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  
•       •       •

2887 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 11:45:00 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.


The a10 can absorb a shait load of .50 cal rounds.
 
2011-03-26 11:45:55 AM

SharkTrager: 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.


I guess you've never seen an Apache take out anti-aircraft weapons. Is there really no end to your ignorance about how to enforce a No Fly Zone?
 
2011-03-26 11:46:22 AM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


We're leveling the battlefield. The rebels were outgunned and we're taking care of that. We are not there to prevent deaths. We're there to prevent specific deaths, namely the deaths of those who oppose Khadafi. But we want to be able to claim that this is somehow a humanitarian act, which is why we focus on the use of Libya's air force against civilians, which we stopped in less than 48 hours..
 
2011-03-26 11:46:42 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.


Never argue with a war mongerer. :)

/Cameron, the war mongerer.
//Hahahahahahah!!!!
 
2011-03-26 11:46:56 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.


there is no way if gaddafi survives he wont kick all western countries out. he has already said he will, because this whole thing is a western led coup against him. he has said in the future the only countries that will be aloud to operate will be russia china and germany.
 
2011-03-26 11:47:03 AM

St_Francis_P: 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.


Well, let's be honest here. The revolution in Libya was driving oil prices through the roof. The price of oil got high enough to actually threaten the recovering economies of Europe, who get a lot of their oil from Libya.

Daffy couldn't get the revolution under control. It turned into an armed rebellion. The rebels took over several cities and a large swath of eastern Libya. At that point, the nations of Europe had a choice: Back Daffy, or back the rebels.

Because, at this point, they felt the need to intervene. Not to save civilians, but to bring stability back to the country and bring oil prices back down.

Their own economies and societies were being threatened by Libya's problems, and I can't really blame them for taking matters into their own hands.
 
2011-03-26 11:47:07 AM

SharkTrager: 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.


It is also for picking up pilots.
 
2011-03-26 11:47:18 AM

cameroncrazy1984: 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?


The debate was not, and has never been, about the resolution. It was about the language "no fly zone" which is absolutely misleading.
 
2011-03-26 11:47:25 AM

SharkTrager: We're leveling the battlefield. The rebels were outgunned and we're taking care of that. We are not there to prevent deaths. We're there to prevent specific deaths, namely the deaths of those who oppose Khadafi. But we want to be able to claim that this is somehow a humanitarian act, which is why we focus on the use of Libya's air force against civilians, which we stopped in less than 48 hours..


So...you have zero idea of what it takes to enforce a no fly zone.
 
2011-03-26 11:47:32 AM

SharkTrager: 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.


i.imgur.com
 
2011-03-26 11:48:27 AM

liam76: SharkTrager: 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.

It is also for picking up pilots.


I will agree with that. Of course the only downed pilots were due to mechanical problems after we had totally neutralized the air force and air defenses.
 
2011-03-26 11:48:38 AM

SharkTrager: The debate was not, and has never been, about the resolution. It was about the language "no fly zone" which is absolutely misleading.


What would you call it? Seriously. Who are these people that don't understand the point of the mission is to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths?
 
2011-03-26 11:48:57 AM

SharkTrager: 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.


When was the the last time a US fighter went up against a highly trained military.

Not arguing about the NFZ, it is about oil.
 
2011-03-26 11:49:28 AM

NewportBarGuy: 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!


Take this one:

Name: _utma
Content: 1.2068834296.1300908879.1301151268.1301154330.14
Domain: .fark.com
Path: /
Send for: Any tipe of connection
Expires: Monday, March 25, 2013 11:45:29 AM
 
2011-03-26 11:49:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: We're leveling the battlefield. The rebels were outgunned and we're taking care of that. We are not there to prevent deaths. We're there to prevent specific deaths, namely the deaths of those who oppose Khadafi. But we want to be able to claim that this is somehow a humanitarian act, which is why we focus on the use of Libya's air force against civilians, which we stopped in less than 48 hours..

So...you have zero idea of what it takes to enforce a no fly zone.


It takes eliminating air defenses, aircraft and airfields. That took 2 days. Tanks have zero to do with a no fly zone, but we're taking them out.
 
2011-03-26 11:49:44 AM

Infernalist: St_Francis_P: 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.

