View Full Version : Civil War in Libya
PanzerJaeger
03-08-2011, 14:45
I love it how all the people who were gung-ho for the Afghan and Iraq invasions are now starting to come out with the same comments about Libya that the 'doves' were saying about Iraq and Afghanistan all those years ago. Glad that these 'hawks' have started to grow up a little.
Afghanistan was justified, and in my opinion established the correct Western doctrine regarding nations that actively host terrorist cells that launch international attacks - i.e., that they will share in the responsibility. Trying to establish a democracy there is debatable. We probably should have just installed a Western backed strongman and been done with it, but we are idealists at heart I suppose.
Iraq, to me, was a form of mutually beneficial imperialism. The US would have reasserted its preeminence in the world after 9/11, turned an enemy into an ally in a critical region of the world, and collected all the benefits that come with it (lucrative oil and trade contracts), while the Iraqis would be free of a dictator, enjoy the benefits (freedom and human rights) of a US supported representative democracy, and likely become the Germany, Japan, or South Korea of the Middle East. Obviously it didn't turn out that way and the thought process behind the invasion reflected a level of hubris that came out of the amazingly lopsided First Gulf War and the booming '90s. It has been a huge loss for the US, but also for the Iraqis who were too short sighted to see the gift they'd been given. Lesson learned. :shrug:
Intervention in Libya doesn't even offer the pretext of a happy ending, and certainly not any substantive gain, and is fraught with dangers and unintended consequences.
The truth is that these people are not our brothers in arms. Most of them hate the Western world over real and perceived injustices only slightly less than they hate their own governments. I, for one, will never again rise in support of 'freeing' any Middle Eastern nation - they don't want it, and if they cannot do it themselves, they don't deserve it.
I am sure the Dutch are still uncomfortable with that fact that they did not bring the nazis out of the country on their own.
Nah, military-wise we have nothing to be ashamed about, we didn't exactly roll over, it's the holocaust that still stings.
Rebels may ask for military support but I think we shouldn't meddle. Whatever happens, every dictator in the world is crapping it's pants from now on. Never be rude to an Arab geez
Never be rude to an Arab geezJalaa!
Hospitality is sacred, rudeness is a capital offense. Or so they say :bow:
A heartening quote from today (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08darnah.html?_r=2&hp): "We want a civil state, pluralism, with freedom enshrined by law. Extremism was a reaction to oppression and the violence of the state. Give us freedom and see what happens." -- Shukri Abdel-Hamid
ICantSpellDawg
03-08-2011, 20:02
A heartening quote from today (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08darnah.html?_r=2&hp): "Extremism was a reaction to oppression and the violence of the state. Give us freedom and see what happens." -- Shukri Abdel-Hamid
Excellent quote. This forms the core of my international understanding. Freedoms solves so many problems that it is nuts not to pursue it endlessly, even outside of your own borders.
I love it how all the people who were gung-ho for the Afghan and Iraq invasions are now starting to come out with the same comments about Libya that the 'doves' were saying about Iraq and Afghanistan all those years ago. Glad that these 'hawks' have started to grow up a little.
Here here... I hate to say it but this decribes me.
a) We have no business getting involved in another country's affairs
b) We have enough problems of our own. Instead of wasting money in Libya, how about we use the money for constructive purposes at home?
Noncommunist
03-08-2011, 21:40
Here here... I hate to say it but this decribes me.
a) We have no business getting involved in another country's affairs
b) We have enough problems of our own. Instead of wasting money in Libya, how about we use the money for constructive purposes at home?
Why not? What really should make the state so special that we cannot interfere when they massacre their own people?
Yes, the US has problems but compared to the problems that the Libyans have, it seems pretty inconsequential. It's like refusing to feed a starving man outside because your iPod is having issues.
And while I think we should at least initially tread lightly in getting involved, if the rebels are ever on the ropes, we really should go in and rescue them and then let them deal with Gaddaffi in whatever means they please. Otherwise, it seems that the lesson for current dictators is that they should oppress their people harshly because they win if they do. Compared to some other dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak weren't that bad. Gaddaffi on the other hand has massacred some of his own people and to see him get away with that seems like it would set a bad precedent.
PanzerJaeger
03-09-2011, 03:27
Dramatic footage (http://www.businessinsider.com/battle-of-zawiyah-2011-3) from Zawiya. It was reportedly finally retaken this morning but now the situation still seems contested.
Also, the CSM draws an interesting comparison (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0308/Why-Libya-s-Qaddafi-could-survive-like-Saddam-in-1991) with Iraq in '91.
With cool confidence, a Libyan expatriate arrives at this remote border with a small fortune in donations and imminent regime change on his mind.
From the outside, it looks easy: He predicts that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has perhaps 10 days before the people-power Arab revolt sweeps him away as it already has the authoritarian leaders of Tunisia and Egypt.
“Every time someone dies, [the opposition] gets stronger,” says the Libyan with a North American accent, who could not be named. “Qaddafi is going to have to kill everybody. If that’s the price of freedom, I guess we are willing to pay it.”
But rather than the euphoric victories in Tunisia and Egypt, Libya's conflict now evokes another uprising: Iraqis' 1991 bid to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It, too, began with hope but ended in despair as the dictator brutally suppressed antigovernment rebels and ruled for another 12 years.
Finally, Al Jazeera suggests (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/03/20113716229926535.html) the rebels are so ignorant of the weapon systems they're using that they are injuring themselves.
Prince Cobra
03-09-2011, 08:27
Finally, Al Jazeera suggests (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/libya/2011/03/20113716229926535.html) the rebels are so ignorant of the weapon systems they're using that they are injuring themselves.
