Senator Graham Yells, “Kill! Kill!”

Graham: Bomb Gadhafi’s Inner Circle, End Stalemate

Senator Graham was pretty spicy on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. He got all G.I. Lindsey on everyone.

He said,

“So my recommendation to NATO and the administration is to cut the head of the snake off, go to Tripoli, start bombing Gadhafi’s inner circle, their compounds, their military headquarters. The way to get Gadhafi to leave is have his inner circle break and turn on him. And that’s going to take a sustained effort through an air campaign.

OK, I agree with him that Qathafi definitely needs to die. However, an air campaign isn’t going to kill him. There’s just going to be a lot of civilian deaths, and he’ll escape.

This is something that has to be done from the ground. Since we’re not supposed to assassinate a leader of a country, I guess we have to find him in some spider hole, and let his people execute him.

By “we,” I mean the other countries in NATO. Lindsey and John McCain want our weapons and air power back in the game. I guess. They can use our “stuff,” but definitely not our soldiers. No “boots on the ground.” None of our guys and gals dying. We have two other wars on our hands. I hope they and everyone else up on the Hill are keeping that in mind.

22 responses to “Senator Graham Yells, “Kill! Kill!”

  • Terrance H.

    However, an air campaign isn’t going to kill him. There’s just going to be a lot of civilian deaths, and he’ll escape.

    I don’t understand how you draw that conclusion. Graham said we should bomb Daffy’s “inner circle,” “their compounds (meaning, military), and the “military headquarters.”

    If U.S. smart-bombs are used, there should be minimal civilian loss. Have you ever seen a U.S. smart-bomb in action? Do you know much about them? Trust me, they hit what they’re supposed to hit.

    • Spinny Liberal

      lb just said it – NATO struck the compound. Psycho isn’t dead. As of an hour ago, 36 are now dead. Is it because NATO didn’t use our smart bombs?

      I don’t think we should just rain bombs and hope we get lucky.

    • lbwoodgate

      Do you know much about them? Trust me, they hit what they’re supposed to hit.”

      Yes they do Terry and if your house is the target will not your neighbor’s house next door feel some collateral damage? Have you seen a smart bomb take out it’s target? Does it confine its destruction to ONLY the target? How far away do other people and buildings have to be to NOT suffer any damage from “smart” bombs?

      • Terrance H.

        Nobody is going after houses, woodgate! They want to go after government and military compounds!

        Yes, I’ve seen a smart bomb take out its target. It always hits what it’s supposed to hit, and there is minimal damage to surrounding buildings.

      • lbwoodgate

        Terry, How do you know what they are going after? How do you know if they accurately target what they intend? How little is “minimal damage” in your mind? You were in transportation for God’s sake. What makes you so damn smart about smart bombs that the rest of us can’t get from google searches?

      • Terrance H.


        Try to follow along, would ya? I’m going off Graham’s statements. If all he wants to bomb are military compounds and government compounds, then I don’t think civilian loss is going to be that outstanding.

        Transportation, as in the people who have to deal with IUDs…But you’re making an absurd insinuation. What we see and do is not always limited to our MOS. Someone who was supposedly in the Marines should know that.

  • lobotero

    Spinny, when has civilian deaths been a true concern in war?

  • lbwoodgate

    From Graham’s mouth ton the military command of NATO

    Ghadhafi compound hit by NATO; dozens reportedly hurt

    There are no nice and tidy ways to wage war even with the invention of “smart bombs” that limit destruction to populations surrounding their target. War is ALWAYS brutal and deadly to innocent lives.

    Ghadafi is playing a game of cat and mouse, using his own people as human shields and he has no qualm about exposing innocent civilians to his bombardments

    “On Sunday, Gadhafi’s forces unleashed a barrage of shells and rockets at Misrata in an especially bloody weekend … which other doctors say killed at least 32 people”.

    I think there is and should be a reluctant willingness to allow such attacks aimed at Ghadafi and his entourage, even when innocent civilians are hurt and killed, rather than sending in U.S. troops where even one of them may be fatally hurt. Though this is similar to what Rumsfeld referred to as “collateral damage” when they attacked Iraq, the reasons to go in Libya were far different than the reasons we were given in Iraq.

    Collateral damage(CD) is a sad fact of of war which is why it should be avoided as much as is humanly possible but it must be understood that CD will occur when that decision has been reached.

    • Terrance H.


      Yes. Because Daffy’s military killing civilians is the same as the United States killing civilians. Get real.

      U.S. smart-bombs work. If you’ve been in the military in this past century, you’d know that.

    • Spinny Liberal

      I never liked the term “collateral damage,” which is why I use “civilian deaths.” Reminds people that it’s real people who die.

      But you’re right. It’s going to happen.

      • Terrance H.

        You are concerned about the actions Graham wants to take. I’m telling you that those actions are not going to produce as many civilian deaths as you think. The war itself may, but that war is fought regardless if we’re there or not. Our being there actually prevents civilian deaths, notwithstanding the anti-war rhetoric from the Left.

        If NATO left tomorrow, Daffy Duck would not cease the slaughter. In fact, it would grow, and his military would be in all rebel-controlled areas by the end of the week, murdering people indiscriminately.

      • Spinny Liberal

        I get that the slaughter will continue if NATO left. My point was I just don’t think the air strike are the answer. I don’t believe it’s going to “cut off the head of the snake” and civilian deaths are a given.

        Ground troops. But not ours.

      • Terrance H.

        Civilian deaths are a given whether we bomb or not. And if we bomb, the chance of civilian loss is minimally. But that seems to be a moot point.

        I don’t think you know what you want. You want to kill Daffy, but not with bombings and not with American troops. What the hell do you want? No other military in the United States is as equipped to handle this as we are. If we sent in troops, we’d be in Tripoli within a week, if that.

        If we don’t take Daffy out, we’ll pay for it later, and Obama will pay for it in 2012.

      • Spinny Liberal

        I know exactly what I want, thank you. I want Psycho dead. Can’t the UK and French troops take care of it? Why does it always have to be our troops?

      • lbwoodgate

        “If we sent in troops, we’d be in Tripoli within a week, if that.

        Another cake walk for the U.S. military, eh Terry?

      • Terrance H.

        Yes, another cakewalk. Nobody can compete with the U.S. military when the U.S. military is allowed to fight to the best of their ability.

  • afrankangle

    Nothing like being in a third conflict we can’t afford.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: