Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Herra Tohtori on February 20, 2011, 12:41:15 am
-
Ok, so.
There was a relatively peaceful uprising and revolution in Tunisia, then more violent and lengthy protests in Egypt culminating in the president's withdrawal from his position and handing the power (supposedly temporarily) to a military junta leadership. There's also been some unrest in Bahrain, but not to critical or unstabilizing scale yet, I think.
Now it seems Libya is about to undergo something similar, but it's a lot more bloody. There's been a lot of rioting and unlike in Tunisia or Egypt, the armed forces have engaged the rioters causing numerous casualties in dead and wounded. The country's internet is partially shut down, cell phone network has been shut down, international press have been barred from entering the country and even Al-Jazeera's news broadcast has been blocked.
There are estimations that the place is approaching a full scale civil war. According to unconfirmed rumours, the cities of Benghazi and al-Bayda are no longer under control of the government troops. There are also rumours of the government having hired mercenaries to quell the uprising.
The capital Tripoli has remained so far calm.
So, what we have here is something much more violent than Tunisia or Egypt happening. I don't think there's any chance of the Libyan people being allowed to oust Gaddafi. The country is a full-blown dictatorship, much worse so than Mubarak's Egypt. The armed forces appear to have no qualms over killing their own citizens, and there sure as hell isn't any chance of Gaddafi stepping down voluntarily.
There are three possible routes I can see this going.
The goverment troops manage to put down the uprising at an early stage, basically by killing everyone involved, thus scaring the people into staying subservient.
The former option fails, causing a full-blown civil war which could go either way: Either Gaddafi wins and remains in power, or the insurgency manages to grow large enough that he has to flee the country.
Regardless of the outcome here, this'll be bloody and horrifying time for the Libyans.
And we haven't even seen the follow-throughs in Tunisia and Egypt - those countries could still get worse than before, instead of better.
Of course, my definition of better is a secular democracy, rather than a theocracy. Unfortunately, both Tunisia and Egypt had been ruled by secular de facto dictators, thus creating lot of support for the polar opposition which just happens to be religious groups, and most of the time a religious group has gained secular power it's turned out just as autocratic and oppressing as any military dictatorships.
I'm still hoping for Egypt and Tunisia to gain a secular government pledged to secure the liberties for their people, but we'll see how that goes...
But regardless of what happens in Egypt and Tunisia, Libyan situation seems quite different already, mostly because the armed forces appear to be firmly on Gaddafi's side.
Links:
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12516156)
CNN (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/libya)
YLE, for the Finnish readers (http://yle.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/2011/02/libya_lahella_sisallissotaa_2377251.html?origin=rss)
Discuss.
-
I wish there was something we could do. But I extremely doubt that. Also, aren't protests occurring in something like 15+ countries across the mid-east and Africa? It's looking to be quite the furball over there.
-
I wish there was something we could do. But I extremely doubt that.
My estimation is that any intervention by external forces would not end well. These things need to play out internally, that's the only way the abused nationals of those countries will ever gain any sense of security and sovereignty - even a foreign peacekeeping organization would probably just be seen as either enforcers of the old regime, or invaders.
Also, aren't protests occurring in something like 15+ countries across the mid-east and Africa? It's looking to be quite the furball over there.
Yes. Let it just be said that we are living in interesting times. Libya is just the third in row where the **** is really hitting the fan. I expect there'll be others down the line, but it's almost impossible to make accurate predictions on the situation - it's pretty chaotic right now.
If I were to make some speculation, though, I would say a lot depends on how the Libyan situation proceeds. Escalation of the unrest could spark similar movements in the more autocratic countries like Iran, while if the protests were violently and efficiently snuffed out of existence, it could make people in other countries very hesitant of trying anything.
Right now I am following the situation in Bahrain and Iran fairly closely, in addition to Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya. Who knows what's next. Saudi-Arabia? :shaking:
-
There are three possible routes I can see this going.
Ok, what is the third route? You only said two.
-
There are three possible routes I can see this going.
Ok, what is the third route? You only said two.
The former option fails, causing a full-blown civil war which could go either way: A: Either Gaddafi wins and remains in power, or B: the insurgency manages to grow large enough that he has to flee the country.
:p
Maybe the formatting wasn't ideal.
-
Mr. Q/K/G depending on how you spell his name has proved extremely adept at holding onto power in the face of adversity. He's also a bit more crazy then the average, however. The leaders of Yemen were merely corrupt, Egypt's were hardliners but ultimately rational. I'm not sure that can be relied on here considering Libya's history of being North Korea Lite.
In any case, I think it likely someone is going to have sink the Libyan Navy again when foreign interference is blamed. If I were Southern Italian or Scilian I'd be getting a bit worried.
-
I wish there was something we could do. But I extremely doubt that. Also, aren't protests occurring in something like 15+ countries across the mid-east and Africa? It's looking to be quite the furball over there.
Fourteen in the last month, as of this morning (arranged in order by east to west):
Morocco
Algeria
Tunisia
Libya
Egypt
Sudan/South Sudan
Syria
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Bahrain
Iraq
Kuwait
Iran
-
I've seen various situations in the past compared to the description of a "stand-alone complex" from the Ghost in the Shell anime series, but this whole progression of protest movements is a better fit for it than I've ever seen. Who knows how all of these chips are going to fall...
-
I wish there was something we could do. But I extremely doubt that. Also, aren't protests occurring in something like 15+ countries across the mid-east and Africa? It's looking to be quite the furball over there.
Fourteen in the last month, as of this morning (arranged in order by east west to west east):
Morocco
Algeria
Tunisia
Libya
Egypt
Sudan/South Sudan
Syria
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Bahrain
Iraq
Kuwait
Iran
Fixed.
-
Moar news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12517327 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12517327)
She told the BBC that at least 45 bodies and 900 wounded had been brought to just one hospital on Saturday, describing the scene as a "massacre".
Human Rights Watch says at least 173 people have been killed in Libya since demonstrations began on Wednesday.
Benghazi has been a leading focus of protests against Col Gaddafi's rule.
Libya is one of several countries in the region to have seen pro-democracy campaigns since the fall of long-time Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in January. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was forced from power on 11 February.
BBC Middle East correspondent Jon Leyne says the current unrest in Libya is the most serious challenge to Col Muammar Gaddafi in his four decades in power.
Reports are difficult to verify as the Libyan authorities have imposed severe media restrictions.
The Benghazi doctor told the BBC that at least 45 bodies and 900 injured people had been brought to Jala hospital - most of them with gunshot wounds.
"Ninety percent of these gunshot wounds [were] mainly in the head, the neck, the chest, mainly in the heart," she said.
She added that she has been in contact with other Benghazi hospitals, which she says were overwhelmed by casualties and have not been able to count the dead.
:blah:
-
If they manage to flip the Colonel then I'd imagine it would uncork the entire region. Tunisia and Egypt had relatively peaceful transitions without to much governmental opposition, ie the army murdering people in job lots. If the Libyans can oust Gaddafi in spite of military opposition then I think it opens the door to a lot of other nations in the area, Iran for example.
-
So, what we have here is something much more violent than Tunisia or Egypt happening. I don't think there's any chance of the Libyan people being allowed to oust Gaddafi. The country is a full-blown dictatorship, much worse so than Mubarak's Egypt. The armed forces appear to have no qualms over killing their own citizens, and there sure as hell isn't any chance of Gaddafi stepping down voluntarily.
I find soldiers doing this should no longer be considered soldiers/military/etc. Libyan military is a bunch of **** heads. They act like nothing more than an automated armed branch of their government. Which says a lot about how smart everyone in the libyan military apparently is.
How much indoctrination and brain washing did it take to get the libyan military to treat it's own country's people as far from it to be able to do this?
-
There are reports that units of the Libyan Army have joined the protesters and/or engaged units of Gadhafi's "Praetorian Guard", but they're pretty vague still. There are also reports that African mercenaries have been brought in en masse to contain the protests violently.
Civil war it is, I guess.
-
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/201122131439291589.html
"Members of an army unit known as the "Thunderbolt" squad had brought wounded comrades to the hospital, he said. The soldiers said they had defected to the cause of the protesters and had fought and defeated Gaddafi's elite guards."
"There were also reports of protesters heading to Gaddafi's compound in the city of Al-Zawia near Tripoli, with the intention of burning the building down."
yeah, this is going to be great, we've had to relatively peaceful revolts, and Libya was one of the countries who decided to retaliate with violence. if we get footage of Gaddafi's entrails getting dragged through the streets, I think that will send an awesome message to the other regimes in the region about the pros and cons of using force to suppress your population.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbhUJ07DMIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9irqq-sRyAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oWbEZkOAwM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5cGAEqZBGE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQmZjNYX3Dk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71l051bK-IE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4dlIouy24g
yeah I think the phrase 'civil war' is accurate.
you, know actually, I would not be surprised if Libya fell too before too long, within a week, it could happen.
-
Anti-Aircraft guns against a crowd.....holy ****
I just don't see how you can justify that even in the most demented state of mind.
-
Anti-Aircraft guns against a crowd.....holy ****
I just don't see how you can justify that even in the most demented state of mind.
Source?
-
Third video. I can't be sure of exactly what he said. I may be wrong, but he mentioned AA guns around :25-:35, but he's so choked up it's hard to tell what he said.
-
There are reports that units of the Libyan Army have joined the protesters and/or engaged units of Gadhafi's "Praetorian Guard", but they're pretty vague still. There are also reports that African mercenaries have been brought in en masse to contain the protests violently.
Civil war it is, I guess.
AAAhhh good, some soldiers who know how to do more than just follow orders and use a brain to look at the whole situation. "Why exactly does my commander want me to kill the guy down the street selling fish? This is bogus ****!"
-
@carbine7; I would first like to see secondary confirmation of what he speaks ( I will also watch the video as soon as I can). I haven't heard anywhere else about that, other than one side is fighting against the other. It's too chaotic right now and we should remain calm so that when the relevant information does get out, we can make the best decision we can with it.
So while his testimony may be gripping, let's please confirm before we begin looking for the causes and what they may mean. Like you said, you can't see how they could justify that, even in the most demented state of mind.
-
Well, only fragments of what's going on are getting out of Libya at the moment. But it appears that Benghasi and Al-Baidha are under control of the protestors, Lybian airforce planes and helicopters have landed in Malta and Ghadhafi himself is rumoured to be on his way to Venezuela... all of this is unconfirmed at the moment.
But I guess the protestors are ready for an all-out civil war if necessary, since they know if Ghadhafi remains somehow in power, his retribution would be a massacre.
-
Where'd you hear that he was heading to Venezuela?
-
Reported on a swiss news page, the libyan ambassador in China, Hussein Sadik al Musrati claimed yesterday evenening on Al-Jazeera that Ghadhafi is trying to make his way to Venezuela.... maybe only a rumour,but I woulnd't be surprised if he suddenly would show up there seeking asylum.
-
Venezuela, in my opinion, is an interesting choice for several reasons.
-
@carbine7; I would first like to see secondary confirmation of what he speaks ( I will also watch the video as soon as I can). I haven't heard anywhere else about that, other than one side is fighting against the other. It's too chaotic right now and we should remain calm so that when the relevant information does get out, we can make the best decision we can with it.
While I certainly support the "Let's not jump to conclusions based on hearsay" being espoused here, what "decisions" are you under the impression we are in any position to make? It isn't like we have a damn bit of influence on the actual power-movers at play. We are, at best, witnesses. At worst, voyeurs.
-
The perceptions we make color the perceptions of those around us and those we may influence.
-
Libyan air force pilots land in Malta seeking political asylum;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110221/ap_on_re_eu/eu_malta_libya
-
holy ****, wow.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/us-libya-protests-pilots-idUSTRE71K4S320110221
ordered to bomb protesters.
-
so what are some options on what "we" (our governments) can do to help out.
Freezing Qaddafi's finances? (has this already happened?)
Setting up a no fly zone? (with the pilot defectors this might be a real option now)
Sanctions would do nothing as that is a slow acting deterrent, and we need something fast acting to stopp the bloodbath.
-
so what are some options on what "we" (our governments) can do to help out.
Freezing Qaddafi's finances? (has this already happened?)
Setting up a no fly zone? (with the pilot defectors this might be a real option now)
Sanctions would do nothing as that is a slow acting deterrent, and we need something fast acting to stopp the bloodbath.
Nothing. It's not our fight, and I don't think anyone would welcome our intervention.
-
I don't know, I would think the people getting bombed wouldn't mind... there has to be something we can do, some sort of pressure we can apply.
-
I don't know, I would think the people getting bombed wouldn't mind... there has to be something we can do, some sort of pressure we can apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya
Worked out real well last time we tried that. :doubt:
-
yeah, well at that time we didn't have Libya's own UN representatives calling him a "genocidal war criminal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22nations.html?partner=rss&emc=rss). I think this is a slightly different situation.
He has effectively lost whatever sort of legitimacy he may have had and is now simply using his nation's military to kill as many people as he can while he still can.
The fighter jets he is using to kill his people cannot operate without fuel and a place to rearm and a place to land and take off from, I don't think a missile strike limited to his air force bases would be seen as an invasion to the people getting bombed by the planes flying out of them, and I think just the threat of it would possibly be enough to end this massacre, we wouldn't even have to do it, just say we were going to if he didn't stop attacking his own people.
and by we, I mean the UN, or all of the UN other than China at least (USA+EU+Arab league).
-
There's no need for more US intervention, don't you think?
-
which is why I'm saying the names of such organizations as the UN the EU and the Arab League.
-
which is why I'm saying the names of such organizations as the UN the EU and the Arab League.
By the time they come to actionable consensus, this will probably all be over.
-
I don't know, I would think the people getting bombed wouldn't mind... there has to be something we can do, some sort of pressure we can apply.
Nothing. It's not our fight, and I don't think anyone would welcome our intervention.
Reposted for emphasis. Everyone needs to just keep their hands out of the situation, or the whole mess will just happen again in another 50 years.
-
So all of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again?
-
There's no need for more US intervention, don't you think?
Let us be frank, then. There is. Our mistake, our great mistake, was to commit ground troops to Iraq. The US has intervened in Arab affairs before, usually from a distance, usually with aircraft or cruise missiles, and it has gone fairly well or at least not devolved into a giant cluster****.
The Med is almost never without a CVBG and the United States has brought the Libyan military to its knees using a CVBG before. If as Bob says Mr. Q/G/K is stupid enough to use a discrete, easily targeted resource like aircraft to kill his own civilians, we have the means to take that away most efficiently.
There is only one valid reason not to launch the strike, and that is because it will upset some of our less democratic allies. Morally, however, it is utterly reprehensible to not act.
If there was no need for intervention, we wouldn't have dictators murdering people.
-
it's weird being on the "lets bomb'em" side with you. As dis-eager as I am, due to the events of the early to present 21st century, to drop bombs/missiles on yet another Muslim country for it's own good, I keep comeing to the same conclusion, the same way you did.
"If Mr. Q/G/K is stupid enough to use a discrete, easily targeted resource like aircraft to kill his own civilians, we have the means to take that away most efficiently, then morally it is utterly reprehensible to not act.".
In fact if anything I have almost a sense of guilt about how horribly we failed else were that I want to make it up, but that is the source of my conflict, I was so sure last time that Iraq and Afghanistan were the right course of action and I worry that this might turn out the same way.
In short I am conflicted, I desperately want to do something, yet I am terrified of doing the wrong thing, but I don't want to shoot down any possibility just out of irrational reaction.
-
The truth of the matter is, in my opinion, that if this is really an uprising for democracy, then it's the people's fight, not the US's. If they publicly ask for another country's help, then that country can choose to give it - but so long as no request is made, then it is not our place to draw conclusions.
There are other, practical concerns as well - but I feel that the thing we should really be looking at is that this is ostensibly a people's revolution - and it's the people's fight.
-
but that's the thing, I have been watching a lot of videos coming out of Libya and of the people who speak (some times broken) English a common thing they say is something to the effect of "how can you just sit there? we are dieing! help us!".
I have yet to see one that said "we've got this, don't need any help at all".
now, they are not asking the US for help directly, and I'm not saying we should act unilaterally, but there is _begging_ for help from people who have just seen their mother get blown to bits for the international community to step in and stop the massacre.
-
yet another "holy ****" moment brought to you buy a dieing monster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNFlT9boRs
-
There are other, practical concerns as well - but I feel that the thing we should really be looking at is that this is ostensibly a people's revolution - and it's the people's fight.
Injustice anywhere poses a threat to justice everywhere, to quote MLK. All that is required for the trimuph of evil, etc.
If this is a good, and I'm pretty sure that we'll agree on that, then if you would be called good you must be willing to support it. If this is the fight for democracy, then all who would be called democratic must be willing to take up arms and join.
-
So you think that we should storm in there, choose a side (when the sides are in flux), help them gain power, and then support whoever they elect?
What happens when another uprising occurs and expects the same thing? And the US is too stretched to help? Then they get called deserters.
Of course, if they step in here, there's a very real chance whoever gets put in power, if he's helped by the US, will just be called another installed dictator. Or are you saying that possibility is so low that we should go in anyway and not think about it?
After watching that video, I find myself conflicted, but again; what can I do? Scream that we send troops to Libya? With the US economy crumbling around us and my country's political system on the verge of splitting in two?
-
I've already offered you an option and you have ignored it. Your efforts to put words in my mouth are neither appreciated nor welcome, sir, and it reflects poorly on you.
We have plans in place to collapse the Libyan military's ability to operate its aircraft and control its forces in the field, and have for decades. Carry them out, and the let the rest run its course. Strike discrete, easily identifiable targets such as the air force and command and control centers.
We have the ability to exercise power without becoming directly involved via boots on the ground or pledges of support. No strings. Simply a nudge. It didn't work on Saddam in Gulf One, but he didn't have an active rebellion underway. It worked on Serbia during Kosovo.
-
How about we do just like the protesters are doing, lets not support anything, lets just oppose Gaddafi.
I mean i don't see him regaining power at this point, all that's left is how many people is he going to take down with him, if we can destroy his logistical advantage, he will be much less capable of inflicting death. As to what happens after, that is a different question, but what ever that may be, we will likely be in a better position if we can say we did our part in the fight against him.
-
I've already offered you an option and you have ignored it. Your efforts to put words in my mouth are neither appreciated nor welcome, sir, and it reflects poorly on you.
You offered me this option;
then all who would be called democratic must be willing to take up arms and join.
Forgive me if I disagree with that course of action.
Bobbaou, I can agree with that.
Careful words and wise speech will save the day in this, not bombastic rhetoric or great leaps where the platform is only assumed to be on the other side.
-
You offered me this option;
That is not an option. That is a reason to act. Try scrolling up a bit more. By agreeing with Bob, who is agreeing with me, we are no longer even arguing; you're simply trolling now.
-
I acknowledge your response.
Does anyone want to conjecture regarding the global fallout from a civil war or violent overthrow of the current government?
-
Islamic Republic of Tunibygypt?
-
Regarding the fighter jets -- Two pilots have defected to Malta after receiving orders to bomb protesters:
VALLETTA, Malta – Two Libyan air force jets landed in Malta on Monday and their pilots asked for political asylum amid a bloody crackdown on anti-government protesters in Libya, a military source said.
