Received: by 10.180.85.98 with SMTP id g2mr2047296wiz.0.1351513714696;
        Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: ha8ni75152wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!46.4.82.166.MISMATCH!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.albasani.net!news.america.net!not-for-mail
From: Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.guns,alt.politics,alt.thought.southern
Subject: Re: AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:28:33 -0400
Organization: 24hoursupport.com
Lines: 236
Message-ID: <0001HW.CCB3EEB10008982CB040E9DF@news.planttel.net>
References: <ae5116bf-be48-42f6-ab1c-e15b4235b219@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <e48o88l93ob59uqo858pf6mtqqffe25kql@6ax.com> <k6hets$dfg$1@dont-email.me> <31c2d271-59c2-481f-bd68-de5c10149c7d@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip4-245.planttel.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: news.america.net 1351513713 17841 209.164.254.246 (29 Oct 2012 12:28:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.america.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:28:33 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Hogwasher/4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:17:40 -0400, Hell Stomper wrote
(in article 
<31c2d271-59c2-481f-bd68-de5c10149...@p11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 27, 4:07 pm, Willard Twitt Romney <r...@puke.org> wrote:
>> On 10/27/2012 02:01 PM, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT), Hell Stomper
>>> <stardusth...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>>> Posted By Bob Owens On October 26, 2012 @ 9:50 am In Politics | 291
>>>> Comments
>> 
>>>> If you don’t get torches-and-pitchforks irate about this, you are not
>>>> an American:
>> 
>>>>     The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and
>>>> repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is
>>>> commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to
>>>> Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
>>>> The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours —
>>>> enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles
>>>> away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One
>>>> Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force
>>>> operators.
>> 
>>>> There were two AC-130Us deployed to Libya in March as part of
>>>> Operation Unified Protector.
>> 
>>>> The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support
>>>> aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto
>>>> multiple targets. It has been used numerous times in Iraq and
>>>> Afghanistan to save pinned-down allied forces, and has even been
>>>> credited with the surrender of the Taliban city of Kunduz
>> 
>>>> It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types,
>>>> including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built
>>>> for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the
>>>> administration had let it fire. As the excerpt above clearly shows, we
>>>> had assets on the ground “painting” the targets with the laser.
>> 
>>>> An AC-130U flies in a counter-clockwise “pivot turn” around the
>>>> target, with the weapons all aimed out the left side of the aircraft.
>> 
>>>> There are two state-of-the-art fire-control systems (FCSs) in a
>>>> AC-130U, using television sensors,infrared sensors, and synthetic
>>>> aperture strike radar. These fire control systems can see through the
>>>> dark of night, clouds, and smoke.
>> 
>>>> The two FCSs on the AC-130U control a 25mm Gatling gun for area
>>>> suppression, a precision 40mm cannon, and a 105mm cannon which can
>>>> engage hard targets.
>> 
>>>> What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the
>>>> ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the
>>>> terrorists and saving American lives.
>> 
>>>> See video of AC-130 engaging in a live fire exercise on next page.
>> 
>>>> Update (Bryan): Here is an AC-130 engaging in a live fire exercise.
>>>> The crackling sound you hear is its extreme rate of fire.
>> 
>>>> Update: BlackFive confirmed with a retired Delta operator: The fact
>>>> that ground personnel were painting the target says there was a
>>>> Spectre on station.
>> 
>>>>     Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser
>>>> Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from
>>>> the report jumped out at me.
>>>>     One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target.  That
>>>> means that Specter WAS ON STATION!  Probably an AC130U.  A ground
>>>> laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser.  You do not “paint”
>>>> a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means
>>>> that the AC130 was on station.
>>>>     Only two places could have called off the attack at that point;
>>>> the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM
>>>> commander based on information directly from the target area.
>>>>     If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta [sic] says) that
>>>> means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
>>>>     If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on
>>>> station to engage!  And the decision to stand down goes directly to
>>>> POTUS!
>> 
>>>> Article printed from The PJ Tatler:http://pjmedia.com/tatler
>> 
>>>> URL to article:
>>>> http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/ac-130u-gunship-was-on-scene-in-...
>> 
>>> Bullshit.
>> 
>>> You ever been on the ground with an AC-130 working out in the
>>> neighborhood?  It's not a pinpoint weapon system -- it'll take out
>>> everything  in a football-field sized area.
>> 
>>> So -- you call in SPECTRE -- what are you going to illuminate with
>>> your laser??  You can't illuminate a group of people and have SPECTRE
>>> take 'em out.  If you try that, you'll kill friendlies within 100
>>> meters.
>> 
>>> It's an AREA weapon system, fool.
>> 
>>> That's why professionals fight wars, not reporters, not
>>> rightwingnutjobs, not desk jockeys, not REMFS.
>> 
>>> Now crawl back into your fantasy world, go get your X-Box and play
>>> Medal of Honor.
>> 
>> Right wing scumbags tend to be chicken hawks.
> 
> Written By : John Hawkins
> January 13, 2012
> 
> On Veterans Day, I noticed that more than a few left-wing websites
> decided it was an opportune time to break out the “chickenhawks” slur
> again. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the word or who
> associate it with its more vulgar meaning, when the left uses the
> term, they are generally referring to a foreign policy hawk who has
> not been in the military and is not seeking to join up. You see,
> they’re of the opinion that only those who have actually fought in the
> military or who are willing to do so, should be able to advocate war.
