OT – War #3?

[ocrenter]

This intervention is different than going in and taking out a dictator. here we have a people rising up and ultimately hoping help would arrive once they do rise up. So the intervention is important.

But we definitely can’t own this one, we just can’t afford it.

I think the US knew we have the upper hand in forcing the Europeans to take charge for once. The Europeans were faced with a tidal wave of refugees. let’s just assume eastern libya has a population of 2 million, if kadafi takes over, the majority will try to escape, mostly across the border to egypt, but a large amount across to Italy and France. and then we will have to deal with a huge refugee camp much like the gaza strip except on egyptian soil. where are those going to end up? right across to Italy and France over the next 10 years.

The Europeans were forced to act, they own this and they should.

I think we played this one beautifully.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]This intervention is different than going in and taking out a dictator. here we have a people rising up and ultimately hoping help would arrive once they do rise up. So the intervention is important.

But we definitely can’t own this one, we just can’t afford it.

I think the US knew we have the upper hand in forcing the Europeans to take charge for once. The Europeans were faced with a tidal wave of refugees. let’s just assume eastern libya has a population of 2 million, if kadafi takes over, the majority will try to escape, mostly across the border to egypt, but a large amount across to Italy and France. and then we will have to deal with a huge refugee camp much like the gaza strip except on egyptian soil. where are those going to end up? right across to Italy and France over the next 10 years.

The Europeans were forced to act, they own this and they should.

I think we played this one beautifully.[/quote]

OCR: Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]This intervention is different than going in and taking out a dictator. here we have a people rising up and ultimately hoping help would arrive once they do rise up. So the intervention is important.

But we definitely can’t own this one, we just can’t afford it.

I think the US knew we have the upper hand in forcing the Europeans to take charge for once. The Europeans were faced with a tidal wave of refugees. let’s just assume eastern libya has a population of 2 million, if kadafi takes over, the majority will try to escape, mostly across the border to egypt, but a large amount across to Italy and France. and then we will have to deal with a huge refugee camp much like the gaza strip except on egyptian soil. where are those going to end up? right across to Italy and France over the next 10 years.

The Europeans were forced to act, they own this and they should.

I think we played this one beautifully.[/quote]

OCR: Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]This intervention is different than going in and taking out a dictator. here we have a people rising up and ultimately hoping help would arrive once they do rise up. So the intervention is important.

But we definitely can’t own this one, we just can’t afford it.

I think the US knew we have the upper hand in forcing the Europeans to take charge for once. The Europeans were faced with a tidal wave of refugees. let’s just assume eastern libya has a population of 2 million, if kadafi takes over, the majority will try to escape, mostly across the border to egypt, but a large amount across to Italy and France. and then we will have to deal with a huge refugee camp much like the gaza strip except on egyptian soil. where are those going to end up? right across to Italy and France over the next 10 years.

The Europeans were forced to act, they own this and they should.

I think we played this one beautifully.[/quote]

OCR: Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]This intervention is different than going in and taking out a dictator. here we have a people rising up and ultimately hoping help would arrive once they do rise up. So the intervention is important.

But we definitely can’t own this one, we just can’t afford it.

I think the US knew we have the upper hand in forcing the Europeans to take charge for once. The Europeans were faced with a tidal wave of refugees. let’s just assume eastern libya has a population of 2 million, if kadafi takes over, the majority will try to escape, mostly across the border to egypt, but a large amount across to Italy and France. and then we will have to deal with a huge refugee camp much like the gaza strip except on egyptian soil. where are those going to end up? right across to Italy and France over the next 10 years.

The Europeans were forced to act, they own this and they should.

I think we played this one beautifully.[/quote]

OCR: Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=ocrenter]This intervention is different than going in and taking out a dictator. here we have a people rising up and ultimately hoping help would arrive once they do rise up. So the intervention is important.

But we definitely can’t own this one, we just can’t afford it.

I think the US knew we have the upper hand in forcing the Europeans to take charge for once. The Europeans were faced with a tidal wave of refugees. let’s just assume eastern libya has a population of 2 million, if kadafi takes over, the majority will try to escape, mostly across the border to egypt, but a large amount across to Italy and France. and then we will have to deal with a huge refugee camp much like the gaza strip except on egyptian soil. where are those going to end up? right across to Italy and France over the next 10 years.

The Europeans were forced to act, they own this and they should.

I think we played this one beautifully.[/quote]

OCR: Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.[/quote]

so what would President Allan have done so far? (serious question, no sarcasm).