Well, let's be honest here. The revolution in Libya was driving oil prices through the roof. The price of oil got high enough to actually threaten the recovering economies of Europe, who get a lot of their oil from Libya.

Daffy couldn't get the revolution under control. It turned into an armed rebellion. The rebels took over several cities and a large swath of eastern Libya. At that point, the nations of Europe had a choice: Back Daffy, or back the rebels.

Because, at this point, they felt the need to intervene. Not to save civilians, but to bring stability back to the country and bring oil prices back down.

Their own economies and societies were being threatened by Libya's problems, and I can't really blame them for taking matters into their own hands.


That makes sense, thanks.
 
2011-03-26 11:50:49 AM

SharkTrager: It takes eliminating air defenses, aircraft and airfields. That took 2 days. Tanks have zero to do with a no fly zone, but we're taking them out.


So, you're wrong then. Do you honestly think that for 10 years in Iraq we didn't fly any sorties? Do you think we took out everything we could find and then just sat back and said "yep, we're done here"?
 
2011-03-26 11:50:55 AM

cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: The debate was not, and has never been, about the resolution. It was about the language "no fly zone" which is absolutely misleading.

What would you call it? Seriously. Who are these people that don't understand the point of the mission is to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths?


The point of the mission is not to prevent civilian deaths. It's about preventing the deaths of the rebels. Big difference.
 
2011-03-26 11:51:17 AM

Infernalist: St_Francis_P: 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.

Well, let's be honest here. The revolution in Libya was driving oil prices through the roof. The price of oil got high enough to actually threaten the recovering economies of Europe, who get a lot of their oil from Libya.

Daffy couldn't get the revolution under control. It turned into an armed rebellion. The rebels took over several cities and a large swath of eastern Libya. At that point, the nations of Europe had a choice: Back Daffy, or back the rebels.

Because, at this point, they felt the need to intervene. Not to save civilians, but to bring stability back to the country and bring oil prices back down.

Their own economies and societies were being threatened by Libya's problems, and I can't really blame them for taking matters into their own hands.


This.
 
2011-03-26 11:51:26 AM

iceberg theory: 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.

there is no way if gaddafi survives he wont kick all western countries out. he has already said he will, because this whole thing is a western led coup against him. he has said in the future the only countries that will be aloud to operate will be russia china and germany.


Your logic is circular. You're saying that Daffy swore to seize BP infrastructure because of Western intervention...which made the West intervene? I'm pretty sure he made threats of seizing that infrastructure only after Western intervention happened.

Now, this thing is entirely about economics and stability of the oil market, but let's not get weird and say that Western intervention came about to save oil infrastructure from nationalization.
 
2011-03-26 11:52:50 AM

cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: It takes eliminating air defenses, aircraft and airfields. That took 2 days. Tanks have zero to do with a no fly zone, but we're taking them out.

So, you're wrong then. Do you honestly think that for 10 years in Iraq we didn't fly any sorties? Do you think we took out everything we could find and then just sat back and said "yep, we're done here"?


In Iraq Saddam kept targeting our aircraft. It's also important to note we did not have a resolution for the whole country, just the northern and southern thirds. As such, we did not have the go-ahead to completely wipe out his air force and ground to air defenses. We didn't have that restriction in Libya.
 
2011-03-26 11:55:06 AM

SharkTrager: In Iraq Saddam kept targeting our aircraft. It's also important to note we did not have a resolution for the whole country, just the northern and southern thirds. As such, we did not have the go-ahead to completely wipe out his air force and ground to air defenses. We didn't have that restriction in Libya.


So you seriously think that 100% of Libya's air defense capability has been wiped out? That we can just stop looking now?
 
2011-03-26 11:56:50 AM
Personally, I think that the UN resolution is overly vague. By putting in the "Protection of Civilians" clause, the coalition is basically justified in utterly destroying any show of force by Kadaffi.

If you haven't read the actual resolution (new window), I recommend it. It basically characterizes itself as punishment for all of Kadaffi's former sins. They can dance around saying "This isn't about replacing a sovereign ruler," but the truth is that it is clearly just that. They created a situation where he can't recover any territorial losses, essentially ratcheting his lines inward every time the rebels take an inch.

Personally, I think the guy is a real piece of crap and the world will be better off without him. But saying that the UN resolution doesn't force his ouster is nonsense. The rest of the world is finally getting revenge for Lockerbie.
 
