sherpa
-
Posts
3,659 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sherpa
-
-
17 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
The thing about war crimes is with few exceptions they're generally committed by the losers. After WW2 there were the Nuremberg trials of former Nazi officials and SS officers for assorted atrocities, murder, and crimes against humanity. Completely appropriate.
But, for example, no WW2 British or American civilian or military leaders were charged with the firebombing of Dresden, a target with no military value, in February 1945 which targeted a civilian population with casualty estimates as high as 250K deaths. The RAF sent 800 bombers on the night of 2/13/1945 followed up by a US air corps 210 bomber daytime raid on 2/15/1945.
History demonstrates you win the war, you write the story, you skate off free and clear.
This is absolutely true and the reason I went after Tibs when he first linked the use of cluster bombs with war crimes allegations.
Whoever wins does the prosecuting, and people judging have no real idea of the context of their use.
We have an all volunteer military, and we have cluster bombs.
Subjecting our aviators to possible war crimes for such deployment would be an unforgiveable mistake, unless they intentionally the used them beyond the bounds of rules of engagement.
If you are assigned a strike, target is given to you. You may influence the weapons load, but you certainly don't dig into the intel that was used to determine the target.
The strike leader would determine tactics, ie strike assets used, weapons, timing and attack headings, but would not be in a position to judge the target selection.
So, what you would potentially get is someone being charged with a war crime on a target determined by others.
Not a great situation, and not something we want to do.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, aristocrat said:
nice. Sending over munitions banned in much of the world cause they tend to kill civilians.
hand up if you’re down with war crimes!
The use of US sourced cluster munitions by military folks skilled in their use, and with strict ROE and follow up, is not a war crime.
Nor do they have high dud rates. The Russian's do.
No surprise there.
So while my hand is "not up" for war crimes, it is certainly up for deployment of these with the restrictions put in place by the US to a country that is willing to abide and use them on their own dirt.
I have no problem with using something that is absolutely necessary to move this catastrophic war to an end.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Tiberius said:
Why can't he be more like the patriot Hillary Clinton?
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/
Veterans, the Armed Forces, and their families
Note: This page is a reproduction of the Hillary for America policy proposal on veterans, the Armed Forces, and their families.
Hillary Clinton’s father, Hugh Rodham, was a chief petty officer at Naval Station Great Lakes during World War II. He instilled in Hillary at an early age the importance of supporting our men and women in uniform, as well as military families and veterans—and an empathy for the challenges that many servicemembers and veterans face.
Hillary believes that by supporting our veterans, we strengthen our military, our economy, and our country. She knows that we cannot separate supporting our veterans from our broader commitment to take care of our troops—soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen—and their families.
You have to be living in a separate universe.
Hillary was grossly disrespective of the military and even her Secret Service protectors.
They despised her.
She didn't want military to wear their uniforms in the White House, never conversed with them and generally treated them with disdain.
The Secret Service regarded assignment to her as punishment.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Who is unqualified?
This is just partisan hackery at its worse. Hurting military careers by using ugly partisan rhetoric to support the deliberate hurting of military personal's careers.
Absolute nonsense.
Nobody's career is being damaged.
And, again, the placing of people in positions they were unqualified for in order to get a quota has resulted in death.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
Proof?
Our military is the finest in the world and attempts like this to use "woke" garbage and race baiting to discredit our military is both disgusting and disingenuous. Tuberville is holding up these fine young men and women, who our defending our nation, for personal reasons.
I don't see any discredit of our military, and putting unqualified people in positions to get a quota has resulted in deaths.
It has been going on for years, and is not a positive.
Biden has his chance now, as the Secretary of Defense has nominated Admiral Paparo to Chief of Naval Operations, while the Beltway favorite is a female Admiral Franchetti.
Paparo would be a signal of China concern, as that is his wheelhouse.
By the way, his "personal reasons," as you term it is an issue with using military assets to transport military personnel for abortion procedures.
Further these appointments are senior positions, not "fine young men and women."
They are career officers at flag rank, and it will get done with no negative consequences.
