4 ms·

"NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https:

"NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Yes, air strikes. A sortie could just be a drone, do you really believe those made the revolution successful?
- djbebs 5y ago
  Are you genuinely trying to argue that air strikes had no impact on the war in Libya?
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    No, just that they didn’t make them successful. Without the rebels, the revolution would have failed, and even with them, it would have failed if they weren’t numerous enough. I don’t think the air strikes did much more than show some support for them, they were useful and made things easier but not material in its success.
    - djbebs 5y ago
      You should read some more about the Libyan war, because you're significantly misinformed. The airstrikes were absolutely crucial to the rebels victory, and no one with any idea of how the war progressed would try to claim otherwise. Before the airstrikes qadaffis forces were overrunning the rebels and were well on their way to benghazi off the back of their armored corps and air superiority, it was the airstrikes that put a stop to that.
    - tharkun__ 5y ago
      I find this back and forth weird. It seems to me that you are saying that the air strikes did not make the revolution successful because it also needed troops on the ground to be successful. You are also saying that they were not material in its success. I would argue that the revolutionary ground troops would have suffered more losses if Gaddafi had had air support but the revolution didn't. Nevermind the tanks and such destroyed by NATO via air strikes. Potentially enough to make the revolution fail. Is that not material?
- refenestrator 5y ago
  We'll never know, but at that number of sorties, you figure we destroyed the regime's air power and mechanized units, aka the edge they have over a popular revolt.
rjzzleep 5y ago
"The U.S. dropped an average of 72 bombs every day — the equivalent of three an hour — in 2016, according to an analysis of American strikes around the world."[1] US, UK and France dropped so many bombs on Lybia they ran out and Germany happily restocked them.[2] [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bombed-iraq-syria-pakistan-afghanistan-libya-yemen-somalia-n704636 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bombed-iraq-syria-pak... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8603885/Libya-Germany-replenishes-Natos-arsenal-of-bombs-and-missiles.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/86...

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

Yes, air strikes. A sortie could just be a drone, do you really believe those made the revolution successful?

djbebs 5y ago
Are you genuinely trying to argue that air strikes had no impact on the war in Libya?
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  No, just that they didn’t make them successful. Without the rebels, the revolution would have failed, and even with them, it would have failed if they weren’t numerous enough. I don’t think the air strikes did much more than show some support for them, they were useful and made things easier but not material in its success.
  - djbebs 5y ago
    You should read some more about the Libyan war, because you're significantly misinformed. The airstrikes were absolutely crucial to the rebels victory, and no one with any idea of how the war progressed would try to claim otherwise. Before the airstrikes qadaffis forces were overrunning the rebels and were well on their way to benghazi off the back of their armored corps and air superiority, it was the airstrikes that put a stop to that.
  - tharkun__ 5y ago
    I find this back and forth weird. It seems to me that you are saying that the air strikes did not make the revolution successful because it also needed troops on the ground to be successful. You are also saying that they were not material in its success. I would argue that the revolutionary ground troops would have suffered more losses if Gaddafi had had air support but the revolution didn't. Nevermind the tanks and such destroyed by NATO via air strikes. Potentially enough to make the revolution fail. Is that not material?
refenestrator 5y ago
We'll never know, but at that number of sorties, you figure we destroyed the regime's air power and mechanized units, aka the edge they have over a popular revolt.

rjzzleep 5y ago

"The U.S. dropped an average of 72 bombs every day — the equivalent of three an hour — in 2016, according to an analysis of American strikes around the world."[1] US, UK and France dropped so many bombs on Lybia they ran out and Germany happily restocked them.[2] [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bombed-iraq-syria-pakistan-afghanistan-libya-yemen-somalia-n704636 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bombed-iraq-syria-pak... [2] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8603885/Libya-Germany-replenishes-Natos-arsenal-of-bombs-and-missiles.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/86...