BF2S Forums The Situation in Libya

hehehe,

only the EU is sending military advisers

from previous US wars (vietnam, ahem) military advisers are the first step up to a more committed engagement, involving lots of ground troops

11 Bravo wrote:

it wasnt just US advisors in nam

well we have CIA agents on the ground in Libya too

and well yeah there were soviet advisors

No terroristic attacks on the US mainland under Obama dude. System works.

I don't believe anything Bush did helped at all, Obama is not helping either.

Funding AQ in Libya is not the smartest act.

On the plus side Obama is helping Palin get elected.

You should be pleased.

Trotskygrad wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

it wasnt just US advisors in nam

well we have CIA agents on the ground in Libya too

and well yeah there were soviet advisors

And many others, as well

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

it wasnt just US advisors in nam

well we have CIA agents on the ground in Libya too

and well yeah there were soviet advisors

And many others, as well

thank you i was trying to lead a horse to water.....

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-04-22 09:19:39)

Shocking wrote:

Libya is a shithole and I have no idea why France actually wanted to intervene.  It's as if they really went in there solely for humanitarian reasons

They went there because they don't want a rush of immigrants. They went there because they were the old colonial power and they feel guilty. They went there because they like to have a secure oil supply (who doesn't? I don't blame them at all. Anyone who wouldn't do it is stupid). They went there because helping Arabs fight a brutal dictator is good politics (France does have problems with Muslims all the time after all). They went there because the country is right across the Med. They went there cause its a good excuse to fuck up Daffie. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I don't fault anyone really. It was good politics. We just went about it in a really really shitty way.

EDIT: Which is starting to come close to negating any benefits we will receive from the whole fuck up.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2011-04-22 11:54:21)

A little bit of comic nerdery on my part for digging this up from 1986:

Commie Killer wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

They went there because they don't want a rush of immigrants. They went there because they were the old colonial power and they feel guilty. They went there because they like to have a secure oil supply (who doesn't? I don't blame them at all. Anyone who wouldn't do it is stupid). They went there because helping Arabs fight a brutal dictator is good politics (France does have problems with Muslims all the time after all). They went there because the country is right across the Med. They went there cause its a good excuse to fuck up Daffie. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I don't fault anyone really. It was good politics. We just went about it in a really really shitty way.

EDIT: Which is starting to come close to negating any benefits we will receive from the whole fuck up.

??? France was never in Libya. Cote D'Ivore I can understand but the whole colonial thing is irrelevant in Libya. It's more about the French flexing their military muscle due to their decline in power. Italy is the old colonial master you're looking for...

Yeah my mistake. Thinking Algeria. Who the hell knows how I got those two screwed up. Your right as well. Everyone once in a while some people need to die so people don't forget who has the guns.

That said. Its pathetic to see how far the military powers of Europe have fallen.

It's mostly coz of the destruction caused by WW2 and Europe spending a lot more money on social programs than military while the US defends Europe from the Soviet threat.

Cybargs wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

??? France was never in Libya. Cote D'Ivore I can understand but the whole colonial thing is irrelevant in Libya. It's more about the French flexing their military muscle due to their decline in power. Italy is the old colonial master you're looking for...

Yeah my mistake. Thinking Algeria. Who the hell knows how I got those two screwed up. Your right as well. Everyone once in a while some people need to die so people don't forget who has the guns.

That said. Its pathetic to see how far the military powers of Europe have fallen.

It's mostly coz of the destruction caused by WW2 and Europe spending a lot more money on social programs than military while the US defends Europe from the Soviet threat.

They were still very respectable in 90. Once the Russians left their door step the lack of a obvious enemy kinda fucked funding.

Cybargs wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

??? France was never in Libya. Cote D'Ivore I can understand but the whole colonial thing is irrelevant in Libya. It's more about the French flexing their military muscle due to their decline in power. Italy is the old colonial master you're looking for...

Yeah my mistake. Thinking Algeria. Who the hell knows how I got those two screwed up. Your right as well. Everyone once in a while some people need to die so people don't forget who has the guns.

That said. Its pathetic to see how far the military powers of Europe have fallen.

It's mostly coz of the destruction caused by WW2 and Europe spending a lot more money on social programs than military while the US defends Europe from the Soviet threat.

confirming the UK didn't re-engineer their entire fleet to focus on defending the north sea against any russian incursions, we didn't have tank divisions and nuclear weapons sat in Germany nor did the RAF spend (a fortune) developing nuclear weapons and bombers to deliver them. What actually happened was we sat around spreading everyones money out and let America do everything

retard.

FatherTed wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Yeah my mistake. Thinking Algeria. Who the hell knows how I got those two screwed up. Your right as well. Everyone once in a while some people need to die so people don't forget who has the guns.

That said. Its pathetic to see how far the military powers of Europe have fallen.

It's mostly coz of the destruction caused by WW2 and Europe spending a lot more money on social programs than military while the US defends Europe from the Soviet threat.

confirming the UK didn't re-engineer their entire fleet to focus on defending the north sea against any russian incursions, we didn't have tank divisions and nuclear weapons sat in Germany nor did the RAF spend (a fortune) developing nuclear weapons and bombers to deliver them. What actually happened was we sat around spreading everyones money out and let America do everything

retard.

No, the social policies of the government were more willing to spend on social programs than military development. Almost all European countries post WW2 started focusing more on social programs than defense. THIS DOES NOT MEAN there was 0 spending on defense, it's just their focus from military spending switched to social spending.