Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Rebels pushing on TripoliFollow

#52 Aug 23 2011 at 1:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
You pinko commie radical liberals are quick to discount Gaddafi's Earthquake Machine. I mean, just look at his picture and prove he doesn't have an Earthquake Machine.


I just assumed he didn't need an earthquake machine since the devil is on his side and such.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#53 Aug 23 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
All I got from this is varus' dad is taking his internet away. I noticed he hadn't been around here much lately.
#54 Aug 24 2011 at 12:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Nadenu wrote:
All I got from this is varus' dad is taking his internet away. I noticed he hadn't been around here much lately.


I don't think I banned him did I? I forget.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#55varusword75, Posted: Aug 24 2011 at 7:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nads,
#56 Aug 24 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,272 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
strengthening my mind
Good, the atrophy it was suffering from was blindingly apparent.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57varusword75, Posted: Aug 24 2011 at 7:56 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lagaga,
#58 Aug 24 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
I have you to thank for that.
I'm glad you finally realize my superiority and have decided to better yourself.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#59 Aug 24 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
I readily admit I am a bit slow.

From the mouths of babes...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Aug 24 2011 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
varus edits: Where he tries to make comments more insulting to other people, but ends up insulting himself worse.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#61 Aug 24 2011 at 8:18 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
No need to prolong it, varus. Just get your racist, homophobic, misogynistic, pathetic *** out of here. You're not wanted.
____________________________
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.
#62 Aug 24 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Barrack Hussein Obama

What's this? Obama has a middle eastern middle name? He's clearly a terrorist plotting to bring down the USA from the inside and impose sharia law on non-Muslims! Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#63 Aug 24 2011 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
varusword75 wrote:


And yes Kao you did hit me with a 24hr ban last week because you allowed imbecilic college students to guide your judgement regarding what I was saying in the other thread regarding their baseless stalking charges.


A mute is a mute. A ban makes all the posts go away. And you were totally asking for that one. You really want to play the aggrieved innocent party routine with me of all people??? Alright, let me know how that works out for you.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#64 Aug 25 2011 at 5:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
varusword75 wrote:


And yes Kao you did hit me with a 24hr ban last week because you allowed imbecilic college students to guide your judgement regarding what I was saying in the other thread regarding their baseless stalking charges.


A mute is a mute. A ban makes all the posts go away. And you were totally asking for that one. You really want to play the aggrieved innocent party routine with me of all people??? Alright, let me know how that works out for you.

Kao, it's varus. You know, not the brightest crayon in the box?
#65 Aug 25 2011 at 7:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Political Wire wrote:
MSNBC Photo Blog: "The ransacking of Moammar Gadhafi's compound is turning up some bizarre loot. Following on from the Libyan leader's eccentric fashion accessories and his daughter's golden mermaid couch, the latest discovery is a photo album filled with page after page of pictures of Condoleezza Rice."


Smiley: dubious

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66varusword75, Posted: Aug 25 2011 at 9:03 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nads,
#67 Aug 25 2011 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
MSNBC Photo Blog: "The ransacking of Moammar Gadhafi's compound is turning up some bizarre loot. Following on from the Libyan leader's eccentric fashion accessories and his daughter's golden mermaid couch, the latest discovery is a photo album filled with page after page of pictures of Condoleezza Rice."


Smiley: dubious

Smiley: laugh

That's pretty scary.
#68 Aug 25 2011 at 9:23 AM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
And also one of the only people on this site who doesn't mind poking fun at himself for the benefit of others.
And you even fail at that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Aug 25 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Nads,

Quote:
Kao, it's varus. You know, not the brightest crayon in the box?


And also one of the only people on this site who doesn't mind poking fun at himself for the benefit of others. Have a nice day.


/RAGEQUIT
#70 Aug 26 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,480 posts
Haven't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to comment that it's just amazing what the people of a nation can do when they decide self determination is worth fighting for.

And...they have 500 SAS "observers" coordinating with hundreds of armed US flying robots. But mostly, you know, it's their WILL.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#71 Aug 26 2011 at 8:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Haven't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to comment that it's just amazing what the people of a nation can do when they decide self determination is worth fighting for.

And...they have 500 SAS "observers" coordinating with hundreds of armed US flying robots. But mostly, you know, it's their WILL.


