• Libyan 'War' Megathread - Any news pertaining to surgical strikes is to be posted HERE
    1,053 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Contag;28731515]I merely phrased the 'it's for oil!' argument in far more detailed light. I'm sorry if you're utterly unable to grasp that economic objectives are key determinants of foreign policy.[/QUOTE]You were looking for things in his post that just weren't there, and putting words in his mouth. He was referring specifically and only to oil. Read it again.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;28731563]You were looking for things in his post that just weren't there, and putting words in his mouth. He was referring specifically and only to oil. Read it again.[/QUOTE] Oil is a big part of those economic interests.
[QUOTE=Contag;28732255]Oil is a big part of those economic interests.[/QUOTE]Are you dense? You were saying that he denied that economic interests in general were motivating the intervention, and that he was denying that the institution of democracy and free-market in Libya would benefit the rest of the world. He said [B]NOTHING[/b] of the sort, you were putting words in his mouth. He was specifically countering the claims of oil imperialism being involved in this case. Now if you're done making a strawman of his post, we can move onto something else
In that regard, yes, the argument that the US is intervening in Libya [B]solely[/B] for oil is stupid. The more nuanced argument, that economic interests [B]including oil[/B] guide US foreign policy rather humanitarian concerns, is what I am arguing. I was assuming that everyone else arguing that the US is going to Libya for oil (among other things) was following my line of thought.
.....Then how come its the British and French doing most of this :v: *conspiracy theory trap set*
[QUOTE=Contag;28732452]In that regard, yes, the argument that the US is intervening in Libya [B]solely[/B] for oil is stupid.[/quote]Which was all his post was about. Just refrain from making a straw man of people's posts. Put another way, it's like if I were to say "I don't think the MMR vaccine causes autism, because research by the doctor who made that claim was falsified for personal financial interests, for which he was struck from the Medical Register.", and you replied with "So you're saying that there has never been a case of abusive medical experiments or illegal medication usage by doctors? What about the Nazi experiements, or Harold Shipman?"
[quote]Just refrain from making a straw man of people's posts.[/quote] But how else can I argue with people? Generally they're being reasonable!
[QUOTE=Contag;28733152]But how else can I argue with people? Generally they're being reasonable![/QUOTE] We're even being....unreasonably reasonable.
that sounds like something hitler would say.
[QUOTE=RagamuffinIIII;28733401]that sounds like something hitler would say.[/QUOTE] What are your hitlerameters?
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28730008]Once again, you are still judging his actions from our Western perspective. To take an example, you know what the US Army in the 1980s believed what kind of commander the Soviet "scientific view of war" breeded? Without typing out an entire lecture, rigid and unflexible officers (a generally unfavorable view) unsuited for the modern battlefield when in reality it was very much the opposite. It was from that inaccurate judgement that AirLand Battle was formed on (read FM 100-5, 1986 edition). Even though it's now outdated, I can't see it being decisively effective against Soviet doctrine in the late '80s.[/quote] The entire point of my post was that I was differentiating between our actual view of military action from a resource based one. [quote]Suicide runs with combat aircraft are indeed unorthodox, but it's up to you if you want to dismiss anything that doesn't look right to you as "absolutely stupid".[/quote] Given that I've only heard of the rebels capturing Mig-23BN's (Of which, only a spare few), which are specifically designed for ground attack operations, I assume that it was the aircraft used. If the actual aircraft differs then my opinion may very well change (A Mig 21, for instance, has virtually no ground attack capabilities). So, assuming he took a 23, he took a ground attack aircraft capable of leveling at LEAST a full city block with relatively little effort and crashed it into a strategically unimportant target, sacrificing both one of a very few aircraft operating on his side, and likely one of relatively few available combat pilots. Any way you slice this, the end result just doesn't add up. The value of the lost equipment and manpower doesn't even begin to match the value of the target destroyed. NOW we add in the value of a human life being expended for this attack, and it REALLY doesn't match up. So either it was a poor strategic decision (Which is very likely with a rebel force) or it was that particular pilot just out for revenge. Neither of which is very good. So no, I'm not dismissing it. I'm taking the available information, analyzing it, and pointing out that, unless there is a huge portion of information missing (Like his brother's handprint was the only one that could access the mustard gas storage), then this wasn't a good idea. [quote]...as long as said armored division is right out in the open. Iraq loved to do that back in 1991. Giulio Douhet's theories are amusing. Isn't it good that most of America's state adversaries are dumb enough not to think of the many counters out there?[/QUOTE] Yeah, and it didn't work out well for Iraq. The vast majority of their armored divisions were still in ruins when we showed up for 2. The many counters? For a B-2? Libya doesn't exactly have a lot of options. The B-2's are pretty hard to counter without a network of interlacing RADAR and reasonably fast air-supremacy aircraft. Even then, you'd have a hell of a time countering them. If they had available countermeasures, we either wouldn't use them, or we would send escorts. You can always conceal targets, but that is true of any attack aircraft. Again, they operate at a strategic level. If you are hiding entire armored divisions, then they aren't really doing much anyways. If they decide to move the armored division and attack with it, then the bomber is going to show up and annihilate them anyways. Yes, you can hide stuff from the air, but it cripples your mobility completely.
