Why not use some of those frozen Libyan assets to pay for this?There was ample time and opportunity for the administration to consult the UN, NATO and the Arab League before going to war, but not the U.S. Congress.
Oh.. the blood for oil crowd would just love that.FEOS wrote:
Why not use some of those frozen Libyan assets to pay for this?There was ample time and opportunity for the administration to consult the UN, NATO and the Arab League before going to war, but not the U.S. Congress.
I know...but it would be the rebels paying their own way, essentially.Kmar wrote:
Oh.. the blood for oil crowd would just love that.FEOS wrote:
Why not use some of those frozen Libyan assets to pay for this?There was ample time and opportunity for the administration to consult the UN, NATO and the Arab League before going to war, but not the U.S. Congress.
But we're in it now, so that argument's kind of moot at this point. And the analogy's poor.11 Bravo wrote:
or maybe we shouldnt be in another vietnam
i aint lowing so dont play with my words. you get the point.FEOS wrote:
But we're in it now, so that argument's kind of moot at this point. And the analogy's poor.11 Bravo wrote:
or maybe we shouldnt be in another vietnam
This is more akin to Bosnia than either Korea or Vietnam.
What does chance have to do with the argument?FEOS wrote:
The chance for survival of infantry vs tank is much higher than plane vs IADS.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma … ctic-libyaThe Pentagon has revealed that AC-130 gunships and A10 tankbusters, of the kind used in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been deployed in Libya. "We have employed A10s and AC-130s over the weekend," Vice-Admiral Bill Gortney, said.
The aircraft are better suited than high-flying fighter bombers to attack targets in built-up areas without so much risk of civilian casualties, defence officials say.
The use of the close air support aircraft has fuelled claims that the US is actively co-ordinating tactics with the rebels. Aware of the controversy any such admission could unleash, Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US actions were in support of the UN-backed resolutions to protect Libyan civilians. "We're not in direct support of the opposition, that's not part of our mandate, and we're not co-ordinating with the opposition," he added.
He described the US strategy as one of continuing "to pressure them where we think it's going to give us the best effect".
"Ammunition bunkers", thats even further away from aircraft than air defences or tanks.The RAF, which does not possess these low-flying US warplanes, have deployed Tornados firing laser or radar-guided weapons such as the Brimstone missile against Libyan armour. It has also fired Storm Shadow standoff cruise weapons, costing an estimated GBP800,000 each, against ammunition bunkers in the Sabha area in the southern Libya desert.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-29 05:07:05)
Well, any pretense that it was just a NFZ was shattered by Obamas speech last night. He spent a good ten minutes talking about how awful Gaddafi is and how we're aiding the revolutionaries in toppling him etc.Dilbert_X wrote:
What does chance have to do with the argument?FEOS wrote:
The chance for survival of infantry vs tank is much higher than plane vs IADS.
Anyway, seems we are not so much enforcing a no-fly zone as providing close air support for the rebels, whether or not they are Al Qaeda.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma … ctic-libyaThe Pentagon has revealed that AC-130 gunships and A10 tankbusters, of the kind used in Iraq and Afghanistan, have been deployed in Libya. "We have employed A10s and AC-130s over the weekend," Vice-Admiral Bill Gortney, said.
The aircraft are better suited than high-flying fighter bombers to attack targets in built-up areas without so much risk of civilian casualties, defence officials say.
The use of the close air support aircraft has fuelled claims that the US is actively co-ordinating tactics with the rebels. Aware of the controversy any such admission could unleash, Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US actions were in support of the UN-backed resolutions to protect Libyan civilians. "We're not in direct support of the opposition, that's not part of our mandate, and we're not co-ordinating with the opposition," he added.
He described the US strategy as one of continuing "to pressure them where we think it's going to give us the best effect".
"to pressure them where we think it's going to give us the best effect"
Hmmm, that doesn't sound like enforcing a no-fly zone or protecting civilians at all.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-03-29 05:23:48)
Russians knew this was going to escalate, I doubt their intelligence agencies are that foolish.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Russians etc are going to be pissed they didn't veto the whole thing.
I wonder what they were promised in return?
...the same way one becomes president of Russia... money.Shahter wrote:
how does a clown become president on the usa?
Maybe unilateral action really is the second best approach afterall.Kmar wrote:
Turkey blocks no fly zone. France wants a non-nato body to lead operations. Quagmire
Everything, essentially.Dilbert_X wrote:
What does chance have to do with the argument?FEOS wrote:
The chance for survival of infantry vs tank is much higher than plane vs IADS.
Civil war implied merely a domestic spat. The situation has evolved.Spark wrote:
[irrelevant] why the title change? [/irrelevant]
No it doesn't, they are both at risk we just choose to take a risk with cheap infantry but not with expensive pilots and aircraft.FEOS wrote:
Everything, essentially.Dilbert_X wrote:
What does chance have to do with the argument?FEOS wrote:
The chance for survival of infantry vs tank is much higher than plane vs IADS.
The American war, and the Libyan conflict is more appropriate labeled a Revolutionary war. Nato has clearly taken a side in Libya, whether they admit it or not.War Man wrote:
Still is a fucking civil war. You can say the American War for Independence was sort of a civil war yet the French and Germans were involved.
I know, but revolutionary wars usually are somewhat a civil war. And yes as much as I'm displeased with the side NATO chose I have to deal with it.Kmar wrote:
The American war, and the Libyan conflict is more appropriate labeled a Revolutionary war. Nato has clearly taken a side in Libya, whether they admit it or not.War Man wrote:
Still is a fucking civil war. You can say the American War for Independence was sort of a civil war yet the French and Germans were involved.