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.[/quote]

so what would President Allan have done so far? (serious question, no sarcasm).

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.[/quote]

so what would President Allan have done so far? (serious question, no sarcasm).

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.[/quote]

so what would President Allan have done so far? (serious question, no sarcasm).

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Good post, except I disagree that we played this beautifully. We haven’t played any of these scenarios (Egypt, Libya, etc, etc) correctly, and Obama and Co. (with the exception of Hillary Clinton) have proven to be rank amateurs throughout.

The problem with allowing the Europeans to “own” this, is that they won’t. And we all know it. Why? Because they’re bigger pussies than Obama.

So they’ll fart around for another couple of weeks, trying to decide which country is responsible for what actions, and, in the meantime, the rebels get bombed out of existence and its game over.

Gaddafi is one of the biggest hairbags out there and ousting him from power is a Good Thing. Yeah, I know, what might happen next? I don’t know, but its better than having him in power.[/quote]

so what would President Allan have done so far? (serious question, no sarcasm).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

OCR: Maintaining a no-fly zone isn’t easy, especially when you’re seeking to do so (as Italy and France will do) over the Med. They’ll have the use of the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, but will likely deploy most of their aircraft from ground-based facilities, which means travel times of around an hour to an hour and a half to Libya and it also means airborne refueling.

Easier still would be to use US subs in the Med and hit Gaddafi’s airfields and support infrastructure (i.e. radar, refueling and re-arming facilities) with sub-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles (carrying conventional warheads). This way, we don’t have commit US ground based forces (out of Aviano and Sigonella), nor do we have to pull a carrier battle group into the Med (there isn’t one there presently).

Gaddafi has been able to swing the battle back in his favor through the use of air power, as well as using a “fire brigade” system, whereby he choppers his mercenaries to various hot spots. If you eliminate these capabilities, you level the playing field for the rebels.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

OCR: Maintaining a no-fly zone isn’t easy, especially when you’re seeking to do so (as Italy and France will do) over the Med. They’ll have the use of the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, but will likely deploy most of their aircraft from ground-based facilities, which means travel times of around an hour to an hour and a half to Libya and it also means airborne refueling.

Easier still would be to use US subs in the Med and hit Gaddafi’s airfields and support infrastructure (i.e. radar, refueling and re-arming facilities) with sub-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles (carrying conventional warheads). This way, we don’t have commit US ground based forces (out of Aviano and Sigonella), nor do we have to pull a carrier battle group into the Med (there isn’t one there presently).

Gaddafi has been able to swing the battle back in his favor through the use of air power, as well as using a “fire brigade” system, whereby he choppers his mercenaries to various hot spots. If you eliminate these capabilities, you level the playing field for the rebels.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

OCR: Maintaining a no-fly zone isn’t easy, especially when you’re seeking to do so (as Italy and France will do) over the Med. They’ll have the use of the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, but will likely deploy most of their aircraft from ground-based facilities, which means travel times of around an hour to an hour and a half to Libya and it also means airborne refueling.

Easier still would be to use US subs in the Med and hit Gaddafi’s airfields and support infrastructure (i.e. radar, refueling and re-arming facilities) with sub-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles (carrying conventional warheads). This way, we don’t have commit US ground based forces (out of Aviano and Sigonella), nor do we have to pull a carrier battle group into the Med (there isn’t one there presently).

Gaddafi has been able to swing the battle back in his favor through the use of air power, as well as using a “fire brigade” system, whereby he choppers his mercenaries to various hot spots. If you eliminate these capabilities, you level the playing field for the rebels.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

OCR: Maintaining a no-fly zone isn’t easy, especially when you’re seeking to do so (as Italy and France will do) over the Med. They’ll have the use of the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, but will likely deploy most of their aircraft from ground-based facilities, which means travel times of around an hour to an hour and a half to Libya and it also means airborne refueling.

Easier still would be to use US subs in the Med and hit Gaddafi’s airfields and support infrastructure (i.e. radar, refueling and re-arming facilities) with sub-launched cruise missiles and ballistic missiles (carrying conventional warheads). This way, we don’t have commit US ground based forces (out of Aviano and Sigonella), nor do we have to pull a carrier battle group into the Med (there isn’t one there presently).

Gaddafi has been able to swing the battle back in his favor through the use of air power, as well as using a “fire brigade” system, whereby he choppers his mercenaries to various hot spots. If you eliminate these capabilities, you level the playing field for the rebels.

[Author]

Posts