Just an elucidation. There is a significant number of regular troops amongst the rebels, though due to the nature of the revolution, they is a huge number of volunteers that have no or little military training.
Sarmatian
03-09-2011, 10:18
Why not? What really should make the state so special that we cannot interfere when they massacre their own people?
Yes, the US has problems but compared to the problems that the Libyans have, it seems pretty inconsequential. It's like refusing to feed a starving man outside because your iPod is having issues.
And while I think we should at least initially tread lightly in getting involved, if the rebels are ever on the ropes, we really should go in and rescue them and then let them deal with Gaddaffi in whatever means they please. Otherwise, it seems that the lesson for current dictators is that they should oppress their people harshly because they win if they do. Compared to some other dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak weren't that bad. Gaddaffi on the other hand has massacred some of his own people and to see him get away with that seems like it would set a bad precedent.
Well, the thing is that we're not dealing with peaceful protesters and demonstrations, this is an armed rebellion and any state in the world would have responded the same way. It's not all black and white here...
It's an armed rebellion against a dictator. The rebels are the civillians of the country. We are not taking part in a regular civil war, but in a fight between the people and a dictator and his friends.
You wouldn't see a similar uprising in the West, because the democratic system is respected - and because a lot of people will actually have voted for the people in charge.
rory_20_uk
03-09-2011, 10:41
Even that it is a minority of peple who voted for the leader, and the leaders never step down even when they're approval is in the 20s.
The leaders int he west often have pretty threadbare legitimacy and never go to the polls when dissatisfaction is high.
~:smoking:
Sarmatian
03-09-2011, 10:41
I have yet to see an example, any country and any time in history, of an armed rebel being considered civilian.
We may not like Gaddaffi, but let's not distort the facts because of that, shall we...
I have yet to see an example, any country and any time in history, of an armed rebel being considered civilian.
We may not like Gaddaffi, but let's not distort the facts because of that, shall we...
That's when the civillians take up arms you know - unlike armed guerrilla groups pouring out from the forests. It seems impossible at times to make a distinction between civilian and rebel in this conflict, they are roughly the same . That's a good hint. Civilans all over the country take up arms, with one goal: to topple the regime. Let us see which conflict you'd liken this one to.
Sarmatian
03-09-2011, 11:20
Well, in that case, any people, not officially belonging to an army, who ever took up arms against anything are just civilians. One could say that terrorists are just civilians who took up arms to fight against, what they perceive to be, an oppressive regime.
rory_20_uk
03-09-2011, 11:37
Well, in that case, any people, not officially belonging to an army, who ever took up arms against anything are just civilians. One could say that terrorists are just civilians who took up arms to fight against, what they perceive to be, an oppressive regime.
The difference is of course in the outcome. The American Patriots in the Revolution would have been described in the same dismissive terms if they'd lost to the British as history is written by the victors: the American Civil War doesn't like to focus unduly that the Southern States were merely trying to be left alone until were invaded by the North.
"Officially" - what is that? Whose officials? If you refuse to recognise the other side every soldier is then by definition merely a civilian wearing a funny suit and carrying a gun.
~:smoking:
Well, in that case, any people, not officially belonging to an army, who ever took up arms against anything are just civilians. One could say that terrorists are just civilians who took up arms to fight against, what they perceive to be, an oppressive regime.
No. The difference is that the civilians did not arm themselves prior to the uprising, they armed themselves later on. Guerrilla groups are more secluded from the rest of the population, and typical receive training and plan their operations. Of course, civilians arming themselves are on their way to become something else; but the circumstances are important.
According to your logic, in case I found a firearm on the street and shot someone with it; with no prior planning what so ever, I'd no longer be a civilian.
Sarmatian
03-09-2011, 12:57
The difference is of course in the outcome. The American Patriots in the Revolution would have been described in the same dismissive terms if they'd lost to the British as history is written by the victors: the American Civil War doesn't like to focus unduly that the Southern States were merely trying to be left alone until were invaded by the North.
Exactly, and I'd like principles more than I dislike Gaddafi.
"Officially" - what is that? Whose officials? If you refuse to recognise the other side every soldier is then by definition merely a civilian wearing a funny suit and carrying a gun.
Officially as in they're a part of an organization sanctioned by the state, with a clear chain of command... ie. national army.
~:smoking:
No. The difference is that the civilians did not arm themselves prior to the uprising, they armed themselves later on. Guerrilla groups are more secluded from the rest of the population, and typical receive training and plan their operations. Of course, civilians arming themselves are on their way to become something else; but the circumstances are important.
According to your logic, in case I found a firearm on the street and shot someone with it; with no prior planning what so ever, I'd no longer be a civilian.
No, but if you used it to kill other people with the intent of overthrowing the government, you're no longer a civilian but a rebel. It doesn't really matter if you armed yourself yesterday or three weeks ago. That doesn't mean that rebels are bad guys necessarily, mind you, but they are no longer civilians and can't be treated as such.
They are indeed rebels. They are not ordinary civilians at this point, but who in Libya is at present? Where are the civilians?
It is a civilian uprising because prior to its initiation; the rebel fighters, apart from defecting military units, were civilians. Not armed militias, not guerilla fighters but civilians. Many of the people at the front might just have picked their weapon the day before.
Planning does matter. If some drunk guy asssaults an army base with the intent of overthrowing the government, that does not make him a rebel. No more is someone who, in a moment of poor judgement, assaults an army base spontaneously with the same intent (provided that the person has otherwise no history of rebellion). It's an isolated incident - we need work towards the same goal before the person is truly a rebel.
Choosing to ignore the circumstances is not going to produce accurate assessments.
PanzerJaeger
03-09-2011, 14:08
Choosing to ignore the circumstances is not going to produce accurate assessments.
That goes both ways. He is very correct. No government would tolerate this. The West surely didn't in Iraq and isn't in Afghanistan.
As usual, one person's rebel is another person's freedom fighter.
In this case I support whoever is against Gaddafi as long as they're not as crazy or crazier than him.
Of course one guy's crazy may be another guy's prophet, but then my opinion is obviously based on my own perception of the world. ~;)
PanzerJaeger
03-09-2011, 14:50
US sees 'stalemate' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576189871921474428.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories) in Libya.
The U.S. believes Col. Moammar Gadhafi has solidified control in parts of Libya, creating a stalemate with rebels and raising the stakes in the Obama administration's internal debate about whether to take military action to help the opposition, officials said.
Pro-regime forces pressed into the rebel-held city of Zawiya, near the capital, and appeared to have halted the opposition's momentum to the east in fighting Tuesday.
With the struggle appearing to settle into a standoff, the Obama administration, working with allies, looked into options for intervention, while the European Union prepared to announce broader sanctions on the Libyan government, including an asset freeze.
Rebels in their base in the eastern city of Benghazi, after first suggesting they had made an amnesty offer to the Libyan leader, denied any back-channel negotiations were under way.
After days of attacks and counterattacks, the opposing forces appeared to dig in east of the capital Tuesday, with rebels clinging to the oil-refinery town of Ras Lanuf and Mr. Gadhafi's forces solidifying their hold on the small town of Bin Jawad just to the west.
Rebels have taken heavy losses in their repeated attempts to take Bin Jawad. On Tuesday, Libyan state television broadcast images of dozens of bound men lying face down on the ground. It claimed they were captured rebel fighters.
Libyan government forces appear more cohesive and have been able to regroup, a senior U.S. official said.
That goes both ways. He is very correct. No government would tolerate this. The West surely didn't in Iraq and isn't in Afghanistan.
The problem is that you already have ignored the context when you produce that statement.
Firstly: what the Libyan gov is doing here is trying to to retake the cities with minimal concern to the loss of innocent life. I cannot see the average western gov bombing a city to the ground because it rebels. It would be considered an unacceptable solution.
Secondy: what is the "this" that you talk about? It is armed resistance against a dictatorship. The nations that make up the West are not dictatorships, thus the analogy falls short. The govs would not just want to protect their own skin, but also the system (more or less..). Not to mention that nationwide rebellion would be absurd in the Western nations as of present. Regional unrest, on the other hand, happens in some countries.
George Will lists a pretty good set of questions that need to be asked before intervention. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/AR2011030803149.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) My favs:
U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi's fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya's radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths - remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake when they were gathering firewood - are we prepared for the televised pictures?
The Economist reports Gaddafi has "a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles" and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies' aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?
Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect U.S. military assistance?
Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?
PanzerJaeger
03-09-2011, 15:53
Firstly: what the Libyan gov is doing here is trying to to retake the cities with minimal concern to the loss of innocent life. I cannot see the average western gov bombing a city to the ground because it rebels. It would be considered an unacceptable solution.
We have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah), and we would again if it was deemed necessary.
Secondy: what is the "this" that you talk about? It is armed resistance against a dictatorship. The nations that make up the West are not dictatorships, thus the analogy falls short. The govs would not just want to protect their own skin, but also the system (more or less..). Not to mention that nationwide rebellion would be absurd in the Western nations as of present. Regional unrest, on the other hand, happens in some countries.
Yet this is looking more and more like regional unrest instead of a popular front - a historically rebellious region using the broader situation to break away. You're assuming that the vast majority of Libyans want Gadaffi gone because you would want him gone. I have yet to see any polls on the subject. Western conceptions of government and power do not necessarily translate to that region.
Prince Cobra
03-09-2011, 16:19
"Then it's a revolt?"
"No, sire, it's a revolution"
I think we can safely assume that what is happening in Libya is a revolution. It is true the movement only part of the country but by my calculation it is the most populated part of the country. Az Zawiyah is 300 000, Benghazi is 600 000, Misrata is 500 000, Tripoli is more than 1 000 000 (the loyalty of those living in the capital is highly disputable; the last thing I read was that Gaddafi situated snipers on the roofs in Tripoli). That's about half of the population of the country and have in mind that these are only the biggest cities.
We have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah), and we would again if it was deemed necessary.
First of all, it is not an American city with American citizens. In an ideal world, it wouldn't make any difference - but in the real world, it does. Furthermore, does minimal concern for civilian life describe the actions of the military there? And if every major Iraqi city was like that of Fallujah, would the same methods still be used?
Last, but importantly, the insurgents in Fallujah were not average citizens who had taken up arms - they had received combat training and were a part of whatever group - as far as I can see.
EDIT: The sum of the two paragraphs above reads: what if all the major cities in Iraq, apart from the capital, had fallen under the control of a mixture civilians, who started the uprising, and defecting military units. What to do then? All in all, I think comparing Libya to Iraq is not particularly helpful as the insurgency there is to some/a large extent based upon structures that existed prior to the American invasion, in one way or the other.
Yet this is looking more and more like regional unrest instead of a popular front - a historically rebellious region using the broader situation to break away. You're assuming that the vast majority of Libyans want Gadaffi gone because you would want him gone. I have yet to see any polls on the subject. Western conceptions of government and power do not necessarily translate to that region.
I base it upon the images that I see from the country. Initially, there were large protests in the capital, but many of the protesters were killed and so the protests has largely ceased as they seemed futile at this point. Two of the largest cities in the whole country, Zawiyah and Misrata, are/were under rebel control because the pepole rebelled, and these cities are located in the western part of the country.
Sarmatian
03-09-2011, 18:11
First of all, it is not an American city with American citizens.
http://www.brotherswar.com/Fredericksburg-1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Massacre
I'm sure someone more familiar with ACW could give you even more examples...
Things have changed a bit in the West and in the US since the 18th 19th century. Regardless, the ACW is also of a different breed than the conflict in Libya.
Sarmatian
03-09-2011, 18:38
It's the second half of the 19th century actually and I don't see how the breed is so different.
...and I still maintain that no country in the world would tolerate an armed and violent uprising, even in the 21st century.
Why not? What really should make the state so special that we cannot interfere when they massacre their own people?
Yes, the US has problems but compared to the problems that the Libyans have, it seems pretty inconsequential. It's like refusing to feed a starving man outside because your iPod is having issues.
And while I think we should at least initially tread lightly in getting involved, if the rebels are ever on the ropes, we really should go in and rescue them and then let them deal with Gaddaffi in whatever means they please. Otherwise, it seems that the lesson for current dictators is that they should oppress their people harshly because they win if they do. Compared to some other dictators, Ben Ali and Mubarak weren't that bad. Gaddaffi on the other hand has massacred some of his own people and to see him get away with that seems like it would set a bad precedent.
Why are we the world's police men? If something needs done, let NATO as a whole do it, or the UN. China wants to be treated a world player... let them send in their military to deal with it. Why is it always us? What exactly do I gain from helping rebels in a country on the other side of the world? I'll be Frank; I don't care about Libya. I'd rather spend money here on education, roads, health care, high speed rail, etc rather than helping some "freedom figthers" that I know little about, in a conflict that isn't any of my business. When we meddle in the affairs of others, history has shown it tends to cost us a lot of money, lives, and ends up making us enemies we don't need.
Edit: By the way, this country has greater worries than your I POD comparison. That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.
It's the second half of the 19th century actually and I don't see how the breed is so different.
Erm, it's different because it is the people against ruling minority elite.
...and I still maintain that no country in the world would tolerate an armed and violent uprising, even in the 21st century.
I have never contested that, the question is what the response would be like. Not to mention that such an uprising does not make much sense in the western world at present - which is much of the point anyway...you cannot have the overthrow of a king in a republic, you cannot have gender equality in a country with only one gender etc..
HoreTore
03-09-2011, 20:01
It's the second half of the 19th century actually and I don't see how the breed is so different.
...and I still maintain that no country in the world would tolerate an armed and violent uprising, even in the 21st century.
No, nobody would tolerate it.
But neither would any Western nation terror bomb the civilian populstion of that city. Sorry, not going to happen, not until we devolve into fascism.
PanzerJaeger
03-09-2011, 20:29
Libyan rebels are losing patience (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-09-Libya-Gadhafi_N.htm) with the United States.
Libyans battling Moammar Gadhafi are losing patience with the United States and its allies, saying they are missing a key opportunity to topple a dictator and win the gratitude of a new democracy in the Middle East.
Are they serious? A week ago they told the world they needed no help, and now the United States is expected to intervene? As far as I'm concerned the rebels can save their attempts at emotional blackmail and public shaming. Good luck and good riddance.
Also, as an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, I must admit that I've been impressed by his ability to avoid the trap (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50907.html) so many other presidents have fallen in to.
Noncommunist
03-09-2011, 20:42
Why are we the world's police men? If something needs done, let NATO as a whole do it, or the UN. China wants to be treated a world player... let them send in their military to deal with it. Why is it always us? What exactly do I gain from helping rebels in a country on the other side of the world? I'll be Frank; I don't care about Libya. I'd rather spend money here on education, roads, health care, high speed rail, etc rather than helping some "freedom figthers" that I know little about, in a conflict that isn't any of my business. When we meddle in the affairs of others, history has shown it tends to cost us a lot of money, lives, and ends up making us enemies we don't need.
Edit: By the way, this country has greater worries than your I POD comparison. That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.
We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.
Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.
Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.
ICantSpellDawg
03-09-2011, 21:51
We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.
Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.
Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.
Agreed.
ICantSpellDawg
03-09-2011, 21:53
I'm dissapointed with Obama so far. I was hoping that he would be a police action president like Clinton. I think that the United States has an interest in going in to every nation that brutalizes its people.
Populus Romanus
03-09-2011, 22:45
I do not see why we have to send in official military forces at all to end this madness. Just send in a single sniper team of two people, shoot Qaddafi, and end the civil war immediately. Or almost immediately. This is the best way by far.
Strike For The South
03-09-2011, 22:53
I do not see why we have to send in official military forces at all to end this madness. Just send in a single sniper team of two people, shoot Qaddafi, and end the civil war immediately. Or almost immediately. This is the best way by far.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN SIR
ICantSpellDawg
03-09-2011, 23:22
I don't understand why we can't offer multi-million dollar reward for a captured Gaddafi - Dead or Alive.
Populus Romanus
03-09-2011, 23:59
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN SIR
Huh? :inquisitive:
ICantSpellDawg
03-10-2011, 04:18
"This is a pretty easy problem, for crying out loud" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1)
PanzerJaeger
03-10-2011, 06:14
I do not see why we have to send in official military forces at all to end this madness. Just send in a single sniper team of two people, shoot Qaddafi, and end the civil war immediately. Or almost immediately. This is the best way by far.
I don't understand why we can't offer multi-million dollar reward for a captured Gaddafi - Dead or Alive.
