The jets have been overhead all day

[jennyr]

My house is not normally on any flight path but today there has been a constant noise of military jets overhead, some of them flying quite low. I do not know if they were British or French, but they were all going West to East. So they may have been going direct to Libya or they may have been on their way to redeploy from one of the Mediterranean bases. It was quite frightening at times and took me back to Bosnia when I heard the NATO aircraft every night on their way to bomb Kosovo. I am not against the UN sponosred action, Quadaffi has to be stopped, but I can't help thinking that every one of those planes is dealing death to someone, whichever side they are on, and how sad it is.

 

[catmom2wires]

Hugs. It must be horrible.

 

[ldg]

It is so sad.

to you, and to all who need it.

 

[gemlady]

Sounds like days after 9-11 when had helicopters flying over our house.

 

[natalie_ca]

During Desert Storm, they did a military exercise in Winnipeg that involved fighter jets, helicopters and tanks deployed in The City to give us the sense of what it was like for people in a war zone. It wasn't a very nice experience at all

IMHO if all leaders were expected to lead their troops into war like the Kings of old, we wouldn't have any war. Centuries ago the Kings used to fight right along with their troops. Now the country leaders hide behind bunkers and give out orders to people who give out orders to others right down to the soldiers risking their lives in the front lines. Sickening and cowardly.

 

[kittkatt]

Originally Posted by Natalie_ca

IMHO if all leaders were expected to lead their troops into war like the Kings of old, we wouldn't have any war. Centuries ago the Kings used to fight right along with their troops. Now the country leaders hide behind bunkers and give out orders to people who give out orders to others right down to the soldiers risking their lives in the front lines. Sickening and cowardly.

I couldn't agree with you more, Linda. Every time those sickos bark out their orders, they go crawling into their hidey holes like the cowards that they are.

to you, Jenny.

That must be truly horrifying.

 

[mrblanche]

Originally Posted by Natalie_ca

IMHO if all leaders were expected to lead their troops into war like the Kings of old, we wouldn't have any war. Centuries ago the Kings used to fight right along with their troops. Now the country leaders hide behind bunkers and give out orders to people who give out orders to others right down to the soldiers risking their lives in the front lines. Sickening and cowardly.

So...we had war when the Kings led their troops...now we have war when they don't. What could possibly lead you to believe that anything would be different, when it wasn't different?

And keep in mind that George Bush was a fighter pilot in a unit that eventually was assigned to Viet Nam. His father was a pilot who was shot down during WWII. Eisenhower had led the troops in Europe. Kennedy had been in the Navy in the Pacific and had his little boat sunk. Johnson was a Navy officer. Nixon was a Navy officer. Ford was a Navy officer. Carter had been a Navy officer. Reagan had played military men in movies. Clinton had dodged the draft, and Obama was never subject to it and didn't serve voluntarily.

Although England's queen never fought in the war, she was in the volunteer services. Her sons and grandsons have all been trained military officers, subject to service in war zones (and wasn't one in Iraq or Afghanistan for a while?).

There's no evidence that military service makes the leaders any less likely to use the military, if they think it's for the best interests of their country.

 

[sneakymom]

I have torn emotions on this subject.

On the one hand- living in an area where there's a huge Navy base- and seeing a couple of ships go off that are in direct combat with Libya- I can't help but feel proud of what the guys (and ladies) are doing. And feel for their families while their loved one is deployed.

However- I have to wonder just WHY did we get in the middle of something. Again. When congress is complaining just how high the deficit is- and how things need to be cut b/c we can't keep on spending like we do. And the cuts that come- often times hurt the people who are the LEAST able to take care of themselves.

I remember the conflict we had back in the 80's with Quadaffi. I had a history teacher in high school who called him "Daffy Kadaffi"

He needs to be put out of power- but isn't there someone else who could do it?

Just MHO.

Cheryl

 

[shp26]

John Stewart had some commentary on this week about Libya. I won't post it because I'm not yet 100% familiar with forum rules about political opinions, but I'm sure if you google it you can find it. I got a little chuckle out of "...We're at war? Again?? Don't we already have two of those???"

 

[carolpetunia]

Being the proud daughter of an Army pilot, I have to point out: yes, George W. Bush was assigned to that unit, but he never served in any kind of action, never went to Vietnam (or anywhere else), went AWOL when he was assigned to a training program, and lost his wings when he repeatedly failed to show up for mandatory flight physicals.

So I just can't handle it when W is referred to as a military pilot, as if he served with the same integrity and honor as so many others did, and do.

Okay, crawling back under my rock now.

 

[-_aj_-]

Im one of quite a few Brits that think us going to war with Lybia is very wrong!!!

Its a country wat not one that other nations needed to get involved with ESPECIALLY as out delightful government are SACKING our soldiers so god only knows how they are managing these three wars but never mind

and i agree if David Cameron did what Elizabeth I, all the Tudors, etc etc etc did there would be no war!! but they dont need to get their own hands dirty these days they just send in under equipped and over worked BOYS in

 

[-_aj_-]

Originally Posted by mrblanche

Although England's queen never fought in the war, she was in the volunteer services. Her sons and grandsons have all been trained military officers, subject to service in war zones (and wasn't one in Iraq or Afghanistan for a while?).

Yes but was never actually involved and was brought back as soon as they could get him here, It was prince Harry went over

 

[carolpetunia]

Uhoh -- I forgot to weigh in on the larger point:

Jenny, I so understand how chilling it must be to hear those planes pass overhead. It's a painful truth that harm often has to be done in order to prevent a greater harm... but it doesn't make violence any more palatable.

Cheryl, you're absolutely right that there are others who could do the hard job of removing Qaddafi. But they won't. That's why Obama worked so hard to get UN approval and to form a coalition that included at least one Arab nation -- because the days of letting the United States serve as the world's army-at-large have got to end.

Just as you implied, we cannot continue as nearly the only country on earth with the principle and compassion to step in on behalf of the underdog. Other nations have got to start taking more responsibility, especially when the offenders are in their own backyards.

My hope is that this coalition will succeed brilliantly, both with US leadership and without it, and that the experience will signal a new pattern of global cooperation when tyrants need toppling.

 

[mrblanche]

Originally Posted by CarolPetunia

yes, George W. Bush went AWOL when he was assigned to a training program, and lost his wings when he repeatedly failed to show up for mandatory flight physicals.

So I just can't handle it when W is referred to as a military pilot, as if he served with the same integrity and honor as so many others did, and do.

Okay, crawling back under my rock now.

You ARE aware, I hope, that while those accusations have been made, they have been repeatedly disproved, right? In fact, those accusations were at the basis of why Dan Rather lost his job, using faked papers to try to prove them.

It's true he was never assigned to combat duty, and, if that was his goal, it was successful; still, it was a lot more than Clinton did.

We used to deliver munitions to all sorts of military bases. In fact, our truck delivered over 1,000,000 lbs of munitions during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Many of those Air Force bases have signs up around them from the locals, praising "the sound of freedom."

 

[carolpetunia]

Mike, I have a feeling we're placing our trust in different information sources. What one source says is proven fact, another claims to have disproved, and history gets rewritten so many times that it's hard to conclusively prove anything.

As proud as I am of my family's military background, I don't think it makes sense to expect everyone who runs for President to have served in the military. Some people are ideal for it, and some are better suited to other pursuits. There are many, many ways to "be all you can be!"

 

[jennyr]

I didn't mean this thread to become a political dicussion, though I suppose I should have foreseen it. Just that as I worked in the garden yesterday I was feeling sad for all those involved, and at human evil, frailty and bravery. I spent a summer in Libya in 1971, a year after Khaddafi took over, and hte people were so happy and optimistic after the long rule of a corrupt monarchy. And in the early years he did a lot of good - he used the oil revenues to introduce free universal education and health care for his people and was the first Arab ruler to insist on women's rights. He did some stupid things too, like cutting down all the coastal trees so that sand destroyed the highways. And his links with terrible acts of terrorism are well proven. He is a classic example of the dictum that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now it is well overdue that he should go. But the collateral damage to t he people will be immense, and there is as yet no viable alternative. So the future is very unsure. And yesterday brought my time in Bosnia and Kosovo back to me too - it was just an overload of sadness.

 

[mrblanche]

Originally Posted by CarolPetunia

As proud as I am of my family's military background, I don't think it makes sense to expect everyone who runs for President to have served in the military. Some people are ideal for it, and some are better suited to other pursuits. There are many, many ways to "be all you can be!"

This is true. The Presidents I named were all young men during a time when there was a draft. Not all were drafted. Most volunteered. But it was considered "normal" to have served in the military. That's why Clinton's act was so shameful (he actually twisted the law to get out of a draft notice, then reneged on his promise to join). That's why it's not surprising that George W. Bush and John Kerry both apparently pulled strings to get better treatment. That's just what happens.

There are many who insist that not having any first-hand acquaintance with the military is what made Clinton and what is making Obama such poor military decision-makers. I personally think that any President who makes a number of military decisions will end up making some really bad ones; it's the nature of decision-making. Anyone who puts that all on the recent Democrats is forgetting some doozies made by people like Reagan and Nixon.

And my real point is that many men who had seen real, violent combat where they had lost friends and relatives, were perfectly willing to use the military, knowing that young men just like they had been would likely die in the effort.

Just for the record, I don't think Kings (or Presidents) have been at the front of their armies, or even on the battlefield, since about 1066.

Also, just in passing one of the bad things about being on a military jet flight path is that their engines are optimized for power, not quiet. They are VERY noisy, and even the best of them are pretty dirty, too, compared to civilian airplanes. (Although Dottie has a cousin who is an environmental researcher for the government, studying military plane exhaust and how to improve it.)

 

[jennyr]

.

Just for the record, I don't think Kings (or Presidents) have been at the front of their armies, or even on the battlefield, since about 1066.

Actually the last English king to lead his troops into battle was George II in 1743. And in France Napoleon led his armies personally until 1815, when he was defeated at the battle of Waterloo. There may be others too.