quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

The AC130s along with most high level reconnaissance assets are based here with some exceptions. The AC130s tend to have some fairly advanced tech on board. During Vietnam, if we lost one, the wreckage would be bombed to reduce risk of capture of the technology. At the time, we could track vehicles through the radio emissions of the spark plugs at night. I assume today we are a bit past that.

The reasons for basing them here is they are a very specialized aircraft and it is easier to deal with logistics and security. They get deployed overseas but not based. The SR71s flew out of my backyard, at Beale AFB just north of Sacramento.

Mike, why werent they in Benghazi? You guys just standing around over there, or was Gov. Jerry Brown told to stand down? What are you hiding?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

If I was in charge of the air force, we wouldn't have one, give ground attack to the army/marines, give air superiority to the navy, and well, okay, let the air force have some bombers, they are handy for threatening the neighbors.

South Korea would be home to upgraded A10s with modern avionics, something the AF fought to the point of mothballing the best damn aircraft they have. It would keep the army from having to develop overly expensive helicopters to do what the idiotic Air Force refuses to do. Ground attack F16 & F15s are a JOKE. I would bring back armed OV10 Broncos for the Army too, cheap, competent, survivable. And lots and lots of drones. There is real irony with the words "air force" and drones...

Google Davis Monthan AFB and check out all the aircraft. Most are not "mothballed" which are the one with white plastic covering the engine nacelles and cockpits. Notice how there are OLD aircraft in complete condition, note the A10s, most are way beyond hanger queens, the AF is actively destroying them, they hated being forced to buy them, put them into reserve, were forced to bring them out twice and are not going to let that happen again.

I would be there isn't a single "mothballed" AC130, just standard early model cargo versions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

The AC130s along with most high level reconnaissance assets are based here with some exceptions. The AC130s tend to have some fairly advanced tech on board. During Vietnam, if we lost one, the wreckage would be bombed to reduce risk of capture of the technology. At the time, we could track vehicles through the radio emissions of the spark plugs at night. I assume today we are a bit past that.

The reasons for basing them here is they are a very specialized aircraft and it is easier to deal with logistics and security. They get deployed overseas but not based. The SR71s flew out of my backyard, at Beale AFB just north of Sacramento.

Mike, why werent they in Benghazi? You guys just standing around over there, or was Gov. Jerry Brown told to stand down? What are you hiding?

We are hiding the fact that Jerry Brown is a fiscal conservative...hasn't wanted to push the debt can down the road like republicans and has forced cuts. First high level candidate I wanted who actually got into office. In a really fucked up time, he has done a fair bit to put the state back on the right track.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
My understanding is that the closest available ac-130 was in Djibouti, 4 hours away plus ready time and fueling time.

Everybody is still fucking dead on that one.

I thought the Marines operated some that were based out of Sigonella but on further research it appears those were USAF that were assigned there temporarily during the Libyan civil war.

All the AC-130 squadrons are based in the US and I cannot find any indication any planes were anywhere near Benghazi on 9/11/12. So that is another flight of fancy shot to pieces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Had it been in Benghazi, it might have done something. Thats another thing it can't be is two places at once.

Then we gotta work thru relativity and those issues. It cannot be in another place instantly, light takes time to travel.

Duh
with all the warnings they had why wasn't one closer
except for the administrations mindset that terrorism couldn't happen again, this refusal to accept reality kept them from properly securing the post and led to the stupid lies they told afterward

There were a bunch of vague rumblings. We could not possibly have had an AC-130 over every embassy and consulate that might be attacked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

ONLY IN FUCKING HINDSIGHT, I CAN JUST HEAR THE ASSHATS ON FOX BITCHING ABOUT WHY WE WASTED MARINES IN BEHNGAZI INSTEAD OF PARIS...

So, i am firmly back to this being a silly tempest in a teapot for crackpots.

The bad guys win once in a while, and if this is your level of concern, I assume you will now recognize how much better a record dems have than republicans any way you stack it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
My understanding is that the closest available ac-130 was in Djibouti, 4 hours away plus ready time and fueling time.

Everybody is still fucking dead on that one.

I thought the Marines operated some that were based out of Sigonella but on further research it appears those were USAF that were assigned there temporarily during the Libyan civil war.

