Bill Clinton woul not have allowed russian jets to showboat over carriers

[Moonglow]

[

Not true. Pootin is menacing the power he can't overcome...And naval SOP does not shoot down every hot dog pilot...
"You don’t get to kill people just because they’re being annoying," retired frigate and cruiser commanding officer Capt. Rick Hoffman told the Navy Timesabout the incident.

A foreign warplane performing aggressive movements towards our fleet in international waters is not just annoying but dangerous. Not only does it show a disrespect but it is in violation of the agreements we have to not do those things because it may provoke hostile actions. That is no different than a Russian plane entering Turkish airspace and the Turks dealing with it in a forceful manner.

Obama is incapable of dealing with the aggressiveness of the Russians because he is a ***** and does not have the courage to confront the bully.

He did not have the courage to serve in the military himself and he does not understand how to be Commander in Chief. He is a ***** in Chief and Putin knows that.

Many president never served in the military, yet here we still stand.....

 

[Flash]

[Q

It IS different from the Syrian incident because the Russian jet was loaded with bombs. These are young men with powerful toys and not much to do, letting their testosterone hang out. I think its a dangerous game, but so is drag racing and 'chicken' and a lot of other things people get up to for an adrenaline rush. Kerry warned them yesterday that the behavior is unsafe and unprofessional. What else, short of bombing an unarmed plane, would you suggest?

When the warplanes approached the ship the crew had no idea if it was armed or not. It could have been an attack on the ship for all they knew.

However, they didn't respond because they had orders from ***** in Chief not to defend themselves. Pretty chickenshit.

The correct response would have been to shoot down one of the planes. Recover the body of the pilot and return it to the Russians. At the funeral of the pilot send a bouquet of flowers with a note that says "Next time Putin tells you to harass an American ship just say no".

The way to deal with a bully is to fight back, not run away.

 

[OldLady]

[Q

It IS different from the Syrian incident because the Russian jet was loaded with bombs. These are young men with powerful toys and not much to do, letting their testosterone hang out. I think its a dangerous game, but so is drag racing and 'chicken' and a lot of other things people get up to for an adrenaline rush. Kerry warned them yesterday that the behavior is unsafe and unprofessional. What else, short of bombing an unarmed plane, would you suggest?

When the warplanes approached the ship the crew had no idea if it was armed or not. It could have been an attack on the ship for all they knew.

However, they didn't respond because they had orders from ***** in Chief not to defend themselves. Pretty chickenshit.

The correct response would have been to shoot down one of the planes. Recover the body of the pilot and return it to the Russians. At the funeral of the pilot send a bouquet of flowers with a note that says "Next time Putin tells you to harass an American ship just say no".

The way to deal with a bully is to fight back, not run away.

That is not true, Flash. Our technologies detected that the planes were unarmed and not locked on the ship WAY before it got there. We have smart technologies. Shooting it down would have begun an international incident with another nuclear power. You working for them, or what?

 

[Flash]

[Q

That is not true, Flash. Our technologies detected that the planes were unarmed and not locked on the ship WAY before it got there. We have smart technologies. Shooting it down would have begun an international incident with another nuclear power. You working for them, or what?

The technology can detect if a weapon has been launched but they have no idea what weapons are on board.

To use a missile there has to be electronics activated for targeting and launching that can be detected but that is different than actually knowing if there are weapons that can be used.

There is no technology to determine if there is a gun aboard with a loaded ammo. You know, like the kind used to strafe a ship.

The planes buzzing the ship were a threat by close vicinity and it was an act of bullying and should have been dealt with summarily but because we have a ***** in chief it didn't happen.

 

[OldLady]

[Q

It IS different from the Syrian incident because the Russian jet was loaded with bombs. These are young men with powerful toys and not much to do, letting their testosterone hang out. I think its a dangerous game, but so is drag racing and 'chicken' and a lot of other things people get up to for an adrenaline rush. Kerry warned them yesterday that the behavior is unsafe and unprofessional. What else, short of bombing an unarmed plane, would you suggest?

When the warplanes approached the ship the crew had no idea if it was armed or not. It could have been an attack on the ship for all they knew.

However, they didn't respond because they had orders from ***** in Chief not to defend themselves. Pretty chickenshit.

