LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   Battle for Benghazi (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=206905)

Ztalker 03-19-2011 12:32 PM

Battle for Benghazi
 
Linkie

In the pas weeks, Kadaffi has been casually murdering hundreds (thousands?) of his own people. His own people, who want freedom.

Ironically, the French show they have brass ba...ehm...and have sent their fighter jets in advance of the main group (U.S., Canda, UK) to defend the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. As we speak, they have already destroyed several of Kadaffi's tanks and the involvement of the U.N. is official.

And face it; Battle for Benghazi sounds cool.

Astor 03-19-2011 12:41 PM

This should probably be in Kavars....

That said, well done to the Armée de l'Air. I honestly think the French reputation for cowardice is completely unwarranted, and their actions show the critics of the UK and the US that it isn't another Iraq style adventure (it's legal, for a start).

The US Navy is reportedly gearing up to launch missiles at installations later today, in addition to blockading Libya by sea, and the RAF, RCAF and Danish fighters are en route to bases within striking distance. I only hope Gaddafi has the sense (unlikely) to realise that the UN and NATO aren't likely to back down as easily as he pushed back the rebels.

mimartin 03-19-2011 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor (Post 2770386)
This should probably be in Kavars.....

*looks around*

This looks like Kavars to me. :dev14:

Jae Onasi 03-19-2011 06:19 PM

Yes, US subs and aircraft characters fully support the 2 French aircraft from the entire L'Armee de l'Aire. :xp:

Seriously, Qadhafi needs to go. Hopefully the coalition will be able to limit the bloodshed.

Totenkopf 03-19-2011 06:25 PM

Airpower is nice, but troops on the ground (regardless of where they come from) are likely to be the only thing short of a "lucky" stray bomb/s to put an end to Qaddafi and his regime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mim
This looks like Kavars to me. :dev14:

Quite so. o_Q

Astor 03-19-2011 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Yes, US subs and aircraft characters fully support the 2 French aircraft from the entire L'Armee de l'Aire.

Seriously, though, the French should be commended for going in and taking out ground targets before the air defence had been taken down. It certainly shows that they meant business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf (Post 2770407)
Airpower is nice, but troops on the ground (regardless of where they come from) are likely to be the only thing short of a "lucky" stray bomb/s to put an end to Qaddafi and his regime.

A lot of news pundits here have commented on how President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been keen to stress that no American troops would be deployed.

And while the resolution prohibits ground forces, and seeing as they seem to be the driving force for the moment, the French Foreign Legion is never far away in Africa... :ninja2:

Totenkopf 03-19-2011 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor (Post 2770409)
Seriously, though, the French should be commended for going in and taking out ground targets before the air defence had been taken down. It certainly shows that they meant business.

Probably a bit harder than taking out Ivory Coast's pitiful air force a number of years ago.


Quote:

A lot of news pundits here have commented on how President Obama and Mrs. Clinton have been keen to stress that no American troops would be deployed.

And while the resolution prohibits ground forces, and seeing as they seem to be the driving force for the moment, the French Foreign Legion is never far away in Africa... :ninja2:
I'd be quite fine w/the FFL and the Arab League/African nations providing the ground muscle. America doesn't always have to provide the cannon fodder.

Sabretooth 03-19-2011 10:34 PM

Arab League and Africans fighting on the Anti-Qadaffi side... now that's irony.

Lord of Hunger 03-19-2011 10:45 PM

Why call it a No-Fly Zone when they're in all reality wiping out all of Gaddafi's forces minus infantry?

In all honesty though, kudos to the UN for getting its balls back. This speed and seriousness is highly unusual for them and deserves a round of applause.

Now...if only we could do the same thing here with North Korea....

Sabretooth 03-19-2011 10:52 PM

Here's the full resolution, the one that's colloquially being called the No-Fly Zone.

Quote:

The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
authorises all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger (Post 2770434)
Now...if only we could do the same thing here with North Korea....

