AC-130s and A-10s over Libya now? - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AC-130s and A-10s over Libya now? (Page 3 of 3)

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:47:17 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It takes no effort to make a connection between the country of Libya, which is essentially 100% Muslim, and Islam. If you build a democratic government, you're going to elect only Muslims, because Muslims are the only people who can hold office, based on Sharia law.

The two go hand in hand.

Libya was essentially 100% Muslim in the 50s as well and yet it took a coup and a dictator to declare Sharia law.

Libya lived under Islamic law for most of their recorded history (well, from the 1500's anyway). 1951 to 1969 was an aberration.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:48:04 PM EDT

[#2]

The US Military is at a level where it is more powerful than a nuke, if used properly. Systems to soldiers were designed to work together to be that powerful. Properly is what we should have done in February, if we were going to do anything at all.

Now, when trying to only use small parts of the US military, it fizzles the same as a part of a nuke would. (See: Somalia, Kosovo, Panama, Gulf I, Afghanistan, ...)

On the flip side, I'm glad the pilots get to play with the toys, hopefully we get some fresh gun cam porn.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:48:15 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's how *you* interpret it. That is *not* how anyone who follows Sharia law interprets it.

Before Q Libya was NOT under Sharia law. In fact, Q is the one who instituted Sharia law in Libya.

Libya was part of the Ottoman empire from the 1500's to the early 1900's.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:48:48 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It takes no effort to make a connection between the country of Libya, which is essentially 100% Muslim, and Islam. If you build a democratic government, you're going to elect only Muslims, because Muslims are the only people who can hold office, based on Sharia law.

The two go hand in hand.

Libya was essentially 100% Muslim in the 50s as well and yet it took a coup and a dictator to declare Sharia law.

Libya lived under Islamic law for most of their recorded history (well, from the 1500's anyway). 1951 to 1969 was an aberration.

If you believe that radicalism is the only way this will end there is only one choice. Kill them all.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:49:02 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The majority want a return to the Constitution Qaddafi threw out. The change in Libya's character in terms of national policy is by and large the result of Qaddafi's coup.

How do you know?

Because they are members of political groups who have said so. It is also based in part on field interviews of people and also photographic evidence, which shows people carrying signs promoting the monarchy and/or the constitution. Cyrenaica, which is the powerbase of the rebellion, is also the political powerbase of the monarchists and constitutionalists in Libya. The rebellion was in fact started by a monarchist and constitutionalist group.

You should study taqiyya.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:49:47 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's how *you* interpret it. That is *not* how anyone who follows Sharia law interprets it.

Before Q Libya was NOT under Sharia law. In fact, Q is the one who instituted Sharia law in Libya.

Libya was part of the Ottoman empire from the 1500's to the early 1900's.

It is possible for Muslim nations not to be under Sharia law and not to be radicalized. If you believe it isn't possible then there is only one choice.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:50:36 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It takes no effort to make a connection between the country of Libya, which is essentially 100% Muslim, and Islam. If you build a democratic government, you're going to elect only Muslims, because Muslims are the only people who can hold office, based on Sharia law.

The two go hand in hand.

Libya was essentially 100% Muslim in the 50s as well and yet it took a coup and a dictator to declare Sharia law.

Libya lived under Islamic law for most of their recorded history (well, from the 1500's anyway). 1951 to 1969 was an aberration.

If you believe that radicalism is the only way this will end there is only one choice. Kill them all.

That's really not what I'm saying. Nor am I saying there's only one outcome. I suspect there is only one outcome to what *we* are doing.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:51:14 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's how *you* interpret it. That is *not* how anyone who follows Sharia law interprets it.

Before Q Libya was NOT under Sharia law. In fact, Q is the one who instituted Sharia law in Libya.

Libya was part of the Ottoman empire from the 1500's to the early 1900's.

It is possible for Muslim nations not to be under Sharia law and not to be radicalized. If you believe it isn't possible then there is only one choice.

I disagree. Watch Turkey for the next few years.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:51:50 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

We're withdrawing from Iraq December 31st, 2011.

Afghanistan draw down starts in July.

If that happens on time... what do we do when (not "if") those countries immediately devolve back into civil war, tribal war, etc? Do we go back in to "save the progress we made"? Or do we let them go to Hell?

Iraq was a huge mistake. Afghanistan was a smaller mistake. Libya is a mistake, too.