2011-03-26 11:56:53 AM

SharkTrager: cameroncrazy1984: SharkTrager: The debate was not, and has never been, about the resolution. It was about the language "no fly zone" which is absolutely misleading.

What would you call it? Seriously. Who are these people that don't understand the point of the mission is to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths?

The point of the mission is not to prevent civilian deaths. It's about preventing the deaths of the rebels. Big difference.


The 'stated' reason for the mission is to prevent attacks on civilian population centers. The rebels, naturally and normally enough, are gathered in those same centers.

So, yes, we 'are' preventing civilian casualties. The pragmatic end result of this is de facto air support for the rebels against any sort of attack on those cities by Daffy's forces.
 
2011-03-26 11:57:53 AM
I think the only thing left for SharkTrager to do now is claim he's the only one who knows that he is talking about because he was a marine core soldier.
 
2011-03-26 11:59:01 AM
still don't know why we're involved.
 
2011-03-26 12:00:55 PM

NewportBarGuy: 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.


I think they have 14.5 x 114 mm KPV heavy antiaircraft machine guns that fit T-54 and later versions (T-72 included).
 
2011-03-26 12:01:18 PM

TheyCallThisWork: Personally, I think that the UN resolution is overly vague. By putting in the "Protection of Civilians" clause, the coalition is basically justified in utterly destroying any show of force by Kadaffi.

If you haven't read the actual resolution (new window), I recommend it. It basically characterizes itself as punishment for all of Kadaffi's former sins. They can dance around saying "This isn't about replacing a sovereign ruler," but the truth is that it is clearly just that. They created a situation where he can't recover any territorial losses, essentially ratcheting his lines inward every time the rebels take an inch.

Personally, I think the guy is a real piece of crap and the world will be better off without him. But saying that the UN resolution doesn't force his ouster is nonsense. The rest of the world is finally getting revenge for Lockerbie.


I'd say that European revenge for Lockerbie is a mild motivation at best, or just a nice Karmic bonus.

And no, I don't think that their efforts are 'forcing' his ouster, just leveling the playing field.

Let's be honest, without air power or armor units, it comes down to which side has more men and/or who wants the victory more.

Daffy's forces are better trained.

The rebels have the moral high ground and a righteous need to secure their own freedom.

I'm not sure which side has the numerical advantage.
 
2011-03-26 12:01:43 PM
I can't believe the 'tards, 'turfers and 'birthers are still arguing this isn't a no-fly-zone. Part of the nfz mandate is protecting civilians

Protecting

Civilians


Concentrate now morans

Protecting

Civilians

Once more

Protecting

Civilians

Got it?
 
2011-03-26 12:04:52 PM
newportbarguy: Farking Tactical Air Superiority, how does that work?

Like this:
3.bp.blogspot.com

/Go Hogs
//SECOND favorite airplane
 
2011-03-26 12:05:24 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: still don't know why we're involved.


Short version: We're really good at blowing up stuff and we have the largest military presence in the area.

Longer version: The nations of Europe are still our allies, and there's been a great deal of consensus about the need to stop the conflict in Libya. Pretty much everyone agrees that the fighting has to stop, though their reasons vary.

The Arab League wants the fighting to stop because it's Arabs killing Arabs. Europe wants the fighting to stop because it's driving up the price of oil and they really can't afford that right now. Libya's neighbors want the fighting to stop because they can't handle the flood of refugees.

So, if the consensus is to make the fight stop, you have to pick a side. The consensus chose to back the rebels.

And here we are.
 
2011-03-26 12:05:59 PM

21-7-b: I can't believe the 'tards, 'turfers and 'birthers are still arguing this isn't a no-fly-zone. Part of the nfz mandate is protecting civilians

Protecting

Civilians


Concentrate now morans

Protecting

Civilians

Once more

Protecting

Civilians

Got it?


Protecting

The flow

of oil

to Europe

Okay, got it now. Thank you for your help.
 
2011-03-26 12:08:07 PM

muck4doo: 21-7-b: I can't believe the 'tards, 'turfers and 'birthers are still arguing this isn't a no-fly-zone. Part of the nfz mandate is protecting civilians

Protecting

Civilians


Concentrate now morans

Protecting

Civilians

Once more

Protecting

Civilians

Got it?

