work with them on counter-terrorism. We will continue to provide training, assistance, guidance." Whats ironic is that the troops the military is training have been attacking US forces, good jorb.

I do not support either plan and would want all troops brought home immediately, I am painted as a conservative on fark yet I never wanted any war in Iraq, afghanistan was obvious since people forget that regime was providing support for terrorist activities and as a safe haven.

People want to accept a half fulfilled campaign promise is at least a decent job instead of voting all those who didnt live up to their campaign out of office, I hate our system, it breeds corruption on both sides and they just pit one against the other as a ploy to say "if you dont vote us in office, these guys will rape your grandmother!" Its bullshiat and useless the way everyone of us bicker back and forth, thats also why I stay out of the politics threads unless they are on the main page.

I want what france has, a shiatload of candidates on the ballots that can garner enough support per state to be on each ballot but that will never happen since the big two parties want to keep their monopoly of political bullshiat.
 
2012-09-27 04:24:26 PM  

Marine1: charttn: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Its really not that complicated.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=afghanistan holds enormous bounty of rare earths

Oh, look kids... it's that theory again.
I mean, we only found out about those deposits ten damned years after the start of hostilities, but obviously, that's why the US has stuck it out for so long.


Yeah, keep smoken that rabbit tobacco. Just because you did not know about it, doesn't mean industry did not know.

Afghanistan Geological and Mineral Survey, 1967, Geological structure of the Zarkashan gold deposit,
Afghanistan Geological and Mineral Survey, Kabul, 8 p.
Abdullah, Sh., Chmyriov, V.M., Stazhilo-Alekseev, K.F., Dronov, V.I., Gannan, P.J., Rossovskiy, L.N.,
Kafarskiy, A.Kh., and Malyarov, E.P., 1977, Mineral resources of Afghanistan 2nd ed, Kabul,
Afghanistan, Republic of Afghanistan Geological and Mineral Survey, 419 p.
 
2012-09-27 04:25:16 PM  

Sgt Otter: fireclown:

I would, however describe US enemies since Vietnam as limited. Iraq was the strongest of them, but they were degraded early on, and they simply never recovered. The point that the USAF has not faced a first rate foe in a long while is a valid one.

The Navy formed the Top Gun school in 1969, because the North Vietnamese Air Force was putting up a surprisingly good showing against U.S. aviators, who had become over-reliant on guided missiles.


The air force, navy and marines all deciding that building a lot of planes that only had missiles might have had something to do with that.
 
2012-09-27 04:25:34 PM  

jakomo002: All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.[1]


5.25 Million sorties?!?

20 year long war * 365 days per year = 7305 days. 5.25 million sorties / 7305 days = 718.67 sorties per day, every single day of the war.

I call bullshiat.
 
2012-09-27 04:28:09 PM  

Marine1: Mikey1969: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.

I don't understand why we need ANY new planes... Between the A-10, the Stealth Fighter, the Apache, and Spectre Gunships, I think we have our manned offensive airpower pretty much sewn up. And I don't care how 'old' these aircraft are, they do a Hell of a job. I don't think we need to dump billions upon billions developing something new when we more or less rule the planet's skies, and do it so effectively.

But that's just me.

You should care how "old" the aircraft are.

Airframes don't last forever.


I meant "old" in terms of the tech and model itself, not the age of the individual plane itself, sorry.
 
2012-09-27 04:28:34 PM  

This text is now purple: Sgt Otter: Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?

Worked for Grant in 1864.

Sometimes realizing you have an overwhelming resource advantage puts you up on the other guys.


"Brute Force" as John Ellis titled his book on this very subject.

The British armor historian George Forty notes that among Allied tankers, it was generally thought that it took five Shermans to knock out one Panther tank. Ellis points out that Germany built about 5,000 Panther variants.

America built around 50,000 Shermans. Worked for us.
 
2012-09-27 04:29:11 PM  

HAMMERTOE: jakomo002: All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.[1]

5.25 Million sorties?!?

20 year long war * 365 days per year = 7305 days. 5.25 million sorties / 7305 days = 718.67 sorties per day, every single day of the war.

I call bullshiat.


So look it up and then come back with a better source than the actual USAF.
 
2012-09-27 04:30:43 PM  

steamingpile: intelligent comment below: 0bama campaigned on ramping up Afghanistan, ending Iraq, and then setting a proper timetable to get out of the war he believed was justified. Sounds like he's actually living up to his campaign promise. I know that rakes you how a Democrat is far better at foreign policy than your compassionate conservative heroes.

Except Iraq still has close to 40K troops when all should have been home by now, and there is no time table to afghanistan withdrawal. Here is Leon Panetta's actual quote on the so called time line: "We are not going anyplace," he said. "We have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan and will continue to work with them on counter-terrorism. We will continue to provide training, assistance, guidance." Whats ironic is that the troops the military is training have been attacking US forces, good jorb.

