The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Soviet war jets simulate attack on US Navy

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ru...SKCN0XA1UW

China building additional islands on atolls for military bases just 140 miles from Manila the capital of the Philippines.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/china-b...a-sea.html

N. Korea continues to build and grow their ballistic missile capability unimpeded.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/re...39650.html

How is this good for the world? The US?

In what other time of American History would like/relevant action be tolerated?

Our president doesn't understand strength through power. He doesn't grasp that the bad actors are less likely to do crazy stuff if they know we "could" make things uncomfortable for them.

He's a projected to the world that he's linguini spine, and the world has responded accordingly.

Dear Chipdip2,
What do you want President Obama to do? Go to war with Russia? China? Bomb North Korea? Things are not as simple as it appears, and the United States has already placed warships near the Chinese so called bases. President Obama has twice the the spine you have.

Thanks for the anatomical commentary regarding spines and pasta.

Care to answer the questions?

Obama has played his cards in the Middle East and he folded in Iraq and in Syria.

The message was clear. Lines in the sand mean nothing. Even the little weasel in Noerth Korea has no fear of Repercussions.

A much stronger Cold War USSR would never have done a fly by of a carrier, yet a depleted Russian Air Force thumbs their nose at Obama. Why? Because he's shown he's a linguine spine.

Solution. Call Putin and tell him that if you don't publicly apologize we begin shipping weapons to Ukraine. AND WE ACTUALLY DO IT.

Barbary Pirates or current state of affairs?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/s...estioning/

Dear gobaseline,
During the early part of the nineteenth century, the British were impressing American sailors into their navy, with little action taken by the United States, other than protests to the British government.
During World War I the Germans sank the British liner Lusitania, with the loss of 124 American lives. Again, protests to the German government.
World War II saw the American destroyer Reuben James torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. Again, protests to the German government.
These examples show that at the time of the above occurrences, the United States government did not feel it would be in our best interests to go after the aggressors. And there were a multiple number of reasons as to why not.

Dear Chipdip2,
I hope you realize that it was a flyby over a United States destroyer, not an aircraft carrier. Next, as far as the line in the sand with Syria, President Obama, using diplomacy, with President Putin was able to get the Syrian government to turn over its supply of Sarin gas, thereby removing any use of it again against the Syrian people. That is what the line in the sand was all about. If the problem is removed, there is no need to use force.
The United States has been funneling weapons to the Ukrainians.

Russia did this again.

They did this in Turkey and Turkey shot the plane down. Russia threatened consequences, but did nothing. Why? There military is a collection of scrap metal. Their economy is the size of Italy.

Don't confuse the current Russian military with the Cold War USSR military, they're not remotely the same.

One of these ship commanders will shoot one of these down and Like with Turkey, Putin will do nothing..............although I'm sure POTUS will have the ship's commander removed.

The US funded Krations to Ukrain, not exactly a weapon.

(04-17-2016 11:36 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear gobaseline,
During the early part of the nineteenth century, the British were impressing American sailors into their navy, with little action taken by the United States, other than protests to the British government.
During World War I the Germans sank the British liner Lusitania, with the loss of 124 American lives. Again, protests to the German government.
World War II saw the American destroyer Reuben James torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. Again, protests to the German government.
These examples show that at the time of the above occurrences, the United States government did not feel it would be in our best interests to go after the aggressors. And there were a multiple number of reasons as to why not.

The narrative you are running in the theater of your mind doesn't align with the questions.

I didn't ask if the US should "bomb" and attack as you suggested originally nor go after the aggressors as you now state. I asked three questions.
How are the events mentioned good for the World and US?

And you are factually correct as to the 3rd question. So now if you would, the first two.

Okay, we give up, what's the answer

Who gives a sh1t?

(04-19-2016 10:56 AM)GullLake Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 06:51 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  Soviet war jets simulate attack on US Navy

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ru...SKCN0XA1UW

China building additional islands on atolls for military bases just 140 miles from Manila the capital of the Philippines.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/china-b...a-sea.html

N. Korea continues to build and grow their ballistic missile capability unimpeded.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/re...39650.html

How is this good for the world? The US?

In what other time of American History would like/relevant action be tolerated?

Under the naive leadership of this president and his administration, yes.

Love you armchair generals.

Quote:It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Teddy Roosevelt

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

(04-19-2016 12:00 PM)BCBronco Wrote:  

Quote:It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Teddy Roosevelt

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

Yup.

And our naive president has never served in the armed forces...and his contempt for those who do is disturbing.

So what? Who is the last president to serve?

You know who shows contempt for our warfighters? Scumbags like you who insist on DoD waiving its collective ***** around and needlessly risking lives. How dare you suggest the president has contempt for those serving in our military. You may disagree with his policy and those of his leaders, but to say they have contempt for our armed forces is at the very least ignorant and at the most disgusting.

Go screw yourself.

(04-19-2016 03:01 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  So what? Who is the last president to serve?

You know who shows contempt for our warfighters? Scumbags like you who insist on DoD waiving its collective ***** around and needlessly risking lives. How dare you suggest the president has contempt for those serving in our military. You may disagree with his policy and those of his leaders, but to say they have contempt for our armed forces is at the very least ignorant and at the most disgusting.

Go screw yourself.

So, where did I, or anyone else on this board say " ...who insist on DoD waiving its collective ***** around and needlessly risking lives."

You made that up.

Know there are several on this board with sons/daughters serving or preparing to serve.

Your post is a direct reflection of your depth, unfortunately.

Please take some time to LISTEN to our men and women in the armed services when they may speak candidly. See what they have to say about this president and Mrs. Clinton. It is neither pleasant or comforting.

I do, and I know there is more intellectual depth in the military than just D vs R as you claim to believe.

(04-19-2016 04:14 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  I do, and I know there is more intellectual depth in the military than just D vs R as you claim to believe.

There you go again!

My post(s) made zero reference to either political party.