Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Libyan No-Fly ZoneFollow

#152 Mar 21 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So instead of doing things unilaterally (or at least without UN approval), they got a resolution to do one thing (a no-fly zone)...

Two things: Create/enforce the no-fly zone and prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilians or civilian population centers.

There's some question as to whether the language was intended to allow for attacks on additional forces not related to air operations in order to accomplish that though.

But you agree that there was a resolution for more than one thing. Great. That was my point. In fact, the protection of citizens is its own section and comes before the portion declaring a no-fly zone. There's no confusing that these are two separate things.
Quote:
And dropping missiles and bombs onto (non-air) military bases and command and control locations in Tripoli? That would kinda be outside the mandate as well, right?

Given that knocking out Libyan communications was Step One? No, probably not outside the mandate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153 Mar 21 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
****
7,820 posts
Not to mention that enforcing a "no-fly" zone would intimate that Allied planes are going to be the one enforcing it. Therefore taking out any anti-aircraft threat resides within that mandate. Tanks, SAM emplacements, and communication infrastructure would fall within that definition.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#154 Mar 21 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Speaking of, and again with the "non-air" military base strikes, anti-aircraft devices don't need to hang around airports.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 6:54pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#155 Mar 21 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So instead of doing things unilaterally (or at least without UN approval), they got a resolution to do one thing (a no-fly zone)...

Two things: Create/enforce the no-fly zone and prevent Gaddafi from attacking civilians or civilian population centers.


There's some question as to whether the language was intended to allow for attacks on additional forces not related to air operations in order to accomplish that though.

Quote:
Blowing up an armored column approaching Benghazi is within their mandate.


Yet that's exactly what the Arab League is condemning. There's some obvious question as to whether they expected that the additional language to "protect civilians from attack" included blowing up every tank or artillery unit within 30 miles of any city currently held by rebels.

Quote:
Coordinating with the rebels to provide air support for a military match-up in the desert would (I expect) be another matter.


And dropping missiles and bombs onto (non-air) military bases and command and control locations in Tripoli? That would kinda be outside the mandate as well, right?

The point here is that there's some disagreement even on the application of the "protect civilians" language in the resolution, and the actions being taken go well beyond even that anyway. This is not being seen in the Arab world as mere protection of civilians. It's seen (correctly) as western military might being used to defeat Khadaffi and to kill his military forces. I happen to agree that that is what is necessary, but I'm not sure if this method of getting "approval" for the mission was really the right way to go about it.



Back on page one I said :

Quote:
...bombing the airports, AA emplacements, destruction of fuelling, maintainence and base infrastructure and all the other things that that would involve? Eventually you would have US pilots getting shot at and prolly shot down too....All for....What exactly? So gadaafi can drive over civilians with tanks instead?



The only thing that surprises me is that anyone ( from gbaji to the Arab league) thought that it would mean anything less.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#156 Mar 21 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Surely that means that he needs to tell Congress within 48 hours that he has used the Military because the 'US was under attack'...

Nope, it doesn't.


So....let me get this straight. Obama (or any other POTUS) can unilaterally declare war on any country he sees fit, and as long as the Congress is away for the weekend, and as long as he can 'win' in 60 days, then its all good by the Constitution?

FUck! And you guys think thats OK?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#157 Mar 21 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
And you guys think thats OK?

Doesn't keep me up at night nearly as much as it does you :)

Congress doesn't have to be away for the weekend; the fact that Congress was away is why the formal notice arrived today instead of on Saturday. Had military action started today, he could have still said "Go" on the missile strikes and then penned a letter to John & Harry.

Quote:
So gadaafi can drive over civilians with tanks instead?

I know, right? If only there was some way we could convince France to blow up those tanks outside Benghazi...

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 7:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#158 Mar 21 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
And you guys think thats OK?

Doesn't keep me up at night nearly as much as it does you :)



Well....I s'pose he is a Democrat, and as such is definately doing it for all the right reasons.

/warm fuzzies.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#159 Mar 21 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
But you agree that there was a resolution for more than one thing. Great. That was my point. In fact, the protection of citizens is its own section and comes before the portion declaring a no-fly zone. There's no confusing that these are two separate things.


Sure. But both are connected to (and justified by) one thing: "protecting civilians". You do understand that the reason for a no-fly zone was to prevent air bombing of civilian populations, right? It isn't an end to itself. I guess I'm just unsure what you think you're "winning" with this line of argument. The "one thing" I was speaking about was the objective of protecting civilians.