All the AC-130 squadrons are based in the US and I cannot find any indication any planes were anywhere near Benghazi on 9/11/12. So that is another flight of fancy shot to pieces.

It wasn't me that said AC-130's were based there, it was you post 153, you created this then you call it a flight of fancy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
My understanding is that the closest available ac-130 was in Djibouti, 4 hours away plus ready time and fueling time.

Everybody is still fucking dead on that one.

I thought the Marines operated some that were based out of Sigonella but on further research it appears those were USAF that were assigned there temporarily during the Libyan civil war.

All the AC-130 squadrons are based in the US and I cannot find any indication any planes were anywhere near Benghazi on 9/11/12. So that is another flight of fancy shot to pieces.

It wasn't me that said AC-130's were based there, it was you post 153, you created this then you call it a flight of fancy.

And I admitted my error. Get over it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Had it been in Benghazi, it might have done something. Thats another thing it can't be is two places at once.

Then we gotta work thru relativity and those issues. It cannot be in another place instantly, light takes time to travel.

Duh
with all the warnings they had why wasn't one closer
except for the administrations mindset that terrorism couldn't happen again, this refusal to accept reality kept them from properly securing the post and led to the stupid lies they told afterward

There were a bunch of vague rumblings. We could not possibly have had an AC-130 over every embassy and consulate that might be attacked.

No but we could have seen that a carrier was in the Med

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

We still have an administration which was warned of problems, refused to take precautions, then persisted in promoting a stupid baseless lie and smeared anyone who questioned the lie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

ONLY IN FUCKING HINDSIGHT, I CAN JUST HEAR THE ASSHATS ON FOX BITCHING ABOUT WHY WE WASTED MARINES IN BEHNGAZI INSTEAD OF PARIS...

So, i am firmly back to this being a silly tempest in a teapot for crackpots.

The bad guys win once in a while, and if this is your level of concern, I assume you will now recognize how much better a record dems have than republicans any way you stack it up.

Particularly if the good guys refuse to heed warnings then lie about it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

So, i am firmly back to this being a silly tempest in a teapot for crackpots.

The bad guys win once in a while, and if this is your level of concern, I assume you will now recognize how much better a record dems have than republicans any way you stack it up.

My concerns don't have a partisan basis, and I reject waving them aside on that basis. I came to the conclusion that Obama is an empty suit on my own. Granted we have Ambassadors in other risky areas, it is my opinion the state of security at Benghazi was not appropriate to the known circumstances. Is that typical? And where does the buck stop?

From "Fast and Furious" to the IRS scandal to the NSA's domestic spying to the DOJ considering charges against a man who has already been washed and dried by the FBI, this whole dog and pony show that we euphemistically refer to as the Obama Administration is starting to look like a bumbling clown act, and Benghazi seems to fit the programme.

Yes, I'm "profiling" the Administration. So sue me. In Cognitive Psychology it's called "pattern matching".

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata



From "Fast and Furious" to the IRS scandal to the NSA's domestic spying to the DOJ considering charges against a man who has already been washed and dried by the FBI, this whole dog and pony show that we euphemistically refer to as the Obama Administration is starting to look like a bumbling clown act, and Benghazi seems to fit the programme.


K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

So, i am firmly back to this being a silly tempest in a teapot for crackpots.

The bad guys win once in a while, and if this is your level of concern, I assume you will now recognize how much better a record dems have than republicans any way you stack it up.

My concerns don't have a partisan basis, and I reject waving them aside on that basis. I came to the conclusion that Obama is an empty suit on my own. Granted we have Ambassadors in other risky areas, it is my opinion the state of security at Benghazi was not appropriate to the known circumstances. Is that typical? And where does the buck stop?

From "Fast and Furious" to the IRS scandal to the NSA's domestic spying to the DOJ considering charges against a man who has already been washed and dried by the FBI, this whole dog and pony show that we euphemistically refer to as the Obama Administration is starting to look like a bumbling clown act, and Benghazi seems to fit the programme.

Yes, I'm "profiling" the Administration. So sue me. In Cognitive Psychology it's called "pattern matching".

K.

Really? A bunch of minor events and you condemn the President?

I must have missed your condemnation of the actual lethal bungling by the previous administration