Ghadaffi is playing the game for the long term, he knows once Europe and her children get involved he'll be going down like a ton of bricks. So he's acquiescing slightly in order to buy more time. I see this as a strategic maneuver in an on going chess game that just got more complicated. I expect a war of words now as he tries to get the Arab League on his side to fend of the UN. Positive outcome of this is undeniable however, people aren't dying at the moment.
Ghadaffi is playing the game for the long term, he know once Europe and her children get involved he'll be going down like a ton of bricks.
Jingoist, much? Anyone like Ghadaffi has to know that the U.N. (really, the U.S. What other nation provides as many troops to U.N. actions?) is slightly overextended right now and suffering from some serious money problems at home. He blinked, but I believe someone with a little more fortitude wouldn't have.
For one thing, I'm happy to see evidence for Gaddafi being smart rather than just insane. I agree that the ceasefire may only be a temporary move, but people not dying is definitely a good thing.
As long as the UN holds its ground with regards to the resolution, this could end reasonably well.
I don't want Ghadaffi to be deposed or lose any money before I can finish aerosolizing my virus that seeks out cytotoxic T cells and then reprograms them to attack anything in the body displaying MHC-I complex.
Jingoist, much? Anyone like Ghadaffi has to know that the U.N. (really, the U.S. What other nation provides as many troops to U.N. actions?) is slightly overextended right now and suffering from some serious money problems at home. He blinked, but I believe someone with a little more fortitude wouldn't have.
I really don't understand how pounding his forces with ordinance while the rebels take him out insinuates a full blown invasion of Libya. Oh, you must be the guy that invented the game, "Jump! To conclusions!"
Jingoist, much? Anyone like Ghadaffi has to know that the U.N. (really, the U.S. What other nation provides as many troops to U.N. actions?) is slightly overextended right now and suffering from some serious money problems at home. He blinked, but I believe someone with a little more fortitude wouldn't have.
I really don't understand how pounding his forces with ordinance while the rebels take him out insinuates a full blown invasion of Libya. Oh, you must be the guy that invented the game, "Jump! To conclusions!"
What forces do you suggest need pounding? He has regular troops, sure, but he also has a decentralized "force" that mixes with and pretty much looks like civilians. Do you think he only has guys in uniforms that keep themselves holed up in highly localized areas that can be easily found and bombed, as in a video game? Think again, pal. Bombing Ghadaffi's "forces" will, for the most part, kill a lot of rebels as well, because the "forces" and the rebels are, for the most part, thoroughly mixed together. In order to effectively deal with these "forces", foreign nations would have to put troops on the ground, which means, of course, choosing sides in a civil war. That would be three wars the U.S. in which the U.S would be embroiled. Sound like fun? As for the rebels, yeah - they'vehad a lot of luck so far. We can really count on them for significant support while we "pound" Ghadaffi. What are you, eight years old? It sounds like you took less than a minute of thought to arrive at your sadly unsupported opinion. You must be the guy who invented the game, "The only things I know about Foreign Relations I learned from Civ 4, an I like it that way.". This is adult talk, Brucey. Go to your room and play with your little army guys.
There's also the underlying issue of the UN's composition. When we say "UN forces are doing such and such," we really mean, "the US is funding 80 percent of this and sending 80 percent of the troops, and we more or less have a stranglehold on UN policy." A UN military venture is a US military venture in disguise. Sure, we have help from allies, in the same way that when I take my sister-in-law out for pizza, I pay the bill and let her pick up the tip.
Nah I was in the Military for 8 years. I know Libya's order of battle and am quite confident that if NATO forces use missiles and bombs and coordinate with the rebels Ghadaffi's forces will capitulate. Stop trolling bro you do it bad.
That's not proof that you know anything. Are you some sort of military genius because you wore a certain type of suit for eight years? This argument, with nothing else to support it, fails quite badly.
I know Libya's order of battle
Proof?
I know Libya's order of battle and am quite confident that if NATO forces use missiles and bombs and coordinate with the rebels Ghadaffi's forces will capitulate.
Citation needed.
Coordinate with the rebels? How, exactly? Do you even know who they are? What politics they espouse? Do they have leaders? A command structure? I think you're just showing how little you know.
I don't need to prove anything to you lol.I don't think you've been lurking enough - that is the swiftest way to lose both the argument and all respect on this forum.
not gonna argue with ya man, I don't need to prove anything to you lol.
Bad grammar + unsupported claims + laziness = epically, monstrously failed argument. You just showed how little you know about this and how lightly any claim you make should be taken. It's rare to see an argument so full of fail. I'm kind of sorry for you, in a way. It must be sad to be that dim.
If your grammar is any indication, you must have spent those eight years in the military swabbing decks as an E-1.
I don't think you've been lurking enough - that is the swiftest way to lose both the argument and all respect on this forum.
No, it's not about "lurking". I've known the people who run this forum in real life for like 10 years. I mostly post on the internal forums because I just really don't care what faceless people on the internet think in all honesty, especially when they are belligerent.
I don't think you've been lurking enough - that is the swiftest way to lose both the argument and all respect on this forum.
No, it's not about "lurking". I've known the people who run this forum in real life for like 10 years. I mostly post on the internal forums because I just really don't care what faceless people on the internet think in all honesty, especially when they are belligerent.
Asking for proof is not belligerence. It might be perceived as belligerence by someone spouting jingoist bullshit, claiming others are jumping to conclusions. It's pretty clear that fear of failing even worse is at the root of the claim of belligerence.
Everything else aside, it's readily apparent whose argument was a knee-jerk jump to conclusion.
Finally, knowing Scrym in and of itself doesn't hold much weight in an argument unless the argument is about some aspect of their personal life. If this is the way you argue and they tolerate you on the secret boards in spite of it, maybe you should stay there.
so anyway, I've been seeing that the UN doesn't really believe the Cease fire is going to work, it looks like loyalist forces are still attacking rebels.
Why would anyone ever want to be a loyalist instead of a rebel? In the overwhelming majority of our literature and history loyalists are bad guys and rebels are good guys. Even in Star Wars where the rebels are total dweebs compared to the awesome Empire, I would probably still be in the rebellion. Storm Troopers wouldn't let me in. My shooting is too accurate.
I said overwhelming majority, which is not the same as saying "every" or "all." If history is written by winners, and rebels are almost always good guys, aren't rebels then almost always winners?
I said overwhelming majority, which is not the same as saying "every" or "all." If history is written by winners, and rebels are almost always good guys, aren't rebels then almost always winners?
In the overwhelming majority of our literature and history loyalists are bad guys and rebels are good guys.
US Civil War.
History is written by the winners. You would have a different opinion if England won the Revolutionary War.
Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the Iranian Revolution? The Russian Revolution? The French Revolution? The English Civil War? The Chinese Revolution?
How about Vietnam? That started as basically a revolution, right? As I recall, the U.S. went to war against the rebels and supported a guy who amounted to a puppet in the South. Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?
Dividing loyalist and rebel forces into "good" guys and "bad" guys is somewhat oversimplified, don't you think?
In the overwhelming majority of our literature and history loyalists are bad guys and rebels are good guys.
Even if this is true, is this how you want to pick your sides? Would this be how you picked your side in the Boer War?
Comments
As long as the UN holds its ground with regards to the resolution, this could end reasonably well.
now I will quote precedent .... Yugoslavia.
Coordinate with the rebels? How, exactly? Do you even know who they are? What politics they espouse? Do they have leaders? A command structure? I think you're just showing how little you know. How is Libya the same as Yugoslavia?
If your grammar is any indication, you must have spent those eight years in the military swabbing decks as an E-1.
Everything else aside, it's readily apparent whose argument was a knee-jerk jump to conclusion.
Finally, knowing Scrym in and of itself doesn't hold much weight in an argument unless the argument is about some aspect of their personal life. If this is the way you argue and they tolerate you on the secret boards in spite of it, maybe you should stay there.
How about Vietnam? That started as basically a revolution, right? As I recall, the U.S. went to war against the rebels and supported a guy who amounted to a puppet in the South. Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys?
Dividing loyalist and rebel forces into "good" guys and "bad" guys is somewhat oversimplified, don't you think? Even if this is true, is this how you want to pick your sides? Would this be how you picked your side in the Boer War?
They were all "good" guys, weren't they?
Think back to a lot of SciFi and Fantasy: Chances you will be rooting for the underdog rebels.