If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Libyan rebels retake Ajdabiya   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 178
    More: Followup, Ajdabiya, Libyan, Members of NATO, Libyan rebels, Al Jazeera English, retakes, rural-urban fringe, military capability  
•       •       •

2883 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2011 at 11:14 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-03-26 11:13:29 AM
Gesundheit.
 
2011-03-26 11:15:31 AM
You can do a lot with pinball machine parts.
 
2011-03-26 11:16:03 AM
Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.
 
2011-03-26 11:16:32 AM
That's easy for them to say.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2011-03-26 11:16:38 AM
And next week, on to Chlamydia!
 
2011-03-26 11:17:59 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.


NO! Jimmy Fallon was right! I want the President of the United States to come to my house, sit down, and explain exactly what we're doing there. I want maps, operational plans, and I also want a cookie!
 
2011-03-26 11:18:01 AM
www.spideysenses.com
 
2011-03-26 11:18:09 AM
GREAT SCOTT!


1.bp.blogspot.com

 
2011-03-26 11:20:38 AM
Now that President Obama Hillary has teamed us up with Al Queda we are unstoppable !!
 
2011-03-26 11:21:57 AM

deanayer: Now that President Obama Hillary has teamed us up with Al Queda we are unstoppable !!


Wow! How edgy!

So, how is supporting Douche Leader Quad-Bike working out for you?
 
2011-03-26 11:22:19 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.


No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.
 
2011-03-26 11:24:27 AM

bin_smokin: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.

No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.


Where does it say that in the article?
 
2011-03-26 11:24:34 AM

bin_smokin: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.

No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.


No dipshiat. You enforce a no-fly zone by getting air superiority. To do that you take out anything that can be a threat to your aircraft.
 
2011-03-26 11:25:32 AM
Hush hush, eye to eye.
 
2011-03-26 11:26:09 AM

bin_smokin: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.

No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.


Not to split hairs, but the original declaration of intent including 'all means necessary to defend civilians'.

As it stands, the forces opposing Daffy are all in civilian centers, aka cities, and so the allied forces have clearance to attack any force that moves against those cities, and the rebels within.

It's a nice use of the moral high ground to achieve a pragmatic goal.
 
2011-03-26 11:26:14 AM

liam76: bin_smokin: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.

No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.

No dipshiat. You enforce a no-fly zone by getting air superiority. To do that you take out anything that can be a threat to your aircraft.


And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?
 
2011-03-26 11:26:40 AM
Are we going to Ajdabiya, Mr Luthor?

www.zuguide.com
 
2011-03-26 11:27:05 AM

liam76: No dipshiat. You enforce a no-fly zone by getting air superiority. To do that you take out anything that can be a threat to your aircraft.


Farking Tactical Air Superiority, how does that work?
 
2011-03-26 11:27:05 AM

SharkTrager: liam76: bin_smokin: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.

No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.

No dipshiat. You enforce a no-fly zone by getting air superiority. To do that you take out anything that can be a threat to your aircraft.

And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?


See my above post.
 
2011-03-26 11:28:19 AM
The reason the rebels took the town is that we blew up all the non-flying tanks that were guarding it.
This war is a farce. We are helping the rebels win, so that BP can keep their oil infrastructure. All 70 billion pounds worth.

obama cant even bring him self to step in front of the tv and explain this war.
 
2011-03-26 11:29:20 AM

SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?


His comment was about the NFZ.

His comment was wrong.

Now if you want to talk about the legitimacy of targeting tanks, I would suggest you first read the UN resolution, which isn't limited to NFZ.
 
2011-03-26 11:29:41 AM

Infernalist: SharkTrager: liam76: bin_smokin: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.

No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.

No dipshiat. You enforce a no-fly zone by getting air superiority. To do that you take out anything that can be a threat to your aircraft.

And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

See my above post.


I'm not referring to the mission to defend civilians, just to the people who seem to think what we have is a no fly zone, which is not the case. That may be the label being used, but this is direct support of the rebels. Not that there is anything wrong with that necessarily, but let's call it what it is.
 
2011-03-26 11:29:42 AM

SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?


I take it you've never seen a tank or an APC with a .50 mounted on it?
 
2011-03-26 11:29:45 AM

Infernalist: bin_smokin: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.

No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.

Not to split hairs, but the original declaration of intent including 'all means necessary to defend civilians'.

As it stands, the forces opposing Daffy are all in civilian centers, aka cities, and so the allied forces have clearance to attack any force that moves against those cities, and the rebels within.

It's a nice use of the moral high ground to achieve a pragmatic goal.


Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "strongly worded letter," eh? For all the crowing about the operation itself, the statecraft that allowed it to be authorized was downright brilliant.
 
2011-03-26 11:30:02 AM

iceberg theory: The reason the rebels took the town is that we blew up all the non-flying tanks that were guarding it.
This war is a farce. We are helping the rebels win, so that BP can keep their oil infrastructure. All 70 billion pounds worth.

obama cant even bring him self to step in front of the tv and explain this war.


Wait. Daffy was getting ready to seize BP's oil infrastructure? Link, please.
 
2011-03-26 11:32:17 AM

noneyourbase: Infernalist: bin_smokin: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone saying the NFZ was too little too late can kindly shut the fark up right about now.

No Fly Zone? You seem confused.

This is mission creep and has nothing to do with the NFZ whatsoever. You are supposed to enforce a NFZ by shooting down anything that tries to fly. Americans enforce the NFZ the proper way by blowing up anything that can fly or emits a radar signal. You would think the nations that complained after they did it would realize this by now.

WHat we have here is NATO forces providing direct support to the rebels in order to assist in Ghadafi's ouster.

Not to split hairs, but the original declaration of intent including 'all means necessary to defend civilians'.

As it stands, the forces opposing Daffy are all in civilian centers, aka cities, and so the allied forces have clearance to attack any force that moves against those cities, and the rebels within.

It's a nice use of the moral high ground to achieve a pragmatic goal.

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "strongly worded letter," eh? For all the crowing about the operation itself, the statecraft that allowed it to be authorized was downright brilliant.


As I've said before, if you can get the Arab League to sign off on blowing up military hardware in a country run by an Arab leader, you 'know' you got the best diplomats around.
 
2011-03-26 11:32:23 AM

iceberg theory: obama cant even bring him self to step in front of the tv and explain this war.


Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Moron.
 
2011-03-26 11:32:46 AM
What they are trying to do is push the country to civil war.

Uh, hello?
 
2011-03-26 11:32:53 AM

liam76: SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

His comment was about the NFZ.

His comment was wrong.

Now if you want to talk about the legitimacy of targeting tanks, I would suggest you first read the UN resolution, which isn't limited to NFZ.


That's my exact point. I have zero problem with enforcing the resolution. But I take issue with people who have zero understanding of exactly what the mission is. Calling it a No Fly Zone allows people to support the action without knowing what they are really supporting. People should be informed, not parrot a phrase they heard on CNN that makes it sound as if our goal is to just keep Libya from using their air force against civilians, which is only a very small part of what we are doing right now.
 
2011-03-26 11:33:34 AM

cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

I take it you've never seen a tank or an APC with a .50 mounted on it?


I take it you've seen a .50 cal shoot down a jet flying 500 mph?
 
2011-03-26 11:33:47 AM

cameroncrazy1984: I take it you've never seen a tank or an APC with a .50 mounted on it?


The range on those things is pretty awesome. I was amazed how accurate you can be out to 1000 meters. You kind of arc the rounds in or on target.

I think the Libyans have 12.7 mm antiaircraft machine guns on their T-72's. The Soviets always went with bigger munitions than we did.
 
2011-03-26 11:34:15 AM

Infernalist: iceberg theory: The reason the rebels took the town is that we blew up all the non-flying tanks that were guarding it.
This war is a farce. We are helping the rebels win, so that BP can keep their oil infrastructure. All 70 billion pounds worth.

obama cant even bring him self to step in front of the tv and explain this war.

Wait. Daffy was getting ready to seize BP's oil infrastructure? Link, please.


Wondered about that, too. Seems to me that Gadaffi is a known quantity; if the rebels win there's no telling what they'll do.
 
2011-03-26 11:34:38 AM

SharkTrager: That's my exact point. I have zero problem with enforcing the resolution. But I take issue with people who have zero understanding of exactly what the mission is. Calling it a No Fly Zone allows people to support the action without knowing what they are really supporting. People should be informed, not parrot a phrase they heard on CNN that makes it sound as if our goal is to just keep Libya from using their air force against civilians, which is only a very small part of what we are doing right now.