I do not support either plan and would want all troops brought home immediately, I am painted as a conservative on fark yet I never wanted any war in Iraq, afghanistan was obvious since people forget that regime was providing support for terrorist activities and as a safe haven.

People want to accept a half fulfilled campaign promise is at least a decent job instead of voting all those who didnt live up to their campaign out of office, I hate our system, it breeds corruption on both sides and they just pit one against the other as a ploy to say "if you dont vote us in office, these guys will rape your grandmother!" Its bullshiat and useless the way everyone of us bicker back and forth, thats also why I stay out of the politics threads unless they are on the main page.

I want what france has, a shiatload of candidates on the ballots that can garner enough support per state to be on each ballot but that will never happen since the big two parties want to keep their monopoly of political bullshiat.


If the Cold War hadn't happened I wonder how many Americans would still be in Germany now. I figure it would have been at least the early 60's before withdrawal would have happened.
 
2012-09-27 04:34:03 PM  

jakomo002: People firing AK-47's and the odd Stinger at attack helicopters isn't exactly "anti-aircraft" capabilities (see Somalia and "Black Hawk Down"). Neither was the "Shock and Awe" of Iraq Part II where people were firing AA from roofs in Baghdad at bombers that were way too high and fast to even consider hitting.

I'm talking actual armed forces with AA capabilities, not the odd lucky shot.


And then you'd still be wrong. Maybe learning some history would help?

intelligent comment below: Of course I know what it means. It means that the world then hates you and refuses to listen to you from then on. You see how many countries are so friendly with America now? Your going against all rules of diplomacy and law mean your allies are few and far between and more countries stand up to you because they see you as a bully.


That's not what "can't" means. There are dictionaries, even online dictionaries, that might help you here.

intelligent comment below: Unless you're talking about shoulder mounted anti aircraft rockets then you're delusional. But you've made it quite clear that you're blindly conservative and pro military so having a debate with you is like talking to the Pope about Islam.


What you don't know about history simply boggles the mind. It's amazing, actually.

Kind of amusing, too.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-27 04:38:31 PM  

Mighty_Joe: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something,

He takes credit for bagging Bin Laden, why shouldn't he take the blame for this?

 
2012-09-27 04:40:31 PM  

Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.


Pretty much, its not like the insurgents got a hold of some high end SAMs and took down some of our jets in the air, THAT would be troubling.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-27 04:41:13 PM  

Bigjohn3592: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?


None, because it doesn't even have any connection to the election except in the minds of wingnuts.
 
2012-09-27 04:48:30 PM  

dittybopper: Quite simply.

An act of war doesn't have to come from a nation. It can be from a smaller organization. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, there were planned attacks on the economic (WTC), military (Pentagon), and civilian leadership (Flight 93 was to have target the US Capitol building).

Had it been a handful of guys who put a truck bomb in the WTC, then yes, I would say "criminal act".

When the loss of life exceeds that of the act which directly brought us into WWII, and it was planned by a paramilitary organization being protected by a government, then yes, it becomes an act of war.



There was a handful of guys who put a truck bomb in the WTC.Same purpose, same group, same intent.
There was a handful of guys who drove a speedboat into the USS Cole. Same purpose, same group, same intent.
There was a handful of guys who bombed two Embassies. Same purpose, same group, same intent.

Is your ONLY metric whether lots of people died? Or that the attacks occurred on the same day? Or whether our government decided "Yes, bombing the WTC with a plane is an act of war, whereas an ANFO bomb in a truck is not."?
 
2012-09-27 04:59:25 PM  

Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.


Hell, I'd care more about the marines even if the planes were top-notch and we got them at fire sale prices with 'buy one, get one free' coupons.
 
2012-09-27 05:08:41 PM  

This text is now purple: Sgt Otter: Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?

Worked for Grant in 1864.

Sometimes realizing you have an overwhelming resource advantage puts you up on the other guys.


It's also how Stalin broke the German attack on Moscow -- by calling in the Siberian reserve forces.
 
2012-09-27 05:17:54 PM  

AngryJailhouseFistfark: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 361x450]

Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.


And occasionally pilots from the USSR...as in Korea.

But yeah, people liked to talk about how the F-15 Eagle was never shot down in a single engagement, and while it was a fine aircraft (and still is) aside from some action here and there in Israel, it never really faced the kind of competition the F-4 or F-86 faced.
 
2012-09-27 05:22:38 PM  

Bigjohn3592: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?


Yes. Because I totally only heard about this through the telegraph office and underground railroad. Wait, where are we again?
 
2012-09-27 05:39:43 PM  

vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.


If not that, the reason it was not highly reported in the MSM was to protect Obama. The worst loss of this kind since the Vietnam war would be a pretty big black eye. Now back when Jimmy Carter had the worst loss of that kind, MSM was all over it. No one really liked Jimmy Carter.
 
2012-09-27 05:55:01 PM  
There was a Jeep raid in North Africa on a German air base at Fuka. The SAS charged into the base on jeeps armed with three machine guns.

There was a Jeep raid in North Africa on a German air base at Fuka. The SAS charged into the base on jeeps armed with three machine guns. You can destroy plenty of planes with very basic technology.
 
2012-09-27 06:04:22 PM  

NuttierThanEver: The Stealth Hippopotamus: NuttierThanEver: Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.



[img839.imageshack.us image 300x225]

I said Planes, not some bastard cross bred monster that should have been aborted after 20th test flight crashed


So, the fact that the Osprey has had a better safety track record in service than either the UH60 or the Jolly Greens means that it's a bad design?
 
2012-09-27 06:06:33 PM  

intelligent comment below: dittybopper: Yes, you can, for an act of war. To put it in perspective, more people died in the 9/11 attacks than died in the Pearl Harbor attack.


An act of war? Afghanistan never attacked on 9/11. It was a criminal act, and unless Afghanistan and America have an extradition treaty, you can't demand then invade a country to hand over criminals in it. That's not how diplomacy works


dittybopper: Yep. Act of war. You side with the enemy, you become the enemy. That simple.

How can a group of people create an "act of war"? They are not flying a banner of a country. They committed a criminal act and should have been brought to justice. Overthrowing a government not responsible for the attacks was a huge mistake that sadly your bias still cannot see today


I'm sure someone probably already covered this, but you do realize that the Taliban, who were ruling Afghanistan, were sponsoring Al Qaeda, right? ALso, you do realize that Congress passed a resolution declaring war on these foreign entities, right?
 
2012-09-27 06:12:12 PM  

jakomo002: Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


www.theglobaldispatch.com

Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2012-09-27 06:12:44 PM  

Gyrfalcon: dittybopper: Quite simply.

An act of war doesn't have to come from a nation. It can be from a smaller organization. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, there were planned attacks on the economic (WTC), military (Pentagon), and civilian leadership (Flight 93 was to have target the US Capitol building).

Had it been a handful of guys who put a truck bomb in the WTC, then yes, I would say "criminal act".

When the loss of life exceeds that of the act which directly brought us into WWII, and it was planned by a paramilitary organization being protected by a government, then yes, it becomes an act of war.


There was a handful of guys who put a truck bomb in the WTC.Same purpose, same group, same intent.
There was a handful of guys who drove a speedboat into the USS Cole. Same purpose, same group, same intent.
There was a handful of guys who bombed two Embassies. Same purpose, same group, same intent.

Is your ONLY metric whether lots of people died? Or that the attacks occurred on the same day? Or whether our government decided "Yes, bombing the WTC with a plane is an act of war, whereas an ANFO bomb in a truck is not."?


I think it mostly comes down to the basic concept that: gee, we investigate, we arrest, we treat it like a criminal matter and they continually and repeatedly attack us. So, maybe if we declare all out war on these farkers and blow them the fark off the face of the earth, they'll stop?

The problem is that our mindset is geared towards fighting nations, and not ideologies. You can't expect to invade a country, overthrow a group, and walk out of there when the ideology remains. You can't fight it with war, you can't fight it with the justice system, you can't fight it with aggression. You CAN make the cost of attacking so terribly high, the consequences so terrifying and severe that no one dares do it for fear of the retaliation.

However, the only way to stamp out an idea is to supplant it. Convince the target audience that the idea is wrong, and it will die.

In the meantime, I have absolutely no problem with treating these threats as a military organization and chopping off the head of the snake, killing every leader and whack job that would drive the masses to attack where we find them. However, it must be coupled with proving to those who are NOT involved that we are NOT what these farks say we are.
 
2012-09-27 06:17:13 PM  

intelligent comment below: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?


Well obviously after 17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and the funding came from Saudi Arabia, obviously the best option was to demand Afghanistan "hand over" terrorists in areas of their country not even Pakistan could control. It's like America demanding Mexico hand over all the cartel leaders in 24 hours or face invasion.


Your handle must mean "not immediately below, one hundred lines below. What's immediately below is pugwash."

Hello?!? Did you guys not clue into the fact that it doesnt matter where these monsters were born, but rather who trained equipped, and led them?

Stop posting stupid isht like a bunch of dumfoks.

You giving a bad name to thousands of anonymous posters around the internet.
 
2012-09-27 06:30:40 PM  

Kit Fister: In the meantime, I have absolutely no problem with treating these threats as a military organization and chopping off the head of the snake, killing every leader and whack job that would drive the masses to attack where we find them. However, it must be coupled with proving to those who are NOT involved that we are NOT what these farks say we are.