Protecting

The flow

of oil

to Europe

Okay, got it now. Thank you for your help.


Okay, but see he's not talking about the pragmatic goal of the mandate. He's talking about the mandate itself. I mean, we all know that Europe is involved so that the fighting can end quickly and oil prices can calm down. But the 'mandate' from the UN is about protecting civilians. That's not the pragmatic realpolitiks reason, but...

I guess I'm saying you're both right, just in different ways.
 
2011-03-26 12:08:43 PM

Infernalist: And no, I don't think that their efforts are 'forcing' his ouster, just leveling the playing field.


I'm just disappointed that we've set aside the statesmanship and diplomacy that made this country great. And by that, I mean waiting until everyone else has spent 5 years killing each other, then showing up as the party's ending and yelling "Hooray, we just won," taking all the credit, and telling everyone they owe us money.
 
2011-03-26 12:11:57 PM

TheyCallThisWork: Infernalist: And no, I don't think that their efforts are 'forcing' his ouster, just leveling the playing field.

I'm just disappointed that we've set aside the statesmanship and diplomacy that made this country great. And by that, I mean waiting until everyone else has spent 5 years killing each other, then showing up as the party's ending and yelling "Hooray, we just won," taking all the credit, and telling everyone they owe us money.


lol WWI, yeah. World would look a lot different if we'd gotten involved sooner. Not sure if it'd be in a good way, either.
 
2011-03-26 12:13:43 PM
This is not about oil. If we cared about oil we would have let Kadhafi slaughter all the rebels in Benghazi. Then the ports would have opened back up. Even if Libya only sold oil to China and India after that it'd still stabilize the price of oil. Oil is fungible.

I think this is more about making up for our failure to act in Rwanda than anything else. If Rwanda hadn't happened it's not clear we'd to me we'd be doing this.
 
2011-03-26 12:13:53 PM

Infernalist: So, if the consensus is to make the fight stop, you have to pick a side. The consensus chose to back the rebels.


all well and good. If it effects Europe and the Arab League they can handle it.

I'm talking about American involvement and expense. We're involved in 2 countries in the region at great expense already, and while 3rd times a charm maybe they could have done something on their own?

Out of curiosity, since Europe and the Arab league are benefiting, are they paying us back for the costs? (haven't heard or read anything on it so maybe I'm not aware thgat they are)
 
2011-03-26 12:14:59 PM

Infernalist: Spanky_McFarksalot: still don't know why we're involved.

Short version: We're really good at blowing up stuff and we have the largest military presence in the area.

Longer version: The nations of Europe are still our allies, and there's been a great deal of consensus about the need to stop the conflict in Libya. Pretty much everyone agrees that the fighting has to stop, though their reasons vary.

The Arab League wants the fighting to stop because it's Arabs killing Arabs. Europe wants the fighting to stop because it's driving up the price of oil and they really can't afford that right now. Libya's neighbors want the fighting to stop because they can't handle the flood of refugees.

So, if the consensus is to make the fight stop, you have to pick a side. The consensus chose to back the rebels.

And here we are.


And you have to remember - this is about more than Libya. If Daffy had actually started his Benghazi massacre, it's likely that this entire "Arab Spring" trope would have come to a grinding halt.
 
2011-03-26 12:18:48 PM

TheyCallThisWork: I'm just disappointed that we've set aside the statesmanship and diplomacy that made this country great. And by that, I mean waiting until everyone else has spent 5 years killing each other, then showing up as the party's ending and yelling "Hooray, we just won," taking all the credit, and telling everyone they owe us money.


*snort* 56,125,262 internets to you, sir !
 
2011-03-26 12:18:53 PM
conservatives are concerned about Libya. very concerned. And every day they come up with a new concern as their old ones are shown to be unfounded.

Keep farking that chicken, tards.
 
2011-03-26 12:19:11 PM

noneyourbase: And you have to remember - this is about more than Libya. If Daffy had actually started his Benghazi massacre, it's likely that this entire "Arab Spring" trope would have come to a grinding halt.


You're probably right. Defending the Libyan rebels is a way of telling the rest of the middle east that we encourage their uprisings and perhaps, if they wish hard enough, their bomb-dropping fairy godmother might come to their aid.

