• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO Uses Attack Helicopters for First Time in Libya

GPS_Flex said:
So the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) must be a NATO carrier, not a US carrier too then right?
USSEnterpriseBowShot-sm.jpg
Click to expand...

NATO sure builds them big !! I hear the UN has a fleet of ballisitic missile subs too. ;)

I feel so safe with Barack as CIC.

Or is it DIC ? (Ditherer in Chief)
 
ecofarm said:
No, they need congressional approval within 60 days or must be withdrawn within 30 days of that deadline. Obama has not exceeded the 30 days to withdraw. He has not broken any rules.
Click to expand...

He has made his intentions clear that the War Powers Resolution will not be followed, and our forces, not withdrawn.
 
Councilman said:
The non-War has moved ahead as Obama is lies about our mission.

Is it remotely possible that Obama has been less than forthright in the degree of our involvement in the Libyan theater. Say it's not so.
Click to expand...

So, is this like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Did you forget how the GOP King was forthright with his comments concerning Iraq?
 
Hippy dippies.....Bwuahahahahaahahaahaha :lamo
 
Eighty Deuce said:
NATO sure builds them big !! I hear the UN has a fleet of ballisitic missile subs too. ;)

I feel so safe with Barack as CIC.

Or is it DIC ? (Ditherer in Chief)
Click to expand...

I thought the Enterprise was decommisioned.
 
If Sarkozy was willing to put French boots on the ground in Cote D'Ivoire for absolutely no good reason, then I'm positive NATO doesn't sweat a few helicopters hovering over Libya.

Just saying.
 
apdst said:
Obviously not, because Japanese combat forces were emplyed/deployed at Pearl Harbor. Do you understand the difference between combat arms and support arms?
Click to expand...
Yes, a combat arm would be a weapon a soldier carries, flies, drives, fires or operates. A support arm is what you might find on an office chair.

Perhaps you want to know if I understand the difference between a truck carrying supplies for combat troops and the actual combat troops. If you think me ignorant on issues such as combat roles and combat support roles, you will soon be humbled. Feel free to act like a typical Army drone and challenge me however you like. You’ll need to wrap it up tonight though if you want answers because I go back to work in the morning and won’t be available to debate further for at least 2 months.


apdst said:
"war", occurs when combat units go on the offensive. Period.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to make the case that the US’ role in Libya has only been logistical? If so, how do you explain the US F-15 pilot who was shot down in Libya or the US bombs and missiles that took out Libyan air defenses etc.? I just don’t understand your logic here.


apdst said:
You're accusing O'Bama of committing a crime that he hasn't committed and I'm the Republican tool? :lamo
Click to expand...
You need to change that political “lean” description from “very conservative” to “republican” because real conservatives have more respect for the Constitution than you are showing while republicans don’t really give a rip about the Constitution. Republicans and Democrats are both just as guilty of tearing up the Constitution when they are in power but Republicans like you are notoriously war mongering thugs who have never seen a war they didn’t like.


Obama himself described his actions as unconstitutional, as did Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid et al. Liberals tend to decry violations of the Constitution when they are out of power but when they are in power, they walk all over it. Republicans like you have a thirst for blood so you love every potential and real war there is. At least you are consistent in your desire to support war no matter what. Too bad you do it at the expense of the US Constitution though and are creating an imperialist executive branch in the process.
 
Grant said:
If it really is 'all about oil' let's just hit all the ME oil producing countries and take it.
Click to expand...

We only need to hit the ME countries that are destabilizing or are blatantly cutting off the oil supply. The rest are contributing their supplies to the OPEC economy. Why would we invade them?

Iran was on the verge of socializing its oil industry, which is why the CIA helped to overthrow the democratic government of the time.

Anyone who threatens the oil gets destroyed. It's just that simple. There is no other reason why we are there.
 
Temporal said:
We only need to hit the ME countries that are destabilizing or are blatantly cutting off the oil supply. The rest are contributing their supplies to the OPEC economy. Why would we invade them?

Iran was on the verge of socializing its oil industry, which is why the CIA helped to overthrow the democratic government of the time.

Anyone who threatens the oil gets destroyed. It's just that simple. There is no other reason why we are there.
Click to expand...

I think it is a bit naïve to say there is “no other reason” we are there. 911 comes to mind for starters.
 
Temporal said:
We only need to hit the ME countries that are destabilizing or are blatantly cutting off the oil supply. The rest are contributing their supplies to the OPEC economy. Why would we invade them?

Iran was on the verge of socializing its oil industry, which is why the CIA helped to overthrow the democratic government of the time.

Anyone who threatens the oil gets destroyed. It's just that simple. There is no other reason why we are there.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that American bankers also accepted almost all of Libya's sovereign fund before America helped invade them.

Goldman Sachs Lost 98% of Libya’s $1.3B Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment - Agustino Fontevecchia - Moral Hazard - Forbes
 
GPS_Flex said:
There were/are a lot of reasons to take Quackdaffi out to be sure.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons why most dictators should be removed but it should also be made clear why, and the selection and priority process explained.