-
On 7/2/2023 at 12:57 PM, reddogblitz said:
Any reason he could not have proposed and introduced a bill for this in any of the 50 years he was in the senate?
How about starting this tax nonsense with getting his own kid, you know, the one who pleaded guilty to tax evasion, to obey the
law.
Hunter could have been convicted of a lot more tax evasion, but the Justice Dept. didn't bother to prosecute some charges until the statue of limitations was exceeded.
Anybody from this tax criminal family moralizing on tax issues is pathetically hypocritical.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, reddogblitz said:
I don't trust President Biden to not send troops. We'll see but I am skeptical at the claims of "no boots on the ground".
The only path to US direct military involvement is if Russia does something that triggers a NATO response, and our participation would be part of a NATO action.
-
1 hour ago, reddogblitz said:
Yes and no. You may be right on having hard time determining their value due to depreciation etc.
But the bottom line is us taxpayers paid full price for them when we bought them.
This puts us one step closer to sending fighting troops over there.
I'm not sure what your point is by claiming it puts us one step closer.....
Sending end of life span munitions has nothing to do with troop deployment, unless there is something I am missing.
-
32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
I appreciate your insights on these weapons systems and previous experience with Russian tactics and weapons which enables you to understand and "see" the conflict from the perspective of the opponent. A valuable skill in many areas. I do have a few follow up questions if I may?
Short of tactical nukes, are there any weapons in the arsenal you would recommend being withheld for proprietary or other reasons like not wanting to risk the enemy capturing and reverse engineering it? Sure we said do whatever it takes but everything has constraints and risks.
Do you think the Russians are holding back anything? Advanced weopons or assets like special forces units?
What's your best case assessment for Ukraine? My rudimentary assessment is there's no path to victory, if that's defined as expelling Russia from all held territory, without a direct US/NATO combat commitment. That appears off the table, for now
Great question, and I am not an expert on the current battlefield situation. In my view, there has never been a conflict that has more BS put out by interested parties, so I really don't know what the current status on the ground is.
What I do know is how to win wars, using the US model, which really has worked without any realistic denial.
There are a couple of significant issues in this thing.
The Russians have significant problems. They are poorly equipped, poorly led and not committed to the end game.
The Ukrainians have other problems.
They are incapable of achieving air superiority. The status of Russian air defenses, and the Ukrainian air assets tilts to the Russians.
If the Ukrainians could achieve air superiority, this thing is over in a month.
Specifically to your question, there are weapons we have used that I'm certain have been exploited by other intel orgs.
Not good, but they probably had that info anyway.
What they don't have, re the US capability, is any knowledge of how we would use our assets. The F-35 and F-22, along with F-18 variants based on aircraft carriers and our jamming capability is not something they have seen, and would be decisive.
The US is extremely good at coordinating really good assets. Light years ahead of our NATO allies.
That is our unmatched strength; synergistic applications of existing systems.
Nobody spends more time at it and nobody is close to our capability.
More specifically to your question, I would never advocate the use of chemical or biological weapons.
Re-reading your thoughtful post there is really no "path to victory" for the Russians.
They will neve successfully occupy land in the Ukraine.
They have no system that the Ukrainians will buy into, and they are militarily impotent vis a vis additional land capture.
They are screwed, and its just a matter of time
-
1
-
-
By the way, regarding the cost of these munitions, the Administration, I'm sure on information from DOD, is claiming the cluster munitions are off the shelf supply approaching the end of their shelf life, so they either get used or taken out of inventory. Ergo, no real way to expense them accurately.
That is the case with a lot of what we have given them. The media reports the cost, but that's not really an accurate data point for the actual cost.
A lot of it has been stuff in our inventory, running out of lifespan.
HIMARS and shoulder mounted anti air missiles are the exception.
Raytheon has mentioned that issue publicly.
By the way, if you look at that picture I provided, notice the yellow bands on each weapon. That means they are real, live weapons.
The two yellow bands on the cluster bombs, Rockeye in this case, mean that is is a live weapon and that it has thermal protection inside to lengthen the "cook off" time before they'd explode in case of a fire on the flight deck.