What a precedent to set - straight out of Assad's playbook.
I don't understand the breathless rush to personalize this conflict and make it our own. We are not at war with the Gadaffi regime, and the man is not our enemy. It would be amazing if the loudest voices in the West in favor of intervention in Libya could focus some of that energy on Afghanistan - you know, that conflict in a small, third world nation where the fate of freedom loving people hangs in the balance that we actually have a stake in.
"This is a pretty easy problem, for crying out loud" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1)
Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, told me that he tends to favor a no-fly zone — along with the jamming of communications — as soon as is practical. “The last thing you want is a 20-year debate on who lost this moment for the Libyan people,” Mr. Kerry noted.
Un-freaking-believable. Now it's our responsibility to win this moment for the Libyan people?
This is exactly the same trap Bush fell in to. Iraq II was in many ways the direct result of a 10-year debate on who lost that moment for the Iraqi people. We somehow owed them freedom too, and they surely thanked us for the favor.
Also, the cowboy in your article is engaging in some highly misleading commentary.
And, in any case, he noted that the United States operated a no-fly zone over Iraq for more than a decade without systematically eradicating all Iraqi air defense systems in that time.
...and they were engaged almost daily by Iraqi anti-air forces and were forced to return the favor, destroying thousands of Iraqi anti-air assets. It would be nearly impossible to eradicate all air defense systems in any nation, but that does not mean that significant bombing or such installations is not a precondition for such an operation.
We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we don't act as the world's policeman, no one else will. European nations have fairly small militaries, and the nations with powerful militaries are either dealing with other issues or are semi or fully autocratic. After all, why should we expect China, an autocratic government dealing with protests itself to then back people who are violently attempting to overthrow oppression? And the last time Russia tried to deal with a "genocide", it was the Georgians who killed a few hundred civilians while trying to reclaim a separatist region.
Yes, it will cost some money, probably some blood, and perhaps might generate some enemies, there is a cost if we don't. The blood of Libyans who are fighting for freedom will most likely be shed in greater numbers. And more nations around the globe will be much more encouraged to put down protests with force if Gadaffi could do it and get away with it. And, by inaction, we can generate enemies who knew that we had the power to help them but chose not to.
Obviously, we Americans do have greater worries than a broken iPod but in comparison with the Libyans who've been oppressed pretty much for their entire existence with few political rights, we are very well off in America.
First let me start off by saying this is utter nonsense. What kind of fictional, fairy tale world do you live in? I mean, I honestly should have guessed this from your name "noncommunist". Noncommunist? Communism hasn't been a threat for decades, but it guess it easier to see the world in black and white.
You seem to envision the United States selflessly crusading around the world, without real allies, spreading hope and "freedom" to millions. You are so naive as this government only cares about itself. Very rarely when we do something it is out of the goodness of hearts. Why exactly do you think we did jack **** in Sudan when they were committing genocide? It gets even worse when you talk about doing it without allies. Haven't you learned anything from Iraq? Going in gungho without help is a BAD IDEA. Why don't you volunteer and go fight with the rebels if you want to help. I really am sick wasting money and American lives in third world ****holes where the locals end up hating us, and we install a government that was just as corrupt as the last.
Finally, I could maybe get on the board if this country was prosperous and we had a balanced budget. Your IPOD comment shows me you are clueless about our current situation. How about we forget the IPOD and talk about basic infastructure, education, our budget, and health care. Many of the roads and bridges in this country are in dire need of repair and are outright dangerous. Our schools, for a developed country, are atrocious. Many kids cannot afford a decent college education, and end up settling for a lesser school, or climbing deep in debt. I could go on and on, but I think you are get the point I'm trying to make.
Libya is none our business. Repeat, none of our business. Let the Libyans deal with Libyan problems, and let Americans deal with American problems. When kids in the city of Detroit can actually get a decent education, when the single mom can provide food and heating for her kids, and when this country is not paying billions in interest a year in servicing a ballooning debt, then we can think about Libya.
Banquo's Ghost
03-10-2011, 13:58
What a precedent to set - straight out of Assad's playbook.
I don't understand the breathless rush to personalize this conflict and make it our own. We are not at war with the Gadaffi regime, and the man is not our enemy. It would be amazing if the loudest voices in the West in favor of intervention in Libya could focus some of that energy on Afghanistan - you know, that conflict in a small, third world nation where the fate of freedom loving people hangs in the balance that we actually have a stake in.
Un-freaking-believable. Now it's our responsibility to win this moment for the Libyan people?
This is exactly the same trap Bush fell in to. Iraq II was in many ways the direct result of a 10-year debate on who lost that moment for the Iraqi people. We somehow owed them freedom too, and they surely thanked us for the favor.
Also, the cowboy in your article is engaging in some highly misleading commentary.
...and they were engaged almost daily by Iraqi anti-air forces and were forced to return the favor, destroying thousands of Iraqi anti-air assets. It would be nearly impossible to eradicate all air defense systems in any nation, but that does not mean that significant bombing or such installations is not a precondition for such an operation.
I think that any thread where PJ and I are in complete agreement should be considered both won and over. :smash:
My guess is that the western powers have no intention of getting on the ground in Libya, but they may try to tie up Gaddaffi forces by appearing that they might. Expect to see US, French and UK warships coming closer to Tripoli as well as the odd fly by from jets.
It was always going to come down to a proper fight - and unfortunately for the Libyans, they have no choice but to learn how to run a makeshift army. Good luck to them. If I was a young man, and an arab speaker, I think I would go and sign up.