You'll have to wait till Kim starts lobbing missiles and fighter-strafing his own people. And then deal with one of the world's largest armed forces.

Lord of Hunger 03-20-2011 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 2770436)
You'll have to wait till Kim starts lobbing missiles and fighter-strafing his own people. And then deal with one of the world's largest armed forces.

Well the South Korean people are Koreans so in technicality when he bombarded that island a few months ago he attacked his own people.

As for one of the world's largest armed forces, he might have a lot of people. The US, on the other hand, has a lot more cruise missiles. If it wasn't for North Korea being China's puppy dog the US could have had Jong-Ill's regime in the garbage can at every moment since the Korean War, including now. I wish there was something we could just give the Chinese so they'd stop protecting North Korea.

Admittedly North Korea does have their own missiles and supposedly nukes so they could make it sting...provided they had time to launch them and they weren't shot down by brave men and women in the armed forces....

Sabretooth 03-20-2011 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger (Post 2770445)
Well the South Korean people are Koreans so in technicality when he bombarded that island a few months ago he attacked his own people.

...who are not part of his government and nation, so no, they're not his "own" people anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger (Post 2770445)
As for one of the world's largest armed forces, he might have a lot of people. The US, on the other hand, has a lot more cruise missiles. If it wasn't for North Korea being China's puppy dog the US could have had Jong-Ill's regime in the garbage can at every moment since the Korean War, including now.

Like how America put Saddam and the Taliban in the garbage can and restored peace and stability there? :D

Lord of Hunger 03-20-2011 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 2770447)
...who are not part of his government and nation, so no, they're not his "own" people anymore.

Except he claims them as his own in the same way Gaddafi claims the rebels in Benghazi.
Quote:

Like how America put Saddam and the Taliban in the garbage can and restored peace and stability there? :D
In the case of Saddam, we did put him the garbage can. We had peace in Iraq until Al-Qaeda came in large numbers and triggered mass sectarian violence. When we got our *** in gear and made the troop surge, peace was restored.

As for the Taliban, we could wipe them out right now if Pakistan would let us invade the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan for them. That's the only real reason why the Taliban even exist. They keep having to bring in more people from the east into Afghanistan to cause trouble.

Astor 03-20-2011 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger (Post 2770456)
Except he claims them as his own in the same way Gaddafi claims the rebels in Benghazi.

Not really... Gaddafi has been claiming for weeks now that the rebels are foreign fighters from Al Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood.

Liverandbacon 03-20-2011 05:05 PM

I have little experience with French civilians, but their military does not deserve a reputation of cowardice. Quite the opposite in fact.

Gaddafi deserves to be gone, but it'll probably take boots on the ground to remove him fully. Glad the US isn't supplying them though, we'd just get blamed for any problems. Again. Of course, people will complain now (maybe not here, but IRL), saying the US should send troops. We can't win with some people.

Also... it's only ok to topple a dictator who's slaughtering his people once an internal rebellion has been launched? If people are dying without a fight, it's wrong to help them? Trying hard here to see how the UN sees this as any different from Iraq.

N.B: I was actually against the war in Iraq starting (though once it started, fully in favor of following through and finishing it), for the following reasons:
A: We were already in A-stan (why add another front?)
B: It would make everyone expect us to eliminate dictators they should get rid of themselves, and blame us if it didn't go as planned.
C: The average US citizen now lacks the necessary grit to get the country through a double (perhaps even single) war, despite the fact that it affects their daily lives less than any previous war in our history. Sadly those of us who are actually directly involved in the war are easily drowned out by the whining of the masses.

Apologies if this came off a bit rant-ish, I'm recovering from surgery, and lack of physical activity has turned me more irritable than usual.

Lord of Hunger 03-21-2011 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor (Post 2770468)
Not really... Gaddafi has been claiming for weeks now that the rebels are foreign fighters from Al Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood.

Wait, wasn't it that they were being drugged by foreign fighters?

Astor 03-21-2011 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger (Post 2770571)
Wait, wasn't it that they were being drugged by foreign fighters?

It seems to be all of them - it evolves with each new broadcast. Originally it was hallucinating foreign drug pushers, and now it's drug dealers, Islamic militants and CIA instigators.

Anything but ordinary Libyans who've had enough, it seems.

Primogen 03-21-2011 05:36 PM

Of course the French reputation for cowardice isn't earned. I thought everyone already knew it was a joke.

I figure next time Gaddafi makes a broadcast, it'll be that the rebels are being lead by a charismatic parasite called a Goa'uld.

ForeverNight 03-21-2011 09:02 PM

Been watching this on Al-Jazeera along with a few others on IRC, interesting happenings. As for Goa'uld, I'd expect him to mention something along the lines of Scientology before outright Star Gate :P

And I was always of the opinion that most everybody figured the whole French thing was a joke :<

Ztalker 03-22-2011 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primogen (Post 2770627)
Of course the French reputation for cowardice isn't earned. I thought everyone already knew it was a joke.

I figure next time Gaddafi makes a broadcast, it'll be that the rebels are being lead by a charismatic parasite called a Goa'uld.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Rvm7uZQWKW&t=1

Tommycat 03-22-2011 08:55 PM

Actually I'm waiting to hear him say that they are infected with Charlie Sheen's blood.

WINNING!

VeniVidiVicous 03-22-2011 11:56 PM

Well I feel obliged as a European to say that this primarily about oil and not the people in Libya., the fact that Sarkozy owes Gaddafi money also comes into frances willingness to get involved imo.

I mean there's other places in Africa who need military assistance far more than Libya but these countries aren't sitting on oil so go figure.

Don't take this as a pro-gaddafi post btw i'm just fed up of seeing the US invading other countries.

Primogen 03-22-2011 11:59 PM

Actually, we aren't invading. No Coalition troops are putting their boots on Libyan soil, we're just bombing them back to the stone age. Also, the United States is just one member in a sizable coalition.

Darth Avlectus 03-23-2011 02:51 AM

I'm a little skeptical as Ghaddafi did comply with the no-nukes treaty and even bit the bullet with sanctions. Why exactly would someone, otherwise compliant with the international scene, participate in brutality? It just doesn't make sense to me. :raise:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liverandbacon (Post 2770527)
I have little experience with French civilians, but their military does not deserve a reputation of cowardice. Quite the opposite in fact.

Hey, their fencers have some of the best techniques. Right up there with portugese, spaniards, italians, and germans. Besides, Andre the Giant was born in the french alps. There would not have been a Hulk Hogan nor a Vince McMahon if there hadn't been an Andre the Giant.

Besides we both know a certain lady who speaks french, though she speaks English to us. :dev9:

Working Class Hero 03-23-2011 03:57 AM

It's cool that the US is now at war with at least 3 nations, all of them without first being declared by congress.

Primogen 03-23-2011 04:17 AM

Does it count as a war when they're equipped with little more than 40-year old Soviet tech and put up about as much of a fight as the things I found in my toilet yesterday?

Astor 03-23-2011 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeniVidiVicous (Post 2770807)
Well I feel obliged as a European to say that this primarily about oil and not the people in Libya., the fact that Sarkozy owes Gaddafi money also comes into frances willingness to get involved imo.

If this were solely about Oil, we wouldn't be attacking Gaddafi - we'd more than likely be continuing our business deals with him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VVV
I mean there's other places in Africa who need military assistance far more than Libya but these countries aren't sitting on oil so go figure.

As has been pointed out, the Libyan people asked for intervention - as far as I'm aware no other countries have asked the international community for assistance in such a manner.

Besides, is it not right that we rid the world of a man who has killed not only hundreds of his own people, but hundreds of US, UK and other citizens? And even armed terrorist groups, allowing them to kill even more people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VVV
Don't take this as a pro-gaddafi post btw i'm just fed up of seeing the US invading other countries.

The French were the first to suggest a NFZ, and indeed the only country so far to recognise the Libyan Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya, so it's arguably their lead on this.

And it's not an invasion. It's humanitarian intervention. With cruise missiles. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA
I'm a little skeptical as Ghaddafi did comply with the no-nukes treaty and even bit the bullet with sanctions. Why exactly would someone, otherwise compliant with the international scene, participate in brutality? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Leopards find it very difficult to change their spots, no matter how hard they seem to be trying.

Working Class Hero 03-23-2011 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primogen (Post 2770829)
Does it count as a war when they're equipped with little more than 40-year old Soviet tech and put up about as much of a fight as the things I found in my toilet yesterday?

Good point. I suppose this is just shelling practice for our troops...can't get rusty, they must be ready to blow up the next nation for
oil. :thmbup1:

Primogen 03-23-2011 07:16 AM

Hey, I resent that implication. If we blow up the whole nation, we might damage our ability to get at the oil.

Totenkopf 03-23-2011 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Working Class Hero (Post 2770835)
Good point. I suppose this is just shelling practice for our troops...can't get rusty, they must be ready to blow up the next nation for
oil. :thmbup1:

Well, you could always offer yourself up as fodder, er I mean help, to those countries that fall through the cracks (Sudan, etc...). Right up there in the tradition of the Lafayette Escadrille, Flying Tigers and Eagle Squadrons of the 20th century. ;)

Sabretooth 03-23-2011 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Working Class Hero (Post 2770828)
It's cool that the US is now at war with at least 3 nations, all of them without first being declared by congress.

I'm not sure if this one can be called a war just yet; so far it's an uprising with a UN intervention in it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2770825)
I'm a little skeptical as Ghaddafi did comply with the no-nukes treaty and even bit the bullet with sanctions. Why exactly would someone, otherwise compliant with the international scene, participate in brutality? It just doesn't make sense to me. :raise:

Think husbands who engage in domestic violence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeniVidiVicous (Post 2770807)
Well I feel obliged as a European to say that this primarily about oil and not the people in Libya., the fact that Sarkozy owes Gaddafi money also comes into frances willingness to get involved imo.

While it seems to be safe thing to say, I'm not entirely sure how this will work, since no UN troops will setting foot on Libyan soil (unless they eject or crash).

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeniVidiVicous (Post 2770807)
I mean there's other places in Africa who need military assistance far more than Libya but these countries aren't sitting on oil so go figure.

I honestly can't think of an African country that has more need of military assistance than Libya at the moment. I'd really prefer to hear that the UN is stepping into Libya than to hear that Libyans are getting slaughtered by Qaddafi while their calls for help are falling on deaf ears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeniVidiVicous (Post 2770807)
Don't take this as a pro-gaddafi post btw i'm just fed up of seeing the US invading other countries.

As has been mentioned before, this is neither US-led nor an invasion.

Yet.

Liverandbacon 03-23-2011 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 2770873)
As has been mentioned before, this is neither US-led nor an invasion

But we are #1 Overlord of the West?!?! No other countries get involved in the affairs of other nations right?! :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Working Class Hero (Post 2770835)
Good point. I suppose this is just shelling practice for our troops...can't get rusty, they must be ready to blow up the next nation for
oil. :thmbup1:

Though generally even a relatively unfriendly stable nation is easier to trade with than an unstable one... 'War for Oil' is a silly concept. Nations have ulterior motives for humanitarian intervention (they'd be fools not to), but they're a bit more complex than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2770825)
Hey, their fencers have some of the best techniques. Right up there with portugese, spaniards, italians, and germans. Besides, Andre the Giant was born in the french alps. There would not have been a Hulk Hogan nor a Vince McMahon if there hadn't been an Andre the Giant.

Besides we both know a certain lady who speaks french, though she speaks English to us. :dev9:

I wasn't casting any doubt on the bravery of French civilians, merely stating that I don't know enough of them to make a judgement. I've met French soldiers that are among the bravest men I've ever met.