Who's next? What's the next country we need to invade to "protect democracy and human rights"? I can list dozens of candidates... several of which are "allies" of ours. When do we invade them?

If those two nations go to hell after we leave then it will be pretty similar to Mexico really in that we'll only be able to assist them in their conflict/upheavel to the extent that they request it and I don't think you're going to see Iraq request ground troops to come back in, but you might see Afghanistan do that.

That's the problem to declaring someone an "allie" just because they practice democracy. The war in Mexico that resulted in more deaths last year than the number of deaths in Afghanistan definitely impacts US interests, but we'll never go into Mexico with ground troops unless its government requests it.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:54:26 PM EDT

[#10]

One American soldier goes on a serial killer rampage. He's just a very small minority, he's a just a bad apple.

ONE fucking dude claims he is a member of Al-Qaeda, and EVERYONE in the Rebel movement is a fucking terrorist. Nevermind the fucking governing counsel who represents the MAJORITY of the rebel movement, dispatching soon after the movement started that it wants a Democratically elected representative government. No no no, one guy said it, so he represents the WHOLE group, yeah, they're ALL TERRORISTS and hate america!

Ignore all the "bullshit" that proves completely otherwise. We all know they hate Americans! Remember how they tortured and mutilated that downed F-15 pilot???? oh wait....

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:56:18 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It takes no effort to make a connection between the country of Libya, which is essentially 100% Muslim, and Islam. If you build a democratic government, you're going to elect only Muslims, because Muslims are the only people who can hold office, based on Sharia law.

The two go hand in hand.

Libya was essentially 100% Muslim in the 50s as well and yet it took a coup and a dictator to declare Sharia law.

Libya lived under Islamic law for most of their recorded history (well, from the 1500's anyway). 1951 to 1969 was an aberration.

If you believe that radicalism is the only way this will end there is only one choice. Kill them all.

That's really not what I'm saying. Nor am I saying there's only one outcome. I suspect there is only one outcome to what *we* are doing.

Then what is another course of action? Let them live under pro-Western despots? That sounds like a plan for success.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:56:36 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I agree though that what is going on in Libya isn't Lexington or Concord, but that's because I think the Libyan have it a hellava lot easier than we did. They have a city Benghazi protected by Western air power. So they have a central place to meet. We didn't get support from the French until early 1776 and sure wasn't as immediate in its support as the US and NATO has been of the Libyans.

I disagree. It's hard to get people to a protected city, which has only been protected for about a week, when all the other cities are embroiled in conflict.

Who says they all had to meet inside Libya? Governments in exhile were very common during WWII.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy any excuse as to why there hasn't been a declaration of intent made by the rebel leadership. When we fought for independence it was for a number of reasons, but everyone agreed that the principle of eqaulity was one of them and testified to it by signing the Declaration of Independence.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:57:47 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

It takes no effort to make a connection between the country of Libya, which is essentially 100% Muslim, and Islam. If you build a democratic government, you're going to elect only Muslims, because Muslims are the only people who can hold office, based on Sharia law.

The two go hand in hand.

Libya was essentially 100% Muslim in the 50s as well and yet it took a coup and a dictator to declare Sharia law.

Libya lived under Islamic law for most of their recorded history (well, from the 1500's anyway). 1951 to 1969 was an aberration.

If you believe that radicalism is the only way this will end there is only one choice. Kill them all.

That's really not what I'm saying. Nor am I saying there's only one outcome. I suspect there is only one outcome to what *we* are doing.

Then what is another course of action? Let them live under pro-Western despots? That sounds like a plan for success.

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:58:52 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Then what is another course of action? Let them live under pro-Western despots? That sounds like a plan for success.

No no, my main man. The best plan of action is to sit on our ass and instead of backing a democratic movement in the Rebel group, it's far better to do nothing and possibly let extremists take over.

Iran was a great model of success on how to deal with this sort of thing.

Posted: 3/27/2011 12:59:03 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:02:03 PM EDT

[#16]

Interesting. Wonder what the story is behind it all.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:02:33 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

It might be better than enabling the rise of the final Caliphate.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:03:11 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

One American soldier goes on a serial killer rampage. He's just a very small minority, he's a just a bad apple.

ONE fucking dude claims he is a member of Al-Qaeda, and EVERYONE in the Rebel movement is a fucking terrorist. Nevermind the fucking governing counsel who represents the MAJORITY of the rebel movement, dispatching soon after the movement started that it wants a Democratically elected representative government. No no no, one guy said it, so he represents the WHOLE group, yeah, they're ALL TERRORISTS and hate america!

Ignore all the "bullshit" that proves completely otherwise. We all know they hate Americans! Remember how they tortured and mutilated that downed F-15 pilot???? oh wait....

It's not just one dude though it's hundreds of them that we know of who were involved in the foreign fighters against Coalition forces in Iraq.

It's not just one dude from one town either it's a lot of them from a lot of Eastern Libyan cities.

Let's also remember that the U.S. Forces that entered Shia cities in Iraq during the invasion were viewed postively, but a short time after they were out to kill us and many still would love to kill us today.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:05:04 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

It might be better than enabling the rise of the final Caliphate.

That is Al-Qaeda's goal. What has happened to Al-Qaeda everywhere it has gone? They've proven to be a radical movement everywhere. Pakistani militias have been fighting against them. The Sunnis in Iraq desperately needed help, and even AQ was bad enough to make them not want their "help" anymore.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:06:05 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

It might be better than enabling the rise of the final Caliphate.

That assumes that the people of the Middle East will set aside all their other issues and unite under Islam. Fat chance.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:07:11 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

One American soldier goes on a serial killer rampage. He's just a very small minority, he's a just a bad apple.

ONE fucking dude claims he is a member of Al-Qaeda, and EVERYONE in the Rebel movement is a fucking terrorist. Nevermind the fucking governing counsel who represents the MAJORITY of the rebel movement, dispatching soon after the movement started that it wants a Democratically elected representative government. No no no, one guy said it, so he represents the WHOLE group, yeah, they're ALL TERRORISTS and hate america!

Ignore all the "bullshit" that proves completely otherwise. We all know they hate Americans! Remember how they tortured and mutilated that downed F-15 pilot???? oh wait....

It's not just one dude though it's hundreds of them that we know of who were involved in the foreign fighters against Coalition forces in Iraq.

It's not just one dude from one town either it's a lot of them from a lot of Eastern Libyan cities.

Let's also remember that the U.S. Forces that entered Shia cities in Iraq during the invasion were viewed postively, but a short time after they were out to kill us and many still would love to kill us today.

Even if that's true, hundreds is a small number when you have hundreds of thousands fighting.

A few does not represent the whole movement.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:07:16 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

Devil you know is sometimes better than the one you don't. Q-boy is old anyways, his days are numbered, and the reaper was going to take care of him in short order. Guy is 68 years old he isn't going to be around forever.

I don't want 2% of the world's oil supply to be off the table. I don't want Iran making bank right now off the price of crude oil to fund their nuclear program. I don't Russia flush with oil money to modernize their military increasing R&D that will benefit every enemy we have.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:07:46 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

It might be better than enabling the rise of the final Caliphate.

That is Al-Qaeda's goal. What has happened to Al-Qaeda everywhere it has gone? They've proven to be a radical movement everywhere. Pakistani militias have been fighting against them. The Sunnis in Iraq desperately needed help, and even AQ was bad enough to make them not want their "help" anymore.

That is not only AQ's goal. It is the goal of all radical Islam.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:08:41 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

It might be better than enabling the rise of the final Caliphate.

That assumes that the people of the Middle East will set aside all their other issues and unite under Islam. Fat chance.

They have before, and they will again.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:09:54 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

It might be better than enabling the rise of the final Caliphate.

That is Al-Qaeda's goal. What has happened to Al-Qaeda everywhere it has gone? They've proven to be a radical movement everywhere. Pakistani militias have been fighting against them. The Sunnis in Iraq desperately needed help, and even AQ was bad enough to make them not want their "help" anymore.

That is not only AQ's goal. It is the goal of all radical Islam.

radical islam is not a big movement, but the fear mongers will tell you it is.

I know many muslims and talked to many muslims who have very much the same kind of views on humanity that we do in the West.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:11:37 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

One American soldier goes on a serial killer rampage. He's just a very small minority, he's a just a bad apple.

ONE fucking dude claims he is a member of Al-Qaeda, and EVERYONE in the Rebel movement is a fucking terrorist. Nevermind the fucking governing counsel who represents the MAJORITY of the rebel movement, dispatching soon after the movement started that it wants a Democratically elected representative government. No no no, one guy said it, so he represents the WHOLE group, yeah, they're ALL TERRORISTS and hate america!

Ignore all the "bullshit" that proves completely otherwise. We all know they hate Americans! Remember how they tortured and mutilated that downed F-15 pilot???? oh wait....

It's not just one dude though it's hundreds of them that we know of who were involved in the foreign fighters against Coalition forces in Iraq.

It's not just one dude from one town either it's a lot of them from a lot of Eastern Libyan cities.

Let's also remember that the U.S. Forces that entered Shia cities in Iraq during the invasion were viewed postively, but a short time after they were out to kill us and many still would love to kill us today.

Even if that's true, hundreds is a small number when you have hundreds of thousands fighting.

A few does not represent the whole movement.

When you've got dozens of guys making the trip from a little city of a population of 80,000 to Iraq to kill Americans they never met for religious reasons I think you times their numbers to come up with the radicals that supported them, but stayed home. How many folks here support our troops and efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq? A lot. How many are actually able or willing to make the trip to Iraq or Afghanistan? Not that many. How many here would be happy to take their EBRs and shoot up AQ if they showed up in their home town? A lot of us. Same concept.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:14:38 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

It might be better than enabling the rise of the final Caliphate.

That is Al-Qaeda's goal. What has happened to Al-Qaeda everywhere it has gone? They've proven to be a radical movement everywhere. Pakistani militias have been fighting against them. The Sunnis in Iraq desperately needed help, and even AQ was bad enough to make them not want their "help" anymore.

That is not only AQ's goal. It is the goal of all radical Islam.

radical islam is not a big movement, but the fear mongers will tell you it is.

I know many muslims and talked to many muslims who have very much the same kind of views on humanity that we do in the West.

What we call "radical" is what the Quran and the Hadith says, and what Mohammed practiced. The ones you talked to, who seem moderate, are either apostates (according to their own scriptures) or are practicing Taqiyya.

I'm sure there are good people who call themselves Muslims –– I've even known a few. They're not practicing Islam the way it's practiced in the Middle East.

Someone posted a study here the other day of Egypt, in response to the "Egypt is a moderate state" story –– I seem to remember the numbers were 70+%, in Cairo and Alexandria, who believed Egypt should live under Sharia law. That's the mindset you're dealing with over there.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:16:53 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Sure, radical Islamsists fear popular elections, as recent event have shown!

It's like being in some bizarro-world. Some people, otherwise intelligent and sane, now believe America has some vested interest in helping some grubby rebellion that is 'just sorta' friendly to AQ. (Fun fact: Al Qaeda was in fact the organization that orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.)

What does Egypt have to do with Libya? Oh yeah, nothing. As a matter of fact, do a search, I warned about the MB in Egypt. They are already organized. I believe I said as much.

Sure, good point. Libya is far, far away from Egypt, and I don't think the two countries even share a common religion or anything like that.

Of course, reality is somewhat different than what you apparently think is going on over there:
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize.

Libya isn't a nascent America, you know.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:17:27 PM EDT

[#29]

Was old man Q going to live forever? Nope.

68 years old he was going to die sooner or later and we could have and should have been grooming someone within his government to be our friend. We could have engineered a smooth transition after his death that didn't have our fingerprints on it and the world's oil prices wouldn't have sky rocketed plus it would have cost us far less in terms of money.

We can't do things the easy way though we have to do them the messy way.

When the wall fell and the Soviet Union crumbled we had all kinds of folks in Eastern Europe that we had been reaching out to for a LONG time who came to power with a little bit of help from us and made sure things didn't go nuts throughout Eastern Europe other than that whole Balkans trouble, which had been on "pause" during the Cold War.

Our State Department for the last 20 years has been asleep at the switch. I don't know what they spend their time doing other than attending cocktail parties and telling themselves how smart they are after they clean the frames around their Harvard degrees. We talk about transformation of DOD all the time, but what we should be talking about as well is transforming DOS.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:19:34 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Sure, radical Islamsists fear popular elections, as recent event have shown!

It's like being in some bizarro-world. Some people, otherwise intelligent and sane, now believe America has some vested interest in helping some grubby rebellion that is 'just sorta' friendly to AQ. (Fun fact: Al Qaeda was in fact the organization that orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.)

What does Egypt have to do with Libya? Oh yeah, nothing. As a matter of fact, do a search, I warned about the MB in Egypt. They are already organized. I believe I said as much.

Sure, good point. Libya is far, far away from Egypt, and I don't think the two countries even share a common religion or anything like that.

Of course, reality is somewhat different than what you apparently think is going on over there:
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize.

Libya isn't a nascent America, you know.

fuck.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:20:54 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Sure, radical Islamsists fear popular elections, as recent event have shown!

It's like being in some bizarro-world. Some people, otherwise intelligent and sane, now believe America has some vested interest in helping some grubby rebellion that is 'just sorta' friendly to AQ. (Fun fact: Al Qaeda was in fact the organization that orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.)

What does Egypt have to do with Libya? Oh yeah, nothing. As a matter of fact, do a search, I warned about the MB in Egypt. They are already organized. I believe I said as much.

Sure, good point. Libya is far, far away from Egypt, and I don't think the two countries even share a common religion or anything like that.

Of course, reality is somewhat different than what you apparently think is going on over there:
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize.

Libya isn't a nascent America, you know.

The MB isn't ingrained in Libya as they were in Egypt. Also it would be unreasonable to expect they and AQ won't try to use this to their favor. The key is to use it to our favor.

Posted: 3/27/2011 1:31:31 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I'm really having a hard time understanding why Arfcom has such a hard time liking that we're bombing another Middle East dictator who's killed a bunch of Americans in the past... is this DU now or did I miss something?

Wrong fight, wrong place, wrong time.
I almost feel sorry for that scumbag dictator, AND for Qudafi also.

Posted: 3/27/2011 3:14:10 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How about not interfere... I don't believe there was any reason for us to intervene in Libya.

By not intervening then Q would win. That's what you want a Libya ruled by Q?

It might be better than enabling the rise of the final Caliphate.

That assumes that the people of the Middle East will set aside all their other issues and unite under Islam. Fat chance.

They have before, and they will again.

The caliphate collapsed centuries ago. It's not coming back unless there is a huge change in the political situation in the Muslim world, one that increasingly seems unlikely.

Posted: 3/27/2011 3:19:22 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
According to this aviation blog, both are starting to perform missions over Libya now that the Libyan's air defenses have been taken out.

Why did a "no fly zone" turn into a full up air war on a country we are not at war with?

Ive been asking my self this the whole time...

Posted: 3/27/2011 3:19:25 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Sure, radical Islamsists fear popular elections, as recent event have shown!

It's like being in some bizarro-world. Some people, otherwise intelligent and sane, now believe America has some vested interest in helping some grubby rebellion that is 'just sorta' friendly to AQ. (Fun fact: Al Qaeda was in fact the organization that orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.)

What does Egypt have to do with Libya? Oh yeah, nothing. As a matter of fact, do a search, I warned about the MB in Egypt. They are already organized. I believe I said as much.

Sure, good point. Libya is far, far away from Egypt, and I don't think the two countries even share a common religion or anything like that.

Of course, reality is somewhat different than what you apparently think is going on over there:
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize.

Libya isn't a nascent America, you know.

But unlike most of the uprisings in the ME/NA it actually has some hope for something better than what it has. If things go right in terms of what the West does with a proper transition Libya could become another Jordan or Morocco.

In any case, the point made was that the political situation in Egypt and Libya are very different, to include the power and influence of the Muslim Bortherhood, which was never anything close to what it is or was in Egypt. Part of the problem in Egypt is the lack of any other big organized opposition political movements, something which is not lacking at all in Libya. The MB does not have a huge vacuum to fill in Libya. It does in Egypt and this is part of what makes it so dangerous.

Posted: 3/27/2011 3:25:28 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I agree though that what is going on in Libya isn't Lexington or Concord, but that's because I think the Libyan have it a hellava lot easier than we did. They have a city Benghazi protected by Western air power. So they have a central place to meet. We didn't get support from the French until early 1776 and sure wasn't as immediate in its support as the US and NATO has been of the Libyans.

I disagree. It's hard to get people to a protected city, which has only been protected for about a week, when all the other cities are embroiled in conflict.

Who says they all had to meet inside Libya? Governments in exhile were very common during WWII.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to buy any excuse as to why there hasn't been a declaration of intent made by the rebel leadership. When we fought for independence it was for a number of reasons, but everyone agreed that the principle of eqaulity was one of them and testified to it by signing the Declaration of Independence.

The situation is entirely different. About the only similarity is that this is a largely conservative rebellion which was also the case in our War of Independence, except that in the latter case the goals quickly became secessionist.

Regarding a statement of goals, this has already been released but it is out of necessity somewhat vague because the rebellion is a union of separate political groups and local governments and not a highly unified group like in the case of our rebellion against the UK (most were of a certain group among the Whigs). Right now the fight is on and there is an inherent need for unity and not reasons to create disunity. The majority of the political groups have some common goals and that is what they've focused on. Given the overall circumstances that is not inappropriate and they certainly cannot be legitimately faulted for it.

Posted: 3/27/2011 7:39:25 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Maybe al qaeda requested air support.

This is in the link from the OP:

1) Since yesterday I’ve recorded a certain number of tweets providing attack coordinates of loyalist forces in the Misratah area for the coalition planes. A couple of examples (Tom Cooper of ACIG deserves a special thanks for the “head up”):

@LibyanDictator: CONFIRMED: Coordinates for positions of more Gaddafi forces near #Misrata: 32261441N, 14541639E and 32115581N, 15053800E #Libya #Feb17

@LibyanDictator: CONFIRMED: Coordinates for positions of more Gaddafi forces near Misrata: 32125190N, 15050767E – HIT THESE TOO! #Libya #Feb17

Which coordinate system? UTM? WGS84? How would they know the messages aren't from Q to blow up rebels?

It would be kind of cool to call in airstrikes with an internet post, though.

Posted: 3/28/2011 4:31:59 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Sure, radical Islamsists fear popular elections, as recent event have shown!

It's like being in some bizarro-world. Some people, otherwise intelligent and sane, now believe America has some vested interest in helping some grubby rebellion that is 'just sorta' friendly to AQ. (Fun fact: Al Qaeda was in fact the organization that orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.)

What does Egypt have to do with Libya? Oh yeah, nothing. As a matter of fact, do a search, I warned about the MB in Egypt. They are already organized. I believe I said as much.

Sure, good point. Libya is far, far away from Egypt, and I don't think the two countries even share a common religion or anything like that.

Of course, reality is somewhat different than what you apparently think is going on over there:
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize.

Libya isn't a nascent America, you know.

But unlike most of the uprisings in the ME/NA it actually has some hope for something better than what it has. If things go right in terms of what the West does with a proper transition Libya could become another Jordan or Morocco.

In any case, the point made was that the political situation in Egypt and Libya are very different, to include the power and influence of the Muslim Bortherhood, which was never anything close to what it is or was in Egypt. Part of the problem in Egypt is the lack of any other big organized opposition political movements, something which is not lacking at all in Libya. The MB does not have a huge vacuum to fill in Libya. It does in Egypt and this is part of what makes it so dangerous.

Based on what? Your opinion and the notion that NOW the noble savage is going to be civilized? This time will be different because you and BHO will it to be? Because there sure as hell aren't any facts supporting such opinions. Facts supporting the notion that your noble savages are on friendly terms with Al Qaeda exist. Facts supporting the idea that a country 14 TRILLION dollars in debt can't afford these stupid exercises exist. But facts supporting the idea that Libyan Muslim Brotherhood is somehow radically different than Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood? Those facts exist only in the heads of the 'intervene no matter the cost' crowd.

P.S. The notion that Libya has some sort of well-organized yet non-Islamist political movement is pure fantasy.

Posted: 3/28/2011 4:46:24 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Have we heard from the Pres lately on this? A-10s and AC-130s aren't exactly air superiority fighters....

And where are A-10s flying sorties from?

IF that were the case, the closest bases would be in Italy.

Posted: 3/28/2011 10:37:39 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Of course that is not the case, but IMO we shouldnt be doing jack shit to help AQ or any of their friends either.

A government where the people of Libya have a say in how things are run, doesn't help AQ in the least.

Sure, radical Islamsists fear popular elections, as recent event have shown!

It's like being in some bizarro-world. Some people, otherwise intelligent and sane, now believe America has some vested interest in helping some grubby rebellion that is 'just sorta' friendly to AQ. (Fun fact: Al Qaeda was in fact the organization that orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.)

What does Egypt have to do with Libya? Oh yeah, nothing. As a matter of fact, do a search, I warned about the MB in Egypt. They are already organized. I believe I said as much.

Sure, good point. Libya is far, far away from Egypt, and I don't think the two countries even share a common religion or anything like that.