Tellos Athenaios
03-10-2011, 14:40
@PJ: to be fair the general cowboy you speak of proposes not a full no fly zone, but a no fly zone over rebel held territory (so that Gadaffi can't bomb them).
ICantSpellDawg
03-10-2011, 15:14
I think that any thread where PJ and I are in complete agreement should be considered both won and over. :smash:
Except that we will begin air to ground strikes against Libya WITH the backing of the French government within the next 48 hours, my guess. No-Fly zone should start within that time frame as well. France is on-board, game is go.
America has been the world's policeman, now we have a partner. Congratulations, France. I was hoping for a distinctly European movement on this crisis. We should back them up to the best of our ability.
This is a human conflict and is a common struggle. Brutality against humans anywhere is brutality against humans everywhere. At this point in time, brutality is over there, defensive capabilities are over here and it is our responsibility to level the playing field. They, in turn, have a responsibility to create a government that respects human rights and guards against threats to those rights. We ("western" powers) ought to assist freedom seeking people around the world while we have this amazing gift of hegemony in military capability. The time is fast approaching when that lead will shrink to the point of non-existance, and then we will have to go toe to toe with authoritarian regimes. We had better make sure that Libyans, Tunisians, Egyptians, offer their support to the side of Freedom rather than oppression. The existing "realist" status quo does nothing to solidify the future of Freedom, merely the economic quagmire that will lead to our values being crushed by a rising autocratic world long term.
Fareed Zakaria (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058094,00.html), as usual, is very smart:
Over the past five decades, the U.S. has had very mixed results when it has intervened, by air or land, in other people's wars. But it has done pretty well when it has helped one side of the struggle. Arming rebels in Afghanistan, Central America and Africa has proved to be a relatively low-cost policy with high rates of success. Giving arms, food, logistical help, intelligence and other such tools to the Libyan opposition would boost its strength and give it staying power.
Once Gaddafi realizes that he is up against an endless supply of arms and ammunition, he will surely recalibrate his decisions. There have been reports that he floated the idea of leaving office as long as he is guaranteed safe passage. At a weak moment, he made a plea that he be treated like Britain's Queen or the King of Thailand, a figurehead with no powers.
Some worry that if we arm the rebels, things might turn out the way they did in Afghanistan, where the freedom fighters became Islamic jihadists and turned their sights on us. But that's not really what happened. After the Soviet defeat, the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan, leaving it open to Islamic jihadists backed by the Pakistani military. The better analogy is to Chechnya, where as the civil war continued, the rebels became more radical and Islamic fundamentalists jumped into the fight and soon became its leaders. The best way to prevent al-Qaeda from turning Libya into an area of strength would be to have the fighting end — with Gaddafi's defeat. So let's help the Libyan opposition do it.
ICantSpellDawg
03-10-2011, 18:41
Fareed Zakaria (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058094,00.html), as usual, is very smart:
Over the past five decades, the U.S. has had very mixed results when it has intervened, by air or land, in other people's wars. But it has done pretty well when it has helped one side of the struggle. Arming rebels in Afghanistan, Central America and Africa has proved to be a relatively low-cost policy with high rates of success. Giving arms, food, logistical help, intelligence and other such tools to the Libyan opposition would boost its strength and give it staying power.
Once Gaddafi realizes that he is up against an endless supply of arms and ammunition, he will surely recalibrate his decisions. There have been reports that he floated the idea of leaving office as long as he is guaranteed safe passage. At a weak moment, he made a plea that he be treated like Britain's Queen or the King of Thailand, a figurehead with no powers.
Some worry that if we arm the rebels, things might turn out the way they did in Afghanistan, where the freedom fighters became Islamic jihadists and turned their sights on us. But that's not really what happened. After the Soviet defeat, the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan, leaving it open to Islamic jihadists backed by the Pakistani military. The better analogy is to Chechnya, where as the civil war continued, the rebels became more radical and Islamic fundamentalists jumped into the fight and soon became its leaders. The best way to prevent al-Qaeda from turning Libya into an area of strength would be to have the fighting end — with Gaddafi's defeat. So let's help the Libyan opposition do it.
Thanks for that, Lemur.
Things going downhill for the rebels now. Still anyone's guess where this is going to end up.
tibilicus
03-10-2011, 19:10
A missed opportunity from the West who once again seem to have cold feet. We could end this conflict in a mere week and yet we're so scared of how others perceive our actions we're quite happy to just sit back and let thousands be slaughtered by the mad colonel. The UN has also displayed its complete incompetence in this whole crisis and the whole notion of reaching "international consensus" is void considering China and Russia essentially veto anything that tries to come through the security council.
I guess I kind of miss the days when the West was willing to forcibly impose itself on the world. Sure there were errors but the fact we simply sit back and let these kind of things happen because we want to appear neutral is very sad. We need to grow a pair.
PanzerJaeger
03-10-2011, 20:35
Fareed Zakaria (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058094,00.html), as usual, is very smart:
I disagree. Zakaria is, in essence, channeling Gaddafi here in attempting to influence Western action by hanging the ever-looming specter of al-Qaeda over our heads.
This conflict has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Just as there is absolutely no evidence that the group is fueling these rebellions as the good colonel would have us believe, there is also no evidence that a lack of Western aid to the rebels will yield an al-Qaeda 'area of strength' (whatever that means). Such arguments are highly disingenuous and while more subtle and sophisticated in tone than Gadaffi's, amount to nothing more than the same scare tactics he is employing.
I guess I kind of miss the days when the West was willing to forcibly impose itself on the world. Sure there were errors but the fact we simply sit back and let these kind of things happen because we want to appear neutral is very sad. We need to grow a pair.
So some of these people can start blaming us for all their problems again and blow themselves up in our cities and airplanes?