French Canadians, such as the lady in question, are cool in my book. Any culture that has the vision to invent the combination of fries, cheese curds, and gravy is one worthy of respect.

Tommycat 03-23-2011 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 2770873)
As has been mentioned before, this is neither US-led nor an invasion.

Yet.

Yeah, I was looking at that one with my eyes all crooked... I was thinking to myself, "Self... Why would VVV call it a US led invasion when it was the French who led the way, under a UN mandate, and no soldiers are actually invading?"

The response was
"I.. it's simple. Anytime the US is involved it has to be US led. And the missiles are the invaders... I guess..."

Darth Avlectus 03-23-2011 07:11 PM

@ astor/saber: So essentially what you're saying is once a predator/wifebeater, always a predator/wifebeater?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liverandbacon (Post 2770886)

I wasn't casting any doubt on the bravery of French civilians, merely stating that I don't know enough of them to make a judgement. I've met French soldiers that are among the bravest men I've ever met.

I was actually agreeing with you. :thmbup1:

Quote:

French Canadians, such as the lady in question, are cool in my book. Any culture that has the vision to invent the combination of fries, cheese curds, and gravy is one worthy of respect.
I would have settled for french toast, and maybe a link to Heywood Banks' "Yeah Toast!" song. ...and maybe their maids, hookers, and lingerie too...Which Saber doesn't seem to want to share anymore...:xp:

Jae Onasi 03-23-2011 07:39 PM

I'm only TEASING on the French thing. I love France. I've been to France. I speak French, albeit poorly. French was one of my undergrad majors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth
I honestly can't think of an African country that has more need of military assistance than Libya at the moment. I'd really prefer to hear that the UN is stepping into Libya than to hear that Libyans are getting slaughtered by Qaddafi while their calls for help are falling on deaf ears.

I agree. I also wish the UN had been more active in Sudan.

urluckyday 03-23-2011 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor (Post 2770386)
This should probably be in Kavars....

That said, well done to the Armée de l'Air. I honestly think the French reputation for cowardice is completely unwarranted, and their actions show the critics of the UK and the US that it isn't another Iraq style adventure (it's legal, for a start).

I don't understand how Iraq is any different than this situation. They both were led by tyrannical dictators with oppressive regimes, and they both controlled large oil reserves. The big difference is that Saddam was able to suppress his people far better than Gaddafi was able to. Saddam had killed thousands (if not millions) of his own people (most notably Kurds) and people turned their back on the facts. I'm not saying that the Iraq "adventure" (as you call it) was necessarily the best handled endeavor, but I think to put these two conflicts on different levels would be foolish.

I wish the US would stay out of the Libya conflict and just let Europe take all the blame/gratitude that comes along with being a liberator of evil - not because I'm not proud of my country's ability and willingness to help out, but because the gratefulness of the rest of the world is severely absent. I don't mind being a globalized country, but at this point, I just want to tell the rest of the world to go scratch without the US and see how things turn up. As the world's only true superpower, you just can't win I guess...they complain when you do, and they complain when you don't. I guess it's just my personality, though because I'd rather just walk away from someone who complains too much rather than turn the other cheek and keep helping out. And I stand by that.

urluckyday 03-23-2011 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astor (Post 2770830)
As has been pointed out, the Libyan people asked for intervention - as far as I'm aware no other countries have asked the international community for assistance in such a manner.

It's pretty hard for some group of extremely oppressed people to organize and contact the UN on an international scale and just say "hey, this guy's not being real nice to us, so can you send some planes?" Gaddafi just lost control of his people, and they took advantage.

I think if North Koreans could ASK for help they would...

Sabretooth 03-23-2011 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2770889)
The response was
"I.. it's simple. Anytime the US is involved it has to be US led. And the missiles are the invaders... I guess..."

