Slashdot Mirror

Blah blah blah. No president does anything single-handedly. Lincoln didn't tear through the Confederacy like an action hero. FDR didn't paradrop into Nazi Germany. Obama didn't pull the literal trigger on Osama.

That is an awful lot of verbiage to say you agree with me. (See above: "in his success he is indebted to others")

Obama didn't pull the literal trigger on Osama. But it was his decision to refocus efforts on finding OBL, it was his decision to go with troops on the ground rather than an airstrike, it was his decision to keep the Pakistanis out of the loop. All of those turned out to be the right choices, and Obama deserves credit for that.

So, once again we agree.

All you Republicans claiming the credit should go exclusively to the military, . . .

And now you are claiming something that isn't true. I didn't write that. The primary article that I quote doesn't state that, in fact it is the reverse. Quoting from above, "Let’s cheerfully and ungrudgingly give credit to Barack Obama for approving the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden." That contradicts your claim. You go pretty far off the mark in a very short distance.

Maybe you were confused by the post I responded to which stated, "Ask Osama about his experience in international affairs." I pointed out that the implied Raid on Bin Laden was a military and intelligence action, not diplomatic.

. . . . ask yourself this: If the mission had ended with a dozen dead SEALs instead of a dead terrorist, would you be placing the blame solely on the military?

Well, since neither I nor the primary author I quote gives them sole credit, it doesn't immediately follow that they would deserve sole blame, does it? (Would you attribute any blame to President Obama if there was a failure? Even if it was the result of his not accepting a strong recommendation about not going under present conditions?) Besides, I doubt you are aware of how thoroughly the military goes through such failures, such as occurred at Desert One, and the years of hard questions that would follow from the media, military, and government. It was self-criticism over Desert One that led to the reforms that ultimately enabled the raid against Bin Laden to succeed.

So, after agreeing with me, then making a false claim about my position, you never get around to addressing the main point in the main piece I quote: "While we may not know all the details about and behind this operation, it’s fascinating to see how many of the things that made the success of this operation possible were not so long ago decried by many of the president’s fans and fellow partisans." President Obama was successful primarily because of not fulfilling his platform. I'm not surprised you won't touch that. That's a pity though, as it would have been a chance to demonstrate real insight, if you have any, rather than simple Republican bashing.

Start here: The Reformers

You've mixed things up, it makes no sense. I've read the report. Here's what happened:

1. The fire control system (FCS) detected a bleed air duct leak and has closed the isolation valves, cutting off engine bleed air from reaching the bleed air manifold (or duct). Bleed air is hot air from the compressor, used to power other systems. This triggers the "C BLEED HOT" caution.

2. Loss of bleed air made the following systems inoperational: environmental control system (ECS), forced air cooling for avionics et al (ACS), oxygen generator (OBOGS), inert gas generator (OBIGGS), cabin pressurization.

3. About 5 seconds after the bleed air was cut off, a new caution appeared: "OBOGS FAIL". This means the oxygen generator is out and you have to activate emergency oxygen generator on your seat - soon. That one is on your seat because it has to supply you with oxygen when you eject.

4. About 14 seconds later, a sensor picks up loss of oxygen pressure to the mask (from failed OBOGS).

That's all there's to it. Apparently the pilot never managed to activate emergency oxygen, and while fumbling with that he also bumped the control stick and rudder, causing the aircraft to fly a "random" trajectory. The cabin is cramped, and with extra cold weather gear it's nigh impossible to activate that emergency oxygen without bumping into things. That is a design issue, as well as the awkward way of activating that emergency oxygen system (you have to pull a ring from a hip level about 2 in. forward (away from you) with 40lb or more of force.

The report is here.

In a pinch, the truck load of dynamite can serve the same purpose as the shaped charge

If you get lucky. The important thing about precision-delivered ordinance (the original poster talks of "shaped charges", but there's more to it than just anti-tank weapons) isn't the lower collateral damage but rather that they deliver that harm to the target. The link above is to the first use of smart bombs in the Vietnam War. Here's the money quotes from the article.

By 1972, the Air Force and the Navy had sent 871 sorties against the Dragonâ(TM)s Jaw, losing 11 aircraft but failing to knock out the bridge.

And

The F-4s hit the bridge with 26 laser-guided bombs, several of them heavy 3,000-pounders, and did what all of the previous attacks had not been able to do. According to an Air Force review of the action, âoeThe western span of the bridge had been knocked completely off its 40 foot thick concrete abutment and the bridge superstructure was so critically disfigured and twisted that rail traffic would come to a standstill for at least several months.â

This is why the big nukes are being abandoned. Why build a huge bomb which might fail to do the job, when you can build a much smaller bomb (here I'm think a smaller nuclear weapon, not some 5000 lbs bomb) which can hit much more precisely and do the job better?

Crazy fucking nut job is what you are!

This explains how hard it was to hit a target during Vietnam, where hit ratios were way up from WWII due to more advanced targeting solutions.

In reality, it took been 500-800 bombs to hit a single target during WWII, with low altitude runs. The fact they were dropped from such high altitudes only made the odds of success even more unlikely and misses much, much farther from target. In order to offset such horrible odds, they completely gave up on precision bombing and went the route everyone else had already gone - which was saturation or carpet bombing.

Its extremely well documented that the entirely wrong cities were carpet bombed because of navigation errors. To mislead claiming this didn't happen is to be delusional and well into ignorance or revisionist territory.

Rape was never supported by the Allies and anyone who says otherwise is fully of delusional bullshit.

As for theft of property, this was considered "Spoils of War." This has a long, long, long established history throughout the war. I don't agree with it, but it was in fact, what made many a military commander extremely wealthy over the centuries. It was a commonly accepted fact of war by all parties involved and as such, has absolutely no bearing on the subject matter at hand. The fact you believe it does only underscores you are either completely ignorant of the subject or a delusional nut job.

Your bigotry comments only validate you are a bigoted but job as I never said anything one way or the other - at least not in this post. The simple fact is, I don't disagree one bit with the history books and almost endless facts which support the Jews were horribly murdered and that genocide was the agenda. Which only underlines you are a bigot and a delusional nut job.

I encourage you to actually read some history and learn about the topics to which you are clearly impassioned. Until you do so, you will forever remain and bigoted nut job.