The U.S. Military will need restructuring but not in the way it is happening now. You don't mess with Military Branch traditions. And you certainly do not alienate Soldier's by replacing both Commisioned and Non-Commisioned Officers that are highly respected. U.S. Military restructuring should ONLY be governed by the changes in the way we fight wars and battles such as the way the U.S. Military Command structure was changed from a SERVICE COMPETETIVE MANNER as in WWII there was a great deal of COMPETITION between the Army and Navy....and this had to go when the U.S. Military entered into the era of INTEGRATED SERVICE BATTLE PLANNING AND FIGHTING. Very soon with the advent of Drones and soon Robotic Self Autonomous Weapons Systems and Platforms as well as the advent of Direct Energy Weapons systems....many older weapons systems will become redundant and command and control will need restructuring. But restructuring should be handled by the PENTAGON and overseen by the Senate Armed Services Committee....NOT BY POLITICIAN'S WHO HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN MILITARY PLANNING. AboveAlpha
That is because not all M2 HMGs are the same. Of course, it helps to actually know what I am talking about so I can clarify this simple fact to armchair warriors that do not understand this fact. Only a fraction of the guns made for WWII were of the kind that can be mounted upon tripods and used by ground troops. The vast majority were heavily modified versions that were mounted onto various vehicles. For example, those that are permanently mounted in aircraft. These are aircraft only models, known as the AN/M2. The P51 Mustang needed 6 AN/M2 guns per aircraft, and 15,000 P51s were made. That accounts for 90,000 guns already. Then you have the B-17. 13 AN/M2 guns per aircraft, 12,731 aircraft built. Another 165,503 guns. The F6F Hellcat also had 6 AN/M2 HMGs, with a production run of 12,275 aircraft. Another 73,650 "M2" machine guns that can not be used other then in a vehicle of some kind (and means with a fire control system and power, not just a pintle mount) All ships used the AN/M2 also, generally in quad mounts but also in mounts with up to 6 guns (antiaircraft mounts). I would honestly be surprised if the number of "standard" M2 guns made for WWII was mure then about 1/3 of the total number produced. A single air wing of F4F aircraft would have more M2 class guns then an entire Marine Infantry Regiment. A single B-17 has almost twice the number of M2 guns then a Marine Infantry Battalion. And yes, the number of M2 guns is pretty accurate at around 1,000 in the Marine Corps. Tell me, how many of these guns do you think a Marine Infantry Battalion should have?
I'm not doubting that you are qualified in the M2 and even could be an instructor in it. I am sure your knowledge would be very useful in helping to train up people who would train up the Kurds, if that was something you were interested in doing. But, you were the one who started trolling my suggestion of 4,800 M2s for the Kurdish frontline by calling it "retarded" when it's not. I've quoted reports from the Kurdish front lines and even shown a picture of someone manning a heavy machine gun on those front lines and I have posted quotes of Kurds saying they don't have enough heavy weapons etc. So all I see from you is someone who knows all about the M2 trying to tell someone like me trying to request M2 shipments that "no" you know better. So I'm defending my request and if you want to keep attacking my request, I'll keep defending it. I also think I know enough about the military that if some general had ordered 4,800 M2s you certainly would not march into his office and tell him his request was "retarded", because that would be insubordinate! Now, I'm not your superior and you are not my superior. Don't expect me to take orders from you and I won't expect you to take orders from me. OK? But having said that, if I was made Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, I wouldn't pick you for my team because I would not trust you not to go around belaying my orders! I am sure that is not too disappointing for you because I don't think you would want to serve under my command anyway, right?
The rule of thumb is to change it if you have fired more then 150 rounds in a 2 minute period. Or if you have been doing intermitant fire for over 5 minutes. As 2 members of the crew change the ammo cans and reload, the third member of the crew changes the barrel. And SOP is 5 round bursts, unless you are under FPF. Then as you know SOP is "fire until the barrel melts down". But yes, the M2 is indeed not a general purpose Machine Gun. That is the role od the M240 and M249. In fact, in a great many unit and Corps SOPs you even have prohititions against using the M2 against personnel at all (the question of it being a war crime to do so is not clear so many err on the side of caution and prohibit it). As such, it is generally only used against structures and equipment (aircraft, trucks, etc) and not against "troops on the ground". In my PATRIOT Battalion, they were intended primarily as convoy defense on the move, then as defense against enemy helicopters once we were emplaced (the biggest threat to a PATRIOT missile system is actually helicopters). As far as rounds cooking off, I have seen that many times. Always good for a laugh when the tower calls "cease fire", then 10 seconds later a single round ends up going downrange. Is why I always instructed those under me to eject rounds and drop belts-magazines before you worry about the safety itself.
