NATO dragging it’s feet?

P

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,995
Reaction score
4
From my (admittedly) distant perspective it seems like NATO is dragging its feet in Libya. A clear-cut baddie who is massively outgunned, buy-in from multiple nations, relatively low risk and a pretty simple combat environment. A single coastal road surrounded by desert. The ones chasing are the baddies. The ones running away are the goodies. A distinct separation. How difficult could it be to shoot-up the baddies from the air? Yet ‘heavy weather’ is being made of this.

My cynical view is that this is being regarded as a training opportunity. An expensive training exercise which the taxpayer can be, more easily, persuaded to fund than the usual meaningless training maneuvers.

I am ambiguous about this, and don’t necessarily condemn it outright. NATO needs sharp teeth to operate effectively. It’s just that so many must die.
Click to expand...

Consider:
#1 It’s a real conflict situation (although low risk) and an opportunity to cycle different nations personnel through ‘real’ combat.
#2 This may well be the model for future warfare. Get experience.
#3 NATO can iron-out hitches and ID problems in coordinating diverse nations.
#4 A showcase for weapons. Lots of free advertising and PR on news channels.
#5 Processes and procedures are refined in separate nations (and NATO).
#6 Not only combat personnel are trained – admin. and maintenance personnel are also trained and ID problems which can occur under real-world conditions.

Etc. etc. bla, bla, fishpaste.
 
No it's simply a politically correct war. They don't want to be seen as instigating "regime change" :o

It's rather ironic the war is mimicking the desert war of WW2. Attacking and then retreating up and down the coastal road. Back and forth lol
 
If they're going to attack Libya then why not a long list of other countries? In fact any country that is defying UN resolutions.
 
Alan said:
No it's simply a politically correct war. They don't want to be seen as instigating "regime change" :o
Click to expand...

That as well. Without ‘troops on the ground’ they can’t be seen as instigating regime change. Just protecting civilian lives. Other countries will object to having their citizen’s die fighting someone else’s battle. By default, it’s PC.
 
It's the moronic hang ups they have. Arabs don't want to see western infidels defeating an Arab regime even if it's an barbaric regime like Gaddafi's while western governments don't want to offend Arab sensibilities and they have their own guilt hangup over "imperialism".



noxibox said:
If they're going to attack Libya then why not a long list of other countries? In fact any country that is defying UN resolutions.
Click to expand...

You think the money and political support for attacking literally dozens of counties grows on trees?
 
Last edited:
noxibox said:
If they're going to attack Libya then why not a long list of other countries? In fact any country that is defying UN resolutions.
Click to expand...

Note: they didn’t ‘attack’ Libya, just prevented slaughter from the Gaddafi butcher.

For the 1st time in their existence they have unprecedented buy-in – even from Arab nations. This is probably the vision that the originators of NATO had. Everything is super legal with even the minimal number of objectors only abstaining from the vote (not exercising their veto).
 
They are not there to over throw the government, they are there to save lives is their story and the rebels don't want ground troops so what do you want them to do?

How do you know the good guys are the rebels? How do you know they are not also the bad guys? Replacing one bad regime with an even worse one could prove disastrous for the UN. Sticky situation, being a rebel does not make you better than the people you are fighting. It just means you oppose them and nobody has any idea who is actually in control of the rebels.
 
killadoob said:
They are not there to over throw the government, they are there to save lives is their story and the rebels don't want ground troops so what do you want them to do?

How do you know the good guys are the rebels? How do you know they are not also the bad guys? Replacing one bad regime with an even worse one could prove disastrous for the UN. Sticky situation, being a rebel does not make you better than the people you are fighting. It just means you oppose them and nobody has any idea who is actually in control of the rebels.
Click to expand...

From the bit i understand, the 'rebels' have said that they want democracy, and peaceful transitions.
 
this whole war effort has boilde down to a "stalemate" with Olpa gadhafi still comfy and in control while the rag tag rebels are running scared like a mice , nato is not helping either ,we now also have claims that al-quaida is looting weapons from militery baracks in the east of lybia thi is turning out to be another arabian night comic show .....
 
Bizkit87 said:
From the bit i understand, the 'rebels' have said that they want democracy, and peaceful transitions.
Click to expand...

See i am conflicted as to who is bad guy, the US say the sunni's are bad but they support saudi. The shias are considered bad because of iran.

So who are the good guys? Sunni's shias? What are the rebels in libya?
 
No Shia in Libya /me thinks. All Sunnis.
 
Palimino said:
Note: they didn’t ‘attack’ Libya, just prevented slaughter from the Gaddafi butcher.

For the 1st time in their existence they have unprecedented buy-in – even from Arab nations. This is probably the vision that the originators of NATO had. Everything is super legal with even the minimal number of objectors only abstaining from the vote (not exercising their veto).
Click to expand...
It is an attack. They or anyone else can spin it any way they like and it will still be an attack. And why single out Gaddafi? Are they going to be consistent in supporting rebels regardless of the country? Why is everyone buying into this particular attack?
 
killadoob said:
How do you know the good guys are the rebels? How do you know they are not also the bad guys? Replacing one bad regime with an even worse one could prove disastrous for the UN. Sticky situation, being a rebel does not make you better than the people you are fighting. It just means you oppose them and nobody has any idea who is actually in control of the rebels.
Click to expand...
The Taliban being a good example.
 
noxibox said:
It is an attack. They or anyone else can spin it any way they like and it will still be an attack. And why single out Gaddafi? Are they going to be consistent in supporting rebels regardless of the country? Why is everyone buying into this particular attack?
Click to expand...

Oil.
 
Yea iraq is now controlled shias, they are taking over and as far as i can see the rebels seem to be shia who are getting supported by america and saudi who are sunni's so it's all so confusing.

Perhaps it is the sunni's who are bad and the US has said they are bad yet they cimb into bed with sunni run saudi, so WTF is going on and WTF are good and bad guys?

Anybody here got some insight?

WOW

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12969004 so fast.
 
Last edited:
killadoob said:
Yea iraq is now controlled shias, they are taking over and as far as i can see the rebels seem to be shia who are getting supported by america and saudi who are sunni's so it's all so confusing.

Perhaps it is the sunni's who are bad and the US has said they are bad yet they cimb into bed with sunni run saudi, so WTF is going on and WTF are good and bad guys?

Anybody here got some insight?
Click to expand...

Two legs good, four legs bad.

In years to come, historians will refer to this period in our history as the "Energy wars" or the " Oil wars"

Whomever sides with the Good Old USA is the good guys.

The USA won't involve themselves in an armed conflict unless it serves their interest and the country involved does not have oil.

The Ivory Coast is a case in point.
You do not see Allied planes bombing the Ivory Coast, do you?
Why would that be?

No oil.
 
Alan said:
UN, French forces attack Gbagbo bases in Ivory Coast

By the way where are the vast oil fields in Korea?
Click to expand...

In regards to ivory coast i don't see any US interest going on there so why did you put it in the post? Is the US assisting them in anyway? Would there be anything going on if the UN and french decided not to do anything? Would the US get involved?

They want them as allies alan regarding point 2 of your post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X