Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

reply to post by Essan


Actually the American's turned the out come of that campaign and General Patton was in the African campaign actually. Him and his division was the first to beat back the Desert Fox's Panzer. In addition the Sherman Tank (M4) at the time was state of the art and was used by both allied forces.

reply to post by Mikeyy

Why do you say the rebels are our allies? Do you know if they are Al Qaeda backed? Fundamentalist Muslim Radicals in the mix? I don't like Khadafi. Never have. He seemed to have changed his tune somewhat from his earlier years and renounced terrorism and turned in his WMD's, not that this makes him a friend by any means, but the old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is stupid. Remember when we armed the foes of the Russian Occupiers in Afghanistan in the 80's? The same people we are now fighting in Afghanistan and have been for over a decade! Most of what we know about the rebels can be summed up with.... they want out from under Khadafi. Not much more than that. Allies? Maybe.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
I just don't see it. If they had nothing in the beginning, it would be impossible to seize a tank with clubs, rocks, or even handguns. Someone had to have supplied them. A second question I have is, who taught them to fly helicopters and tanks?

Perhaps they were armed, trained and funded by the US... All of the money missing from the pentagon in the last decade must have bought the US something.
www.historycommons.org...

reply to post by DrCarter


Well, it looks like the USA has troops on the ground in Libya.
They talked about it on Bill O'Reilly last night.
They move around in groups of 3 with lasers to "paint" the targets - tanks - so it's a direct hit.
The CIA is also there.
----------------------------------------
Oh yeah, It also looks like Hillary Clinton is in charge and Obama is hiding behind her skirt.

Originally posted by JerryB08
reply to post by Essan

 

Actually the American's turned the out come of that campaign and General Patton was in the African campaign actually. Him and his division was the first to beat back the Desert Fox's Panzer. In addition the Sherman Tank (M4) at the time was state of the art and was used by both allied forces.

I think the USA and the UK can win this war in Libya just as soon as we stop arguing about World War 2!
That was 70 years ago! I can't believe the Brits are so sensitive about us saving them way back then.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by JerryB08
reply to post by Essan

 

Actually the American's turned the out come of that campaign and General Patton was in the African campaign actually. Him and his division was the first to beat back the Desert Fox's Panzer. In addition the Sherman Tank (M4) at the time was state of the art and was used by both allied forces.

I think the USA and the UK can win this war in Libya just as soon as we stop arguing about World War 2!
That was 70 years ago! I can't believe the Brits are so sensitive about us saving them way back then.

Because it's constant comments such as the end of your last sentence that pisses us off... What do you expect?

reply to post by MrKipling


I think you should be grateful not pissed off.
We can do great things when we work together. Leave it at that.
-------------------------------------------------
A great success in Libya would translate into a great success for BP.
I hope NATO will finish the job in Libya. Apparently, NATO will take over around Monday.
Italy demanding NATO takes over in order to use their airbases. Why do they care?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrKipling

 

I think you should be grateful not pissed off.
We can do great things when we work together. Leave it at that.

-------------------------------------------------
A great success in Libya would translate into a great success for BP.
I hope NATO will finish the job in Libya. Apparently, NATO will take over around Monday.
Italy demanding NATO takes over in order to use their airbases. Why do they care?

Of course we're eternally grateful but there's no need to constantly wipe our faces in it..

Always reminds me of a Simpsons episode in the future when Lisa is marrying an English guy..

Moe: Oh, a British boy. You know we saved your ass in World War II.
Hugh: Yeah, well we saved your ass in World War III.

Lets see what we (Germany) do,now that NATO has the Leadership...

And Protestors in Bengahzi despise us now (German Live-Ticker)...thanks Merkel-Biatch

reply to post by Shenon


My words of advice to Germany is to hold its line, it knows the score. I know NATO is a messy alliance but no NATO nations are under threat and it can force a withdrawal if it chooses, at least for Germany.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by MrKipling

 

I think you should be grateful not pissed off.
We can do great things when we work together. Leave it at that.

-------------------------------------------------
A great success in Libya would translate into a great success for BP.
I hope NATO will finish the job in Libya. Apparently, NATO will take over around Monday.
Italy demanding NATO takes over in order to use their airbases. Why do they care?

Ignoring your first comment... Italy gets 35% (ish) percent of her fuel from Libya.. it is a major market for them.. so they need this to be over quickly or it'll really hurt their economy, which by extension will hurt the Eurozone further.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Putting NATO in charge will not accelerate the removal of Qaddafi.
It sounds more like a recipe for paralysis.
Time will tell.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Oh I agree, I dislike the notion of NATO being in charge, but the current situation with 3 main operations running in parallel is slightly worse.. and has a greater chance of failure..

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Oh I agree, I dislike the notion of NATO being in charge, but the current situation with 3 main operations running in parallel is slightly worse.. and has a greater chance of failure..

It's hard for me to see failure. Qaddafi has no Republican Guard like Saddam.
In fact some of his army soldiers have switched to helping the rebels!
His tanks are being blown up everyday. His air force is grounded.
What am i missing?

Originally posted by aaa2500

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
I just don't see it. If they had nothing in the beginning, it would be impossible to seize a tank with clubs, rocks, or even handguns. Someone had to have supplied them. A second question I have is, who taught them to fly helicopters and tanks?

Perhaps they were armed, trained and funded by the US... All of the money missing from the pentagon in the last decade must have bought the US something.
www.historycommons.org...

That's a possibility, but not a likelihood. Money for covert ops, like arming folks we don't want the world to know that we've armed, usually gets tallied into another budgetary area. In a worst-case, if it can't be stashed anywhere else, they'll fold it into the "black budget". That way, it's "accounted for" in some manner, specifically so that audits won't show any discrepancies.

Black Ops and the like don't like discrepancies. They raise questions, and so are avoided like the plague.

Personally, I think the US has done quite enough damage to itself simply by throwing themselves into this debacle. I don't see a need to try to find bogey men where there aren't any. There are plenty enough of them standing right out in the open this time.

I've said right from the beginning of this that the US should never have gotten into this mess, and you can mark my words and throw them back at me if the day doesn't come when they rue this piss poor decision.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by DrCarter

 

Well, it looks like the USA has troops on the ground in Libya.
They talked about it on Bill O'Reilly last night.
They move around in groups of 3 with lasers to "paint" the targets - tanks - so it's a direct hit.

Tanks, buildings, AA emplacements, anything that needs to be hit. It's SOP to have target designator teams on the ground, acting as FACs.

The CIA is also there.

CIA has BEEN there, practically forever. Probably what they were talking about was having sent in SAD teams recently. That's worrisome, because in the given scenario - enforcement of a "no fly zone", I can't think of any good reason for SAD teams that can't be handled, and handled better, by the likes of Delta, Special Forces, and CCTs.

For SAD teams to have gone in, there's anticipation of "mission creep" (read that as a plan to change the mission) once they're a little way into the mission. I've heard that the mission is already changing - from enforcement of the NFZ to "protection of civilians", which is something else entirely, and should read as "protection of the rebels", which will likely lead to MORE "boots on the ground" as they engage. SAD teams will ferret out specifics that need to be hit (not necessarily equipment or infrastructure), and if it proves too much for the rebels to handle - or if the brass THINKS it will be too much for the rebels (i.e. turns out to have a medal or a ribbon attached for the brass) - it's on.

Oh yeah, It also looks like Hillary Clinton is in charge and Obama is hiding behind her skirt.

Isn't Hillary one of the Three Vakyries that called for this mess and pushed for it? Yeah, you can bet she's calling the shots - with some backing from some specific "non-governmental" entities.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

I think the USA and the UK can win this war in Libya just as soon as we stop arguing about World War 2!
That was 70 years ago! I can't believe the Brits are so sensitive about us saving them way back then.

No one is going to "win" this war. There weren't any "good guys" involved until foreigners started meddling in it, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts they're not going to be happy with whoever comes out on top there.

NO ONE will win, but I see some massive losses in the future - and folks won't even recognize the losses when they happen, it will only be later when they see the camel poking it's nose under the tent.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Oh I agree, I dislike the notion of NATO being in charge, but the current situation with 3 main operations running in parallel is slightly worse.. and has a greater chance of failure..

It's hard for me to see failure. Qaddafi has no Republican Guard like Saddam.
In fact some of his army soldiers have switched to helping the rebels!
His tanks are being blown up everyday. His air force is grounded.
What am i missing?

We're missing a stable nation in that part of North Africa.. Destroying one side or another does not bring stability or peace to the people, without that as an end goal I would call any intervention a failure. Unless instability is the goal..

ETA.. An unstable North Africa gives the European nations a reason to police their southern border and prevent the flood of refugees the current wave of protests are creating.

reply to post by nenothtu


If Qaddafi and his son get killed then i call it a win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When they go down i hope to see British Petroleum with large numbers of boots on the ground.
That would give the people of Libya hope of a booming economy and a bright future.
If capitalism doesn't fill the void then i fear the Muslim Brotherhood will step in.
I'm hoping Hillary & Co. have thought this through.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by nenothtu

 

If Qaddafi and his son get killed then i call it a win.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When they go down i hope to see British Petroleum with large numbers of boots on the ground.
That would give the people of Libya hope of a booming economy and a bright future.
If capitalism doesn't fill the void then i fear the Muslim Brotherhood will step in.
I'm hoping Hillary & Co. have thought this through.

edit on 25-3-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

Wow..so many lies in one post .... How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi?

