lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Battle for Benghazi
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-24-2011, 10:05 AM   #41
Tommycat
║┐║>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkside View Post
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...
Usable, yes. Effective against more advanced weapons, not do much. We have weapons that are more accurate over a longer distance. But I understand that less advanced weaponry can overcome high tech. I mean the US tanks were not anywhere near the level of German tanks during WWII. But then we had the advantage of having a whole lot of them.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-24-2011, 10:47 AM   #42
Sabretooth
鬼龍院皐月
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 9,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by urluckyday View Post
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.
North Korea is actually pretty good with infrastructure development - a lot of people there enjoy decent quality of life, lack of freedoms notwithstanding. What I mean is, I'd hardly consider them as a country lacking far behind the 21st Century. I do wonder why the US sends food/medical aid to NK, though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urluckyday View Post
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.
Welp, OBVIOUS fear and restraint doesn't make for good diplomacy. China should might as well invade the US citing the American people are divided between two major political camps and are OBVIOUSLY unhappy about things post-recession. Excuse me, I just got a call from the Communist Party...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urluckyday View Post
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.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Primogen View Post
Does it count as a war when they're equipped with little more than 40-year old Soviet tech?
I think there were are a couple of wars going on already that fit the bill...


Sabretooth is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-24-2011, 04:50 PM   #43
urluckyday
Up all night to get lucky
 
urluckyday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Beautiful USA
Posts: 2,760
Current Game: Red Orchestra 2
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
What I mean is, I'd hardly consider them as a country lacking far behind the 21st Century. I do wonder why the US sends food/medical aid to NK, though...
It's pretty well-known that North Korea is full of starvation and famine because the government does not know how to take care of its people. They rely heavily on donations from the US, China, and other countries to feed their people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
I think there were are a couple of wars going on already that fit the bill...
The big difference is that those wars are really only sustained because it's usually between two groups fighting each other with equally antiquated weaponry.



If I die today, I'm happy how my life turned out

Last edited by mimartin; 03-24-2011 at 10:13 PM. Reason: merged double post
urluckyday is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-24-2011, 05:31 PM   #44
Primogen
Junior Member
 
Primogen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 285
Current Game: The Witcher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkside View Post
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.
Actually, there are no Coalition troops putting boots on the ground in Libya, we're only utilizing aircraft and missiles. At least officially, we might have special forces deployed over there.

And no, contrary to popular belief, western assault rifles are not delicate flowers. When they're properly maintained and cleaned, they're quite reliable.


The Crown of Albion, an Arthurian Mythology RP
Dark Age of the Republic, a Star Wars RP
Primogen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-24-2011, 10:06 PM   #45
Liverandbacon
I'm only worth a piano?
 
Liverandbacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 651
Forum Veteran LF Jester Folder extraordinaire 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkside View Post
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
The AK47, and the more commonly encountered AKM, while indeed rugged, do jam. Most opinions to the contrary are taken from films or dubious secondhand knowledge.

The AK has aged far more gracefully (largely due to its purpose of cheaply arming a huge number of people with a weapon that they could figure out despite poor training) than most other Soviet military tech. The vast majority of it is painfully outmoded, often to the point of uselessness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkside View Post
whereas modern western assault rifles are like delicate flowers
Hahahahahahahahahaha.... no. Books, films, games, ignorant journalists, and fobbits greatly exaggerate the problems. As long as a soldier has a modicum of training and common sense, they're not going to have a problem. With some of the more recent guns we've got to play with, even those requirements all but disappear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunkside View Post
Damn im an idiot for taking part in a Kavar┤s thread once again...
Nah, we all make that mistake now and again. By the way, if you have any doubts regarding the truth of what I've said, or the extent of my experience, feel free to shoot me a PM and I can give you a rundown of what I'm basing these claims on. (Don't want to drag this too off topic)



--Too Dumb to Quit--
Liverandbacon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-24-2011, 11:02 PM   #46
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Every time I hear about how obsolete and useless Soviet tech is, I'm reminded of how the Serbs somehow managed to shoot down an F-117 "stealth" fighter with a 30-year-old Soviet surface-to-air missile system that wasn't even supposed to be able to detect it.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2011, 03:19 AM   #47
Primogen
Junior Member
 
Primogen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 285
Current Game: The Witcher
The F-117 was made in the 80's, it's a generation old. And I'd like to remind you that the Ethiopians managed to bring down an Italian fighter with slingshots during World War II.


