|
Title: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ssmith general on March 19, 2011, 05:38:15 AM I have not been paying attention, but seems to be [kip dynamite voice] getting pretty serious [/kip dynamite voice]
I guess the rebels are pretty well armed if they are shooting down jets? Where is NATO? What are we doing about it? We should have killed that guy in '82 or whenever. Here is an article from Fox News today Quote Libyan Forces Reportedly Defy Cease-Fire, Engage in Battle for Rebel Stronghold BENGHAZI, Libya – Libyan forces struck Saturday at the heart of the rebellion against Muammar al-Qaddafi, shelling the outskirts of the rebel capital and launching airstrikes in defiance of international demands for a halt to the fighting. Leaders from the Arab world, Africa, the United States and other Western powers were holding urgent talks in Paris on Saturday over possible military action against Qaddafi's forces, which are trying to crush the nearly 5-week-old rebellion against him. Trying to outmaneuver Western military intervention, Qaddafi's government declared a cease-fire on Friday as the rebel uprising faltered against his artillery, tanks and warplanes. But the opposition has said shells rained down well after the announcement and accused the Libyan leader of lying. More Here (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/19/plane-shot-rebel-held-city-libya-113932449/) (http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/libyaplane_20110319_050419.jpg) Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: ssmith general on March 19, 2011, 05:44:35 AM Quote Obama threatens Khadafy with force WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered Moammar Khadafy yesterday to carry out an immediate cease-fire, withdraw his forces from rebel-held cities, and stop all attacks on Libyan civilians or face military action from the United States and its allies in Europe and the Arab world. “Let me be clear; these terms are not negotiable,’’ Obama said from the East Room of the White House. Those terms, particularly lifting the siege of opposition-held territories, would give the rebels a reprieve, if not a military advantage. Libya had pledged a cease-fire hours before. But reports from rebel-held territory in the east and west indicated that the attacks by Khadafy militias continued unabated. Government forces continued to advance on Benghazi, the rebel’s capital in the east, and people fleeing nearby Ajdabiya said troops were bombing and conducting assaults in the afternoon. The western city of Misrata remained under siege, its electricity and water cut by the government, and doctors reported that at least 25 people were killed, including 16 unarmed civilians. In Tripoli, the repression of peaceful protests continued, and gunfire was heard late in the evening. More- NYT via Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2011/03/19/obama_threatens_khadafy_with_military_action/?p1=News_links) (http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2011/03/18/1300505716_0933/539w.jpg) Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: SUPERCOACH on March 19, 2011, 08:59:17 AM Quote Obama threatens Khadafy with force WASHINGTON — President Obama ordered Moammar Khadafy yesterday to carry out an immediate cease-fire, withdraw his forces from rebel-held cities, and stop all attacks on Libyan civilians or he is going to tell his momma the U. N. “Let me be clear; these terms are not negotiable,’’ Obama said from the East Room of the White House. Those terms, particularly lifting the siege of opposition-held territories, would give the rebels a reprieve, if not a military advantage. Libya had pledged a cease-fire hours before. But reports from rebel-held territory in the east and west indicated that the attacks by Khadafy militias continued unabated. Government forces continued to advance on Benghazi, the rebel’s capital in the east, and people fleeing nearby Ajdabiya said troops were bombing and conducting assaults in the afternoon. The western city of Misrata remained under siege, its electricity and water cut by the government, and doctors reported that at least 25 people were killed, including 16 unarmed civilians. In Tripoli, the repression of peaceful protests continued, and gunfire was heard late in the evening. More- NYT via Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2011/03/19/obama_threatens_khadafy_with_military_action/?p1=News_links) (http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2011/03/18/1300505716_0933/539w.jpg) FIFY Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: ricky023 on March 19, 2011, 11:44:20 AM Well Pres. Obama said no ground troops but the Air Strikes could come soon. That no-fly zone is being implemented and we as well as others will protect it. I think Fox News and CNN said it would cost 300 million dollars a day. RTR!
Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: ssmith general on March 19, 2011, 01:10:49 PM Well Pres. Obama said no ground troops but the Air Strikes could come soon. That no-fly zone is being implemented and we as well as others will protect it. I think Fox News and CNN said it would cost 300 million dollars a day. RTR! man, and I only need about 50k once. >:( Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: ssmith general on March 19, 2011, 01:38:00 PM Just heard on the news that NATO has begun air-strikes on khadafee
Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: ricky023 on March 19, 2011, 02:35:16 PM Well it won't be long now. The Airstrikes will tear him up. I am not sure about all this but if they take him down maybe the oil will become freer. RTR!
