Navy SEALS slam Obama.

#76
#76
rjd970 said:
A third world country with no central military knocked down two Blackhawks in 1993 with simple RPGs. To imply the Pakistani military wasn't a real threat to cause another Blackhawks down type scenario with significant civilian casualties is dumb.

BHO has plenty of legitimate gripes to campaign against. This isn't one of them. He gets credit for the decision and the seals deserve the lions share for executing it. Any spiking the football nonsense is no different then what any other president would have done and those on the right only need to look back at GWB and his carrier landing silliness to see it.

Focusing on the economy, union alliances, and the healthcare disaster would be much more effective with the independents.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

But some on the right are just so obsessed with denying Obama's legitimacy that they will simply ignore all facts and just stomp their feet, like the 4 year olds they are emotionally, and insist he can never receive any credit.

For anything.

Ever.

No matter what.
 
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
You are correct.

But some on the right are just so obsessed with denying Obama's legitimacy that they will simply ignore all facts and just stomp their feet, like the 4 year olds they are emotionally, and insist he can never receive any credit.

For anything.

Ever.

No matter what.
Click to expand...

Just curious, what do you think GWB did right?
 
#78
#78
rjd970 said:
Just curious, what do you think GWB did right?
Click to expand...

I thought his initial reaction to 9/11 was outstanding. He did a great job the first 2-3 months after that in addressing the crisis created by it.

Iraq was a huge mistake.

I think economically he bought into trickle down and it blew up in his face.
 
#79
#79
rjd970 said:
A third world country with no central military knocked down two Blackhawks in 1993 with simple RPGs. To imply the Pakistani military wasn't a real threat to cause another Blackhawks down type scenario with significant civilian casualties is dumb.
Click to expand...

That is an ABSOLUTELY ridiculous comparison. That third world country was lying in wait for just such a scenario and those two Blackhawks entered into The Battle of Mogadishu. The trip to take out Bin Laden was a completely covert operation with no one expecting anything. It is laughable that you would even try to compare the two.
 
#80
#80
volfanbill said:
That is an ABSOLUTELY ridiculous comparison. That third world country was lying in wait for just such a scenario and those two Blackhawks entered into The Battle of Mogadishu. The trip to take out Bin Laden was a completely covert operation with no one expecting anything. It is laughable that you would even try to compare the two.
Click to expand...


His point was that they have the technical capability. High probability of it? I suppose not. But a risk that had to be considered and weighed.
 
#81
#81
rjd970 said:
A third world country with no central military knocked down two Blackhawks in 1993 with simple RPGs. To imply the Pakistani military wasn't a real threat to cause another Blackhawks down type scenario with significant civilian casualties is dumb.
Click to expand...

Those BlackHawks that went after Bin Laden were the most stealthed out BlackHawks to date, yet the commanders had such little fear for any ground threat that they still flew nap of the earth to get to UBL's compound in Abbottabad. There was nothing that the Pakistani Army was going to do to those helicopters.
 
Last edited:
#82
#82
lawgator1 said:
His point was that they have the technical capability. High probability of it? I suppose not. But a risk that had to be considered and weighed.
Click to expand...

I never said they didn't have it. I specifically said they did have it. I said they sure as he** weren't going to have them in Abbottabad or have time to do anything to the helicopter there. You already knew all of that, but are trying to save any face you can. I've got bad news LG. Everyone here lost respect for you eons ago. There's no point in trying to save yourself.
 
#83
#83
volfanbill said:
Those BlackHawks that went after Bin Laden were the most stealthed out BlackHawks to date, yet the commanders had such little fear for any ground threat that they still flew nap of the earth to get to UBL's compound in Abbottabad. There was nothing that the Pakistani Army was going to do to those helicopters.
Click to expand...

Who said it had to be on the way in? They were at the house for what, 30 minutes? Less than a couple kilometers from a military base? Even with a successful mission they still lost a bird to the unknown. There any number of unknowns that could have happened that would have made this a disaster and a military and political disaster for this administration. You don't want to admit it, but any way you slice it this was a gamble and a gutsy call.

Regardless, your insinuation that this was a sure thing is absurd. Flat out absurd.
 
#84
#84
volfanbill said:
I never said they didn't have it. I specifically said they did have it. I said they sure as he** weren't going to have them in Abbottabad or have time to do anything to the helicopter there. You already knew all of that, but are trying to save any face you can. I've got bad news LG. Everyone here lost respect for you eons ago. There's no point in trying to save yourself.
Click to expand...

The fact that it went as well as it did is a testament to the intel, operators, and technology. That said, saying there was zero risk from the Pakistani military is stupid.
 
#85
#85
Weezer said:
No disrespect to Admiral McRaven, but I seriously doubt it was his call to take out bin Laden. We're talking about invading an "allied" nation to carry out an assassination. That call comes from the President. Could he have recommended it? Yes, but it was still Obama's decision.

The SEALs are the true heroes. They put their lives on the line. The problem I have with these "arguements" is they do it out of loyalty and patriotism, not to be recognized. It's about "mission accomplished", not "look at us we're heroes".

I don't disagree with the assertion Romney wouldn't have made the same decision. The one thing Obama has done that I support is making this call. It took balls, IMO. I'm not sure anyone since Reagan would have made the same choice.

IMO, Obama deserves credit for making the decision, but the SEALs deserve credit(and much respect) for getting it done.

Back to Admiral McRaven, he's a soldier. Do you honestly believe he makes that decision without the approval of his CIC? No way. We've all seen the pictures of Obama and others watching the raid go down. As CIC, at any point he could have given the order to stand down. Did he? That is just a ludicrous assertion.
Click to expand...

It was not an assasination. Bin laden was an active TARGET. Any president with the info that the current guy that lives in the wh would have told st6 to proceed with the STANDING order to eliminate the threat. Its a pretty simple directive and in all honesty and i say this with first hand knowledge of the inner workings, st6 only needed authorization to BOARD the heli. The commander on the ground will give the order to kill, not capture. He was a threat now he's not. Good job navy seals. Obama can take credit for the really nice easter egg hunt this year.
 
#86
#86
volfanbill said:
i never said they didn't have it. I specifically said they did have it. I said they sure as he** weren't going to have them in abbottabad or have time to do anything to the helicopter there. You already knew all of that, but are trying to save any face you can. I've got bad news lg. everyone here lost respect for you eons ago. There's no point in trying to save yourself.
Click to expand...


g....s....m
 
#87
#87
mlodmkr said:
It was not an assasination. Bin laden was an active TARGET. Any president with the info that the current guy that lives in the wh would have told st6 to proceed with the STANDING order to eliminate the threat. Its a pretty simple directive and in all honesty and i say this with first hand knowledge of the inner workings, st6 only needed authorization to BOARD the heli. The commander on the ground will give the order to kill, not capture. He was a threat now he's not. Good job navy seals. Obama can take credit for the really nice easter egg hunt this year.
Click to expand...

The distinction between a targeted-kill and an assassination is a semantic distinction that only makes legal sense in the United States. Both targeted-kills and assassinations are prohibited in international law, as codified in the Geneva Convention.
 
#88
#88
therealUT said:
The distinction between a targeted-kill and an assassination is a semantic distinction that only makes legal sense in the United States. Both targeted-kills and assassinations are prohibited in international law, as codified in the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

Serious question.....if your statement is true then shouldn't BHO, or any other CIC that ordered this, be brought up on charges by the international community?
 
Last edited:
#89
#89
T-TownVol said:
Serious question.....if your statement is true then shouldn't BHO be brought up on charges by the international community?
Click to expand...

While the United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, they are have not signed on to the International Criminal Court. Moreover, other nations would have to desire to charge the POTUS with the assassination of bin Laden; yet, most nations, particularly in the West, are glad that bin Laden has been killed. However, if the POTUS were charged, the argument would be the same argument from the GWB administration; viz., bin Laden is an unlawful combatant so the Geneva Conventions do not apply. This (the notion of unlawful combatants) is a highly problematic and very contentious issue in international relations, as the Geneva Conventions have only two categories: combatants and non-combatants (there is no third "unlawful combatant" category, yet there are non-combatant criminals which cannot be assassinated but must be arrested, tried, and convicted).

I am simply stating that there is no distinction in international law between targeted-killing and assassination, and that both are prohibited.
 
#91
#91
volfanbill said:
I never said they didn't have it. I specifically said they did have it. I said they sure as he** weren't going to have them in Abbottabad or have time to do anything to the helicopter there. You already knew all of that, but are trying to save any face you can. I've got bad news LG. Everyone here lost respect for you eons ago. There's no point in trying to save yourself.
Click to expand...


Trying to save myself?

You are the moron who glibly asked what the Pakis could have done and applauded the "kick soccer balls" comment.

I can't decide whether you are really as dumb as your comments in this thread or if its just pure refusal to give Obama credit for anything that has you defending your original ridiculous assertion. Probably both.
 
#92
#92
the fact Dems are pushing for credit about OBL so hard speaks volumes to Obama's other "accomplishments"

the man is a failure and there's no need to continue this experiment any further
 
#93
#93
utvolpj said:
the fact Dems are pushing for credit about OBL so hard speaks volumes to Obama's other "accomplishments"

the man is a failure and there's no need to continue this experiment any further
Click to expand...

but....but....but......oh never mind
 
#94
#94
therealUT said:
The distinction between a targeted-kill and an assassination is a semantic distinction that only makes legal sense in the United States. Both targeted-kills and assassinations are prohibited in international law, as codified in the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

No it is not..only policy of our government prohibit assasination., not targeted threats. Study before post. The gc has nothing to do with this....and stop trying to use this "semantic distinction bull####.
 
#99
#99
T-TownVol said:
Dang......I bet that is some intel that the seals would have liked to have known......have you called that in yet
Click to expand...

I'd say we have a pretty good idea of their weapons since we probably gave it to them
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top