The Crown of Albion, an Arthurian Mythology RP
Dark Age of the Republic, a Star Wars RP
Primogen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-29-2011, 04:34 PM   #48
Ctrl Alt Del
Uncreative User
 
Ctrl Alt Del's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posts: 3,814
Current Game: Dishonored
Forum Veteran 
I find the NATO's intervention to be lacking in moral and legitimacy grounds. If this tricky concept of humanitarian war was true then it should be applied at every occasion it's necessary, not use it sparsely and selectively as it has been. That is if we're really accepting that sovereignty is an aging precept with no room in the modern world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger View Post
Why call it a No-Fly Zone when they're in all reality wiping out all of Gaddafi's forces minus infantry?
Because, as it was proven in the Bosnian War, a no-fly zone can't properly be achieved without taking out targets such as airports, runways and refuelling stations. Just a formal written prohibition won't do much good. That's why a no-fly zone equals to a war declaration.

Gaddafi accuses NATO and the UN of not just "protecting Lybian civillians' "human rights" and actively helping the overestimated rebel forces to win the, what now has become, conflict. He's not wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger View Post
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.
Just because they're not all over the news now it doesn't mean there are still almost daily terrorist acts going on Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astor View Post
If this were solely about Oil, we wouldn't be attacking Gaddafi - we'd more than likely be continuing our business deals with him.
Agreed. It has a lot do with witness elimination of sorts.

When Gaddafi said earlier this month - before NATO took action - that he had "compromising evidence" about Sarkozy's election and later Gaddafi's son gave an interview claiming that Lybia helped funding his campaign, France was nimble to propose more serious action to be taken against Lybia.

Some other recent news regarding Berlusconi (he's facing underaged prostituition charges and impeachment threats) and the London School of Economics fiasco, ties Italy and England to the list of countries that have something to lose if Gaddafi does not come down or, in Berlusconi's case, if there's no war involving his country to divert those claiming for an impeachment.

It's not like those facts are not public now but finally, after years out of NATO and UN's black list, Gaddafi is being a nuisance again. It's political.


Inspiration

.Bioshock inspiration.

Last edited by Ctrl Alt Del; 03-29-2011 at 04:39 PM.
Ctrl Alt Del is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2011, 04:12 PM   #49
Mandalorian Knight
Rookie
 
Mandalorian Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liverandbacon View Post
The AK47, and the more commonly encountered AKM, while indeed rugged, do jam. Most opinions to the contrary are taken from films or dubious secondhand knowledge.

The AK has aged far more gracefully (largely due to its purpose of cheaply arming a huge number of people with a weapon that they could figure out despite poor training) than most other Soviet military tech. The vast majority of it is painfully outmoded, often to the point of uselessness.



Hahahahahahahahahaha.... no. Books, films, games, ignorant journalists, and fobbits greatly exaggerate the problems. As long as a soldier has a modicum of training and common sense, they're not going to have a problem. With some of the more recent guns we've got to play with, even those requirements all but disappear.
Agreed. Unfortunately the media (books, films, journalists as you stated) has to criticize the military for some reason. The M16, for example has been in use for 40+ years (albeit upgraded) because it's an effective rifle.

The following is mostly an educated guess on my part. Just going to go ahead and say that.
As far as troops on the ground in Libya goes, it's obvious to me that some country has to have some kind Special Operations Forces on the ground. The rebels are (out of necessity) are using similar or identical vehicles and equipment to the Libyan military. Discerning who is who from the air is extremely difficult without the aid of some kind of direction from the ground. According to USA Today last week, A-10s and AC-130s have been deployed. The AC-130 in particular is an SOF support craft, which reinforces my belief that someone has boots on the ground.
Mandalorian Knight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2011, 06:37 PM   #50
Liverandbacon
I'm only worth a piano?
 
Liverandbacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 651
Forum Veteran LF Jester Folder extraordinaire 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight View Post
As far as troops on the ground in Libya goes, it's obvious to me that some country has to have some kind Special Operations Forces on the ground. The rebels are (out of necessity) are using similar or identical vehicles and equipment to the Libyan military. Discerning who is who from the air is extremely difficult without the aid of some kind of direction from the ground. According to USA Today last week, A-10s and AC-130s have been deployed. The AC-130 in particular is an SOF support craft, which reinforces my belief that someone has boots on the ground.
Various news sources have already reported confirmation from government officials that the CIA and the UK's SAS and SBS have people on the ground. I don't know what's being said on the UK side, but the official Agency response is 'no comment'. However, if it was intended to be hidden from the public, the media wouldn't have found out at all.