The correct response would have been to shoot down one of the planes. Recover the body of the pilot and return it to the Russians. At the funeral of the pilot send a bouquet of flowers with a note that says "Next time Putin tells you to harass an American ship just say no".

The way to deal with a bully is to fight back, not run away.

Flight Control: Here’s Why Russia Buzzes U.S. Destroyers
It should be noted that the Russian fighter jets were not armed and that they had very little fuel on board. They did not lock on to the US target. So despite the aggressive behavior, the US ship knew that they were not in danger. This is essential because otherwise the could have shot the Russian planes down. Given the neighborhood, that would not have been wise on the part of the United States.
From this article and numerous interviews I've seen and read in the past week, we did indeed know they were unarmed and not locked on the ship as a target. If you call being "armed," someone inside with a machine gun, I suppose that's possible. I still believe it's a bunch of shenanigans, and the Russians "marking their territory" is another way to put it. Attitudes like yours are unsound.

 

[Camp]

Just wondering what carrier has been involved in such an incident?

i can name a bunch of them and two that i was on FOUR (4) different times, i even have my own photos and 8mm film.

I suspected these shenanigans have been going on for some time--media just cottoned on to it, turning it into yet another foreign policy ***** point.

Reality check, being ignored is the fact that the US has been antagonizing Russia. We recently put US units on the Russian border at Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave on the Baltic that borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. It is the home of not only a large Russian port but also a Navel Airbase. Not only have we put combat units on the border, we have been deploying our most advanced air assets to the area and stockpiling various weapons in the area. The ship that was buzzed was between 45 and 70 miles of the airbase and would have been viewed as a spy ship collecting electronic intelligence on Russian operations at both the port and airbase. It would have also been viewed as a US probe to see how close the US could deploy before getting a reaction or response.

If the destroyer had shot down a Russian aircraft over international waters it would have been an act of war and illegal. The Russians would have had a legal right to dispatch rescue aircraft for the downed pilot and or crew. They would also have had a right to flood the skies with force protection from the airbase for the rescue effort. Since the destroyer would have shown a hostile intent by shooting down one or more aircraft already, it would have been rational, reasonable and probably legal to secure the safety of the rescue effort by taking out the destroyer.

 

[Mr Natural]

Why are we even operating in the Baltic Sea?

Does Russia have carriers in the Gulf of Mexico or Long Island Sound?

 

[paulitician]

What would he have done? Start WWIII over it? Man, the Warmongers really are over-hyping this thing. Such a rush to get more Americans killed for nothing. When are they gonna realize that wars never benefit average Citizens? They only benefit the few wealthy Global Elites. No one should be in such a big rush to die for those evil folks. I often wonder why someone would want to join the military at this point.

 

[Flash]

[Q

It IS different from the Syrian incident because the Russian jet was loaded with bombs. These are young men with powerful toys and not much to do, letting their testosterone hang out. I think its a dangerous game, but so is drag racing and 'chicken' and a lot of other things people get up to for an adrenaline rush. Kerry warned them yesterday that the behavior is unsafe and unprofessional. What else, short of bombing an unarmed plane, would you suggest?

When the warplanes approached the ship the crew had no idea if it was armed or not. It could have been an attack on the ship for all they knew.

However, they didn't respond because they had orders from ***** in Chief not to defend themselves. Pretty chickenshit.

The correct response would have been to shoot down one of the planes. Recover the body of the pilot and return it to the Russians. At the funeral of the pilot send a bouquet of flowers with a note that says "Next time Putin tells you to harass an American ship just say no".

The way to deal with a bully is to fight back, not run away.

Flight Control: Here’s Why Russia Buzzes U.S. Destroyers
It should be noted that the Russian fighter jets were not armed and that they had very little fuel on board. They did not lock on to the US target. So despite the aggressive behavior, the US ship knew that they were not in danger. This is essential because otherwise the could have shot the Russian planes down. Given the neighborhood, that would not have been wise on the part of the United States.
From this article and numerous interviews I've seen and read in the past week, we did indeed know they were unarmed and not locked on the ship as a target. If you call being "armed," someone inside with a machine gun, I suppose that's possible. I still believe it's a bunch of shenanigans, and the Russians "marking their territory" is another way to put it. Attitudes like yours are unsound.

That substantiates what I said.

The ship knows when they are targeted when the planes turns on the targeting and launching devices but they don't know if the planes or armed or not, which is what you claimed.