The two Mirage jets landed at Malta International Airport shortly after two civilian helicopters landed carrying seven people who said they were French. A military source familiar with the situation said the passengers had left in such a hurry that only one had a passport.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=133940091
It is now my opinion that not only is Gaddhafi a crazy person as he's showed time and time again in the political arena, he is also a downright maniac! :-/
-
yeah, that's been covered, and unfortunately not all Libyan pilots had as strong a sense of right and wrong as the protesters have been getting bombed.
also make sure you look at this vid I posted 3 posts back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNFlT9boRs) for your daily dose of 'sick ****'
-
yeah, that's been covered, and unfortunately not all Libyan pilots had as strong a sense of right and wrong as the protesters have been getting bombed.
also make sure you look at this vid I posted 3 posts back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNFlT9boRs) for your daily dose of 'sick ****'
Holy **** that was brutal. I wouldn't say people shouldn't watch it, but be advised going on it's pretty raw.
-
found an interesting one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs1AfCIbQKI), nothing especially nasty going on, but you have a small group of protesters who have captured one of the mercenaries, and are interrogating him, apparently some of them have more loyalty to Gaddafi than his bank account, or so this guy says.
oh, another good one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYuVOhCJ9mc) this teacher going on about solders defecting, mercenaries, and another mention of the use of AAA against the protesters.
-
yeah, that's been covered, and unfortunately not all Libyan pilots had as strong a sense of right and wrong as the protesters have been getting bombed.
also make sure you look at this vid I posted 3 posts back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNFlT9boRs) for your daily dose of 'sick ****'
Holy **** that was brutal. I wouldn't say people shouldn't watch it, but be advised going on it's pretty raw.
Well to be fair, it's not as raw as it's... burned, I guess. :ick:
-
Eurgh. What on Earth were the people around them doing? Show the dead guys some respect. :sigh:
-
there is a video where Gaddafi has an umbrella open and says he "would've liked to spend the evening with the youth in Green Square but that the rain had stopped him from doing that", I might be looking too much into it, but could this be a reference to the air strikes?
-
Eurgh. What on Earth were the people around them doing? Show the dead guys some respect. :sigh:
They were collecting the dead, going "holy ****", and filming it so that the rest of the world would see what has been going on, I'm assuming they had a building full of dead that they were still pulling out of the building.
-
Eurgh. What on Earth were the people around them doing? Show the dead guys some respect. :sigh:
Dude, did you hear the screaming? These people were ****ing mourning. So much raw anger and outrage and sadness it had me really upset. I think 'show the world' is pretty respectful.
-
silly on-line petition, I signed it anyway.
http://www.petitiononline.com/01031988/
news blurb "...and an on-line petition gained over 5 million signatures in just a week" would sound nice.
-
Oh, okay. I couldn't really tell. Some of it sounded like laughing, to me, which partially upset me internally.
-
Well to be honest I didn't listen to that much and my Arabic is ****. But what I heard was pretty genuine.
-
I often laugh when I'm overwhelmed by emotion, and I don't mean happy emotion. If a situation is sufficiently horrible i can't help but laugh.
-
Ah, I think I know why. I'd clicked on the link to a YT video of a fight at an adjacent school that was posted on facebook, forgotten about it as it buffered and played intermittently over my music, and then heard both simultaneously as I clicked on this one after checking HLP and pausing my iTunes playlist. Silly Dilmah. :P
Watching it again, these people seem rather agonized. But eurgh, I hope those guys got a proper burial. :(
-
Ah, I think I know why. I'd clicked on the link to a YT video of a fight at an adjacent school that was posted on facebook, forgotten about it as it buffered and played intermittently over my music, and then heard both simultaneously as I clicked on this one after checking HLP and pausing my iTunes playlist. Silly Dilmah. :P
Watching it again, these people seem rather agonized. But eurgh, I hope those guys got a proper burial. :(
teehee, that could've ended up so much worse
"I can't BELIEVE someone was telling them to KICK THE CORPSES in the BALLS that's so wrong"
-
Oh, you're not too far off! :lol:
Anyway, saw some other videos of protesters throwing rocks at what was apparently a Sniper team (looked more like two riflemen on a rooftop). You Libyans are brave SOB's.
-
yeah, I've been fairly impressed with everyone in North Africa lately.
-
Well to be honest I didn't listen to that much and my Arabic is ****. But what I heard was pretty genuine.
Well...from what I heard, it definitely sounded like expressions of outrage and sadness. And I too thought I heard laughing, but I kept listening and realized that was more akin to wailing.
-
yeah, I've been fairly impressed with everyone in North Africa lately.
While I'm impressed with them throwing out the despots, I fear that it'll just lead to new tyrants being installed, because that's what has happened after most of the revolutions the world has seen.
-
misurata is under opposition control (http://tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=5466) and i've heard unconfirmed rumors that Zuara and Az Zawiyah (a satellite of Tripoli) has fallen to them as well, I would not be surprised if this was over within the next 48 hours, hell it could be over within 6 hours if the reports of a huge mob of protesters heading from Az Zawiyah are correct.
-
Bobboau, do you mind if I ask what country you're based in? I only ask because you seem to be very interested in these events - I would like to know what other countries, perhaps outside the "usual" sphere of influence, that these country's rebellions are affecting. Or are they not affecting your area?
Cheers. :)
-
I'm American.
I'm also politically Libertarian, so I have a very deep interest in popular uprisings.
And they are, strictly speaking, affecting my area(and I would expect just about everyone else's), though not in a good way, as the price of gas is going through the roof, but IMO it's worth it in the long run.
-
More on the imminent fall of Tripoli (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-protests-3.html)
-
He blamed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden for fomenting the unrest that has killed hundreds over the past week
:wtf:
-
Looks like the US is planning to invade Libya, if i understand Obama's speech last night correctly.. Bad, bad idea. Could end up like another Somalia, but then with a $200+ dollar per barrel oil. Maybe even worse.
-
I didn't get that, all he is planning to do is impose sanctions. now he didn't say military intervention was off the table, but he has been vary wary of such a thing. Now, I've been saying we should bomb/cruse missile Gaddafi controlled air force bases, and maybe tanks, but it's looking like that might not be needed anymore. We DEFINITELY should NOT even consider ground forces.
oh, also map of events and Gadafi government control (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&aq=&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=215454646984933465708.00049c59184ae1136341a&z=6)
looks like Gaddafi is sending a force from Tripoli to the east, but the opposition is coming in from the west.
-
Az Zawiyah
CNN is confirming that fighting is ongoing in the area. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/24/libya.protests/index.html?hpt=T1) Also, apparently the rebellion is the result of young whippersnappers on his lawn, al Queda, and psychedelic drugs in the coffee according to Libyan's leader.
I'm not making that last bit up. He really did say it was due to drugs.
Looks like the US is planning to invade Libya, if i understand Obama's speech last night correctly.. Bad, bad idea. Could end up like another Somalia, but then with a $200+ dollar per barrel oil. Maybe even worse.
Full-scale invasion is a military impossibility in a meaningful timescale. At this moment, if my reading of things is correct, there are however a few military options open.
The US has a CVBG in the Med and could deploy another two or so in a few days. (There is also a 'phib group, but don't think for a minute that you're going to storm Tripoli with a couple battalions of Marines.) That gives you a carrier air wing and 20-odd Tomahawks to play with. Either coordinating with those on the ground (unlikely) or simply striking known targets that support the regime (command, control, communications) could both help even the odds. However Obama does not strike me as the sort to do so unilaterally.
What he could do, though, would be to recognize the rebellion and offer military protection to areas under rebel control, particularly Benghazi. A carrier air wing would prevent aerial or naval bombardment. (Nobody seems to know where the Libyan Navy is at the moment, or at least nobody is telling, but that collection of patrol boats could make a real mess of something if allowed.)
-
wow... (good news)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgP0Gro52c8
I mean ****ing WOW! :eek: that is amazing!
-
wow... (good news)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgP0Gro52c8
I mean ****ing WOW! :eek: that is amazing!
That is... quite a few people. They actually seem fairly well-kept and well-mannered at the moment as well.
-
Egyptian aid convoys to Libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo0bSjfgW3g
-
Anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Libya.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_af/af_libya_the_east
Following the example of their Egyptian neighbors, the Libyans quickly formed popular committees to guarantee basic security and began to talk to local academics, lawyers and experts to figure out how to run the city they had inherited.
-
Anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Libya.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_af/af_libya_the_east
Following the example of their Egyptian neighbors, the Libyans quickly formed popular committees to guarantee basic security and began to talk to local academics, lawyers and experts to figure out how to run the city they had inherited.
Do they take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer of the week?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
-
To me, it sounds like they've got it really going. I read through that article and was really happy to see that the people taking over actually got it. It was like they were resting back control of a system others had forgotten how to manage ages ago.
-
Anarcho-syndicalist revolution in Libya.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_af/af_libya_the_east
Following the example of their Egyptian neighbors, the Libyans quickly formed popular committees to guarantee basic security and began to talk to local academics, lawyers and experts to figure out how to run the city they had inherited.
D: The Council of Elders!
-
D: The Council of Elders!
I cannot unthink that now . . .
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022307211.html?wprss=rss_print
One man took a tractor and broke down the walls of the Kitab security base in Shahat, where mercenaries were housed, witnesses and participants said. In a battle that lasted a day and a half, the residents overwhelmed the forces, killing some and taking others hostage. The captives are being held in secret locations throughout the area.
At the local airport, residents have blocked the runways with large rocks, car parts and other debris to keep the government from flying in reinforcements.
Unwanted mercs in your town? BREAK DOWN THEIR WALL WITH A TRACTOR AND OVERWHELM THEM WITH STONES AND KNIVES!
-
I will **** my pants if Saudi Arabia or Kuwait follow suit with these folks.
I mean, I know it'll be horrible for oil prices, but who wants to be seen having a meaningful monarchy these days?
-
Almost the entire Commonwealth? :p
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110226/ap_on_re_af/af_libya
TRIPOLI, Libya – Moammar Gadhafi's regime passed out guns to civilian supporters, set up checkpoints and sent armed patrols roving the terrorized capital Saturday to put down a revolt in his main stronghold by residents inspired by the success of rebels elsewhere who hold about half of the North African nation.
Even odds these "supporters" end up shooting the guy.
-
yeah, I don't see how this was a smart move for him.
-
yeah, I don't see how this was a smart move for him.
This is the man who believes that mass rebellion is the result of mass drugging of coffee by Al Queda. This is the man who had members of the UN, who require a very high bull**** quotient just to work there, literally covering their faces with their hands when he gave a speech there.
There are two options here:
1. He's straight up bat****.
2. He's more subtly bat**** and he truly believes, in the way most people believe in religious stuff, that he is the best thing that's ever happened to Libya and that anyone who is rebelling against him must be insane.
-
yeah, I don't see how this was a smart move for him.
This is the man who believes that mass rebellion is the result of mass drugging of coffee by Al Queda. This is the man who had members of the UN, who require a very high bull**** quotient just to work there, literally covering their faces with their hands when he gave a speech there.
There are two options here:
1. He's straight up bat****.
2. He's more subtly bat**** and he truly believes, in the way most people believe in religious stuff, that he is the best thing that's ever happened to Libya and that anyone who is rebelling against him must be insane.
3. US is cooperating with Al Queda and we're drugging the **** out of Libya's coffee creamers :P
-
It's always the second type that winds up being far more dangerous.
-
These guys are bloody heroes. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/daring-desert-rescue-as-libya-faces-civil-war-prompting-desperate-exodus/story-fn7ycml4-1226012671117)
-
There are reports getting out that Libyan security forces are attacking or imprisoning foreigners trying to leave the country, from both Egypt and Tunisia so far.
It's like the man wants a military intervention.
-
He quite possibly does. He's talking about dying a martyr, punishing the people - you want to punish your people by ****ing up the country, well, Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty good examples of how he might be able to do it.
-
He quite possibly does. He's talking about dying a martyr, punishing the people - you want to punish your people by ****ing up the country, well, Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty good examples of how he might be able to do it.
The problem with that theory is that it won't work; the people he triggers to intervene will never adopt that paradigm. He's simply going to die in a hail of foreign bullets.
-
Of course, if he's resigned to dying, he might be willing to take the risk.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that it might be how he's thinking.
-
Of course it's strange we can't get these dictator's side of things, as so far two of them when ousted end up with a sudden, what was it? Heart attack? stroke? At any rate, they can't tell us their side of things, neither do their trusted advisors. A minor example of how hard it is to figure out if these revolutions end up in favor of the peoples, or if they turn out just to de-stabilise the region and further supress their people's ability to come out of their forced middle-ages/dark age conditions.
-
We're up to full-scale civil war now, as the first government offensive against a rebel-held area has been thrown back.
-
I'm waiting for the West to, at the very least, provide weapons to the rebels. I know Russia and China seem to oppose the no-fly zone. I guess they fear a loss of influence or something?
-
I'm seeing a few reports that the rebels have openly requested either airstrikes or a no fly zone, but...
-
yeah, they have flat out asked us to bomb Gaddafi, China will not allow this, they already have some uprisings in their own country due to what has been happening in the mideast, if anything china would want to bomb the rebels to show their people what happens when you start getting uppity. and unlike Iraq we aren't in an irrational pissed state to go and do it anyway. we might end up arming the rebels though, but that is a long shot.
-
Why do they need UN Security Council approval to enforce the No Fly Zone? Forget Russia and China and get your international legitimacy from NATO - that's what it's supposedly for in the post-cold-war era, right?
-
I'm seeing a few reports that the rebels have openly requested either airstrikes or a no fly zone, but...
Cue *****ing by the RAF boys about how they would have been able to do something about that if they hadn't been cut to the bone.
I personally think it should be a global obligation to provide a no-fly zone, so no one comes in and nothing comes out. But the current global financial state and the repercussions of things going wrong are probably too great to let that happen, as has been said.
Also, what's this about China and Russia opposing the no fly zone?
-
Why do they need UN Security Council approval to enforce the No Fly Zone? Forget Russia and China and get your international legitimacy from NATO - that's what it's supposedly for in the post-cold-war era, right?
the problem is Libya is not a NATO country which puts issue like this squarely in the UN's jurisdictional. NATO is still a defense alliance of member countries.
It has the military cappacity needed to undertake crisis management operations. these are carried out under artical 5 of the washington treaty and/or under a UN mandate.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Libya is a civil war and thus a national issue which all the armed conflict has remained within the countries own boarders meaning only the UN has the authority to invoke military action via a mandate and only then if UN legislation regarding things like human rights is suspected to or has been broken and that breach is acknowledged by the security council.
-
the problem is Libya is not a NATO country which puts issue like this squarely in the UN's jurisdictional. NATO is still a defense alliance of member countries.
Libya is a civil war and thus a national issue which all the armed conflict has remained within the countries own boarders meaning only the UN has the authority to invoke military action via a mandate and only then if UN legislation regarding things like human rights is suspected to or has been broken and that breach is acknowledged by the security council.
None of that stopped them in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia).
-
Its amazing what you can get away with when the words like genocide and ethnic cleansing are used
-
You Dutch are rather brave. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/world/africa/04netherlands.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
-
Maybe we should pay an intern to give Obama a blow job...
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8358645/Libya-Hugo-Chavez-peace-plan-under-consideration.html
This makes things a little more iteresting I think.
-
Great, a psycho trying to broker peace with another psycho. Just what the world needs.
-
Great, a psycho trying to broker peace with another psycho. Just what the world needs.
Chavez comes across like this:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oXU5pwXiUVU/S_xt9Mob00I/AAAAAAAAAHo/LlDm3iJGDF0/s1600/Dr_Nick_Simpsons.png)
-
who better to understand the mind of a bored cold war era dictator
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8358645/Libya-Hugo-Chavez-peace-plan-under-consideration.html
This makes things a little more iteresting I think.
I doubt Chavez will offer anything that the rebels will accept, being a demonstrated autocrat himself.
-
You Dutch are rather brave. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/world/africa/04netherlands.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)
I sure hope those soldiers get out alright...
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8364997/Libya-could-split-says-Liam-Fox-as-regime-hits-rebels-hard.html
Why isn't the west doing anything?
-
"I felt like I had no weapon," said Jamal el-Goradi, a Libyan who worked in a doughnut shop in Denver, Colorado until he flew home to join the uprising late last month.
what a bamf
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8364997/Libya-could-split-says-Liam-Fox-as-regime-hits-rebels-hard.html
Why isn't the west doing anything?
Rare outbreak of common sense?
Yeah, I doubt that too.
-
Rare outbreak of common sense?
Yeah, I doubt that too.
Man, screw you and your "people are dying, let's sit on our hands" ****. :P
-
Rare outbreak of common sense?
Yeah, I doubt that too.
Man, screw you and your "people are dying, let's sit on our hands" ****. :P
We do that every day. The difference is that these people are dying much more sexily, in a manner that involves fighter jets and gunfire.
-
To be fair, though, you can't help alleviate poverty and drought by just launching a few airstrikes against weapons depots. :p
-
>B-52 drops money on poor people
>Air strike on poverty
-
>thousands killed, crushed by money.
-
To be fair, though, you can't help alleviate poverty and drought by just launching a few airstrikes against weapons depots. :p
The best thing America has done for its foreign image in the past ten years is disaster relief. Tossing a bunch of humrats out the window does a lot more than cluster bombing any number of bad guys.
-
Oh, I know it does. It's just that in this case, it seems like there's a few concrete steps we could take to make things easier for the rebel forces that wouldn't involve prolonged military involvement, and given how public sentiment in the region is squarely behind said rebels, I don't think we'd do our image damage by getting involved in a limited fashion.
-
We do that every day.
And that annoys me too.
It is also totally irrelevant to my point. The Colonel has provided us with a near-perfect means of asserting military force and helping the rebels without much risk by using his aircraft.
-
>B-52 drops money on poor people
>Air strike on poverty
(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)
(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)
(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)
(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)(http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/9163/lolinflation.gif)
-
We do that every day.
And that annoys me too.
It is also totally irrelevant to my point. The Colonel has provided us with a near-perfect means of asserting military force and helping the rebels without much risk by using his aircraft.
It's not irrelevant at all. Like I said, I think one of the risks here is that this kind of intervention is very sexy and therefore more prone to go off where it's not needed. I'm not totally opposed to it, but I'm not convinced it's actually worth it either, even if the regime can't follow through on its threats.
The exercise of American power through, well, American air power has a dodgy history. Sometimes it works, but it's rarely as effective as quieter means of support, and it carries a whole suite of risks centered around the fact that it's so noisy and obvious. Anyone who comes out strongly in favor of it is as liable to want to see some good air-to-air combat as anything else.
-
Also.
Where would we (the first world with significant military presence) need to intervene next?
Would we have the resources to pull off "intervening" in other hot spots where dictators resort to violence against their citizens?
What would the message be if we chose to intervene in Libya and not in whatever despot decides to kill some of their citizens?
What would the message be to dictators who would assume that the west WOULD intervene if their citizens started rioting on the streets?
What would the message be to citizens who would assume that the west WOULD intervene if their dictator started killing them off to stop the uprising?
Whose expectations should be met?
As much as it pains me to say (as this is one of the situations where I do think international intervention would be acceptable), it might in the long run be better to let it play out internally if at all possible.
If we go in there and take the rebels' side, it's going to send a message to autocratic governments of Middle-East that if they start killing off their citizens, the West will intervene. This'll make them anxious and jittery and probably worsen the diplomatic relations (if any) to those countries.
It'll also send a message to the citizens of said autocratic governments that the west will come to their aid.
What if they count on that but the west can't or won't deliver? What if helping citizens in some country is inconvenient or impossible from political or military perspective?
No wonder Revan turned to the Dark Side... :nervous:
-
Good points Herra Tohtori.
I would also ask; if America was true to it's principles, how could it not intervene? How could it not assist all the other country's rebels?
Is America being true to it's principles?
If it is, then why aren't we intervening?
If it's not, then why are we allowing our country to detach itself from it's foundations?
-
I would also ask; if America was true to it's principles, how could it not intervene? How could it not assist all the other country's rebels?
Which principles are these?
If it's not, then why are we allowing our country to detach itself from it's foundations?
Since when has military intervention in other countries been a foundation of our country?
Your argument has gaping logical holes, leaps from 'America principles' to 'why aren't we intervening' without bothering to establish that intervention is somehow an American principle, into which you've stuffed what is basically rhetoric. Try again.
-
you know, the least we could do would be dropping humanitarian aid, personally I'd like us to be dropping other stuff too, but we really should be able to just carpet Benghazi with HDRs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_daily_ration)
-
Technically, any one country alone has no business in intervening in any internal business happening inside another sovereign country.
America's principles don't have anything to do with that.
Things like that need to be internationally approved efforts. Unilateral intervention would very likely be the worst possible option.
Humanitarian aid would be a good start but who's to say that Libyan Air Force won't start shooting down the cargo planes?
Hmmm...
What about a catapult?
-
Your argument has gaping logical holes, leaps from 'America principles' to 'why aren't we intervening' without bothering to establish that intervention is somehow an American principle, into which you've stuffed what is basically rhetoric. Try again.
supposed American principals would be things like freedom of speech, democracy, freedom of religion, right to expression, ect..
this links up with military intervention when said intervention would, according to those who promote it, assist those who are trying to promote those principals in another land.
-
Humanitarian aid would be a good start but who's to say that Libyan Air Force won't start shooting down the cargo planes?
That would be a very unwise move on the part of a person who does not want a no fly zone imposed over his country.
-
That would be a very unwise move on the part of a person who does not want a no fly zone imposed over his country.
Who knows what Gaddafi wants or how detached from reality he is.
-
Your argument has gaping logical holes, leaps from 'America principles' to 'why aren't we intervening' without bothering to establish that intervention is somehow an American principle, into which you've stuffed what is basically rhetoric. Try again.
supposed American principals would be things like freedom of speech, democracy, freedom of religion, right to expression, ect..
this links up with military intervention when said intervention would, according to those who promote it, assist those who are trying to promote those principals in another land.
Anyone who wants to reduce it to something that simple shouldn't be trusted with that kind of decision. I don't mean that as a personal attack against you, I understand what you're saying, but this is still fundamentally rhetoric.
-
well, the only real threat would be from interceptors, there should not be any hostile AAA within range of Benghazi. hell, now that I think of it, it's a ****ing port, we could just send it there on a ship, there is a governing council in the rebel towns, we could turn it over to them and allow them to distribute it.
Anyone who wants to reduce it to something that simple shouldn't be trusted with that kind of decision. I don't mean that as a personal attack against you, I understand what you're saying, but this is still fundamentally rhetoric.
I was simply filling in the gaps you seemed to have missed in some other person's argument.
-
I feel we should, at least, be giving the rebels supplies (including weapons). A no-fly zone *might* be nice, but I feel supporting the rebels and avoiding troop deployments at all costs is best.
-
Well Herra's post earlier addressed why we can't really take sides. I mean, I'd like to support the rebels myself and show his Air Force the door, but the message it sends isn't one that perhaps America, along with most of the first world can afford to support.
That would be a very unwise move on the part of a person who does not want a no fly zone imposed over his country.
Who knows what Gaddafi wants or how detached from reality he is.
Well they detained those Dutch pilots and they weren't posing much harm... He'll probably shoot down humanitarian planes on the grounds of 'spying' and 'breaching international law' like he did with the helo crew. :rolleyes:
-
The exercise of American power through, well, American air power has a dodgy history. Sometimes it works, but it's rarely as effective as quieter means of support, and it carries a whole suite of risks centered around the fact that it's so noisy and obvious. Anyone who comes out strongly in favor of it is as liable to want to see some good air-to-air combat as anything else.
The history of US air power is not nearly as dodgy as you'd assert, though its last outing in Gulf Two was marred by the classic overclaiming of capabilities. I am not overstating its abilities. I don't think anyone here is seriously asserting it can win a bloodless decision or anything like that. It can take away the ability to operate aircraft against the rebels and that's all that's being asked.
The suggestion that anyone who comes out in favor of it wants to see air-to-air is ridiculous. The performance of the Libyan Air Force so far has been so utterly pathetic (they've had jet aircraft lost to manual-directed heavy machine guns in ridiculously small numbers, night raids on Benghazi defeated with triple-A without radar guidance) that any actual attempt at a challenge is unlikely. They do not appear sufficiently trained or sufficiently willing to mount a credible campaign against the rebels; they almost certainly lack the will to try their luck against a carrier air wing or the training to do more than die pathetically if they try.
Herra, meanwhile, asks good questions, but he asks them twenty years and more too late. We have already made such commitments in the past. It's already clear what the answers are. They might not be appreciated, but they are evident.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12661604
The UN has appointed a new envoy on Libya and is to send a humanitarian team as the battle between forces loyal to Col Gaddafi and rebels intensifies.
The UN has taken note
-
I would think those questions should be asked every time on a case-by-case basis.
But I see your point - historically, projections of military force have happened if it has been in the interests of the country in question to do so. Enemy of my enemy is my ally, but in this case Gaddafi is more than just one autocratic leader of a backward country - he represents all the other dictators of similarly backwater countries.
Certainly Gaddafi has no friends in the West. But to take sides against him and take a position that strongly supports the rebels with military force would set a precedent for all the rest of the countries experiencing civil unrest and uprisings.
It clearly tells the dictators that we're not going to sit on the sidelines and watch you commit the greatest misuse of authority a person can be guilty of and murder their own citizens.
It clearly tells the citizens of those countries that they have our support, that they can oust their leader and if they start killing them, they'll get military support from the west for their cause (either as open military action, equipment drops, or covert operations).
And, you know, in this sort of situation I could condone an intervention perfectly well (with an UN mandate) - if it were just one country in question where the citizens finally got fed up of their Great Leader and stood up for their rights. But it's not. It's pretty much the entire Mediterranean coastline of Africa and most of Middle-East.
What I'm asking is: Can the west (or if an UN mandate is considered, rest of the world) afford to send this sort of message? Can we back it up if either the citizens in all those countries (and this is the worst case scenario) start an uprising against their esteemed leaders, expecting support from us, and said leaders decide to call instead of folding and respond violently?
Do we have sufficient resources to actually deliver sufficient support to the people who counted on it? Or will they be left alone, harbouring a bit more resentment against the West for helping the Libyan rebels but not them?
I don't think this is a situation that has notable precedent in the history. US and other entities supporting revolutionary actions over the world have usually been more or less isolated cases. This is a major unrest/uprising affecting lots of countries simultaneously, and in a way intervening in one of the countries gives a precedent for the rest of the countries.
With this in mind I can fully well understand why every major player seems to be very very hesitant to commit their direct support for either side, outside of political and economical pressure on Gaddafi.
Clearly, everyone's sympathies are on the Rebels' side here, but committing support for them is just much more complicated than it should be.
There are some interesting parallels here to Winter War, actually. The sympathies of practically the whole world were on Finland's side, yet none of them were in a position to give any concrete support. The analogy is far from complete, but basically it's the same effect.
On the topic of UN - I doubt that avenue will result in any sort of military actions unless Russia and China stop their filibustering, but even a humanitarian mission would be better than nothing.
Of course, humanitarian aid would be given for both Loyalist and Rebel occupied areas equally...
-
Well Herra's post earlier addressed why we can't really take sides. I mean, I'd like to support the rebels myself and show his Air Force the door, but the message it sends isn't one that perhaps America, along with most of the first world can afford to support.
"we can't help you all because we are too busy helping all of these other people" is a much better reason not to help someone than "we can't help you because we don't want to give the wrong impression". we could very easily afford a no fly zone over half a dozen countries if we wanted to, we would have to do it one country at a time and they would have to be relatively close to one another but is we, as a world, wanted to do this, we could easily. handle it on a case by case basis, this case with our current situation we could very easily handle shooting down his planes and taking out is bases, we could have it done in 3 weeks if you include planning and moving resources.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110307/ap_on_re_us/us_arming_libya
Hey, at least we're not selling arms to Gadaffi anymore.
-
let me put it another way, if we do not act, then that sends a message to every two bit tin pot dictator out there, that they can massacre their own people and we will just look the other way, there are consequences to inaction, both sides of this coin send a message, what message do you think we should be sending?
-
The performance of the Libyan Air Force so far has been so utterly pathetic (they've had jet aircraft lost to manual-directed heavy machine guns in ridiculously small numbers, night raids on Benghazi defeated with triple-A without radar guidance) that any actual attempt at a challenge is unlikely. They do not appear sufficiently trained or sufficiently willing to mount a credible campaign against the rebels; they almost certainly lack the will to try their luck against a carrier air wing or the training to do more than die pathetically if they try.
I agree. Three words: Gulf. Of. Sidra.
Herra's post I mostly agree with, if it were an isolated incident, this would be oh so much simpler.
Well Herra's post earlier addressed why we can't really take sides. I mean, I'd like to support the rebels myself and show his Air Force the door, but the message it sends isn't one that perhaps America, along with most of the first world can afford to support.
"we can't help you all because we are too busy helping all of these other people" is a much better reason not to help someone than "we can't help you because we don't want to give the wrong impression". we could very easily afford a no fly zone over half a dozen countries if we wanted to, we would have to do it one country at a time and they would have to be relatively close to one another but is we, as a world, wanted to do this, we could easily. handle it on a case by case basis, this case with our current situation we could very easily handle shooting down his planes and taking out is bases, we could have it done in 3 weeks if you include planning and moving resources.
Well if it's a no-fly zone today, what if it's a blockade tomorrow, and a full on invasion next week? But I see what you're saying, and I think that it depends on what Gaddafi does next. If we were to commit aid by air, I'd insist on a NFZ simply to protect aid aircraft, which has the nice side-effect of suppressing whatever attempts at local-airspace denial he'd like to try.
-
let me put it another way, if we do not act, then that sends a message to every two bit tin pot dictator out there, that they can massacre their own people and we will just look the other way, there are consequences to inaction, both sides of this coin send a message, what message do you think we should be sending?
The problem is if you go in unable to provide sufficient force you end up in a situation like in the aftermath of the first war in Iraq (Desert Storm?) where by the population resent your intervention because it failed to remove the leader and or leave the population exposed
-
let me put it another way, if we do not act, then that sends a message to every two bit tin pot dictator out there, that they can massacre their own people and we will just look the other way, there are consequences to inaction, both sides of this coin send a message, what message do you think we should be sending?
Yes. This is a valid point of view.
It appears there is no right option. I am not going to say that abstaining from doing anything would be right, I am simply bringing up problems I see in the option of military intervention.
Advocatus diaboli and all that.
There's also the certainty of certain extremist groups going to play western military intervention as invasion, and any regime that manages to get in power will always be dubbed as west-controlled puppet government by said factions.
This has a potential to make people think they simply switched one overlord for another, and further expand the fertile recruiting grounds for all sorts of terrorist organizations (of which they already have abundance of to select from).
What the people in autocratic countries need is knowledge that they are in charge of their own future. I am unsure if this particular area could ever accept help for what it is, without assigning hidden meanings to it - real or fabricated.
-
The exercise of American power through, well, American air power has a dodgy history. Sometimes it works, but it's rarely as effective as quieter means of support, and it carries a whole suite of risks centered around the fact that it's so noisy and obvious. Anyone who comes out strongly in favor of it is as liable to want to see some good air-to-air combat as anything else.
The history of US air power is not nearly as dodgy as you'd assert
That's a groundless statement given that the assertion was 'it is dodgy, sometimes it works'. There's no gradation there and thus no way to dispute the gradation.
though its last outing in Gulf Two was marred by the classic overclaiming of capabilities. I am not overstating its abilities. I don't think anyone here is seriously asserting it can win a bloodless decision or anything like that. It can take away the ability to operate aircraft against the rebels and that's all that's being asked.
I agree. That's a very sexy, up-front, easy-to-see consequence. I'm concerned about stuff farther down the causal chain coming back to bite the US.
The suggestion that anyone who comes out in favor of it wants to see air-to-air is ridiculous.
No such suggestion was made.
Herra, meanwhile, asks good questions, but he asks them twenty years and more too late. We have already made such commitments in the past. It's already clear what the answers are. They might not be appreciated, but they are evident.
Foreign policy decisions like these are constantly reevaluated (though Obama might well want something to make him a 'wartime president' to nail his re-election.) I think the only circumstances under which I, as a private citizen, would be comfortable with military intervention is with a UN mandate.
-
I feel we should, at least, be giving the rebels supplies (including weapons).
Cause that's never failed as a foreign policy.....
-
it has had negative consequences, but it did fulfill it's objective at the time.
-
Well that's really the issue with it, isn't it? It might resolve the situation so the side we all like is the victor, but if down the line we have another Bin Laden or hell, another Gaddafi, things may not end so well for us in the future.
-
I feel we should, at least, be giving the rebels supplies (including weapons).
Cause that's never failed as a foreign policy.....
This situation seems a bit different than the typical "support the friendliest regardless of how good he is for his people" action we take in the middle east.
-
The exercise of American power through, well, American air power has a dodgy history. Sometimes it works, but it's rarely as effective as quieter means of support, and it carries a whole suite of risks centered around the fact that it's so noisy and obvious. Anyone who comes out strongly in favor of it is as liable to want to see some good air-to-air combat as anything else.
The history of US air power is not nearly as dodgy as you'd assert
That's a groundless statement given that the assertion was 'it is dodgy, sometimes it works'. There's no gradation there and thus no way to dispute the gradation.
"When the Luftwaffe fly over, the allies duck. When the RAF flies over, the Axis duck. When the Americans fly over, EVERYONE ducks." - Nameless Allied Soldier
American airpower does have a lot of stigma (and not entirely groundless) attached with regards to being somewhat indiscriminate at times.
-
There are certainly cases where American air power has worked as a foreign policy tool - Allied Force, for instance, successfully achieved its policy goal. The problem is that even Allied Force had a 4:1 civilian:target casualty ratio, and it was absolutely one of the more successful interventions.
Libya presents an arguably even better case than Allied Force because the targets are purely aircraft and, unless you're the USS Vincennes, it's easy to tell military aircraft from civilians. But the diplomatic and historical consequences of intervening on the side of the rebels just aren't well-enough understood for me to be totally on board with endorsing it. I'm not necessarily against it either, but I'm hesitant.
-
The thing that really bit us in the ass with the Russo Afghan war was that we operated through a third party, Pakistani Intelligence, rather then having a direct hand in the distribution. If we were going to attempt either some kind of support package or air power intervention, I think we would need to get assets on the ground to really ascertain the long term outcomes before we were to take action.
As far as actually providing some air support, there was an article recently posted on HLP that did an in depth analysis of the procedures we are using in Afghanistan. Given that I tend to think we could probably provide air support with a high degree of precision and minimal collateral damage especially with the limited objectives such a campaign would entail.
As Battuta stated what shakes out as a result of that intervention is the bigger question we need to answer then that actual intervention itself.
-
I feel that we have a Responsibility to Protect. Not all sovereign states have a right to do whatever it wants within its borders. I'm sure we agree on that.
-
That responsibility should not be unilateral.
-
As Battuta stated what shakes out as a result of that intervention is the bigger question we need to answer then that actual intervention itself.
True. American airpower could end the war in a heartbeat. Gadaffi has little left besides foreign mercenaries and the brigade of 5000 or so soldiers that have stayed loyal to him. A few days of airstrikes and whatever the loyalists have left will be gone. Collateral damage sounds like it would be an issue, but considering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and so on the US hasn't been particularly stellar in this department and there's no reason to start worrying about that now. Collateral damage has drawn little international derision compared to the other things the United States has done anyway. The real question with international opinion has more to do with the legitimacy of intervention, and that's largely secured as most of the world detests what Gadaffi is doing. Of course, a UN mandate would be even better. And then there is the question of what Libyans want, and what the opposition government is capable of.
Not all Libyans want American troops in the country but most seem to want a no fly zone. What I think might justify a NFZ in this case is the fact that the people we are helping have already done most of the work, even working toward forming a new government without triggering a civil war, and they have actually asked for international help. This contrasts with Afghanistan and Iraq where most if not virtually all of the population didn't want America over in the first place and we were basically picking sides in a factional war. All the United States needs to do is support an already strong mass movement by balancing out their lack of heavy equipment and air power against the ruling minority. Rather than worsen it's image this is an opportunity for the US to win brownie points with the Arab world.
Hopefully, though, the rebels will win on their own. This would entail no risk to the United States' international image. Then again the result of a rebel victory is a big question. Gadaffi wasn't the most friendly guy to us but at least he was predictable and sold us oil. If the rebellion is successful the result could be a functioning democracy, or it could mean a militant islamist state or a descent into anarchy. In any case the US should do whatever it can to shape the current opposition government into a democracy and establish good relationships with it. We might have to learn to live with these guys.
I feel that we have a Responsibility to Protect. Not all sovereign states have a right to do whatever it wants within its borders. I'm sure we agree on that.
A UN mandate would still make things more look legit. It doesn't matter what "we" think, the opinion of the international community will shape the perception of anything we do.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/07/ras.lanuf.libya.wedeman/
Felt it was an interesting read.
-
Although I didn't see it, a print reporter friend told me they had spent much of the afternoon smoking hashish. To borrow a line from one of my old scripts, "morale is high, and so are the troops."
-
The thing that really bit us in the ass with the Russo Afghan war was that we operated through a third party, Pakistani Intelligence, rather then having a direct hand in the distribution. If we were going to attempt either some kind of support package or air power intervention, I think we would need to get assets on the ground to really ascertain the long term outcomes before we were to take action.
As far as actually providing some air support, there was an article recently posted on HLP that did an in depth analysis of the procedures we are using in Afghanistan. Given that I tend to think we could probably provide air support with a high degree of precision and minimal collateral damage especially with the limited objectives such a campaign would entail.
As Battuta stated what shakes out as a result of that intervention is the bigger question we need to answer then that actual intervention itself.
I think flying GCAS to wipe his brigade out has the potential to be far more harmful, as well as send out a worse message than enacting an NFZ over the place. In addition to this, the current RoE for US forces, AFAIK, is much closer to what CW forces had in place, and would almost certainly require some of our boots on the ground to act as JTACs for any incoming aircraft.
And I believe the Libyans expressed some point of view that opposed an armed intervention of that kind, fearing another Iraq or Afghanistan (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been keeping up to speed with this apart from listening to the radio).
True. American airpower could end the war in a heartbeat. Gadaffi has little left besides foreign mercenaries and the brigade of 5000 or so soldiers that have stayed loyal to him. A few days of airstrikes and whatever the loyalists have left will be gone. Collateral damage sounds like it would be an issue, but considering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and so on the US hasn't been particularly stellar in this department and there's no reason to start worrying about that now. Collateral damage has drawn little international derision compared to the other things the United States has done anyway. The real question with international opinion has more to do with the legitimacy of intervention, and that's largely secured as most of the world detests what Gadaffi is doing. Of course, a UN mandate would be even better. And then there is the question of what Libyans want, and what the opposition government is capable of.
Oh, believe me, collateral damage is going to turn into a huge issue, if you let it go unchecked. Or hell, if it happens at all. The fact that there are no JTACs or relevantly trained ATCs on the ground down there means that we have no real way of accurately directing air strikes, and when the collateral damage may involve the civilian populace and hell, the rebels themselves, the price overall may be far, far, too high.
Remember, you don't take out a toothpick with a bunker buster.
Anyway, do any of you guys know what this UN envoy's doing? My internet's been slowed to dial-up (Australian ISPs).
-
Dilmah's thoughts
Thats pretty much sums up why I was advocating doing some up front research before we do anything. Having an accurate analysis on whether or not our intervention would be received properly and what would shake out afterward is paramount. If we where to provide some air cover I would expect maybe some SoCom assets on the ground working in conjunction with the rebels to SOFLAM for limited air strikes. Any kind of general air campaign would really do more harm then good.
-
Oh yeah, that's fair enough. I appear to have only skim-read the first half of your post, and really only replied to the second half. Oopsies. :P
-
True. American airpower could end the war in a heartbeat. Gadaffi has little left besides foreign mercenaries and the brigade of 5000 or so soldiers that have stayed loyal to him. A few days of airstrikes and whatever the loyalists have left will be gone. Collateral damage sounds like it would be an issue, but considering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and so on the US hasn't been particularly stellar in this department and there's no reason to start worrying about that now. Collateral damage has drawn little international derision compared to the other things the United States has done anyway. The real question with international opinion has more to do with the legitimacy of intervention, and that's largely secured as most of the world detests what Gadaffi is doing. Of course, a UN mandate would be even better. And then there is the question of what Libyans want, and what the opposition government is capable of.
Oh, believe me, collateral damage is going to turn into a huge issue, if you let it go unchecked. Or hell, if it happens at all. The fact that there are no JTACs or relevantly trained ATCs on the ground down there means that we have no real way of accurately directing air strikes, and when the collateral damage may involve the civilian populace and hell, the rebels themselves, the price overall may be far, far, too high.
Remember, you don't take out a toothpick with a bunker buster.
Anyway, do any of you guys know what this UN envoy's doing? My internet's been slowed to dial-up (Australian ISPs).
Here's Fox News on the UN thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/08/group-calls-libyan-envoys-removal-post-investigator-mercenaries/
Apparently the UN assigned a Libyan envoy to investigate human rights violations by mercenaries ("The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination", a group started in 2005). Of course this is the worst person you would want on that group and the UN Watch wants her out.
FACs aren't essential for air support. NATO used visual ID and JSTARS in Kosovo and it worked out well enough. The NATO aircraft had to keep above 10,000 feet to avoid the Serb air defenses, which resulted in some visual ID problems and nasty collateral damage issues. But what's left of the Libyan army is somewhat less professional than even the Serbs, and their air defense network should not be much of a problem after some softening up. This will allow low-flying air strikes and better visuals.
The US could do what it did in Afghanistan and Kurdistan and deploy SF to spot for the airstrikes. This would put troops on the ground though and wouldn't be an optimal solution. JSTARS (basically an AWACS for ground targets) is enough and doesn't require a single soldier to set foot in Libya. It would be a good idea not to bomb urban areas though since protesters have been making use of the arms and ammunition stored in cities.
People will complain about collateral damage, but it will pass. The Libyan civil war will last for a few months at most, but a new US-friendly state in the Middle East would be a major asset in the long term. Besides, the opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has little to do with collateral damage and much more to do with the fact that the people of these countries (or at least a significant number of them) want America out. Libya is different because the people are actually asking for our help.
Remember, you don't take out a toothpick with a bunker buster.
As long as it's in the open desert or on a military installation you can hit it with whatever you want. It just might be a good idea to avoid hitting targets in cities unless necessary.
And I believe the Libyans expressed some point of view that opposed an armed intervention of that kind, fearing another Iraq or Afghanistan (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been keeping up to speed with this apart from listening to the radio).
The media is pretty much going off of the individual opinions of whatever fighters they come across. I don't know what the official opposition government thinks. However I did hear that some fighters were interviewed and they said they are opposed to the American army entering the country even if they may want air cover. I get the impression they want our help, but not a military occupation or troop presence.
Thats pretty much sums up why I was advocating doing some up front research before we do anything. Having an accurate analysis on whether or not our intervention would be received properly and what would shake out afterward is paramount. If we where to provide some air cover I would expect maybe some SoCom assets on the ground working in conjunction with the rebels to SOFLAM for limited air strikes. Any kind of general air campaign would really do more harm then good.
An air campaign wouldn't be ideal, but it is better than letting the opposition lose. Collateral damage is a short-term problem. It will pass. I would much rather see a US-friendly government in Libya with some mild animosity for us helping them out rather than Gadaffi still in power. Again the best thing that could happen is that the rebels could win without our help, but the war looks stalemated and if this goes on for a while it means that the opposition isn't going to make it on it's own.
-
The worry is that the new "US friendly state" will be every bit as evil as the last government.
-
The thing is, whilst I agree that it is terrible to watch people suffer because their leader is a complete maniac, it's been shown time and time again that simply stepping in and imposing a different system over the top doesn't work. We often make the mistake of believing that 'Morals' are a genetic trait that is identical across the species and that 'Right and Wrong', despite years of evidence to the contrary, are mutually exclusive situations.
If the UN decide that this behaviour is unacceptable, and decide to impose a no-fly zone or the like, the well and good, but it's not an easy decision to make, despite the suffering. As much as I hate to say it, in some respects the countries involved have bought this fear of getting involved on themselves. These were the same people who cheered Al Megrahi as a hero when he returned, possibly coerced, it's difficult to say, but after those kinds of open displays of disdain and dislike for the countries involved, questions of responsibility aside, it's hardly surprising that the UN need to think long and hard about the ramifications of any involvement.
-
The worry is that the new "US friendly state" will be every bit as evil as the last government.
It's too early to even talk about a state. This (http://www.libya-nclo.com/) is the closest thing the opposition has to a united government. So far they are entirely reliant on mass support and it would be hard for this "opposition government" made up of activists and civil servants to impose dictatorial rule. If anything, the greatest danger is that Libya will collapse into anarchy and stop selling oil. Even if the new government was evil, it's much better if we get on good terms with them and ensure they become an America friendly sort of evil.
The thing is, whilst I agree that it is terrible to watch people suffer because their leader is a complete maniac, it's been shown time and time again that simply stepping in and imposing a different system over the top doesn't work. We often make the mistake of believing that 'Morals' are a genetic trait that is identical across the species and that 'Right and Wrong', despite years of evidence to the contrary, are mutually exclusive situations.
I am not even concerned about the ethical part. I just know that Libyan oil production has fallen 80% because of the war and it's best to get this thing over with as soon as possible. Even better if at the end of the day Libya ends up as a liberal capitalist state and opens it's oil fields to foreign investment.
If the UN decide that this behaviour is unacceptable, and decide to impose a no-fly zone or the like, the well and good, but it's not an easy decision to make, despite the suffering. As much as I hate to say it, in some respects the countries involved have bought this fear of getting involved on themselves. These were the same people who cheered Al Megrahi as a hero when he returned, possibly coerced, it's difficult to say, but after those kinds of open displays of disdain and dislike for the countries involved, questions of responsibility aside, it's hardly surprising that the UN need to think long and hard about the ramifications of any involvement.
There are certainly Libyans who benefit from and are loyal to Gadaffi's government. But they are clearly not that many. The sheer scale and success of the opposition movement, contrasted with how quickly the Libyan army collapsed and how foreign mercenaries were needed just to stop unarmed protesters, shows how little legitimacy and popular support the current government has. I would be a little wary of getting involved too, if the Libyan people weren't absolutely begging for humanitarian aid and air cover.
If you are just saying it's best to take time to think, that's understandable. Considering America's record of nation building in the Middle East it's best if the Libyan people believe they can establish their own state without direction from the West. There is time to let an opposition government form, understand their intentions, and decide if they are worth helping. But overall I think what is happening in Libya is good and may well end up netting the US a new ally. And there is the off chance that it will encourage the people of Iran and Syria to rise up as well.
-
The worry is that the new "US friendly state" will be every bit as evil as the last government.
It's too early to even talk about a state. This (http://www.libya-nclo.com/) is the closest thing the opposition has to a united government. So far they are entirely reliant on mass support and it would be hard for this "opposition government" made up of activists and civil servants to impose dictatorial rule. If anything, the greatest danger is that Libya will collapse into anarchy and stop selling oil. Even if the new government was evil, it's much better if we get on good terms with them and ensure they become an America friendly sort of evil.
That's the attitude we had during the Cold War and you can very easily trace all the giant piles of **** we have had to deal with since the fall of the USSR to the foreign policy choices we made due to this thought process.
-
That's the attitude we had during the Cold War and you can very easily trace all the giant piles of **** we have had to deal with since the fall of the USSR to the foreign policy choices we made due to this thought process.
Like South Korea, Taiwan, and the Greek Civil War? We totally should have let communism win those countries. :nono:
There's a difference between overthrowing a democratic government, ala Iran 1953, and ousting a sclerotic police state which is universally hated.
-
I am not even concerned about the ethical part. I just know that Libyan oil production has fallen 80% because of the war and it's best to get this thing over with as soon as possible. Even better if at the end of the day Libya ends up as a liberal capitalist state and opens it's oil fields to foreign investment.
Oddly enough, for an outside opinion, that's a viable concern, countries are relying more and more heavily on each other, which is a good thing in the long term, but demands a stable chain of supply and demand.
There are certainly Libyans who benefit from and are loyal to Gadaffi's government. But they are clearly not that many. The sheer scale and success of the opposition movement, contrasted with how quickly the Libyan army collapsed and how foreign mercenaries were needed just to stop unarmed protesters, shows how little legitimacy and popular support the current government has. I would be a little wary of getting involved too, if the Libyan people weren't absolutely begging for humanitarian aid and air cover.
If you are just saying it's best to take time to think, that's understandable. Considering America's record of nation building in the Middle East it's best if the Libyan people believe they can establish their own state without direction from the West. There is time to let an opposition government form, understand their intentions, and decide if they are worth helping. But overall I think what is happening in Libya is good and may well end up netting the US a new ally. And there is the off chance that it will encourage the people of Iran and Syria to rise up as well.
True, but I'm just holding in mind how quickly the allied forces turned from Liberators into Oppressors as soon as they'd done what was wanted in Iraq. America isn't beyond having it's obsession with the 'Rights of Man' manipulated and it wouldn't be the first time they had been duped into a war because they believed information that turned out to be manipulated specifically for the purpose of invoking an emotional response. My concern is that any UN presence in Libya would only be seen as a good thing for as long as they serve a purpose that coincides with what those who oppose Gaddaffi want, and then the worm could turn terrifyingly fast.
-
The important thing to watch is the opposition's progress towards establishing a constitution and a transitional government. Here (http://www.libya-nclo.com/English.aspx) is essentially their platform, in English. A functioning democracy and a constitution to preserve it is all that's necessary. Capitalism will do the rest.
One need only look at the past 100 years to see that functioning democracies turn to capitalism, and capitalist countries befriend the US. The business elite in every country for the most part wants peace and trade. They use their influence to maintain a republican form of government which the wealthy, in most cases, depend on for survival against wealth redistribution. And they also push the country toward integration with other democratic capitalist nations.
This is how things have worked for quite a while, with rare exceptions. And yes, you can call me a naive neocon if you like.
-
Depends what sort of capitalism you're into really. Security companies have absolutely thrived on Military contracts in Iraq. Capitalism comes in many forms, and exploiting War for profit would be considered text-book Capitalism by some quarters (mostly those who own shares in said companies). Capitalism is a good way to maintain a country, but not always a good way to run it, because each and every company is, by its very nature, competing with every other company, and a lot of companies have shown that if an underhand trick will get them an advantage in the selling war, they aren't beyond using it.
Capitalism is a cut-throat business, and, as recent bail-outs show, it's not really capitalism that we are promoting, it's a sort of privately funded control system with a safety net made out of Taxpayers money. Personally, I think we get so worried about Religion getting involved with Government that we forget that it's not only religion that is trying to get its claws into what the public think and do. America has corporations, but it is not a corporation in and of itself, and this whole concept of Lobbying and corporations dictating policies that are social matters, not commercial ones, is something that is genuiney unnerving.
-
Depends what sort of capitalism you're into really. Security companies have absolutely thrived on Military contracts in Iraq. Capitalism comes in many forms, and exploiting War for profit would be considered text-book Capitalism by some quarters (mostly those who own shares in said companies). Capitalism is a good way to maintain a country, but not always a good way to run it, because each and every company is, by its very nature, competing with every other company, and a lot of companies have shown that if an underhand trick will get them an advantage in the selling war, they aren't beyond using it.
Iraq, I believe, was a special case. The expectation was that the Iraq war would not threaten international trade but rather increase it with the oil industry being liberalized and all, regardless of what actually happened. What is highly unusual is for two capitalist countries to go to war with each other.
-
Well, Britain and Germany bumped heads on two very famous occasions (though it could be argued that by the second time Germany was a Fascist state, but it did still indulge heavily in Capitalism), but yes, for the main part in the last 50 years Capitalist countries have been moderately peaceful towards each other, but I do find myself wondering what would happen if the likes of Communism or Extremism or any other of the 'threats to Capitalism' there have been over the years hadn't been there to act as a unifying force. If the whole world turned Capitalist, I wonder if the system would turn on itself and you'd end up with Corporate Wars, which is probably much more fun in game format than real life ;)
Edit: And on that note I'd just like to say: Minigun....miniminiminiGun. And if that rings a bell, congratulations, you are an official old-school gamer ;)
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-09-Libya-Gadhafi_N.htm?csp=34news
Seems like the rebels are still calling for support from the U.S. and its allies.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110310/ap_on_re_af/af_libya
Rebels are getting their ass kicked.
The rout came as the U.S. director of national intelligence stressed that Gadhafi's military was stronger than it has been described and said that "in the longer term ... the regime will prevail."
...
"We need help from the international community, but we just hear promises," said Mohammed Ali al-Zwei, a 48-year-old rebel fighter. "They are doing nothing."
-
Huh, I kinda want to help out now.
-
Unfortunately, that was a pretty foregone conclusion in the longer term, unlike Egypt etc, there seems a more even division between pro- and anti-establishment forces, and the fact is the Pros have the cash and the connections.
I don't think we are anywhere near the end of the troubles though, even if the more obvious signs of rebellion are squashed, Libya will be in for years of internal strife and conflict.
-
We went out of our way to topple a regime that the people seemed satisfied not to challenge, and they hated us for it. Now, we sit on our hands as we're begged for help.
I know it's far from being that simple, but it still feels wrong.
-
Just because the West said it wanted to help the rebels, doesn't mean it does.
Publicly, Obama called for Mubarak to step down, but considering the billions in military aid sent to Egypt he probably wasn't enthusiastic about the whole thing in reality.
The same goes for Gadaffi. The West was becoming to be on increasingly good terms with Libya before this whole thing happened. Perhaps NATO wants someone predictable, and pliable, in charge.
(http://www.innovationsinnewspapers.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Gaddafi-and-Berlusconi-handshake.jpg)
edit: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_libya_intelligence_director
US intelligence director gets in trouble for admitting that the regime is winning.
-
The same goes for Gadaffi. The West was becoming to be on increasingly good terms with Libya before this whole thing happened. Perhaps NATO wants someone predictable, and pliable, in charge.
If you honestly believe that he's predictable and pliable, you have not been paying attention.
-
He is, relatively so. Just as the US tried to stay on good terms with the Shah of Iran and the Saud family to keep the oil flowing, in recent years the west has been pushing Gadaffi to increase oil production and liberalize the economy with some success. Dictators can do this because they don't have to worry about getting elected next term.
-
Huh, I kinda want to help out now.
Me too.
Did any of you guys see this? (http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-asks-saudi-arabia-to-supply-weapons-to-libyan-rebels/)
-
General Chuck Horner stated that no major offensive has ever succeeded without air superiority. Give the rebels some mortars, M60s and TOWs and they'll prove him wrong.
I'm not sure Dilmah's source is legitimate but it is an interesting possibility. Also, ALLAHU AKHBAR!!!111 X1000
-
Actually, the man has a point here, as long as Gaddafi has competent pilots (I don't throw those words around, but I believe there are some left after most of the ones worthy of that title defected or ejected), ammunition and fuel, he can thwart any/all ground offensives. Best bet for the rebels is to take the airbases or at least deny them the fuel supplies of those airbases.
I'm not sure if the source is legit either, but I believe there are a number of other sources reporting that information.
-
It will have to be enough since it takes a great deal of time to train soldiers to use modern air defenses. Even then having air defenses isn't as good as having interceptors. The best that can be done for the rebels now would be to give them some Stingers or ZSUs to keep away helicopters.
Hopefully Libya's Tu-22 carpet bombers stay grounded. It would be nasty if they were used against cities.
-
It will have to be enough since it takes a great deal of time to train soldiers to use modern air defenses. Even then having air defenses isn't as good as having interceptors. The best that can be done for the rebels now would be to give them some Stingers or ZSUs to keep away helicopters.
Hopefully Libya's Tu-22 carpet bombers stay grounded. It would be nasty if they were used against cities.
Just been reading up on the Lybian airforce and to be honest dropping a few crates of stingers and an instruction manual would do a similar job to a NFZ, most of the confirmed equipment is mid cold war, era a few examples of later stuff but not much, and from what i can tell many of their plains are unserviceable anyway due to parts
-
It makes little difference whether the equipment is cold war or not when you're fighting poorly equipped rebels. And Libya probably still has at least 100 operational strike aircraft out of the 400 or so in the air force. The mujaheddin were in a similar situation as what we're talking about, having light air defenses to shoot helicopters and perhaps distract jets but nothing to deny the use of the air to the Soviets. As a result they held the countryside but were never able to launch an organized offensive to hit Soviet bases or take back what urban areas Afghanistan had. A conventional army would have a very hard time with just shoulder launched SAMs against even a cold war era air force. Plus, we're talking about advancing over an open desert against air attack.
-
And that's before we get to the basic stupidity of giving out an air strike capability willy-nilly with no idea how to get those weapons back after the end of this war.
-
There are going to be complications caused by the fact that the UN is working behind the curve. France has recognised the rebels as Libyas' ruling party, and the UK has pretty much commited itself to the same declaration. If Gadaffi comes out on top, which is slowly looking more likely in this attrition, things are going to get very awkward.
-
That was a ballsy move by the French, more power to 'em.
Interesting point - if the legitimate governent of Libya asked for help, might the Charles de Gaulle be making a quick trip into the med? Unlikely, I know (hell, I'm not even sure if it'd be permitted by the rest of the EU) but interesting to consider...
-
Well, there's a UN summit today on the matter, both the UK and France are united in pushing for a no-fly zone, which means it's already entered territory entirely outside the Iraqi situation.
Thing is, if the UN agree to put their toe in the pool, they'd better be prepared to jump all the way, because push most certainly will come to shove.
-
That was a ballsy move by the French, more power to 'em.
Interesting point - if the legitimate governent of Libya asked for help, might the Charles de Gaulle be making a quick trip into the med? Unlikely, I know (hell, I'm not even sure if it'd be permitted by the rest of the EU) but interesting to consider...