Their revolutionary comittee also asked only for air support and specifically said they don't want any soldiers on the ground, so I'm sure they'll be really happy if we land there and win the war for them.
I say we just watch, the middle east complained countless times about our involvement and manipulation, so we should just stop doing that and watch. There's an arab league and all that who can also help if the situation is that bad.
PanzerJaeger
03-11-2011, 02:14
As the rebels flee in disarray (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/10/gaddafi-libya-nato) towards Benghazi, national intelligence director James Clapper goes off script and offers the uncensored US assessment of the situation (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7370ccbe-4b72-11e0-89d8-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GFVG9qxM) in a hearing on Capitol Hill.
Muammer Gaddafi’s superior military forces meant his “regime will prevail” in the longer term, the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said in comments that undermined a robust defence by Washington of its Libya policy.
Mr Clapper said in testimony to Congress on Thursday that Colonel Gaddafi was relying on two of his brigades – which appeared to be “very, very loyal”, “disciplined” and “robustly equipped with Russian equipment, artillery, tanks”.
Mr Clapper, who oversees America’s 16 intelligence services, said the rebels faced great difficulties as Col Gaddafi “intentionally designed the military so that those select units loyal to him are the most luxuriously equipped and the best trained”.
He added: “We believe that Gaddafi is in this for the long haul. He appears to be hunkering down for the duration.”
Populus Romanus
03-11-2011, 02:37
Dependant on two brigades? That is pretty risky for Qaddafi. After all, if air to ground missiles were to unfortunately land on them, he would be defenseless!:juggle2:
ICantSpellDawg
03-11-2011, 05:21
As the rebels flee in disarray (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/10/gaddafi-libya-nato) towards Benghazi, national intelligence director James Clapper goes off script and offers the uncensored US assessment of the situation (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7370ccbe-4b72-11e0-89d8-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GFVG9qxM) in a hearing on Capitol Hill.
They'll have help soon enough.
Noncommunist
03-11-2011, 07:14
First let me start off by saying this is utter nonsense. What kind of fictional, fairy tale world do you live in? I mean, I honestly should have guessed this from your name "noncommunist". Noncommunist? Communism hasn't been a threat for decades, but it guess it easier to see the world in black and white.
Actually, that's just a username I've been using over the past couple years. While I am indeed not a communist, I'm not crusading about it or anything.
You seem to envision the United States selflessly crusading around the world, without real allies, spreading hope and "freedom" to millions. You are so naive as this government only cares about itself. Very rarely when we do something it is out of the goodness of hearts. Why exactly do you think we did jack **** in Sudan when they were committing genocide? It gets even worse when you talk about doing it without allies. Haven't you learned anything from Iraq? Going in gungho without help is a BAD IDEA. Why don't you volunteer and go fight with the rebels if you want to help. I really am sick wasting money and American lives in third world ****holes where the locals end up hating us, and we install a government that was just as corrupt as the last.
Of course, the US government is not selfless but I'm saying that of anyone, it has the power and maybe the will to actually do something to help the Libyan people. Also, we didn't go in alone in Iraq, we brought in a couple allies who helped to bring down Saddam. Regardless, we could have done it ourselves if we wanted to do so, we're clearly powerful enough to handle a tin pot dictatorship anywhere in the globe. And while some locals have hated us in Iraq, some other locals hated us when we didn't left them to be massacred after Desert Storm. While it's likely that any new government would be be corrupt in some way or another, they're still going to be better than Gadaffi.
Finally, I could maybe get on the board if this country was prosperous and we had a balanced budget. Your IPOD comment shows me you are clueless about our current situation. How about we forget the IPOD and talk about basic infastructure, education, our budget, and health care. Many of the roads and bridges in this country are in dire need of repair and are outright dangerous. Our schools, for a developed country, are atrocious. Many kids cannot afford a decent college education, and end up settling for a lesser school, or climbing deep in debt. I could go on and on, but I think you are get the point I'm trying to make.
Certainly, those are problems we're trying to fix at this moment. And they are a big deal for Americans. However, compared to anything the Libyans are going through, I don't see how we have much room to complain.
Libya is none our business. Repeat, none of our business. Let the Libyans deal with Libyan problems, and let Americans deal with American problems. When kids in the city of Detroit can actually get a decent education, when the single mom can provide food and heating for her kids, and when this country is not paying billions in interest a year in servicing a ballooning debt, then we can think about Libya.
We are never going to accomplish all of those goals. Nor will any other country be able to accomplish any similar goals. Should nations be entirely fixated on themselves till forever because they cannot fix every last problem? If that had happened, there probably wouldn't have been an America. France of 1778 was in far worse shape than the US in 2011 and they became our ally which enabled us to become our own nation and helped cause democracy to spread around the world.
And what's so special about any one nation that citizens should only care about fellow citizens? Are we not all human?
PanzerJaeger
03-11-2011, 07:59
A more realistic assessment (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44984.html).
The current situation in Libya is reminiscent of the situation in Iraq in 1991. Back then, it was expected that Saddam Hussein would soon be overthrown by a popular revolt.
Saddam used his powerful military forces to crush the uprising. Despite international sanctions, he remained in power for another 12 years.
Turning to Libya, it should be no surprise to anyone with a military background that in a desert environment with few large towns and extended lines of communication, Gaddafi’s sub-standard military forces are managing to contain an over-extended and largely disorganised revolutionary rabble - even though its fighters might number in the thousands.