Do you see how those acting on the humanitarian desire to limit casualties from air bombings might just think that using massive air strikes to accomplish that sorta defeats the purpose?

Quote:
Quote:
And dropping missiles and bombs onto (non-air) military bases and command and control locations in Tripoli? That would kinda be outside the mandate as well, right?

Given that knocking out Libyan communications was Step One? No, probably not outside the mandate.


You're missing the point. I'm not talking about how *I* perceive those things. I'm talking about many of those in the UN and the Arab League to gave a green light to this perceive those things. They very clearly did not have air operations of this nature in mind when they agreed to allow actions to help protect against civilian loss of life.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 5:33pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#160 Mar 21 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
paulsol wrote:

Quote:
...bombing the airports, AA emplacements, destruction of fuelling, maintainence and base infrastructure and all the other things that that would involve? Eventually you would have US pilots getting shot at and prolly shot down too....All for....What exactly? So gadaafi can drive over civilians with tanks instead?



The only thing that surprises me is that anyone ( from gbaji to the Arab league) thought that it would mean anything less.


Don't include me in the list of those who thought anything else. The difference is that I happen to think that they should be engaging at that level. You and I do seem to agree that you either stay all the way out, or you end out all the way in.

My point is that those running the show (US, UK, and France) basically lied to the Arab League and the UN to get authorization to act to "protect civilians" and are using it as a justification to get involved in the conflict in order to try to help the rebels win. They're trying to have their cake and eat it to (help the rebels win while appearing to just be engaged in humanitarian mission), but is anyone really fooled? I don't think so. And judging by the outrage coming out of the Arab League right now, I don't think they've been fooled either.


I think we should have just been honest. Say we don't like Khadaffi, toss support to the rebels to help them end his rule, and stand by that decision. The idea of walking into it backwards by pretending we're just there for humanitarian reasons is stupid IMO. No one believes it, and it wont work. The risk we're running is that we'll end up with a stalemate and even more people will die as a result of our "humanitarian" efforts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#161 Mar 21 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
If I had a been given a penny for every time I've talked about how its the perception of events that is important, and not the intentions, and been knocked back on this board, (especially by Gbaji) i would be able to go out for a quiet dinner on my own at a mediocre sort of restaurant in an average part of town.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#162 Mar 21 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
You and I do seem to agree that you either stay all the way out, or you end out all the way in.



Nope.


Similar conclusions possibly.

Totally different thought processes on how we get there tho'.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#163 Mar 21 2011 at 6:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
paulsol wrote:
If I had a been given a penny for every time I've talked about how its the perception of events that is important, and not the intentions, and been knocked back on this board, (especially by Gbaji) i would be able to go out for a quiet dinner on my own at a mediocre sort of restaurant in an average part of town.


Your own persecution complex aside, I've been incredibly consistent in my assertion that the claim to just be about helping protect civilians is a blatant lie and is being used to assert military action in support of the rebels. I've been arguing all along that the choice to deceive the UN and Arab league to green light these attacks will likely be seen more negatively than had they simply acted unilaterally (or at least without the UN and League support).

I've stated several times my amazement that anyone might think they'd get away with this just by calling it something else. I don't think they will. In fact, I think it'll hurt us more in the long run than if we'd just come out directly saying we're going to help the rebels win the war and then followed through with that.

It would have at least been honest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#164 Mar 21 2011 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I guess I'm just unsure what you think you're "winning"...

Who's "winning"? You were wrong and I corrected you. Be gracious about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#165 Mar 21 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I guess I'm just unsure what you think you're "winning"...

Who's "winning"? You were wrong and I corrected you. Be gracious about it.


Ah yes. I forget that you have a nearly pathological need to scan my posts, ignore the context of what is actually said, and see if you can find anything that can be presented as factually incorrect and make hay about it, regardless of how utterly irrelevant it may be to the subject at hand.

That about it? I mean, I said that the resolution did one thing, but (hur hur!) there was... wait for it... more than one thing in the resolution! Hahaha. UR Dumb!

Really? That's your sole contribution? You'll just ignore the fairly salient point that the folks who agreed to the resolution clearly did not think that it included things like bombing every Khdaffi held military location in the country, and obliterating lines of tanks driving down a road. You'll ignore a prediction that this will cause some serious political fallout? That's less important to you than pointing out that I said that the resolution did "one thing"?


