What was that about pulling their own weight?

[Zevico]

fixed



http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-1...ebel-positions

Possible--I can hardly see what distinguishes his brutality from those of other dictators in the region. But I doubt that Obama went in on 'false pretences': he made a mistake, which is unsurprising for a President who understands little to nothing about Middle Eastern politics.

[Zevico]

The French & Brits still are doing ground attacks (as are Canadians). If the US is *****ing about them not doing more attacks, then they're even dumber than I'd ever imagine diplomatically. I assumed they were talking about other countries.

Did they mention the French & Brits specifically in the article? I didn't see that.

They did.
French:

French combat jets were the first to attack on Saturday as they destroyed four tanks at 4.45pm — hours after 19 world leaders gathered in Paris to agree multinational action.

Brits:

Blasts were heard east of Tripoli late on Saturday night.

The Tomahawk missiles were launched from a Trafalgar class submarine off Libya.

More Brits.

Up to 16 RAF Tornado ground attack planes were prepared to scramble from RAF Marham to destroy Libya’s air defence system

The French attacked military targets on the first day.

The Brits did so later---see e.g.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/OperationalUpdateOnLibya25March.htm
for a press release on attacking libyan ground targets by the british MoD.
For goodness sake, Wikipedia has these links. You would have to selectively ignore the headlines and news to come to the "conclusion" that it was all just an American unilateral traipse down the Libyan countryside.

"I accept your apology in advance."

[Asher]

They did.
French:

Brits:

More Brits.


The French attacked military targets on the first day.

The Brits did so later---see e.g.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/OperationalUpdateOnLibya25March.htm
for a press release on attacking libyan ground targets by the british MoD.
For goodness sake, Wikipedia has these links. You would have to selectively ignore the headlines and news to come to the "conclusion" that it was all just an American unilateral traipse down the Libyan countryside.

"I accept your apology in advance."

You seem to be completely and utterly confused.

I understand, and explicitly acknowledged, that the French, British, and Canadians were involved in ground attacks.

My point is they are STILL involved in ground attacks.

This is why it's my understanding that the OP article is mentioning other countries not becoming involved in the ground strikes, not the ones who already are. I was asking if it explicitly mentioned the Brits, French, and Canadians "not pulling their own weight" because, by your own admission, they are still involved in ground strikes. Which is more than we can say about the patronizing Americans.

[Hauldren Collider]

No, Asher, you are missing the point--the point is that they are NOT capable of maintaining the ground strikes without us. They lack the aircraft, they lack the munitions, and they lack the political will. You are being a ******. At best, their equipment is not enough to maintain effective levels of strikes.

[Felch]

I think the real problem is a sense of disappointment with the Europeans. France and the UK used to tussle over which of them would rule the world. Now they can't even depose a North African strongman. Just like Suez, it seems to come down to economic weakness as much as military. It's pretty damn pathetic.

[Asher]

No, Asher, you are missing the point--the point is that they are NOT capable of maintaining the ground strikes without us. They lack the aircraft, they lack the munitions, and they lack the political will. You are being a ******. At best, their equipment is not enough to maintain effective levels of strikes.

Where do you see that they lack the aircraft? That's patently false, they have plenty of aircraft. Why do you insist on telling lies to spin your tale?

They may lack the munitions, true. This is a great thing. They shouldn't be bombing anyway. I hope the US tells them to **** off and not supply them.

Only a country with grossly misplaced priorities keeps an immense stockpile of chronically-obsoleted weapons in peacetime.

The lack of "political will" to continue attacking a sovereign nation in favour of Islamic radical rebels is a good thing, BTW.

[Asher]

I think the real problem is a sense of disappointment with the Europeans. France and the UK used to tussle over which of them would rule the world. Now they can't even depose a North African strongman. Just like Suez, it seems to come down to economic weakness as much as military. It's pretty damn pathetic.

Meanwhile, 10 years later and the US still can't get to Osama. He's not even a North African strongman, he's a hermit living inside one of their allies' countries.

[Hauldren Collider]

Adm. James Stavridis has appealed to NATO members for additional attack planes — a request that U.S. officials made clear that other alliance members would have to meet.

Obama's decision to limit the U.S. military role left NATO without A-10 Thunderbolt II or AC-130 Spectre gunships, U.S. planes that are designed for close air support of ground troops and precise attacks against ground targets.

The U.S. is keeping A-10s and other strike aircraft on standby in case of an emergency. But bringing the planes back into the fight is not under consideration, a NATO officer said.

[Asher]

The fact that they are unwilling to supply them does not mean they do not have them...

The majority of Canada's CF-18s are sitting idle on Canadian soil.

[Wezil]

You can also argue it shows the weakness of the alliance.

NATO just isn't the same without the Ruskies to worry about.

[giblets]

Meanwhile, 10 years later and the US still can't get to Osama. He's not even a North African strongman, he's a hermit.

You mean NATO can't get him, right?

[Hauldren Collider]

Meanwhile, 10 years later and the US still can't get to Osama. He's not even a North African strongman, he's a hermit.

1. It's a lot harder to hit a hermit than a guy who struts around Tripoli in a golf cart.
2. Deposing Gaddafi's government would consist of more than a bullet to his head. Someone worse would probably just replace him. You have to actually take down his government.

I feel like I'm talking to a child here...

[Hauldren Collider]

The fact that they are unwilling to supply them does not mean they do not have them...

The majority of Canada's CF-18s are sitting idle on Canadian soil.

And the majority of our F-22's are sitting on American soil.

But the UK and France do not have any sophisticated close-support aircraft. Certainly nothing like the A-10 or AC-130. Plus the UK retired its harriers, which means it can only operate land-based craft. France's one carrier carries half the planes of one of ours.

[Asher]

And the majority of our F-22's are sitting on American soil.

The F-22s, by the US military's own admission, are not usable in Libya.

[giblets]

1. It's a lot harder to hit a hermit than a guy who struts around Tripoli in a golf cart.
2. Deposing Gaddafi's government would consist of more than a bullet to his head. Someone worse would probably just replace him. You have to actually take down his government.

I feel like I'm talking to a child here...

Put a bullet in the head of whoever replaces him.