I'd be worth it just to see those Rafale Ms in action.
-
Are those the only two countries pushing for an NFZ? And I agree with the push to shove comment, but if it's enacted, the RoE should be fit to engage Libyan aircraft in BVR range if they don't respond to hails, so I'd estimate the Libyan fighter force to buckle in under two weeks and even that's being fairly liberal.
-
Ok, so, a few countries are recognizing the rebel counsel as the legitimate government of Libya, and right now there are a bunch of mercenaries and a few loyalists attacking what is slowly being recognized as the legitimate government of Libya. So to that effect, if in another country the internationally recognized government of a country was being attacked by a mercenary group and said government requested military aid from the international community wouldn't it be reasonable that the international community would be willing to provide that aid? maybe this is the way to get around China and Russia's opposition?
-
China and Russia hold veto power on the security council so technically they can block any UN action. It's clear now though that the UN isn't handling this situation decisively (nor is anyone really) and the international community should not wait for their approval.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110312/ap_on_re_af/af_libya
The Arab League wants an NFZ.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110312/ap_on_re_af/af_libya
The Arab League wants an NFZ.
Well they've got air forces, some with US supplied top of the line aircraft.
-
Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia do have modern jets and could pull it off themselves. But they're still dragging their feet.
All three of those countries are basically dictatorships and I would be quite surprised if they helped overthrow a fellow autocrat, as much as nearly everyone hates Gadaffi personally.
-
Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia do have modern jets and could pull it off themselves. But they're still dragging their feet.
All three of those countries are basically dictatorships and I would be quite surprised if they helped overthrow a fellow autocrat, as much as nearly everyone hates Gadaffi personally.
Egypt has about 240 Vipers and 47 AH-64Ds not to mention a slew of Phantoms, Dassaults and various other craft. They should be able to slap the **** out of the Colonel's air power.
-
Yeah, that would be nice. But the political situation in Egypt is special at the moment. The transitional government is taking it's time settling in. Although the people of Egypt certainly have their hearts with the Libyan rebels.
-
I've been reading some articles about imposing a no-fly zone. It's a bit more than just saying do not fly and putting up a CAP over the country. Radar sites, and any functioning SAM and AAA systems will apparently need to be eliminated one way or another and potentially air force bases would have their runways cratered.
Something on that level is probably best undertaken in my mind by the RAF, USN, USAAF or the French.
-
I've been reading some articles about imposing a no-fly zone. It's a bit more than just saying do not fly and putting up a CAP over the country. Radar sites, and any functioning SAM and AAA systems will apparently need to be eliminated one way or another and potentially air force bases would have their runways cratered.
Something on that level is probably best undertaken in my mind by the RAF, USN, USAAF or the French.
Yep, Hillary or Bill Clinton spoke about this -- Establishing a no-fly zone would have to entail ground assaults against such installations, and then you've gone against the rebels' demands of no foreign troops on Libyan soil, in which case why not just get directly involved if you're gonna go that far?
-
Ground based air defenses can't really deny control of the air to the enemy. How good are they at doing this? Well, less than 1 in 50 SAMs launched against NATO aircraft in the Balkans actually hit. SAM/AAA distract and attrit but have rarely ever substituted for interceptors. And most of Libya's good SAMs are concentrated around Tripoli.
Besides, even if the Arab League only flew CAP over rebel territory this would help a lot.
Yep, Hillary or Bill Clinton spoke about this -- Establishing a no-fly zone would have to entail ground assaults against such installations, and then you've gone against the rebels' demands of no foreign troops on Libyan soil, in which case why not just get directly involved if you're gonna go that far?
If Hillary said that she's just being Obama's lapdog and justifying US nonintervention. You don't need ground assaults to take out SAMs, anti-radiation missiles launched from aircraft (HARM, ALARM, Kh-31, etc.) are designed specifically to deal with them.
-
Yeah, that would be nice. But the political situation in Egypt is special at the moment. The transitional government is taking it's time settling in. Although the people of Egypt certainly have their hearts with the Libyan rebels.
If the people of Egypt were in control of their government, wouldn't they be sending those fighters?
-
they are rather busy setting up their new government, I think it is a little unreasonable to expect them to wage a non-defensive war right now.
-
they are rather busy setting up their new government, I think it is a little unreasonable to expect them to wage a non-defensive war right now.
Who is busy setting up their new government?
-
the Egyptians.
-
When the Egyptian government needed to crush labor protests it did it in a heartbeat. But sending a few aircraft to fly CAP over Libya somehow takes more time.
-
well, it takes a functioning national government, which is just barely how I would describe the state of Egypt.
-
Interesting point Mustang19.
the Egyptians.
Which Egyptians?
-
Interesting point Mustang19.
the Egyptians.
Which Egyptians?
I don't know, presumably the same ones who decide when to commit to military action in the affairs of a geographically proximate, militarized nation?
And no that's not 'the people'.
-
Interesting point Mustang19.
the Egyptians.
Which Egyptians?
the ones in the purple hats
source: my ass
-
Ground based air defenses can't really deny control of the air to the enemy. How good are they at doing this? Well, less than 1 in 50 SAMs launched against NATO aircraft in the Balkans actually hit. SAM/AAA distract and attrit but have rarely ever substituted for interceptors. And most of Libya's good SAMs are concentrated around Tripoli.
Besides, even if the Arab League only flew CAP over rebel territory this would help a lot.
Yep, Hillary or Bill Clinton spoke about this -- Establishing a no-fly zone would have to entail ground assaults against such installations, and then you've gone against the rebels' demands of no foreign troops on Libyan soil, in which case why not just get directly involved if you're gonna go that far?
If Hillary said that she's just being Obama's lapdog and justifying US nonintervention. You don't need ground assaults to take out SAMs, anti-radiation missiles launched from aircraft (HARM, ALARM, Kh-31, etc.) are designed specifically to deal with them.
Clinton said we needed ground assaults to take out SAM and radar sites? Urgh. :rolleyes: I agree with you there.
I don't personally think the Arab league have pilots trained or well experienced enough to pull off the job most efficiently, though. The Saudi Air Force, for instance, is notoriously bad worldwide (about the closest thing you can get to a corrupt air force, where a Flight Lieutenant can just drop money in someone's pockets and take his family with him in the aircraft). The Jordanian and Egyptian Air Forces might stand a chance through sheer numbers, but I think a lot more general duties officers are going to pay the price than necessary.
Air Forces like the British, American, French, Dutch, and Australian train, and in some cases have experience with these kinds of operations far more than the Arab nations do.
I won't say anything about stopping the Arab League trying to enforce something, but I think we should be prepared for more losses than we're used to expecting from our own Air Forces.
EDIT: Spelling.
-
Fly it as a joint mission with them.
Makes much more sense than doing it alone or leaving it to them alone.
-
Yeah, I think that would be the most effective course of action as well, assuming the UN want to approve of it. A lot of the other Air Forces have experience working together from exercises like Red Flag anyway.
-
Interesting story about the Saudi Air Force in the Gulf War. On January 24th two Iraqi Mirages took off and headed to perform a cruise missile strike on the British fleet. They followed an F-18 home to hide their radar signature and the American AWACs didn't pick up the Mirages until they were well inside allied airspace. US planes were sent to intercept, but they received the wrong vector and Saudi F-15s were ordered to engage in desperation. The one Saudi pilot who managed to reach the Mirages fired two Sparrows but they missed since he did not wait for the Mirages to come into range. Fortunately he was able to close in for a sidewinder lock and shot them both down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb7DW16HvN4&feature=related) on bingo fuel. The official response was that American interceptors could have been vectored to intercept but the Saudis were granted the kill instead. Yeah right, the Iraqis almost sunk a British destroyer...
I still trust some of the more modernized Arab League air forces to hold their own against the Libyans, but their training is not up to Western standards and casualties would be high.
-
Really? Hmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Firing the Sparrows when not in range is representative of an Air Force that doesn't teach its pilots properly about A2A missile employment. The F-15 has the ability to track a target, take into account the selected missile's operational range, and then tell the pilot when a firing solution is available, this kind of stuff should not happen. At all.
Good save by that pilot, though. :P But really, if that happened when enforcing an NFZ, that could've been the death of him, and I daresay that luck had some part in that.
-
I think it was from Crusade : The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War by Rick Atkinson. Good book but I don't have it anymore. I don't know what the pilot was thinking. I can't find any details on the internet other than simply the official story that the Air Force just decided to be nice and let the Saudis have the kill.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/214917/us-general-libya-no-fly-zone-would-take-only-days
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/6/daley-no-fly-zone-not-video-game/
A US general says an NFZ would take "a few days" to set up. And noone's even discussed using stealth bombers or air and sea launched cruise missiles against Libyan airbases; this would cripple their air force in hours and put no American lives at risk.
Obama's chief of staff on the other hand claims that people calling for an NFZ "have on idea what they are talking about". :rolleyes:
-
Really? Hmm, I hadn't heard of that one. Firing the Sparrows when not in range is representative of an Air Force that doesn't teach its pilots properly about A2A missile employment.
Haha dude, American pilots did this. There was definitely at least one incident of an American pilot letting off a Sparrow without getting a tone or even putting the missile in the proper tracking mode. I think it's more a matter of combat stress than training.
-
Hey, sometimes someone goes off a little early. :p
Sorry that's been running through my head since this bit of the discussion started.
-
Haha dude, American pilots did this. There was definitely at least one incident of an American pilot letting off a Sparrow without getting a tone or even putting the missile in the proper tracking mode.
Difference being that the US is not possessive of an Air Force that is renowned worldwide for behaving more like a corrupt airline than an armed force. We both know that the US Air Force is at least semi-competent in performing airspace denial and fighter sweep operations, even if there are a few pilots that fall through the cracks.
I'll concede that that wasn't the best indicator to use of Lead-in Fighter Training and OPCON quality, but seriously, we're talking about an Air Force in which the running joke at Dhahran Airbase is that the Tornado hanging out the front is the only one they can keep flying.
-
Meanwhile, the rebels are getting their asses kicked even more. Gadd's forces have taken the western city of Zwara, where the insurgency began, and proverbial frontline-town of Brega, which seems to be the springboard into the eastern, rebel-controlled half of the country. Rebels are saying that they're regrouping to fight for control.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Libyan_Uprising.svg)
-
Meanwhile, the rebels are getting their asses kicked even more. Gadd's forces have taken the western city of Zwara, where the insurgency began, and proverbial frontline-town of Brega, which seems to be the springboard into the eastern, rebel-controlled half of the country. Rebels are saying that they're regrouping to fight for control.
This is ****ing pathetic. While the international community has sat around with their thumbs up their asses, we've allowed Gaddafi to run roughshod over the rebels. You want to talk about people potentially hating the West if we intervene? Just think about how much more they'll hate us now when they see that we had the chance to do something to help them but didn't. What the **** is the UN even for if it can't stop **** like this?
-
Meanwhile, the rebels are getting their asses kicked even more. Gadd's forces have taken the western city of Zwara, where the insurgency began, and proverbial frontline-town of Brega, which seems to be the springboard into the eastern, rebel-controlled half of the country. Rebels are saying that they're regrouping to fight for control.
This is ****ing pathetic. While the international community has sat around with their thumbs up their asses, we've allowed Gaddafi to run roughshod over the rebels. You want to talk about people potentially hating the West if we intervene? Just think about how much more they'll hate us now when they see that we had the chance to do something to help them but didn't. What the **** is the UN even for if it can't stop **** like this?
It's pretty much a damned if the West does and damned if they don't.
If the West intervened early it would be seen as yet another intrusion on the inside workings of an Arab nation and people around the Middle East would burn effigies of Obama and light American flags on fire. Even if the UK or France went in they'd still burn American flags. If the West intervenes late then people across the Middle East will.... burn American flags for not getting involved soon enough. And if the West stays out of altogether... yep I'm pretty certain that the same thing will happen.
When things are really bad it's always nice and easy to blame someone else. Which seems to happen a lot. Although I may be accused of being a pessimist on this matter I think I'm pretty close to being on the money here.
I still think that a NFZ needs to be up yesterday. I also am going to agree with Gwynne Dyer that it'd be a brilliant strategic move on the part of the Egyptian Army to support the revolution in Libya (apparently the rebels have popular support in Egypt...go figure). His analysis figures that the professional Egyptian Army would be able to deal with Gaddafi's mercenaries and semi-regular forces without breaking too much of a sweat.
-
If the West intervened early it would be seen as yet another intrusion on the inside workings of an Arab nation and people around the Middle East would burn effigies of Obama and light American flags on fire. Even if the UK or France went in they'd still burn American flags. If the West intervenes late then people across the Middle East will.... burn American flags for not getting involved soon enough. And if the West stays out of altogether... yep I'm pretty certain that the same thing will happen.
When things are really bad it's always nice and easy to blame someone else. Which seems to happen a lot. Although I may be accused of being a pessimist on this matter I think I'm pretty close to being on the money here.
No, in fact by you're own logic you're so incredibly far off the money it's ridiculous. You are saying that the fallout of all potential actions is the same. Therefore the only criteria remaining are whether by our actions we could have accomplished something. And that's not up for any form of reasonable debate. We know we can bring down half-baked dictatorial regimes.
In essence, you are strengthening Mongoose' argument rather than offering any alternative.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8384103/Libya-world-leaders-reject-military-intervention.html
****. ****. ****.
-
"Col Gaddafi, in an interview, said Germany, Russia and China would now be rewarded with business deals and oil contracts."
enjoy your blood money.
-
At this point I think it's too late for this no-fly zone -- The rebels have not only lost the momentum, they're actually being pushed back now.
Besides, there's no real reason for the no-fly zone now. As far as I see, he has stopped attacking civilians with jets since the protests moved into a full-blown insurgency. After that, it has targeted rebel positions. I think a lot of people want to use this as a weapon against Gaddhafi; a shield for the rebels if you will, rather than as a way to protect civilians. Too little, too late, too ambiguous of a situation.
By the way, the map above is updated in real time, based on news reports, etc.
-
It's times like this that I ****ing hate our world.
-
The world is really good at talking until the crisis is over so that they don't have to make a decision. It's like that in every facet, IMO - from corporations to governments; everyone higher up just wants to talk until you can't tell who's responsible for anything.
-
Sad thing is, working alongside the UAE to deal with this would have possibly gone a long way towards starting to heal the rift between East and West.
I'll agree that there is more than humanitarian reasons to get rid of Gadaffi, he isn't particularly popular with the surrounding nations any more than with most of the West, but we had a chance to show that the whole 'world police' mentality was more than just an excuse to move into countries rich in resources that were useful to us and actually had some kind of ethical imperative behind it.
As it is we face another round of 'UN Sanctions' which will, in all likelihood, have the usual effect of only harming the very people we claim to be concerned about the wellbeing of.
-
This is really frustrating. Between them, the UK and France have enough firepower to put this whole thing down.' Gain support from the arab league and the Egyptians and bam, there's your coalition of the willing right there, and a much more inclusive one than went into Iraq. Hell, we might have even sent a squadron of Hornets, they're not doing much here. And then, if the rebelks take power, you have another friendly government in an oil rich nation, but one with the support of the people, and you have the gratitude of that new government. Instead, Gadaffi's going to get back in, and you're going to have the enmity of a gvernment that is hated by its people. Where was the advantage in not helping? I don't get it.
-
This is really frustrating. Between them, the UK and France have enough firepower to put this whole thing down.' Gain support from the arab league and the Egyptians and bam, there's your coalition of the willing right there, and a much more inclusive one than went into Iraq. Hell, we might have even sent a squadron of Hornets, they're not doing much here. And then, if the rebelks take power, you have another friendly government in an oil rich nation, but one with the support of the people, and you have the gratitude of that new government. Instead, Gadaffi's going to get back in, and you're going to have the enmity of a gvernment that is hated by its people. Where was the advantage in not helping? I don't get it.
The advantage is three fold:
Firstly any military intervention can be easily twisted to look like an invasion or act of aggression in the media which some sources internationally and domestically will do.
Secondly even in a situation like this there is the risk of loosing planes and/or pilots which would not go down very will at home especially with a backdrop of continuing losses in afganistan.
Thirdly air operations are expensive in fuel, wear on equipment and replacing spent weapons, for example an AIM-120 AMRAAM costs $300-$400,000 for 120C variants, $700,000 for 120D (estimated) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM) not to mention the cost of the support infrastructure, which with struggling global economies will look worse than usual.
-
Well if we're getting into this, I'll point out here that our F/A-18 squadrons (according to a pilot who was at Avalon) average about 15 pilots each, which means they've got 3 more planes than they have pilots for to start with.
Back in Operation Falconer (Aus contribution to Iraq), we deployed 1 squadron of Hornets (no. 75), and it took pilots from all three of our Hornet squadrons to staff the bloody thing. If Australia commits anything to an NFZ (who knows, Gillard may say no just to spite K.Rudd, if the news is to be believed about their sour relations), it'll probably be more in league to what we committed in Operation Slipper (Aus contribution to Afghanistan), which was something like 4 planes.
-
an excuse to move into countries rich in resources that were useful to us
because Libya isn't rich in resources.
-
Libya produces less Oil per day than the UK does. Whereas Iraq produces over twice as much. Afghanistan has massive deposits of Copper and other metals that could be exploited with the correct infrastruture.
Besides, that isn't the point I'm trying to make, what I'm trying to say is that if we worked alongside the UAE in this, there would be a form of checks and balances that meant that the kind of accusations levelled against the US and others over Iraq and Afghanistan would be extremely difficult to justify.
-
oh, yeah, NOW he wants to do it (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/africa/17diplomacy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss), it's like he is TRYING to do this PERFICTLY wrong, wait until a NFZ is insufficient, then call for one. so now we will be invaders and Gaddafi will probably still win.
-
I have to say, I've lost a substantial amount of respect for Obama over how he's handled this situation.
-
Sigh.
Looks like there'll be no substantial change in Libya for the time being. The uprising lost its momentum, changed into a rebellion, and while everyone was twiddling their thumbs wondering about the best course of action, Gaddafi has crushed the spine of the majority of the rebellion.
I think most people following the situation are now vaguely nauseous and my reaction to it might be quite common: Gaddafi is going to stay in power, and nothing is done about it, and since I don't even want to think about the injustice of it all, I'm going to go watch some cat videos and then some tsunami or whatever else that distracts me of the whole travesty of it all.
:nono:
-
What a wonderful feeling of anger I have right now.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/libya-idUSLDE72G0UF20110317
Batttle for Benghazi has begun it seems.
-
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/03/un-approves-no-fly-zone-over-libya/1
****ing finally.
-
I hope it isn't too late.
-
Well, we've got a carrier group off shore. If we decide to be useful the US can now respond whenever they feel like it. Benghazi now has a potential viable defense now. The loyalists have been using heavy bombardments to take cities, but the threat of an overpowering airstrike might take that off the table. Also there's enough wiggle room in the resolution to justify just bombing loyalist targets all over the place, which is both concerning but also promising.
-
Hmm. How exactly is this going to work? The French carrier and its support ships are still in Toulon (well, it was a couple days ago), and the US seems to be more going along with it, rather than seeking to lead the charge.
Seems to be half bluff, half symbolic gesture at this point, and we're stuck hoping the crazy guy with bad shoes doesn't call it.
-
Sigh.
Looks like there'll be no substantial change in Libya for the time being. The uprising lost its momentum, changed into a rebellion, and while everyone was twiddling their thumbs wondering about the best course of action, Gaddafi has crushed the spine of the majority of the rebellion.
I think most people following the situation are now vaguely nauseous and my reaction to it might be quite common: Gaddafi is going to stay in power, and nothing is done about it, and since I don't even want to think about the injustice of it all, I'm going to go watch some cat videos and then some tsunami or whatever else that distracts me of the whole travesty of it all.
:nono:
For the US the situation is this: Long ago a deal was made with the gulf oil states. The deal was in exchange for american security and what amounted to a blank check to abuse their people, the regimes would sell oil only in dollars and would recycle those petrodollars by buying stuff or investing with them. Now, america's fence sitting on the uprisings has caused the regimes to start thinking twice about america's security gaurentee. This has very real future consequences for the dollar, and is likely to cause it to lose a great amount of value in the future as the regimes consider pricing their oil in other currencies.
-
BBC: UN backs action against Gaddafi (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009)
The UN Security Council has backed a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" short of an invasion "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas".
Situation has been upgraded
Regular fan has been replaced with turbofan
-
BBC: UN backs action against Gaddafi (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009)
The UN Security Council has backed a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" short of an invasion "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas".
Situation has been upgraded
Regular fan has been replaced with turbofan
Hopefully twin TF34-GE-100 turbofans, with a GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose.
-
ok... so... what are 'we' going to do? and when are 'we' planning on doing it?
-
Hopefully twin TF34-GE-100 turbofans, with a GAU-8/A Avenger in the nose.
Very much yes.
Also, lol at Russia and China abstaining from the vote. Can't be seen supporting the rights of the people, now can we? :p
-
Calm down folks. We don't even know who's actually going to even answer that call with real force. This is just all the member states saying that they'd intervene - now they're probably all looking at each other and wondering who's going to step up first and what they're going to do.
I, personally, am pushing for an American-led NFZ – one US carrier to help at least even the odds. We won’t fight their fight for them, win or lose, but we’ll keep the scales even between the people and their dictator. One US battlegroup for Libya – that is the only way to even the fight with the scale of the oppression they faced.
-
Well the UN are getting off their arses now (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-un-security-council-air) soooooooooo, i'd much prefer to get shipped out there as it'd be a bit more fun dodging Tanks and Air power than running search ops in Afghan (although i'd love the Brimstone callsign that goes with it :pimp:). Any views on when this will all kick off? :nervous:
-
It was about time.
I hope it isn't too late ,
-
It'll be french and Pom led, surely, with assistance fr4om Arab league nations? I know Italy's already given access to bases in Sicily.
-
I wonder if it's really the best course of action though. Only time will tell of course.
-
Better than letting this madman continue slaughter his own people because he's too obsessed with power.
-
The US owes it to the people of Libya to join the NFZ.
-
Gadhafi's foreign minister has just announced a cease-fire in response to the UN resolution.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/libya.civil.war/ (http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/18/libya.civil.war/)
-
Yeah, the US had experience with the operations needed to be carried out to allow an NFZ back in Bosnia and Gulf War: Episode I.
But **** YES.
/me fist pumps.
Have a feeling that this may soon turn into a rather hot war in the skies. Will be an opportunity to see if the Libyan Air Force carries out local airspace denial operations and how they do them for those of us sitting in our comfortable armchairs. Gaddafi seems like the kind of guy who'd want to sortie the pointy looking things when the boys come hunting for SAMs.
EDIT: Ah, will the NFZ be called off then?
-
The US owes it to the people of Libya to join the NFZ.
Perhaps, but I doubt it'll be necessary. Some of the things coming out of France give me the impression that they're just waiting for Gaddafi to give them an excuse to blow his military to smithereens. Might because of allegations that Gaddafi contributed to Sarkozy's election campaign - Sarkozy could be attempting to prove that wrong by means of exploding Libyan aircraft and tanks :p
That said, it would certainly be a welcome change to see middle-eastern people cheering at American planes for a change, rather than shooting at them.
All that aside, the toughness of the resolution surprised me. This one's tough enough to actually make a real difference, and broad enough that Gaddafi has to be real careful of he gives everyone an excuse to take potshots at his military. Good to see the UN can, on occasion, do something right.
Too bad it still couldn't happen if the country in question was friendly with one of the permanent members. Insurmountable vetos make the UN far more ineffectual than it ought to be.
-
The US owes it to the people of Libya to join the NFZ.
So what about the people in the numerous other dictatorships we've been supporting?
-
They're not as important. Besides, the Bahrainians are welcoming our Saudi allies. :p
-
Canada's committed six CF-18s to the NFZ.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12781682
And from the Guardian Liveblog...
11.48am: Lars Eriksen, an ex-Guardian colleague in Copehagen, emails to tell us that Denmark is planning to send seven aircraft (six F16s and one transport carrier) to be stationed at bases in southern Europe in preparation for any action against Libya.
-
But.... he can still use ground forces, right?
-
Part of the resolution was to take any and all necessary measures to protect civilians...
So that likely means countries participating in the NFZ would be cleared to attack artillery if it threatened civilians.
-
yeah, he can use any ground forces he doesn't mind seeing disappear in a pillar of fire. he could use light infantry and infiltrate rebel cities, but I don't think that would work out too well for him either.
-
France jumping into a conflict gung-ho, while the US drags its feet and is noncommittal. It's a strange world we live in. :p
-
11.48am: Lars Eriksen, an ex-Guardian colleague in Copehagen, emails to tell us that Denmark is planning to send seven aircraft (six F16s and one transport carrier) to be stationed at bases in southern Europe in preparation for any action against Libya.
That debate is long over, actually. Just about the fastest thing I ever saw our parliament do. They're already prepping to move, and might be in place as early as tomorrow morning. The current debate is over whether to add a couple of warships to the operation as well.
-
France jumping into a conflict gung-ho, while the US drags its feet and is noncommittal. It's a strange world we live in. :p
I must admit, I had to laugh at the irony of that as well ;)
-
Anyone else realize that in April of 25 years ago, the U.S. actually dropped bombs on Libya? Does anyone else realize that 25 years ago, again in April, there was a serious nuclear mishap somewhere in the world too? I hope everyone loves the eighties... :nervous:
-
I know Italy's already given access to bases in Sicily.
Yep, seven bases.
-
France jumping into a conflict gung-ho, while the US drags its feet and is noncommittal. It's a strange world we live in. :p
We must have slipped into an alternate reality where this is Soviet Russia.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110319?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
I have this feeling there are going to be some pretty intense airstrikes within the next few days.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/?hpt=T1
not ours though.
Im starting to wonder if Gaddafi has some sort of dirt on Obama...
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/?hpt=T1
not ours though.
Im starting to wonder if Gaddafi has some sort of dirt on Obama...
Given the USAFs record for blue on blue in recent years, this might not be such a bad thing. :nervous:
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/?hpt=T1
In other words- the US carriers at the Libyan coast were just a bluff, waste of time, money and fuel.
Vive la France!
-
Cease fire my arse (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12793919)
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
-
He's a dictator, what else would you expect from him?
He's pretty sure that without the US having a strong president who actually wants to do something, this whole peace keeping operation will fail.
However with a few other countries teaming up, Kaddafi might still get his @$$ kicked, and so they deserve our support.
Evviva Italia!
-
Well, as of about an hour ago, the French Air Force have started playing tank whack-a-mole. So the asskicking has already commenced. The only trouble being that, for obvious reasons, they can't really get at any Libyan forces already inside Benghazi... but to make up for that they're apparently planning to explosively disassemble anything south or west of Benghazi that looks even vaguely like it might be Libyan Army or Air Force-related. Including such things as bases, support apparatus etc.
-
France has fought with Libya before. Back then they only had Crusaders on their carrier.
However on a more practical note, I think we may be overestimating the remaining control Mr. Q/K/G has. He armed the citizenry and turned loose the security forces to wreak havoc, and now they're wreaking havoc. I am not sure he can stop the violence if he wants to.
-
it's on line the movie Tron (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.us.missiles/)
-
Obama sure took his time before joining the conflict.
The only trouble being that, for obvious reasons, they can't really get at any Libyan forces already inside Benghazi...
Well, guess the rebels will have to visit their local marketplace and buy up RPG's for cheaper than a laptop (http://books.google.pl/books?id=5NIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=RPG-7+black+market+price&source=bl&ots=_CVfrN9lqE&sig=aeSy9UI5AuIlNqp4ghyQxXJUhus&hl=en&ei=Px2FTeaFBJSChQfkuqnRBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=RPG-7%20black%20market%20price&f=false)
And since the US are finally doing something more than just talking:
America, f*** yeah! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI)
-
Obama sure took his time before joining the conflict.
I have it on mildly decent authority that they were doing a very quick update on the Tomahawk terminal homing images before they did this.
-
Obama sure took his time before joining the conflict.
Rightfully so, it's not like we've done well with regards to democratizing nations like this recently. I'm just thankful that we're going to avoid sending ground troops.
-
In other words- the US carriers at the Libyan coast were just a bluff, waste of time, money and fuel.
Uhm. What carriers? The Enterprise never left the Red Sea, and the Kearsarge is an amphibious carrier without a full compliment and coming off a recent deployment.
-
I'm just thankful that we're going to avoid sending ground troops.
KNOCK ON WOOD! KNOCK ON WOOD!
-
We don't need ground troops. We've spent the last decade using the absurdly huge military budget developing stupid-powerful long-range precision combat weaponry. The U.S. military is entirely capable of crippling Gadhafi's military without a single soldier setting foot in Libya. The only question is how much of that military Obama is willing to utilize.
-
A proportion of the sixth fleet, combined with the efforts of Italy and France will do just fine. Keep in mind, we're supporting a no fly zone and damaging anti-air targets. We're not actually fighting the rebel's war entirely.
-
we are also blowing up tanks and artillery and anything else we feel like.
-
KNOCK ON WOOD! KNOCK ON WOOD!
The Army's never going overseas again after Afghanistan and Iraq. It's all but a certainty.
-
they will after 20 years.
-
KNOCK ON WOOD! KNOCK ON WOOD!
The Army's never going overseas again after Afghanistan and Iraq. It's all but a certainty.
The Army's never going overseas again after Vietnam. It's all but a certainty.
-
Apparently RAF Tornadoes did some damage with Stormshadows this morning. Heard about Loyalists shooting down their own Flogger too, with a loss of pilot.
On a lighter note. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/quiz/2011/mar/01/muammar-gaddafi-charlie-sheen-quiz) :D
-
The Army's never going overseas again after Vietnam. It's all but a certainty.
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing you've ever posted. Vietnam did not reveal anything about the deployability of large-scale military forces. In fact, it strongly supported that it could be done over a very long period. The only damage Vietnam did was to morale. The only thing it taught was that the US could put people out there that long but not accomplish anything without a clear objective.
Iraq and Afghanistan have, by contrasted, stretched the United States Army to and quite possibly beyond the breaking point. They've revealed extreme problems in personnel and procurement over that length of time that probably can't be fixed with the context of the existing military structure. They've revealed the paucity of the ability to meet expeditionary logistical demands over the long term. And finally, they've simply cost far too much in terms of raw capital. We can't afford to carry out another campaign like that. That they nearly tore the soul of out the Army again is just icing on an ass-shaped cake.
The age of the long-term combat deployment, barring the outbreak of a truly life-or-death struggle, is over. Iraq and Afghanistan sealed what most people had long suspected: a long war is simply no longer affordable. The United States was and is literally the last nation on Earth who could even attempt one at that scale for that period of time, and it will not get cheaper. Eventually the cost rises too high even for the US.
-
Overseas != long-term deployment.
Other than that, you obviously know more of what you're talking about than I do.
-
**** just got real - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_no-fly_zone#Action_taken_by_international_forces
Some days before, the rebels shot down one of their own jets - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ccc_1300563244
Note: audio is fake.
-
Has there been any sort of confirmation as to whom the downed aircraft belonged to?
Also, it could have just as well been a mechanical failure as well as damage from anti-aircraft guns...
-
If I got it right, people saw the MiG trailing out smoke, and that would be a sign of shooting.
-
If I got it right, people saw the MiG trailing out smoke, and that would be a sign of shooting.
No, what it's a sign of is that the aircraft was smoking. The flames also indicated to an acute viewer that the jet was on fire.
That alone doesn't give any real indication that it was hit by ground fire.
It's possible, even likely considering circumstances, but even so it isn't certain. Aircraft engines sometimes fail, especially obsolete fighter jet engines whose maintenance might not have been especially stellar. It could have been a bird strike, engine fire, turbine/compressor wing separation or what have you. The BBC video wasn't especially clear on what exactly happened to the aircraft.
-
The slightly longer version of the video does show what appears to be a brief flash near or on the aircraft before it starts to smoke and light on fire. It's possible that it was hit by AAA fire. If I were to make a slightly educated guess... that would be it. It does not appear to have been hit by a missile.
-
Reporters mentioned AAA fire, but as you pointed out we still don't know what the true nature of that crash is.
-
I worry that with all the action, Japan's extending crisis will fall by the wayside.
-
That is difficult, but still possible. :(
-
Maybe, but Japan has the third largest economy in the world. They're not exactly in desperate need of aid, so even if donations drop off sharply due to shifting media coverage, they'll be fine. If they aren't fine, it'll be for reasons media coverage has nothing to do with. Probably.
-
Maybe, but Japan has the third largest economy in the world. They're not exactly in desperate need of aid, so even if donations drop off sharply due to shifting media coverage, they'll be fine. If they aren't fine, it'll be for reasons media coverage has nothing to do with. Probably.
Actually they are because it has one of the highest debt to gdp ratios in the world.
-
I don't know about you guys but I went down to my local bank the other day and donated some money to Red Cross for Japan relief. I know they need it and I know they will be able to get back on their feet before too long... but they definitely need the help.
In a completely different way the Libyan people need a completely different type of help and I think we're doing the right thing. So far *touch wood* the coalition military efforts appear to be going very well.
-
I saw pictures posted a day or so ago of the downed Flogger. Last I read, it was a Loyalist aircraft shot down by Loyalist forces. I thought from the picture that perhaps it was a MANPADS hit, more than anything else. AAA fire could've also caused the damage, but either way it ended badly for the pilot.
-
The dude promised a long war. Little does he know that Suddam Hussien said the same thing in 1991. Coalition air strikes reduced his military to nothing before ground forces even fired a shot. It took only a couple weeks.
And that was 20 years ago.
-
Yeah, I'm personally seeing a Kosovo parallel.
-
So, Vladimir Putin: massive douche, or massive douche?
-
So, Vladimir Putin: massive douche, or massive douche?
Russian politician and former Russian intelligence nuff said about his public stance on the west
-
Plane appeared to be rebel/East Libya/whatever, shot down by the same side it was flown by. The video footage showed them cheering, thinking they'd shot down a Gaddafi plane, when it later turned out it was on their own side.
Now, is anyone else just completely floored that Western powers are intervening? I mean, it's not just the US this time, the whole bloody UN passed the resolution now. And this is a UN with an Obama/Hillary-led US! One minute, the whole middle east is saying we should do something, now I'm hearing that there's already cover-ups of civilian death stories going on all over the place ever since the cruise missile and B-52 bombings.
-
So, Vladimir Putin: massive douche, or massive douche?
Russian politician and former Russian intelligence nuff said about his public stance on the west
Sometimes I think the only way Russia will restore itself to a general state of sanity is by waiting 20 or 30 years, when all of the old guard who are still playing out the Cold War in their heads have died off.
And yeah, the Arab League's reactions have been rather annoying. So you give full support to the West intervening, then cry foul when we do exactly what you were supporting us to do?
-
From BBC:
The resolution authorises "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in Libya, but Mr Putin said there was no logic in killing civilians to achieve that end.
Seems to me that Putin isn't being a douche.
I think that they'd rather that action were better defined, as they don't want to see west wreck another nation's government and military, leading to an iraq-like situation breeding terrorists.
-
I'm wondering the same thing. At what point do you stop being a civilian, and become a combatant? If you help combatants, haven't you gone beyond protecting civilians? This is one of those quagmires I keep hearing them talk about.
-
I'm wondering the same thing. At what point do you stop being a civilian, and become a combatant? If you help combatants, haven't you gone beyond protecting civilians? This is one of those quagmires I keep hearing them talk about.
Typically logistics is still civilian unless you're going to a total war scenario. . . right?
-
This is the same Putin who couldn't stop making excuses and dismissing civilian casualties in Chechnya, right?
Civilian casualties are inescapable in this situation. Sometimes, information will be passed along about civilians in the target zone in time to call off the strike, like the British were able to, but most of the time that isn't going to happen. And when Qaddafi's army moves into cities to hide from our bombs (and then continues killing civilians), or starts trucking civilians from nearby towns to stand around their armor, calling off an attack stops really being an option (in the former case, not the latter... they're probably not going to be murdering the people they took the effort to drive to their bases). Tragic, certainly, but less tragic than packing up and going home with an 'oh, sorry, we can't help anymore because they were smart enough to move closer before shooting at you'.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/us-libya-misrata-shield-idUSTRE72K1PJ20110321?pageNumber=1 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/us-libya-misrata-shield-idUSTRE72K1PJ20110321?pageNumber=1)
-
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201132681812362552.html
Ajdabiya is back in rebel hands.
-
Saw a note somewhere (I think either the BBC or Al Jazeera live feed) that Colonel Gaddafi has promoted ALL members of the Libyan army, presumably as some kind of incentive not to defect to the rebels. So, wouldn't that make him Brigadier General Gaddafi then? Also, must be damn annoying to be a newly promoted corporal, having spent years as a lowly private and being pushed around by people with chevrons or stars on their shoulder, to suddenly have not a single private left in the entire army to pull your newly acquired rank on as they all got promoted with you :p
-
Reminds be of the country of San Theodoros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Theodoros) in Tintin comics... allegedly, at one point its armed forces included 3487 colonels but only 49 corporals.
:p
-
One point that concerns me is this:
The argument made in the UN was to allow military action to protect civilians. That's fine so long as we are bombing Gadaffi's tanks and guns, but what happens if the rebels capture a Gadaffi-loyal town and start a purge? Are we prepared to turn our guns to face the other way in the name of protecting civilians?
Hopefully it won't come to that, but I can't help wondering how easy this would be to justify if it the shoe was on the other foot.
-
nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
-
One point that concerns me is this:
The argument made in the UN was to allow military action to protect civilians. That's fine so long as we are bombing Gadaffi's tanks and guns, but what happens if the rebels capture a Gadaffi-loyal town and start a purge? Are we prepared to turn our guns to face the other way in the name of protecting civilians?
Hopefully it won't come to that, but I can't help wondering how easy this would be to justify if it the shoe was on the other foot.
Well as the ones enforcing the resolution we get to make that call. You want to call it hypocritical, that would be an accurate description, but as the ones dropping the bombs we do get to pick and choose which civilians we want to save. That said there is no reason to think this will happen.
-
Also, brega's back under reble controle
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/27/3174745.htm?section=world
-
The map of doom has been updated to reflect, among many things, what Bobboau has said:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Libyan_Uprising.svg)
They could easily get to Misurata I think... IF they can get past Sirt, which of course is Gaddhafi's birthplace, meaning that it will be more than just well-defended.
-
The fact that anyone could not call Libya's revolution a Civil War (referred to here on the net as a Revolution), nay, the fact that they managed to avoid answering the question altogether is as laughable as it is sad. Look at that map - the country is quite literally split in two.