Lol! I'm honestly making quite an effort to not rile up debate on this one. I'm glad that things appear to have worked out. I still think that we could have handled it better. The initial decision to cheerlead from the sidelines was a massive mistake. It's was good that Obama finally did the right thing, even if for political reasons he had to go about it in as surreptitious a manner as possible.

And now that we're done not fighting a war, I'm sure the next phase of "not nation building" will begin. It will include tens of billions of dollars strictly for helping the orphans of the war or something. Because we will definitely not be interfering with their own purely internal and non-manipulated process of building a government, no matter how much they ask us to!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Aug 26 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
I don't know about anyone else, but I totally want a hundred-armed flying robot now.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#73 Aug 26 2011 at 8:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Lol! I'm honestly making quite an effort to not rile up debate on this one. I'm glad that things appear to have worked out. I still think that we could have handled it better. The initial decision to cheerlead from the sidelines was a massive mistake. It's was good that Obama finally did the right thing, even if for political reasons he had to go about it in as surreptitious a manner as possible.


Hi. The guy who told you "We didn't get into a fight with Libya fast enough and use the full weight of US Airpower" also had meetings to sell Kaddafi better jets a few years ago. So, uh, his comments ring a little hollow.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#74 Aug 26 2011 at 10:16 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
Well, at least we won't be occupying yet another sovereign nation for the next decade or so.
____________________________
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.
#75 Aug 27 2011 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Haven't read the whole thread, but I just wanted to comment that it's just amazing what the people of a nation can do when they decide self determination is worth fighting for.

And...they have 500 SAS "observers" coordinating with hundreds of armed US flying robots. But mostly, you know, it's their WILL.


Lol! I'm honestly making quite an effort to not rile up debate on this one. I'm glad that things appear to have worked out. I still think that we could have handled it better. The initial decision to cheerlead from the sidelines was a massive mistake. It's was good that Obama finally did the right thing, even if for political reasons he had to go about it in as surreptitious a manner as possible.

And now that we're done not fighting a war, I'm sure the next phase of "not nation building" will begin. It will include tens of billions of dollars strictly for helping the orphans of the war or something. Because we will definitely not be interfering with their own purely internal and non-manipulated process of building a government, no matter how much they ask us to!

Protip: The USA didn't lead the charge on this one.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#76 Aug 29 2011 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Lol! I'm honestly making quite an effort to not rile up debate on this one. I'm glad that things appear to have worked out. I still think that we could have handled it better. The initial decision to cheerlead from the sidelines was a massive mistake. It's was good that Obama finally did the right thing, even if for political reasons he had to go about it in as surreptitious a manner as possible.


Hi. The guy who told you "We didn't get into a fight with Libya fast enough and use the full weight of US Airpower" also had meetings to sell Kaddafi better jets a few years ago. So, uh, his comments ring a little hollow.


I honestly have no clue who the **** you're talking about. A whole lot of people thought that we should have been more decisive in the first week or two of this conflict and either gotten in more directly right off the bat, or stayed out of it completely. I made the exact same argument myself 6 months or so ago when this whole thing started, and while I was not alone in my position, I certainly don't recall a single person being the sole source if it.

Just basic statistics and the relatively limited number of broad approaches to the situation should indicate that millions of people would likely simultaneously come to any one of those approaches all on their own. It seems a bit silly to try to invalidate said approach because of what one person said or did at some point in the past. I don't recall selling jets to Khadaffi. Nor any of the other conservatives who held the same opinion. And frankly, I'm not sure how selling jets to him then invalidates a position on a completely different situation today. It just smacks of muddled thinking.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Aug 29 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
I don't recall selling jets to Khadaffi.


Practicing for the inquest?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#78 Aug 29 2011 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I don't recall selling jets to Khadaffi.


Practicing for the inquest?


Smiley: sly
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Aug 29 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sorry your stalemate didn't work out Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Aug 29 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sorry your stalemate didn't work out Smiley: laugh


Went on for 5 months. Until we (we being NATO) wiped out pretty much every plane, heavy weapon, and C&C location held by Khadaffi, and then put massive amounts of weapons into the hands of ground forces, and then gave them heavy weapons, and then showed them how to use them, and then put "advisers" on the ground. So yeah. If we'd done that stuff from day one, maybe the conflict would have ended 4.5 months ago and cost fewer lives.

