And where did you get guns blazing from?Dilbert_X wrote:
Going in guns blazing when you're there to protect civilians?Varegg wrote:
Why is that?Dilbert_X wrote:
Then its a shit procedure and needs changing.
I can see one or two problems with that.
Bad luck, as I said already, wiping out every conceivable threat in the name of pre-emptive self defense seems only to apply to air operations and not ground or sea.Spark wrote:
Who the hell said destroy everything? It's about taking out AA ffs. It strikes me as appallingly retarded to try to patrol and area with AA hanging around and doing nothing about it.
I raised this argument before the fighting started.Kmar wrote:
Its actually pretty funny that the unconfirmed victims are more forgiving than dilbert.
Which didn't happen in Bosnia did it?Shocking wrote:
Did the UN doctrine say 'defend civillians by any means necessary'? It did.
That includes bombing the tanks that were moments away from wrecking Benghazi.
I can't help but think you're just being deliberately contrarian here, and just bringing this up because it's a tactic they're using. Because otherwise you'd be able to see how stunningly obtuse this argument is.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bad luck, as I said already, wiping out every conceivable threat in the name of pre-emptive self defense seems only to apply to air operations and not ground or sea.Spark wrote:
Who the hell said destroy everything? It's about taking out AA ffs. It strikes me as appallingly retarded to try to patrol and area with AA hanging around and doing nothing about it.
Did we take out every single tank in Bosnia to protect our ground troops? No, the doctrine doesn't apply there.
I don't remember what the UN doctrine during Bosnia stated but I'm sure it didn't include 'protect civs by any means necessary'. I believe it was the faulty doctrine that was partly responsible for Srebrenica.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which didn't happen in Bosnia did it?Shocking wrote:
Did the UN doctrine say 'defend civillians by any means necessary'? It did.
That includes bombing the tanks that were moments away from wrecking Benghazi.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Not at all, enforcing a NFZ means exactly that.
In the same way that enforcing the speed limit doesn't mean the Police are entitled to slash your tyres while your car is parked.
me wrote:
I already told you, Gadaffi threatened to fight back and you yourself have also seen the news images of air defence firing into the sky. I don't see the problem in disabling this air defence.
How are you going to impose a NFZ if you're not removing that which is threatening its implementation? It's not a 'destroy everything' tactic, that's what you make it out to be.
Your analogy of the russians doesn't make sense in that regard either, I suppose that if the US was threatening to nuke Russia and started flying B-52s in its direction, then yes, I suppose the russians should pre-emptively nuke the US.
me wrote:
Did the UN doctrine say 'defend civillians by any means necessary'? It did.
That includes bombing the tanks that were moments away from wrecking Benghazi.
So where exactly is your argument?me wrote:
I don't remember what the UN doctrine during Bosnia stated but I'm sure it didn't include 'protect civs by any means necessary'. I believe it was the faulty doctrine that was partly responsible for Srebrenica.
Uhh... you sure did pick a retarded thing to get worked up about. What exactly did you think creating a no fly zone meant? It means Combat Air Patrols and we aren't going to sit around with our thumb up our ass letting them take potshots at our planes. No, you bomb the ground defenses. It's normal Dilbert, and you're making yourself look foolish by harping on this in every thread. Taking out air defenses is wholly in the spirit of the resolution. Going beyond that? No.Dilbert_X wrote:
According to USAF doctrine yes. Otherwise no.Shocking wrote:
Why? Isn't bombing air defence / radar systems exactly in line with what it means to enforce an NFZ?
This pre-emptive self-defense theory doesn't apply in any other sphere, you don't see UN blue helmets taking out every conceivable local threat do you?
This, RAAF doctrine is almost identical in this case, it is a perfectly normal Offensive Counter Air (OCA) operation. It's not like this is some "omgomg Americans are blood thirsty" bullshit.FEOS wrote:
It's not USAF doctrine, Dilbert. It's basic air power doctrine. You'll find it common to any air force that has doctrine.
And check the news feeds on what's been struck. Your characterization of the targeting has gone beyond hyperbole into the realm of the ridiculous. In fact, check on what's been struck over the past 24-48 hours. You should find that the list has dropped off dramatically...showing the hyperbolic nature of your claims (again).
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2011-03-23 21:11:46)
Last edited by War Man (2011-03-23 21:47:10)
A no fly zone should only be enforced with dog fighting and tom cruise.Jay wrote:
Uhh... you sure did pick a retarded thing to get worked up about. What exactly did you think creating a no fly zone meant? It means Combat Air Patrols and we aren't going to sit around with our thumb up our ass letting them take potshots at our planes. No, you bomb the ground defenses. It's normal Dilbert, and you're making yourself look foolish by harping on this in every thread. Taking out air defenses is wholly in the spirit of the resolution. Going beyond that? No.Dilbert_X wrote:
According to USAF doctrine yes. Otherwise no.Shocking wrote:
Why? Isn't bombing air defence / radar systems exactly in line with what it means to enforce an NFZ?
This pre-emptive self-defense theory doesn't apply in any other sphere, you don't see UN blue helmets taking out every conceivable local threat do you?
Libya isn't your problem either ...War Man wrote:
Ain't the US's problem. Libya shouldn't be our problem but has become our problem because we got involved. Honestly we should now just take the shortcut to ending the war and kill Gaddafi so this entire debate can finally end.