Well, makes me glad you are not my commander. Lord knows all we need is another Brit thinking they know it all, right? And if you would not pick me for your team, that obviously shows that you have little respect for the members of the military, or the NCO Corps. First, last, and always I am a Professional. I would not still be serving now (in what is my 5th Presidential Administration) if I was not a Professional. And no, I would not want to serve under your "Command" because you have this extreme tendency to ignore any facts you do not like, and do not take advice from the true professionals who's job it is to enact those Commands. The exact same way I have a great many times in my career stood up to an Officer who made retarded orders and I tried to correct them. That is the job of an NCO after all. The good Officers would go "Gee, you are right Corporal, let's do it your way". And of course the very best Officers simply looked at me and said "Sergeant, I want this to be done, go do it", and left it up to me how the order was to be carried out. You seem like the type I hate most to work under. Petty micromanagers, who blow-up anybody who dares to suggest they do not know what they are talking about, and make those like me miserable to serve under.
Isis captured 2,300 Humvee armoured vehicles from Iraqi forces in Mosul Guardian. 1 June 2015 "Iraqi security forces lost 2,300 Humvee armoured vehicles when the Islamic State jihadist group overran the northern city of Mosul, the prime minister Haider al-Abadi said on Sunday. In the collapse of Mosul, we lost a lot of weapons, Abadi said in an interview with Iraqiya state TV. We lost 2,300 Humvees in Mosul alone. While the exact price of the vehicles varies depending on how they are armoured and equipped, it is clearly a hugely expensive loss that has boosted Isiss capabilities. ... The militants gained ample arms, ammunition and other equipment when multiple Iraqi divisions fell apart in the countrys north, abandoning gear and shedding uniforms in their haste to flee. Isis has used captured Humvees, which were provided to Iraq by the United States, in subsequent fighting, rigging some with explosives for suicide bombings." It's these HUMVEES packed with explosives, driven by suicide bombers at the Kurds' front lines which are the so-called Vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices VBIED threat which the wire-guided anti-tank missiles like the MILAN and the BGM-71 TOW are the best defence against because of their long-range. The poor Iraqis in Haditha are cut off and getting attacked with multiple (like 37! ) VBIED attacks at a time. Isis has revealed the city it is going to attack next Wednesday 22 July 2015 "The people of Haditha, though, are struggling to survive in a town largely cut off from the outside world. Meanwhile, the Islamic State has singled it out as its next target. Its like were not living in Iraq, said one resident, Israa Mohammed, 38, as she waited for a rare delivery of food aid last week. Theres no way in or out. Its like we are an island in the desert. ... For the citys defenders, the pressure is intense. At the army command center at the base of the dam, Maj. Gen. Ali Daboun, the head of operations, described the most recent assault by Islamic State forces, early this month. His voice cracked with emotion as he recalled how the group unleashed 37 suicide car bombs in the area during the offensive." Can we help these brave people with air-drops?
