http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13833752

Seems the NATO forces 'protecting civilians' had a major FAIL yesterday in Tripoli.

Blaming it on a "weapon system failure".   ::)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13833752

Seems the NATO forces 'protecting civilians' had a major FAIL yesterday in Tripoli.

Blaming it on a "weapon system failure".   ::)


Here we go again.  There is a line from MASH that pops up.  "There are two rules of war.  The first is that young men (read people) die."

The second isn't relevant but "and doctors can't change rule # 1". 

We all know by now that you oppose his intervention, and for some very legitimate reasons.  Not sure I share your view, but might I suggest focusing on the real arguments against intervention, where there is room for debate and forget the body count?

Get it together you clowns!  Either learn to sue the equipment properly or don't use it at all.  Be DIE when you f**k up!
::)

While I don't think we should be in Libya at all, there is a huge amount of hypocrisy coming out of Tripoli right now..

But then, how galling must it be for Gaddaffi?  I mean, he's been trying and trying to inflict carnage on civilians for months now, and these NATO guys manage to do it by accident..

Here we go again.  There is a line from MASH that pops up.  "There are two rules of war.  The first is that young men (read people) die."

The second isn't relevant but "and doctors can't change rule # 1". 

We all know by now that you oppose his intervention, and for some very legitimate reasons.  Not sure I share your view, but might I suggest focusing on the real arguments against intervention, where there is room for debate and forget the body count?


The body count is the core of the matter. You may recall that my position from the get-go was that the intervention would (a) prolong the hostilities, (b) increase the total casualties and (c) in any event end up with an Anti-American regime in power.

This thread directly addresses (a) and (b).

The body count is the core of the matter. You may recall that my position from the get-go was that the intervention would (a) prolong the hostilities, (b) increase the total casualties and (c) in any event end up with an Anti-American regime in power.

This thread directly addresses (a) and (b).


Sometimes, prolonging hostilities is a good thing regardless of casualties.  For example, you could argue that lend lease prolonged the suffering of the British people and lead to an increase od civilian casualties.  Good or bad?

I'm not defending the NATO mission or US support for it.  I haven't made up my mind.  But just saying...

Sometimes, prolonging hostilities is a good thing regardless of casualties.  For example, you could argue that lend lease prolonged the suffering of the British people and lead to an increase od civilian casualties.  Good or bad?

I'm not defending the NATO mission or US support for it.  I haven't made up my mind.  But just saying...


Prolonging hostilities might be worthwhile if it supports some long term strategic interest.  In the case of lend-lease, Roosevelt figured (correctly) that the Axis powers ultimately would attack the United States.  Or in the case of Gulf War I, we intervened in complaince with a defense pact we had with Kuwait.

But in this case the interest was claimed to be "to save Libyan civilian lives", which makes the concept of a prolonged conflict absurd.

The body count is the core of the matter. You may recall that my position from the get-go was that the intervention would (a) prolong the hostilities, (b) increase the total casualties and (c) in any event end up with an Anti-American regime in power.

This thread directly addresses (a) and (b).

..it may well have an impact on (c), too

Prolonging hostilities might be worthwhile if it supports some long term strategic interest.  In the case of lend-lease, Roosevelt figured (correctly) that the Axis powers ultimately would attack the United States.  Or in the case of Gulf War I, we intervened in complaince with a defense pact we had with Kuwait.

But in this case the interest was claimed to be "to save Libyan civilian lives", which makes the concept of a prolonged conflict absurd.


Sure, after telling Sadam that we had no objections to his desire to "rectify the boarders", but that little foux pasx has conveniently been forgotten, like Osama for so many years.

Yes. FDR made the right decision, but would we have known that at the time?  There was a large majority of Republicans that opposed his pre- 1941 policies and wanted isolation, the very same position you are advocating. 

Again, I haven't made up my mind on this one, and you may be right in terms of the long term, but I think that "ideological isolationism" is as dangerous as "ideological  interventionism"

My point is that everything is situational