And do you know whose fault that is? :dubious: Why aren’t tankers loitering at fixed positions across the world every minute of the day, like flying Sunoco stations? They have the fuel for it.
Grin! And why aren’t tank units patrolling the plains of Colorado, right now, ready to fight off surprise Cuban paratroopers, the kind seen in Red Dawn. Why, a group of teenagers could do a better job!
I work at or keep planes at dual use airports. I watch them launch all the time. Would you like to guess what aircraft I’ve watched all these years from the ramps in front of me? F-16’s and KC-135’s (with the CFM engines). I’ve loaded everything from B-18’s to 747-8’s. If we were talking about stealth bombers then yes, they’re hanger queens that require special attention.
It’s an amazingly uncomplicated process. I never suggested anything spectacular or a launch at a moment’s notice akin to an old SAC base with people sitting 100 feet away in a bunker. Normal launch of an airplane as if someone has to call the pilots, mechanics and fuelers out to the field. Believe it or not they don’t mothball airplanes every time they park for the day.
So when you get tired of the same rant about how hard it is to launch a plane consider it’s the same process needed to launch the OTHER aircraft that were called up which as I noted were FARTHER away. It’s not that the F-16 was considered and rejected having discovered a problem, they were simply rejected.
Unless you consider going against material facts, laws of physics and facing diplomatic complications/unknowns, yeah, easy peasy.
I’m out. No point in making further arguments since you demonstrably are committed to sitting on your mountain of self-delusion and willful ignorance and repeating the same nonsense over and over despite multiple cites and expert opinions to the contrary.
Have a fun jerk-off.
In other words, a Republican.
there are no material facts listed in the report. No mention of any problems involved in launching the planes. It’s as easy peasy as any of the other operations they launched but you don’t seem to grasp that. You’re leaving because you can’t justify a decision based on a timeline that wasn’t known at the time.
yes because I praised Obama and somehow the military just became a wing of the Democratic party. :rolleyes:
Which raises the suspicion that you only praise Obama to make Hillary look worse. But he’s the decider. The Secretary of State advises, the President decides. Hillary did not make a decision to overrule Obama, unless you have evidence otherwise. Most especially, she did not overrule the Commander in Chief as to the policy on military intervention. If she disagreed with his policy, she had the two choices of resign or STFU.
Even more so, she would not be in a position to countermand his orders or supercede them with her own preferences. Whatever decision on military action was made or not made, she didn’t make it. Not being the President, you see. She does not tell anyone in uniform to go anywhere and do anything. She can tell an ambassador to go shit in his hat, but she cannot tell the lowliest grunt who to shoot, when, where, or how. By the same token, she cannot tell anyone to “stand down”.
Now, perhaps she did disagree, but she didn’t tell me, and she sure as shit didn’t tell you either.
Actually, it was explained.
You know, the report actually says nothing if you refuse to actually read it.
How much ordnance have you loaded? How many of these flights were going into areas where other jets have been shot down in the recent past?
You keep writing that the aircraft’s range had nothing to do with not launching F-16s, that it was all about time, when the time needed was to arrange for tankers so the F-16s would have the needed range to reach Benghazi carrying something other than a 20mm cannon. Time and range aren’t mutually exclusive here. Getting a weaponless F-16 into the area accomplishes jack squat.
No, but the evacuation aircraft wasn’t loitering over the city looking for targets, either, and it was obviously necessary to evacuate the survivors. An F-16 was not necessary.
Hey, now, I’m a Republican. Nothing about voting R means you have to believe nonsense, in the face of two thorough Congressional reports.
Fine. I was in the Navy.
“Someone has to call the pilots, mechanics and fuelers out to the field” – there, a single and reasonable point of failure. They wouldn’t all be on duty at the same time, most likely, during peacetime. Calling them all back to the field might involve getting a hold of dozens of people scattered about Italy (or wherever), which might take hours by itself.
What do you mean? An African or European F-16?
Magiver’s “it’s easy to launch fighter planes into battle, because I worked at some shitty airport” argument is like a guy who works at AVIS demanding that you can gather an off duty Formula One team, prep the vehicle and get ready to race in 45 minutes. After all, they can vacuum and wash the Jetta and get it ready for the next renter in minutes. Same thing, right?
Dunning-Kruger, I’d say.
No, tiger. I’m leaving because you’re an obstinate donkey who ignores or handwaves contrary expert opinions, inconvenient facts ; the better to reassert the nonsense that had been dealt away with by those facts and opinions. Because, in other words, you seem committed to (not to mention politically invested in) perpetuating your own ignorance rather than questioning your assumptions when they are challenged - the most basic cognitive function required for learning anything.
So, while I like pounding my own testicles with nail-covered kerbstones as much as the next guy, I’m not in the mood.
All right everyone, keep it under control.
While I’m here, can anyone think of even one reason to keep this thing open? Because I’m thinking a mercy killing is indicated.
If that’s a motion for a mercy killing, I second.
All in favor? (raises hand)
Can we strafe it with F-16s?
The SDMB has F-16s? Can I be on the Target Selection Committee? I’ve got a list…
…They never will be missed.
Nor will this thread.