Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Muzzy on March 19, 2011, 12:22:52 PM
-
French fighter jets gettin' some over Libya. They're loaded for air-to-air and jabo missions. Already took out a vehicle. :airplane:
-
*cough cough* WW3 has begun
-BigBOBCH
-
L'autoroute de la zone de danger!
I already gave SirNuke the high 5 .
-
:aok
Well according to CNN "they're not just using planes, they're using an aircraft carrier."
:headscratch:
-
France and Russia are the only 2 other countries with full size aircraft carriers.
-
I lol'd when I saw on the news that "France will attack planes that attack civilians".
-
Oh I know they have CV's, but the news lady sounded kind of shocked. Like OMG! Planes with an aircraft carrier? Who'da thunk?
-
This may not end well.
(The THREAD, I mean).
-
Would love to see guncam of that fun.
-
(French humor deleted...)
OK, I'll keep it above the belt.
Boo
:cry
-
And Americans wonder why Europeans dislike them...
-
And Americans wonder why Europeans dislike them...
Do we care? :lol
-
we sold our only carrier to the chinese, but took the rotor button out of the dizzy first, and they still haven't got it started.
-
Splash MIG-23
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/258459/thumbs/r-LIBYA-REBELS-WARPLANE-large570.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNCTJ9EBAHc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNCTJ9EBAHc)
-
Wonder what Libya is going to do with the Eiffel Tower after France surrenders.
Did I just say that out loud? :bolt:
-
Wonder what Libya is going to do with the Eiffel Tower after France surrenders.
Did I just say that out loud? :bolt:
:x
-
If I said what I think, I'm pretty sure that I'd be breaking some EU law.
:huh :rofl :bolt:
-
is there enough shade in Libya for the French to hide under?
-
BBC video - looks like a MANPAD.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794589 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794589)
-
You know, usually I find the French about as annoying and irratating a culture as I can image. I almost never resist a chance to get a dig in on them.
However, at this moment all I will say is: good luck, good hunting and get back safe.
:salute,
Wab
-
Did ManAwar start a new kill club in Libya?
-
Did ManAwar start a new kill club in Libya?
lol after chaning citizenship its now Le'ManAwar
-
lol after chaning citizenship its now Le'ManAwar
I'm sure the Libyans are all :bhead :bhead :bhead and :cry :cry :cry
and Le'ManAwar is all :banana: :banana: :banana:
-
US has launched around 50-100 tomahawk missiles around Tripoli. Said during halftime of the UCLA Florida game.
-
BBC video - looks like a MANPAD.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794589 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12794589)
Explosion is consistent with a MANPAD, wouldn't discount an SA-7 (b/c the thing has such a narrow engagement envelope) but maybe SA-16 or SA-18.
-
we started shooting cruise missiles. have fun Libya...
-
French fighter jets gettin' some over Libya. They're loaded for air-to-air and jabo missions. Already took out a vehicle. :airplane:
i'm pretty sure i've seen a picture of a french fighter crashing already........
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/libya-rebels-shoot-down-w_n_837911.html#liveblog?utm_source=aolhp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=aolhp2&icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk1|50817
-
Okay now the US Navy's getting in on the act with missile strikes.
Bet those boys wish they still had one of these around:
(http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j89/ChpGLCorps/470px-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg)
PS yeah i know they're expensive and wasteful but they look really cool on CNN.
-
jesus guys, this one is a legal United Nations joint effort to help a country where civilians are getting killed by a dictator.
Surely there can only be positive comments towards the French for being first in for once. :rolleyes:
-
i'm pretty sure i've seen a picture of a french fighter crashing already........
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/libya-rebels-shoot-down-w_n_837911.html#liveblog?utm_source=aolhp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=aolhp2&icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk1|50817
CAP,
That's a MIG-23....
Nothing French about it
-
CAP,
That's a MIG-23....
Nothing French about it
WHOOPS.......
-
personally, I give a big :salute to the French for leading the way. Now hears to hoping that our F-18s can party after there ack batteries get wiped out :banana:
-
Splash MIG-23
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/258459/thumbs/r-LIBYA-REBELS-WARPLANE-large570.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNCTJ9EBAHc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNCTJ9EBAHc)
Looks like the pilot ejected at 0:34, any news if he survived?
-
Looks like the pilot ejected at 0:34, any news if he survived?
was wondering thew same thing :pray
also: Another breaking news update from CNN: -- U.S., British ships fire 110 Tomahawk missiles on Libya, Pentagon says.
didn't realize we had that much firepower in the area
-
You've got a clearer uninterrupted view of it, if it's the same kill, at the BBC link above. I didn't stick my nose to the monitor, but didn't notice any chute.
-
According a report I just saw on BBC-America, the opposition group's spokesman confirmed it was a rebel MiG 23 that was shot down by a SAM over Benghazi.
ack-ack
-
Was there any confirmation about the reports of Libyan pilots intentionally botching drops on their targets? If so, it would be unfortunate that the air force ends up bearing the brunt of this intervention.