The red things on the nose is the protective cover of the fuse, and would be removed by the ordies when on the catapult just prior to launce.
-
Just now, redtail hawk said:
Thank you for your service. I missed some dialogue. Are you against us sending cluster bombs or equipping Ukraine in general?
Nope. Not at all.
I'm for doing what it takes to get Russia out of Ukraine as fast as possible, using humanitarian means in an ugly war.
I fully support using cluster bombs against Russian military personnel and mechanized artillery inside the Ukraine and it should have been done months ago.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
I'm not familiar with the specifics of the rules of engagement but aren't civilian areas generally off limits regardless of the type of weapon?
Yes that is generally true among civilized nations.
Each country has its own rules for its own military.
Russia is out of control.
They have no control over what their own troops are doing, and certainly none regarding the Wagner group.
Cluster munitions are far less dangerous than mine fields. The bomblet "duds" are visible, as they lay on the ground, unburied, unlike land mines.
The US munitions have about a 2% dud rate compared with about a 30% rate for the Russian trash.
It would be far better if they were delivered by air, rather than artillery, as the accuracy is far better.
Given the significant capability of Russian air defense, that doesn't seem realistic, just now.
They are extremely effective and just what is needed.
If the Ukrainians want to use them and are willing to deal with the risk, on their own land, they should be able to make that decision.
5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:pls splain in nonmilitary jingo. Is this a US plane or Russian? If US, is it bad we match weapons?
It's me, aboard USS Kitty Hawk standing alert 15 in the Indian Ocean.
-
3
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
Yeah let's let Russia use whatever tf they want to use and limit what Ukraine can. On their own land. Winning recipe.
Here's the US response to using cluster bombs.
The cluster bombs are those fat bombs, three, one by his left ear and two at the outboard stations.
What he has his arm on is HARM, also discussed in this thread, and on his head is a Sidewinder heater with front quarter capability.
The other side of the airplane is similarly armed, so that's six clusters, two Sidewinders and two HARM missiles.
Standard alert 15 loadout at sea on a carrier. If there is time, and the threat is known to not require certain weapons, they would be downloaded, time permitting.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Biden's first press secretary.
She is specially responding to a question regarding the use of cluster bombs against civilians. Go to the 15 second mark of the link.
Cluster bombs in known civilian areas is clearly a war crime.
That is not the case now presented with the latest weapons promise to Ukraine. If they do deploy them against known civilian targets, it should be judged as a war crime.
On a side note, what a difference between this Press Sec. and the moron they are using now.
-
We would be foolish to sign any treaty that banned their use.
People who advocate such positions don't fight wars, don't deal with consequences of not fighting wars to your capacity with reasonable ROE to prevent inhumane acts, and don't understand the differnces between our munitions and the crap being used by the Russians and Ukranian's supply.
It is the product of faculty lounge viewpoints, folks who do a lot of talking but aren't actually involved.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:
Anything that cuts down the amount of time they have to spend breaching minefields and assaulting fortifications. Whenever Ukraine's been able to increase the tempo of their operations, Russia's come off the worse.
The only way they cut down the time to clear minefields is by suppressing enemy fire during the operation.
Clusters have no capability in clearing the field on their own.
One potential benefit is in regards to Russian troop morale. It it's as bad as reported, the use of cluster munitions is going to impact that greatly.
In the past, the US has used the news media to hint at their use by allowing CNN in particular to interview somebody for the sole purpose of seeing cluster munitions loaded on attack aircraft in the background.
While front line Russian troops have no access to media, if their countrymen see it on TV, I'm sure they'll let them know.
Either way, if the weapons are deployed, they will have no doubt.
These are extremely effective anti personnel devices.
-
1 hour ago, Coffeesforclosers said:
Generally, I'm for giving the Ukrainians whatever they ask for, in whatever quantities we can spare. They seem to have a very good grasp on what capabilities they need, and also what capabilities they need to maintain.
If Clusters bombs are it, by all means.
