Thread: The Libyan Crisis

Well well, I see we are all getting upset over a few coalition troops being inserted to help out....including a mysterious Colonel, with actual experience....well fcuk me don't that beat all. The other Colonel --that would be the Libya one...has had "foreign" troops in Libya since day one. Mercenaries from the Balkans, and various African countries; mainly Chad and Niger.

Gadaffi rounds up a bunch of cut-throats from out of town; pays them $1,000 (reportedly) a day to go out and kill his own people..(basically because they disagree with his management style) .and that's perfectly OK with the TD bullshit brigade....but we want to send it a few guys to show the motorbike mechanics and shoe salesmen how to fire their weapons horizontally instead of into the air, and suddenly it's a fucking genocide....

What a convoluted view of things some people have. When any western "spokesman" (ie Hague) says anything, they are immediately branded a "liars"...when Gadaffi or any of his cretins makes a statement, however ridiculous, its like Moses just came down from the mountain...

The thing is that the French and the UK will have their arse kicked, and those military "advisers" will be killed in combat

it's like they can't stop being humiliated and being international losers,

France + UK = New International Losers

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The thing is that the French and the UK will have their arse kicked, and those military "advisers" will be killed in combat

it's like they can't stop being humiliated and being international losers,

France + UK = New International Losers

Saved for posterity.

Originally Posted by hopskimoet

Please explain to me how a degraded military regime is going to kick the arse of a military power that is far more superior? Are they going to shoot expensive laser guided ordnance out of the skies with AK47's and RPG's? No, they are not. Once again, your statements are just full of detritus and you have absolutely no idea on concerted military operations. You always strike me as someone that thinks they know it all but, the reality is that you know absolutely fuck all.

Shush.

See Iraq, where insurgents are taking the americans despite all their modern gadgets

no prize for you for obvious stupidity,

LOL! ^

I don't see the coaliotion of the willing very 'willing' to do the wet stuff. And when they will have to go in they are going to lose. Anything than a resounding win (just like in Iraq and Afghanistan) is a loss. Wonder how many years it'll take them to catch Gaddhafi

As for those mercenaries Koman mentioned above, have they turned up? In real life? Or have the rebels just been going out and catching blacks and then lynching them?

how are they going to finance an invasion ? in the middle of a financial crisis ? Rome ? hellooooo ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

See Iraq, where insurgents are taking the americans despite all their modern gadgets no prize for you for obvious stupidity,

That is total and absolute bullshit. The invasion (or should I say re-invasion) of Iraq accomplished it's primary objective very quickly. The regime was brought down. Saddam Hussein was captured (hiding in a rabbit hole--very appropriate) He was tried by an Iraq court and executed for crimes against his own people.

The "insurgency" was something that the Bush adminstration had not planned for very well and that was a big mistake. Later on the same Bush administration launched the so called "surge" which simply meant inserting enought troops with the proper rules of engagement to get the job done. If this had been done in the first place the "insurgency" may well have been avoided, or at least been a lot less prevalent. Iraq now has it's own elected govrernment and the beginnings of a competent military force and police force.

Yes there is still corruption and incompetence but that is hardly the fault of the Americans. In addition the Americans have invested heavily in such things are restoring the national archives, schools and hospitals etc. (but that does not make good press for left wing imbeciles, so we don't hear much about it)

American has done the job they set out to do and will now leave Iraq to sort itself out. The extreme violence that exists in Iraq today is sectarian and tribal. It is not something that Americans or anyone else can fix.

It will require the Iraq people themselves to deal with it; a bit like the sectarian conflict in Ireland that finally settled down, but required the loss of nearly 4000 lives including 700 British soldiers and police officers who tried to keep them from killing each other for so many years.

These kinds of conflicts are not won or lost overnight. In the case of Libya a very limited intervention has taken place. It is really up to the Libyan's themselves to sort this out. We are trying to help them but we can not solve all their problems.
If Colonel Gadaffi really gave a shit about Libya or it's people, he would step aside, and call for free elections. That would end the armed conflict, give everyone a chance to settle down and provide a way forward for the country to decide it's own future.