This is a problem that the Arab's have to deal with. We can help out with Air Strikes but the ISIS is small in number and spread out in multiple Nations in the Middle East. Using the full might of the U.S. Military is overkill and the Shia Iraqi Leadership created this problem when they replaced all Sunni Officers with Shia Officers who had little to no training who abandoned their bases and drove back to Baghdad. AboveAlpha
A solution for SYRIA too We should support the rights of Sunni-majority areas to establish a Sunni-majority state, partitioned from Iraq and / or Syria but modelled not after Saudi Arabia's oppressive religious police Sunni state but rather as a secular, democratic state (approximated imperfectly by Turkey with its majority Sunni population), which could be part of a stable solution, acceptable to world powers. However, to get there, we must first defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda and put irresistible pressure on Arab states to support a peace solution for Iraq and Syria, perhaps with Arab state regular armies invading Syria and Iraq to enforce a peace settlement along partition lines agreed at the United Nations with NATO acting as a military police force, directing Arab armies here and there. Such a peace would be workable and stable, rather than as now with the Arab states' proxy terrorists failing to enforce a non-agreed imposed terrorist state. NATO The NATO military alliance met recently at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, to consider a plea from Turkey for support. TURKS Well if I was leading NATO, Turkey would be getting some very forceful advice behind the scenes to quit treating the PKK the same as ISIS and encouragement to seek a cease-fire with the PKK and I'd be making that distinction clear publicly as I have already done. Since NATO statements are only agreed unanimously then it is not surprising that Turkey would not agree to the following quoted statement for publication as "the view of NATO" but there is nothing to stop the NATO Secretary General making this statement in a personal leadership capacity, except for the fact that the Secretary General is not me, but someone else. "Turkey has been quite wrong to try to paint ISIS and the PKK with the same brush, equally as "terrorists", when the PKK have legitimate concerns about protecting Kurds from ISIS, although the PKK's attack on Turkish police officers which broke the cease-fire was ill-advised and it is unsurprising that Turkey would label such attacks as "terrorists" and a unilateral ending of the cease-fire by the PKK. Ending the cease-fire was a bad move by the PKK because cease-fires are much easier to end than they are to resume. So Turkey had a cease-fire with the PKK and rightly so but Turkey should never have had a cease-fire with ISIS, if indeed that's what it had, it was quite wrong to have such a cease fire with ISIS. Also, Turkey should be open minded about resuming a cease-fire with the PKK. Admittedly it takes two sides to make a cease-fire stick but at least a cease-fire should be possible with the PKK in the way it should not be possible with ISIS. Otherwise, the suspicion will be that the Turkish state is being manipulated by those fascists who are not sincere about fighting ISIS but instead are using ISIS attacks as a pretext, conflating ISIS with anyone Kurdish or Turkish leftist, as a smokescreen for a far wider and undemocratic crackdown." KURDS We are not doing the Kurds any favours by turning a blind eye to the PKK blunder providing Erdogan and the Turkish secret security fascists with the pretext for a crackdown they were likely trying to provoke - the July 22 killing by the PKK of 2 Turkish police officers. Whatever the Kurds' or PKK's suspicions or personal convictions about Erdogan etc secretly sponsoring ISIS, it is not astute for the PKK to lash out at Turkish officers indiscriminately, because the case "Erdogan-backs-ISIS" has not been proven to NATO, to the US and allies or to the people of Turkey. Least of all is that case made when Turkey provides the US with the use of airbases with which to attack ISIS. Erdogan has played much too clever a game and has outwitted the PKK. They have fallen into his trap. In future, Kurds should impress on the PKK the international political need to act with more political wisdom as prosecutors, proving their case of nefarious machinations of the secret security state of Turkey and its sponsorship of ISIS, while treating with respect those Turks, Americans, Europeans and others whom Erdogan's secret plots have deceived. TAKE RAQQA BATTLEPLAN This is my political and military plan to put the squeeze on the so-called "Islamic State" / ISIS / ISIL / Daesh operational capital at Raqqa, Syria. 1) The Turkish army invades Syria with an armoured column west and south of the Euphrates and attacks Raqqa from the south, also blocking the east and west routes to Raqqa. 2) The Euphrates Volcano - a joint operations room for the Royava Kurds YPG / YPJ and the Free Syrian Army - cut off Raqqa to the north, bottling ISIS fighters up in Raqqa or in other bolt holes to the east and north of the Euphrates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_Volcano 3) The Turks and / or the Euphrates Volcano YPG / YPJ / FSA take Raqqa, clearing it street to street, mopping up ISIS forces. I appreciate that the Turks have not yet committed to invading Syria with their army and neither have the Euphrates Volcano, YPG / FSA asked for such Turkish intervention. So I think it is really going to take NATO to suggest such a collaboration, because neither side would wish to admit needing the other to defeat ISIS, I expect. Diplomacy is not my strong suit but if these forces can be persuaded diplomatically to work together then liberating Raqqa from ISIS should be straight-forward enough, militarily speaking.
