Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
ace..this whole factual thing is hard for you isn't it?
|
No.
Quote:
|
on your first "point": you don't like obama.
|
Not an important point. People who like him and people who don't have similar concerns to the concerns I have presented here.
Quote:
|
i think we all get that. that you can't figure out the distinction between a military and a political goal is your problem.
|
I know what the political goals are, I have no clear idea what the military goals are, do you?
Quote:
|
at the same time, in the real world, lots of very basic things are not yet clear. maybe they never will be. i don't like it---you don't like it. no-one cares.
|
This is not clear, can you elaborate. Kadafi is clear. The rebels are clear. The UN resolution is clear. Members of the Arab league have been clear. The lack of clarity comes from the West and I argue primarily Obama.
Quote:
|
on your second "point": here you decide it's time to be a neocon cartoon. in this episode, you are so ideologically opposed to international co-operation that you're forced to simply make shit up in order to make the reality in front of you go away.
|
Here again you simply make stuff up. There have been many instances where I support international cooperation. I simply believe in there being a single point of accountability and clearly defined objectives.
Quote:
|
from there you proceed to pose fake dilemmas. and you act like you know stuff you patently don't know.
|
There are known things I know. Known things I don't know. And, unknown things that I don't know. Isn't that true of every person on this earth - your failure to be specific is problematic. Let's move out of the childish playground game of - you saying I am dumb and me saying you are dumb and you saying I am dumb, etc. - try to be specific in your critique. If you have something of value for me, being vague and insulting is pointless.
Quote:
|
it isn't a united states operation ace.
|
You can split hairs on this point all day long, if you want. The US has and will put the most at risk. The US will spend the most money. Nothing will happen without US involvement, cooperation and approval. So they can say authority has been passed to NATO, I won't buy that. I wasn't born yesterday.
Quote:
|
there is a command structure. transfer of control is likely tonight or tomorrow. you'll just have to deal with it.
|
You miss the point. War is dynamic, decisions have to be made fast within a line of command. The UN resolution was crafted to narrowly to allow for it to be usfull in a war situation. Again, it can be argued that the resolution has already been violated. What does this say about the coalition?
Quote:
|
on your third "point": i've been reading military assessments of the situation for days----the most explicit and informative have been in the french press, where the pet generals like to read from janes and make prognostications about strategy. on tv they stand behind model railroad-style maps with croupier and move tanks and army men around. it's very adolescent. you'd love it. most of what you say is problematic if facts are of any consequence. but they're obviously not, so we'll pass over to the more obviously surreal moment.
|
Clarify. Are you suggesting what I have said is problematic is of no concern and that you you have taken your clue on this from the French press? Why not take your clues from Kadafi's press? Again, your failure to be specific is not helpful, I have pointed out many problems.
Quote:
|
which comes when you veer off into your imaginary ally scenario.
|
Come on, be serious. I think of all kinds of possibilities, I like to exhaust them, even those that are unlikely. anyone who read what I wrote can understand the context. And the context is that people with your outlook get surprised and can't see what comes next, it rarely happens to me. In fact if you look at many of my posts and compare the dates and times, you will find that I am often ahead of the curve - you on the other-hand are often behind it. For example, early on I said the no fly zone was going to be inadequate and that Kadafi was simply going to change his strategy, which he did - it was very easy to see.
---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
Wow, an evident conclusion to our involvement is getting further away and far more complicated.
Does anyone have a feel for the size of the rebel forces overall? Does it have a net growth or loss as a trend? I've never seen anything regarding how many there are.
|
Others insist that there is a clearly expressed and shared objective to remove Kadafi, this is not true. The only shared objective was the no fly zone ( and freezing assets and weapons embargo) to save civilian lives. And in the context of the rebels, it is not even clearly defined if they are or are not defined as civilians, an assumption has to be made.