Comrade Chris Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 i dont think our ground forces will be deployed, we havent got enough to deal with Afgan and Libya Link to post Share on other sites
ckravitz Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I highly doubt the British government will deploy ground forces to Libya. They no longer have British nationals in country and there the current objectives of this campaign does not call for conventional ground forces. I would not be surprised however if SAS troops are operating in country however I doubt any information on that would be made public.I agree, I doubt there will be any ground forces, but the SAS is most likely very present in Libya Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) aparrantly SAS/SBS were operating in Libya weeks before OdesseyDawn began, to pinpoint targets Edited March 23, 2011 by Reznov Link to post Share on other sites
Ant Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 You really think that murder of civilians is the help? I give you a valuable advice, cease to look news, in them there is no truth. In my opinion of Kadafi has simply decided to raise the prices for oil And who buys oil from Libya? Correctly! Italy, Germany, Spain and France.And who has decided to help insurgents? Italy, Germany, Spain and France. What coincidence... And France helps most actively. In the first day of bombardment 4 tanks and 2 cars with civilians have been destroyed. I simply am surprised that you think that help! So in what your help consists!? You speak that insurgents never could dethrone Kadafi, at them bad arms. Ridiculously! I will give an example1917год in Russia dethrone Nikolay 2. To Russian people nobody helped to dethrone the tsar. If it is bad to all people to live at any mode that it can spend revolution though with penknives.I don't support your so-called help. You interfere with affairs of the sovereign state, not because of that what to help peace citizens, and because of the avidity and feeling of impunity. We will admit in France revolution here Russia begins declares that wants to help the peace population of France and enters the armies. What your reaction!? I doubt that to whom that of you it will be pleasant. All will start to shout that that of type "ÐÐÐÐ an empire of evil! 3 world!!!" I think quite have developed the opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 first of all, the coalition are using missiles that minimize civilian casulties, and Col Gaddafi has had the entire of Libya under his thumb for the past 40 years or so, now that there is means for military action against him and his regime, we have used this opportunity to the full extent, aiding the rebels, and destroying the regimes armaments. if we dont intervene then the mass murder of civilians by gaddafi's forces would begin, i think the right decision has been made by the UN. oh and by the way we are actions are fully backed by the UN RtoP. Link to post Share on other sites
The Midnight Q Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 You really think that murder of civilians is the help? I give you a valuable advice, cease to look news, in them there is no truth. And pay attention to who? The opposition? Surely don't believe everything on the news networks. Do your own research but this is total conspiracy crap. In my opinion of Kadafi has simply decided to raise the prices for oil And who buys oil from Libya? Correctly! Italy, Germany, Spain and France.And who has decided to help insurgents? Italy, Germany, Spain and France. What coincidence... And France helps most actively. In the first day of bombardment 4 tanks and 2 cars with civilians have been destroyed. Germany and Spain have expressed their opinions on the matter but made no significant action. They've got problems on their own. It's sad that civilians become collateral damage when any sort of military action is taken. But the truth of the matter is, it happens and there's not really much to prevent such things from happening. Most of the time they're accidents. Coalition jets can't see the difference between a uniformed soldier and a civilian from 10,000ft. I simply am surprised that you think that help! So in what your help consists!? You speak that insurgents never could dethrone Kadafi, at them bad arms. Ridiculously! I will give an example1917год in Russia dethrone Nikolay 2. To Russian people nobody helped to dethrone the tsar. If it is bad to all people to live at any mode that it can spend revolution though with penknives. Sure any sort of insurgency will face major difficulties when launching a rebellion against a far superior government. Some rebellions are successful with outside help, others need outside help. If you take a look at the American Rebellion in the better half of the 18th century, the Americans would've lost if it wasn't for France sending military and monetary aid. This in turn influenced the French Revolution (ironically, France was bankrupt from the American Revolution) When it comes to Col. Gadaffi using his air force to suppress seemingly peaceful protests, that's when the gloves came off any full on combat starts. France was already in the process of aiding the rebellion but the rest of the Western Nations didn't step in until Gadaffi's murder of civilians started. Would you want this to become another Kurdistan? Another Bosnia? Another Rwanda? I don't support your so-called help. Good, you don't have to. And by "you", who are you referring to exactly? You interfere with affairs of the sovereign state, not because of that what to help peace citizens, and because of the avidity and feeling of impunity. Sovereign state? Haha, the country of Libya may be it's own state but it's hardly sovereign when it's one guy that basically considers himself God. We will admit in France revolution here Russia begins declares that wants to help the peace population of France and enters the armies. What your reaction!? I doubt that to whom that of you it will be pleasant. All will start to shout that that of type "ÐÐÐÐ an empire of evil! 3 world!!!" I think quite have developed the opinion. The truth of the matter is, this is the 21st century. The world operates on a global scale now. Whatever happens to one country greatly affects the rest of the world. When that happens the rest of the world does not want to stand by and let such things happen, whether its for the good of the people of a troubled nation or the good of their own. Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 ^ couldnt've said it better myself! Link to post Share on other sites
Ant Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Yes, to argue with you it is useless. Well we will give an example Iraq have found there weapons of mass destruction? No.As and with Libya you "the all-powerful" NATO doesn't want to help civilians, the reason of intervention oil. All in this world turns round oil. Rescue of civilians the purpose noble, but it is reached absolutely not by noble actions. On me of NATO time has rushed to the aid that land operations would bring much less victims than bombardment, let even the aim. So to you to listen to the NATO warm and fuzzy. Don't consider as deviation from a theme, simply wanted to ask for a long time already. How you think armed forces of Georgia has attacked Ossetia and have shot the Russian peacemakers or all has occurred on the contrary? The Russian peacemakers have shot the Georgian military men? Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 we all know this is about the oil, so, ha! Link to post Share on other sites
The Midnight Q Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Yes, to argue with you it is useless. Well we will give an example Iraq have found there weapons of mass destruction? No. Again with the WMDs... Saddam's Iraq did indeed possess WMDs. How do I know this? The United States has the bill of sale of such weapons to Sadddam Insane during the Iran-Iraq War. He used the weapons against Iranian troops, to end the 10 year war. Not to mention, he used chemical weapons against his own people. He used them in the mid-90s on the Kurds in Northern Iraq, killing an estimated 300,000 people. Whether or not he had weapons during the time of the invasion, who knows. I can tell you however that Saddam neither confirmed or denied possessing WMDs in order to keep control over his people. If the Iraqi people, particularly the Shi'a learned of Saddam's loss of absolute power, there would be an uprising. It just so happened an attack on Saddam's regime came from outside sources, about 6 years too late. As and with Libya you "the all-powerful" NATO doesn't want to help civilians, the reason of intervention oil. All in this world turns round oil. I take it you haven't seen the gas prices lately. Hate to break it to you, without oil the whole world will literally stop. Rescue of civilians the purpose noble, but it is reached absolutely not by noble actions. On me of NATO time has rushed to the aid that land operations would bring much less victims than bombardment, let even the aim. I will guarantee you that a ground operation will cause the deaths of more soldiers and civilians. Not to mention who knows whether Col. Gadaffi is willing to use his country's armament of chemical and biological weapons on the coalition. When ground forces are committed to a conflict, things get ugly. The NATO involvement in Kosovo became a much cleaner operation because it was fought exclusively from the air. So to you to listen to the NATO warm and fuzzy. Don't consider as deviation from a theme, simply wanted to ask for a long time already. How you think armed forces of Georgia has attacked Ossetia and have shot the Russian peacemakers or all has occurred on the contrary? The Russian peacemakers have shot the Georgian military men? The most recent war between Russia and Georgia was a very, very delicate matter. The US does support the sovereignty of Georgia but if any intervention was done by the US government or NATO, surely World War III would start. The Soviet Union may have fallen, but in my honest opinion, the Cold War between the United States and Russia is far from over. I love Russia and the Russian culture, but tensions still remain between the two nations. Link to post Share on other sites
Ant Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 The prices at us always above than in Europe though we export oil and gas. But aren't subject to sharp jumps of the price for raw materials. I can't understand one why when 1979 of the USSR have intruded in Afghanistan on purpose to help the peace population of the country and to stop a stream of drugs going to the country. The USSR there and then became an empire of evil, what we observe now? Than it differs from that that occurs now? Link to post Share on other sites
The Midnight Q Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) The prices at us always above than in Europe though we export oil and gas. But aren't subject to sharp jumps of the price for raw materials. Yup, you've said it. You are not affected by any jump in prices of crude because your country produces enough that you don't import as much oil as most other countries. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, when we experience such spikes, we go mad. I can't understand one why when 1979 of the USSR have intruded in Afghanistan on purpose to help the peace population of the country and to stop a stream of drugs going to the country. The USSR there and then became an empire of evil, what we observe now? Than it differs from that that occurs now? The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was to sustain the Marxist government in Afghanistan and prevent it from becoming a capitalist state. This is exactly the same reason why the United States became involved in the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict- to prevent those countries from becoming fully communist states. The USSR was by no means an "evil" state during the invasion; just the enemy. Just as the United States armed the mujahideen with weapons when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Russia armed the NVA and Vietcong with weapons in Vietnam. Stopping the inflow of heroin from Afghanistan to Russia would've been a positive externality from success but the main objective of the Soviet involvement was to preserve the Marxist government in Afghanistan. Edited March 27, 2011 by sirbenedictvs Link to post Share on other sites
Ant Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Well if to be exact that not support of socialists. (The term the Marxism has become outdated for a long time, we had a socialism) and for the purpose of the aggression prevention from the outside and strengthenings of southern boundaries by a friendly mode in Afghanistan. Was silently will dethrone the president of Afghanistan Hafizulla Amin and the puppet of Soviet Union is led to the power. (I know the history.) approximately the same picture as in Iraq only the reasons and excuses others. We have digressed.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jyk9nfGCpw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe1vNIUGCOo&feature=fvst Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 sorry ppl, but can we turn discussion back to Libya plz... Link to post Share on other sites
i love emma Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Lol just found this topic - trust you to come up with this Chris Gaddafi's son is dead, he is not happy, we decide to help (correction - make matters worse), This will NOT end well at all. Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 P we figured that, but Gaddafi will be beaten... Link to post Share on other sites
The Midnight Q Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Just to be clear. The official objective of the coalition is to stop and/or prevent Gadaffi from using his air power as well as eliminating certain parts of his military infrastructure. The objective is not to oust Gadaffi from power, that's the job of the rebels. Other than independent air support, they're on their own. Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 i know the objective, but the rebels will oust Gaddafi, his territory is starting to dwindle Link to post Share on other sites
The Midnight Q Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 As long as the coalition abides by the objective based on the UN resolution, there would not be an ground forces committed. That way this is hopefully as ugly as it gets. Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 yeah. we dont want a bloodbath... Link to post Share on other sites
i love emma Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) If I ruled the UK , things would be different ... Edited March 27, 2011 by i love emma Link to post Share on other sites
The Midnight Q Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 If I ruled the UK , things would be different ... ...but you don't. Parliament does. Link to post Share on other sites
i love emma Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 One day MWHAHAHACough HAHA coughHA HA ha h a Link to post Share on other sites
Comrade Chris Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 P, u can only dream... Link to post Share on other sites
i love emma Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 You wanna know who i really am - Elizabeth Windsor Yeah babey look whos laughing know - damn -its still you Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now