Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

reply to post by centurion1211


as long as ghaddafi isnt in charge. there is no doubt in my mind that ghaddafi has been in bed with the CIA for decades. that makes things a little cloudy, much as he intended. im just ashamed to be a part of any country that would bed down with that transvestite freak, so i finally found a war i can support. i hope that monster is bombed back to femdom hell or whereveer he came from.

reply to post by verschickter


Edit. Don't want to fight...

??? its not about winners or loosers, in a war there are no winners. Your comment is casual, ignorant etc. get educated....

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

The Americans won WW2?

ahhhhhhhh NO !!!

You took out Japan but Europe's war was won by the Russians and the Brits.

You are sadly mistaken... WW2 was won by Non German-Allied Europeans and Russians alongside Americans, Canadians, Australians etc.. People of different nationalities were fighting under different flags ie. Polish pilots in the RAF or troops etc. No need for chest pounding, it was a nasty bugger of a war for everyone.
********

This operation has been a failure from the get go. Some are reporting that there is truth to the allied bombings supporting Al Quieda operatives in Lybia. I believe there was a thread about this which links to the French to Lybia etc etc..

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

The Americans won WW2?

ahhhhhhhh NO !!!

You took out Japan but Europe's war was won by the Russians and the Brits.

'Taking out' Japan was not trivial and while the US was doing that it was actively participating in the European theater. The Russians took the brunt of the casualties and drained Germany of manpower and resources. The Dictators didn't understand warfare and wasted troops and equipment. Russia and the US outproduced Germany and countered advanced technology with numbers. The T-34 in its later variants may not have been a match for the Tiger but 10 or 20 T-34's could easily defeat a Tiger. GB had the tremendous RR Merlin engine which powered the P51, a US designed airframe, and was built under license in the US. These were that fighters that escorted bombers all the way to Germany and back and made them the premier fighter aircraft of the war.
It was a group effort that required all parties; without the US and Russia, Britain would be a German territory. Had the Germans not attacked Russia, the war would have lasted much longer and the outcome may have been very different, q.v., Orwell's 1984.
You will also note that the head of SHAEF was Eisenhower; one can only imagine how long things would have taken had the stubborn "Monty" been in charge. His great grandsons would probably be finishing up.

To say that the British and Russians won WW2 and could have done so without the US is foolish.

Guys.. please. Let's keep this on-topic, anyway this situation seems to be spiraling out of control and it only seem to be getting worse.

I have never felt the need to post on ATS before, I have quietly read the posts without comment but I find this entire post offensive and immature.
The childish remarks by the posters from the U.S about who 'won world war two' are entirely off topic and a sterotypical "mines bigger than yours" attitude that we - the civilised world - expect from the bulk of Americans. Clearly you lack any morals or ethics if you think any wars can be "won". Your country is spoilt by mass media which distances you from the real world with flashy graphics and faux national pride. America did not 'win' world war 2, neither did England or Russia. It was a world war which ended in millions of deaths. Only a very sick person in the head could find victory and joy in such terrible context. The allied nations did not win, they survived world war 2, this is all.
I am very proud that the U.K although smaller than most states in America, was able to successfully resist the Nazis without help from the U.S.A for so long, would America have been able to do the same? I doubt it.
Nobody should be excited about the troubles in Libya and America of all countrys should be careful about war mongering and creating another Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Afganistan style disaster with troops still fighting for years.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Seriously? Have you not looked at Iraq? What's it been? 9 years? Do they have a stable society yet? Um, no. It's a mess. The place is littered with depleted uranium and rubble. Our government doesn't know how to do anything efficiently and quickly. If we did, we'd slip into Libya and have a sniper put one in his head and sneak back out. And yes, we can do it. He wears a military uniform and calls himself "Colonel", so we can kill him.

The goal is to establish a presence in another part of the world. Period.

tarpley.net...

The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq
2007 West Point Study Shows Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk Area was a World Leader in Al Qaeda Suicide Bomber Recruitment

I guess its easy too win a war when you are both sides
note the fact that this referes to a
WESTPOINT STUDY


ever wonder why boasting is considered offensive?

the germans obviously know the score
also they don't need to pay off debs like all the other
coalition of the broke

For all parties involved in libya theres really only one question. If your going to preach freedom and say thats why your countries are there then claim there is no other agenda I ask why then are only countries in middle east receiving this so called freedom? I don't see how it's right to pick and choose who should be free based on their countries resources/economic value, because there are many people in the world who would love help from tyranny. So basically if the world powers want to play world police they shouldn't pick and choose they are just showing their true colors haha guess thats good for us though...hopefully this will help people to see the way they truly operate

is there any possibility that the hesitation of the US to proactively 'lead' has anything to do with money and the fact we have none? i remember seeing a thread right before Libya that the treasury was down to a few billion. and a no fly zone will definetly increase our debt wouldnt it? germany prolly cant afford it either after bailing out eruope.

i thought i was in the wrong thread......the title is about germany pulling out of nato, yet every page is mostly children debating who won WW2....nice..........Isnt the Daily Mail a british tabloid?....I for one dont believe they are pulling out of NATO, maybe refusing to participate in the NATO ran implementation of U.N. security council resolution 1973....Could be wrong, anyways once this news gets around to the Weekly World News tabloid, then we will have some confirmation.....good lord people........oh the humanity!