Not without restrictions in this case, but it's the perfect solution to what they are facing.
-
1
-
-
I'll go out on a limb and risk condemnation, but I'd fully support the use of US quality cluster munitions against the Russian forces, with significant and strict rules of engagement.
Perfect weapon for the current battle situation, and the risk can be significantly mitigated.
-
13 hours ago, redtail hawk said:
a renaissance man excepting the slavery part....too old to champion? Could you imagine how much greater his legacy would be if he had?
He could have, because the end of it was his preference, but at the time it was discussed he was deeply involved in Monticello operations, which had been neglected to some extent during his long public service absences, and founding the University of Virginia, which took up all his time, and he was quite old then.
One of the other views he had, and expressed in conversation to Madison who authored the Constitution, was that his only concern was the potential for a runaway judiciary.
Two hundred and fifty years later we see that battle over the import of Supreme Court Justice appointments.
-
12 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
Jefferson also thought about the Islam conundrum with the American experience.
A dreamer that couldn't handle his finances. Sounds like a certain group today.
He was much more than a dreamer, though I get the point.
He was an accomplished inventor and the individual who introduced European grapes into the US, an industry that has exploded, though he never harvested a single wine grape.
He had a lot stacked against him re finances. No doubt his operation would have thrived had he not spent so much time away from Monticello as Minister to France, Vice President and President.
With the loss of his wife at such a young age the operation suffered in his absence, and some people he lent significant amounts of money to did not pay the debts.
-
30 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
And slave owner...
Who acknowledged its evil, wrote that into the Declaration's original draft, (that part was redacted to appease some Southern states so the Declaration would be unanimous-not his choice), and in later years predicted accurately that it would eventually tear the country apart, some fifty years before the Civil War, and when asked to champion its abolition, said that while he agreed with the goal, he was too old to do much good.
From John F. Kennedy addressing a dinner including the Nobel winners of the Western Hemisphere:
"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Someone once said that Thomas Jefferson was a gentleman of 32 who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, and dance the minuet."
-
25 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
Because industry makes people billionaires and millionaires. Being a civil servant doesn't pay that well. A public servant is paid more egalitarian. This lowly lock operator makes more than 1/2 a US Senator makes! 😆
Anyway, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, & Monroe were land owning elites which at the time were the only one's allowed to vote. Jefferson left in debt.
Politics makes people quite wealthy as well, though they may not start out that way.
There are scores of extremely talented people in the private sector who are not billionaires.
Jefferson died in debt because of a bad loans to friends and family, the panic of 1819, spending so much time away from Monticello in public service, which was not his choice.
His estate became a huge financial burden, and living a bit beyond his means at the wrong time.
An absolutely brilliant jurist, scientist, inventor, astronomer, political scientist and farmer.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Mark Vader said:
Thank you to the founding fathers of this country.
I'll say it again, they were by no means, perfect men. Yet that does not take away the vision they had for the country they wanted to live in.
During the Revolution times we had roughly one million here, and we came up with Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.
Now we have 335+ million and we've got..............
Our most skilled people are in industry, and we have plenty. Certainly not politics.
-
1
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, reddogblitz said:
We were supposed to return Tuesday, but due to cancellations/delays due to weather and FAA staff shortages we couldn't get a flight back til SUNDAY.
Most of the other guests that flew in had trouble getting out and home with several stranded over night or longer.
The FAA is a mess on many levels.
The Administration/Secretary of Transportation's nominee for FAA Administrator withdrew from consideration after being exposed as completely unqualified during Senate hearings this year. Even Dems on the committee were not going to vote for confirmation, so rather than continue the process he simply withdrew.
The FAA has not had an Administrator to run it since spring 2022.
Quite an operation DOT is.
-
1
-
1
-
Karine Jean-Pierre
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
You have forgotten that she is a "historic figure.
“I’m a historic figure and I certainly walk in history every day,”
As someone else said, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Karine Jean-Pierre.
At least she got further than the incredibly unqualified Biden Administration nominee for FAA Administrator, who never made through Senate confirmation hearings.