How was Libya doing under the rule of Gadaffi? How bad did the people have it? Were they oppressed as we now commonly accept as fact? Let us look at the facts for a moment.

Before the chaos erupted, Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech republic. It ranked 61st. Libya had the lowest infant mortality rate of all of Africa. Libya had the highest life expectancy of all of Africa. Less than 5% of the population was undernourished. In response to the rising food prices around the world, the government of Libya abolished ALL taxes on food.People in Libya were rich. Libya had the highest gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita of all of Africa. The government took care to ensure that everyone in the country shared in the wealth. Libya had the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent. The wealth was distributed equally. In Libya, a lower percentage of people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

How does Libya get so rich? The answer is oil. The country has a lot of oil, and does not allow foreign corporations to steal the resources while the population starves, unlike countries like Nigeria, a country that is basically run by Shell.

Like any country, Libya suffers from a government with corrupt bureaucrats that try to gain a bigger portion of the pie at the cost of everyone else. In response to this, Kadaffi called for the oil revenue to be distributed directly to the people, because in his opinion, the government was failing the people. However, unlike the article claims, Kadaffi is not the president of Libya. In fact he holds no official position in the government. This is the big mistake that people make. They claim that Kadaffi rules over Libya when in fact he doesn't, his position is more or less ceremonial. He should be compared to a founding father.

The true leader of Libya is an indirectly elected prime-minister. The current prime-minister is
Baghdadi Mahmudi. Calling Khadaffi the leader of Libya is comparable to calling Akihito the leader of Japan. Contrary to what your media is sketching, opinions in Libya vary. Some people support Gadaffi but want Mahmudi out. Others want both out. Many just want to live their life in peace. However, effort is taken to sketch the appearance of a popular revolt against the supposed leader of Libya, Gadaffi, when in fact he is just the architect of Libya's current political system, a mixture of pan-Arabism, socialism, and Islamic government.

Are the protesters in Libya comparable to the protesters in Egypt and Tunisia? Not at all. The governments reaction is more violent, and obviously excessive violence is being used. However let us look for a moment at the actions of the protesters. The building of the the general people's congress, the parliament of Libya, was put on fire by angry protestors. This is comparable to protesters putting the United States Capitol on fire. Do you think that for even a moment the US government would sit idly by as protesters put the US capitol on fire?


Great Britain funded an Al Qaeda cell in Libya, in an attempt to assassinate Gadaffi. The main opposition group in Libya now is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. This opposition group is being funded by Saudi Arabia, the CIA, and French Intelligence. This group unified itself with other opposition groups, to become the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition. It was this organization that called for the "Day of Rage" that plunged Libya into chaos on February 17 of this year.

It did this in Benghazi, a conservative city that has always been opposed to Gadaffi's rule. It should be noted that the National Front for the Salvation of Libya is well armed. In 1996 the group tried to unleash a revolution in the eastern part of Libya before. It used the Libyan National Army, the armed division of the NFSL to begin this failed uprising.

Why is the United States so opposed to Gadaffi? He is the main threat to US hegemony in Africa, because he attempts to unite the continent against the United States. This concept is called the United States of Africa. In fact, Gadaffi holds all sorts of ideas that are contrary to US interests. The man blames the United States government for the creation of HIV. He claims that Israel is behind the assasination of Martin Luther King and president John. F. Kennedy. He says that the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the US. He also urged Libyans to donate blood to Americans after 9/11. Khadaffi is also the last of a generation of moderate socialist pan-Arab revolutionaries that is still in power, after Nasser and Hussein have been eliminated, and Syria has aligned itself with Iran.The United States and Israel however have no interest in a strong Arab world. In fact it seems that elementary to the plan is bringing Libya to its knees through chaos and anarchy. In late 2010, the United Kingdom was still propping up the Libyan government through lucrative arms sales. Nothing is a better guarantee to destroy Libya than a bloody civil war. The tribal system that is still strong in Libya is useful to exploit to generate such a war since Libya has historically been divided into various tribal groups.

This is also why the Libyan government responds by importing mercenaries. Tribal allegiances go before allegiance to the government, especially in Benghazi, and thus the central government has no control over the eastern part of the country anymore. The alternative to mercenaries is a conflict between the various ethnic groups. Gadaffi has tried for 41 years to make the country more homogeneous, but opposition groups funded by outside forced will take little more than a few days to put the country back into the 19th century, before the region was conquered and unified by Europeans. The violence is indeed excessive, but everyone seems to forget that the situation is not the same as in Tunis and Egypt. Tribal ties play a far greater role, and thus the conflict will unfortunately be bloodier.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

I would like to add that many foreigners go to work in Libya because of good paycheck.......free education in foreign countries payed by the goverment ... favorable student credits ...and many more ..

I would like to see ground troops and no fly zone in your country you war lover

if this guy in a chair is a freedom fighter i'm a Santa Clause