Just saying. If we'd acted when the rebels first asked for help, when they initially had the upper hand, we could probably have helped them win in the first couple weeks, while only having to destroy Libya's air power, some heavy units, and some command/control sites. By waiting until Khadaffi mobilized his forces, and then waiting more until he'd destroyed almost everything the rebels had and pushed them to the brink of destruction, we made this a far steeper uphill battle than it should have been.

By continuing to try to keep the appearance of not directly helping the rebels, while still directly helping the rebels we stretched it out even further after that point.


Don't get me wrong. I completely understand why Obama chose this course of action. But it's clear that this was essentially driven by domestic political conditions and not so much what the best course was in terms of resolving the conflict. He was bound by his own rhetoric regarding Iraq, and that limited his options. It's good that everything worked out well anyway (so far at least), but I'm still going to point out that this was far from a perfect plan much less execution.


And before you go all partisan on me, I made the exact same criticism of Bush after the invasion of Iraq. The choice to go minimalist during the initial invasion (also for political reasons) combined with trying too hard to avoid appearing to be leading in the rebuilding allowed for lots of weapons to be hidden and later used against us *and* lead to the significant faction fighting which arguably cost more lives than any of the insurgents, loyalists, or just plain anti-US folks in the area did. It's a delicate balance, but we made the mistake of being too delicate in that first year, and it made things much worse IMO.


Of course, it's good that we can learn from earlier mistakes. Usually at least.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 Aug 29 2011 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Went on for 5 months.

Wow. Five whole months for a war??

Longest stalemate in world history!! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Aug 29 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Went on for 5 months.

Wow. Five whole months for a war??


Five months *after* NATO started helping Joph. The war had already been going for a month prior to that point, during which time we basically sat on the sidelines and played cheerleader.

You do realize that Libya is just now entering the equivalent stage to Iraq in April of 2003, right? That was after a whopping 21 days of fighting. What happens next is anyone's guess, but the point is that it took far far longer to get to the point of toppling Khadaffi and even starting to stabilize the country, rebuild, create a new government, and a host of other things that still lie before them.

I'm not even looking at the parts that lie ahead. I'm looking at the fact that had we acted earlier and more decisively, we could have helped the rebellion topple Khadaffi in that first month or so. Instead, we waited until the rebellion was nearly wiped out, then took action at the very last second, and even then limited it so as to not appear to be helping too much (even though everyone knew otherwise).

Quote:
Longest stalemate in world history!! Smiley: laugh


Longer than it should have been.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Aug 29 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, but you're calling it a stalemate. Was it a stalemate from day one? After the first month? What?

Look, I don't even disagree with the "we should have acted sooner" bit. Fuck, I started a thread to that very effect. But this was not a "stalemate" as you so grandly predicted...
You previously wrote:
I'll also point out for the record that I seem to have correctly predicted the stale mate which would result from our ill-conceived approach. Shocking! So what now? Sustain an eternal civil war with no end and no victor?
...Just suck it up and admit it. You were wrong. It's okay. Deep breaths, man. Deep breaths.

Quote:
You do realize that Libya is just now entering the equivalent stage to Iraq in April of 2003, right?

You mean the part where we had toppled the existing government, dismantled its army and won the war by any metric existing prior to 2001?

Quote:
That was after a whopping 21 days of fighting

Tanks fight better than anti-aircraft guns on pick-up trucks? Who knew?? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Aug 29 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, but you're calling it a stalemate.


I am? You're the one who brought that word into this thread Joph. But I'll do ya a favor:


I first used that word in this thread. Specifically:

Me, March 21st wrote:
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.


I did not say that this stalemate would last forever, just that "even more people will die". So... April, May, June, July, August. That's 5 extra months *after* I said this before an opponent we could have helped them defeat in like 2 weeks was finally defeated.

And if you read that whole thread, you'll note that my issue was with the original claim of using nothing but air support. I argued that we would need to do more than that if we were to help the rebels actually win. And guess what? I was right! We (NATO) did do more than just blow stuff up from the air. We did provide tons of weapons and on the ground military assistance before the rebels were able to win.

It's quite arguable that had NATO stuck to its original promise of just using air power to protect civilians from Khadaffi's forces, we would still be in that stalemate. It's precisely because they didn't do this that the rebels won. And I also predicted that as well. I said that everyone knows they'll have to do more, but they're effectively lying to the public so that they don't suffer massive outcry for their actions. Then, as time goes by and no one's really paying attention, they'll start providing weapons, then ground support, etc.


