Worlds largest "ambush"? WHAT IF....

Sometimes I hate to put thought to words.

I had this "pop" into my mind during a gestalt moment.


The US is spread as thin as butter on hot toast right now. I know of NO other time in history that there has been anyone that has fought a "three front" war...except maybe Rome.

Maybe.

I've no idea if Barry Sotero is a witting or otherwise player in this but I have considered that the situation in Libya could be just a huge ambush. think about it.

We have ok troop strength but face it. Our guys are still fighting the same stupid thing for 10 years. I read of a Staff Sgt. on his 6th tour in Afcrapistan. He bought it today. Our guys are tired and (talking to my ex brother in law) moral isn't the best.

Couple fatigue, morale, lack of executive support, lack of funding, lack of supply/equipment, AND the guys are scattered to the four winds. That just spells disaster.

Now, they are being asked to support the same bunch they have been trying to kill for the last decade!
I would dare you to ask a 1944 US Marine to fight beside one of Tojo's Marines. No dice!
Sooo....why now? Couple this with the rebels "falling back" WITH air support!

Something doesn't smell right here folks.

Our country is broke (and broken), people are wanting the war over, we have a government that is fairly ambivalent (at best) to the economic issues, AND our troops are away.

It seems that "they" are drawing us into a "macro-ambush". Pull the unwitting enemy into the kill zone, and then WHAM!

Yeah, we have air superiority. Lots of good that did in Nam. We would have to carpet bomb the entire damn bunch just to make it safe for the ground troops in a serious guerrilla war. This would cascade into the REST of the muslim world "switching on" and then what would we do? Even if we backed out, the whole mess would be in an uproar! Oil would go insanely stupid and what economy we had left in the west would come to a screeching halt.

This is just a random musing. I look forward (and hope) that some of our more knowledgeable members will tell me I'm wrong.

reply to post by felonius


im digging that theory, very interesting indeed. can only wait and see what happens

reply to post by felonius


What people might not get is Rome is a three front war, that is our third dimension and exists as war, it exists as Rome.

Rome has never gone out of business and it still fights to define and control reality, through Gods and the Kings and nations they empower they trap us all with those borders to define our shared reality.

A reality we should be defining, so Rome fights a fourth front, against us all.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler



I had forgotten that Proto.

thanks for the mental "kick" in the head!

That was an awesome thread on that btw!

reply to post by felonius


I'm pretty sure that was what OBL said he intended to do; lure the US into several ground wars until he can bleed the economy dry.

I have mused at that possibility for a period of three years now. Thanks for bringing my suspicions to light! The only thing I wonder is if the North American alliance between Mexico and Canada is really an alliance to cement our back doors shut from intruders if we were attacked or to make a friendly gesture to them so the other countries don't try to form alliances with other countries like Cuba did????? It is a real speculation and prompts insight into the possibility. I bring up the movie "Red Dawn" and even though it was an old movie, it doesn't mean it can't happen. The National guard isn't going to be a good fighting force if SHTF because half of the guard is fighting over seas..... It is really up to the citizens to arm up and not wait on our other war commitments to pack up and fly/float back stateside. Plus if we did have to fold out of these wars to come home in time to fight it would take weeks and months on top of having almost ALL of out heavy machinery over in the sandbox. Think of the huge amounts of tanks, hummers, artillery, troops, communications bases/equiptment etc.... that would have to be floated across the ocean. If on carrier got sunk with that amount soldiers and tanks plus jets we'd lose huge amounts of resources to defend ourselves with....... something to think about. Also I'd like to point out the thread that was posted a few weeks back about the alleged build up of chinese troops in Mexico. Could that build up of troops indeed be the start of the invasion? Keep in mind that that thread was never fully verified. I am ready for anything that comes but just wonder if any one else sees the writing on the wall as i see it? If our government and gun phobes of this country don't see a need to keep the population armed then they are shooting themselves in the foot because as we stand right now....we are the last/first line of defense. I strongly urge YOU as a citizen to be diligent and prudent to ascertain the validity of this possibility within yourself. We are "fighting for others freedoms and democracy" but of all the hell we've stirred up in the world, who would stand up along side a bully? I wouldn't for damn sure and we've pissed off a lot of counties and people. So please bring our troops home because in the name of national security ,we've made our nation less secure.

reply to post by felonius


Interesting perspective.

However US troops levels are dropping in Iraq most combat action have dropped off almost to nothing. Which many seem to repeatedly ignore

U.S. Troop Level In Iraq Hits Lowest Level Since 2003

The number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq dipped Tuesday to 49,700, dropping below the 50,000 threshold ahead of the end-of-the-month deadline set by President Barack Obama. But the war is not yet over for the remaining troops, who will continue to put themselves in danger on counterterror raids and other high-risk missions that aren't called combat but can be just as deadly.

Until the end of 2011, U.S. troops will mostly focus on training Iraqi soldiers and police to take over the nation's still-shaky security. They will counsel Iraqi officials on how to endear themselves to their citizens, whether through handing out soccer balls to kids or building irrigation systems for farmers.

I'll agree the troop numbers in Afghanistan are going the wrong way. UP

Libya however is mostly being fought by Libyans. Now NATO has stepped up and taken control.
Doubts About NATO in Libya as U.S. Takes Backseat

Military experts fear that America's reduced role in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone will cripple efforts to keep Moammar Gadhafi's forces from battering the rag tag army trying to topple him.

They fear that without U.S. willingness to go after Gadhafi's troops and equipment from the air, and without U.S. ground controllers pinpointing targets, that the effort to shield the rebels will fail.

Swedish Parliament Okays Fighter Jets To NATO's Libya Operation

(RTTNews) - The Swedish government's decision to contribute eight fighter jets to NATO's military operation in Libya was overwhelmingly ratified by the parliament .

Only the populist, anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats opposed the move, as the measure was passed by a 240 to 18 vote on Friday, reports said.

The opposition Left Party and Social Democrats approved the measure after they were guaranteed that the JAS Gripen jet planes will not be deployed to attack ground targets in Libya.

reply to post by SLAYER69


With your service experience, do you think the whole thing is rigged for getting us "stuck"?

If this is the "blood bank" for jihadi's going to other theaters, the air and arty units pretty much a non issue, and the "rebels" deciding NOW is the time to beat feet?

Add to this the original Arab League saying "Oh yeah" and doing an about face and then saying "Oh no". Personally, I wonder why we didnt let the other muzzies handle this.

then there is the R2P thing and I'm wondering if there is a plan against Israel on "behalf" of the PLO?

Lots of weirdness here.

I"m of the opinion that us "stepping down to let NATO" handle it is like the right hand letting the left do the work.
We are NATO.

reply to post by agentblue


Sorry to give creedance to your nightmare.

I'm just someone thinking out loud.

You brought up some good points as well. Hadnt heard of the chinese rumour.

NATO.

Should be changed to MATO.

Mostly American Treaty Organization.

This is a French-led endeavor.

Therefore, there can't be much danger in the entire theater.

good post.
and I agree.
many things about rome are the same as America.
and with so many troops out of america
means that its army can not start a coup.
or fight to stop Them killing and taking over america.
I bet They have a spesial (SS stormtroopers)

Roma falls

Originally posted by felonius
I know of NO other time in history that there has been anyone that has fought a "three front" war...except maybe Rome.

Six day war

reply to post by FarArcher


We all know the quality of military that the french can field

Maginot Line (translated to german) = "slight detour"



I hear you can get a good deal on french surplus weapons as well. Never fired and only dropped once!

It was kinda funny that the only jet the french took out was on the ground. Yeah. This will go well with the french running stuff.

I"ll stop now.

Originally posted by BiGGz

Originally posted by felonius
I know of NO other time in history that there has been anyone that has fought a "three front" war...except maybe Rome.

Six day war

That was a defensive war.

Very different in execution.

reply to post by felonius


The only way this will happen is if the empire itself grows a new lead nation.

People are not bred to be aggressors.

As occupations subside, people go on living life again.

Radical Muslims will never have enough organization to "ambush"...

That is something only China or Russia could do....

Stay tuned!

There is till the Korea Situation which could blow any Day = another Frontline for the US (and there is still the Risk of China backing N-Korea against S-Korea and the US)

Something i would like to know though...how much of the US Military is Overseas and how much is left in America?

reply to post by Shenon


Since the end of WWII and esp during the cold-war most of our troops have been stationed forward-Overseas.

reply to post by Signals


Never under estimate your opponents Sig. Especially when they may have "help".

Libya is not the world's largest "ambush," for the US or any nation participating. Now, since the crux of the OP seems to be highlighting the US involvement in UN Resolution 1973, and how it could have an adverse affect on the the ability of the United States to wage war? Personally, I would not even label Libya as a conflict, but a mere skirmish. Still, that does not deduce its importance.

First, it gives ammo to the Chinese and Russia to call out the US when civil unrest and mass killings are happening in other countries to respond. Contrary to what the MSM is reporting lately, there are other significant disturbances taking place to go along with Libya and the civil unrest across the Muslim. For example, Democratic Republic of Congo [genocide], Dafur [genocide], Myanmar [thousands have been killed under military rule], and Ivory Coast [enormous refugee crisis]. Once again, the reputation and credibility of the United States is put on the line, and the opposition will certainly make it known to the world. For any other nation to commits itself to another in response to an internal situation is a slippery slope, and any response should be vetted extensively.

With any military engagement, there is always a chance for escalation. Right now, Libya seems like a blip on the radar, but like with any armed conflict; anything can happen. Apparently, the President and his team thought Libya was going to be a quickie, and a tree bearing positive political fruit? He commits military resources to a UN approved military action, thought he was going to get resounding support both home and abroad, and that the US could bow out gracefully so NATO could take over. It appears his plan is backfiring, because his poll numbers are falling, and NATO participants are squirming about who will take over the reigns.

This is not an ambush, and I don't see it posing any threats to the US force projections, or its ability to wage war in other theaters if the need arises. At present, it does appear that the US military has remained limited in its involvement administering the no-fly zone. That is a good thing, and I hope it remains that way? However, both politically and diplomatically, it sets a dangerous precedent about how international co-ops can instill their will at any time on another nation's internal matters. Therefore, intervention had ought to be used as sparingly as possible. The US has not successfully pulled out the remaining troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan is ongoing. To cut a long story short, I have been against US intervention in Libya since day one, and it appears the very action was not well thought out by the President or his team.