[QUOTE=RagamuffinIIII;28733401]that sounds like something hitler would say.[/QUOTE] :godwin: godwin's law strikes again
[QUOTE=goon165;28735587]:godwin: godwin's law strikes again[/QUOTE] No, you just missed the joke.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;28735650]No, you just missed the joke.[/QUOTE] No, I was adding to it.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28735582]The entire point of my post was that I was differentiating between our actual view of military action from a resource based one. Given that I've only heard of the rebels capturing Mig-23BN's (Of which, only a spare few), which are specifically designed for ground attack operations, I assume that it was the aircraft used. If the actual aircraft differs then my opinion may very well change (A Mig 21, for instance, has virtually no ground attack capabilities).[/quote] Virtually none? The MiG-21 can mount rocket pods or iron bombs to provide CAS. [quote]So, assuming he took a 23, he took a ground attack aircraft capable of leveling at LEAST a full city block with relatively little effort and crashed it into a strategically unimportant target, sacrificing both one of a very few aircraft operating on his side, and likely one of relatively few available combat pilots. Any way you slice this, the end result just doesn't add up. The value of the lost equipment and manpower doesn't even begin to match the value of the target destroyed. NOW we add in the value of a human life being expended for this attack, and it REALLY doesn't match up. So either it was a poor strategic decision (Which is very likely with a rebel force) or it was that particular pilot just out for revenge. Neither of which is very good. So no, I'm not dismissing it. I'm taking the available information, analyzing it, and pointing out that, unless there is a huge portion of information missing (Like his brother's handprint was the only one that could access the mustard gas storage), then this wasn't a good idea.[/quote] Hey, each to their down then. You have your American/Western viewpoint and the deceased Libyan pilot had his own. There's no "right" or "wrong" way in the conduct of war. [quote]Yeah, and it didn't work out well for Iraq. The vast majority of their armored divisions were still in ruins when we showed up for 2.[/quote] Of course, they're Iraqis. Did you think that they would be a competent adversary? [quote]The many counters? For a B-2? Libya doesn't exactly have a lot of options. The B-2's are pretty hard to counter without a network of interlacing RADAR and reasonably fast air-supremacy aircraft. Even then, you'd have a hell of a time countering them. If they had available countermeasures, we either wouldn't use them, or we would send escorts.[/quote] It's a given that Libya doesn't have the means necessary to even employ any counters. Against a peer opponent that can change. There is no such thing as an ultimate weapon and there will never will be one. [quote]You can always conceal targets, but that is true of any attack aircraft. Again, they operate at a strategic level. If you are hiding entire armored divisions, then they aren't really doing much anyways. If they decide to move the armored division and attack with it, then the bomber is going to show up and annihilate them anyways. Yes, you can hide stuff from the air, but it cripples your mobility completely.[/QUOTE] The aim of concealing your major ground forces at least in the Russian view is to make your enemy deplete his stock of precision-guided weapons by getting him to expend munitions on operationally unimportant targets or false ones. Once PGMs have dwindled to a point where they no longer can have an operational impact then it's a free range for major ground forces. (This is important, as Western style militaries today base much of their correlation of forces and means on the power of precision weapons) The initial period of war doesn't have to be balls to the wall, everything has to be used on the attack on day one.
Cameron thinks Gadaffi is a target, MoD doesn't want to consider it, interesting. [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/muammar-gaddafi-david-cameron-libya[/url]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;28727391]Those B-2's gonna have like a redbull tank somewhere in there.[/QUOTE] Red Bull is the only fuel extreme enough to power something as awesome as a stealth bomber. :v:
you kidding? B2s [i]run[/i] on Red bull.
[QUOTE=RAG Frag;28736501]Cameron thinks Gadaffi is a target, MoD doesn't want to consider it, interesting. [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/muammar-gaddafi-david-cameron-libya[/url][/QUOTE] It's not a good sign when the country that writes a UN resolution does not understand what it allows / does not allow. I don't think they can legally target Gaddafi, killing him would not help enforce the no fly zone nor would it protect civilians (Well in the long term it probably would, so they could argue that). I don't think the West taking out Gaddafi would be a good idea anyway, if the people of Libya want to get rid of him it should be their own doing not the doing of the west or the UN.