They also have no way of knowing how much fuel is in an airplane. We are good at detection of some things but not that good.

However, point is not valid and not reason enough to dismiss the planes as a threat. You are claiming that since the Russian planes did not turn on their weapon systems miles out they could have not been a threat and that is totality false.

There were no weapons turned on when the Russian plane violated Turk air space and the Turks took care of the problem and haven't been bothered since.

The real issue is are we going to allow Putin to bully us and it is clear that ***** Commander in Chief is going to continue to be Putin's *****. Obama is the worst Commander in Chief this country ever had. Even worse than Carter.

.

 

[Camp]

Why are we even operating in the Baltic Sea?

Does Russia have carriers in the Gulf of Mexico or Long Island Sound?

No, they only have one carrier and it has only patrolled in the Black Sea, Mediterranean and North Sea, although it did make a symbolic visit to Scotland for a resupply. It was built in Ukraine a quarter century ago, so it is unlikely they will get another one. The last one that Ukraine built for them got gutted before turning it over to Russia and the hulk was sold to China.
The US prefers shadowing Russian ships instead of buzzing them. Buzzing is a propaganda and publicity endeavor. Shadowing is a quite way of ensuring destruction of the targeted ship at time and selection of the shadowing endeavor.

 

[paulitician]

[Q

It IS different from the Syrian incident because the Russian jet was loaded with bombs. These are young men with powerful toys and not much to do, letting their testosterone hang out. I think its a dangerous game, but so is drag racing and 'chicken' and a lot of other things people get up to for an adrenaline rush. Kerry warned them yesterday that the behavior is unsafe and unprofessional. What else, short of bombing an unarmed plane, would you suggest?

When the warplanes approached the ship the crew had no idea if it was armed or not. It could have been an attack on the ship for all they knew.

However, they didn't respond because they had orders from ***** in Chief not to defend themselves. Pretty chickenshit.

The correct response would have been to shoot down one of the planes. Recover the body of the pilot and return it to the Russians. At the funeral of the pilot send a bouquet of flowers with a note that says "Next time Putin tells you to harass an American ship just say no".

The way to deal with a bully is to fight back, not run away.

Flight Control: Here’s Why Russia Buzzes U.S. Destroyers
It should be noted that the Russian fighter jets were not armed and that they had very little fuel on board. They did not lock on to the US target. So despite the aggressive behavior, the US ship knew that they were not in danger. This is essential because otherwise the could have shot the Russian planes down. Given the neighborhood, that would not have been wise on the part of the United States.
From this article and numerous interviews I've seen and read in the past week, we did indeed know they were unarmed and not locked on the ship as a target. If you call being "armed," someone inside with a machine gun, I suppose that's possible. I still believe it's a bunch of shenanigans, and the Russians "marking their territory" is another way to put it. Attitudes like yours are unsound.

That substantiates what I said.

The ship knows when they are targeted when the planes turns on the targeting and launching devices but they don't know if the planes or armed or not, which is what you claimed.

They also have no way of knowing how much fuel is in an airplane. We are good at detection of some things but not that good.

However, point is not valid and not reason enough to dismiss the planes as a threat. You are claiming that since the Russian planes did not turn on their weapon systems miles out they could have not been a threat and that is totality false.

There were no weapons turned on when the Russian plane violated Turk air space and the Turks took care of the problem and haven't been bothered since.

The real issue is are we going to allow Putin to bully us and it is clear that ***** Commander in Chief is going to continue to be Putin's *****. Obama is the worst Commander in Chief this country ever had. Even worse than Carter.

.

How is it possible to 'bully' the most powerful nation on earth? Answer is, it isn't possible. This stuff is getting way over-hyped. The Warmongers want WWIII. But let's not overreact and give em their war.

 

[Flash]

Just wondering what carrier has been involved in such an incident?

i can name a bunch of them and two that i was on FOUR (4) different times, i even have my own photos and 8mm film.

I suspected these shenanigans have been going on for some time--media just cottoned on to it, turning it into yet another foreign policy ***** point.

