|
Libya Situation (pg. 57)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| srussell0018 |
| "Politics" by The17sss |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
My god you are the dumbest piece of I've ever seen. First of all, I didn't vanish due to your "fabulously fabulous" winning arguments... I merely sat back and watched PKC take over, since you two started getting into it.
YOUR WORDS :
Doesn't matter if "the jets were assigned to NATO and are operating under their command"... THEY ARE U.S. JETS, THEREFORE U.S. ASSETS, FLOWN BY U.S. PILOTS. They are just "under someone else's command."
And it doesn't matter that "Libya rebels urged the U.S. to bring back bombers". The reason doesn't matter- THE BOMBERS ARE U.S. BOMBERS, THEREFORE U.S. ASSETS that you so smugly instructed me were no longer part of the mission.
Did you not read this passage either?
ZERO ASSETS huh? "In and out of there" huh? Who's the ing pleb!? Man I've never seen anyone so ing wrong act so confidently that they are right. Wow... what a useless you are. |
hehehehehehe. You backed out and let someone else takeover? Lol, don't try it. You got hammered and crawled away limping.
Learn to deal when someone hands it to you, pleb.
NATO are flying missions and that's the end of it. The USA has no autonomous control or missions. They are NATO military missions nothing more, which is a big difference (no us central command, far less numbers and type of aircraft, support, personnel, money, etc etc etc).
Pleb. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
He does have a point. Just because the "freedom fighters" of Africa are using AK-47s doesn't mean Russia is involved in the blood diamond trade.
Edit: A point. Not a very good one, but still a point. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Read what you just wrote. "Privatised warfare"; using US tax dollars to par for a war; Using the premise of war to massively expand defense spending that hugely benefited private companies, not to mention oil companies that are now able to operate in Iraq. |
But you haven’t shown that this was the motivation for war. In the absence of other compelling reasons I might be persuaded, but the time line and justifications are fairly well established. Indeed those in the white house attempted to link saddam with 911- there was no reason to do this if all they really wanted was a war against anyone in order to make personal private fortunes. They wanted to war against saddam for the reasons I have previously given. Yes, there was lots of profiteering (which is a disgrace) but wasn’t the motivation behind it. They ended up attacking Afghanistan first, because that’s where AQ’s stronghold was.
So, as I said before, if we all accept that the military industrial complex secretly controls foreign policy, I was illustrating why Iraq (and Afghanistan) were chosen for these wars for profit, rather than other nations. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
hehehehehehe. You backed out and let someone else takeover? Lol, don't try it. You got hammered and crawled away limping.
Learn to deal when someone hands it to you, pleb. |
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back smart guy. Your tin foil hat conspiracy theory still didn't hold water, PKC just happened to articulate it much better and further than me, which I gladly admit, and so I let him run with it. No shame in that.
| quote: | NATO are flying missions and that's the end of it. The USA has no autonomous control or missions. They are NATO military missions nothing more, which is a big difference (no us central command, far less numbers and type of aircraft, support, personnel, money, etc etc etc).
Pleb. |
So after the article points out that 35% of NATO's overall flight missions are using U.S. fueling planes, U.S. bombers, and U.S. pilots.... you're still going to tell me there are zero U.S. assets involved and that you were right?
:stongue: |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Hot&Cold
I would imagine so. |
No. It is so. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back smart guy. Your tin foil hat conspiracy theory still didn't hold water, PKC just happened to articulate it much better and further than me, which I gladly admit, and so I let him run with it. No shame in that.
So after the article points out that 35% of NATO's overall flight missions are using U.S. fueling planes, U.S. bombers, and U.S. pilots.... you're still going to tell me there are zero U.S. assets involved and that you were right?
:stongue: |
Didn't you hear? They painted American insignias on the planes before they went into battle to make them appear like it is the Americans. Damned Jews!! |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back smart guy. Your tin foil hat conspiracy theory still didn't hold water, PKC just happened to articulate it much better and further than me, which I gladly admit, and so I let him run with it. No shame in that.
So after the article points out that 35% of NATO's overall flight missions are using U.S. fueling planes, U.S. bombers, and U.S. pilots.... you're still going to tell me there are zero U.S. assets involved and that you were right?
:stongue: |
I don't know. I, personally, wouldn't consider them to be U.S. assets if they're under the command of NATO. However, I also aren't the one arguing that there is no U.S. presence there. That's a pretty naive assumption to make, in my opinion.
Rann, people aren't divided into the good guys and the bad guys; it's not so black and white. While I think the war in Iraq was a terrible idea from the start, and I think that some of the people who were in charge of it made money off it is disgusting, I think it's pretty naive to say that they just wanted to go in for money. There were multiple reasons, PKC has stated them, for us going in; though I personally don't agree with them.
Also, can you ing spell Cheney correctly, god dammit? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Lews is right, while US assets are involved, including elements in command and control, battle planning comes down to NATO which has to be considered an entity on its own in this situation.
The reason the US isn't going to pack up and go "well our job is done here" and no longer commit is because they have the obligation to uphold their duties as part of NATO and an action like that could set a dangerous precedent for other countries involved in NATO missions.
Because the US provides a huge proportion of the actual operational ability of NATO its not surprising that our assets are utilized in the fight still.
I have no idea why people are arguing over this anyways, its ing stupid. The Air Force has been itching for a fight for a long time. The bomb trucks been getting all the jobs in Afghanistan and the Navy was the major air power in Iraq, so the AF fighter jocks are happy. Let them have their day in the sun. :p |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
...US assets are involved... |
This is all I need to make my point that RANN is an uninformed dumbass who can't admit he's wrong. I don't care if they're under Ronald McDonald's direction at the moment, they are still U.S. owned and operated assets and fully involved in the mission.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
You can suppose whatever you want about the future but the USA as of right now has zero assets active in Libya. |
Admit you were wrong, fag. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I think it's pretty naive to say that they just wanted to go in for money. There were multiple reasons, PKC has stated them, for us going in; though I personally don't agree with them.
|
Dont forget, George W also had to do what Senior couldn't in 1990. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
This is all I need to make my point that RANN is an uninformed dumbass who can't admit he's wrong. I don't care if they're under Ronald McDonald's direction at the moment, they are still U.S. owned and operated assets and fully involved in the mission.
Admit you were wrong, fag. |
Don't get Butthurt (or homophobic) just becuase you're too dumb to understand what's going in other parts of the world.
NATO has forces there, all under NATO control, NOT US control or command, dip. The USAF is not flying missions there for the USA, nor do they have any central command over NATO assets. As I said several pages ago, and as repeated on this page, the USA is a member of NATO and has obligations to perform as part of a NATO controlled military force.
It's not even a discussion point that US planes or pilots are being used, as they are under full NATO control. If you're too thick to understand this, please just keep jacking off to your easy-wipe pictures of Ronald Reagan and leave this thread alone.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Rann, people aren't divided into the good guys and the bad guys; it's not so black and white. While I think the war in Iraq was a terrible idea from the start, and I think that some of the people who were in charge of it made money off it is disgusting, I think it's pretty naive to say that they just wanted to go in for money. There were multiple reasons, PKC has stated them, for us going in; though I personally don't agree with them.
|
I have never once stated or inferred they are, or that any situation is black or white. This whole time I've been saying the machinations are incredibly complex, but distilled down to it's , I believe it was, and is about money. You're assuming that I don't have a grasp of complex issues or a full understanding, but I assure you I get every little detail, it's just have a different conclusion; I've posted up snapshots of how deep the financial interests and profiteering has been, and that really is the tip of the iceberg, just the we get to know about.
Christ, I myself indirectly made money from the iraq war, working for a copper cable supplier in the UK, to help "rebuild iraq". This was just a small company working for one contracted broadcast installer, (of a 1000 others in Iraq) due to the rebuilding efforts. Just think about every aspect of infrastructure - the true and incredibly broad scope of what the Oil and defense industry (and everything that goes with it) has made out of the war.
I really don't care if people think otherwise, but I was old enough to understand the first iraq conflict, when Bush Snr actually had a somewhat legitimate reason for taking out Saddam, so I know the reasons given the second Bush Administration were just thin smoke and mirrors.
I have yet to hear valid reasons about why we did go to war. I've heard a lot of bull since and just try to remember EXACTLY what we were told at the time.
It was simply about the fact that Saddam allegedly had WMD's. There actually was no UN precident or allowance to go in to to Iraq, and certainly not remove him for "humanitarian" reasons. Yes, he did a great job of blagging that he did have them but I believe at a point before the war, they knew it wasn't the case and suppressed the fact as "the decider" had already decided and the calculations had already long been done.
It has now been proven that there was a concerted effort to create or push intelligence that validated the necessity for invasion, at all costs, including the firing and demotion of people who questioned it, not to mention the plame affair. Yeah, saddam bullted about having them, but so do a dozen other countries, and the main problem is that there was simply no proof, and even the weapons inspectors were telling us this.
We now know Bush changes the narrative on why we were in Iraq, after we got there. This is an important distinction, as unlike the USA or at last Bush's sentiments, the UK could never have gone to war based on the premise of regime change, hence why the "sexed up" and "45 minute" documents were needed prior to invasion. They HAD to use the excuse of WMD's or it wasn't going to fly.
And look what happened. Blair and Brown paid with their careers when it became obvious we had gone in under false pretenses. Blair went from golden boy and respected world leader, to a political leper at least in the UK.
So all this aside then, why did we go to war?
Nation building? Reducing dependence on Foreign Oil? Removing an evil dictator? Saving the Kurds? Spreading democracy?
Really? You believe that ? Because I don't and it's the type of usual republican language that seems to appeal to the dimly lit and under educated.
Why spend billions doing this? Why loose thousands of lives over this?
The only thing that makes sense, was is the rewards for those involved, regardless of the intentions; It's easy to make "difficult" decisions, if you know you're going to get paid hard and get executive immunity regardless of your actions.
However, I do think Alfi has a point about finishing what Daddy didn't. Ego does play in to this somewhere, especially judging what we now know about Bush Jnr.
And no, I won't ing spell Cheney correctly if I can help it :p |
|
|
|
|