Well, I don't blame them. Considering the US' track record, it's only fair that everyone from the rebels to Qadaffi to Peruvian farmers are under the impression that this is some sort of a precursor to a US invasion. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity (Post 2770915)
@ astor/saber: So essentially what you're saying is once a predator/wifebeater, always a predator/wifebeater?

I don't know about Astor's angle, but what I mean to say is, wifebeaters often look like normal, even nice and loving husbands on the outside. Their lives outside may even be good, or ideal. Inside their homes though, they're wifebeaters, and probably even rapists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urluckyday (Post 2770937)
I wish the US would stay out of the Libya conflict and just let Europe take all the blame/gratitude that comes along with being a liberator of evil - not because I'm not proud of my country's ability and willingness to help out, but because the gratefulness of the rest of the world is severely absent. I don't mind being a globalized country, but at this point, I just want to tell the rest of the world to go scratch without the US and see how things turn up. As the world's only true superpower, you just can't win I guess...they complain when you do, and they complain when you don't. I guess it's just my personality, though because I'd rather just walk away from someone who complains too much rather than turn the other cheek and keep helping out. And I stand by that.

Aww don't get bitter, uld, I don't like it when you're like that. :(

I think the US' conundrum is a result of some blunt foreign policy post-WW2. The US fashions itself as a crusader of freedom and human rights, stopping dictators and autocrats just like in WW2 (*Stalin glares*), but their choice of targets seems very picky.

To start with, the US has a long history of buffing up, installing and supporting dictators and autocrats itself; next, the US refuses to condemn sharply restrictive countries like Saudi Arabia while criticising pre-invasion Iraq and modern Iran (I wonder why...).

This, pretty much, is why the US just can't win. If they lead their moral invasion to save civilians from oppressive tyrants in countries that just coincidentally happen to have large reserves of oil, it begs the question why the US isn't directly interfering in the dozens of other civil wars, genocides and autocracies in the world. And amusingly enough, if they don't, the world then asks why the US is staying silent over interfering in *insert country here* when they previously were all gung ho about *insert other country here*.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urluckyday (Post 2770938)
I think if North Koreans could ASK for help they would...

You know, I actually don't think so. Despite the regime's clampdown on human rights and freedom of speech, the majority of North Koreans lead normal, unhindered lives. Although living there may seem like hell for others, it actually isn't the most difficult or unhappy place in the world. Remember that even before the generations of propaganda-fed citizens were born, thousands of people had willingly joined Kim.

urluckyday 03-24-2011 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 2770949)
You know, I actually don't think so. Despite the regime's clampdown on human rights and freedom of speech, the majority of North Koreans lead normal, unhindered lives. Although living there may seem like hell for others, it actually isn't the most difficult or unhappy place in the world. Remember that even before the generations of propaganda-fed citizens were born, thousands of people had willingly joined Kim.

But then you have to wonder why the US has to send so much food and medical aid to North Korea. They're the most isolated country in the world, and I'm sure the people would love to join the rest of the world in the 21st Century. There was that "inside North Korea" TV documentary on just a little while ago and while there was a large group of people sitting and essentially "praying" to their leader's picture, you could see OBVIOUS fear and restraint. You could tell that they wanted to speak up, but they valued life more than that.

Just because someone supported a leader years ago doesn't mean that they turned out well and treated his/her supporters right. Just look at Idi Amin or the obvious, Adolph Hitler, and you'll see this.

Drunkside 03-24-2011 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Primogen (Post 2770829)
Does it count as a war when they're equipped with little more than 40-year old Soviet tech and put up about as much of a fight as the things I found in my toilet yesterday?

You have no idea how good 40-year old soviet tech is if you think they are not usable. Their strenght lies in the ruggedness of the engineering, most of the soviet weapon technology is pretty much unbreakable, AK:s never get jammed for instance, whereas modern western assault rifles are like delicate flowers... Of death. Dont response with "we havez missiles", as everyone here understands, the actual fighting happens on the ground in this situation.

Damn im an idiot for taking part in a Kavar´s thread once again...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.