Members RA1 Posted June 14, 2013 Members Posted June 14, 2013 Any thoughts that BO is cranking up the Syrian conflict in order to deflect public opinion about recent domestic debacles? Best regards, RA1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted June 14, 2013 Posted June 14, 2013 Wag the Dog? There is also what Nixon observed, namely that domestic matters frustrate presidents because there is so little they can do about them in many respects, what with Congress to contend with, uncontrollable factors like economic cycles, etc. Whereas in foreign policy the executive has, short of making war (even that now), considerable freedom of action. Nixon's observation (in Monica Crowley's excellent even if sycophantic Nixon Off the Record) was that foreign policy therefore tends to attract the executive's attention more and more as an Administration wears on. Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted June 14, 2013 Members Posted June 14, 2013 Any thoughts that BO is cranking up the Syrian conflict in order to deflect public opinion about recent domestic debacles? Best regards, RA1 It is a nice wish for his detractors, but half those support his intelligence stance. He is under no real pressure from Public Opinion and Congress is a wash. No. I believe he has become concerned with the surge in help from Russia as well as the Hamas and Iran contributions. The Rebels are suffering defeats, the Turks are distracted, and he will get the blame if the Rebels go down. Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 14, 2013 Author Members Posted June 14, 2013 But, isn't BO a little late in "considering" aiding the rebels? Weren't they declared nearly defeated a week or so ago because they had nothing to combat armor, artillery, etc.? The Russians may be a little late offering munitions also. Timing is everything so if the time has or almost has passed, there might be another motive? I agree there is a lot less any President can do about domestic affairs (not having them would be a start, however) with the entrenched bureaucracy and, as you suggest, a reluctant Congress. But, the country might be in a mood for a little isolationism? Yes, I know how difficult that is with a world economy, etc. but we don't have to start or support a war every week-end, do we? Best regards, RA1 Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted June 14, 2013 Members Posted June 14, 2013 I'm convinced the country is in the mood for a little isolationism. That has been part of his reluctance IMO, and he has had his own reticence to get deeper in with people who may come back to bite you in ten years. As for whether it is too late or not, I'm in no position to know. The rebels were routing Assad a few months back. Things can turn quickly depending on support. as we have seen before, It is impossible to accurately predict what is necessary to win or to contain the commitment unless one is willing to suffer another Somalia. I am not and I'm not up for going all in. I'd prefer to stay involved only at arms length and support European powers to intervene if they wish. I see no great push from them either. What is important is that Israel not get pulled into it because that would commit us as deeply as necessary to protect their back. Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 15, 2013 Author Members Posted June 15, 2013 It isn't easy to know the right thing to do, is it? I think we do know that, as with any endeavor, doing it best means doing it oneself. McCain may be strategically correct in going all out but politically it is nuts at this moment. As you pointed out, Russia "interfering" is a legitimate worry as well as Israel becoming involved. What to do? What to do? It may soon be time to seriously consider a nuclear answer. After all, radioactive gasoline burns just as well as any other kind. Sometimes I am astonished that we (the world) has not had some sort of nuclear exchange, accidental or and mainly, on purpose. Maybe the aliens really are protecting us. Best regards, RA1 Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted June 15, 2013 Members Posted June 15, 2013 It may soon be time to seriously consider a nuclear answer. After all, radioactive gasoline burns just as well as any other kind. Sometimes I am astonished that we (the world) has not had some sort of nuclear exchange, accidental or and mainly, on purpose. Maybe the aliens really are protecting us. Best regards, RA1 Put the gas tank in the front and it will also light the way. We came very close to a nuclear exchange in the mid 80s when there was a period of extreme tension between the sides. We were carrying on a war games op with NATO and the Soviets repeatedly misread our actions and intentions from the get-go. Their experts could not decide what was real and what wasn't. An East German spy in NATO was feeding information back that the operation was cover for a real attack that was coming. The Soviets were coming down to a 'go' decision when Regan unexpectedly withdrew from his part in the games and was replaced with an underling. The Soviets figured he would not do that if it were a real attack. That is probably all that saved an all-out exchange. That info was declassified a few years ago and I saw a documentary on cable describing the episode. They interviewed military and intelligence primaries from both sides. Bone chilliing. Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 15, 2013 Author Members Posted June 15, 2013 I am more than sure the incident you describe is by far not the only time we almost exchanged nukes. The Cuba missile crisis being the most famous. I still remember how worried I was, how worried my parents were (and everyone else) about this. I wondered why we had not built our back yard fall out shelter. The nearest one was the school I attended and I didn't want to spend any more time there than necessary. Best regards, RA1 Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted June 16, 2013 Members Posted June 16, 2013 I am more than sure the incident you describe is by far not the only time we almost exchanged nukes. The Cuba missile crisis being the most famous. I still remember how worried I was, how worried my parents were (and everyone else) about this. I wondered why we had not built our back yard fall out shelter. The nearest one was the school I attended and I didn't want to spend any more time there than necessary. Best regards, RA1 I actually had troops on the streets in my home town and my high school was less than a mile from an Air Force base. We couldn't have lectures and discussion for all of the jet engine noise. It was all book work and written assignments those days. Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 16, 2013 Author Members Posted June 16, 2013 Slight change of subject but I have wondered for a long time why people move or build near an airport and then they or subsequent owners complain about the noise? In almost every case, large airports were built in the middle of nowhere and then the city or suburb moved to them. Didn't those folks notice large shiny objects going to and from a place on the ground when they thought about building or moving out there? I know plenty of folks who don't wish to be located under or near large electrical transmission lines, but some still locate near an airport. I realize that military bases are built with housing "attached" and if the mission changes such a facility can become a public one. Still, no one was forced to live nearby, were they? The MEM airport is one I am very familiar with throughout its' modern history. The land area was large enough to deal with several growth spurts to include several additional runways, the FEDEX hub and several other projects without annexing any private or additional land. However, as the "noise footprint" expanded with the growth, the neighborhoods on the east and west complained more and more, even though the airport was there long before the neighborhoods. There is a golf course on the south and an interstate on the north, so those directions were less of a problem. Eventually and over a period of 20 years or so, the airport authority bought out the neighborhoods that were nearest to the airport. One such neighborhood now houses the simulator center (several buildings) for FEDEX which is good for the airport, FEDEX and tax payers. However, all that did not happen overnight so there was a lot of worry and expense throughout. By far not every airport has the funding available and is very unlikely to ever have it to execute such a land acquisition program. Therefore there will be continuous conflicts between nearby neighborhoods and many airports through out the country from now on. Pity. Airports bring a LOT of commerce, revenue and taxes to any community but, surprise, people are too short sighted to deal with it. Sorry to bore some folks. I didn't know I was going to write so much when I started the post. Best regards, RA1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 On that admitted tangent from the subject of Syria today, but relevant thereto nonetheless, this summary by Chomsky of some recent history showing again what a near-disaster was the Cuban missile episode, and how much the image of JFK as cool master strategist may not (surprise) have been quite the case: http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-missile-crisis-russian-roulette RA1 1 Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 16, 2013 Author Members Posted June 16, 2013 Luck counts! There is a program aired on the History channel which somewhat depicts JFK as being foolhardy and taking risky chances during the Cuban debacle. It would easy for me to characterize the Kennedy administration as acting like a frat prank that got out of control and now they are frantically trying to put the horse back in the barn (according to the program). The program does mention the "secret deal" of the missiles being removed from Turkey. It does not and cannot go into the detail mentioned in the above article. Amazing how well PR worked in those days and how poorly it seems to now. Or, was it simply the public was more gullible then (although they seem plenty gullible now)? The emperor never has had any clothes, has he? Best regards, RA1 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 I know this might be silly but look at Obama's smiles.. How can a guy smile so innocently be so cunning? I don't think he brought up Syria to silence the domestic debacle. I think he is family man who loves his family and the country. If not, then do we have hope? Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 16, 2013 Author Members Posted June 16, 2013 I have hope but it is not based upon personality affection. BO and other pols may smile innocently but they are indeed cunning, at least. I am very hopeful that restrictions and efforts based upon Constitutional questions will be the point. I am very sorry to think that we are not in a legal situation at all. Best regards, RA1 Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted June 18, 2013 Members Posted June 18, 2013 Slight change of subject but I have wondered for a long time why people move or build near an airport and then they or subsequent owners complain about the noise? In almost every case, large airports were built in the middle of nowhere and then the city or suburb moved to them. Didn't those folks notice large shiny objects going to and from a place on the ground when they thought about building or moving out there? I know plenty of folks who don't wish to be located under or near large electrical transmission lines, but some still locate near an airport. I realize that military bases are built with housing "attached" and if the mission changes such a facility can become a public one. Still, no one was forced to live nearby, were they? The MEM airport is one I am very familiar with throughout its' modern history. The land area was large enough to deal with several growth spurts to include several additional runways, the FEDEX hub and several other projects without annexing any private or additional land. However, as the "noise footprint" expanded with the growth, the neighborhoods on the east and west complained more and more, even though the airport was there long before the neighborhoods. There is a golf course on the south and an interstate on the north, so those directions were less of a problem. I wasn't on the site selection committee but I did hold one seat in the Junior High School at the time. However, I know the following facts. There was no high school in that part of town, the nearest being four or five miles away. Much of the land further away was already built up with housing and commercial properties, probably for the reason you suggest. Also, much of the new housing had been and was being built for base personnel, military and civilian support. Thus the availability of the land, the concentration of population in the area, the proximity away from the other school all contributed. As for the bitching, I suspect it is lot like Seattle, people bitch about the rain but it is part of every day life. BTW, only the teachers and students bitched. I suspect the parents were quite happy with a nearby school. It wasn't too intolerable in normal times. The base was nowhere as active as a commercial airport with flights landing or taking off every few minutes or less. The base did have training flights and patrol flights as well, not to mention some personnel traffic. So there was traffic but not airport traffic. But I mentioned the noise in connection with the Cuban Missile Crisis which was anything but normal. It was SAC HQ before Castro took Cuba and that was moved to Omaha. At that time there was nothing near it except for a small village of maybe a few hundred known as Port Tampa, later annexed by Tampa (as was my own neighborhood). They had the nearest school when I started school so I was bussed there until my neighborhood school opened. Part of its mission was to receive all the fuel for the base which was literally down at the south end of the village streets. I remember as a little kid seeing the massive tails of the B-47s lined up on the runway apron and was disappointed when they were replaced by the smaller tails on the B-52s. I did not appreciate the difference in capability of the two at the time. I attended the high school in the early Viet Nam era when it was a fighter base training pilots and keeping an eye on Castro. Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 18, 2013 Author Members Posted June 18, 2013 The B-52 is an amazing aircraft. It has been in service for over 60 years now and is being flown by pilots who were not born when it went into service. Some of it "looks" dated but it has been thoroughly upgraded at least twice and will continue in service for probably another 20+ years. Nothing built since comes close to matching what it can do and the price just gets better. I assume you are referring to MacDill AFB. Have you seen the video of the C-17 "mistakenly" landing at Peter O'Knight airport? Pretty amazing. Best regards, RA1 Quote
Members TampaYankee Posted June 19, 2013 Members Posted June 19, 2013 The B-52 is an amazing aircraft. It has been in service for over 60 years now and is being flown by pilots who were not born when it went into service. Some of it "looks" dated but it has been thoroughly upgraded at least twice and will continue in service for probably another 20+ years. Nothing built since comes close to matching what it can do and the price just gets better. I assume you are referring to MacDill AFB. Have you seen the video of the C-17 "mistakenly" landing at Peter O'Knight airport? Pretty amazing. Best regards, RA1 Yes, I am. No I did not see that video. Amazing would be an understatement. That would be like trying to birth the QEII on three first-class stamps floating in a puddle. The C-17 is huge and Peter O'Knight is not. Wonder where that pilot is flying now and what? Quote
Members RA1 Posted June 19, 2013 Author Members Posted June 19, 2013 Just Google C-17 lands at Peter O'Knight airport and you will get several versions to include not only the landing but the subsequent take-off after off loading cargo and changing crew. I do not believe the crew will be dealt any punishment other than a good ass chewing. Reputedly the crew had been on a very long duty day and had come from Europe. The runway at O'Knight lines up very well with the one at MacDill and when being radar vectored for the approach, saw the runway at O'Knight and landed. It is by far not the first time this kind of thing has happened. Best regards, RA1 Quote