You're worried that people will stop supporting it when they find out we're also keeping Libya from using tanks against civilians?

Ooga booga.
 
2011-03-26 11:35:56 AM

SharkTrager: I'm not referring to the mission to defend civilians, just to the people who seem to think what we have is a no fly zone, which is not the case. That may be the label being used, but this is direct support of the rebels. Not that there is anything wrong with that necessarily, but let's call it what it is.


We do have a NFZ, we also have a mandate to defend civilians.

As it stands the rebels aren't threatening to go door to door to kill the opposition so what we are doing does support them, but the mission isn;t "direct support of the rebels".
 
2011-03-26 11:36:31 AM

SharkTrager: liam76: SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

His comment was about the NFZ.

His comment was wrong.

Now if you want to talk about the legitimacy of targeting tanks, I would suggest you first read the UN resolution, which isn't limited to NFZ.

That's my exact point. I have zero problem with enforcing the resolution. But I take issue with people who have zero understanding of exactly what the mission is. Calling it a No Fly Zone allows people to support the action without knowing what they are really supporting. People should be informed, not parrot a phrase they heard on CNN that makes it sound as if our goal is to just keep Libya from using their air force against civilians, which is only a very small part of what we are doing right now.


There's no real 'term' for the type of conflict that they're seeing. 'NFZ' is easy to say, easy to remember. 'Air strikes to neutralize enemy armor and artillery units only when they attack civilian population centers' doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
 
2011-03-26 11:36:39 AM

SharkTrager: cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

I take it you've never seen a tank or an APC with a .50 mounted on it?

I take it you've seen a .50 cal shoot down a jet flying 500 mph?


Yep, or, as NewportBarGuy said, 12.7mm antiaircraft guns can do that as well.


Also read a story once about a helo in Afghanistan engaging a tank that was shooting its main gun at it. Got close, too.
 
2011-03-26 11:37:52 AM
Mission Creep does not mean what detractors of the President think it means.

If we insert ground forces, I'll be the first person to scream NO!

No, rescue missions for downed pilots does not count.
 
2011-03-26 11:38:18 AM

St_Francis_P: Infernalist: iceberg theory: The reason the rebels took the town is that we blew up all the non-flying tanks that were guarding it.
This war is a farce. We are helping the rebels win, so that BP can keep their oil infrastructure. All 70 billion pounds worth.

obama cant even bring him self to step in front of the tv and explain this war.

Wait. Daffy was getting ready to seize BP's oil infrastructure? Link, please.

Wondered about that, too. Seems to me that Gadaffi is a known quantity; if the rebels win there's no telling what they'll do.


Well, if it means anything, I saw some stuff on al-jazeera, Libyans dancing around with the French flag and singing praises to the pilots saving them from Daffy's armor units.

I think, maybe, they like us again.
 
2011-03-26 11:38:48 AM
dudelol.com

Hopefully the good people of Dabajabaza can hold out long enough for reinforcements.
 
2011-03-26 11:39:19 AM

NewportBarGuy: Mission Creep does not mean what detractors of the President think it means.

If we insert ground forces, I'll be the first person to scream NO!

No, rescue missions for downed pilots does not count.


No worries. Obama had two criteria for this thing. 1) No ground troops. 2) No ground troops.
 
2011-03-26 11:39:24 AM

SharkTrager: cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

I take it you've never seen a tank or an APC with a .50 mounted on it?

I take it you've seen a .50 cal shoot down a jet flying 500 mph?


The concept is pretty easy, you shoot where the jet is going to be.
 
2011-03-26 11:39:35 AM

cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: That's my exact point. I have zero problem with enforcing the resolution. But I take issue with people who have zero understanding of exactly what the mission is. Calling it a No Fly Zone allows people to support the action without knowing what they are really supporting. People should be informed, not parrot a phrase they heard on CNN that makes it sound as if our goal is to just keep Libya from using their air force against civilians, which is only a very small part of what we are doing right now.

You're worried that people will stop supporting it when they find out we're also keeping Libya from using tanks against civilians?

Ooga booga.


No, I worry when the government intentionally misleads the people for the sake of image and to dumb down the debate. As I have said repeatedly, I actually think we're doing the right thing right now. But I find it interesting that so many people who support the action have zero idea what we are actually doing over there and support it based on the notion we are just trying to defend civilians.
 
2011-03-26 11:40:19 AM

NewportBarGuy: If we insert ground forces, I'll be the first person to scream NO!


I bet I beat you to it...

/Let's keep this one simple, please.
 
2011-03-26 11:40:32 AM

Infernalist: St_Francis_P: Infernalist: iceberg theory: The reason the rebels took the town is that we blew up all the non-flying tanks that were guarding it.
This war is a farce. We are helping the rebels win, so that BP can keep their oil infrastructure. All 70 billion pounds worth.

obama cant even bring him self to step in front of the tv and explain this war.

Wait. Daffy was getting ready to seize BP's oil infrastructure? Link, please.

Wondered about that, too. Seems to me that Gadaffi is a known quantity; if the rebels win there's no telling what they'll do.

Well, if it means anything, I saw some stuff on al-jazeera, Libyans dancing around with the French flag and singing praises to the pilots saving them from Daffy's armor units.

I think, maybe, they like us again.


Well, we'll see if that lasts. Mainly I was just trying to understand how this could be a war for oil.
 
2011-03-26 11:41:48 AM

SharkTrager: cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

I take it you've never seen a tank or an APC with a .50 mounted on it?

I take it you've seen a .50 cal shoot down a jet flying 500 mph?


A .50 can take down anything within its range. This includes, you know, helicopters and low-flying aircraft, like A-10s.
 
2011-03-26 11:41:53 AM

Awea: SharkTrager: cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

I take it you've never seen a tank or an APC with a .50 mounted on it?

I take it you've seen a .50 cal shoot down a jet flying 500 mph?

The concept is pretty easy, you shoot where the jet is going to be.


And the last time a US fighter was shot down by anything short of an anti-aircraft missile was?

Just be honest. This is not about a no fly zone. It is about leveling the battlefield to give the rebels a chance to win. There's nothing wrong with that.
 
2011-03-26 11:42:35 AM

SharkTrager: cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: That's my exact point. I have zero problem with enforcing the resolution. But I take issue with people who have zero understanding of exactly what the mission is. Calling it a No Fly Zone allows people to support the action without knowing what they are really supporting. People should be informed, not parrot a phrase they heard on CNN that makes it sound as if our goal is to just keep Libya from using their air force against civilians, which is only a very small part of what we are doing right now.

You're worried that people will stop supporting it when they find out we're also keeping Libya from using tanks against civilians?

Ooga booga.

No, I worry when the government intentionally misleads the people for the sake of image and to dumb down the debate. As I have said repeatedly, I actually think we're doing the right thing right now. But I find it interesting that so many people who support the action have zero idea what we are actually doing over there and support it based on the notion we are just trying to defend civilians.


Most of us understand that this is a high-minded mission with a pragmatic goal. Protect civilians, yes, but also give air support to these rebels so they can sweep Daffy from power. You might find the rank and file supporters too blind or apathetic to claim otherwise, but we all know what this is about.
 
2011-03-26 11:43:14 AM

SharkTrager: No, I worry when the government intentionally misleads the people for the sake of image and to dumb down the debate. As I have said repeatedly, I actually think we're doing the right thing right now. But I find it interesting that so many people who support the action have zero idea what we are actually doing over there and support it based on the notion we are just trying to defend civilians.


What are we doing over there, oh wise one who appears to have knowledge that nobody else does. You make it sound as if we're running coordinated close air support missions with the rebels.
 
2011-03-26 11:43:26 AM

FatherDale: SharkTrager: cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: And tanks and armored personnel carriers are a threat to aircraft how?

I take it you've never seen a tank or an APC with a .50 mounted on it?

I take it you've seen a .50 cal shoot down a jet flying 500 mph?

A .50 can take down anything within its range. This includes, you know, helicopters and low-flying aircraft, like A-10s.


Have you seen an A-10? They are too heavily armored for a .50 cal barring an incredible fluke shot. And if we're using helicopters, this is not at all about a no fly zone. A helicopter is for engaging ground units.
 
2011-03-26 11:44:49 AM

SharkTrager: And the last time a US fighter was shot down by anything short of an anti-aircraft missile was?


Does that matter? I had no idea that the NFZ included "disregard stuff that hasn't shot down a US aircraft in 30 years but is still dangerous"

Can you point me to that portion of the resolution?
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report