[Ratmagiclady]

You know, the last time Republicans took the occasion of an action on Libya to start picking on the French, they made our pilots fly the long way around..... Tough guys.

[Reportage]

one thing for sure...Gadaffi is no Saddam. If they do invade Libya, they will be up against an experienced field commander who has survived even when the CIA and other agencies were at their peak.

Another thing is that Libya has always been ready for a possible US-involved invasion.

I pity the general that gets the job and pray for the units that will form the initial assault.

Looking at the map of Libya, its like a natural choke point especially the deserts that could cripple armor support.

Whats worrying is that Gadaffi is pretty quiet even now as if what happened is pretty much expected.

A question journalists dont seem to ask...100+ Tomahawk missiles to eliminate 20 targets. Just what targets required 100+ missiles or is it of all the missiles launched, only 20 of the targets got hit.

[normhead]

I believe that there's a new type of tomahawk with loiter capability and they were getting rid of old stock.

Well then, good thing this opportunity came along. It's not like you were saving them for a good cause.

I remember reading a few years back that the French army got a new fleet of main battle tanks with a unique feature. The transmissions had Low Reverse, Second Reverse, and High Reverse.
About a month later they modified them by adding a Low Forward, in case somebody sneaks up behind them.

Why any body joins these NATO things is beyond me. All this directed at the French... as far as I can tell because they wouldn't go to Iraq and laughed at the American British "intelligence" no scrap that lies, on Weapons of Mass destruction. Maybe you haven't noticed but right now it looks like all this anti-French sentiment is sour grapes. The US doesn't deserve allies. And if you want to talk WW2, where were you for the first 3 years of the war? There weren't any AMericans on French beaches, but there were Canadians at Dieppe before the Americans even entered the war, still too busy making money selling stuff to both sides to take a position. The way the rest of the world sees you, is very different from the way you see you. Fact is, if the British were able to defeat the Germans on their own, the Yanks never would have gone. It was only the thought of a German or Japan that might attack the US that brought the US in to the war. No moral issues there for the Americans.

The last time the French got their butts kicked good in Vietnam, the US followed by getting it's butt kicked good in Vietnam, but the US isn't funny? Maybe you should compare the film of the Americans leaving Vietnam to those of the French leaving to show who has the faster reverse.

[Parallax]

............. And if you want to talk WW2, where were you for the first 3 years of the war?

So make up your mind. Are the Americans wrong for getting involved in conflicts, or wrong for not getting involved, or not getting involved sooner?
Or are we wrong simply because we exist?



As far as the tank allegory; maybe this will clear that up.

[sjwaldron]

So why are we attacking? To "save the citizens" as they say on TV? Didn't the US government help Osama against the Russians back in the day and see where that got us.........
CIA-Osama bin Laden controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure the leader is a jerk and does bad things, but what right do we have to go in there and blow stuff up?

[stevewig]

......I'm sure the leader is a jerk and does bad things, but what right do we have to go in there and blow stuff up?

Sorry, but that's one of the cutest, oversimplifications of an act of war that I have heard for a long time.

However, the answer (which obviously you will not like) is that the nations involved in "..blow stuff up" are doing it in accordance with International Law and specifically UN Resolution 1973 and these nations are trying to prevent Gadhafi from slaughtering his own people.

[Ratmagiclady]

one thing for sure...Gadaffi is no Saddam. If they do invade Libya, they will be up against an experienced field commander who has survived even when the CIA and other agencies were at their peak.

Peak of inflating 'terrorists' to be more than they are while trying to tie them to the USSR, you mean.


'Surviving' would imply 'Against actual effort' in some way.

Another thing is that Libya has always been ready for a possible US-involved invasion.

I pity the general that gets the job and pray for the units that will form the initial assault.

Looking at the map of Libya, its like a natural choke point especially the deserts that could cripple armor support.

Whats worrying is that Gadaffi is pretty quiet even now as if what happened is pretty much expected.

A question journalists dont seem to ask...100+ Tomahawk missiles to eliminate 20 targets. Just what targets required 100+ missiles or is it of all the missiles launched, only 20 of the targets got hit.

Militarily, Libya wouldn't be *that* hard, actually. But to do *what?* Doesn't look like anything you can fix with any *number* of bombs, to me, never mind 'boots on the ground.' Which we don't have at the moment anyway cause someone already spent them on other morasses and then started whining about 'the budget' they didn't count all that toward, never mind 'military readiness' that they spent the last two years pretending hinged upon not showering with a gay person (that gets a fair deal from the country they put their life on the line for.)

Sure, you can 'level the playing field' (Especially with B-52s) but but who's playing... and at *what?*

That's just not *up* to us, and isn't going to *be* up to us.

Even if the rebels *win,* I'll be stunned if they have much of an idea how to govern after fourty years. I figure they probably deserve a chance, if a little air support will help, but if anyone wanted to try nation-building there, we've already spent more than we could on such notions. Sorry, lads. No. Can. Do. Whatever we argue about as if it *is* up to us, right?

It's. Not.


(Just as a total aside, if ever *I* mischance to be President, I think 'Operation Blow Stuff Up' would be a great name to give the networks in order to avoid 'Mission Creep.'

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 03-21-2011 at 01:21 PM.

[sjwaldron]

Sorry, but that's one of the cutest, oversimplifications of an act of war that I have heard for a long time.

However, the answer (which obviously you will not like) is that the nations involved in "..blow stuff up" are doing it in accordance with International Law and specifically UN Resolution 1973 and these nations are trying to prevent Gadhafi from slaughtering his own people.

Okay, let's say the KKK had an uprising in the USA. Our government wanted to quell the uprising, but Canada started shooting down our bombers that were tasked to destroy the rebel strongholds. Like I said, the current government probably well deserves to be destroyed, but it should be done by the citizens, not us and everyone else who is in power in the world.

[mikemike]

A question journalists dont seem to ask...100+ Tomahawk missiles to eliminate 20 targets. Just what targets required 100+ missiles or is it of all the missiles launched, only 20 of the targets got hit.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice or maybe five times...

Or it could be that the missles they are shooting are low yield designed to impact a relatively small area like a single building and the some of the 20 targets might have multiple subtargets associated with them like a military compound with 5-10 buildings that need to be destroyed or an airfield with a multiple airstrips that need to be cratered.

[Parallax]

I'm sure the leader is a jerk and does bad things, but what right do we have to go in there and blow stuff up?

What right? Complicated question. Legally, U.N Resolution. Morally?
Another good question is "Why do we keep doing it?"; and that should be a multiple choice question.

a. Because we can.
b. Because we will be reviled by somebody whether we do or not, so what the hell.
c. We have new, updated munitions coming, so we had to make room for them somehow.
d. We never learn from our mistakes.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, Jim, I suggest e) Everyone loves close air support, but let's not forget e1): people who grab tarbabies are somehow never as popular afterwards as they were told they'd be.

[Ratmagiclady]

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice or maybe five times...

Funny how you're freer with a millions-of-dollar cruise missile, (x100) than the entire school system, Mike.

One of these days, the Right's going to shoot off an arsenal and look at the next generation of young engineers and say, 'OK! Time to *innovate, compete, and ... err, Innovate!* And the kids'll be like, 'Fool! You know you said we could be the ones to get ahead in classes if we said God would do it for us! OMGLOL!

And the rest of the world will be like, 'What, you want us to make some more mighty fists of your divine smitingness that you said made us unworthy of an education? Sorry, man. Go fish.'

[Parallax]

Well, Jim, I suggest e) Everyone loves close air support, but let's not forget e1): people who grab tarbabies are somehow never as popular afterwards as they were told they'd be.

That's certainly a valid choice, but but choose "d.".

[stevewig]

Okay, let's say the KKK had an uprising in the USA. Our government wanted to quell the uprising, but Canada started shooting down our bombers that were tasked to destroy the rebel strongholds. Like I said, the current government probably well deserves to be destroyed, but it should be done by the citizens, not us and everyone else who is in power in the world.

Yeah, normally you would be correct and this exact process is in fact still underway in Egypt. The dictator of Egypt however was unable to use the army which sided basically with the people. What you don't seem to understand is that in Libya the Dictator was, and maybe still has that intention, of using his army to slaughter the people.

In Gadhafi's language to kill the people by going door to door.

There are many cases where the world has stood by without the guts or the fortitude to prevent massacres from happening - this is one case where so far they did not do so.

[sjwaldron]

The dictator of Egypt however was unable to use the army which sided basically with the people.

There are many cases where the world has stood by without the guts or the fortitude to prevent massacres from happening - this is one case where so far they did not do so.

Egypt was more how it should be. The army understood what needed to be done and it is their business to do so.

The question is why has the world been trying to prevent things in Libya and not other locations like you said? Is it because of our own selfish agenda? Could it be resources we want to keep on the world market?

So when should it be the business of everyone? Why not do something in one place and then change gears for another?