It's a heck of a gamble, though. It's entirely possible that the bad guys can win all of these "situations," which will set relations back considerably. At a certain point, the west will have to commit more, because they'll have to create victory if the rebels can't obtain it themselves. The other option is buying oil from what may become sworn enemies.
 
2011-03-26 12:20:32 PM
When this is over I want to see the Libyan people pull this motherfarker down and burn it.

www.theblaze.com
 
2011-03-26 12:21:51 PM
The Force is with them. Always.

/dude in the opening still shot from the video is kinda hot
//25 years ago, we were tangling with Libya over their "line of death" or whatever.
 
2011-03-26 12:22:29 PM
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.

there is no way if gaddafi survives he wont kick all western countries out. he has already said he will, because this whole thing is a western led coup against him. he has said in the future the only countries that will be aloud to operate will be russia china and germany.


Gaddafi was doing everything he could to cozy up to the West right up until the coalition went in. He was about 2 or 3 days away from taking Benghazi and quashing the rebellion. If this was about oil, why wouldn't we have just, you know, done nothing?
 
2011-03-26 12:23:23 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: Infernalist: So, if the consensus is to make the fight stop, you have to pick a side. The consensus chose to back the rebels.

all well and good. If it effects Europe and the Arab League they can handle it.

I'm talking about American involvement and expense. We're involved in 2 countries in the region at great expense already, and while 3rd times a charm maybe they could have done something on their own?

Out of curiosity, since Europe and the Arab league are benefiting, are they paying us back for the costs? (haven't heard or read anything on it so maybe I'm not aware thgat they are)


American involvement comes from a few different reasons:

1) Supporting our allies. This is important, the most important reason for us being there, to be honest.

2) We have the capacity and materials best suited to the task. In short, we are the best around at blowing shiat up with overwhelming firepower. This is why we took such a prominent role in the initial phase(eliminating active air units, destroying air defense units like SAMs launchers and radar units.

3) Pragmatically speaking, this is a chance for a quick 'in-and-out' conflict, with little risk and a lot to gain. I mean, they're cheering us in Libya. Us. The Great Satan. And Al-jazeera is pumping it out all over the ME. You can't buy that kind of good PR. Well, in our case, I guess we kinda did buy it? With Tomahawks.
 
2011-03-26 12:25:02 PM

Hobodeluxe: When this is over I want to see the Libyan people pull this motherfarker down and burn it.


That seems unlikely, considering who the rebels are -

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links (new window)
 
2011-03-26 12:25:51 PM
If this is a success, it will be interesting to see how it changes the American political landscape

For instance, it gives an even hollower ring to the "support our troops" mantra of the GOP faithful, which was used time and time again to justify what must now be seen as an extraordinarily badly conceived and executed ouster of a man not at all dissimilar to gaddafi
 
2011-03-26 12:27:33 PM

TheyCallThisWork: noneyourbase: And you have to remember - this is about more than Libya. If Daffy had actually started his Benghazi massacre, it's likely that this entire "Arab Spring" trope would have come to a grinding halt.

You're probably right. Defending the Libyan rebels is a way of telling the rest of the middle east that we encourage their uprisings and perhaps, if they wish hard enough, their bomb-dropping fairy godmother might come to their aid.

It's a heck of a gamble, though. It's entirely possible that the bad guys can win all of these "situations," which will set relations back considerably. At a certain point, the west will have to commit more, because they'll have to create victory if the rebels can't obtain it themselves. The other option is buying oil from what may become sworn enemies.


It's not so much of a gamble, really. Libya is the first country where we've had to do anything at all, and from the looks of it, we're still in the clear. We don't even buy our oil from Libya. Europe, yeah, but that's them.

As for our relations, yeah the Arab League is wavering, but support is still there and we're being seen in a positive light because of our efforts to protect Libyan cities.

I maintain that this is all because of those Wikileaks cables where they showed the truth of the matter: The U.S. hates those tyrants in the ME, but work with them because of necessity, but would not protect them if the people rose up.

The people of the ME were convinced, I guess, that we'd blow them up if they rose up against their leaders.

Whoops.
 
2011-03-26 12:28:55 PM
Link (new window)

Interesting article in AJ-English that sums up the current situation nicely.
 
2011-03-26 12:38:37 PM

Infernalist: Spanky_McFarksalot: still don't know why we're involved.

Short version: We're really good at blowing up stuff.


Usually your own side
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report