I like your ideas, but given the way we currently go about it, I think these two concepts are mutually exclusive. I don't think you can kill everyone who pisses us off, while simultaneously conveying the message "Hey, we're really nice people!" you know?
 
2012-09-27 06:45:04 PM  

Kit Fister: I'm sure someone probably already covered this, but you do realize that the Taliban, who were ruling Afghanistan, were sponsoring Al Qaeda, right? ALso, you do realize that Congress passed a resolution declaring war on these foreign entities, right?



The Taliban were not "sponsoring" Al Qaeda. They were operating in tribal regions nobody had control over.

And good for Congress, I still have no idea how you can call a criminal attack by people not a country as "an act of war" by Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia sponsored and funded all their operations, what happened to them?

Animatronik: Did you guys not clue into the fact that it doesnt matter where these monsters were born, but rather who trained equipped, and led them?



Trained equipped and led them by Saudi Arabia

Animatronik: Stop posting stupid isht like a bunch of dumfoks.



Look in the mirror and tell yourself that, projectionist troll
 
2012-09-27 06:46:03 PM  

intelligent comment below: Trained equipped and led them by Saudi Arabia



I should also add,

Pakistan. Who controlled Afghanistan since America first helped kick the Soviets out.

So why no war against the 2 people responsible for AQ and Bin Laden? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Why target the Taliban only leaving the people responsible in charge of the hen house?
 
2012-09-27 06:48:59 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Kit Fister: In the meantime, I have absolutely no problem with treating these threats as a military organization and chopping off the head of the snake, killing every leader and whack job that would drive the masses to attack where we find them. However, it must be coupled with proving to those who are NOT involved that we are NOT what these farks say we are.

I like your ideas, but given the way we currently go about it, I think these two concepts are mutually exclusive. I don't think you can kill everyone who pisses us off, while simultaneously conveying the message "Hey, we're really nice people!" you know?


I suppose it's a matter of perspective and how we're doing things. The problem, as I see it, is no one wants to get involved at the level it would take to make it work, so we end up half-assing it. You can't show people you're there to help if all you do is beat up the schoolyard bully and then force your own brand of rule on the schoolyard.

Anyway. I don't think I'll be president or in any place to make anything happen, so I'll stick with accepting what is.
 
2012-09-27 07:24:46 PM  

jakomo002: HAMMERTOE: jakomo002: All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.[1]

5.25 Million sorties?!?

20 year long war * 365 days per year = 7305 days. 5.25 million sorties / 7305 days = 718.67 sorties per day, every single day of the war.

I call bullshiat.

So look it up and then come back with a better source than the actual USAF.


Pretty sure those numbers are at least ball park accurate, especially given the huge amount of helicopter activity in the South for transit/support/etc. That being said, the statistic is pretty misleading used in this context as I am fairly sure the NVAF (or whatever they called themselves) did not try to contest much the activities of the USAF in South Vietnam and a huge percentage of those sorties during the vietnam war were for activities that would not have been done by air in Korea of WWII.

More importantly, I once watched half of Flight of the Intruder. That shiat was hard corps.
 
2012-09-27 07:25:25 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I don't think you can kill everyone who pisses us off, while simultaneously conveying the message "Hey, we're really nice people!" you know?


Are we talking about Muslims or Americans?

Because both of them do this.
 
2012-09-27 07:29:16 PM  

Fo Shiz: Blowing them up on the ground doesn't count.


Actually, warfare is an economic activity, so...it does count.
 
2012-09-27 07:31:32 PM  

jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.


Korea, the Migs had a performance edge, iirc.
 
2012-09-27 07:36:32 PM  

Sgt Otter: Bigjohn3592: Underreported. Why would the press make a big deal out of something that would hurt Obama's re-election effort. He is their favorite after all.

/Think that's BS? Imagine if this happened in Iraq, 2008. What level of reporting and press scutiny would this have recieved?

Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?


And, oddly, failing to point out how Bush was PAYING Iraqis not to shoot at our guys...
 
2012-09-27 07:39:49 PM  

intelligent comment below: intelligent comment below: Trained equipped and led them by Saudi Arabia


I should also add,

Pakistan. Who controlled Afghanistan since America first helped kick the Soviets out.

So why no war against the 2 people responsible for AQ and Bin Laden? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Why target the Taliban only leaving the people responsible in charge of the hen house?


I'll take a stab at this:

Saudi Arabia -

1. Saudi Funding was more "Please take this money and stop attacking the Royal Family" than "Hey go attack the US so we can acheive goal X"
2. The Saudis at least realized they were shooting us in the foot, and therefore themselves eventually, with this idiotic policy of paying off their nutjobs to leave -- and also that of paying lip service to their ideals in the first place
3. Two cities: Mecca and Medina. It pissed off OBL and cronies enough that we had soldiers there for the defense against Saddam, what do you think would have happened if we'd decided to bomb the same country?
4. Why hand OBL the victory he wanted over them? If you think that Iraq was a victory for Al Qaeda, how would overthrowing his Primary Objective be received?
5. Ethnic background != proof of support. If it had been 19 Chechens, we'd not have helped Russia in their war, that would be stupid

Pakistan:
1. THEY HAVE THE BOMB.
 
2012-09-27 07:41:32 PM  

Aikidogamer: Satanic_Hamster: Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.

More give a shiat due to the effectiveness / cost of the attack. In terms of man hours, ordinance spent, and life lost on Taliban side, this is likely their most effective military strike all year, if ever.

Note: I hope the Marines track down and kill every person involved in this attack. All those who carried it out, all those who planned it, all those who supplied it.

But that being said, I "don't mind" these types of attacks. While I'd rather the Talibran would just stop attacking anyone in general and us in particular, I can at least understand an attack of this nature. It's a military strike on a military target and one against our most effective tools, air power. It's a far more "moral" attack then attacking civilians.

This is pretty much my issue with terrorists in general. Killing civilians who are not allowing themselves to be used as a meat shield for millitary targets is wrong in pretty much all cases. Hit a military target, obviously I am not happy about it if its my country or ally that got hit, but at least the military target is actively engaged in the fight and not just trying to make a living.


That's actually an interesting moral question.

If said civilians are supporting said military through their tax dollars, for instance, arguably they ARE a legit target.

If I hire a gang to beat you up, you rightfully could fight me AND the gang.

But, somehow, if I buy this gang matching uniforms...I'm off limits?

It always seemed odd to me...
 
2012-09-27 07:47:06 PM  
Are they going to kick over our trashcans next?
 
2012-09-27 07:47:25 PM  

PunGent: Fo Shiz: Blowing them up on the ground doesn't count.

Actually, warfare is an economic activity, so...it does count.


You don't need a duck stamp on your hunting license to buy a frozen duck at the grocery store.
/I'm just sayin'
 
2012-09-27 07:48:05 PM  

PunGent: Aikidogamer: Satanic_Hamster: Headso:

That's actually an interesting moral question.

If said civilians are supporting said military through their tax dollars, for instance, arguably they ARE a legit target.

If I hire a gang to beat you up, you rightfully could fight me AND the gang.

But, somehow, if I buy this gang matching uniforms...I'm off limits?

It always seemed odd to me...


Problem is the metaphor is not quite matched. More like, "can you go after the kids and wife of the person that hired the gang?"
 
2012-09-27 07:48:31 PM  
Without Dubya and Cheney pumping up the war everyday, it has faded away. And every body knows OBL is history.

Why are we still there?

/Too many Vietnam quotes to start posting.
 
2012-09-27 07:49:13 PM  
Legendary Marine Corp General Smedley Butler, author of "War is a Racket", said that there are only two things we should fight for. "The defense of our homes and the Bill of Rights". Anything other than that is an abuse of our military.
 
2012-09-27 07:50:42 PM  

PunGent: Fo Shiz: Blowing them up on the ground doesn't count.

Actually, warfare is an economic activity, so...it does count.


Paradoxically, you're both right. Problem is, when we call it "airpower loss" we usually think of shootdowns.

If we think of it as "economic loss" one person is correct.
If we think of it as "planes shot down" -- which airpower loss to most people implies -- the other is correct.
 
2012-09-27 07:50:46 PM  

Kit Fister: intelligent comment below: dittybopper: Yes, you can, for an act of war. To put it in perspective, more people died in the 9/11 attacks than died in the Pearl Harbor attack.


An act of war? Afghanistan never attacked on 9/11. It was a criminal act, and unless Afghanistan and America have an extradition treaty, you can't demand then invade a country to hand over criminals in it. That's not how diplomacy works


dittybopper: Yep. Act of war. You side with the enemy, you become the enemy. That simple.

How can a group of people create an "act of war"? They are not flying a banner of a country. They committed a criminal act and should have been brought to justice. Overthrowing a government not responsible for the attacks was a huge mistake that sadly your bias still cannot see today

I'm sure someone probably already covered this, but you do realize that the Taliban, who were ruling Afghanistan, were sponsoring Al Qaeda, right? ALso, you do realize that Congress passed a resolution declaring war on these foreign entities, right?


Those 'resolutions' are chickenshiat. Our last formal declaration of war was in '42 , iirc...in the last unambiguously successful major conflict we fought in, I might add. 

I'm not saying the Taliban and AQ didn't have it coming, just that Congress has been negligent the last 70 years.
 
2012-09-27 07:51:03 PM  

AlwaysRightBoy: NuttierThanEver: Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.

This

/Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.

..and sell them on eBay so kids like this 7-year-old can buy them.


Why does the 7 year old have access to Dad's eBay password?
Flashbacks to the late 80s and 'my son dialed 1900-MANSLUT' take
the charges off' stories.

/parents who blame their kids for their own fk ups
need to be sterilized
 
2012-09-27 07:54:49 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: hubiestubert: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Well, that and we did sort of dismantle their government...

They've never had a government. Whoever has the most machine guns is their ruler.


i2.listal.com

And Martini-Henry rifles
 
2012-09-27 07:57:21 PM  

PunGent: Aikidogamer: Satanic_Hamster: Headso: that is retarded, the reason air losses are shocking is because they mean something if the enemy you are fighting controls enough territory to either launch their own air forces or they control enough territory to have continual surface to air capabilities that limit your ability to support ground forces. Some guys blowing up jets on the ground is the same as any other piece of equipment and that is why nobody gives a shiat.

More give a shiat due to the effectiveness / cost of the attack. In terms of man hours, ordinance spent, and life lost on Taliban side, this is likely their most effective military strike all year, if ever.

Note: I hope the Marines track down and kill every person involved in this attack. All those who carried it out, all those who planned it, all those who supplied it.

But that being said, I "don't mind" these types of attacks. While I'd rather the Talibran would just stop attacking anyone in general and us in particular, I can at least understand an attack of this nature. It's a military strike on a military target and one against our most effective tools, air power. It's a far more "moral" attack then attacking civilians.

This is pretty much my issue with terrorists in general. Killing civilians who are not allowing themselves to be used as a meat shield for millitary targets is wrong in pretty much all cases. Hit a military target, obviously I am not happy about it if its my country or ally that got hit, but at least the military target is actively engaged in the fight and not just trying to make a living.

That's actually an interesting moral question.

If said civilians are supporting said military through their tax dollars, for instance, arguably they ARE a legit target.

If I hire a gang to beat you up, you rightfully could fight me AND the gang.

But, somehow, if I buy this gang matching uniforms...I'm off limits?

It always seemed odd to me...


There is no way to determine if someone has or has not contributed to the military budget since the fed is a black box once you pay your taxes. Nor can anyone really tell if they paid in or got more back. Gangs are not typically the officials representative of a State. (Weak difference I know)

The moment person(s) takes up arms against a battlefield member representative of a state, or uses themselves a shield to prevent a strike against such an entity, then they become a legitimate target.

/IMHO
 
2012-09-27 07:59:22 PM  

elchupacabra: 5. Ethnic background != proof of support. If it had been 19 Chechens, we'd not have helped Russia in their war, that would be stupid



But you would have declared war on Russia?
 
2012-09-27 08:03:26 PM  
i'm sure the navy has some shiat in a junk drawer that will probably be an upgrade for the flying jarheads, the dead marines however are not so easily replaced.
 
2012-09-27 08:10:59 PM  

intelligent comment below: elchupacabra: 5. Ethnic background != proof of support. If it had been 19 Chechens, we'd not have helped Russia in their war, that would be stupid


But you would have declared war on Russia?


If they harbored OBL and said FU like the Taliban had? ... Possibly, but they do have the Bomb.

Nukes tend to screw up everything in terms of what we put up with, sadly enough.
 
2012-09-27 08:19:21 PM  

PunGent: That's actually an interesting moral question.

If said civilians are supporting said military through their tax dollars, for instance, arguably they ARE a legit target.

If I hire a gang to beat you up, you rightfully could fight me AND the gang.

But, somehow, if I buy this gang matching uniforms...I'm off limits?

It always seemed odd to me...


Deliberately attacking civilians is never a moral or acceptable act, even if they're supporting the government you're fighting.

This is the big difference between terrorists and guerrillas. Blowing up a cafe or fish market full of random people? Not acceptable. Blowing up a power transformer station or a rail bridge? That's "acceptable" (Not that I'm saying anyone should do that; but if you're claiming to be a force trying to stop a government, infrastructure targets are legitimate targets if you're taking reasonable steps not to kill civies; blowing up a bridge in the middle of a night vs. doing it when there's a bus load of school kids on it).
 
2012-09-27 08:24:44 PM  

OldManDownDRoad: AngryJailhouseFistfark: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 361x450]

Was there, and later in Vietnam and would disagree with this while twirling his out-of-regs moustache.

The North Vietnamese had a very competent air force supplied and trained by the USSR.

As I recall, it was Olds who famously said: "We're going to fly up (to North Vietnam) through flak to drop some iron bombs on trucks, and probably be hassled by MiGs on the way out. But don't worry, I have it on good authority that none of this is happening."

/had the biggest hands of anyone I've met


I remember his funeral here at the Air Force Academy a few years ago. Probably the last time I'll ever see a Phantom 4-ship flyover.
 
2012-09-27 08:25:08 PM  
Meet the old war, same as the new war.
msnbcmedia3.msn.com

www.ginandtacos.com
lather

www.mudvillegazette.com
rinse

digitaljournalist.org
repeat
 
2012-09-27 08:54:15 PM  

HAMMERTOE: jakomo002: All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents. 110 of the losses were helicopters and the rest fixed-wing. A ratio of roughly 0.4 losses per 1,000 sorties compared favorably with a 2.0 rate in Korea and the 9.7 figure during World War II.[1]

5.25 Million sorties?!?

20 year long war * 365 days per year = 7305 days. 5.25 million sorties / 7305 days = 718.67 sorties per day, every single day of the war.

I call bullshiat.


If you consider the fact that there were nearly two thousand operational aircraft involved in the late sixties 718 sorties per day seems kind of low, actually.
 
2012-09-27 09:00:20 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Kazan: i care more about the marines who died than the damn overpriced planes.

This

/Also the Harriers are the worst farking planes in the US arsenal, we need to mothball the damn things.


No. We have no replacements and the support marines get from them is superior to the support they could get on paper from the air force.

It sounds good to say you arent really worried about the cost bit the fact is we live in a world where life has a value (be it strategic, dollar, etc). The loss of those aircraft had a cost higher than many attacks that killed more people.
 
2012-09-27 09:05:13 PM  

vudukungfu: Marcus Aurelius: The Vietnam War was in Vietnam, subby.

Yeah, which we fought when the Gremans Bombed Pearl Harbor.


suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com

The gaht-damn Gremans got nothin' to do with it!
 
2012-09-28 01:13:06 AM  

MAYORBOB: violentsalvation: No I wasn't distracted, I read about this the other 500 times it has been submitted and redlit in the past week.

So that's what you gain in return for $5 a month for TF? You get to read 500 failed submissions for every greenlit one. What a wise investment.


$50 a year, something like 14 cents a day. If you are here often, and get some enjoyment out of it, that pocket change is well spent. There are many other things on TotalFark beside the occasional old news greenlight.
 
2012-09-28 02:42:23 AM  

elchupacabra: If they harbored OBL and said FU like the Taliban had? ... Possibly, but they do have the Bomb.

Nukes tend to screw up everything in terms of what we put up with, sadly enough.



So when Mexican narco gangs commit atrocities on Americans in Mexico or in America, does the US invade Mexico?
 
2012-09-28 02:48:16 AM  
Don't worry, there are plenty more where they came from.
 
2012-09-28 08:01:00 AM  

steamingpile: I want what france has, a shiatload of candidates on the ballots that can garner enough support per state to be on each ballot


well, it has it't problems too, see the second time we had to vote this bufoon of Chirac:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Chirac%27s_second_term_as_Presid e nt_of_France

but on the whole, a better system.
Still needs a lot of improvment
 
2012-09-28 08:08:21 AM  
Just stop it. We have the Super Most Awesomest President Ever, and we don't want to hear any bad news about "war" and "death" and stuff while he is trying to collect money for his re-election.

Just shut up and vote for him so we can re-live the last 4 years one more time.
 
2012-09-28 08:12:50 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: hubiestubert: Weaver95: why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? i'm not even sure why we invaded them in the first place. something something terrorism war on drugs maybe?

Well, that and we did sort of dismantle their government...

They've never had a government. Whoever has the most machine guns is their ruler.


B-but... they were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers!!
 
2012-09-28 08:22:13 AM  

This text is now purple: Sgt Otter: Well, I was in Iraq in 2008, during the Surge. I remember the press crowning General Petraeus a modern-day Sun Tzu for his brilliant plan of "send more guys."

What was your point, again?

Worked for Grant in 1864.

Sometimes realizing you have an overwhelming resource advantage puts you up on the other guys.


Unless the other guys are the Viet Cong.
 
2012-09-28 09:59:57 AM  

Marine1: Mikey1969: vpb: If I remember correctly from the last couple of time this was submitted, this is all Obama's fault be it was on "his watch" like he was there pulling guard duty and fell asleep or something, and the harriers can never be replaced because they are out of production and the author is too ignorant to have heard of the F-35 that will replace the Harriers and which is the reason that they are out of production.

I don't understand why we need ANY new planes... Between the A-10, the Stealth Fighter, the Apache, and Spectre Gunships, I think we have our manned offensive airpower pretty much sewn up. And I don't care how 'old' these aircraft are, they do a Hell of a job. I don't think we need to dump billions upon billions developing something new when we more or less rule the planet's skies, and do it so effectively.