Sure looks to me like you view this like you're scoring points on some board somewhere by spotting an inaccuracy in my post. Um... Grats I guess? Me? I'd rather be right about what I'm saying even if I'm wrong about how I say it than the other way around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#166 Mar 21 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I forget that you have a nearly pathological need to scan my posts, ignore the context of what is actually said, and see if you can find anything that can be presented as factually incorrect and make hay about it, regardless of how utterly irrelevant it may be to the subject at hand.

No, I said "gracious". Throwing a little multi-paragraph hissy fit like a six year old who has just been corrected isn't "gracious". I mean, it's par for the course with you but it isn't gracious.

When your little dire predictions are predicated on an understanding of the resolution, I don't think that correcting you is really so wrong but then I'm not you. Maybe I'll buy both you and Paulsol matching crosses for Easter :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167paulsol, Posted: Mar 21 2011 at 7:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Voted for : U.S., Britain, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa.
#168 Mar 21 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So maybe you should direct your outrage towards those nations who abstained? Two of them had veto power they decided not to express.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Mar 21 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I forget that you have a nearly pathological need to scan my posts, ignore the context of what is actually said, and see if you can find anything that can be presented as factually incorrect and make hay about it, regardless of how utterly irrelevant it may be to the subject at hand.

No, I said "gracious".


I should be gracious about you obsessing on word choice while ignoring post content and meaning? Why?


Quote:
When your little dire predictions are predicated on an understanding of the resolution, I don't think that correcting you is really so wrong but then I'm not you.


Correcting me about what though? Seriously Joph. Your "correction" doesn't change anything about what I was saying. It's pure semantic nit picking. The broader point, that what was sold to the UN and Arab league as a purely protective measure has been used to launch massive offensive air strikes and that this might just be looked on unkindly by those aforementioned groups, still kinda stands unchanged.

Whether they agreed to "one thing" or "more than one thing" in the resolution doesn't change the fact that they absolutely did not sign on to a "bomb the **** out of Khadaffi's troops" resolution.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 6:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Mar 21 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
paulsol wrote:
Take out the US...

For : 5% of the worlds pop.

Against : 40% of th3e worlds pop.

Surely, even through your haze of self-righteous outrage, you recognize that abstention is not the same as opposition?
#171 Mar 21 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So maybe you should direct your outrage towards those nations who abstained? Two of them had veto power they decided not to express.


You mistake me for someone who actually opposes the "bomb the **** out of Khdaffi's troops" approach. I just think it's a mistake to go about it in such a dishonest and underhanded manner.

We all know where this will have to lead us. Better to have picked a desired end result and worked towards that than the mealy-mouthed approach being used. As I've said before, we run the risk of starting this, then trying to appease the folks we lied to in the UN resolution, and end out with some kind of stalemated disaster of an eternally maintained civil war in Libya as a result. Or. We end up backing off and looking like idiots. Or, we end up doing what we should have done on day one and telling the UN and Arab league to shove it and fully backing the rebels.


We're playing a dangerous game with this. What happens if the rebels can't win with us just providing air support? What happens if we have to back off that support to just a "real" no-fly zone (no bombing) once the rebels are no longer backed up in a corner? How does that finish the war? How many more people will die because we've even played lip service to the goal of just "protecting civilians" instead of "winning the war". I just think that this will play out badly, and will end badly, and take a really long time getting there.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 6:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Mar 21 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So maybe you should direct your outrage towards those nations who abstained? Two of them had veto power they decided not to express.


You mistake me for someone who actually opposes the "bomb the **** out of Khdaffi's troops" approach.

It's a fair trade, since you mistook him for someone who was actually addressing you with that post.
#173 Mar 21 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I should be gracious about you obsessing on word choice while ignoring post content and meaning? Why?

lol

ok
Quote:
You mistake me for someone who actually opposes...

You mistake me for someone who was directing that at you and not at Paulsol who was citing who voted for and who abstained.

I corrected you, Gbaji!! Are you going to be okay?? Do you need a glass of water or anything? A teddy bear?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174 Mar 21 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Double

Edited, Mar 22nd 2011 2:10am by paulsol
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#175 Mar 21 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
****
4,158 posts
Majivo wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Take out the US...

For : 5% of the worlds pop.

Against : 40% of th3e worlds pop.

Surely, even through your haze of self-righteous outrage, you recognize that abstention is not the same as opposition?



My outrage is directed at anyone who thinks that peace can be obtained by starting wars.

cUnt.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#176 Mar 21 2011 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
paulsol wrote:
Majivo wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Take out the US...