[QUOTE=space toe;28736871]you kidding? B2s [i]run[/i] on Red bull.[/QUOTE] Yes, we use energy drinks to fuel our billion dollar aircraft. What do you think they use as fuel in the RedBull Air Race?
Did Aljazerra's stream just die?
I'm not able to access the steam via the site or YouTube. [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] Try this: [url]http://www.livestation.com/channels/3-al_jazeera_english[/url]
Maybe we should supply the rebels with a bunch of armed Toyota pickups and teach them to conduct raids LRDG-style. I mean the Chadians did it back in the '80s and totally beat the Libyans. :v: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War[/url]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28736300]Virtually none? The MiG-21 can mount rocket pods or iron bombs to provide CAS.[/QUOTE] It can barely carry any ordinance and, due to the delta wing design, gives almost no warning during slower speeds that you are about to stall. The design was for high speed air to air combat, rocket runs at lower speeds can be extremely dangerous with such an aircraft. The delta design in general can make the aircraft dangerous at lower speeds as it makes the stall speed extremely difficult to judge. Basically with the fishbed, if you really wanted a ground target dead, ramming into the building might be feasible because your aircraft simply isn't designed to engage ground targets. You almost undoubtedly lack any sort of electronic guidance support for such activities, much less the necessary training.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28739958]It can barely carry any ordinance and, due to the delta wing design, gives almost no warning during slower speeds that you are about to stall. The design was for high speed air to air combat, rocket runs at lower speeds can be extremely dangerous with such an aircraft. The delta design in general can make the aircraft dangerous at lower speeds as it makes the stall speed extremely difficult to judge. Basically with the fishbed, if you really wanted a ground target dead, ramming into the building might be feasible because your aircraft simply isn't designed to engage ground targets. You almost undoubtedly lack any sort of electronic guidance support for such activities, much less the necessary training.[/QUOTE] My area of interest is not in the rivet-counting of aircraft I must say, but the MiG-21 has been used successfully for ground attack by various Soviet client states in the past. Just because it can't drop the latest in hi-tech guided ordnance, or carry a large amount of unguided ordnance doesn't mean it's absolutely useless. Reading past translated issues of a few Soviet military journals, they did see the viability of using them in support of ground forces in the absence of specialized attack aircraft (Su-7s and similar beasts) before the full range of stuff like Su-25s and MiG-27s were present in the frontal Air Armies. [editline]21st March 2011[/editline] But this is Libya we're talking about now, not whether the MiG-21 can be used for ground-attack missions.
I think we should just mind our own damn business. It's all well and good to set out to remove a brutal dictator- but the problem is that once you intervene, you own that problem. You'd think the world would have learned from the Iraq war, after so many years.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;28742085]I think we should just mind our own damn business. It's all well and good to set out to remove a brutal dictator- but the problem is that once you intervene, you own that problem. You'd think the world would have learned from the Iraq war, after so many years.[/QUOTE] There's always the middle ground: Cruise missile diplomacy
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28739715]Maybe we should supply the rebels with a bunch of armed Toyota pickups and teach them to conduct raids LRDG-style. I mean the Chadians did it back in the '80s and totally beat the Libyans. :v: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War[/URL][/QUOTE] I've actually seen many pictures where the rebels have mounted AA on toyota pickups :D
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28739715]Maybe we should supply the rebels with a bunch of armed Toyota pickups and teach them to conduct raids LRDG-style. I mean the Chadians did it back in the '80s and totally beat the Libyans. :v: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War[/url][/QUOTE] On the downside, sitting in a pickup truck is a nice way to become bullet catchers for small arms fire, especially in urban combat. It's not so bad when you're racing around in technical on a sandy boarder stretch, but in urban combat it's a good way to get lit up. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAZ7dTwujNM[/url] Since it's a revolution, I'd imagine lots of fighting will be happening in urban areas.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;28743461]On the downside, sitting in a pickup truck is a nice way to become bullet catchers for small arms fire, especially in urban combat. It's not so bad when you're racing around in technical on a sandy boarder stretch, but in urban combat it's a good way to get lit up. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAZ7dTwujNM[/url] Since it's a revolution, I'd imagine lots of fighting will be happening in urban areas.[/QUOTE] I'd love to know the current SITREP right now. There are actually technicals being used, but not like the Chadians or the LRDG.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.