Exactly. Nothing in the Constitution even remotely suggests that our government needs to engage in foreign nation building. It is simply none of our business. The stupidity of the right wing in demanding that we get involved in every foreign dispute is what has caused all this. Saddam and others of his ilk were the solution to this problem. With him in power the ME would be FAR more stable. And isn't it funny how so many deluded right wingers so stupidly insist that our government needs to get involved in foreign nation building while those same cynics say the government must never be involved in domestic nation building. The stupidity of these people is unmatchable.
It's not just the Right. In Afghanistan Obama ordered large numbers of U.S. Ground Forces into the country. This never should happened. We KNEW Bin Laden was in Pakistan and placing larger numbers of U.S. Ground Forces in Afghanistan with no real mission was a huge mistake. AboveAlpha
Wait a minute. Are you actually suggesting here that we should recognize an ISIS controlled nation, and cut parts oout of 2 nations to create it? Because that is what this actually means, if you are actually aware of it or not. You seem to loose more credibility with every post in here you make. Yea, no kidding it is not a "strong suit". If I have to guess, your strongest suit is "Fantasy". You are aware, are you not, that the group you want to negotiate believes in mass executions and taped drownings of people who oppose them are apparently legitimate responses, are you not? We are talking about people who not only refuse to follow the Geneva Convention, but every other "civilized" convept of dealing with POWs and treatment of non-combatants in the last 200 years. And you think they can be "persuaded diplomatically"? My God, you are either completely delusional, psychotic, or living in Fantasy Land (tm). You obviously are not living in the real world. God save us from idiotic idealistic dilettantes.
No I am not suggesting that. I get to say what I actually mean, not you. This is a strategy to fight and defeat ISIS, nothing less. A solution for SYRIA too We should support the rights of Sunni-majority areas to establish a Sunni-majority state, partitioned from Iraq and / or Syria but modelled not after Saudi Arabia's oppressive religious police Sunni state but rather as a secular, democratic state (approximated imperfectly by Turkey with its majority Sunni population), which could be part of a stable solution, acceptable to world powers. However, to get there, we must first defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda and put irresistible pressure on Arab states to support a peace solution for Iraq and Syria, perhaps with Arab state regular armies invading Syria and Iraq to enforce a peace settlement along partition lines agreed at the United Nations with NATO acting as a military police force, directing Arab armies here and there. Such a peace would be workable and stable, rather than as now with the Arab states' proxy terrorists failing to enforce a non-agreed imposed terrorist state. NATO The NATO military alliance met recently at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, to consider a plea from Turkey for support. TURKS Well if I was leading NATO, Turkey would be getting some very forceful advice behind the scenes to quit treating the PKK the same as ISIS and encouragement to seek a cease-fire with the PKK and I'd be making that distinction clear publicly as I have already done. Since NATO statements are only agreed unanimously then it is not surprising that Turkey would not agree to the following quoted statement for publication as "the view of NATO" but there is nothing to stop the NATO Secretary General making this statement in a personal leadership capacity, except for the fact that the Secretary General is not me, but someone else. "Turkey has been quite wrong to try to paint ISIS and the PKK with the same brush, equally as "terrorists", when the PKK have legitimate concerns about protecting Kurds from ISIS, although the PKK's attack on Turkish police officers which broke the cease-fire was ill-advised and it is unsurprising that Turkey would label such attacks as "terrorists" and a unilateral ending of the cease-fire by the PKK. Ending the cease-fire was a bad move by the PKK because cease-fires are much easier to end than they are to resume. So Turkey had a cease-fire with the PKK and rightly so but Turkey should never have had a cease-fire with ISIS, if indeed that's what it had, it was quite wrong to have such a cease fire with ISIS. Also, Turkey should be open minded about resuming a cease-fire with the PKK. Admittedly it takes two sides to make a cease-fire stick but at least a cease-fire should be possible with the PKK in the way it should not be possible with ISIS. Otherwise, the suspicion will be that the Turkish state is being manipulated by those fascists who are not sincere about fighting ISIS but instead are using ISIS attacks as a pretext, conflating ISIS with anyone Kurdish or Turkish leftist, as a smokescreen for a far wider and undemocratic crackdown." KURDS We are not doing the Kurds any favours by turning a blind eye to the PKK blunder providing Erdogan and the Turkish secret security fascists with the pretext for a crackdown they were likely trying to provoke - the July 22 killing by the PKK of 2 Turkish police officers. Whatever the Kurds' or PKK's suspicions or personal convictions about Erdogan etc secretly sponsoring ISIS, it is not astute for the PKK to lash out at Turkish officers indiscriminately, because the case "Erdogan-backs-ISIS" has not been proven to NATO, to the US and allies or to the people of Turkey. Least of all is that case made when Turkey provides the US with the use of airbases with which to attack ISIS. Erdogan has played much too clever a game and has outwitted the PKK. They have fallen into his trap. In future, Kurds should impress on the PKK the international political need to act with more political wisdom as prosecutors, proving their case of nefarious machinations of the secret security state of Turkey and its sponsorship of ISIS, while treating with respect those Turks, Americans, Europeans and others whom Erdogan's secret plots have deceived. TAKE RAQQA BATTLEPLAN This is my political and military plan to put the squeeze on the so-called "Islamic State" / ISIS / ISIL / Daesh operational capital at Raqqa, Syria. 1) The Turkish army invades Syria with an armoured column west and south of the Euphrates and attacks Raqqa from the south, also blocking the east and west routes to Raqqa. 2) The Euphrates Volcano - a joint operations room for the Royava Kurds YPG / YPJ and the Free Syrian Army - cut off Raqqa to the north, bottling ISIS fighters up in Raqqa or in other bolt holes to the east and north of the Euphrates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_Volcano 3) The Turks and / or the Euphrates Volcano YPG / YPJ / FSA take Raqqa, clearing it street to street, mopping up ISIS forces. I appreciate that the Turks have not yet committed to invading Syria with their army and neither have the Euphrates Volcano, YPG / FSA asked for such Turkish intervention. So I think it is really going to take NATO to suggest such a collaboration, because neither side would wish to admit needing the other to defeat ISIS, I expect. Diplomacy is not my strong suit but if these forces can be persuaded diplomatically to work together then liberating Raqqa from ISIS should be straight-forward enough, militarily speaking. Everything, absolutely everything, about my post was about fighting and defeating ISIS / ISIL / Daesh / so-called "Islamic State" and for someone to read the opposite into it, well, it says more about that person than my view about ISIS.
Obama and Hillary Clinton seem pretty liberal to me. As you said: It wasn't the right wing that launched US attacks on Libya.
that was NATO - I believe that previously I have indicated that we need to abrorgate that treaty and get the hell out of that group
When the "Wall" came down and the Cold War came to an end many asked what becomes of NATO. NATO's only purpose was to wage war against the Soviet Union. There was no more Soviet Union why the need of NATO ? Personally I thought that the USA would pull out of NATO and bring our troops home and NATO would slowly dissolve with in a decade. But Bill Clinton became President and he was influenced by some pretty nutty people like Susan Rice, Madeleine Albright and Janet Reno. (All four of the later are directly responsible for why Al Qaeda declared war on America in 1996 and would attack America on it's own soil on 9-11-01) But I digress, back to NATO. What I find funny or not so funny the same people, the "New Left" in America who surrendered in 1975 and no longer wanted to fight the Cold War to stop communist expansion in the world now wanted to continue the Cold War after we already won the Cold War. If NATO wasn't going to dissolve, Russia asked can we become a member of NATO ? Sounds good but Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has a chip on her shoulder, she hates Russians. Madeleine Albright is a naturalized American citizen, she was born in Czechoslovakia and her family was forced to flee Czechoslovakia in 1938 but one always has some roots from where one was born just like Obama's Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett who has a cosy good feeling towards Iran. Czechoslovakians hate Russians afterhaving their women raped and seeing their country pilleged by the not so liberating Soviet Army during WW ll. And Madeleine Albright still has a chip on her shoulder and when the Russians wanted to join NATO Madeleine told Bill to tell the Russians to eat "Shchi." Then to (*)(*)(*)(*) off the Russians more the Clinton administration decided to expand NATO (who's only purpose was to kill Russian soldiers) by bringing former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO like Poland. Now NATO was on Russia's borders and the Russian bear that went into hibernation after the Cold War was beginning to come out of hibernation. And it would be Clinton's and Albright's policies that would help to bring Vladimir Putin to power. I could go further how G.W. Bush missed a chance to bring Russia in as an ally on the war against radical Islam, both America, Western Europe and Russia have a common enemy. But it seems that Dick Cheney also has a chip on his shoulder, he hates the KGB and Putin is former KGB.
Wow, you are really talking yourself into a corner aren't you? No, it wasn't NATO. It was a separate coalition. One that the US voluntarily joined, and one that Secretary of State Clinton pushed for the US to join. So, unless you think of Clinton and Obama as the right wing, They got us in a war that overthrew a government for reasons that I think still have not been explained. Maybe you could justify their war?
Perhaps if you bothered to do your homework before commenting, you wouldn't look so ignorant: "NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[273][274] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[275] n May 2011, when Gaddafi's forces were still fighting, and the end result of the civil war was still uncertain, Putin and Medvedev's Russian government recognized the NTC of Libya as a legitimate dialogue partner.[276] On 9 June 2011,some negotiators from NTC of Libya arrived in Beijing to have negotiations with the Chinese Government.[277] In June 2011, Muammar Gaddafi and his son Saif al-Islam announced that they were willing to hold elections and that Gaddafi would step aside if he lost. Saif al-Islam stated that the elections could be held within three months and transparency would be guaranteed through international observers. NATO and the rebels rejected the offer, and NATO soon resumed their bombardment of Tripoli.[278] In July 2011, Saif al-Islam accused NATO of bombing Libyan civilians, including his family members and their children, under the false pretence that their homes were military bases. He also stated that NATO offered to drop the ICC charges against him and his father if they accept a secret deal, an offer they rejected. He thus criticized the ICC as "a fake court" that is controlled by the NATO nations.[177][279] source: wiki
Poland absolutely hates anything Soviet or Russian. It was Putin that ruined any chance at a U.S./Russian Partnership. Putin could not steal money if the U.S. was involved. AboveAlpha
Putin didn't become President of Russia until 2000. After 9-11-01 terrorist attacks G.W. Bush could have brought Russia on board as an ally to fight radical Islam that Putin wanted. At first I thought maybe it was Condoleezza Rice who was behind advising Bush not to bring Putin on board. But it really didn't make sense. It ends up it was Dick Cheney who opposed having Putin becoming an ally. Cheney has a chip on his shoulder when it comes to the former Soviet KGB and Putin is KGB. There are still some around who want to keep fighting the Cold War. Putin wants only respect for Russia and to be recognized as a regional power. It was Clinton policies that brought the Russian bear out of hibernation and when you have a pantywaist in the White House like we have today, you don't (*)(*)(*)(*) with a bear unless you have a 30-06 or something more powerful. How Ronald Reagan got elected as POTUS. [video]https://youtu.be/o7EJMyL6htw[/video]
After 9/11 the American People went into a state of TEMPORARY INSANITY!!! We all wanted BLOOD. And Enemy Blood is what we got. I was a Consultant as the time and I can tell you of the 5 to 6 plans that were under serious consideration the LAST DESTRUCTIVE PLAN WAS SELECTED!!! The other Plan's read like a scene play for Dr. Stangelove!!! Be happy plan's 2 through 6 were not selected. AboveAlpha
For more than a year, ominous rumors had been privately circulating among high-level Western leaders that the Russians had been at work on what was darkly hinted to be the ultimate weapon: a doomsday device. Intelligence sources traced the site of the top secret Russian project to the perpetually fog-shrouded wasteland below the Arctic peaks of the Zhokhov Islands. What they were building or why it should be located in such a remote and desolate place no one could say.
If I was fighting them, I'd firstly open a massive department for propaganda. I'd also do everything I could to get the press on side. I'd drum up a huge amount of war fever, making out the natural warrior prowes of the Western man. What I suggest is TOTAL war; Dresden style bombings, D day landing on the shores of the Mediterranean, and a blitzkrieg from the sea to China. Also a Soviet style killing and raping(not necessarily in that order) of everyone from cypress to Afghanistan. Gawd, if you are going to have a war, at least have one.
OK....so are you telling me that Obama and Clinton had nothing to do with us going to war in Libya? They were against it but "NATO" took control of US military assets and somehow forced us into war? The issue remember is that you said that the right wing is who got us into wars, so I'm still trying to find out from you how the "right wing" got us into Libya even though the US has a left wing government?