If he is anywhere as popular with his people as he claims, he should win handily, but he knows perfectly that he would never be chosen, so he continues to hold on to power down the barrel of a gun, which has always been his style. Even his counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt had the sense to leave when it became apparent that most of the population wanted them out.

Would you support free elections and an elected government in Libya Butters, or is that just too much to contemplate for such virulent minds as yours...

^ you need to stop drinking the Kool Aid and look at reality, it's not pretty in Iraq, and if you think the war stopped after the regime fell, then you need to take more of your meds, or less of them actually

Originally Posted by koman

These kinds of conflicts are not won or lost overnight.

FFS, almost 10 years, WW2 was won in 4 years with a far more capable ennemy

the Americans are trying to establish presence in those place, not win per se

See how Obama went 180 on Iraq, he didn't know the actual goal before he was elected, now he knows so he changed his mind

Originally Posted by koman

Would you support free elections and an elected government in Libya Butters,

what a stupid and extremely naive question, as usual to be expected from American conservatives

would you support a world where everyone was at peace, and we would all love each other and hug each other ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

how are they going to finance an invasion ? in the middle of a financial crisis ? Rome ? hellooooo ?

The cost of any invasion and assistance will be billed to Libya with appropriate sur-charges for the inconvenience caused to our other operations....FFS, I'm glad you'r not managing my finances....

how is that plan working in Iraq so far ? did you get your money back ? after adjusted for inflation of course

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by koman

Would you support free elections and an elected government in Libya Butters,

what a stupid and extremely naive question, as usual to be expected from American conservatives

Why is that a stupid question? It's pretty straight forward...like YES or NO
...oh and I'm not an American conservative....not even American...

would you support a world where everyone was at peace, and we would all love each other and hug each other ?

YES I would like a world like that....don't know about the hugging bit though..a lot of people smell bad. There you see, I answer questions very clearly.

`

Originally Posted by Butterfly

how is that plan working in Iraq so far ? did you get your money back ? after adjusted for inflation of course

Actually I did not have any financial interest in the Iraq situation. I did watch the Shock and Awe on CNN however. I though it became pretty stale after watching the Iraq minister of information speaking on TV. "The desert is red with their blood" "We are defeating them on all fronts" .....and just then an Abraham's tank drives past with an American flag on it.......gotta love those ME propaganda guys...

so you are a silly British conservative scum, so typical, invading countries on little pretense

OMG Koman you are following the Donald Trump doctrine.

Trump reckons we (USA) should take the Iraqi oil by military force to make the Iraqi people pay for the privilege of being invaded and occupied by USA.

That was the US plan anyway, but they made the big mistake of replacing the Hussein regime with a sort of democracy to keep the domestic US voting public on side. It all fell apart when the new Iraqi government refused to sign an agreement giving USA preferential rights to Iraqi oil and instead put the contracts up for world tender.

The freedom and democracy pretext for attacking these oil producing countries is all well and good to garner domestic US voter support, but ironically the people in these countries dont always want to give away their countries wealth to USA when given a say under a democratic system.

Anyway, here's a vid of Donald Trump. Slide to 5:20 minutes to pick up on his war for oil strategy.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

so you are a silly British conservative scum, so typical, invading countries on little pretense

You really are struggling there Butters.....proof positive that the old saying about: "give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, and eventually one of them will write something intelligent" is valid... keep working on it...

Originally Posted by Panda

OMG Koman you are following the Donald Trump doctrine. Trump reckons we (USA) should take the Iraqi oil by military force to make the Iraqi people pay for the privilege of being invaded and occupied by USA.

Trumph is way behind on this. Even the ancient Greeks understood that if you are going to all the trouble and expense of invading other countries, you should at the very least gain some benefit from the exercise.....a few slaves, women, valuables or whatever you can pillage from the miserable place you invaded....

Donald is simply taking the position that the USA rendered a significant service to Iraq, so they should be entitled to charge for it. The USA has nearly always shown a willingness to provide services to others.... A fee for service is simply good business and Donald understands business.....unlike Obama who understands only "hope."..oh, and of course "change" No fee required...clearly not a business man.

Can you imagine what would have happened if they had refused service to the British and others back in 1941/42? The Horst Wessel song in Berkley square perhaps? and in Paris only Rhine wine and Dortmunder Union beer available. I hope you all remembered to say thank you for "invading" us Uncle Sam.

The USA also shows up frequently to help in famine relief, floods, EQ's and all kinds of other disasters around the world.....but that's not newsworthy and nobody bitches. So basically the USA is expected to look out for everybody's interests, but never their own....that is considered immoral.

When they decide to take on thugs and dictators that go against their interests, they are chastised for not taking on the thugs and dictators that do not currently go against theirs interests. It's not a double standard as is often suggested; it is simply looking after their interests; a perfectly reasonable and prudent thing to do.

It is not practical or necessary to whack all the bullies in the schoolyard; We just need to whack the bullies that are after us.... If the other bullies become troublesome, we can whack them in due course. Just stay in shape and keep the defense budget high...because there is always another bully needing attention.....sooner or later...

koman, you are an hilarious right wing nutter, I will give you that

Originally Posted by Butterfly

koman, you are an hilarious right wing nutter, I will give you that

So where's my green. I need something to offset the red you sent me with the "fascist scum" comment attached.......don't remember the thread now but I was very hurt.. I was barely right of center at the time...WTF??

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Panda

OMG Koman you are following the Donald Trump doctrine. Trump reckons we (USA) should take the Iraqi oil by military force to make the Iraqi people pay for the privilege of being invaded and occupied by USA.

Trumph is way behind on this. Even the ancient Greeks understood that if you are going to all the trouble and expense of invading other countries, you should at the very least gain some benefit from the exercise.....a few slaves, women, valuables or whatever you can pillage from the miserable place you invaded....

Donald is simply taking the position that the USA rendered a significant service to Iraq, so they should be entitled to charge for it. The USA has nearly always shown a willingness to provide services to others.... A fee for service is simply good business and Donald understands business.....unlike Obama who understands only "hope."..oh, and of course "change" No fee required...clearly not a business man.

Can you imagine what would have happened if they had refused service to the British and others back in 1941/42? The Horst Wessel song in Berkley square perhaps? and in Paris only Rhine wine and Dortmunder Union beer available. I hope you all remembered to say thank you for "invading" us Uncle Sam.

The USA also shows up frequently to help in famine relief, floods, EQ's and all kinds of other disasters around the world.....but that's not newsworthy and nobody bitches. So basically the USA is expected to look out for everybody's interests, but never their own....that is considered immoral.

When they decide to take on thugs and dictators that go against their interests, they are chastised for not taking on the thugs and dictators that do not currently go against theirs interests. It's not a double standard as is often suggested; it is simply looking after their interests; a perfectly reasonable and prudent thing to do.

It is not practical or necessary to whack all the bullies in the schoolyard; We just need to whack the bullies that are after us.... If the other bullies become troublesome, we can whack them in due course. Just stay in shape and keep the defense budget high...because there is always another bully needing attention.....sooner or later...

Your argument does have some basis in fact. I disagree however with your opinion of "whacking the bully". Invading other countries for domestic financial gain is seen by most fair minded people as in fact playing the role of the biggest bully and not particularly popular with most voters in a democracy. Hence the routine practice of politicans selling the myth that the wars they choose to pursue are on the basis of either some imminent threat or on humanitarian grounds.
Astute people in the west are generally acutely aware that real reasons for war on selected countries is more about military and economic interests than any altruistic or self defence motives.