-
It's going to be a turkey shoot, that's for sure. The Russians analysis of Libyan pilots was that the pilots were not trained for high-G maneuvers and had troubles performing them in flight. It's like the Libyans are flying with stall limiter turned on.
ack-ack
-
so it's basically like our Air Force vs the Iraqis again?
-
so it's basically like our Air Force vs the Iraqis again?
let's just pray that any friendly fire incidents are kept to a minimum ya hear!
-
let's just pray that any friendly fire incidents are kept to a minimum ya hear!
yah, we dont need that again :pray
-
You've got a clearer uninterrupted view of it, if it's the same kill, at the BBC link above. I didn't stick my nose to the monitor, but didn't notice any chute.
Really late ejection. Doubt he made it.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51747000/jpg/_51747154_011564639-1.jpg)
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51747000/jpg/_51747156_011564599-1.jpg)
-
If we keep this up the Libyan armed forces will be switching sides faster than Rooks when Bishes are rolling the map.
-
least the Allies have No ENY. :D
-
least the Allies have No ENY. :D
:lol
-
Really late ejection. Doubt he made it.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51747000/jpg/_51747154_011564639-1.jpg)
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51747000/jpg/_51747156_011564599-1.jpg)
yah, i dont think he lived. in the second picture, right above the middle lamppost, you can see that his chute is barley open. the plane, and most likely the pilot, hit the ground just a few seconds after this shot.. :pray
-
Really late ejection. Doubt he made it.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51747000/jpg/_51747154_011564639-1.jpg)
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51747000/jpg/_51747156_011564599-1.jpg)
Didnt the Su27 that crashed in ukraine eject at like 100 feet?
-
This guy had a lot of downward velocity compared to the 27.
-
(http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz309/BTG_AH2/ejection.jpg)
this guy lived, but again, he was going pretty level
Edit: added the picture
-
Vive la France!
-
5 tanks took French airforce out ,RAF is preperin a Habour clean up that Canadian Troops can invade Lybia
Belgian Airforce shot 4 vehicles in the pro Gadafi area near Tripolis
-
jesus guys, this one is a legal United Nations joint effort to help a country where civilians are getting killed by a dictator.
Surely there can only be positive comments towards the French for being first in for once. :rolleyes:
Problem is that its a little late. I doubt it will do much good unless the UN puts boots on the ground. I doubt they have enough spine to do that (the UN not the French).
-
was wondering thew same thing :pray
also: Another breaking news update from CNN: -- U.S., British ships fire 110 Tomahawk missiles on Libya, Pentagon says.
didn't realize we had that much firepower in the area
Well fixed IADS is gone after this. I expect SA2/3/5 sites are down including EW. Now problem with roaming Gekos...videos of them showed nice and new paint job.
-
5 tanks took French airforce out ,RAF is preperin a Habour clean up that Canadian Troops can invade Lybia
Belgian Airforce shot 4 vehicles in the pro Gadafi area near Tunis
I doubt this funny man.
-
jesus guys, this one is a legal United Nations joint effort .....
Not sure where you were trying to go there but if you were making the implication that there was an illegal effort, let's not, OK? :aok We can argue it for 100 pages, but it's not needed.
Surely there can only be positive comments towards the French for being first in for once. :rolleyes:
Amen. Two thumbs up to France for being at the front and having the sack to do the hard work first. :salute
Anyone who thinks the French have no history of being among the bravest and having fought the hardest in the face of the worst odds has little knowledge of history... don't brand an entire people with the failings of a few in their government and leadership....
-
(http://i838.photobucket.com/albums/zz309/BTG_AH2/ejection.jpg)
this guy lived, but again, he was going pretty level
Edit: added the picture
I doubt that Russian P.O.S. has a sweet Aces II ejection seat.
Pancake.
-
US just bombed the HELL out of those punks.
150 Cruise missiles preceeded by enough Mirages, Tornados and F-16s to annhilate their whole military just smacked Quadafi in the face.
-
US just bombed the HELL out of those punks.
150 Cruise missiles preceeded by enough Mirages, Tornados and F-16s to annhilate their whole military just smacked Quadafi in the face.
Where are you finding this info at?
-
US just bombed the HELL out of those punks.
150 Cruise missiles preceeded by enough Mirages, Tornados and F-16s to annhilate their whole military just smacked Quadafi in the face.
I'm sure Quaddafi will be just fine.
It's the hundreds of thousands of people in his armed forces, with guns to their family's heads by that madman that will get smacked.
-
I'm sure Quaddafi will be just fine.
Unless they've dug up Ronnie Reagan and have put him back in charge... then we may be bombing old Quaddafi's house again!
-
So can we get the Dewoitine D.520 now?
-
Hope he had good intel for how to dig a good spider hole.
-
Still reckon we should carpet bomb the whole country. but thats just me. Im one of those "Dont eff about" types
-
Unless they've dug up Ronnie Reagan and have put him back in charge... then we may be bombing old Quaddafi's house again!
And he'll escape again, killing only an innocent child?
-
It's about time something is getting done. The whole situation has been a "Damned if we do...." CF.
-
The French air strikes began shortly after pro-Gadhafi forces shot down an opposition jet above Benghazi Saturday morning. Dramatic footage of the pilot ejecting from the plane just a few hundred feet above the ground was shown on Al Jazeera television. He did not survive.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/19/french-fighter-jets-open-fire-in-libya-as-western-military-inter/
-
Still reckon we should carpet bomb the whole country. but thats just me. Im one of those "Dont eff about" types
Right, let's just ignore those silly little Rules of Engagement. I mean really, those little babies and grandma's are the real threat.
:bhead
-Penguin
-
Right, let's just ignore those silly little Rules of Engagement. I mean really, those little babies and grandma's are the real threat.
not to start a huge debate, but that is what we did in WWII...
-
Right, let's just ignore those silly little Rules of Engagement. I mean really, those little babies and grandma's are the real threat.
:bhead
-Penguin
Penguin finally got it right. :salute
-
not to start a huge debate, but that is what we did in WWII...
Exactly. That doesn't make it any less evil.
-Penguin
-
And he'll escape again, killing only an innocent child?
Yes Motherland, his daughter was killed and he escaped. And I'm sure that every day since he realized that he was responsible for his daughter being killed as a direct result of his actions.
You have to admit, I think he got the message... you didn't hear very much from him at all for oh, about 30 years, after Reagan put him in his place......
-
Still reckon we should carpet bomb the whole country. but thats just me. Im one of those "Dont eff about" types
The whole point of it is that we're supporting a revolution stopping a government from killing innocent civilians... what exactly would this accomplish?
France has their international credibility at stake as well, which is probably part of the reason they're so aggressive about this, I'd imagine- they already recognized the rebellion as the legitimate government of Libya a little while ago.
not to start a huge debate, but that is what we did in WWII...
Completely different situation, and that's not really what happened in the first place.
Yes Motherland, his daughter was killed and he escaped. And I'm sure that every day since he realized that he was responsible for his daughter being killed as a direct result of his actions.
You have to admit, I think he got the message... you didn't hear very much from him at all for oh, about 30 years, after Reagan put him in his place......
It would seem that he was still the violent dictator of his country for another 30 years... he really got put in his place...
Meanwhile the US killing an innocent child is apparently a major piece of propaganda there, there were images on the BBC a little while ago of Gaddafi supporters parading around the house that was bombed (there's a monument and such), apparently it's a symbol of defiance against the west...
Of course, based on US foreign policy of the 80's, it doesn't seem like Reagan really cared about killing innocents as long as... someone could kind of make the argument that maybe political gains were made...
-
It would seem that he was still the violent dictator of his country for another 30 years... he really got put in his place...
Are you suggesting that we should have invaded and forcefully removed him from power? I say "got put in his place" because he, for all intents and purposes, removed himself from the international terror scene.... prior to the US action he had been actively training terrorists at numerous encampments, and was directly responsible for multiple terror acts being carried out, including Lockerbie.
After the US action... he confined his treachery to his own soil, at worst.
Meanwhile the US killing an innocent child is apparently a major piece of propaganda there, there were images on the BBC a little while ago of Gaddafi supporters parading around the house that was bombed (there's a monument and such), apparently it's a symbol of defiance against the west...
propaganda will reach those willing to listen to it and believe it, no matter what reason and reality are....
-
propaganda will reach those willing to listen to it and believe it, no matter what reason and reality are....
Propaganda will reach those willing to listen to and believe it, no matter what reason and reality are...
Great yoink opportunity, guys, I even cleaned it up for you!
-Penguin
-
and?
<--- old, and apparently doesn't know what "yoink" means
-
Are you suggesting that we should have invaded and forcefully removed him from power?
Not at all... however 'like Reagan did', considering the outcome of the affair, is hardly something I'd want to encourage for the course of action...
I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to hit Gaddafi in an airstrike, however hopefully they won't do it 'like Reagan did', and kill him.
-
just throwing this out there, but can we please not get this thread locked? was getting a lot of good info from here...
-
I'm a bit confused.... specifically, from your perspective, what did Reagan do wrong in that situation?
Target Quaddafi's residence?
-
just throwing this out there, but can we please not get this thread locked? was getting a lot of good info from here...
I'd be shocked if there is anything currently being discussed that is "lock" worthy..... with respects to the immediate discussion, we're just discussing history....
-
and?
<--- old, and apparently doesn't know what "yoink" means
Yoink: verb, To put a quote in one's signature
-Penguin
-
"how does one say...........BANSTICK?"
Oh...
and IN
-
I'd be shocked if there is anything currently being discussed that is "lock" worthy..... with respects to the immediate discussion, we're just discussing history....
I know, but it can go south quick
-
Watching dumb heads talk right now.
CNN- "OMFG! There are HEAVY anti-aircraft. They are HEAVY HEAVY! They have Early Warning system! With HUGE multiple anti-aicraft fire. "
In the background one ZU-23 fires into sky.
:bhead
-
I'm a bit confused.... specifically, from your perspective, what did Reagan do wrong in that situation?
Target Quaddafi's residence?
Just perhaps it's not quite the best thing to say 'let's do it like last time' when last time was a failure...
But also I couldn't pass up a shot at Reagan, I'm not going to sit and pretend that has nothing to do with it, the discussion is pointless really and it may as well end
-
Just perhaps it's not quite the best thing to say 'let's do it like last time' when last time was a failure...
But also I couldn't pass up a shot at Reagan, I'm not going to sit and pretend that has nothing to do with it, the discussion is pointless really and it may as well end
lol tiny type FTW
-
I am very straight forward, you fight a war, or you dont.
its either total victory or non committal.
So, you kill them all, or you have "Rules of Engagement"
speaking of those "ROE" how many brave young Americans have died because of not being able to act on instinct?
My point is you cannot afford these "rules", do you honestly think Quadafi would follow them, I know we will hear the "we wont cause we are better" bull.
The Viet Cong for example: had no rules, but the US did. Who won? lots of people on this Board have seen that horrible war first hand and have lost friends to the VC, and what about Iraq right now, casualties are mounting, oil prices are skyrocketing, billions of trillions of US dollars gone, for no gain. Why? because we cannot engage the enemy. The only way to win a guerilla OR ideaological (religion or dictatorial) war is to fight it brutally.
Thats reality, those who cannot realize this, are either refusing to look facts in the face, or just idealistic fools.
my 0.2
oh and IN
-
I am very straight forward, you fight a war, or you dont.
its either total victory or non committal.
So, you kill them all, or you have "Rules of Engagement"
speaking of those "ROE" how many brave young Americans have died because of not being able to act on instinct?
oh and IN
First you have to define total victory.
Total victory is protecting civilians, there is no other goal in this (although the overthrow of Gaddaffi will likely result from it).
What do you gain from destroying victory?
Also, there's no ground troops.
-
I am very straight forward, you fight a war, or you dont.
its either total victory or non committal.
So, you kill them all, or you have "Rules of Engagement"
speaking of those "ROE" how many brave young Americans have died because of not being able to act on instinct?
oh and IN
:huh You're a f**** up little kid aren't you?
-Penguin
-
Amen. Two thumbs up to France for being at the front and having the sack to do the hard work first. :salute
Anyone who thinks the French have no history of being among the bravest and having fought the hardest in the face of the worst odds has little knowledge of history... don't brand an entire people with the failings of a few in their government and leadership....
Agreed 100%. Always confuses me how people can slam a country that helped us gain our freedom. Do we always agree with them? No, but when it comes down to it I'm damn proud to have them on our side :aok
Thoughts and prayers to those brave pilots. Vive la France
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/gratitude.jpg)
-
Watching dumb heads talk right now.
CNN- "OMFG! There are HEAVY anti-aircraft. They are HEAVY HEAVY! They have Early Warning system! With HUGE multiple anti-aicraft fire. "
In the background one ZU-23 fires into sky.
:bhead
Go watch Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/) ;)
I am very straight forward, you fight a war, or you dont.
Fair enough.
speaking of those "ROE" how many brave young Americans have died because of not being able to act on instinct?
And how many innocent Afghanis have been saved by the ROEs? Nobody's instinct is perfect.
My point is you cannot afford these "rules", do you honestly think Quadafi would follow them, I know we will hear the "we wont cause we are better" bull.
Yeah, you are going to hear the "we won't cause we are better" stuff.
If you don't follow those rules, by default you lower yourself to the level of Gaddafi. Since the entire point of the war is that Gaddafi isn't following the rules, if you're not going to follow them yourself, you might as well pack up and go home (or just declare war on yourself).
The Viet Cong for example: had no rules, but the US did. Who won? lots of people on this Board have seen that horrible war first hand and have lost friends to the VC, and what about Iraq right now, casualties are mounting, oil prices are skyrocketing, billions of trillions of US dollars gone, for no gain. Why? because we cannot engage the enemy. The only way to win a guerilla OR ideaological (religion or dictatorial) war is to fight it brutally.
I think you'll find that the Vietcong did have rules. AFAIK, one of them was that they were nice to the locals, and helped them out. By doing that they gained the support of the locals, and in turn they gained hiding places, cover, food supplies, etc. You cannot understate the size of that advantage.
To win an insurgency, you only need to do one basic thing: get the population of the region to like you more than they like the insurgents. So let's look at two easy ways to get people to like you (or to avoid them disliking you): 1) you help them, 2) you don't kill their family members or friends.
About Iraq: all those things you listed are consequences of having a war there. I fail to see what the ROE has to do with them. And I thoroughly disagree with your last comment about guerilla/ideological wars - go read something about counterinsurgency online.
Thats reality, those who cannot realize this, are either refusing to look facts in the face, or just idealistic fools.
I prefer to consider myself a realistic idealist (or an idealistic realist, I haven't worked out which is better yet).
Agreed 100%. Always confuses me how people can slam a country that helped us gain our freedom. Do we always agree with them? No, but when it comes down to it I'm damn proud to have them on our side :aok
Thoughts and prayers to those brave pilots. Vive la France
(http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac82/mbailey166066/gratitude.jpg)
:salute
-
This may not end well.
(The THREAD, I mean).
5, 4, 3, 2...
scary stuff mano
-
I am against our intervention. We were not attacked and it is not our business to play God with the affairs and governments of other nations. Those cruise missiles--necessary for our own defense--cost money, and now we will have to purchase more for the next time a president decides to go gallivanting about in a desert.
-
Not a big French fan. but I :salute them fer being first in....
about us getting involved... how are we going to afford it? we're already in debt how many trillions...before Iraq and Afghanistan?
WW3 is coming on...
-
I am against our intervention. We were not attacked and it is not our business to play God with the affairs and governments of other nations. Those cruise missiles--necessary for our own defense--cost money, and now we will have to purchase more for the next time a president decides to go gallivanting about in a desert.
the UN (or is it NATO?). isnt there some catch in there if a country needs help and one country wants to get involved all countries allied with that country get in volved er something? maybe im losing it...but i feel like i read or heard that somewhere.
-
A single tomahawk costs $1.4mil... but at the same time, a few hundred million is not really all that much when compared to the US's annual defense budget.
-
A single tomahawk costs $1.4mil... but at the same time, a few hundred million is not really all that much when compared to the US's annual defense budget.
It's the principle of the thing. This is not our fight, we should not be there. I hope we stop at the missiles and don't send any of our airmen or troops into harm's way. Risking their lives is completely unnecessary.
-
I am against our intervention. We were not attacked and it is not our business to play God with the affairs and governments of other nations. Those cruise missiles--necessary for our own defense--cost money, and now we will have to purchase more for the next time a president decides to go gallivanting about in a desert.
Amen Vudak! It just seems so manufactured. What would any of these governments feel like if there was a revolution in their country, and by fighting the rebels(revolutionaries) they were considered monsters by killing their civilians. You take a big guy, maybe not the nicest, who is keeping his little bros in line, the big neighbor kids dont think its right so they tie the guys hands behind his back, so the lil bros beat him up, and then claim (the neighbor kids) that they dont have an interest in the outcome, only that attrocities arent committed.
-
I'm scared to know who these arab countries have ties with and if they play to help Gahdahfi with his retaliation. Russia, ? Korea's, ? China, ? and the many other eastern countries that may be tired of our "thumb on head" tactics.
I just don't want to be ignorant to think that we are invincible, and there is talk of military being spread to thin... possible draft come into force? remember selective services? thats what thats for.
:salute
-
A single tomahawk costs $1.4mil... but at the same time, a few hundred million is not really all that much when compared to the US's annual defense budget.
Cheney earns at least a few thousand dollars for each new Tomahawk they have to replace, so do many others in high rank. Yeah, they'll be happy to use the most expensive weapons they can find.
-
The French have some of the best NOE pilots in the world as far as I'm concerned.
If Ghadaffi didn't have stains in his undies before, he sure does now!
-
I can understand those opinions.
But to me its quite simple, there is war and there is peace.
I take the view, that humanity is inherently corrupt and violent, and trying to deny this fact is only serving to prolong suffering and create unrest. Life is survival, diplomacy is an attempt in keeping the situation peaceful. But as a Marine once said "Diplomacy is saying nice doggy until a recon sniper gets the range".
Wars will be fought, no war is winnable, but the aim is to lose the least. I have shaken hands with guys who have lost limbs, Ive known people who have been blown to hell and back by an IED in that hellhole of a desert and its been my family going out into harms way for almost 150 years.
Its clear to me that in a war of ideaology, whether it be religion or political difference, or the simplest which has motivated all wars... independence and freedom. The war will be endless until the destruction of the capability to fight, or the annhilation of the populace of one of the protagonists.
On Iraq and insurgency, the local populace is not what I was driving at. I was talking about strictly military considerations. The VC, laid traps, ambushes, operated at night, used human shields, booby trapped war dead, used civillian's as weapons traffickers and so forth. The US did its fair share of nasty stuff too, but my point is, they couldnt level a town or carpet bomb Hanoi (rough examples) because the Russians, and the people at home and all other political and "Rules" wouldnt like it. Many Americans and Australians for that matter lost their lives because of these decisions. And even in Iraq, its a repeat, no action can be taken to fight insurgency when the insurgency is the local populace we are trying to help, as well as the fact the rules and opinions prevent us from fighting it anyway.