My whole argument was that either they were embarking on a venture that could not work *or* were being dishonest and intending to do the right thing (eventually), but lying about it so as not to draw negative political attention to themselves. As it happens, they did the latter. My position is that had they been honest about what they were doing (toppling Khadaffi), and directly provided what was needed to accomplish this instead of dancing around the issue, this conflict could have been resolved months ago and many fewer lives would have been lost.

I was right about it then, and I'm still right about it now.

Quote:
Quote:
That was after a whopping 21 days of fighting

Tanks fight better than anti-aircraft guns on pick-up trucks? Who knew?? Smiley: laugh


Um... Yeah. That's kinda the point! It's why one conflict took 21 days and the other 6 months. Gee. I thought that's exactly what I was saying.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#85 Aug 29 2011 at 10:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, but you're calling it a stalemate.
I am?

Yes. I even quoted you. Do try and keep up, mmkay?

Since you seem to forget when you say these things, once again I'll remind you that you wrote:
I'll also point out for the record that I seem to have correctly predicted the stale mate which would result from our ill-conceived approach. Shocking! So what now? Sustain an eternal civil war with no end and no victor?


Quote:
I did not say that this stalemate would last forever, just that "even more people will die".

Yet again, I'll point out that you wrote:
Shocking! So what now? Sustain an eternal civil war with no end and no victor?


But keep up your spinning! Better to embarrass yourself over and over and over again than admit once that you were wrong. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Aug 31 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, but you're calling it a stalemate.
I am?

Yes. I even quoted you. Do try and keep up, mmkay?

Since you seem to forget when you say these things, once again I'll remind you that you wrote:
I'll also point out for the record that I seem to have correctly predicted the stale mate which would result from our ill-conceived approach. Shocking! So what now? Sustain an eternal civil war with no end and no victor?


Quote:
I did not say that this stalemate would last forever, just that "even more people will die".

Yet again, I'll point out that you wrote:
Shocking! So what now? Sustain an eternal civil war with no end and no victor?


But keep up your spinning! Better to embarrass yourself over and over and over again than admit once that you were wrong. Smiley: laugh


Wrong that unless and until we put more focus on the ground the rebels would not win? Hmmm... Yeah. I was so wrong about that one! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Aug 31 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Wrong that unless and until we put more focus on the ground the rebels would not win? Hmmm... Yeah. I was so wrong about that one! Smiley: laugh

NATO have ground forces in Libya?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#88 Aug 31 2011 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wrong that unless and until we put more focus on the ground the rebels would not win? Hmmm... Yeah. I was so wrong about that one! Smiley: laugh

NATO have ground forces in Libya?

Not...really?
____________________________
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.
#89 Aug 31 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quiet. Gbaji really needs this!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Aug 31 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
******
44,272 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I totally want a hundred-armed flying robot now.
The Detroit Steel Project has several thousand armed drones that accompany the battle armor and are controlled by civilian simple smart phone apps disguised as a video game.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 Aug 31 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Debalic wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wrong that unless and until we put more focus on the ground the rebels would not win? Hmmm... Yeah. I was so wrong about that one! Smiley: laugh

NATO have ground forces in Libya?

Not...really?

But...but gbaji keeps saying it. So it must be true, right?



Smiley: dubious


How hard is it to say "I was wrong"? Seriously.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#92 Aug 31 2011 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Wrong that unless and until we put more focus on the ground the rebels would not win? Hmmm... Yeah. I was so wrong about that one! Smiley: laugh

NATO have ground forces in Libya?


Well... Sorta.

Quote:
NATO’s targeting grew increasingly precise, one senior NATO diplomat said, as the United States established around-the-clock surveillance over the dwindling areas that Libyan military forces still controlled, using armed Predator drones to detect, track and occasionally fire at those forces.

At the same time, Britain, France and other nations deployed special forces on the ground inside Libya to help train and arm the rebels, the diplomat and another official said.



If you think that helping to "train and arm the rebels" didn't also consist of "coordinate and target air strikes to rebel ground force movements so we can stop accidentally hitting rebel forces" you've failed at comprehension. The rebels suddenly became effective after 4 and a half months of flailing around because NATO finally imposed some operational control over the ground forces themselves. You cannot effectively use close air support without a single command structure in place. Is it really that hard to noodle out what changed? A month ago, the rebels were unable to make any ground and we were accidentally hitting them as often as the Khadaffi forces. Suddenly, like a switch is thrown, our air forces (almost) perfectly coordinate with a rebel ground assault and take over the capitol?


Don't strain your brain thinking about it.

Edited, Aug 31st 2011 5:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Aug 31 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
See, Gbaji isn't talking about US or NATO ground forces, he's using the nebulous and meaningless phrase "focus on the ground". Which will mean whatever he wants it to mean so he can say "I was right!" after being embarrassed over his failed stalemate prophecy.

Hey, any port in a storm.

Quote:
Suddenly, like a switch is thrown, our air forces (almost) perfectly coordinate with a rebel ground assault and take over the capitol?

Oh, the same magic switch that allowed all this training and coordination to happen in a week or two and hasn't been going on while you were crying "Stalemate! Just like I said! Stalemate! Locked in eternal civil war with no end! I predicted it!" Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 31st 2011 7:49pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Aug 31 2011 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
But NATO don't have boots on the ground. Aside from a few SAS liaisons training the rebels?

Awesome.

It's sort of like coming full circle for the SAS, though. I mean, Libya was where they started in WWII.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#95 Aug 31 2011 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
See, Gbaji isn't talking about US or NATO ground forces, he's using the nebulous and meaningless phrase "focus on the ground". Which will mean whatever he wants it to mean so he can say "I was right!" after being embarrassed over his failed stalemate prophecy.


It's to avoid some yahoo responding that since we didn't have NATO infantry on the front lines that it doesn't count. Which you know **** well would have happened. Several hundred NATO special forces handling command and control and coordinating air and ground forces is completely consistent with my larger argument.

Let's not forget that the original claim was that NATO would only use air power, and would only use it to protect civilians in areas threatened by Khadaffi's forces. Some of us knew that the objective wasn't just to protect civilians, but was to overthrow Khadaffi and that NATO would have to do more than it originally claimed to accomplish this. We predicted that over time, the air campaign would expand and that eventually NATO would have to do something directly on the ground in order for the rebels to win.

What we argued wasn't that this was wrong, but that it was wrong to pretend to not be doing what it was so obvious we were doing. If the goal was to remove Khadaffi, then say that and do it. Slipping into the issue sideways would make it take longer and get more people killed. Which it did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 Aug 31 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Nilatai wrote:
But NATO don't have boots on the ground. Aside from a few SAS liaisons training the rebels?


Aside from that... Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Aug 31 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
But NATO don't have boots on the ground. Aside from a few SAS liaisons training the rebels?


Aside from that... Smiley: lol

Okay, I'll admit two to three SAS teams could have won Libya in a week, but you're making it sound like there is a significant NATO presence on the ground. There isn't. Stop spreading misinformation.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#98 Aug 31 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
But NATO don't have boots on the ground. Aside from a few SAS liaisons training the rebels?


Aside from that... Smiley: lol

Okay, I'll admit two to three SAS teams could have won Libya in a week, but you're making it sound like there is a significant NATO presence on the ground. There isn't. Stop spreading misinformation.


"Presence" is measured in ways other than numbers of boots. It's very clear from the radical change in air to ground coordination just a few weeks ago that those special forces teams were doing more than training. We were basically running their ground war for them in terms of command and control. Had to be. It was those NATO special forces who were giving the orders to rebel commanders and telling them where to put their units and when.

This has to be true because the only way to coordinate air and ground forces that well is if both are following the same set of commands and are hooked into the same network of information. And since it's a very good bet that we didn't give the rebels access to our military networks, that what we did was put our guys into their command tents with our equipment and ran their war for them. Or is this still too hard to noodle out?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Aug 31 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Keep spinning, Cpt Stalemate Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 31st 2011 8:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Aug 31 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Maybe they just put beacons on their vehicles? Maybe the SAS liaisons were doing just that, liaising. You know, radioing in "Hey, they're attacking X, don't(or do) blow it up"

Doesn't mean NATO is illegally running a civil war.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#101 Aug 31 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Keep spinning, Cpt Stalemate Smiley: laugh


That's Major Stalemate to you!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CST
ElneClare, Iamadam, Kavekkk, Anonymous Guests (41)