Only five NATO countries, less than 20%, are involved in this war, which hardly makes it a NATO exercise or commitment.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Yes, a combat arm would be a weapon a soldier carries, flies, drives, fires or operates. A support arm is what you might find on an office chair.

Perhaps you want to know if I understand the difference between a truck carrying supplies for combat troops and the actual combat troops. If you think me ignorant on issues such as combat roles and combat support roles, you will soon be humbled. Feel free to act like a typical Army drone and challenge me however you like. You’ll need to wrap it up tonight though if you want answers because I go back to work in the morning and won’t be available to debate further for at least 2 months.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you don't know the difference between combat arms and support arms. In short, the combat arms are infantry, artillery and armor. Everything else is a support arm.

Are you trying to make the case that the US’ role in Libya has only been logistical? If so, how do you explain the US F-15 pilot who was shot down in Libya or the US bombs and missiles that took out Libyan air defenses etc.? I just don’t understand your logic here.
Click to expand...

At this point, I believe the U.S. role is logistical and thereby not a violation of the WPA.


You need to change that political “lean” description from “very conservative” to “republican” because real conservatives have more respect for the Constitution than you are showing while republicans don’t really give a rip about the Constitution. Republicans and Democrats are both just as guilty of tearing up the Constitution when they are in power but Republicans like you are notoriously war mongering thugs who have never seen a war they didn’t like.
Click to expand...

Just because my politics are Conservative doesn't mean that I'm going to chase after an obvious lie. In fact, I'm not going to chase after an obvious lie, because of my Conservative lean.
 
Grant said:
There are many reasons why most dictators should be removed but it should also be made clear why, and the selection and priority process explained.

Only five NATO countries, less than 20%, are involved in this war, which hardly makes it a NATO exercise or commitment.
Click to expand...

The legality of this issue has nothing to do with NATO or the UN. It is really simple actually. The US, its forces, property or allies weren’t attacked or under threat of attack from Libya so it was unconstitutional to attack Libya without Congressional approval.

The WPR only applies when an attack or eminent threat already exists. It isn’t complicated.
 
apdst said:
Ok, so you don't know the difference between combat arms and support arms. In short, the combat arms are infantry, artillery and armor. Everything else is a support arm.
Click to expand...
You crack me up. You must be old as dirt because I know the modern army didn’t teach you this crap. You are Army so I shouldn’t be surprised by your inability to think outside a foxhole should I?

I see, you think the Army is the only offensive weapon the US has and if it goes boom and the Army didn’t do it, it must be logistical right? This is why we refer to grunts like you as “Aint Real Men Yet”, affectionately of course.



apdst said:
At this point, I believe the U.S. role is logistical and thereby not a violation of the WPA.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how you can call US missile strikes, air strikes and naval gunfire “logistical support”. Maybe that’s what you called it in your platoon when you were in the Army but in the real world, anything that goes “boom” and blows the enemies’ crap up isn’t “logistical”.




apdst said:
Just because my politics are Conservative doesn't mean that I'm going to chase after an obvious lie. In fact, I'm not going to chase after an obvious lie, because of my Conservative lean.
Click to expand...
No comment.
 
GPS_Flex said:
You crack me up. You must be old as dirt because I know the modern army didn’t teach you this crap. You are Army so I shouldn’t be surprised by your inability to think outside a foxhole should I?

I see, you think the Army is the only offensive weapon the US has and if it goes boom and the Army didn’t do it, it must be logistical right? This is why we refer to grunts like you as “Aint Real Men Yet”, affectionately of course.
Click to expand...

Well, anyone that doesn't know the difference between combat arms and support arms has zero knowledge of how any military works. The branches of arms have been around for centuries. It's nothing new and it hasn't changed.




I’m not sure how you can call US missile strikes, air strikes and naval gunfire “logistical support”. Maybe that’s what you called it in your platoon when you were in the Army but in the real world, anything that goes “boom” and blows the enemies’ crap up isn’t “logistical”.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, those missions ended less than two weeks into the operation and since then U.S. operations have been restricted to logistical support for NATO forces. If you have information concerning U.S. units conducting combat operations, I would love to see it; you may just change my opinion.





No comment.
Click to expand...

Apology accepted.
 
apdst said:
Well, anyone that doesn't know the difference between combat arms and support arms has zero knowledge of how any military works. The branches of arms have been around for centuries. It's nothing new and it hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's "combat arms" and "combat support arms". Just "support arms" as you attempt to use it is so infrequent that it is not readily understood in that way, and has more relevance as noted by others, that being more as part of a chair, or as a description (and command) as to how a weapon can be carried in a non-aiming position.

I think you'd be better off with just "combat units" and "support units", or "logistical support" etc.
 
apdst said:
Well, anyone that doesn't know the difference between combat arms and support arms has zero knowledge of how any military works. The branches of arms have been around for centuries. It's nothing new and it hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

I see, you called me a hypocrite for no reason, came up with new definitions for "arms” to support your political blood thirst and I’m the one with zero knowledge of how the military works.