For : 5% of the worlds pop.

Against : 40% of th3e worlds pop.

Surely, even through your haze of self-righteous outrage, you recognize that abstention is not the same as opposition?



My outrage is directed at anyone who thinks that peace can be obtained by starting wars.

cUnt.
What would you prefer? A strongly worded letter?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#177 Mar 21 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Paulsol doesn't have an actual alternative, given that so much of his time is devoted to surfing and smoking weed. But it sure is fun to be angry about it while having no ideas!
#178 Mar 21 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Majivo wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So maybe you should direct your outrage towards those nations who abstained? Two of them had veto power they decided not to express.


You mistake me for someone who actually opposes the "bomb the **** out of Khdaffi's troops" approach.

It's a fair trade, since you mistook him for someone who was actually addressing you with that post.


Hah! That's funny actually. I read that post at a glance and for some reason the "two" at the end of the first line got mixed in my reading somehow and I thought he said "so maybe you two should...". Wacky brain ****.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#179 Mar 21 2011 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
paulsol wrote:
My outrage is directed at anyone who thinks that peace can be obtained by starting wars.


Somewhat paradoxically, it's the only thing that ever has.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#180 Mar 21 2011 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
What would you prefer? A strongly worded letter?


So, what you're saying is that nothing exists between 'a strongly worded letter', and all out assault?

Majivo wrote:

Paulsol doesn't have an actual alternative, given that so much of his time is devoted to surfing and smoking weed. But it sure is fun to be angry about it while having no ideas!



Yup. Thats me! Though I must admit that the surfing is taking somewhat of a backseat at the moment seeing as how it is getting harder and harder for me to drag myself up the stairs from my moms basement.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#181 Mar 21 2011 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
paulsol wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
What would you prefer? A strongly worded letter?


So, what you're saying is that nothing exists between 'a strongly worded letter', and all out assault?
I don't know, you tell me. You're the one that seems to be deeming the current situation an all-out assault when it isn't.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#182 Mar 22 2011 at 4:27 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
39 posts
We are bombing Libya at the request of the Libyan rebels right?

Or are we pulling an Iraq and bombing Libya because we have finally perfected the technology to read brown people's prayers to god?
#183 Mar 22 2011 at 5:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
paulsol wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
paulsol wrote:
And you guys think thats OK?

Doesn't keep me up at night nearly as much as it does you :)



Well....I s'pose he is a Democrat, and as such is definately doing it for all the right reasons.

/warm fuzzies.


Yeah, that's it.

Jesus, this board is more partisan than our government ever thought about being.
#184varusword75, Posted: Mar 22 2011 at 7:14 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The sad thing is we're likely discussing this issue more than the president who's off in monte carlo or somewhere shooting dice.
#185 Mar 22 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If you're curious about the technical military end of things, this blog has a good rundown day to day.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#186 Mar 22 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
I was at the DFAC when CNN announced that this Libyan thing was being called Operation Odyssey Dawn. The first words out of my mouth was "Good to see they're keeping those DADT soldiers busy."

I'm anxiously awaiting Operation Pinkie Pie.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2011 10:45am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#187 Mar 22 2011 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
***
2,552 posts
The only problem with this whole Libya affair is that ultimately it gives the protesters in other ME countries the idea that they will get UN support in their revolutions. We know that won't be the case so the US is damned if they do, damned if they dont in the scoring points with the ME bit.

Gadafi is sitting on a ton of oil which gives Libya a free pass to UN aid (some of those EU countries rushing to its aid get their oil from Libya) but ultimately what if other ME countries destabilize? Are we gonna run in guns blazing to "help" them too? We don't even fully know who the rebels are and what their long-term motives are. Anyone can say they love democracy if it means getting free tomahawk missile strikes. The great thing about Egypt was the hands off approach whereas this is bordering on potential nation building.

The Arab Leagues flipflop on "yeah, we support the NFZ" to "woah, NFZs mean things get blown up? We didnt sign up for this" is yet another reason I remain suspicious of this entire affair. The leaders are obviously trying to work both sides of the fence here - appearing to oppose Gadafi while at the same time trying to avoid seeming like they sided with the West on military actions. Gotta score points back home.
____________________________
Sparthosx
90 WAR BLU BRD RNG PUP COR SCH DNC WHM RDM






#188 Mar 22 2011 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
SparthosofLakshmi wrote:
but ultimately what if other ME countries destabilize? Are we gonna run in guns blazing to "help" them too? We don't even fully know who the rebels are and what their long-term motives are. Anyone can say they love democracy if it means getting free tomahawk missile strikes. The great thing about Egypt was the hands off approach whereas this is bordering on potential nation building.
One country at a time eh. Establishing a no-fly zone in Libya does not establish precedent that must be followed in other ME countries.