Reality check, being ignored is the fact that the US has been antagonizing Russia. We recently put US units on the Russian border at Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave on the Baltic that borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. It is the home of not only a large Russian port but also a Navel Airbase. Not only have we put combat units on the border, we have been deploying our most advanced air assets to the area and stockpiling various weapons in the area. The ship that was buzzed was between 45 and 70 miles of the airbase and would have been viewed as a spy ship collecting electronic intelligence on Russian operations at both the port and airbase. It would have also been viewed as a US probe to see how close the US could deploy before getting a reaction or response.

If the destroyer had shot down a Russian aircraft over international waters it would have been an act of war and illegal. The Russians would have had a legal right to dispatch rescue aircraft for the downed pilot and or crew. They would also have had a right to flood the skies with force protection from the airbase for the rescue effort. Since the destroyer would have shown a hostile intent by shooting down one or more aircraft already, it would have been rational, reasonable and probably legal to secure the safety of the rescue effort by taking out the destroyer.

You are being disingenuous.

If it was the right thing for Obama to deploy American troops then it is the right thing for American forces to protect themselves against potential threats or bullying tactics.

If the US had shot down the Russian plane Putin would have had to decide if he wanted to go to war over it and he would have backed down like all bullies.

Obama has really weakened the US military. I think we all know that. However, even in the weakened state Obama put us in we are far superior to any other military force in the world, including the Russians.

The Russian economy is tanking and the last thing they want to do is get into a war they cannot win.

The thing that would have happen is that Putin would cry like a little school girl and do nothing. If Obama has any balls he would respond by simply saying that if you don't want to get your planes shot down then keep them away from American sources, operating in international waters.

We would have gained back a lot of the respect that Obama has lost for us and Putin wouldn't have fucked with us again.

Weakness breeds trouble and Obama is very weak. The Boy needs to grow a set of balls.

 

[Flash]

[

How is it possible to 'bully' the most powerful nation on earth? Answer is, it isn't possible. This stuff is getting way over-hyped. The Warmongers want WWIII. But let's not overreact and give em their war.

You can debate if should have forces in the area and I would be inclined to agree with you. However, given the fact that the US is there then we should protect our assets against harassment.

We allowed the Russian to intimidate our forces without any consequences and that was wrong.

 

[OldLady]

[Q

It IS different from the Syrian incident because the Russian jet was loaded with bombs. These are young men with powerful toys and not much to do, letting their testosterone hang out. I think its a dangerous game, but so is drag racing and 'chicken' and a lot of other things people get up to for an adrenaline rush. Kerry warned them yesterday that the behavior is unsafe and unprofessional. What else, short of bombing an unarmed plane, would you suggest?

When the warplanes approached the ship the crew had no idea if it was armed or not. It could have been an attack on the ship for all they knew.

However, they didn't respond because they had orders from ***** in Chief not to defend themselves. Pretty chickenshit.

The correct response would have been to shoot down one of the planes. Recover the body of the pilot and return it to the Russians. At the funeral of the pilot send a bouquet of flowers with a note that says "Next time Putin tells you to harass an American ship just say no".

The way to deal with a bully is to fight back, not run away.

Flight Control: Here’s Why Russia Buzzes U.S. Destroyers
It should be noted that the Russian fighter jets were not armed and that they had very little fuel on board. They did not lock on to the US target. So despite the aggressive behavior, the US ship knew that they were not in danger. This is essential because otherwise the could have shot the Russian planes down. Given the neighborhood, that would not have been wise on the part of the United States.
From this article and numerous interviews I've seen and read in the past week, we did indeed know they were unarmed and not locked on the ship as a target. If you call being "armed," someone inside with a machine gun, I suppose that's possible. I still believe it's a bunch of shenanigans, and the Russians "marking their territory" is another way to put it. Attitudes like yours are unsound.

That substantiates what I said.

The ship knows when they are targeted when the planes turns on the targeting and launching devices but they don't know if the planes or armed or not, which is what you claimed.

They also have no way of knowing how much fuel is in an airplane. We are good at detection of some things but not that good.

However, point is not valid and not reason enough to dismiss the planes as a threat. You are claiming that since the Russian planes did not turn on their weapon systems miles out they could have not been a threat and that is totality false.

There were no weapons turned on when the Russian plane violated Turk air space and the Turks took care of the problem and haven't been bothered since.

The real issue is are we going to allow Putin to bully us and it is clear that ***** Commander in Chief is going to continue to be Putin's *****. Obama is the worst Commander in Chief this country ever had. Even worse than Carter.

