On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:06:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:31:58 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:53:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:11:24 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:29:44 -0500, wrote:


By June 1993, only 1200 U.S. troops remained in Somalia,

Not enough to take on any real operation in Mogadishu if they sent
them all.

I guess you didn't even bother to read the article.

"President Clinton supported the U.N. mandate and ordered the number
of U.S. troops in Somalia reduced, to be replaced by U.N. troops."

It sure is convenient when you don't actually include the quote.

No I saw it but as a general rule UN troops are a joke. US and UK
troops do most of the fighting.

So, then what was Clinton supposed to do. Yet again, it was a Bush
conflict that a Democrat inherited.

It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.


If we did anything on the ground in Somalia we should send 100,000 at
least and we are not going to do that, hence my idea of just going
after the pirates by profiling every boat in that area, identifying
the likely pirates and engaging them at sea where we can win.
Let a few hundred profilers do their job in the US instead of being
IED targets in Somalia.

Really? This from a non-interventionalist like you? I thought you
didn't want to send troops into another senseless war.

What does a naval action have to do with "troops". I have been talking
about largely unmanned aircraft.

So, you want to bomb them? I thought you were against that sort of
thing.

I don't want to bomb women and children but I have no problem sinking
boats that have the profile of a pirate, particularly if they are
engaged in an attack.

I don't think anyone does. What's your point?


This is a seaborne problem and it should be handled at sea where it is
easier to sort out the good guys and bad guys.

Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.


BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.

And, certainly we shouldn't coordinate with them! ??

I agree we should be sharing intelligence and I would rather a NATO
asset kills the pirate than a US asset.

You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

Reagan was not a hateful person, and I don't hate him. He made some
major mistakes and isn't the god some people think he was.

Which we mostly no longer need much of it.

A carrier or two off the coast of Africa would certainly help our
capabilities there though wouldn't it?

I believe we have a dozen carriers. Do we need all of them?


The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

So, they're slow to respond, but we need them.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

Sure.. and we're supposed to just attack fishing boats we THINK are
involved. No surface id required.

Not really if they effectively profile the mother ships and loiter the
predator when we see them shadowing a target.

Sounds fine.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:06:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:31:58 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:53:49 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:11:24 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:29:44 -0500, wrote:


By June 1993, only 1200 U.S. troops remained in Somalia,

Not enough to take on any real operation in Mogadishu if they sent
them all.

I guess you didn't even bother to read the article.

"President Clinton supported the U.N. mandate and ordered the number
of U.S. troops in Somalia reduced, to be replaced by U.N. troops."

It sure is convenient when you don't actually include the quote.

No I saw it but as a general rule UN troops are a joke. US and UK
troops do most of the fighting.

So, then what was Clinton supposed to do. Yet again, it was a Bush
conflict that a Democrat inherited.

It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.


If we did anything on the ground in Somalia we should send 100,000 at
least and we are not going to do that, hence my idea of just going
after the pirates by profiling every boat in that area, identifying
the likely pirates and engaging them at sea where we can win.
Let a few hundred profilers do their job in the US instead of being
IED targets in Somalia.

Really? This from a non-interventionalist like you? I thought you
didn't want to send troops into another senseless war.

What does a naval action have to do with "troops". I have been talking
about largely unmanned aircraft.

So, you want to bomb them? I thought you were against that sort of
thing.

I don't want to bomb women and children but I have no problem sinking
boats that have the profile of a pirate, particularly if they are
engaged in an attack.

I don't think anyone does. What's your point?


This is a seaborne problem and it should be handled at sea where it is
easier to sort out the good guys and bad guys.

Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.


BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.

And, certainly we shouldn't coordinate with them! ??

I agree we should be sharing intelligence and I would rather a NATO
asset kills the pirate than a US asset.

You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

Reagan was not a hateful person, and I don't hate him. He made some
major mistakes and isn't the god some people think he was.

Which we mostly no longer need much of it.

A carrier or two off the coast of Africa would certainly help our
capabilities there though wouldn't it?

I believe we have a dozen carriers. Do we need all of them?


The real problem with these surface assets is they are slow to respond
if there is a lot of distance involved. That is why you need to find
the pirates, track them and be there when their course and a likely
target ship course meets.

So, they're slow to respond, but we need them.

Predator drones and a Global Hawk are probably the right tools. We are
the only ones who have them.