And in response to penguins insightful and intelligent rebuttal to me which was "you are one F****ed up kid arent you?"
Allow me to say this, what makes me any different to your position, save being on the oppisite end of the argument. I could call you a sheltered little punk if I wished to but I didn't until now.
Now I do not pretend to know EVERYTHING about it, but it occurs to me that if America wants to fight wars on principle, it should at least fight on invitation. If it does WITHOUT invitation, then it should fight to win, with no rules.
Thats all I have to say really.
-
I hope we all save our money and let the Mediterranean fall into full turmoil.
If we're lucky, the locals will be wielding their sabres against the Jews.
Gas prices won't matter to me, I can ride my bike to work.
No wonder everybody hates Yanks.... we talk like idiots. :aok
-
Well Im not an American, but you have a point as far as the government is concerned at any rate.
-
I'd be shocked if there is anything currently being discussed that is "lock" worthy..... with respects to the immediate discussion, we're just discussing history....
I was banned for a week after starting a thread asking about American/Russian relations in the final stages of WWII. Good luck :cheers:
-
The US did its fair share of nasty stuff too, but my point is, they couldnt level a town or carpet bomb Hanoi (rough examples)
They couldn't carpet bomb Hanoi because it would have turned the entire population of Vietnam against the US...
It would have been counterproductive...
It's really quite silly to try to be an internet tough guy and say 'yeah man, screw people, just bomb everything, I don't care', it doesn't impress anyone.
-
Wonder what Libya is going to do with the Eiffel Tower after France surrenders.
Did I just say that out loud? :bolt:
turn it into an oil rig I suspect :bolt:
-
I hope we all save our money and let the Mediterranean fall into full turmoil.
If we're lucky, the locals will be wielding their sabres against the Jews.
Gas prices won't matter to me, I can ride my bike to work.
No wonder everybody hates Yanks.... we talk like idiots. :aok
This ridiculous comment will lock this thread, and maybe Melvin's account too....
-
This ridiculous comment will lock this thread, and maybe Melvin's account too....
Agreed.
-
yep, there goes this thread. sigh
:bolt:
-
I can understand those opinions.
But to me its quite simple, there is war and there is peace.
I take the view, that humanity is inherently corrupt and violent, and trying to deny this fact is only serving to prolong suffering and create unrest.
Life is survival, diplomacy is an attempt in keeping the situation peaceful. But as a Marine once said "Diplomacy is saying nice doggy until a recon sniper gets the range".
Sometimes humans are inherently corrupt and violent - but not always. As far as I can tell, the violence and hatred that you see in war only rears its ugly head when confronted with people who are portrayed as being evil, or as deserving to die because of who they are/what they do/what they think. It's easy to see your enemy as nothing more than a target to be eliminated, but at the end of the day he/she is just as human as you are. IMO the more people come to realise that, the less violence and war there'll be.
And I'd interested to hear that marine's views on war as a whole.
Wars will be fought, no war is winnable, but the aim is to lose the least. I have shaken hands with guys who have lost limbs, Ive known people who have been blown to hell and back by an IED in that hellhole of a desert and its been my family going out into harms way for almost 150 years.
Its clear to me that in a war of ideaology, whether it be religion or political difference, or the simplest which has motivated all wars... independence and freedom. The war will be endless until the destruction of the capability to fight, or the annhilation of the populace of one of the protagonists.
Wars are generally waged by a small minority of the population. Look at Afghanistan. Al Qaeda/the Taliban represent a tiny number of people, and the vast majority of the Afghans are just regular civilians who probably want to be left alone to go about their daily lives. So let's say you go and annihilate all Afghans - sure, the Taliban are gone (well most of them would probably have snuck into Pakistan, but that's a different issue). You've now made yourself a mass murderer. And in doing so, you will probably have pissed off regular people from all around the world so much that they'll start coming and shooting at you. What do you do next, blow them up too? In conclusion, annihilating a population does nobody any good.
On Iraq and insurgency, the local populace is not what I was driving at. I was talking about strictly military considerations. The VC, laid traps, ambushes, operated at night, used human shields, booby trapped war dead, used civillian's as weapons traffickers and so forth. The US did its fair share of nasty stuff too, but my point is, they couldnt level a town or carpet bomb Hanoi (rough examples) because the Russians, and the people at home and all other political and "Rules" wouldnt like it. Many Americans and Australians for that matter lost their lives because of these decisions. And even in Iraq, its a repeat, no action can be taken to fight insurgency when the insurgency is the local populace we are trying to help, as well as the fact the rules and opinions prevent us from fighting it anyway.
Either you have those rules and maybe a few more soldiers lose their lives, or you don't have them, and maybe a few, maybe a lot more innocent civilians like you and me lose theirs. And then the families of those civilians may then decide to never support you. I honestly don't understand what you're trying to argue here.
Now I do not pretend to know EVERYTHING about it, but it occurs to me that if America wants to fight wars on principle, it should at least fight on invitation. If it does WITHOUT invitation, then it should fight to win, with no rules.
Thats all I have to say really.
This war is being fought with invitation.
If there were no invitation, why would that mean there should be no ROE?
-
This war is being fought with invitation.
You know, America was "invited" to intervene on Liberia's account a few years ago. We sent something like ten soldiers, prompting Leno to quip: "Hey this really is 'an army of one!' Problem in Liberia? Let's just send Frank!"
I do not know what is worse. That we are involved, or that our leaders expect us to believe we are involved for a noble cause.
-
You know, America was "invited" to intervene on Liberia's account a few years ago. We sent something like ten soldiers, prompting Leno to quip: "Hey this really is 'an army of one!' Problem in Liberia? Let's just send Frank!"
I do not know what is worse. That we are involved, or that our leaders expect us to believe we are involved for a noble cause.
the truth will come with extreme delay and educated guesses, or if were lucky, a few of us may know officers whom may share the truth.
-
You know, America was "invited" to intervene on Liberia's account a few years ago. We sent something like ten soldiers, prompting Leno to quip: "Hey this really is 'an army of one!' Problem in Liberia? Let's just send Frank!"
I do not know what is worse. That we are involved, or that our leaders expect us to believe we are involved for a noble cause.
So what would you prefer to happen? And I really don't understand the relevance of Liberia to this.
-
i just hope if ground troops need to be deployed, they don't stay there for years on end like in Iraq
-
i just hope if ground troops need to be deployed, they don't stay there for years on end like in Iraq
It's been repeatedly said that they won't be...and the Libyans have said that if they were, they'd fight them like they're fighting Gaddafi.
-
Still reckon we should carpet bomb the whole country. but thats just me. Im one of those "Dont eff about" types
so you're advocating the murder of 6 million non-combatants? and you really dont have a problem with that? :headscratch:
-
See Rule #4
-
*cough cough* WW3 has begun
-BigBOBCH
:devil :aok
-
edit: screw it, if you want to be an idiot it's not my problem.
-
So what would you prefer to happen? And I really don't understand the relevance of Liberia to this.
The relevance is there are plenty of places in the world where the people are in dire straits, yet we do nothing. I would prefer that we did nothing in Libya as well.
-
so you're advocating the murder of 6 million non-combatants? and you really dont have a problem with that? :headscratch:
RT, look at it like this.... pacman is young... at the age where certain sensabilities may not be developed yet.... see Khmer Rouge fighters as an example of early teens with guns and license to conduct war at their discretion as an example....
No offense intended Peter, when I was your age if I had been put in front of the launch controller and given the nuclear launch codes I probably woulda nuked a few hundred million people and not thought twice about it.... as you get older it sometimes becomes a little easier to draw the distinction between a people and their leaders...... and think differently about how to deal with one or the other....
-
yeah I know, I was just posing the question so he could work it out for himself ;)
-
Im aware that my logic may seem a bit blunt, but to me War is nothing more than the embodiment of the Human race. Every single factor in Human evolution has been affected by it in some way.
But what I do not understand is, we have an enemy, we have a reason and we have the means to defeat them. Now if this was an age where conventional war was still applicable, I would see a HUGE problem with total extermination. However, in this age we are fighting idealogical extremism. You cannot fight it as its whole purpose is to glorify death. Therefore the only solution is to remove them entirely.
It may seem harsh, but to quote an Emperor of Rome DIRECTLY
"The greatest mistake I made was to rule fair and just, by loosening the grip of tyranny and oppression, I left myself open to defeat on the battlefields of both war and politics. Alas to maintain the order of things I must make up for this with brutality"
Tiberius Drusus Cladius.
If there is to be an End to war, the end must be either total annhilation, or total disarmmament. And to quote a one Albert Einstien
"As long as there are men, there shall be wars"
-
However, in this age we are fighting idealogical extremism.
This age only? What would you call the spanish inquisition? The Crusades? etc
You cannot fight it as its whole purpose is to glorify death.
You can fight it with soft power. Hollywood movies, jeans, cigarettes, porn, rock & roll, etc. And there's plenty of glorifying death in the rest of the world, e.g. ageism trance in western world.
"As long as there are men, there shall be wars"
Or sports, sex, and other peace time war-making.
-
If it was not a major European country that is doing the airstrikes it would have been considered illegal and bordering war crimes.
France is intervening in an internal Libyan struggle to change the ruler of the country. What Gadafi is doing is not different than what any other tyrant out there did at some stage of his career, he is not trying to genocide is people, nor is this ethnic cleansing of any kind. Double standards are at play here, but that is the nature of things.
Let face it, no Euro country or the US give a tiny little piece of poop what happens to the Libyan people. I can make a long list of much worse genocides and atrocities that could have been prevented or stopped by western military force in recent years, if they cared about humanity. The only thing that makes France intervene in this one and not another is a combination of interests, political situation, eagerness of generals and the relative risk-free prospects of the endeavor.
Having said that, WTFG France!
-
France is intervening in an internal Libyan struggle to change the ruler of the country. What Gadafi is doing is not different than what any other tyrant out there did at some stage of his career, he is not trying to genocide is people, nor is this ethnic cleansing of any kind. Double standards are at play here, but that is the nature of things.
This is a mistake
The UN/Nato is intervening in a civil war where there is no benefit or end game. Gaddaffi whether we like him or not is putting down an armed insurrection - an insurrection which was in the process of losing the war, so unless French marines, or an American MEU are planning to land there is no point to this whole exercise. The dismantling of Gaddaffi's regime is not going to occur by airpower alone, and the rebels are too disorganised and hardly likely to be able to advanced on a more pissed off Gaddaffi (if thats entirely possible) without direct UN/Military help- thats assuming theres any real semblance of a rebel leadership and assuming that what leadership there is doesn't end up worse than Gaddaffi already is now.
Tronsky
-
And Americans wonder why Europeans dislike them...
I've never wondered :D
-
According a report I just saw on BBC-America, the opposition group's spokesman confirmed it was a rebel MiG 23 that was shot down by a SAM over Benghazi.
ack-ack
I hear the rebels shot down one of their own. How do you say oops in Arabic?
<S> Oz
-
I've never wondered :D
And if they are so sophisticated as to make generalisations about us all then the hell with them.
-
And if they are so sophisticated as to make generalisations about us all then the hell with them.
:rock
-
This age only? What would you call the spanish inquisition? The Crusades? etc
Crusades you could fight against. Fundamentalists are infiltrating the society from within like a cancer that you can't just cut away.
You can fight it with soft power. Hollywood movies, jeans, cigarettes, porn, rock & roll, etc. And there's plenty of glorifying death in the rest of the world, e.g. ageism trance in western world.
Or sports, sex, and other peace time war-making.
Uhh? You just about listed the things that are considered sinful by the fundamentalists and getting caught with that stuff may warrant a public beating as a punishment. The fundamentalist feels so stressed with the limitations of his life that he must project it as violence towards women, family members and anyone else who 'dares' to live a regular life i.e. the life that's not allowed for the fundamentalist in fear of God.
"I'm not allowed to have fun, so I must force everyone else to stop having it too"
You gotta wonder what is going on in the womens heads when they support fundamentalism despite knowing it will mean them not having human rights at all. None.
-
Im aware that my logic may seem a bit blunt,
It's not blunt, it's immature nonsense.
However, in this age we are fighting idealogical extremism.
No, we're fighting a dictator's ability to wage war on his people.
If there is to be an End to war, the end must be either total annhilation, or total disarmmament. And to quote a one Albert Einstien
"As long as there are men, there shall be wars"
These lines are, in a sense, contradictory- first you say that you should exterminate entire populations to end war, and then you say that war will never end as long as there are two men to fight.
-
Maybe he meant to imply "Total War" rather than "total annihilation." I could hop on the "total war or no war" bandwagon, but I can't imagine anyone would seriously advocate annihilating a population.
Not to put words in his mouth, but just to give him benefit of the doubt.
-
However, in this age we are fighting idealogical extremism. You cannot fight it as its whole purpose is to glorify death. Therefore the only solution is to remove them entirely.
What makes you think this? Al Qaeda's aim (I'll use them as a placeholder for any takfiri retard-squad) is to accomplish their goals. So no, it's whole purpose is not 'to glorify death' - that's just incorrect, no buts about it.
And there are very effective non-violent ways to fight them. Al Qaeda more or less depends on recruiting more people to carry out their missions. Essentially, they snatch up vulnerable young people using extremist propaganda that you can easily find on the interwebs or on YouTube if you're interested (stuff like look at America, it's so evil, blah blah blah), and convince them that violence is the only option to counter America/the west. People like this (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Anti-Terror-Fatwa-Islamic-Scholar-Ul-Qadri-To-Denounce-Suicide-Bombers-As-Unbelievers/Article/201003115564324) have issued fatwas (no, a fatwa is not a death warrant - it's basically a religious decision made by a competent scholar [although the definition of competent will probably vary widely, especially inside groups like Al Qaeda]), which can be summarised as: 'Al Qaeda is full of sh**'. If that fatwa reaches and convinces one person who's considering joining a militant group - then that's one fewer potential recruit for Al Qaeda. If you do that enough, Al Qaeda will wither and die, without any shots fired.
And even for people who have already joined extremist, militant groups: you don't need to kill them. If they read that fatwa, and change their mind - then it's almost certain that they won't be going and blowing them-self (or anyone else) up.
Anyway, enough waffle. Read this about an effective way of stopping extremists: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4321 (http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4321).
-
This is just another political discussion. Does not belong on our board.