Title: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: ssmith general on March 20, 2011, 06:02:15 AM Quote Explosions, Gunfire Heard Over Tripoli as U.S. and Allies Continue Military Strikes on Libya Explosions and gunfire were heard in the Libyan capital of Tripoli Sunday morning as the U.S. and its allies continued military strikes against targets of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi, who on Libyan state radio said the raids were "acts of terrorism". Qaddafi added that all of the country's people were now carrying weapons to defend the nation. "We will not leave our land and we will liberate it," he said. He said he has opened up the weapons depots to Libyans, and said everyone is armed with "automatic weapons, mortars, bombs." "We promise you a long war," he said in the address. Pentagon officials Sunday were poring over satellite images to ascertain the damage of Saturday's military strikes. Large explosions were heard in Tripoli, possibly a cruise missile targeting a command and control center, Fox News' Steve Harrigan reports. Anti-aircraft tracer fire from Pro-Qaddafi forces was seen in the night sky after an explosion was heard two miles from the compound housing the Libyan strongman. Thousands of regime supporters, meanwhile, packed into the sprawling Bab al-Aziziya military camp in Tripoli where Qaddafi lives to protect against attacks. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/20/explosions-gunfire-heard-tripoli-allies-continue-military-strikes-libya/#ixzz1H8WTWMx4 Title: Re: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: ssmith general on March 20, 2011, 06:05:48 AM (http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/660/371/US%20Missile%20Strikes%20on%20Libya%20%281%29.jpg)
(http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/343/516/US%20Missile%20Strikes%20on%20Libya%20%282%29.jpg) (http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/660/438/US%20Missile%20Strikes%20on%20Libya.jpg) Peace through superior firepower. Title: Re: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: cbbama99 on March 20, 2011, 03:46:57 PM Uncle Muammar has had it coming for a LONG time. Everybody remember the airstrikes ordered by President Reagan back in the day?
Title: Re: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: ssmith general on March 20, 2011, 03:49:54 PM Uncle Muammar has had it coming for a LONG time. Everybody remember the airstrikes ordered by President Reagan back in the day? yes I do, funny too because I was very young. That may have been the first major news story that I can remember at the time. Title: Re: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: cbbama99 on March 20, 2011, 04:17:29 PM Uncle Muammar has had it coming for a LONG time. Everybody remember the airstrikes ordered by President Reagan back in the day? yes I do, funny too because I was very young. That may have been the first major news story that I can remember at the time. Same here. That was in, what, '85? That would have made me 10 years old. Title: Re: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: ricky023 on March 20, 2011, 05:31:01 PM Well no ground troops and the Air Riders is going to have a ball with those guys. Gadaffi better do like Sadam and hit the ground running or he will loose family and all. Those missiles don't have eyesight they are going to hit where directed. RTR!
Title: Re: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: ssmith general on March 20, 2011, 07:38:01 PM Uncle Muammar has had it coming for a LONG time. Everybody remember the airstrikes ordered by President Reagan back in the day? yes I do, funny too because I was very young. That may have been the first major news story that I can remember at the time. Same here. That was in, what, '85? That would have made me 10 years old. I thought it was more like '81 or '82, but you're right, it was '86. Title: Re: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: ssmith general on March 21, 2011, 06:07:28 AM Quote Qaddafi Compound Hit by U.K. Missiles as Coalition Says Leader’s Forces in Disarray Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/21/qaddafi-compound-hit-uk-missiles-coalition-says-leaders-forces-disarray/#ixzz1HEOQPpSGBritish submarines fired two missiles at Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi’s compound in downtown Tripoli Sunday, a senior coalition official confirmed to Fox News, as part of a weekend of punishing attacks aimed at protecting the Libyan people. The British Ministry of Defense confirmed that Qaddafi was not the target, but that the compound was hit because of its military significance. A Pentagon official had previously said Sunday that the coalition “will not be going after Qaddafi.” The 4-story compound in downtown Tripoli was home to Qaddafi and was demolished by the attacks, though it hadn’t been confirmed when the strike occurred, Fox News’ Steve Harrigan reported. Two circular holes in the roof, which are consistent with a missile strike, were visible and rubble littered the street. There were no known injuries, and it remains unclear where the leader has been living since the U.N.-sanctioned no-fly zone was ordered. Pentagon officials said the weekend of strikes had scattered and isolated Qaddafi’s forces, and American military authorities are moving to hand control of the operation to other countries. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. expects to turn control of the mission over to a coalition -- probably headed either by the French and British or by NATO -- "in a matter of days." Navy Vice Admiral William E. Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, said the coalition had control of the air space between Benghazi and Tripoli, Libya's capital and that the attacks had been successful. "We judge these strikes to have been very effective in significantly degrading the regime's air defense capability," Gortney said. "We believe his forces are under significant stress and suffering from both isolation and a good deal of confusion." (http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/U.S./397/224/032011_destroyedcompound.jpg) Title: Re: U.S. cruise missles pounding Libya Post by: ricky023 on March 21, 2011, 12:16:35 PM Well our leaders said it was not us that hit the Admin building in his compound. RTR!
Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: che boludo on March 22, 2011, 12:44:51 AM So, can anyone explain how we go from a presidential campaign line that the US had no business being directly involved militarily in a civil conflict in Iraq, but somehow is justified in impeding the efforts of what had been a relatively stable nation (especially in terms of the region) to quell its own an insurgent resurrection?
I'll hang up now and listen in. Funny that we haven't seen the public outrage or the anti-war liberals marching on the national mall in protest, hypocrites. Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: SUPERCOACH on March 22, 2011, 01:18:42 AM So, can anyone explain how we go from a presidential campaign line that the US had no business being directly involved militarily in a civil conflict in Iraq, but somehow is justified in impeding the efforts of what had been a relatively stable nation (especially in terms of the region) to quell its own an insurgent resurrection? I'll hang up now and listen in. Funny that we haven't seen the public outrage or the anti-war liberals marching on the national mall in protest, hypocrites. I noticed this as well. In the last couple of years Libya had even decided to cooperate with us and not too long ago was removed from the terrorist list if I'm not mistaken. Not that they are saints or anything, but there are bigger fish to fry in my opinion. Like tracking down the rest of those involved in 9/11 for example. Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: ricky023 on March 22, 2011, 03:12:10 AM Welll it seems we won't be there long. The NATO troops will finish it up. RTR!
Title: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ssmith general on March 22, 2011, 05:22:16 AM According to foxnews a "U.S. Jet Reportedly Crash Lands in Libya, but Crew Believed Safe"
No link. Probably mechanical failure. In other news... Quote Buoyed by strikes, Libya rebels try to advance ZWITINA, Libya – Coalition forces bombarded Libya for a third straight night, targeting the air defenses and forces of Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi, stopping his advances and handing some momentum back to the rebels, who were on the verge of defeat just last week. But the rebellion's more organized military units were still not ready, and the opposition disarray underscored U.S. warnings that a long stalemate could emerge. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/22/focus-libya-shifting-attacks-fly-zone/#ixzz1HK3HrFwo Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ssmith general on March 22, 2011, 05:24:15 AM Quote Influential Lawmakers Call for More Congressional Involvement in Libya and an Obama Address to the Nation With the U.S. military's sizeable initial engagement in Libya to impose a no-fly zone, and with what some preceive as mixed messages from the Obama administration on an overall mission, respected moderate senators Monday began expressing concern for the road ahead in the African nation and said Congress must be more involved and the American people more informed. "Although I do not support Qaddafi killing his own people, I have many concerns regarding U.S. involvement. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue to monitor the situation and hold the Administration accountable for explaining the objective of the military campaign and other questions," declared Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, a member of the Democratic leadership. "We need to get more involved," former Vietnam combat veteran Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., told MSNBC on Monday. "We have not had a debate...This isn't the way that our system is supposed to work." Sen. Dick Lugar, a GOP foreign policy heavyweight, has consistently criticized the operation, calling for a vote in Congress. "My basic concern is that we do not have a plan for the United States and how its allies are going to handle the situation. We don't have objectives that, or at least some idea of how we would obtain those objectives," the Indiana senator told Fox. "Who is in command of this operation?" Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., a current U.S. Navy reservist, asked rhetorically Monday at a speech in Chicago, "I don't know. Admiral (Mike) Mullen didn't seem to give a clear answer." Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/21/influential-lawmakers-call-more-congressional-involvement-libya-and-obama-address-nation#ixzz1HK4AWhaI Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ssmith general on March 22, 2011, 05:26:44 AM Hope yall dont mind, but I merged these since there were two separate conversations going on.
