StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Because it was moved into the non-UN endorsed no-fly-zone and as such was a direct threat to allied aircraft.

Sounds much more like someones getting a REAL itchy trigger finger.

What's a CCC?

weemadando wrote:Because it was moved into the non-UN endorsed no-fly-zone and as such was a direct threat to allied aircraft.

Sounds much more like someones getting a REAL itchy trigger finger.

Sounds like you're looking to crucify us. When you're threatened by the enemy I think most people would fire first to save their skins.

Just heard this on ABC NewsRadio.

Finding a link now.

Stormbringer wrote:Sounds like you're looking to crucify us. When you're threatened by the enemy I think most people would fire first to save their skins.

How the fuck can a Command and Control Centre threaten pilots?

Ted wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:Sounds like you're looking to crucify us. When you're threatened by the enemy I think most people would fire first to save their skins.

How the fuck can a Command and Control Centre threaten pilots?

Because a CCC relays orders and coordinates to the SAM batteries that engage US pilots.

Stormbringer wrote:

weemadando wrote:Because it was moved into the non-UN endorsed no-fly-zone and as such was a direct threat to allied aircraft.

Sounds much more like someones getting a REAL itchy trigger finger.

Sounds like you're looking to crucify us. When you're threatened by the enemy I think most people would fire first to save their skins.

Look, for 11 years the US and UK have been maintaining an ILLEGAL blockade of Iraqi airspace.

I don't have that much of an issue with that given some of Saddams more homicidal tendencies.

BUT- Attacking a ground target just because its in that zone? Its a no-fly-zone. Not a no-build-zone. And anyhow, isn't there something in the NFZ ROE about only attacking ground target that have fired upon or have the capacity to fire upon aircraft (like SAMs and AAA)?

Yes a Command Control Centre presents a nice shiny target, but it doesn't give you a green light to bomb it.

weemadando wrote:Look, for 11 years the US and UK have been maintaining an ILLEGAL blockade of Iraqi airspace.

I don't have that much of an issue with that given some of Saddams more homicidal tendencies.

BUT- Attacking a ground target just because its in that zone? Its a no-fly-zone. Not a no-build-zone. And anyhow, isn't there something in the NFZ ROE about only attacking ground target that have fired upon or have the capacity to fire upon aircraft (like SAMs and AAA)?

Yes a Command Control Centre presents a nice shiny target, but it doesn't give you a green light to bomb it.

When it can be used to threaten our pilots and allow them use of that no fly zone it damn well ought to get bombed.

Ted wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:Sounds like you're looking to crucify us. When you're threatened by the enemy I think most people would fire first to save their skins.

How the fuck can a Command and Control Centre threaten pilots?

Because it controls the batteries and radar systems which do the shooting.

Thus the name.

http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-032

Stormbringer wrote:When it can be used to threaten our pilots and allow them use of that no fly zone it damn well ought to get bombed.

And you call me insensitive and ruthless.

Why don't we bomb the Pentagon then, it'll be used, not just to threaten, but to KILL Iraqi civilians as well as troops.

weemadando wrote: Yes a Command Control Centre presents a nice shiny target, but it doesn't give you a green light to bomb it.

Oh and somehow you are still wanting Iraq to be nice and cooperative, so you won't have to go to war? Since when did bombing a nation make them more accepting of diplomatic means? You (the US) say that you want a peaceful solution but your actions say otherwise.

Smells like hypocrisy to me.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Ted wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:Sounds like you're looking to crucify us. When you're threatened by the enemy I think most people would fire first to save their skins.

How the fuck can a Command and Control Centre threaten pilots?

Because it controls the batteries and radar systems which do the shooting.
Thus the name.
http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-032

The non-existant batteries and radar sites.

The ones that have been destroyed over the past 11 years so that there is bloody all left.

Stormbringer wrote: When it can be used to threaten our pilots and allow them use of that no fly zone it damn well ought to get bombed.

And by that logic, the White House, Pentagon and the entirity of SAC represent a direct and visible threat to the safety of the world due to their ability to launch nuclear weapons.

My bomber wings are en route.

Ted wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:When it can be used to threaten our pilots and allow them use of that no fly zone it damn well ought to get bombed.

And you call me insensitive and ruthless.

Why don't we bomb the Pentagon then, it'll be used, not just to threaten, but to KILL Iraqi civilians as well as troops.

No, you're actually clueless. A CCC is DIRECTLY involved in the direction of SAM batteries that engage US pilots. Nice of you to ignore that point.

Um, isn't a CCC a valid military target?

Ted wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Ted wrote: How the fuck can a Command and Control Centre threaten pilots?

Because it controls the batteries and radar systems which do the shooting.
Thus the name.
http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-032

The non-existant batteries and radar sites.

The ones that have been destroyed over the past 11 years so that there is bloody all left.

Your source for this would be what? Your ass perhaps?

HemlockGrey wrote:Um, isn't a CCC a valid military target?

Yeah, WHEN YOU ARE AT WAR.

YOu guys didn't go and bomb the Soviet HQ's whenever you felt like it in the cold war, now did you?

HemlockGrey wrote:Um, isn't a CCC a valid military target?

Its debatable.

The only justification is that it was moved into the NFZ and thus represented a threat.

But again, I'm unsure of the ROE for allied pilots in the NFZ.

AND it was an ordered and planned strike, not a target of opportunity.

Yeah, WHEN YOU ARE AT WAR.

Which has been for what, nine, eight years now?

YOu guys didn't go and bomb the Soviet HQ's whenever you felt like it in the cold war, now did you?

No, because the Soviets had nukes. The Iraqis don't. If Saddam doesn't like getting bitchslapped every once in a while he shouldn't have been such a prick.

HemlockGrey wrote:

Yeah, WHEN YOU ARE AT WAR.

Which has been for what, nine, eight years now?

YOu guys didn't go and bomb the Soviet HQ's whenever you felt like it in the cold war, now did you?

No, because the Soviets had nukes. The Iraqis don't. If Saddam doesn't like getting bitchslapped every once in a while he shouldn't have been such a prick.

umm... isnt this whole war/crisis about the nukes that saddam MIGHT have?

HemlockGrey wrote:No, because the Soviets had nukes. The Iraqis don't. If Saddam doesn't like getting bitchslapped every once in a while he shouldn't have been such a prick.

Which means, in a sense, that you condone bullying.

Because you can hurt them means that you can do whatever the fuck you want to with them.

You're no better than a schoolyard bully.

HemlockGrey wrote:

Yeah, WHEN YOU ARE AT WAR.

Which has been for what, nine, eight years now?

Refresh my memory, when did you declare war on Iraq again?

YOu guys didn't go and bomb the Soviet HQ's whenever you felt like it in the cold war, now did you?

No, because the Soviets had nukes. The Iraqis don't. If Saddam doesn't like getting bitchslapped every once in a while he shouldn't have been such a prick.

Oh, so not having nukes means that nations must bend over and receive some anal lovin' from the good ole US of A?

Get a real argument.

Ted wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:No, because the Soviets had nukes. The Iraqis don't. If Saddam doesn't like getting bitchslapped every once in a while he shouldn't have been such a prick.

Which means, in a sense, that you condone bullying.

Because you can hurt them means that you can do whatever the fuck you want to with them.

You're no better than a schoolyard bully.

He's a high school junior; that's the world he lives in.

weemadando wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:Um, isn't a CCC a valid military target?

Its debatable.

The only justification is that it was moved into the NFZ and thus represented a threat.

But again, I'm unsure of the ROE for allied pilots in the NFZ.

AND it was an ordered and planned strike, not a target of opportunity.

Well, then the ROE issue is rather simple. We bombed an istallation that would be used to threaten out pilots. Simple as that.

Which means, in a sense, that you condone bullying.

Because you can hurt them means that you can do whatever the fuck you want to with them.

You're no better than a schoolyard bully.

As I said; if they didn't want to be bitchslapped, they didn't have to invade two or three countries, massacre hundreds, and repeatedly violate human rights and disarmament policies.