Originally posted by centurion1211

We are all getting a clearer picture of where this Libyan campaign is headed - and it's not good at all.

Perhaps, failure is the best outcome.

If the mission falls apart with Gaddafi still in power then the following will be true:

- Gaddafi will turn and slaughter the people we said we were doing this to protecct.

There is no excuse for rebellion and treason... Unless you win. The 'No flyzone' invention was concocted to protect and help the rebels, not civillians, regardless of what we are being told.

- Gaddafi will be one pissed off SOB at the west, and will no doubt retaliate with terror attacks and any other way he can.

Don't be silly. He doesn't need to. The very fact that he is still in power elevates him to 'arab hero' status, and shows off the inadequacies of western power and by extension western values and concepts.

THIS is what lack of leadership causes.

No, leadership is knowing when to listen and when to act, not just to act tough every time you get restless.

reply to post by nenothtu


I just don't see it. If they had nothing in the beginning, it would be impossible to seize a tank with clubs, rocks, or even handguns. Someone had to have supplied them. A second question I have is, who taught them to fly helicopters and tanks?

Lets be honest here.........this war will cost money.
Maybe Germany has the sense to realise it could cripple their economy so they are choosing to save their cash for something else. Like buy oil that their country will need in the future as so many are now not too keen on nuclear reactors in their own back yards.

reply to post by hbpdfsu


Correct, Germany is against the NATO lead attack on Libya, which frankly I don't see how they can justify, this is an aggressive move and not sanctioned by the U.N.

Germany is pulling military hardware out of the coalition (U.N. sanctioned) for fear of an anti-NATO reprisal... i.e "Warsaw Pact" China, Russia..

Why don't we just let the oil companies lead operation "Oilessey Dawn?" It's for oil is it not? Track Gadahfi on satellite and assassinate him, it would be much cheaper. He is the entire Libyian army, without him the Libyian people would stop fighting each other for their freedom back from him.

Barack Obama, the "son of Africa" as Gadhafi called him, is leading the corporate take over of Africa. The West’s economy needs to keep expanding so they are taking more land, resources, and adding new consumers. It all started with 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Then Wikileaks released cables on how corrupt North African and Middle Eastern nations are to get the people in the right frame of mind. Eygpt had to be first because of the importance of the Suez Canal, so they removed Mubarak who had around $60 billion and was taking over 50% of all Egyptian corporation profits, bingo. On to the next one, Gadhafi does the same thing to oil rich Libyia so he's up next. Once a backed-dictator reaches a certain amount of wealth they remove him and start over.

In the near future I would look at either Algeria or Sudan as the ones next up to the plate. Then Ethopia, Chad, and Nigeria, but those won't be for a decade or so.

1) Nigeria (Production: 2,600,000 barrels per day)
2) Algeria (Production: 2,080,000 barrels per day)
3) Libya (Production: 1,600,000 barrels per day)
4) Angola (Production: 1,250,000 barrels per day)
5) Egypt (Production: 579,000 barrels per day)
6) Sudan (Production: 363,000 barrels per day)
8) Chad (Production: 249,000 barrels per day)
www.clickafrique.com...

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I just don't see it. If they had nothing in the beginning, it would be impossible to seize a tank with clubs, rocks, or even handguns. Someone had to have supplied them. A second question I have is, who taught them to fly helicopters and tanks?

You start out small, and work your way up the handgun or rifle you "capture" today will help you capture even bigger stuff if you're audacious enough to actually use it, which some of these gents appear to be. How many weapons depots did they take before Qadaffi wised up and started blowing his own stuff up?

As far as flying choppers and driving tanks goes, I'm sure that even Qadaffi, as bad as he is, didn't just executed his troops when their term of service was up.. some of them likely knew how to do those things after they got out, were likely to be able to train others, and then there's the matter of defections, which always occur to a greater or lesser extent in a civil war.

I knew a Bosnian who started his military career as a bag boy or something like that in a grocery store. He and two of his friends, unarmed, managed to "capture" a revolver from a a uniform on patrol. Within a week, all 3 of them were "up armed", toting rifles. Within a month, they had all the RPGs they could carry, and had captured machine guns, explosives, and sniper rifles, and were distributing their haul to others. My pal made more or less a carer out of arming his fellows once he had a Dragonov. He said at one time that he'd captured a "Skorpion" machine pistol, but that it sucked, as cool as they look, so he ditched it.

They weren't the only three up to those sorts of shenanigans. It's not anything like impossible. Yeah, someone supplied the Libyan rebels - Qadaffi did, albeit unwillingly.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Other people on ATS seem to not understand that this action is not the least comparable to Iraq. In Iraq, we went in with the intent to occupy the country and turn it into our personal yard sale. This resulted in eight years of getting our men killed because the leadership was too stupid to know that you can't cut forces AND occupy a country.

In Libya, we're participating in a UN mission to remove offensive capability from a crazy asshole who's declared that he'll eradicate every last person in his country who's not on his side.

See the difference here?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I don't.

From where I stand, meddling in other folks internal affairs is meddling in other folks internal affairs, regardless of what country you're screwing around with. Neither Iraq nor Libya had done anything to US recently enough to justify picking a fight with 'em.