Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by Carrabow

That was my point

And my point was that Bfly's puerile witticisms depend on oversimplification, as you pointed out.

it's hardly oversimplification, the facts speak for themselves

NATO can't deploy a full conflict, that's the problem, and because of it they will keep bombing innocent civilians and rebels without distinction, and with no exit or end result in sight

a complete futile exercise,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by Carrabow

That was my point

And my point was that Bfly's puerile witticisms depend on oversimplification, as you pointed out.

it's hardly oversimplification, the facts speak for themselves

NATO can't deploy a full conflict, that's the problem, and because of it they will keep bombing innocent civilians and rebels without distinction, and with no exit or end result in sight

a complete futile exercise,

Wishful thinking there methinks Butters.

NATO will slowly grind down Gaddafi's heavy weapons in the forward area, and indeed there may be some very isolated instances of civilians and allied rebels being killed. But it is certainly not indiscriminate bombing as you purport.

With Gaddafi's supply lines cut by NATO air strikes in the Eastern cities the disorganized rebels will slowly eradicate them. But thats going to leave the country divided into East and west, isolating Gaddafi from the bulk of his oil reserves. This thing could drag on for years or even decades. USA was wise to flick the cost of guarding the oil to the Europeans. I guess they have at least learned something from Iraq. A new state created under democratic principles may not be as compliant to western needs as one under a compliant dictator.

But yea, you are right that this thing is headed to be a big shitty mess for a long time unless Gaddafi and his team do a runner and bail out to live a life of luxury in some far off land. And that scenario seems most unlikely.

Originally Posted by Panda

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by mao say dung

Originally Posted by Carrabow

That was my point

And my point was that Bfly's puerile witticisms depend on oversimplification, as you pointed out.

it's hardly oversimplification, the facts speak for themselves

NATO can't deploy a full conflict, that's the problem, and because of it they will keep bombing innocent civilians and rebels without distinction, and with no exit or end result in sight

a complete futile exercise,

Wishful thinking there methinks Butters.

NATO will slowly grind down Gaddafi's heavy weapons in the forward area, and indeed there may be some very isolated instances of civilians and allied rebels being killed. But it is certainly not indiscriminate bombing as you purport.

With Gaddafi's supply lines cut by NATO air strikes in the Eastern cities the disorganized rebels will slowly eradicate them. But thats going to leave the country divided into East and west, isolating Gaddafi from the bulk of his oil reserves. This thing could drag on for years or even decades. USA was wise to flick the cost of guarding the oil to the Europeans. I guess they have at least learned something from Iraq. A new state created under democratic principles may not be as compliant to western needs as one under a compliant dictator.

But yea, you are right that this thing is headed to be a big shitty mess for a long time unless Gaddafi and his team do a runner and bail out to live a life of luxury in some far off land. And that scenario seems most unlikely.

In a round about way Africa belongs to Europe, if the Americans went any further than they did the international community would blow a head gasket. I am surprised we did is much as we have so far.

I would like to see how NATO especially France handles this. It is about time someone else gets to be the punching bag. North Africa is a mess no matter where you look, excellent track record. I will say one thing for them. They are consistent.