> Of course, that’s not exactly what you’d call a “well reasoned
> argument,” but keep in mind that we’re talking about people who think
> that carrying a giant puppet head at an anti-war rally run by
> Communists passes for an eloquent statement about the war on
> terrorism.
> 
> But one has to wonder if these same people think of Woodrow “we must
> make the world safe for Democracy” Wilson as “Chickenhawk” Wilson?
> After all, Wilson, the man who launched our country into WW1, had been
> a professor of political science before he got into politics, not a
> military man. Then there’s FDR, a gentleman who certainly couldn’t be
> called a pacifist. In fact, old Franklin “Chickenhawk” Roosevelt led
> our country into the bloodiest war this planet has ever seen. Was he
> wrong to have done that since he never served in the military? Most of
> us would say “no,” but you have to wonder if the people who’re today
> hooting “chickenhawk” would disagree. We could even look to Bill
> Clinton and wonder why a President who not only didn’t serve in the
> military, but once wrote in a letter that he “loathed the military,”
> was not branded with a scarlet “Chickenhawk” for his rather aggressive
> foreign policy in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, & Haiti.
> 
> Moreover, does it not seem a bit hypocritical that the very people who
> expect hawks to enlist in the military are not willing to make similar
> sacrifices themselves? For example, whatever you think of Rachel
> Corrie, the “peace activist” who was accidentally run over by an
> Israeli bulldozer while she tried to protect smuggling tunnels used by
> terrorists, you couldn’t have accused her of being a hypocrite if she
> had ever called someone a “chickenhawk”. Similarly, while you would be
> wrong to act as a human shield at a North Korean gulag, in front of a
> terrorist enclave in the West Bank, or at a bomb making warehouse in
> Tikrit, at least no one could claim that you were asking others to do
> what you were not willing to do yourself. But if you decry
> “chickenhawks who advocate war while they’re safe at home,” please
> don’t claim some sort of moral high ground if you “advocate refusing
> to prosecute the war on terrorism while safe at home” yourself.
> 
> It’s also worth pointing out that the people who reproach
> “chickenhawks” for their lack of military experience don’t seem to
> apply that same concept to anything else. For example, are these same
> individuals refusing to take a position on the actions of their local
> police department if they’ve never been a policeman? Do they believe
> that John Ashcroft knows best if they have never worked for the DOJ?
> 
> Here’s an idea that’ll allow you to find out where they really stand.
> The next time you hear someone gripe about “chickenhawks,” ask their
> opinion about how President Bush has done since his election in 2000.
> Then, if they’re intellectually consistent people, you can expect them
> to say something like, “I really can’t properly evaluate what the
> President should or shouldn’t do because I have never been President
> myself”. After all, that’s what they expect the people they call
> “chickenhawks” to do when it comes to the military isn’t it?
> 
> In addition to that, I think it’s worth pointing out that while the
> exceptional men and women who serve in our armed forces may be experts
> at combat, that does not mean that ALL of them are geniuses at foreign
> policy or the best arbiters of how we should handle a situation that
> might lead to blood being spilled. If you don’t believe that, simply
> think back to “Operation Northwoods,” a plan conceived of by the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff which featured fake terrorist attacks on American
> citizens that could be used as an excuse to start a war with Cuba. Of
> course, that mad scheme never came to fruition because JFK wouldn’t
> hear of it, but it certainly wasn’t a bunch of “chickenhawks” who
> cooked the whole thing up.
> 
> If you wanted another example of the fallibility of a military man’s
> judgement when it came to war, you could look to George McClellan who
> ran against Lincoln for the Presidency in 1864 and planned to give up
> on the Civil War if he won.
> 
> I would even go so far as to point out that Wesley Clark, an ex-
> general with a distinguished military record and a Democratic
> candidate for President, assured Bill Clinton that just the threat of
> force would be all that it would take to get Slobodan Milosevic to
> agree to peace in Kosovo. Not only was Clark dead wrong, but later
> during the Kosovo conflict, British General Sir Michael Jackson
> refused a Clark order to block a “Russian advance towards Pristina
> airport in Kosovo” and famously explained his actions by saying, I am
> not going to startWorld War III“. Now if you want to tell people that
> Wesley Clark is a brilliant strategist whose judgement is far superior
> to that of the “chickenhawks” when it comes to military strategy, I’d
> probably be inclined to agree with you. But if you’re trying to make
> the case that Clark’s overall judgement about foreign policy is
> superior to anyone who hasn’t served in the military, I’d say that is
> a very dubious argument indeed.
> 
> Summing things up, this whole “chickenhawk” catcall is little more
> than an attempt to stifle debate and divert attention away from the
> lack of substance that undergirds much of the anti-war side of the
> debate. The fact is that many people in the anti-war crowd hold dovish
> foreign policy views, believe in only using America’s military when
> our interests AREN’T at stake, & are more concerned with world
> approval than defending America. Because of that, they are simply
> incapable of taking positions that would allow us to win the global
> war on terrorism that we are now engaged in. Rather than deal openly
> and honestly with issues like that, issues that could cost Democrats
> the election, they’d rather cry “chickenhawk” and hope that, rather
> than their foreign policy views & how we should proceed in the war on
> terrorism, will become the subject of the debate.

BTW, where are all of you brave antiwar protesters? Suddenly change your 
minds after the 2008 election? Courage and conviction have kinda taken a 
backseat these days. Don't have the bravery to protest the current 
administration? Mmmm...you woud think there might be some form of agenda 
there.
My favorite Futurama clip. For all you "conscientious objectors" out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdJiJ53TexI