.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm taking what the commander of the ship said at face value. How can you say they didn't know if the jet was armed when the commander of the ship SAID THEY KNEW IT WAS UNARMED? Also knew it had little gas. How did the commander know that? I'm not a commander of a US military ship, but I'm more likely to believe him than you. Sorry Flash.

 

[Flash]

[

I'm not claiming anything. I'm taking what the commander of the ship said at face value. How can you say they didn't know if the jet was armed when the commander of the ship SAID THEY KNEW IT WAS UNARMED? Also knew it had little gas. How did the commander know that? I'm not a commander of a US military ship, but I'm more likely to believe him than you. Sorry Flash.

You claimed that the ship knew if the planes were armed or not and that is wrong.

The only thing the ship knew was if the planes turned on their weapon systems and targeting devices. That is not the same as being unarmed.

Don't you understand the difference? Is that confusing to you?

It always amazes me the lengths the Moon Bats go through to justify Obama's weakness, lies and incompetency.

The real issue is Obama going to allow Putin to bully him and the answer is yes. He is a weak Commander in Chief with no courage. Probably stems from the fact that instead of serving his country in the military he was hanging out with his communist buddies, as he states in his book.

 

[Camp]

[

I'm not claiming anything. I'm taking what the commander of the ship said at face value. How can you say they didn't know if the jet was armed when the commander of the ship SAID THEY KNEW IT WAS UNARMED? Also knew it had little gas. How did the commander know that? I'm not a commander of a US military ship, but I'm more likely to believe him than you. Sorry Flash.

You claimed that the ship knew if the planes were armed or not and that is wrong.

The only thing the ship knew was if the planes turned on their weapon systems and targeting devices. That is not the same as being unarmed.

Don't you understand the difference? Is that confusing to you?

It always amazes me the lengths the Moon Bats go through to justify Obama's weakness, lies and incompetency.

The real issue is Obama going to allow Putin to bully him and the answer is yes. He is a weak Commander in Chief with no courage. Probably stems from the fact that instead of serving his country in the military he was hanging out with his communist buddies, as he states in his book.

We are not being bullied. In fact, Russia could argue that they are being bullied. When a US destroyer or other asset gets that close to Russian assets the results are predictable. The question is, what kind of action will bring about what kind of reaction. The only way to ascertain this data is by empirical research, hence, a probe. The options of the opposing force are calculated and thus, predictable. The response and consequences are calculated and chosen before the incident might occur. These are referred to as contingency plans. This allows commanders to follow the book, and by doing so puts everyone in the Pentagon to the White House on the same page. The commander of the destroyer would have been following the book in regards to a response to his ship being buzzed when operating in an area so close to Russian military bases. In all likelihood. he would have been briefed before his mission to the area about what to do if such an incident occurred. That would have included not to start a shooting incident over harassment for getting to close to the Russian bases. Harassment is legal and expected under certain conditions. Shooting down an aircraft is not.

 

[paulitician]

[

How is it possible to 'bully' the most powerful nation on earth? Answer is, it isn't possible. This stuff is getting way over-hyped. The Warmongers want WWIII. But let's not overreact and give em their war.

You can debate if should have forces in the area and I would be inclined to agree with you. However, given the fact that the US is there then we should protect our assets against harassment.

We allowed the Russian to intimidate our forces without any consequences and that was wrong.

What do you want done? Like i said, it's impossible to 'bully/intimidate' the most powerful nation on earth. The U.S. vastly outspends its closest counterparts on military. Public numbers show U.S. military spending at about $500 Billion. But that's not counting Black-Ops and other secret projects. The U.S. has by far the most powerful military on earth. It's not even close. There's no threat it can't respond to. So let's not overreact and start WWIII over this.

 

[Mr Natural]

What the **** are we doing in the Baltic Sea anyway? Don't Sweden and Finland have their own navies?

Got any idea what is costs us to operate one of those carriers? Why is it we never hear the right ***** about that?

 

[Flash]

[

We are not being bullied. .

That is a ridiculous statement.

 

[OldLady]

You claimed that the ship knew if the planes were armed or not and that is wrong.
For the last ******* time, I didn't claim that. The commander of the ship, who is most likely NOT a Moonbat, claimed that.
Now leave it alone already!