-
It's notable how little there actually is in the southeast portion of the country. Expected, given the geography, but notable anyway.
-
I wonder what kind of people are actually left in a town like Brega at this point?
-
Saw a note somewhere (I think either the BBC or Al Jazeera live feed) that Colonel Gaddafi has promoted ALL members of the Libyan army, presumably as some kind of incentive not to defect to the rebels. So, wouldn't that make him Brigadier General Gaddafi then?
The fact that he didn't elevate himself to General the second he took power is one of the few things I respect Gaddafi for. :p
-
Gaddafi's troops are apparently moving bodies of civilians they have killed onto locations where ground strikes by allied forces have happened.
:blah:
-
Gaddafi's troops are apparently moving bodies of civilians they have killed onto locations where ground strikes by allied forces have happened.
:blah:
You know, after reading up on Saddam's efforts to portray airstrikes during Desert Storm as killing large numbers of civilians I thought he was pretty sketchy. But this Libyan lunatic is a cold mother****er, assuming he's actually aware enough of reality to be behind this.
-
well, there is no way to tell one way or the other, but even if some people are caught in the cross fire, in the end it will provably end up with fewer people dead.
-
In the end the best we can do is try to keep the flow of information out of Libya from both sides as free and open as possible. There definitely seemed to be a consensus for the air strikes amongst the net.
That being said, I feel awful for the politicians that went through the excruciating process of trying to get the air strike passed, and the governmental leaders who are going to end up ultimately responsible for the decision (looking at you right now Obama, but I bet there's quite a few others out there).
-
The rebels have taken Bin Jawad and Ras Lanuf.
Libyan rebels' push westwards towards Tripoli has gathered momentum as their pursuit of Muammar Gaddafi's forces saw them wrest back control of key oil town Ras Lanuf.
Their next target is Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte, a central coastal city, and on the way they captured Bin Jawad, a hamlet 50km west of Ras Lanuf.
The rebels, on the verge of losing their eastern stronghold city of Benghazi before the air strikes began on March 19, on Saturday seized back Ajdabiya and Brega, 160 and 240km to the west.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Spurred on by the air war, the ragtag rebel band thrust another 100km past Brega to win back Ras Lanuf, routing Gaddafi loyalists.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/libyan-rebels-gunning-for-gaddafi-hometown-20110328-1cc4p.html
-
Surt is going to probably be a tipping point, it's probably the only town where the people actually like Gaddafi, if they gain control of Surt I think that will basically win them the war, but this might be were one of those morally questionable actions by the rebels takes place, it might be a good idea for the rebels to just simply bypass Surt.
-
Surt is going to probably be a tipping point, it's probably the only town where the people actually like Gaddafi, if they gain control of Surt I think that will basically win them the war, but this might be were one of those morally questionable actions by the rebels takes place, it might be a good idea for the rebels to just simply bypass Surt.
Is there some special story to that city or is the propaganda just heavier in that city because Gaddhafi was born there?
-
Surt is going to probably be a tipping point, it's probably the only town where the people actually like Gaddafi, if they gain control of Surt I think that will basically win them the war, but this might be were one of those morally questionable actions by the rebels takes place, it might be a good idea for the rebels to just simply bypass Surt.
Is there some special story to that city or is the propaganda just heavier in that city because Gaddhafi was born there?
It's do with the structure of the Libyan command, a lot of the most powerful men in Libya, and therefore the best protected, are relations of Gadaffi, so you can expect the family stronghold to be well fortified and unwilling to give up the influence that Gadaffi brings them.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyCdfOXvec&feature=player_embedded
Found on some other forum....
-
The response is better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF7Nfwf_z7Q&feature=related
-
I can't listen to those two robots. The lines are stupid and obama's fan is stupid. So if that is an attempt to convince anyone it fails.
There were many reasons why going to war with iraq is different from bombing lybia, and the main gist is nothing like "Obama is awesome, so there". There are many lies and exagerations on those videos. But I would only have to point out that the main reasons why people were enfuriated over Bush and Tony wasn't that Saddam was an asshole that had to be taken out. That point was well taken.
The main reason was the big lie, the sheer lack of respect these people had over their populace, in telling us that there were WMDs, that Saddam was "dangerous" because of these, that Saddam was Al-Quaeda related (albeit there are reasons to suspect Saddam did in fact harbor Al-Quaeda members, the evidence given was ridiculous and outright propagandistic), that it "didn't have" anything to do with oil, etc.
People don't like to be treated like children. I eventually grew up about my disliking of the decision to go to war with Iraq (I now see it as a good decision very badly managed), but still it has very little to do with Lybia.
In Lybia, we have an insurrection that was being massacred, broadcasted live on the TV, while the US president was "golfing". There was indeed an attempt to dissuade Ghaddafi, unlike the video lies implied, and Ghaddafi didn't care. There was a UN resolution saying that Lybia lost its right of sovereignity. The arab league agreed.
This time, even france joined the US forces to defeat Ghaddafi. This time it's not the "coalition" fighting the war in land, it's the very own Lybian people doing the foot work against his own "dear leader".
While I think that the Lybian case can be compared with Iraq's, it's very unfortunate to state that they are equivalent, when it's clear for any rational person who has looked to the facts that they are not.
And no, Obama is not awesome. So there.
-
Oh and this time, Obama doesn't have a second in command that has HALLIBURTON written all over his face while trying to make the case in the tv channell how "Saddam is so very bad and this has noooothing to do with oil and eveeeerything to do with freedom". Puh lease.
-
Well, there are gaping holes in both arguments on both videos, and, yes, I agree they are both pretty stupid, but since someone saw fit to post one, I thought I might as well point out that there was a response :)
-
Both those videos are bad, although a little bit funny. I suppose they do both underscore many of the stereotypes on both ends of the table.
-
Bin Jawad and Ras Lanuf have both fallen again, this time to to Gaddhafi's forces.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110330/wl_time/08599206216200
Someone mentioned purges earlier in the thread. They did, indeed, upon arriving in Bin Jawwad, start purges against loyalists.
The rebels did not take chances with a town they could no longer trust. After pushing back into Bin Jawad on Tuesday afternoon, the rebels quickly set about searching the streets and homes of the town for hidden troops, mercenaries and traitors. "Alley to alley, house to house," shouted one man at the fighters as trucks veered down Bin Jawad's unpaved, bumpy side streets. He used Gaddafi's own words - an infamous threat from an earlier speech that is often repeated in the rebel-held east. It's meant to mock the Colonel; it's even graffitied on the walls. But as the rebels tread into unwelcome territory, they seem to mean it in much the way Gaddafi did - in a kind of unrelenting and paranoid door-to-door campaign to rout their enemies. "Search the houses," another man shouted, as fighters ran down Bin Jawad's alleys and took up position behind walls. Gunfire and the explosions of rocket-propelled grenades reverberated from within the town. At least one house was set on fire after rebels located a suspected Gaddafi loyalist there.
-
looks like we are thinking about takeing our relationship with the rebels to the next level.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-set-to-give-arms-to-libyans-20110330-1cgbw.html?from=smh_sb
-
So again, if the rebels are just as likely to be performing these purges, maybe we really should be taking a much more hands off approach to this.
-
**** I don't even know what to think about this mess, my opinions have 180'd like five times in the last week.
-
****ing world, so complicated
-
it does give me some pause.
-
I haven't shifted too far since my initial thoughts when I heard the UN Resolution that had passed on NPR - bloody hell, let them sort it out themselves. That's all the entire Middle East seems to have wanted the West to do anyway, stay out of their business, so let's stay out of it. Let's cut the ties with the asshole dictators to save some face, and let their own people kill each other off. I'm tired of thinking we should be doing anything.
-
(http://www.blockstatus.com/images/fpic/upimg/bdab79d96e847926b92e20f673f51c0626dcbc2a1298029927.jpg)
-
I say help the rebelds with the condition that the end result is fair elections, and that the US will make sure that this will happen, and won't stand any "treason" around this goal.
-
Even if that were to happen, if the rebels themselves are just as out of control as the loyalists, they're bound to create an equally oppressive society. I'm starting to wonder if a divided Libya (East/West) wouldn't just make more sense at this point.
-
I think there's a finite cap on the amount of sanity in Africa. South Africa and places like that are hogging all of it.
-
I think there's a finite cap on the amount of sanity in Africa. South Africa and places like that are hogging all of it.
Of all the threads to laugh till my chest hurt, I never would have thought this would be one.
So, now we're arming the rebels (I highly doubt the debate over it will end with a 'no'), and that means we have to train them, and the airstrikes will have to continue throughout that time.
Wonder how long it is until that 'no ground troops' promise gets replaced by 'seriously, its cheaper this way. *sends in the marines*'
-
I know people have joked about this, but _can_ you actually rescind a Peace Prize?
-
I know people have joked about this, but _can_ you actually rescind a Peace Prize?
Don't know, go ask Arafat. Oh he's dead. Well then, ask Kissinger.
-
I know people have joked about this, but _can_ you actually rescind a Peace Prize?
No. But if he doesn't get reelected he won't get a second one.
-
Giving Kissinger the Peace Price for the Vietnam withdrawal would be like giving Brett Favre a ring for one of his game-ending interceptions. The VC were finished if we'd just stayed to finish the job.
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20110330/twl-libyan-foreign-minister-flees-to-the-41f21e0.html
the loose edges are falling from the colonels government
edit
could this be a power play? as "one of the most senior figures in Gaddafi's government" would he not be one of the best options in the case of a rebel victory, either in forcing Gaddafi out of the country or forcing him to stand down, to re-establish a functional government and in fleeing to a western country would give western governments the impression they might be able to "control" him?
-
Giving Kissinger the Peace Price for the Vietnam withdrawal would be like giving Brett Favre a ring for one of his game-ending interceptions. The VC were finished if we'd just stayed to finish the job.
One hundred and sixteen years.
could this be a power play? as "one of the most senior figures in Gaddafi's government" would he not be one of the best options in the case of a rebel victory, either in forcing Gaddafi out of the country or forcing him to stand down, to re-establish a functional government and in fleeing to a western country would give western governments the impression they might be able to "control" him?
I very much doubt that the west would back one of Gaddafi's administration to replace him just because he was smart enough to get off the sinking ship, the rebels won't accept it at the very least, no matter how the west tries to spin it, and without that they just change targets.
*edit* or am I misunderstanding your post?
-
One hundred and sixteen years.
Care to explain this?
Chief's post is accurate, insofar as it goes; even people who were part of the VC will admit to it. The VC committed, and lost, everything in Tet, including any sort of goodwill they'd built up in the public. Bringing the war back into the cities served them very ill.
-
One hundred and sixteen years.
Care to explain this?
Chief's post is accurate, insofar as it goes; even people who were part of the VC will admit to it. The VC committed, and lost, everything in Tet, including any sort of goodwill they'd built up in the public. Bringing the war back into the cities served them very ill.
We were at war for one hundred and sixteen years against foreign occupation, that is all I meant. 'Finishing' the VC was ultimately irrelevant. That wouldn't have won.
-
'Finishing' the VC was ultimately irrelevant. That wouldn't have won.
No? Iraq, for all its current troubles, would seem to put the lie to your assessment.
-
I can't say I understand how Iraq is a victory for anyone.
-
I can't say I understand how Iraq is a victory for anyone.
Nobody has spoken of victory, even Chief, merely "finishing the job" and the stated goal of the Vietnam War was always the preservation of South Vietnam as an independent political entity. Iraq proves that it is possible to move in and create a government from more or less whole cloth while fighting a counterinsurgency campaign, and it was done in far less time.
-
On a note closer to the thread topic, I read this morning that the Rebels had their asses handed to them in the past few days. Anyone know anything about the US paying contractors to train the Rebels up? I think NFZ pilots flying close air support for these guys might very soon become a reality.
-
I think it already is a reality. and yeah, they went to surt and found that their asses were waiting for them when they got there. this wasn't too surprising, we've known all along that Surt was going to be the second hardest fight.
-
So again, if the rebels are just as likely to be performing these purges, maybe we really should be taking a much more hands off approach to this.
Gaddafi's fighting dirty by having his troops drive non military vehicles and wear civillian clothing. And whatever loyalist civilians aiding as well. Gaddafi made sure the rebels wont have it easy here. It's not like the rebels can't need to take bin jawad. If the rebels don't go from house to house and building to building, then that ****s them. What can really be expected of the rebels here in a loyalist stronghold?
In turn, i'd say that for the rebels to succeed in a war against someone extremely nasty, that they themselves too need to fight nasty, but not begging of the same class of nasty as their opponent. Least to say, this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110330/wl_time/08599206216200) (article nemesis6 referenced) didn't have much if any info on what the rebels are doing with loyalist civilians themselves. For this article, saying with the word purge might be a little much.
-
Does anyone want to take a crack at this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_my_dVuWj7s&feature=player_embedded#at=225
A bunch of videos of Ghadaffi "supporters" cobbled together? There's always a group to support someone, or something, regardless.
-
Agh you caught me Swantz. I deleted (|REDACTED| lol) that post since I ended up coming to a conclusion similar to yours.
I'm pretty sure the author of the video confused the "US" with "large numbers of people in other countries who agreed with the rebels and wanted to help them out".
-
Hey, this isn't a dead topic yet.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya
Col. Hamid Hassy said that following scattered clashes with government forces, the rebels had reached the outskirts of the key oil facility of Brega, a town that has already changed hands half a dozen times since fighting began in early March.
He added that the rebels will bring engineers to repair any damage to the refinery and oil facilities there.
(http://images.wikia.com/cnc/images/2/27/Engineers_RA2_Game1.jpg)
Go get 'em.
Rebels are advancing again. Place your bets. Will NATO have the patience to see it through? Or will they withdraw air strikes and let Gadaffi roll into Benghazi in a week or two?
-
apparantly Ghadaffi is using cluster munitions which has a few of the human rights groups up in arms
-
He's already machine gunned a bunch of protesters. Not much of a stretch to see this one coming.
-
He's already machine gunned a bunch of protesters. Not much of a stretch to see this one coming.
I think the machine-gunning is kind of dwarfed by the whole airstrikes on protests thing. In any case:
(http://funcorner.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gaddafi-airplanes-sarkozy.jpg)
-
apparantly Ghadaffi is using cluster munitions which has a few of the human rights groups up in arms
Good thing no one's looking at America's ordinance stores then. /sarcasm
-
We're America, we don't need your international treaties. ****, you can buy landmines, cluster munitions and your own pet detainees in the gun section at Wally World.
-
Just cause we have it doesn't mean we use it. I mean, if that were true, we'd have nuked someone by n-, er, nevermind.
-
Fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back to try to play nice makes as much sense as Vietnam. Oh, wait, nevermind, that caused (among other things) Vietnam. :rolleyes: You don't fight wars to be fair or nice. You fight to win. If you are fair and nice, you will do your best to win quickly with the least amount of destruction and if you are an absolute cherub you will help rebuild the country after you're done.
-
Well its not that, banning cluster bombs is unfair since mainly rich countries use them. It's also a little retarded, since an bomb is a bomb and there is nothing particularly inhumane about cluster ordnance other than that there's more bomblet duds lying around afterward... but artillery shells go dud too.
Also I'd be surprised if NATO isn't using cluster munitions too. Tomahawks are supposed to carry bomblets.
-
A-10s (I'm sure others as well) use ClusterBombUnits (I think that's what the term was anyway).
-
Fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back to try to play nice makes as much sense as Vietnam. Oh, wait, nevermind, that caused (among other things) Vietnam. :rolleyes: You don't fight wars to be fair or nice. You fight to win. If you are fair and nice, you will do your best to win quickly with the least amount of destruction and if you are an absolute cherub you will help rebuild the country after you're done.
Isn't being fair and nice a method of winning wars? I seem to recall that napalming the **** out of everything didn't really help the American cause in Vietnam.
-
playing nice means that there is less resentment amongst the population of the target country when you do win
-
The reason some countries have banned cluster munitions isn't because they're somehow less humane to use against enemy troops. The problem is sometimes not all of the bomblets explode when they hit the ground, so after the war, you end up w/ unexploded ordinance that can hurt civilians. Basically the same reason people oppose landmines.
-
But it's not like regular unitary warhead bombs and artillery shells are much more humane. I mean if you're going for that you might as well oppose high explosives in general.
-
But it's not like regular unitary warhead bombs and artillery shells are much more humane. I mean if you're going for that you might as well oppose high explosives in general.
They're a lot easier to track down if they don't go off.
-
I don't think there's a lot of "tracking down" going on in these third world conflicts though. If a shell lands in your mud hut and doesn't explode you're probably not going to be able to do anything about it until it blasts through the roof one day. At least when bomblets go boom you might only lose a hand or an arm.
-
When you've got one centralized failure point and you know where it is it's a lot easier to keep kids and whatever from playing with it (as opposed to 400 ICM submunitions scattered across a couple square kilometers.)
This means a lot less kids who lose a hand or an arm or a leg.
-
When you've got one centralized failure point and you know where it is it's a lot easier to keep kids and whatever from playing with it (as opposed to 400 ICM submunitions scattered across a couple square kilometers.)
This means a lot less kids who lose a hand or an arm or a leg.
I find your repeated use of concrete examples to explain concepts to me to be condescending.
:P
-
What can I say, i put the whore into metaphwhore
-
Fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back to try to play nice makes as much sense as Vietnam. Oh, wait, nevermind, that caused (among other things) Vietnam. :rolleyes: You don't fight wars to be fair or nice. You fight to win. If you are fair and nice, you will do your best to win quickly with the least amount of destruction and if you are an absolute cherub you will help rebuild the country after you're done.
Isn't being fair and nice a method of winning wars? I seem to recall that napalming the **** out of everything didn't really help the American cause in Vietnam.
Fighting a war with one hand... If you are fair and nice, you will do your best to win quickly with the least amount of destruction and if you are an absolute cherub you will help rebuild the country after you're done.
EDIT: Although, yeah, that probably wasn't a good idea. I just got what you meant. I meant that we should have pushed north where the enemy was coming from, knocked them out quickly, and helped rebuild maybe. Instead we sat there and let it drag on. At the very least, if we decided we didn't want to fight N Vietnam, we could have just taught the S Vietnamese to take care of themselves and supplied them like we eventually ended up doing in the end, except we cut off their supplies and they all died (the ones suspected of opposing the communist North I mean)
-
Well, the whole reason behind rebuilding the country you attacked has to do with all the no-bid contracts and possibly strenghtening your hold over a country. Or in other words, occupation.
In my opinion, as usual, I've noticed that it seems that in the 21st century, instead of physical troops occupying countries, they only beat them into submission, so central banks and mercenary groups can come in. (For instance, in Libya, first things the rebels set up were oil lines to sell to the West, as well as central banks to take monetary control over the country). Much more efficient than physical force. They'll just very slowly tax those people into submission.
With, apparently, over 700 U.S bases over the world, who's to say what precedent this way of taking over, sets?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12969004
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42245997
(Just a few sources on above's stuff)
-
You don't even see the big picture man. The rebels are tools of the bourgeoisie deceived into overthrowing the glorious Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahamabangalama. Before you know it the IMF and CIA will own everything.
Seriously though, Russia 1991/Iraq 2003. That's whats going to happen, everyone knows it. That's all. No one even suggested otherwise.