I’ll let you wallow in the muddy hole you have dug. The Army produces some very talented intelligence personnel but you obviously don’t fit that class. Only grunts like you would refer to air sorties as “support arms” and most grunts easily recognize the difference between logistics and combat. You sure you were in the Army?


apdst said:
As far as I know, those missions ended less than two weeks into the operation and since then U.S. operations have been restricted to logistical support for NATO forces. If you have information concerning U.S. units conducting combat operations, I would love to see it; you may just change my opinion.
Click to expand...

I see, you once again prove that you value your conclusions first and follow up by seeking evidence later. You also give evidence that your reading comprehension isn’t very good as I made clear that the first bomb dropped was unconstitutional. Who is the real hypocrite here apdst?

If you trust that US attack missions ended 2 weeks into the operation, you are more of a tool than I thought. You have 2 more hours to redeem yourself from the dregs of political zombie because I won’t care what you post after 12:00 PST and won’t be available to respond.


apdst said:
Apology accepted.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have an integrity problem or a reading comprehension problem but if you are into mental masturbation, go for it.
 
Last edited:
There are no US attack helicopters being utilized here. Take another look. I believe it is just British and French, though the other European NATO powers may have choppers in there as well.

/thread
 
Gargantuan said:
There are no US attack helicopters being utilized here. Take another look. I believe it is just British and French, though the other European NATO powers may have choppers in there as well.

/thread
Click to expand...

How do you know?

Why does it really matter one way or another?
 
GPS_Flex said:
How do you know?

Why does it really matter one way or another?
Click to expand...

NATO uses helicopters in Libya; British officials visit Benghazi - CNN.com

"The visit, which included a discussion of the country's possible future, followed helicopter attacks by British and French forces on the regime's military."

Blasts heard in central Tripoli - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

"Earlier, British Apache and French attack helicopters struck targets for the first time in NATO's campaign in Libya, hitting Gadhafi's troops near a key coastal oil city, the alliance said. "

NATO Choppers Pound Gadhafi - Combat gets up-close and personal after relying on bombers

"(AP) – British Apache and French attack helicopters struck targets for the first time in NATO's campaign in Libya, hitting Moammar Gadhafi's troops early today near a key coastal oil city"

AFP: UK defence chief defends use of choppers in Libya

Ennahar Online - Libya: English and French helicopters in action

Enough for you? It matters because President Obama kept his promise not to involve us in ground warfare, which chopper usage, IMO, is. Choppers are at risk for attack from the ground. Planes in Libya are not. They do not have the technology to knock down NATO airplanes.
 
Last edited:
Gargantuan said:
NATO uses helicopters in Libya; British officials visit Benghazi - CNN.com

"The visit, which included a discussion of the country's possible future, followed helicopter attacks by British and French forces on the regime's military."

Blasts heard in central Tripoli - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

"Earlier, British Apache and French attack helicopters struck targets for the first time in NATO's campaign in Libya, hitting Gadhafi's troops near a key coastal oil city, the alliance said. "

NATO Choppers Pound Gadhafi - Combat gets up-close and personal after relying on bombers

"(AP) – British Apache and French attack helicopters struck targets for the first time in NATO's campaign in Libya, hitting Moammar Gadhafi's troops early today near a key coastal oil city"

AFP: UK defence chief defends use of choppers in Libya

Ennahar Online - Libya: English and French helicopters in action

Enough for you? It matters because President Obama kept his promise not to involve us in ground warfare, which chopper usage, IMO, is. Choppers are at risk for attack from the ground. Planes in Libya are not. They do not have the technology to knock down NATO airplanes.
Click to expand...

Got it. News articles that talk US built attack helicopters from other nations being used but don’t do anything to prove US attack helicopters/forces aren’t still attacking targets in Libya.

Constitution be damned so long as ground troops aren’t involved. US President’s now have the power to wage war without constraint so long as ground troops aren’t involved. Can’t wait till the next republican president levels Venezuela. This are going to be great using these new rules aren’t they?

Does this include nukes too? Can the president now nuke someone who isn’t doing what they should? The next Prez should nuke Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Pakistan, Syria, and France. Things will be much easier now that war isn’t war unless there are boots on the ground won’t they?
 
GPS, I never said anything about the legality of this operation. I simply told you that US helicopters are not involved in this operation. I have proven that they are not. If you have proof they are, go ahead and show it, otherwise, your comments and this whole thread is bull****.
 
Gargantuan said:
GPS, I never said anything about the legality of this operation. I simply told you that US helicopters are not involved in this operation. I have proven that they are not. If you have proof they are, go ahead and show it, otherwise, your comments and this whole thread is bull****.
Click to expand...

You haven't proven squat. Just because foreign helicopters are being used doesn’t eliminate US helicopters or other combat forces from the mix.

Yes, this whole thread is bull**** but that is because people like you and apdst don’t care if your President violates the Constitution and takes huge steps towards an empirical executive branch. If you did, you would be outraged at both political parties right now.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”.
(George Washington)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom