|
Oh mysterious forces at work, do Russia next.
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
NATO is really showing the world exactly how worthless it really is. Air control, sea control, logistics control and what? The Qaddafi loyalists are still plowing through the rebels at a steady pace. I predict that this whole situation bogs down and eventually NATO sends in ground forces, completely undermining its own credibility as an organization dedicated to stability.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Jut posted:Err why? for enforcing a UNSCR? For not bombing civilian areas? for not taking sides in a rebellion? Not taking sides? Are you a retard? And they already bombed a few civilians and rebels. Mistakes happen I guess, luckily no helicopters have murdered any children for gathering firewood. It will get there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Your cynicism is deeply inspiring. Look, at this point NATO has two options. 1 abandon the rebels 2 fight a ground war Results from 1: NATO loses credibility and respect. The alliance is seen as a poor ally in times of need. Results from 2: NATO is seen as an interventionist power which interferes with the sovereignty of other countries worldwide and loses credibility and respect The end result is the same. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
Jut posted:Go and read the resolution that authorised action. They were never tasked with helping the rebels overthrow CQ. They were tasked with protecting civilians. Are you angry that they are not bombing targets with a high chance of accidentally killing civilians? or just pissed that they were never sent in to help the rebels overthrow CQ? That resolution was passed by NATO's members on the UNSC. I'm pissed that once again America is blowing poo poo up around the world and acting like it knows best. It is literally supporting like two thousand people against the entire state of libya.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
NATO: we do what we must because we can. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:How many Libyans? It's pretty clear the rebels don't have much support outside of the East. While most Libyans probably want Gaddafi gone, how much better will the TNC be? The rebels are literally a bunch of bumbling shitheads that can't even launch a proper offensive. I would never trust them to run a country. America is supporting a group with zero prospects and I think Gaddafi is better suited to run a country than two thousand useless pseudo intellectuals with guns.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Care to back up literally anything you've written about who the rebels are or the level of support they have in what parts of the country? Financial Times posted:
Like I said a bunch of pseudo intellectuals with guns and no real plan. Regarding the support, its not like I can find a Libyan Gallup poll. shotgunbadger posted:Yeees, straight up 'too savage to rule themselves'! Don't be obtuse. I completely believe in the rights of Libyan's to have a multi-party representative government, but these are not the right people to establish it. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Mercenaries wouldn't fly, but I could see the West bribing the AU away from Gaddafi's tit so that they intervene. 1) This is impossible to determine as of right now. 2) I stated that the number of rebels numbers 2000, not supporters. However, what good is a supporter in a civil war if they are not actively fighting against the other side? Edit: My mistake it appears that there are 2000 rebels in Brega. Not all around. 3) The way I see it, if only 2000 people managed to show up to stand up to Gaddafi at Brega then he has wider support than the rebels. If it turns out that the number of rebel fighters and rebel supporters is smaller than the number of Gaddafi supporters then the entire "revolution" was a farce to begin with. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:You seem pretty on the ball. Mind if I ask you a few questions? 1) You just proved my point about there being no support because it is gone. 3) Lack of dedication to their own cause. The rebels should admit they lost the war, even with the support of NATO. The best they could hope for now is a ceasefire or for the West to sweep in and save the day by getting involved in yet another conflict in the ME. In regards to your statement about the tactics employed by Gaddafi, where the rebels expecting him to just crawl on his knees and surrender? Like in some sort of video game? They wanted to overthrow a tyrant schizo and they knew they had to go to war to do it. They got what they wanted and failed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
The rebels started this poo poo let them finish it. Why does the United States or anyone have to spend a bunch of money on a bunch of failed freedom fighters?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
No it does not, it sets the precedent for America and Western Europe to overthrow whoever they want, whenever they want, just like Kosovo did roughly a decade ago. It creates dangerous precedents for the use of hard power by a group of countries whose past histories make them less than ideal candidates to do anything in Africa or anywhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
So the message I got out of all this is that Europe and the US will do whatever it takes to ensure steady supplies of oil or geopolitical importance. If Libya was Somalia, none of this good stuff would have happened. As a sidenote: Europe and the United States will never stop setting up puppet regimes as long as they exist, so if the rebels win, I expect them to be trading cheap oil for guns in no time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
Mozi posted:I think that's an extremely silly way of looking at it. It's not like Gaddafi wasn't selling us oil to begin with. Maybe, but Gaddafi was buying guns from the Russians. If the rebels win, America wins.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
DevNull posted:I am glad to see that you are continuing your trend of making some of the dumbest loving posts in the forums. America is not running the show on this. Not the bombing maybe, but its directing it's European lackeys to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
Xandu posted:But the US intervenes in Somalia all the time. I don't think anybody wants Libya to be like Somalia.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
If there are people that seriously believe that NATO is doing this for humanitarian reasons they need to face the facts. Everything NATO has ever done is to further its own ambitions of global domination by eliminating any and all existing threats. That is the reason why NATO is attempting to encircle Russia with friendly nations, the same as it had done in the Cold War, and the reason that it consistently invades any nation which shows any signs of instability in order to improve its own strategic positions. I am loving calling it now, two weeks after the rebels win, NATO is going to break ground an a massive air force base in Libya.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:It amuses me to no end when people post stuff like this unironically. Please, ignore all the other posters decrying you with their 'facts' and 'reason'; tell me more about what happens to Libya after NATO establishes a puppet regime What facts and what reason? Look at NATO's history of intervention. There are major, permanent NATO bases in almost every country it has ever intervened in for humanitarian reasons. Kosovo, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Afghanistan You can give me all of the supposed facts that you have, but I know history well enough to know that NATO jumps at the opportunity to put a base somewhere for "humanitarian" reasons. As I stated earlier, France and the UK are countries that realized they can't project hard power internationally and are using Libya as an attempt to project it regionally. The reason America is playing at being neutral on Libya is because it still can't win its own wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or else it would be all over that poo poo like it was 1991. If you want to see an even better example, look at what happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even after the USSR collapsed and Russia was willing to embrace Western values, NATO began to incorporate the former Warsaw pact nations into itself, encircling Russia, and undermining Russia's regional security.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 01:33
|
|
.
|
Gorau posted:Or if you look at it from the point of view of the former soviet republics: enhancing their security against a state that has been loving with them for the last two hundred years, up to and including occupying them. If we look at it from that way, then the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was loving with Russia for four hundred years, but bit off more than they could chew and collapsed. Things happen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
farraday posted:Ultra-Nationalism: It's never not about us. Its easy to criticize others when you are blind to the actions of your own nation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 01:51
|
|
|
farraday posted:Is that ironic or a subtle apology for claiming NATO membership would cause a country Russia destroyed 200 years to suddenly arise again and wage war on the undefended Russian countryside. Possibly with scores of Hussars, their wooden wings singing as they charge, wrecking bloody vengeance on the iron horses of your army. Romanians, Germans, Hungarians, Croatians, Slovakians, Swedes, French and a few other enlightened and modern nations were doing roughly that only 70 years ago. In response to the other guy, its to maintain the hegemony that Europe has created for itself in the last 300 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
farraday posted:Swedes? Apparently your grasp of history is a little thin there, you mean the Finns. Wore lots of white, had pretty good machine guns, kicked rear end in the Winter War. Any of that ring a bell? Swedes served in the Finnish army and the Wehrmacht during WWII. This is a pointless derail though, because I was simply using the encirclement of Russia following the collapse of the USSR as an example to show what NATO does best: encroach.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
farraday posted:Oh so you left out the Finns on purpose? Would it have anything to do with the aforementioned winter war and the unmentioned invasions of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland? How do those fit into your ultra nationalists narrative of poor Russia being beset on all sides by enemies? Or do you only know enough of Russian history to make a step stool for you to climb onto that cross? If you wan't to get into that argument, then those invasions were justified. Those countries either capitulated to the Nazi's or openly supported them, rather than fighting to the last man. They were Nazi sympathizers. Volunteers from the Baltics became part of the Waffen SS. Poland was never incorporated into the Soviet Union as far as I can remember so maybe your grasp of history is a bit weak. NATO dominates the world, and uses any excuse it can to set up a new base. Also encroach does not mean what you think it means. Ohh you were talking about the Molotov-Ribbentrop invasions. Those only happened because the West constantly rebuked the USSR's requests for an alliance, so the USSR signed a pact with Hitler instead. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
farraday posted:Russia invaded every single one of those countries before they fought the Nazis. But hey, details, am I right? You ultra nationalists dip shits can't get anything right. Western idealists: yeah policies that were openly supported by the Baltics killed 20 million, but those drat Russians occupied the Baltics and did some raping in Berlin so who are the real evil ones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:And yet, NATO is apparently incapable of maintaining an effective airstrike campaign in a second-rate North-African desert country for more than two weeks without running out of loving ammunition. Read my argument, the only reason Russia even came up is because farraday decided to derail the conversation by nitpicking at a point I made. My problem is that NATO has a track record of invading countries under the pretenses of humanitarian intervention, killing a bunch of people, setting up a base and calling it a success.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK, well: 1. Ships are in Libya's coastal waters, and operating within Libya's territory. As well as bombing with the territory of Libya. I think that constitutes an invasion. 2. All of the members who voted for intervention in the UNSC are also NATO members. 3. While that may be true, the country that provides the majority of NATO's funding and arms is the United States, and usually what they say goes. 4. NATO is also responsible for a few million civilian deaths around the world. Especially as soon the United States gets involved. Sometimes to fight legitimate social movements. Also I will choose to disregard your random comments about Russia, because that is a topic for another thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 05:17
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:2. The majority, 6 of the 10 who voted yes for the resolution, are not NATO nations. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, South Africa. Those nations don't count, they don't even have veto power. Contraction mapping posted:I'm surprised you haven't given up by now; shine on you crazy diamond! As we all know, cost is of no issue to NATO, just look at its combined military budget. Libya has two factors worth fighting over. 1. Gaddafi has been a thorn in their side for 30 years. Actions against him make all of NATO look good. 2. Cheap oil from Libya in exchange for military and financial aid for the new government. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:You said "All of the members who voted for intervention in the UNSC are also NATO members." I meant the real UNSC not those positions they give to countries to make them feel important. Also I stated that in response to a claim that it was a UN decision rather than a NATO one. Clearly the three NATO powers with actual political weight were for it. No matter what you say, NATO countries are doing the bombing whether the rest of NATO agrees or not. Therefore this is a NATO mission. My point still stands so stop making baseless accusations about my theory without developing a level of reading comprehension that rivals your ability to twist information to somehow legitimize this "humanitarian" intervention.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:You're making statements that are factually incorrect and then try to wiggle your way out of being called on it by twisting your own words, so how can you expect people to listen to your opinion. I was making a statement that was factually correct. You chose to bring up an irrelevant technicality, because had Russia or China voted "no", the rest of those votes would not even matter. In response to your statement about the conspiracy, this situation favors Russia as well, because its oil companies will be able to invest in Libya's previously state owned behemoths. However, unlike NATO, Russia does not have plans to establish permanent bases in Libya, which according to historical precedent is exactly what will happen after the war is over. What is it with the lame attacks against Russia? I am not making comments about colonialism, eugenics, and all the brown people killing that your countries seem to enjoy so much, so you can just gently caress off with that garbage. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 06:14
|
|