COLONEL GADDAFI HAS BEEN KILLED - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

barry123400 · #46 10-20-2011, 06:31 PM

There apparently are already oposing factions. So a smooth transfer to so called more democracy is not in the cards. As usual it's probably all about money and power. These two items are basically identical in the modern world. Lets hope they do not assume unbalanced positions as the past leader did.

Botnst · #47 10-20-2011, 07:21 PM

I have an important question: How many ways has the deceased name been spelled?

Ara T. · #48 10-20-2011, 07:29 PM

Hope he doesn't come back as Gaddafi the White, stronger than ever

PaulC · #49 10-20-2011, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I have an important question: How many ways has the deceased name been spelled?

I'm planning to use the tombstone spelling as the standard.

Honus · #50 10-20-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

In all the euphoria about the death of this murderous villain, lets not forget that because we do not have boots on the ground, we do not know where tens of thousands of shoulder-launched missiles might be.

So it would have been better if Obama had invaded with our ground troops? No, thank you.

Botnst · #51 10-20-2011, 08:38 PM

It would have been a pleasing thing to me if Mr Obama sought and attained congressional approval prior to hostilities. I HATE the war power act. Damn the cowardly congress.

Kuan · #52 10-20-2011, 09:43 PM

Hitler is informed Gaddafi has been killed - YouTube!

tjts1 · #53 10-20-2011, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuan

Hitler is informed Gaddafi has been killed - YouTube!

hahahahaha That didn't take long

MS Fowler · #54 10-20-2011, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

So it would have been better if Obama had invaded with our ground troops? No, thank you.

Better? From what perspective? We'd certainly have more losses in the immediate situation. But maybe ( and that is truly a "maybe", because we will never have certainly), having troops on the ground would have given some control over those now missing weapons. How many US airliners will be shot down by those weapons if they find their way to some terrorist group?

What will the scoreboard be in ten years?

chilcutt · #55 10-21-2011, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Better? From what perspective? We'd certainly have more losses in the immediate situation. But maybe ( and that is truly a "maybe", because we will never have certainly), having troops on the ground would have given some control over those now missing weapons. How many US airliners will be shot down by those weapons if they find their way to some terrorist group?

What will the scoreboard be in ten years?

Answer this Question.>
When was the last time a U.S. airliner was shot down by a terrorist group using one of these weapons?

Please, I think everyone has had quite enough fear-mongering.

MS Fowler · #56 10-21-2011, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

Answer this Question.>
When was the last time a U.S. airliner was shot down by a terrorist group using one of these weapons?

Please, I think everyone has had quite enough fear-mongering.

I hope you are right. really.

chilcutt · #57 10-21-2011, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I hope you are right. really.

I cant predict the future..but realistically, it has been a long time since that has happened.
Not to say that it couldnt happen.
But using handheld missles to bring down U.S. public airliners just doesnt fit the modus of operandi of todays terrorist outfits.

Kuan · #58 10-21-2011, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

But using handheld missles to bring down U.S. public airliners just doesnt fit the modus of operandi of todays terrorist outfits.

Could it be done though? I mean from a practical standpoint.

They could just launch an attack pirate style on Long Island if they managed to get there undetected.

aklim · #59 10-21-2011, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilcutt

But using handheld missles to bring down U.S. public airliners just doesnt fit the modus of operandi of todays terrorist outfits.

Why?

Pre 911, did anyone think that could happen? What would YOU have said if I told you that someone would drive a boat into a warship? What would YOU have said if I suggested that terrorists would hijack a 4 airplanes and ram them into the WTC, Pentagon and who knows where else? Would YOU have believed me?

tjts1 · #60 10-21-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Better? From what perspective? We'd certainly have more losses in the immediate situation. But maybe ( and that is truly a "maybe", because we will never have certainly), having troops on the ground would have given some control over those now missing weapons. How many US airliners will be shot down by those weapons if they find their way to some terrorist group?

What will the scoreboard be in ten years?

Between zero and none. MANPADS (look that up) have a very limited shelf life without new components from the manufacturer. Thats why none of the stingers we let loose in Afghanistan in the 80s ever turned up in a terrorist attack. The missile can still be fired but its unguided. A glorified RPG.