Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't
matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours
sucks.


Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that very
clear.

Eisboch
Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our current
top political leadership in the White House sucks.
Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks.
Oh, wait. You *did*.

Eisboch

Our intel does suck. It sucks because for the last eight years we have
been depending upon do-dads and torture instead of highly trained,
multi-lingual assets.
How about a big round of suck for Congress as long as you are in a sucky
mood.

Fear not...in January, the plans begin to wind down our era of stupidity
in Iraq.


I will make this prediction:

Obama will withdraw us from Iraq on the same time line and schedule that the
Bush administration has already established.

Like under Bush, it will be based on the recommendations of military
commanders on the ground and foreign policy experts. There may be a big
deal made of bringing home a few thousand troops at a time to give the
appearance of honoring his campaign commitment, but for all intents and
purposes it will still be the existing withdrawal plan.

If Obama tries to play General, overrules his advisors, pulls out too
quickly and any stability that has been accomplished in Iraq dissolves, he
will have his first major foreign policy blunder.

Eisboch





Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our
departure, whenever that is.

Boater wrote:
...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali
pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century
our military forces are.



The INS's rules of engagement allow the to sink vessels who raise a
weapon in a threatening manner towards a man of war on the high seas.
You would cry, whine and complain if an F/A-18 put a couple of 500
pounders on a "peaceful fishing boat" or a 5-inch gun was permitted to
do some range and elevation practice.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:31:40 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:49:00 GMT, Steve wrote:




What will probably end up happening to solve the problem is that
either the shipping companies will tell all their captains to give
that area a much wider berth or they'll start hiring security forces
to protect the ships and not make them such easy targets. A 24 hour
watch with a few mounted and armored .50 cal machine guns will ruin
the day of those pirates in their speedboats.

When you're hauling $100,000,000 in cargo, the cost of a few extra
crew and some machine guns is irrelevant and is probably cheaper than
going around the area.

Think they're going to need more than .50's.
These Somali idiots are pretty well armed, and nutso.
They could have blasted that oil tanker with RPG rounds at the least.
And like I said, they're nuts.
It's going to take some serious killing of Somali pirates before it
stops. Probably land bombing/missile strikes.
There will be collateral damage.

They're looking for easy targets. If you're a bunch of pirates in a
little speedboat coming up to a tanker the size of an aircraft carrier
and while you're thinking of having to climb up a hundred foot rope
ladder there are guys on deck a hundred feet above you manning a few
mounted armored .50's and raining rounds into your boat while you're
still a mile out, you're gonna turn around real quick.

They weren't carrying anything to counter that. RPGs don't have
enough range. The rocket dies after only around 500m and they are
designed to self explode after less than 1000m of flight. An M2 .50
cal machine gun has an effective range (good enough to disable or sink
the speedboat) of twice that and a max range (good enough to let the
pirates know they are under fire) of over 4 miles.

And a huge freighter/tanker makes a great stable gun platform. A fast
moving speedboat does not.

Steve

Boater wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:35:52 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

...the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali
pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st
Century our military forces are.
That statement is just plain stupid, that's all.

Did you ever notice that on the one hand, Harry is all up in arms
about "boys with their toys" everytime we bring up some new nifty
piece of military hardware, but on the other hand, the military is a
bunch of incompetants because they can't keep pirates, in
international waters, from capturing other country's flag vessels
because they can't get new, low draft, high speed interdiction ships
built because the money has to go to saving UAW jobs or welfare
mothers.

It's perfect liberal thinking.


You need low draft vessels hundreds of miles off the coast, eh? Lower
draft than, say, the full tanker that was captured?

The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It doesn't
matter what hardware toys you have so long as your intel sucks. Ours sucks.


Elint isn't as good as humint. We need more humint. Get The Obama and
the Democrat Congress to fix our lack of humint at the CIA.

"Boater" wrote in message
...


Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our
departure, whenever that is.

Doesn't that contradict your earlier position that the US military presense
isn't required and the Iraiqs can police themselves?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our
departure, whenever that is.

Doesn't that contradict your earlier position that the US military presense
isn't required and the Iraiqs can police themselves?

Eisboch


Not at all. Iraq isn't stable. I said "what passes for stability." As
soon as we leave, and we will, Iraq will become Iraq again.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:35:10 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our
departure, whenever that is.

Doesn't that contradict your earlier position that the US military presense
isn't required and the Iraiqs can police themselves?

Eisboch


Not at all. Iraq isn't stable. I said "what passes for stability." As
soon as we leave, and we will, Iraq will become Iraq again.

There's an answer for that. Something about 100 years.

--Vic

Boater wrote:
....the world's mightiest navy, the US Navy, can't handle the Somali
pirates. It's yet another example of how unprepared for the 21st Century
our military forces are.


The Saudis can handle it if they choose to. There is no need for US
involvement, WAFA. You should know that.

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Jim wrote:
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

The military hardware that would impress me is "intel." It
doesn't matter what hardware toys you have so long as your
intel sucks. Ours sucks.


Everything to do with America sucks to you. You've made that
very clear.

Eisboch
Absolutely, completely wrong. The country is great...but our
current top political leadership in the White House sucks.
Oh. Sorry. I thought you just said our intel sucks.
Oh, wait. You *did*.

Eisboch

Our intel does suck. It sucks because for the last eight years we
have been depending upon do-dads and torture instead of highly
trained, multi-lingual assets.
How about a big round of suck for Congress as long as you are in a
sucky mood.

Fear not...in January, the plans begin to wind down our era of
stupidity in Iraq.


I will make this prediction:

Obama will withdraw us from Iraq on the same time line and schedule
that the Bush administration has already established.

Like under Bush, it will be based on the recommendations of military
commanders on the ground and foreign policy experts. There may be a
big deal made of bringing home a few thousand troops at a time to give
the appearance of honoring his campaign commitment, but for all
intents and purposes it will still be the existing withdrawal plan.

If Obama tries to play General, overrules his advisors, pulls out too
quickly and any stability that has been accomplished in Iraq
dissolves, he will have his first major foreign policy blunder.

Eisboch





Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our
departure, whenever that is.

Now there's a generic statement. Thanks for sharing your amazing insight!

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever passes for stability in Iraq will end immediately upon our
departure, whenever that is.

Doesn't that contradict your earlier position that the US military presense
isn't required and the Iraiqs can police themselves?

Eisboch



Cue the crickets....

WAFA won't be able to spin that one.