But that's just me.

You should care how "old" the aircraft are.

Airframes don't last forever.


Yes they do. An original flight-worthy Bleriot XI:

www.flightglobal.com

Now, just because it's the airborne equivalent of the Ship of Theseus doesn't mean anything. It still has some original parts.
 
2012-09-28 10:22:27 AM  

Marine1: jakomo002: fireclown: The Dog Ate My Homework: When losing six aircraft is considered the worst loss of air power in a generation, you've got a pretty damn good track record.

yup.

Except those aircraft have been used exclusively on 3rd World countries with zero anti-aircraft capabilites, and certainly no air force of their own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen.

Tell me, when was the last time the United States of America actually fought a war in which their opponents had an actual working air force?

Germany in the 1940's.

The argument could be made that Libya had one in the 1980s. Same goes for the First Persian Gulf War. Now, the air force wasn't working once the USAF and USN had their way with it, but that's a different story.


In korea, at least the early part, the NK AF was technically superior to ours as they had Russian made migs and we didn't have a jet fighter. The North Vietnamese Air Force was small but potent and a great number of legendary dogfights came form that war. After that? Not so Much, but mainly because manned, fixed wing aircraft, are, by and large obsolete and have been since the first Tomahawk missle was operational
 
2012-09-28 10:47:51 AM  

intelligent comment below: elchupacabra: If they harbored OBL and said FU like the Taliban had? ... Possibly, but they do have the Bomb.

Nukes tend to screw up everything in terms of what we put up with, sadly enough.


So when Mexican narco gangs commit atrocities on Americans in Mexico or in America, does the US invade Mexico?


Sorry, late response.

Once there's "critical mass", if the Mexican govt refuses to stop it, etc. I don't think we're even close, though. For that, though, I'm thinking the drug war is lost any way. Different scenario.

Not sure what you're trying to do -- define my position? Or corner me into a contradiction?
 
2012-09-28 10:49:25 AM  
In addendum: we can't wipe out all the bad guys, especially not simultaneously. Doesn't mean we throw up our hands and retreat inside our borders.
 
2012-09-28 03:59:26 PM  

Pantubo: Just stop it. We have the Super Most Awesomest President Ever, and we don't want to hear any bad news about "war" and "death" and stuff while he is trying to collect money for his re-election.

Just shut up and vote for him so we can re-live the last 4 years one more time.



When the media sugar coats the wars when Bush is President = patriotic

When the media does it for 0bama = LUBRUL MEDIA
 
2012-09-29 01:15:37 AM  
While Afghanistan is another Vietman of sorts, its also the opposite in other regards. It seemed not a day went by back in those Vietnam days when dead USA boys, blown up stuff, dead villagers, napalmed kids, all kinds of atrocity was on our nightly news. And thanks to what made it on TV and into the papers, the american public got damn sick of it, young people took up against the government, and made them get us out of that terrible war. And amazingly enough, the viet cong, or communists as they were monikered, didn't take over the world after we basically dumped our stuff and ran out on our 'democratic' ally South Vietnam. And the slaughter of our boys - and thier boys, stopped. Not so much these days, our 'transparent' government hiding the gore from us. Good luck finding any pictures of the Bastion battle and the blown up jump jets and the blown up fueling stations and the dead Marines and dead Al Qaida sappers. Our new 'embedded reporters' are either in bed all the time, or more likely their media bosses in bed with the government. The failures at Benghazi are only making the news now because the government and US news media is forced into it by the Libyans and thier picture phones proving to us what really happened. If not for them, our government and our 'news' media would have been done with it all weeks ago, and all news back to Romney's taxes or Kim Kardasian's not so great ass. And the slaughter of our boys and thier boys continues in afghanistan - not on the news. I say the hell with the embedded reporters and back to the old days with real reporters keeping the government honest with their pictures of the daily gore that continues in afghanistan. In Iraq, at least the media reminded everyday of the body count. Not so much anymore. 25 this month, 261 this year - just the USA ones. Mostly just boys, if you were to see thier faces. No big deal. Back to your comedy channel news now everyone.
 
2012-09-29 08:08:26 PM  

Magorn: In korea, at least the early part, the NK AF was technically superior to ours as they had Russian made migs and we didn't have a jet fighter. The North Vietnamese Air Force was small but potent and a great number of legendary dogfights came form that war. After that? Not so Much, but mainly because manned, fixed wing aircraft, are, by and large obsolete and have been since the first Tomahawk missle was operational


Which is another reason why the F-35 barely makes sense, let alone enough sense to justify the tens of billions dumped into what is so far just three production planes, and the stupid fighting over all kinds of pet projects to trick them out like the engines that were finally canceled last year.

Drones are scary, but they're the future. Get over it, Air Force.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report