Sure.. and we're supposed to just attack fishing boats we THINK are
involved. No surface id required.

Not really if they effectively profile the mother ships and loiter the
predator when we see them shadowing a target.

Sounds fine.

Right from the start, your post is ridiculous. Who invaded anybody
without an exit plan? Just because you don't like the plan, or it didn't
work doesn't mean nobody had one. The exit plan was as usual with the
US. Win the war, rebuild and return the country to the people.. It's
what we do, this time it hasn't worked yet. To say "no exit plan" is a
lie, and a question premised by that is best ignored and at worst,
ignorant...

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 21:53:47 -0500, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

Right from the start, your post is ridiculous. Who invaded anybody
without an exit plan? Just because you don't like the plan, or it didn't
work doesn't mean nobody had one. The exit plan was as usual with the
US. Win the war, rebuild and return the country to the people.. It's
what we do, this time it hasn't worked yet. To say "no exit plan" is a
lie, and a question premised by that is best ignored and at worst,
ignorant...

Actually the only time we have done this in our history was Grenada.
We are still in every country that we "won" a war in.

Americans are in every country in the world. I am talking about giving
control back to the them, which we eventually do.. Every time...

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:49:47 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:31:30 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:06:24 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:31:58 -0800, wrote:


"President Clinton supported the U.N. mandate and ordered the number
of U.S. troops in Somalia reduced, to be replaced by U.N. troops."

It sure is convenient when you don't actually include the quote.

No I saw it but as a general rule UN troops are a joke. US and UK
troops do most of the fighting.

So, then what was Clinton supposed to do. Yet again, it was a Bush
conflict that a Democrat inherited.

It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.

That is the problem with a draw down in an unconquered country.
The people you leave behind increasingly just become targets. That is
why 362 GIs died in Vietnam after the war was "over".
No more died after we simply got the hell out.

So, Reagan screwed up in Lebanon. Then he turned tail and ran.




If we did anything on the ground in Somalia we should send 100,000 at
least and we are not going to do that, hence my idea of just going
after the pirates by profiling every boat in that area, identifying
the likely pirates and engaging them at sea where we can win.
Let a few hundred profilers do their job in the US instead of being
IED targets in Somalia.

Really? This from a non-interventionalist like you? I thought you
didn't want to send troops into another senseless war.

What does a naval action have to do with "troops". I have been talking
about largely unmanned aircraft.

So, you want to bomb them? I thought you were against that sort of
thing.

I don't want to bomb women and children but I have no problem sinking
boats that have the profile of a pirate, particularly if they are
engaged in an attack.

I don't think anyone does. What's your point?

I am only responding to what you say.

Actually, you weren't.



This is a seaborne problem and it should be handled at sea where it is
easier to sort out the good guys and bad guys.

Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.

Let's see, Half of the attacks on the US came from the horn of Africa
and we are spending 100% of our effort in Afghanistan, What is wrong
with this picture?
I suppose we can wait for a devastating attack before we do anything.
That does seem to be our habit.

I guess you forgot about 9/11. By your logic, we should have invaded
Yemen.


BUT
The other navies (with the possible exception of the Russians) are
nothing compared to us. They don't have theater surveillance
capability, their air support is limited to land bases for the most
part and they are usually using weapons we gave them because they were
obsolete.

And, certainly we shouldn't coordinate with them! ??

I agree we should be sharing intelligence and I would rather a NATO
asset kills the pirate than a US asset.

You can hate Reagan but he built us a heluva navy.

Reagan was not a hateful person, and I don't hate him. He made some
major mistakes and isn't the god some people think he was.

Which we mostly no longer need much of it.

A carrier or two off the coast of Africa would certainly help our
capabilities there though wouldn't it?

I believe we have a dozen carriers. Do we need all of them?

Probably not.

We could certainly use smaller carriers if we are just doing something
like this pirate thing or enforcing no fly zones,

On 28/02/2011 9:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:


And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...

Obama will not go after Black Muslims.

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:46:37 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:23:24 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:49:47 -0500, wrote:


It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.

That is the problem with a draw down in an unconquered country.
The people you leave behind increasingly just become targets. That is
why 362 GIs died in Vietnam after the war was "over".
No more died after we simply got the hell out.

So, Reagan screwed up in Lebanon. Then he turned tail and ran.

Is that another false equivalency?
... and yes he did screw up but at least he got out

You're claiming that there is no equivalency between Reagan's screw up
and your claim that Clinton didn't draw down the troops in Somalia
fast enough? Didn't Clinton "get out"? How many died in comparison?

Stop making stuff up and start using your brain.




This is a seaborne problem and it should be handled at sea where it is
easier to sort out the good guys and bad guys.

Now you're claiming that all the navies in the area are incompetent?
Wow, you're some kind of expert!!

Who said anyone was incompetent. I said we should engage the pirates
at sea,, not invading Somalia.

And, we're not doing that? I believe we are. What exactly are you
proposing that's different? How many resources should we throw at it
until you're satisfied?

As much as we are in Afghanistan chasing goat herders.

Which never happened, but keep saying it. Maybe it'll become true
eventually.

Let's see, Half of the attacks on the US came from the horn of Africa
and we are spending 100% of our effort in Afghanistan, What is wrong
with this picture?
I suppose we can wait for a devastating attack before we do anything.
That does seem to be our habit.

I guess you forgot about 9/11. By your logic, we should have invaded
Yemen.

We should not have invaded anyone.

BTW were you talking about the Cole?


Sure... just let them go. No harm no foul.

Yes, the Cole. Clinton should have gone after OBL. Bush sat on his
hands in Crawford then went to Florida and read My Pet Goat until we
were attacked. Then he sat there like a bump for 7 minutes. He didn't
even know if it was a nuclear attack or what. He just sat there
looking stupid.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:23:24 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 28/02/2011 9:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:


And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...

Obama will not go after Black Muslims.

You're an offensive, racist idiot, which is about the worst
combination available. Thank GOD you can't get into this country.

On 3/2/2011 1:10 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:23:24 -0700,
wrote:

On 28/02/2011 9:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:

And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...
Obama will not go after Black Muslims.
You're an offensive, racist idiot, which is about the worst
combination available. Thank GOD you can't get into this country.
There is some truth to what he said. If it isn't aparent to you yet, it
will be. Obama is a racist.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:10:23 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:23:24 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 28/02/2011 9:02 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:


And this boat has three children. It's time for this to stop. The Navy
needs to storm this boat. If the innocents are killed they need to
identify the pirates, which town they are from in Somali, and eliminate
it. I guarantee you do this a couple of times, and the Somalis
themselves will put a stop to it...

Obama will not go after Black Muslims.

You're an offensive, racist idiot, which is about the worst
combination available. Thank GOD you can't get into this country.

Wow, the truth comes out. Canuck confirms our suspicions.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:07:34 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:09:11 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:46:37 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:23:24 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:49:47 -0500, wrote:


It was a Bush conflict that was responded by 25,000 troops. The
problem was the slow withdrawal. When the Somalia realized we didn't
have enough people there to effectively engage them they attacked.

So because a Republican president decided to invade a country without
an exist plan, and a Democrat president tried to actually draw down
the forces and hand off to NATO, it's the Democrat's fault.

That is the problem with a draw down in an unconquered country.
The people you leave behind increasingly just become targets. That is
why 362 GIs died in Vietnam after the war was "over".
No more died after we simply got the hell out.

So, Reagan screwed up in Lebanon. Then he turned tail and ran.

Is that another false equivalency?
... and yes he did screw up but at least he got out

You're claiming that there is no equivalency between Reagan's screw up
and your claim that Clinton didn't draw down the troops in Somalia
fast enough? Didn't Clinton "get out"? How many died in comparison?


There is a significant difference between sending men into an active
fire fight without adequate support and guys killed while they were
sleeping by a suicide truck bomber.

Yes, but there's not much difference in lack of planning. Reagan
didn't support our troops there and left immediately after. Clinton
didn't support the troops there and left immediately after.




Let's see, Half of the attacks on the US came from the horn of Africa
and we are spending 100% of our effort in Afghanistan, What is wrong
with this picture?
I suppose we can wait for a devastating attack before we do anything.
That does seem to be our habit.

I guess you forgot about 9/11. By your logic, we should have invaded
Yemen.

We should not have invaded anyone.

BTW were you talking about the Cole?


Sure... just let them go. No harm no foul.

Yes, the Cole. Clinton should have gone after OBL.

There you have it.


Except that he wanted to give the Bush administration the ability to
act vs. tying their hands. Read up.