-
You don't even see the big picture man. The rebels are tools of the bourgeoisie deceived into overthrowing the glorious Libyan Arab Socialist Jamahamabangalama. Before you know it the IMF and CIA will own everything.
RussiaToday, is that you?
-
Russian state propaganda? On my YouTube?
-
Uhh... It's more likely than you think?
-
Actually yeah, they have a government TV network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29) that's been spreading the truth about US imperialism through its youtube channel. (http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday) If Stalin were alive today I think he'd be proud.
-
Big problem, as almost every news outlet does, is that they share one side of the situation. RT has some pretty good reporting, but obviously fails to report on the Russian side. Same with PressTV, nice coverage and not all too untrue, but only one side. Speaking half-truths still classifies as lying, doesn't it?
But at any rate, one source can never be enough, especially if there's a dividing line.
-
I'm not an expert on knowing stuff but following the daily news is not a great way of learning about the world. If you want to learn about a particular topic get a book. News gives you hot anchorwomen, pretty animations and flashy logos but very little context.
-
News gives you hot anchorwomen, pretty animations and flashy logos but very little context.
QFT. Although they can be useful for getting the scoop on the latest happenings in the world... if you can sit through their hype because they are slavering over how their ratings will jump from their getting to report this one. :sour:
-
I'm not an expert on knowing stuff but following the daily news is not a great way of learning about the world. If you want to learn about a particular topic get a book. News gives you hot anchorwomen, pretty animations and flashy logos but very little context.
Read a quality newspaper. You get daily news with context.
(can't give you any good examples though, since the good newspapers I know are all dutch).
-
Even good newspapers like the Wall Street Journal typically give you less than a page on any issue. You learn about what's happening now but very little about the history of the situation.
-
I'm not an expert on knowing stuff but following the daily news is not a great way of learning about the world. If you want to learn about a particular topic get a book. News gives you hot anchorwomen, pretty animations and flashy logos but very little context.
Walter Cronkite just turned over in his grave.
-
NATO is getting its feet deeper into the muck.
British advisers to aid rebels (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya)
Sorry for all the Yahoo News, it's the only thing I read after checking my email.
-
Apparently, Gaddafi has been either captured or killed. There are conflicting reports in world news sources.
Will pro-Gaddafi forces continue forming resistance pockets or start a guerrilla warfare even without their leader?
-
Given the weird and conflicting reports about Libya since the start of it all around March, it could be either or not at all. Sirte's been captured (after all the NATO bombing, perhaps flattened?) a month after the 'rebel final offensive'. I feel bad about the massive civilian casualties because of the fighting and all the other things going on. Massive deception though, so it makes it hard to say much else conclusive about all the events in Libya to date.
-
damnit, I was hoping to post about that :\
-
Haha I like how I was completely wrong about my stance on this issue back when it started
Thank **** for air support
e: oh and my buddy got released from Syrian prison, he's okay
-
Well it could have been way worse.
Hopes for the best.
-
I guess it's not exactly confirmed yet, so hopefully he's ok.
-
Reports seem to have started agreeing on that he's dead.
Curiously, the first source I noticed saying so was the Finnish Broadcasting Corporation's news service rather than some of the bigger ones like BBC or CNN.
-
I heard it was during a firefight, can anyone confirm? If there was a contact involving Gaddafi **** must really be looking bad for the fellas. Apologies - haven't been keeping up to speed on this lately.
-
if by "the fellas" you mean Gaddafi's forces, then yeah, not their brightest hour.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-libya-gaddafi-finalhours-idUSTRE79J5Q720111020
Seems like a good summation of the reported events.
-
if by "the fellas" you mean Gaddafi's forces, then yeah, not their brightest hour.
A couple of people have suggested he delibrately sought to make himself a martyr, but, being himself, I don't think he's judged the effect that will have correctly...
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-libya-gaddafi-finalhours-idUSTRE79J5Q720111020
Seems like a good summation of the reported events.
Cheers. Hmm, yes, doesn't seem to be looking to be their brightest hour indeed.
-
nope
-
another dictator slain. so, who's next?
-
well, the one I would most like to see is ole kim, but that isn't going to happen, Obama seems to be gearing up for a confrontation with Iran with all this assassination stuff, but Pakistan has been getting quite the lashing since we found osama living in a luxury condo there.
-
I vote for Merkel. ***** has been ruining Europe for too long.
-
Narf the UN wants to investigate...
Derp, Derp, Derp, how the hell do they think it was going to play out? We are not dealing with professional soldiers but irregulars that just fought a long bloody revolt against someone they despised, of course it was likely going to end with him getting shot, beaten and dragged through the streets. If he didn't decide to man up and go out like Tony Montana then it should have been obvious ignominious death was in the cards.
Acting surprised and indignant about it afterwards doesn't do world leaders any favors.
-
to the Libyans' credit, at least one guy was supposedly shouting something to the extent of "don't shoot him! we need him alive!"
-
I was reading this article (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusive/1-billion-one-dictator-094911231.html) and came across an interesting statement, "Since the operation began on March 31, getting to Qaddafi's final stand required 7,725 air sorties and 1,845 strike sorties, 397 of which dropped ordnance, and 145 Predator drone strikes."
My question is: What is the difference between an air sortie, a strike sortie, and a strike sortie which dropped ordnance?
I understand that an air sortie is any single flight of a single aircraft, including helicopters and drones. I understand that a sortie which dropped ordnance is one where... some ordnance was dropped. Is a strike sortie an air sortie intended to attack something?
-
Makes sense to me.
-
I vote for Merkel. ***** has been ruining Europe for too long.
Yeah, shame on her for being the only European leader to actually give a **** about financial stability. Clearly she's gotta go. Rumour has it that Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, or Ireland may all have suitable replacements...
*runs*
-
I vote for Merkel. ***** has been ruining Europe for too long.
Yeah, shame on her for being the only European leader to actually give a **** about financial stability. Clearly she's gotta go. Rumour has it that Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, or Ireland may all have suitable replacements...
*runs*
:lol:
-
Run for your life, you sympathizer scum (rebel scum doesn't work well does it?). We will find you eventually.
(And if Merkel isn't worried by the mess created by her own incompetence then she would be running for doctor evil status herself).
-
It is a bit bizarre to see the UN making statements about wanting to launch a full investigation. As StarSlayer noted, what happened wasn't exactly a shock.
-
If James Bond taught me anything, it's that the good guys never carry the Golden Gun. :pimp:
-
I was reading this article (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/exclusive/1-billion-one-dictator-094911231.html) and came across an interesting statement, "Since the operation began on March 31, getting to Qaddafi's final stand required 7,725 air sorties and 1,845 strike sorties, 397 of which dropped ordnance, and 145 Predator drone strikes."
My question is: What is the difference between an air sortie, a strike sortie, and a strike sortie which dropped ordnance?
I understand that an air sortie is any single flight of a single aircraft, including helicopters and drones. I understand that a sortie which dropped ordnance is one where... some ordnance was dropped. Is a strike sortie an air sortie intended to attack something?
Yes, I believe it is. A lot of the time, especially elsewhere in the Middle East, strike sorties are called off because of an inability to identify targets, distance from friendly and civilian areas, etc. Especially if the strike sortie was dispatched to neutralize a convoy or something, that convoy may have been present in such an area that a strike mission would be impractical and would violate any rules of engagement by the time the strike element got there.
-
Narf the UN wants to investigate...
Derp, Derp, Derp, how the hell do they think it was going to play out? We are not dealing with professional soldiers but irregulars that just fought a long bloody revolt against someone they despised, of course it was likely going to end with him getting shot, beaten and dragged through the streets. If he didn't decide to man up and go out like Tony Montana then it should have been obvious ignominious death was in the cards.
Acting surprised and indignant about it afterwards doesn't do world leaders any favors.
It is a bit bizarre to see the UN making statements about wanting to launch a full investigation. As StarSlayer noted, what happened wasn't exactly a shock.
Who's acted surprised? What's bizarre about investigating something that wasn't surprising?
I've never understood why some people make some sort of connection between indignation and predictability in such a way that it'd be somehow invalid to be indignant towards something that was predictable, and that it's somehow fair to assume that if someone's indignant towards something, they must have thought it to be unlikely to happen. That just doesn't make any sense, there's no connection between the two.
-
"He called us rats, but look where we found him," said Ahmed Al Sahati, a 27-year-old government fighter, standing next to two stinking drainage pipes under a six-lane highway near Sirte.
All things aside, this is a bit ironic indeed.
-
What's bizarre about investigating something that wasn't surprising?
Predictable events are just that: predictable. Investigation is about determining causes and sequences of events. There is no point to investigation, for it will tell us what we already know happened for reasons we are already aware of.
What you and the UN are actually asking for is punishment of perceived wrongdoing.
-
s
What's bizarre about investigating something that wasn't surprising?
Predictable events are just that: predictable. Investigation is about determining causes and sequences of events. There is no point to investigation, for it will tell us what we already know happened for reasons we are already aware of.
What you and the UN are actually asking for is punishment of perceived wrongdoing.
This, NATO pretty much sealed his fate when they threw in their support with the rebellion. It was fairly evident that if he didn't make a stand he was probably going to be caught and killed in some ditch. If they truly were concerned about apprehending him alive they should have used professionals. Putting on some song and dance post mortem about how unfortunate an outcome it is and needing to investigate is like putting a coyote in a chicken coup and acting miffed when all the hens are eaten.
"Sic Semper Tyrannis"
-
What's bizarre about investigating something that wasn't surprising?
Predictable events are just that: predictable. Investigation is about determining causes and sequences of events. There is no point to investigation, for it will tell us what we already know happened for reasons we are already aware of.
As soon as the news broke, there has been multiple variations of what exactly had happened. I have no idea whatsoever how you can say that "we already know what happened", when it's simply quite obvious that we don't. The only way to know (or to be more certain if you don't think we can ever know for sure) is by doing an investigation.
Seriously, how are you, me or the UN supposed to already know what happened? Where does the information magically come from?
What you and the UN are actually asking for is punishment of perceived wrongdoing.
I'm not asking for anything, and the UN apparently wants to investigate what happened.
-
Where does the information magically come from?
that video of him being lynched my an angry mob?
-
The bullet hole in his forehead is pretty convincing too.
-
I get accidental headshots in shooters all the time :nervous:.
-
He's a botter! Ban him!!! :lol:
-
So rebels execute the former dictator, shortly before falling prey to another dictator.
Typical.
However, we don't yet know for sure exactly who did what.
-
And now Libya is a nation of sharia (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gwZO0_VJCGRfV3Khd9uQ0mkItnDg?docId=CNG.3f2f96e7a36cc21e998b5fcff0cd4ff0.11)
Is anyone seriously surprised by this?
"Any law that violates sharia is null and void legally," he said, citing as an example the law on marriage passed during the slain dictator's 42-year tenure that imposed restrictions on polygamy, which is permitted in Islam.
"The law of divorce and marriage... This law is contrary to sharia and it is stopped," Abdel Jalil said.
Anytime you give any religion a free hand it will inevitably run amok. Welcome back to the dark ages.
-
Stop being so alarmist.
Adelrahman al-Shatr, one of the founders of the centre-right Party of National Solidarity, launched just last week, said it was premature for the NTC leader to speak about the policies of the new state.
"It is a subject that should be discussed with the different political groups and with the Libyan people," he said.
"These declarations create feelings of pain and bitterness among women who sacrificed so many martyrs," in the eight-month battle against Kadhafi loyalists, he added
This is anything but concrete.
-
Well, the fact remains that Islam needs to go through a reformation, followed by loss of influence on any secular matters at all. That is the natural path of progress for all religions, as it should be.
Reformation is needed to get rid of Islam's pathological need to control the lives of its members on secular matters. This is something that Christianity went through in the 16th century during Protestant reformations, which fragmented the Catholic church and eventually led to current situation where Christian churches really don't have much, if at all, relevance on secular matters. The only exception would be the right to perform weddings as a state-officiated institution; other than that, if you wish, you can entirely ignore the churches.
In an islamic country, if you're born a muslim, you're sort of stuck that way as long as Islamic law remains the supreme law of the land. This is something that needs to change if these countries are ever going to experience peaceful existence without multiple human rights violations.
And no, sharia doesn't gain GET OUT OF JAIL card from critique just because it's part of islamic culture. Wrong* things are wrong regardless of their supposed origin.
TL;DR - Like all religions, Islam will be a problem as long as it's allowed to dictate day-to-day life and legislation.
*Wrong is of course a definition, subject to ethics and morality used. To make sure that the definition of wrong used is as fair and balanced as possible, I propose we use my definitions which are obviously the best ones.
-
Reformation is needed to get rid of Islam's pathological need to control the lives of its members on secular matters. This is something that Christianity went through in the 16th century during Protestant reformations, which fragmented the Catholic church and eventually led to current situation where Christian churches really don't have much, if at all, relevance on secular matters
You should maybe spend some time in the United States of Under God
-
I'm not speaking of third world colonies I'm speaking of Europe
-
I'm not speaking of third world colonies I'm speaking of Europe
Ouch. I mean it's warranted, but still, ouch. :p
-
Stop being so alarmist.
Adelrahman al-Shatr, one of the founders of the centre-right Party of National Solidarity, launched just last week, said it was premature for the NTC leader to speak about the policies of the new state.
"It is a subject that should be discussed with the different political groups and with the Libyan people," he said.
"These declarations create feelings of pain and bitterness among women who sacrificed so many martyrs," in the eight-month battle against Kadhafi loyalists, he added
This is anything but concrete.
There's decades of precedence in other Islamic countries to back this up, and even to a limited extent in the UK where there is no clear seperation of church and state. The fact is until fundemental reforms such as what Herra mentioned occurs this will almost always happen. Democracy doesn't gaurentee secularism, it is what the people want it to be so it can either be there to serve the people or it can be a dysfunctional and corrupt mess like so much of the world.
And no, sharia doesn't gain GET OUT OF JAIL card from critique just because it's part of islamic culture. Wrong* things are wrong regardless of their supposed origin.
As it should be, no double standards.
-
I'm not speaking of third world colonies I'm speaking of Europe
You, sir, are the reason my colleagues are looking at me and wonder why I'm laughing my ass off at my desk on a Monday afternoon :P Well done, indeed.
-
NATO could've known that Sharia law and actual extremist islamists would take control, in my opinion the NTC felt that way from the start. We'll return in a few years for a comprehensive comparison between Libya under Gadaffi and Libya under Sharia Law I suppose. Wonder if there'll be a noticeable difference. Though, I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
A question for everyone though: Would you describe the events as a popular revolution or regime change (Or perhaps both?).
-
I'm seeing certain parallels between the Iranian revolution, and these latest upheavals in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.
The main difference here is who the Western powers have supported. In Iran's case, the West (and by that I mean the US) was behind the Shah and subsequently relations to the Islamic state of Iran that followed have been slightly abysmal.
Now, depending on how these countries start treating their citizens, it might cause interesting situations where they are compared to the human rights situation in Iran, and then we'll be asking questions - who put these people to power, who to blame that they are now oppressing their people, and what the hell should be done about it. :sigh:
-
Now, depending on how these countries start treating their citizens, it might cause interesting situations where they are compared to the human rights situation in Iran, and then we'll be asking questions - who put these people to power, who to blame that they are now oppressing their people, and what the hell should be done about it.
For one thing being a human rights abuser has never disqualified a country from being a friend of America. Just look at Saudi Arabia, literally a dark age era kingdom, a horrific human rights abuser, and even a sponsor of terrorism and teach their people to hate america, yet we treat them as friends.
What sets the Iranian Revolution apart from this is that it was explicitly anti-western and anti-soviet from the beginning. No reconcilliation or friendship was possible because they did not want it.
-
bump.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/world/africa/libya-nato-icc/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
i dont understand the point. that and all the rumors/questions around gadhafi's death. Nato didn't pull the trigger on him. and they were complying with UN resolutions. how can they have a case? do they? also with the death of gadhafi, . . . ..hes dead. mostly likely the revolutionaries killed him (theory). would i be correct in saying that libya is a warzone? and in wars i guess its not all roses and sweet scents? **** happens? and while unfortunate that he cant stand trial, is the fuss raised by his being alive then killed really worth it? he did oppress his people and he commit atrocities on them. cant say I blame any of the libyans who might have killed him. in a just world he would be alive to stand trial. but thats not reality. but it just seems kind of naive to me the way Washington, the UN, and Gadhafi's family are reacting to this? that they expected the war to conclude all peacefully and nicely now that "gadhafi is gone and the war is over".
thoughts?
-
They're just trying to get attention and sympathy so they can get even with the 'hated west'.
It's an interesting habit that, much as we see the spectre of 'Terrorism' undermining our legal systems and our rights here, it's much the same with 'The West' in the Middle East. It's handy to have an invisible, untouchable monster to blame everything on, instead of the facing the possibility that the head of the family was a hated butcher who was killed by his own people.
-
Reality really is more absurd than fantasy.
-
Um. might be a bit behind. but how is terrorism undermining our freedoms and legal rights? i thought we did that to ourselves with the patriot act and such things. also yes to the whole untouchable monster thing. I've been surprised to hear how ignorant some people are about who/what the "enemy" is. some of those people were my own family. kinda shocking. additionally I saw a cnn documentary video of pakistans "education system" (its a stretch to call it that) in my central asia class. and the kids in the public school system are taught that the USA, Britain, and India are essentially the boogeyman and that the US, GB, and India are out to get them, take their land and women, and generally to hurt good devout muslims. Also shocking.
EDIT:
Reality really is more absurd than fantasy.
will not dispute
-
That's the thing, we destroy our own freedoms under the boogeyman of 'Terrorism', and there is a trend in the Middle East to blame everything bad that happens to the people on 'The influence of the West', rather than accepting that maybe the policies aren't working too well. This has, as you say, created a monster out of the West which, like terrorism, has a shadow far far larger than the thing that is casting it.
-
all together sounds pretty crummy. I dont think we have any kind of moral high ground here in the US. Not saying were wrong,terribad people and we should die of shame etc, etc. but that we dont have a claim to the "right" of anything involving this. its to complex and there probbally is no right. no black and white at all. just a lot of grey. I also noted from that class (another cnn documentary this time a journalist who spent 10 days with the talibanin afghanistan) that many of the taliban fighters were devoted to the cause of combating the west quite simply because we were there. they believe america and its western allies are oppressosr and a conquerors/occupiers much like the USSR was. Which contrasts mightly from our self comceptualized image of the west as being liberators. In some respects, is it possible that this concept, on the part of afghani's is a result of the USSR occupation and then further back as a buffer state in the Great Game and general instability of afghanistan for the last 2 centuries at least? basically at the constant mercy of foreign powers and this a reaction to lash out against those powers?
-
Perhaps a interesting tidbit of info:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/10/26/173833.html?PHPSESSID=hbmilvf0a8pi7gmni6lbqkmt07
"Qatar revealed for the first time on Wednesday that hundreds of its soldiers had joined Libyan rebel forces on the ground as they battled troops of veteran leader Muammar Qaddafi.
“We were among them and the numbers of Qataris on ground were hundreds in every region,” said Qatari chief of staff Major General Hamad bin Ali al-Atiya."
The more information that slowly comes out from official channels the more it looks like a typical regime change rather than a popular revolution.
-
Oh, well. That sucks for them, huh? At least they got support :)
-
Because Qatar is known for its ability to change regimes.
In other news, Turkey has apparently thrown its support behind the Syrian armed opposition.