Of course, reality is somewhat different than what you apparently think is going on over there:
Energized Muslim Brotherhood in Libya eyes a prize.

Libya isn't a nascent America, you know.

But unlike most of the uprisings in the ME/NA it actually has some hope for something better than what it has. If things go right in terms of what the West does with a proper transition Libya could become another Jordan or Morocco.

In any case, the point made was that the political situation in Egypt and Libya are very different, to include the power and influence of the Muslim Bortherhood, which was never anything close to what it is or was in Egypt. Part of the problem in Egypt is the lack of any other big organized opposition political movements, something which is not lacking at all in Libya. The MB does not have a huge vacuum to fill in Libya. It does in Egypt and this is part of what makes it so dangerous.

Based on what? Your opinion and the notion that NOW the noble savage is going to be civilized? This time will be different because you and BHO will it to be? Because there sure as hell aren't any facts supporting such opinions. Facts supporting the notion that your noble savages are on friendly terms with Al Qaeda exist. Facts supporting the idea that a country 14 TRILLION dollars in debt can't afford these stupid exercises exist. But facts supporting the idea that Libyan Muslim Brotherhood is somehow radically different than Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood? Those facts exist only in the heads of the 'intervene no matter the cost' crowd.

P.S. The notion that Libya has some sort of well-organized yet non-Islamist political movement is pure fantasy.

By all means, substantiate your claims. So far you have nothing to support your argument since the evidence is against you. Libya has had a non-Islamist opposition movement for decades. You and the people with your views sure seem to like to argue against strawmen as well. I wonder why.

Posted: 3/28/2011 10:40:53 AM EDT

[#41]

Why the fuck would we be sending already limited assets like the AC-130 to fucking Libya?

Posted: 3/28/2011 10:47:30 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Why the fuck would we be sending already limited assets like the AC-130 to fucking Libya?

As long as they aren't supporting the Army, its cool.

Posted: 3/28/2011 10:51:24 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Why the fuck would we be sending already limited assets like the AC-130 to fucking Libya?

If the Air Force shies away from using AC-130's over Afghanistan, why in the fuck would they fly the over Libya?

Paging Sylvan

Dammit, he hadn't posted when I originally wrote this!

Posted: 3/28/2011 10:55:49 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Why the fuck would we be sending already limited assets like the AC-130 to fucking Libya?

If the Air Force shies away from using AC-130's over Afghanistan, why in the fuck would they fly the over Libya?

Paging Sylvan

Dammit, he hadn't posted when I originally wrote this!

I knew my post would draw him out

Posted: 3/28/2011 11:18:14 AM EDT

[#45]

Why are we supporting the Libyan uprising with military action?..not the Egyption, Syrian, Bahraini or Tunisian?

The oilfields in Eastern Libya are of strategic importance. Period. The others have nothing of strategic value, only diplomatic. Check that...the Bahraini port is strategic, but not the only option in the region.

Posted: 3/28/2011 11:30:50 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Why are we supporting the Libyan uprising with military action?..not the Egyption, Syrian, Bahraini or Tunisian?

The oilfields in Eastern Libya are of strategic importance. Period. The others have nothing of strategic value, only diplomatic. Check that...the Bahraini port is strategic, but not the only option in the region.

The Bahrain uprising is strongly against our interests. The Egyptian uprising was also against our interests and there was no way the Egyptian military was going to tolerate an air campaign; the very notion seems rather absurd. The Tunisian uprising is a hard call as to where it will lead but it hasn't been all that bad so far; air support was not needed and it was over very quickly anyways. Syria is our enemy but the uprisings don't seem to offer anything we could take advantage of. The protests in Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and almsot everywhere else they have been happening are against our interests; the only exception may be Algeria. The Yemeni uprising is very much against our interests and if any of the uprisings will benefit al Qaeda it is that one. In Libya the slaughter was not only pretty bad compared to everywhere else at the time but there was and is also a chance for the fulfillment of our interests if handled properly. Really, each uprising is rather unique politically and while they may all part of one wave they cannot be characterized generally like so many seem to do.

Posted: 3/28/2011 5:33:36 PM EDT

[#47]

The love for the good Colonel and his regime is astounding.

Fuck that guy.

If there's a mess made in Lybia, we'll deal with it later.

AFAIC, he needs to be dead.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - AC-130s and A-10s over Libya now? (Page 3 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us