Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5672

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'll spell it out for you:

Here's the objective:

Remove Gadaffi

Install someone friendlier to Western interests and grateful for Western help
you do realize most of the rebels are strongly anti-american and took up arms against US troops in iraq right? not to add to the fact that daffi was VERY pro western.


oh wait its trollbert logic
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4658|College Park, MD

Shocking wrote:

That's more than 30 years ago though, he could throw it on naivety, picking the opposition off by their stances on recent events is the best course of action I would say.
My error; he voted to repeal it in 1995.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4955|...
If that's the case he's making a fantastic ass out of himself. Then again, that preceded the whole Iraq/Afghanistan situation so it sort of lost its validity.
inane little opines
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4314|London, England

Shocking wrote:

I find it enormously hypocritical that the same camp which spat on France for its refusal to help out in Iraq and its refusal to send more troops to Afghanistan is now eagerly pursueing means to stop the US intervention in Libya and make the US turn its backside to its own allies.

It all just comes back down to people being self serving hypocrits. Do as I say not as I do - and along the way abuse popular points of view to reel in as many voters as possible, I fucking hate politics.
There is a serious push in US, among both conservatives and liberals, for us to dissolve NATO completely. It's outlived it's usefulness and European nations aren't pulling their weight or meeting their defense spending requirements. I'm all for it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4658|College Park, MD
But Jay, the Soviet Union would surely begin taking over Europe.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4314|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

But Jay, the Soviet Union would surely begin taking over Europe.
I'm willing to take the chance
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4658|College Park, MD


Do you really want to take the chance of a dancing Stalin? (3:06 in)
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4955|...
You know, I agree because I feel it would benefit Europe as well. I believe it would cause an increase in defense spending overall when the realisation hits that we can't rely on US support as much as we do, forcing closer cooperation between the individual nations of the EU. Noone except Britain and France (can correct me on that) are anywhere close to the (by NATO) mandated 2.0% of GDP defense spending (and, while these two do spend more than 2% their militaries are still very lacking when it comes to force projection across the globe, further emphasizing that integration of the different armed forces is necessary).

NATO did outlive its usefulness and in todays conflicts the member states can't agree with one another on the issues at hand, making it a troublesome agreement for everyone involved, nevermind the effects that has to its supposed use. Do away with it - you'd find a majority support for that within the EU as well.

The point about hypocrisy still stands though.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-21 14:05:09)

inane little opines
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|5367|'Murka

Shocking wrote:

If that's the case he's making a fantastic ass out of himself. Then again, that preceded the whole Iraq/Afghanistan situation so it sort of lost its validity.
Except for the fact that Congressional approval was gotten before both of those operations began.

Slight difference.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|5427

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN2zeRbu0x4

Do you really want to take the chance of a dancing Stalin? (3:06 in)
holy shit the acting on those games was so fucking bad
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4658|College Park, MD
nadia! dis tea is trooly excellent! tee hee hee!
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|4955|Vortex Ring State

Uzique wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN2zeRbu0x4

Do you really want to take the chance of a dancing Stalin? (3:06 in)
holy shit the acting on those games was so fucking bad
yet it was treated as an innovation nonetheless... something I never really got.
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|4658|College Park, MD
it got worse with time, zeek. did you play CnC3? only one who was worth anything was Kane, as usual.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,733|5062|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'll spell it out for you:

Here's the objective:

Remove Gadaffi

Install someone friendlier to Western interests and grateful for Western help
you do realize most of the rebels are strongly anti-american and took up arms against US troops in iraq right? not to add to the fact that daffi was VERY pro western.
Gadaffi was not pro-western, he just recently realised which side of a JDAM he'd rather be and started opening up the Libyan oil market.

I doubt the people who planned this intervention really had a clue on the views of the rebels, no idea why we're helping them TBH.
Maybe we should have backed the Ayatollah in overthrowing the Shah? It makes about as much sense.
#FreeBritney
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5672

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'll spell it out for you:

Here's the objective:

Remove Gadaffi

Install someone friendlier to Western interests and grateful for Western help
you do realize most of the rebels are strongly anti-american and took up arms against US troops in iraq right? not to add to the fact that daffi was VERY pro western.
Gadaffi was not pro-western, he just recently realised which side of a JDAM he'd rather be and started opening up the Libyan oil market.

I doubt the people who planned this intervention really had a clue on the views of the rebels, no idea why we're helping them TBH.
Maybe we should have backed the Ayatollah in overthrowing the Shah? It makes about as much sense.
no he was pretty pro-western considering for the past 5 years the libyans shared a lot of intelligence with the west about al qeada members. libyans dont like those nutters either.

no one knows whos in charge of the rebels... its just cool to support the underdog.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|5557|132 and Bush

Lockerbie bombing. Screw him.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,733|5062|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:

no he was pretty pro-western considering for the past 5 years the libyans shared a lot of intelligence with the west about al qeada members. libyans dont like those nutters either.

no one knows whos in charge of the rebels... its just cool to support the underdog.
Gadaffi was not pro-Western, he saw what happened to Saddam and changed tack.

He didn't like AQ because he saw them as a threat to his own power - correctly as it turned out - and decided his enemy's enemy was his friend.
#FreeBritney
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5689|Cambridge, England

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

you do realize most of the rebels are strongly anti-american and took up arms against US troops in iraq right? not to add to the fact that daffi was VERY pro western.
Gadaffi was not pro-western, he just recently realised which side of a JDAM he'd rather be and started opening up the Libyan oil market.

I doubt the people who planned this intervention really had a clue on the views of the rebels, no idea why we're helping them TBH.
Maybe we should have backed the Ayatollah in overthrowing the Shah? It makes about as much sense.
no he was pretty pro-western considering for the past 5 years the libyans shared a lot of intelligence with the west about al qeada members. libyans dont like those nutters either.

no one knows whos in charge of the rebels... its just cool to support the underdog.
Nobody is in charge of the Rebels, thats half the problem. If they were the now very experienced vets we were fighting in Iraq and Afgahn then there wouldnt be a stalemate in Libya. I dont doubt there is an overlap but they are definitely not one and the same.

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-06-22 02:23:31)

Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5672

Kmar wrote:

Lockerbie bombing. Screw him.
fuck them both daffi and the rebs. daffi also supported IRA afaik.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
JahManRed
wank
+646|5584|IRELAND

Kmar wrote:

Lockerbie bombing. Screw him.
He also sent tones of semtex and thousands of guns to my little country which killed a lot of people. Screw him indeed.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4955|...
https://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/06/18/eu/20110618_eud000.jpg

inane little opines
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,733|5062|eXtreme to the maX
The no-fly zone seems to be fine - Gadaffi isn't flying anything.

Thats the extent of the remit.
#FreeBritney
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|5689|Cambridge, England
Its telling that Europe cannot function militarily without USA.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|4955|...
So it seems like the US congress doesn't agree with Obama on the Libya intervention, that means that US support will be withdrawn soon, no?

At the same time the EU is getting increasingly aggressive against Syria. I recently watched Robert Gates' last speech for NATO, and tbh he was spot on. We've been neglecting our militaries and as a result even a campaign in a poorly armed, low populated country like Libya has turned out to be an utter disaster. We can't field enough planes, don't have enough bombs and didn't even have the facilities and people required to properly operate the airfields. We can't identify the targets without US help and nobody was able or willing to take up the leadership role after the initial attack.

EU defence = trainwreck. Although I'm hopeful the shit for brains in all the different parliaments will finally start to realise this sorry state of affairs and invest in our common defence, realistically the failures of Libya will most likely be ignored. It's starting to be awfully reminiscent of a certain conflict in eastern Europe during the 90s in which the US was blamed for 'not doing enough', I predict it's going to be the same situation in Libya.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-24 15:43:16)

inane little opines
Commie Killer
Member
+192|5343

Shocking wrote:

So it seems like the US congress doesn't agree with Obama on the Libya intervention, that means that US support will be withdrawn soon, no?

At the same time the EU is getting increasingly aggressive against Syria. I recently watched Robert Gates' last speech for NATO, and tbh he was spot on. We've been neglecting our militaries and as a result even a campaign in a poorly armed, low populated country like Libya has turned out to be an utter disaster. We can't field enough planes, don't have enough bombs and didn't even have the facilities and people required to properly operate the airfields. We can't identify the targets without US help and nobody was able or willing to take up the leadership role after the initial attack.

EU defence = trainwreck. Although I'm hopeful the shit for brains in all the different parliaments will finally start to realise this sorry state of affairs and invest in our common defence, realistically the failures of Libya will most likely be ignored. It's starting to be awfully reminiscent of a certain conflict in eastern Europe during the 90s in which the US was blamed for 'not doing enough', I predict it's going to be the same situation in Libya.
From what I've heard a lot of people in the EU seem to think a fair trade is giving the US bases and in turn having the US do the shooting.

No one spends enough on the military (except the US, and the majority of our money is wasted in over politicized processes.)

People only want to spend money on the military after we get our asses kicked. You cant build a effective military in a year.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard