Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bakerofish wrote:Im thinking efficiency.

No, you aren't. A no-fly zone is extremely efficient compared to an invasion.

Yes, you can call it half-assed all day long, but then I don't particularly care if you think it's that. You're most assuredly wrong about that-- it's not half-assed, rather, it's just all that's necessary. Overdoing a response risks the lives of more soldiers than necessary while also potentially upsetting the situation.

and i notice people are conveniently ignoring my point about stopping air strikes doesnt stop gadaffi from killing his own people.

Bakerofish wrote:and i notice people are conveniently ignoring my point about stopping air strikes doesnt stop gadaffi from killing his own people.

Because the people are winning.

On the ground, Gaffy is being pushed back into his own capital by his own military as it defects over to the rebels. The one card that he has that the rebels can't counter? Air superiority and bombers.

yes the people are winning. I wonder how many civilians have died in the process of this victory.

and i understand the US is winning its war on terror too

how long as that been going on again?

Bakerofish wrote:yes the people are winning. I wonder how many civilians have died in the process of this victory.

and i understand the US is winning its war on terror too

how long as that been going on again?

Equivocate: Backpedal: Equivocate: Backpedal

I think I see a pattern here.

Bakerofish wrote:yes the people are winning. I wonder how many civilians have died in the process of this victory.

how many more are going to die if we invade?

Bakerofish wrote:and i understand the US is winning its war on terror too

how long as that been going on again?

Well, now that Bakerofish has effectively admitted defeat, I'm gonna go over there to some other discussion that does not involved baked fish.

@shuma

care to elaborate on statement? my simple mind may not be grasping the subtleties here.

@warboss

oh a lot thats for sure. tons.

but most of them soldiers. and hopefully most of it going to be on gadaffi's side.

my point: a decisive military action is the best way to STOP a conflict. not supress or stabilize. STOP.

Gadaffi is being pushed back but unless someone puts a bullet in him now I dont see this conflict ending soon. All im seeing here is that Gaddaffi is regrouping and things getting uglier in 3 months time. You think a no fly zone solves the problem? No. its a "reaction" not a solution.

my original point: either stay out or commit.

@melissia
defeat? theres something at stake here? Im still waiting for that third option as i really would love to hear it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
A no-fly zone is extremely efficient compared to an invasion.

Melissia wrote: it's just all that's necessary.

now barring the snide comments id really like to know what you guys are referring to.

A "no fly zone" is extremely efficient and is all thats necessary in doing WHAT exactly?

Bakerofish wrote:@warboss

oh a lot thats for sure. tons.

but most of them soldiers. and hopefully most of it going to be on gadaffi's side.

my point: a decisive military action is the best way to STOP a conflict. not supress or stabilize. STOP.

Gadaffi is being pushed back but unless someone puts a bullet in him now I dont see this conflict ending soon. All im seeing here is that Gaddaffi is regrouping and things getting uglier in 3 months time. You think a no fly zone solves the problem? No. its a "reaction" not a solution.

my original point: either stay out or commit.

A no fly zone isn't intended to solve the problem. It's intended to give the people of Libya breathing room to solve their own problems.

Do you think Gaddaffi's men will kill less civilians if there isn't a no fly zone? Because if that's the case, you're either trolling or so misinformed that you can be effectively ignored without missing anything.

And if it isn't, then your conclusion contradicts you premises. We should kick Gaddaffi's teeth in because he's killing civilians! But we shouldn't institute a noflyzone, despite the fact that that would effectively halve his ability to kill civilians!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:A "no fly zone" is extremely efficient and is all thats necessary in doing WHAT exactly?

it would be an extremely efficient and effective way of giving the Libyan people the support they need to take back their country for themselves, rather than taking it back for them and in doing so making any government put in place regarded as an American puppet.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Again you're missing the number of times we put bombs and/or missiles on SAM sites and radar installations that lit us up.

I freely admit I have learned from the Iraq fiasco.

How many years are gong to keep this no fly zone in place?

What are you going to do when the bodies start being shown on TV? What about when children get accidently zapped?

What do those pilots do when they see government forces/rebel group A massacring rebel group B or other civilians?

I think we'd stop once Gadaffi fell and no ones ordering the planes to bomb protesters any more. We're not in it to win it like in Iraq, we have no real vested interest beyond short term stability in libya. You should probably stop comparing the two so heavily, the situations are really quite different.

What if he doesn't fall? How long?
What if they shoot at our guys? what then?
What if our guys respond and kill 9 kids when the ordnance comes down? What then? When are you going to start the hate America bandwagon?

@warboss

okay its a bit clearer now.

i never said dont institute a no fly zone. Im saying thats half the solution.

if all you care about is stopping the bombing, then yes i agree a no fly zone helps.

my entire premise in this debate is "all in or nothing" as an END to this conflict. period.

i just dont see the point of spending millions of dollars and thousands of lives over the course of years when there is a way to end the conflict within months and with less civilian lives lost.

get my point?

Bakerofish wrote:@warboss

okay its a bit clearer now.

i never said dont institute a no fly zone. Im saying thats half the solution.

if all you care about is stopping the bombing, then yes i agree a no fly zone helps.

my entire premise in this debate is "all in or nothing" as an END to this conflict. period.

i just dont see the point of spending millions of dollars and thousands of lives over the course of years when there is a way to end the conflict within months and with less civilian lives lost.

get my point?

If the US comes in and takes out Gaddafi, he becomes a martyr. It does not end the conflict. It may well last for years. Americans will be stationed in Libya, probably for years, even if Gaddafi falls in months, to help rebuild the country.

It is not a quick in and out. Stop acting like it is.

Melissia wrote:Yes, you can call it half-assed all day long, but then I don't particularly care if you think it's that. You're most assuredly wrong about that-- it's not half-assed, rather, it's just all that's necessary. Overdoing a response risks the lives of more soldiers than necessary while also potentially upsetting the situation.

And you're most assuredly wrong about putting our men and women in harm's for a country that has no appreciable benefit to us.

What if he doesn't fall? How long?

Reevaluate and change tactics.

What if they shoot at our guys? what then?

Reevaluate and change tactics.

What if our guys respond and kill 9 kids when the ordnance comes down? What then? When are you going to start the hate America bandwagon?

Reevaluate and change tactics.


We aren't writing in a stone tablet here, you do realize that at any time we can just stop what we're doing or change it right?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:yes the people are winning. I wonder how many civilians have died in the process of this victory.

and i understand the US is winning its war on terror too

how long as that been going on again?

Equivocate: Backpedal: Equivocate: Backpedal

I think I see a pattern here.

Again big guy, I don't see you volunteering for anything. You go big freedom fighter. Go forth and strike a blow for freedom.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, you can call it half-assed all day long, but then I don't particularly care if you think it's that. You're most assuredly wrong about that-- it's not half-assed, rather, it's just all that's necessary. Overdoing a response risks the lives of more soldiers than necessary while also potentially upsetting the situation.

And you're most assuredly wrong about putting our men and women in harm's for a country that has no appreciable benefit to us.

Reducing the oil price shock back to previous norms would do that from an economic standpoint, it's not like they could shoot down an F-22 anyway. We pay all that fething money for this military, it might as well do what its meant to do instead of what its not (shoot thing rather then patrol unfriendly cities).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:yes the people are winning. I wonder how many civilians have died in the process of this victory.

and i understand the US is winning its war on terror too

how long as that been going on again?

Equivocate: Backpedal: Equivocate: Backpedal

I think I see a pattern here.

Again big guy, I don't see you volunteering for anything. You go big freedom fighter. Go forth and strike a blow for freedom.

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Snorlax_(Pok%C3%A9mon)

That really the best you have? Some sort of half assed appeal to personal involvement or something?

Frazzled wrote:Again you're missing the number of times we put bombs and/or missiles on SAM sites and radar installations that lit us up.

You mean twice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
And you're most assuredly wrong about putting our men and women in harm's for a country that has no appreciable benefit to us.

Libyan oil has a material benefit to us. Even if we don't buy it, other people do, and that affects the price of the commodity.

Why do you think the price of oil went up during Gulf 2 despite the fact that we barely buy any of the commodity from Iraq.

@warboss

what you said applies better to the points you raised:

"a no fly zone is half the solution. It does not end the conflict. It may well last for years. Americans will be stationed in Libya, probably for years, even if Gaddafi falls in months"

my "all in or nothing" is not a quick in and out but it is a proactive stance at solving the problem and has a high chance of success.

The no fly zone may have a 100% success rate at keeping bombers off the sky, but it becomes moot when fighting and dying will still happen on land for years.

@shuma

"Reevaluate and change tactics" - wouldnt be necessary if you solved the problem the first time. "rerolls" cost a lot more in real life.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Again you're missing the number of times we put bombs and/or missiles on SAM sites and radar installations that lit us up.

You mean twice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
And you're most assuredly wrong about putting our men and women in harm's for a country that has no appreciable benefit to us.

Libyan oil has a material benefit to us. Even if we don't buy it, other people do, and that affects the price of the commodity.

Why do you think the price of oil went up during Gulf 2 despite the fact that we barely buy any of the commodity from Iraq.

It was more than twice. Hell Clinton did it more than twice in six months right before the Bush presidency.

A no fly zone isn't going to change the price of oil a drop.

Frazzled wrote:
It was more than twice. Hell Clinton did it more than twice in six months right before the Bush presidency.

No, Clinton did it twice ('96 and '98), and was the only President to do so prior to Bush instigating an aggressive bombing campaign.

If you're counting individual sorties, then you'll get a different count, but in terms of macroscopic actions there were only 2 incidents. Moreover, if you're counting individual sorties, then you're failing to understand what a no-fly zone is.

Frazzled wrote:
A no fly zone isn't going to change the price of oil a drop.

If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.

dogma wrote:
If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.

a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.

Bakerofish wrote:

dogma wrote:
If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.

a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.

They are bombing civilian resistance fighters in addition to protests. You should probably read up on the situation before commenting on plans regarding how to fix it. The air power is a real and tangible asset that is actively keeping him in power.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

dogma wrote:
If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.

a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.

They are bombing civilian resistance fighters in addition to protests. You should probably read up on the situation before commenting on plans regarding how to fix it. The air power is a real and tangible asset that is actively keeping him in power.

is it the ONLY asset keeping him in power?

no?

then what i said remains valid.

it would be better to remove all his assets no?

dont make it sound like the choppers bombing the civilians are the only things keeping the libyans at bay. the biggest danger is still the soldiers and mercs that gaddaffi employs.

Bakerofish wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

dogma wrote:
If it brings a swifter end to the turbulence, then yes it will.

a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.

They are bombing civilian resistance fighters in addition to protests. You should probably read up on the situation before commenting on plans regarding how to fix it. The air power is a real and tangible asset that is actively keeping him in power.

is it the ONLY asset keeping him in power?

no?

then what i said remains valid.

it would be better to remove all his assets no?

Your point was that the bombing of civilians would cease, given that the majority of the opposition fighting forces are defected military you were wrong. As for removing all his assets, I guess we could bomb his bases too, thats likely part of the initiation of a no fly zone given that we would have to hit anti air facilities. The forces that be however are seemingly unwilling to go that far and given the likely chaotic response to a ground invasion by western forces thats probably not a poor view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/04/libya-uprising-gaddafi-live#block-47

id like a source for the "majority" of Gadaffi's troops defecting as the updates above does not paint that picture.

again if you can solidly refute what i said and prove that taking out gaddafis air power will equal his neutralization then i will back down.

Bakerofish wrote:
a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.

Yes, and one thing contributing to the turbulence is Gaddafi's air superiority.

@dogma

so gaddaffis guns and goons are a non issue then?

great.

this should be over in no time.

Bakerofish wrote:@dogma

so gaddaffis guns and goons are a non issue then?

great.

this should be over in no time.

Listen.

Loony Toon gaddaffi has one major advantage over the "rebels" and that is airplanes and bombers.

The Rebels have been winning before looney toon started bombing them to bits.

So, we take the bombers out of the equation, all of a sudden the Rebels, which includes defected looney-toon military, are on a fast-track to giving Gaddaffi the full Mussolini.