--Too Dumb to Quit--
Liverandbacon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2011, 06:43 PM   #51
Mandalorian Knight
Rookie
 
Mandalorian Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 53
I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the info
Mandalorian Knight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2011, 08:44 PM   #52
Primogen
Junior Member
 
Primogen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 285
Current Game: The Witcher
Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later.


The Crown of Albion, an Arthurian Mythology RP
Dark Age of the Republic, a Star Wars RP
Primogen is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2011, 09:02 PM   #53
Mandalorian Knight
Rookie
 
Mandalorian Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Carolina, USA
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primogen View Post
Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later.
It's a way for the politicians to cover their... to have their stories straight. If their respected governments had gone on about how there wouldn't be anyone deployed on the ground, and if a SOF guy is later captured by troops loyal to Ghadafi, then the politicians lose points in the polls and credibility. This way they can confirm what other governments will expect anyways while not giving any specific details.

I do wonder what the Rules of Engagement for these troops are. Are they only permitted to call in airstrikes? Or do they have other roles, such as training the rebels or operating independently to attack targets of opportunity? Unfortunately, that much *definitely* isn't going to be shared with the public.
Mandalorian Knight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2011, 03:44 AM   #54
Astor
It's Thornhill!
 
Astor's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 3,632
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primogen View Post
Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later.
I believe it was reported over here the other week that President Obama had given authorisation for US special forces to operate on the ground, but yeah, it is a little strange.

I know our government had deployed the SAS during the mass evacuation of foreigners to get people out from the oil fields... and from a nostaglic point of view, the SAS was practically born in that desert - but I doubt they'll be driving pink jeeps with machine guns now.

As for actual, full on troops on the ground, if it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see the French at the head of the column.






Astor is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2011, 05:36 AM   #55
Sabretooth
鬼龍院皐月
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 9,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalorian Knight View Post
I do wonder what the Rules of Engagement for these troops are. Are they only permitted to call in airstrikes? Or do they have other roles, such as training the rebels or operating independently to attack targets of opportunity? Unfortunately, that much *definitely* isn't going to be shared with the public.
I remember reading one of the anti-Qadaffi protestors in Benghazi saying that some Western troops are on the ground, training civilians for combat [Al Jazeera, I believe], so it wouldn't be too far-fetched to think they're doing serious business in there.


Sabretooth is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-08-2011, 12:10 PM   #56
Liverandbacon
I'm only worth a piano?
 
Liverandbacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 651
Forum Veteran LF Jester Folder extraordinaire 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Primogen View Post
Various news sources, such as? I mean, I don't really doubt that the CIA has agents in Libya, or that the UK has deployed special forces units, but it seems a bit peculiar that government officials would confirm it without ending up dead from 'Aggravated Suicide' a few hours later.
BBC, New York Times, a ton of others.

As for confirmation, that's not peculiar at all. The US gov (and I'd assume the UK gov too) doesn't really care if people know, since it really isn't surprising, or anything worth hiding. Obama authorized CIA assistance in a very transparent way, when there are all manner of other, quieter, ways to do the same. The decision-makers likely want the people to know about this, or at the very least don't care. I worded my post to not present CIA/SAS+SBS involvement as fact, only the media's confirmation, because as a gov employee (or tool of capitalist imperialist world domination if you prefer) I have rules that need to be followed about what to post on the internet, and I like to stay well away from the boundary of what's allowed. However, if the media wasn't meant to know about it, they wouldn't, and there's not much reason for an official to fake it. Take that as you will.

The CIA leadership is saying 'no comment' because general policy is to not flat out confirm anything, leaving that to the discretion of certain other officials. You'll find that, when asked, the CIA is likely to say 'no comment' on even fairly innocuous activities from years ago that are common knowledge, even those with documents released under the FOIA.

edit: Only one thing has really been flat out denied, instead of 'no comment'. The US has not aided in arming the rebels. Considering how many Al Qaeda fighters and sympathizers have joined the cause, this is a good thing. Arming them for the tiny period of time where our interests are somewhat aligned would be a poor decision (honestly, a complete rebel victory could be very dangerous indeed; it might be preferable for western nations if the rebels just applied enough pressure to trigger a palace coup, followed by reform, instead of a new government being formed from the ground up, with a high risk of domination by militant Islamic interests).

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. The enemy of my enemy is a problem for later, to be cautiously used in the present.



--Too Dumb to Quit--

Last edited by Liverandbacon; 04-08-2011 at 12:29 PM. Reason: what's been denied + L&B's daily dose of cynicism
Liverandbacon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Battle for Benghazi

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 AM.

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