Title: Re: So, what's the deal in Libya? Post by: BAMAWV on March 22, 2011, 05:32:26 AM So, can anyone explain how we go from a presidential campaign line that the US had no business being directly involved militarily in a civil conflict in Iraq, but somehow is justified in impeding the efforts of what had been a relatively stable nation (especially in terms of the region) to quell its own an insurgent resurrection? CBS and the lame stream media said of collateral damage, "We are unable to confirm". Contrast this to the wild numbers these kooks threw around when Bush sent the war machine to Iraq.I'll hang up now and listen in. Funny that we haven't seen the public outrage or the anti-war liberals marching on the national mall in protest, hypocrites. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: che boludo on March 22, 2011, 06:21:54 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ Wonder where the "rebels" are getting their equipment and training to successfully engage Libyan fighter aircraft? Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ssmith general on March 22, 2011, 06:28:33 AM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJl8s8DSYvQ Wonder where the "rebels" are getting their equipment and training to successfully engage Libyan fighter aircraft? That was the same thought I had when I first saw that go down. BTW the video of the jet crashing is awesome. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: cbbama99 on March 22, 2011, 10:24:08 AM Quote Sen. Dick Lugar, a GOP foreign policy heavyweight, has consistently criticized the operation, calling for a vote in Congress. "My basic concern is that we do not have a plan for the United States and how its allies are going to handle the situation. We don't have objectives that, or at least some idea of how we would obtain those objectives," the Indiana senator told Fox. This has been my point. I don't think Obama has a real clue as to what is to be accomplished here. I would have thought it was to push Uncle Moammar out, but now I'm hearing that the administration believes that he could REMAIN in power with more rights for his people. So which is it? Are we trying to create a change in power, or merely attempting to stop some abuses? Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: che boludo on March 22, 2011, 10:51:11 AM Good story and coverage from the crash site of the Strike Eagle that crashed.
Quote US jet crashes in Libya: airman would not have known whether he faced friend or foe FULL STORY and crash site video (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397953/US-jet-crashes-in-Libya-airman-would-not-have-known-whether-he-faced-friend-or-foe.html)The US airman would not have known whether the armed men advancing towards him were friendly rebels or soldiers loyal to Colonel Gaddafi... Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: che boludo on March 22, 2011, 11:22:36 AM Quote Sen. Dick Lugar, a GOP foreign policy heavyweight, has consistently criticized the operation, calling for a vote in Congress. "My basic concern is that we do not have a plan for the United States and how its allies are going to handle the situation. We don't have objectives that, or at least some idea of how we would obtain those objectives," the Indiana senator told Fox. This has been my point. I don't think Obama has a real clue as to what is to be accomplished here. I would have thought it was to push Uncle Moammar out, but now I'm hearing that the administration believes that he could REMAIN in power with more rights for his people. So which is it? Are we trying to create a change in power, or merely attempting to stop some abuses? I won't be critical of the President's actions in Libya. I just found it curious that he committed forces to the same issue he was so adamantly against during the election cycle. But, politics are what they are. The truth is that any sitting President in the US would be driven to the same actions in Libya. It has been 20+ years in the making to find a viable rebel force that is willing/capable of staging a successful insurrection (maybe not to overthrow the g'ment, but to at least cause change to a more democratic version of g'ment). I don't see any US President letting the opportunity pass by. The bigger picture that is being missed and will be the topic of historians 20+ years from now is the chance for real change in the tightly controlled Arab nations. It is very possible that President Bush's legacy over time will be held in much higher regard than it is today. Actions in Iraq changed arguably the most influential state in the region to take its first steps toward a more real form of democracy. Much like the US revolution, the desire for change seems to be in the early stages of sweeping the entire region. If the sentiment continues to spread and the success grows to create more open and informed populaces that have a true vote in their nation's actions, we may be looking at the very early stages of what could be a very real move toward change and a hope for peace in the region. It feels like I am writing a "way too early" season preview for football, but the potential is definitely there. I'm talking about wholesale nation and culture change, so none of it will happen fast and very little will be solved in a truly diplomatic or peaceful manner, but at least there seems to be hope emerging after 60+ years of failed foreign policy matters in the region. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: SUPERCOACH on March 22, 2011, 11:27:13 AM Actions in Iraq changed arguably the most influential state in the region to take its first steps toward a more real form of democracy. Much like the US revolution, the desire for change seems to be in the early stages of sweeping the entire region. ^^^THIS^^^ Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: BAMAWV on March 22, 2011, 01:56:29 PM George Will:
Quote Does practice make perfect? In today’s episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know. “We are standing with the people of Libya,” says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that “the” people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Gaddafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority. Quote Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gaddafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gaddafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it? Quote America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow. But if Gaddafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya? Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ssmith general on March 22, 2011, 03:32:02 PM Actions in Iraq changed arguably the most influential state in the region to take its first steps toward a more real form of democracy. Much like the US revolution, the desire for change seems to be in the early stages of sweeping the entire region. ^^^THIS^^^ A lot of people also tend to forget that we now have the most dangerous country in the area, Iran, surrounded. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: che boludo on March 22, 2011, 04:17:29 PM Actions in Iraq changed arguably the most influential state in the region to take its first steps toward a more real form of democracy. Much like the US revolution, the desire for change seems to be in the early stages of sweeping the entire region. ^^^THIS^^^ A lot of people also tend to forget that we now have the most dangerous country in the area, Iran, surrounded. I agree with the surrounded portion, but Iran is only acting out because we are in Iraq. The majority of the Arab nations hate Iran. They are the largest Shia dominated state and are distinctly different in heritage, language, and culture from other Arab nations. Iraq's population is dominated by a Shia majority as well which was oppressed for many years by the Sunnis minority in charge. The "civil war" was nothing more than foreign fighters on either side of the ideological factions of Isalm fighting for control in Iraq. The Iranians backed the Shia majority and the Sunni's supported the former regime loyalists. Both groups of foreign fighters had a common enemy in the US/western world's influences but neither wanted to cede control of the most productive nation (in terms of natural resources other than oil). The key successes we achieved in the "surge" operations of 2007 were to target the foreign fighter influence while striking a balance to support a distrustful Shia majority (to offer an opportunity of support from sources other than Iran). Those efforts caused a successful cessation of major activities which lasted long enough to re-install adequate security forces and give the Iraqis the best chance of withstanding the foreign influences and becoming their own nation. So, I wouldn't agree that Iran is the most powerful nation. They are simply the one in the best position to be be belligerent as they know we are not willing/capable of starting another war which may unify the extremist elements of the Shia and Sunni sects against the coalition forces thus threatening a delicate peace that is emerging in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the key player in the region for many reasons, but money, prestige, and influence lead the list. They are a key ally in a very Machiavellian sense. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ssmith general on March 22, 2011, 05:47:22 PM So who would you say is the most 'dangerous'?
Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: BAMAWV on March 22, 2011, 06:04:53 PM So who would you say is the most 'dangerous'? Iran may not be able to hit downtown Dothan with a nuke, but they can certainly send suitcases in all directions.Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: che boludo on March 22, 2011, 06:11:54 PM So who would you say is the most 'dangerous'? None are real threats in the traditional sense of nation to nation threats. Our biggest concerns to safety reside in the support of and interconnection of extremist cells who are common to all (as they are truly worldwide in nature). Our successes/failures in the GWOT still reside in our ability to ID and successfully target those cells, their key areas of operations, funding/support through diplomatic, covert, and military methods. Personally, I think the lawless, islamic extremist safe haven that Somalia represents has become a huge threat to those operations as it is difficult to access the region and use cooperative means to develop intelligence to defeat those cells of activity. Pakistan's continued and increased cooperation is most critical at this point toward success in Afghanistan. Iran is a rogue state, but I truly think the winds of change are beginning to take root which will force the continuation of movements to challenge the existing authorities. The test will come in the UN/NATO's resolve to support those national movements of change or let the existing powers squash the resistance. The Internet is a powerful tool for information. It will be the youth movements in these countries that decide if they will continue to settle for the status quo which has kept them entrenched in poverty, conflict, and third world conditions in spite of the regions monopoly on the world's most precious resource. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: BAMAWV on March 22, 2011, 06:17:46 PM So who would you say is the most 'dangerous'? None are real threats in the traditional sense of nation to nation threats. Our biggest concerns to safety reside in the support of and interconnection of extremist cells who are common to all (as they are truly worldwide in nature). Our successes/failures in the GWOT still reside in our ability to ID and successfully target those cells, their key areas of operations, funding/support through diplomatic, covert, and military methods. Personally, I think the lawless, islamic extremist safe haven that Somalia represents has become a huge threat to those operations as it is difficult to access the region and use cooperative means to develop intelligence to defeat those cells of activity. Pakistan's continued and increased cooperation is most critical at this point toward success in Afghanistan. Iran is a rogue state, but I truly think the winds of change are beginning to take root which will force the continuation of movements to challenge the existing authorities. The test will come in the UN/NATO's resolve to support those national movements of change or let the existing powers squash the resistance. The Internet is a powerful tool for information. It will be the youth movements in these countries that decide if they will continue to settle for the status quo which has kept them entrenched in poverty, conflict, and third world conditions in spite of the regions monopoly on the world's most precious resource. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: che boludo on March 22, 2011, 06:29:50 PM So who would you say is the most 'dangerous'? None are real threats in the traditional sense of nation to nation threats. Our biggest concerns to safety reside in the support of and interconnection of extremist cells who are common to all (as they are truly worldwide in nature). Our successes/failures in the GWOT still reside in our ability to ID and successfully target those cells, their key areas of operations, funding/support through diplomatic, covert, and military methods. Personally, I think the lawless, islamic extremist safe haven that Somalia represents has become a huge threat to those operations as it is difficult to access the region and use cooperative means to develop intelligence to defeat those cells of activity. Pakistan's continued and increased cooperation is most critical at this point toward success in Afghanistan. Iran is a rogue state, but I truly think the winds of change are beginning to take root which will force the continuation of movements to challenge the existing authorities. The test will come in the UN/NATO's resolve to support those national movements of change or let the existing powers squash the resistance. The Internet is a powerful tool for information. It will be the youth movements in these countries that decide if they will continue to settle for the status quo which has kept them entrenched in poverty, conflict, and third world conditions in spite of the regions monopoly on the world's most precious resource. Israel is a protected state for all intensive purposes. Their greatest threats are terroist in nature as well. Any nation that would choose a nuclear option against Israel would be commiting suicide as the western powers of the world would destroy them. So, yes, as a traditional force on force singular threat. I do not feel Israel feels that any singular nation is a threat to them militarily. That nation's support of terrorist activities that may threaten Israel's people is a different story and a VERY real threat, but that does not fit the intent of my "traditional" sense of a threat on a nation to nation warfare status. For that matter, Iran does not have nuclear options to provide support and I'd make a guess that any real money men to provide that type of support to destroy Israel would come from elsewhere in the region (referring to much wealthier nations). Pakistan's nuclear capability and continued danger of armed conflict with India make them a much more real threat in the area IMO if they should become an unstable nation. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: Crimson Phoenix on March 22, 2011, 06:41:53 PM Uncle Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi has been waving to his people from the front porch. Looks like he may be around for a while....and the war too.
Not sure what to think at this point. Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ricky023 on March 23, 2011, 04:33:40 AM He is going to be waving and he will be taken out by the CIA or some underground force I think. I don't think it will be a military cause it would be to much Media. RTR!
Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ssmith general on March 24, 2011, 05:03:52 AM Quote Qaddafi Forces Roll Back as Rebels Try to Organize BENGHAZI, Libya – NATO ships began patrolling off Libya's coast Wednesday as airstrikes, missiles and energized rebels forced Muammar Qaddafi's tanks to roll back from two key western cities, including one that was the hometown of army officers who tried to overthrow him in 1993. Libya's opposition took haphazard steps to form a government in the east, as they and the U.S.-led force protecting them girded for prolonged and costly fighting. Despite disorganization among the rebels — and confusion over who would ultimately run the international operation — coalition airstrikes and missiles seemed to thwart Qaddafi's efforts to rout his opponents, at least for now. Anti-aircraft fire lit up the sky in Tripoli late Wednesday, and explosions could be heard. Coalition aircraft hit a fuel depot in Tripoli, a senior government official told reporters in a late-night news conference. Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim at first denied reports that Qaddafi's compound in Tripoli was hit earlier, then bactracked and said he had no information about that. Other targets Wednesday were near Benghazi and Misrata, he said. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged there is no clear end to the international military enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya, but President Barack Obama said it "absolutely" will not lead to a U.S. land invasion. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/23/libyan-forces-intensify-shelling-rebels-east/#ixzz1HVg5sUSq (http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/U.S./397/224/032311_libyaopposition.jpg) Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: ricky023 on March 24, 2011, 10:45:26 AM I don't think Iran is that dangerous, because if they had a Nuclear Warhead they would have used it. Libya is the same way. RTR!
Title: Re: *** Official Libya In-Game Thread *** Post by: BAMAWV on March 30, 2011, 09:03:47 PM A STRATFOR chart showed every energy and oil installation in Libya, offshore and on. Every one is a European-owned entity. This is no more a humanitarian mission than a mission to save the animals and the pets of Libya. This is about European energy, pure and simple.
|