As you say we are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. This frees us up to actually act responsibly rather than politically.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#189 Mar 22 2011 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I was at the DFAC when CNN announced that this Libyan thing was being called Operation Odyssey Dawn. The first words out of my mouth was "Good to see they're keeping those DADT soldiers busy."

I'm anxiously awaiting Operation Pinkie Pie.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2011 10:45am by lolgaxe


Sounds a bit like an anime title to me. How about Operation Radiant Angel Universe?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#190varusword75, Posted: Mar 22 2011 at 11:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#191 Mar 22 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I was at the DFAC when CNN announced that this Libyan thing was being called Operation Odyssey Dawn.
Why would you want to name a military encounter after a voyage that took 10 years longer than it should have?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#192 Mar 22 2011 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I was at the DFAC when CNN announced that this Libyan thing was being called Operation Odyssey Dawn.
Why would you want to name a military encounter after a voyage that took 10 years longer than it should have?


Because we're learning from the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles...?
#193 Mar 22 2011 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I was at the DFAC when CNN announced that this Libyan thing was being called Operation Odyssey Dawn.
Why would you want to name a military encounter after a voyage that took 10 years longer than it should have?


Because we're learning from the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles...?
Covert, brutal honesty in the guise of sarcastic, literary references?

My god, it's true, this is the cause of repealing DADT
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#194varusword75, Posted: Mar 22 2011 at 3:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#195 Mar 22 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's true. All those guys in Iraq didn't say peep between 2003-2009.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Mar 22 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
varusword75 wrote:
The sad thing is we're likely discussing this issue more than the president who's off in monte carlo or somewhere shooting dice.

No, he's in Rio for Carnival.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#197 Mar 22 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
***
2,552 posts
Quote:
Why would you want to name a military encounter after a voyage that took 10 years longer than it should have?


So glad I am not only one who thought this lol.
____________________________
Sparthosx
90 WAR BLU BRD RNG PUP COR SCH DNC WHM RDM






#198 Mar 22 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
varusword75 wrote:
They weren't debacles while W was in office; you know when the radical muslims actually feared US reprisals.

You mean when they came to Iraq from all around the ME in droves at the opportunity to shoot at Americans? Yeah, that was a real winning situation for us.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#199varusword75, Posted: Mar 23 2011 at 7:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
#200 Mar 23 2011 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Debo,

Quote:
You mean when they came to Iraq from all around the ME in droves at the opportunity to shoot at Americans? Yeah, that was a real winning situation for us


As opposed to them spreading out and taking control of our allies in the region like egypt? While at carnival. While the US is shooting tomahawks while his supposed libya coalition falls apart. And to top it off he's encouraging the brazilians to expand their drilling operations in the gulf.


Jeez, you and my cousin must listen to the exact same talking points, because she posted nutty articles about both of these points yesterday on facebook. I was going to respond to her, and then realized that when an article starts off with "As Rush Limbaugh said yesterday..." you can pretty much only just laugh at the person.

I would like to point out the neat fact that Brazil is self-sufficient for fuel thanks to sugar-cane ethanol (more efficient than our corn ethanol production), so any extra oil they produce they can sell.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#201 Mar 23 2011 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We're two or three weeks into Lent. I'm pretty sure Carnival is long over.

As for "Odyssey Dawn", according to the Al Jazeera live blog:
AJ wrote:
More on those operation names. US African Command says "Operation: Odyssey Dawn" has no meaning whatsoever.

Wired magazine reports that the people in charge of naming operations were given a limited option of words to choose from:

“These words begin between the letters JF-JZ, NS-NZ and OA-OF, and those three groups give about 60 some odd words,” explains Africom spokesman Eric Elliott. “So, the folks who were responsible for naming this went through and they had done recent activities with NS and they went to O.”

Using the O series of letters, Africom officials picked out “Odyssey” for the first word. The second word is picked “as random as possible because that’s the goal of these operational names,” says Elliot. Africom pulled out “Dawn” for its second word and the resulting combination, “Odyssey Dawn,” is devoid of any intended meaning, Elliott insists.


Edited, Mar 23rd 2011 10:45am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 23 All times are in CST
Samira, Anonymous Guests (22)