It is unlikely that a countrywide no-fly zone would make a decisive difference to the course of the conflict. Colonel Gaddafi’s forces have large quantities of artillery and mortars and other indirect fire weapons, as well as thousands of armoured vehicles. While much of the equipment is obsolete by Western standards, it is still effective against the poorly equipped anti-Gaddafi forces. Importantly, Gaddafi’s officer corps understands the logistic demands of deployed forces.
Before the uprising, the total number of Libyan personnel in the defence force was estimated by the authoritative International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) at 119,000, with 45,000 reservists. The army is organised into 11 border defence and four security zones, one regime security brigade, 10 tank battalions, 10 mechanised infantry battalions, 18 infantry battalions, six commando battalions, 22 artillery battalions, four surface-to-surface missile (SSM) brigades and seven air defence artillery battalions. It has over 2,000 tanks.
The main suppliers have been Russia, China and Brazil. This year, additional supplies have come from Belarus.
This substantial military force was reduced by defections after the uprising began on February 15, but it is probably safe to assume that Gaddafi could still field at least half that force.
WikiLeaks revealed that in 2009 that the British SAS was providing training to Libyan special forces so we can reasonably assume they are an effective and reliable element.
Much of the international rhetoric about displacing Gaddafi is unconvincing. Many nation states have an interest in seeing the jasmine revolution dissipate in the sands of the Libyan desert, including the Arab Gulf countries, Iran, Israel and the United States – and, further afield, China. The established order in the Middle East suits powerful strategic and economic interests. A domino-like people’s revolution running out of control could threaten regimes that are important allies of the West.
Of course, the US government is not selfless but I'm saying that of anyone, it has the power and maybe the will to actually do something to help the Libyan people. Also, we didn't go in alone in Iraq, we brought in a couple allies who helped to bring down Saddam. Regardless, we could have done it ourselves if we wanted to do so, we're clearly powerful enough to handle a tin pot dictatorship anywhere in the globe. And while some locals have hated us in Iraq, some other locals hated us when we didn't left them to be massacred after Desert Storm. While it's likely that any new government would be be corrupt in some way or another, they're still going to be better than Gadaffi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
The British were the only ones who sent in a sizable amount of troops. Everyone else either send in a few thousand or a couple hundred. These troops were often confined to various noncombat roles and often withdrawn years ago. So yes, it basically was just us for the vast majority of the fighting.
How exactly do you know the person put in power will be better than Gadaffi?
Certainly, those are problems we're trying to fix at this moment. And they are a big deal for Americans. However, compared to anything the Libyans are going through, I don't see how we have much room to complain.
The same can be said about most of the world. What exactly makes Libya so special and why exactly should I care?
We are never going to accomplish all of those goals. Nor will any other country be able to accomplish any similar goals. Should nations be entirely fixated on themselves till forever because they cannot fix every last problem? If that had happened, there probably wouldn't have been an America. France of 1778 was in far worse shape than the US in 2011 and they became our ally which enabled us to become our own nation and helped cause democracy to spread around the world.
The French helped us for a variety of reasons. I'm also not seeing the connection between this and Libya. Just because this nation was helped during its birth in the 18th century by a foreign power doesn't mean I'm obligated to help a totally unrelated country 200 years later.
And what's so special about any one nation that citizens should only care about fellow citizens? Are we not all human?
Yes we are all human. I tend to care more about the people I'm more closely related to though. Countrymen < Friends < Family
Would you sacrifice your own family to save 50 Libyans? After all we are all human.
A more realistic assessment (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44984.html).
WikiLeaks revealed that in 2009 that the British SAS was providing training to Libyan special forces so we can reasonably assume they are an effective and reliable element
Haha, opps?
ICantSpellDawg
03-12-2011, 01:29
A more realistic assessment (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44984.html).
There will be air to surface strikes, coupled with a no-fly zone in the east and arms transfers if the opposition can hold out a few more days.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2011, 02:19
There will be air to surface strikes, coupled with a no-fly zone in the east and arms transfers if the opposition can hold out a few more days.
Possible, but not yet likely. Thhe Saudis have thus far refused to sell or transfer arms, and Russia and China re unlikely to agree to a no-fly zone. Even then, if Panzar's source is remotely accurate Gaddafi has thousands of tanks, APC's and artillery pieces where his opposition have mainly AK's and a few RPG's.
Even against older Russian tanks RPG's are not very effective. In order for the Rebels to hold their ground artillery and armoured units would have to defect, that is unlikely as only Gaddafi's loyal troops have tanks and artillery.
They do have a bit of anti-armour actually; see here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12692068). The question is how much and whether they are capable of using to a sufficient effect.
Well, those are RPG-7s or so, they seem a bit old, newer versions can penetrate more armour, depends a lot on the tanks that the Libyan army uses as well.
The comments also remind me of this article (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm#N_10_), not suitable for open combat in the desert but inside the cities the tanks may not be as safe as one would think.
Hosakawa Tito
03-12-2011, 21:08
They'll have help soon enough.
Looks like they've enlisted the help of aliens (http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2011-03-10-AF-Libya/id-3512b28b38464c8ab688cdcfe79251fc). Check out the pic in this AP report.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/aliens-help-libyans.jpg
Populus Romanus
03-13-2011, 07:25
Looks like they've enlisted the help of aliens (http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2011-03-10-AF-Libya/id-3512b28b38464c8ab688cdcfe79251fc). Check out the pic in this AP report.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/aliens-help-libyans.jpg
You have got to be kidding me! Aliens? I knew it! I knew they were real!
Louis VI the Fat
03-13-2011, 13:50
Looks like they've enlisted the help of aliens (http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2011-03-10-AF-Libya/id-3512b28b38464c8ab688cdcfe79251fc). Check out the pic in this AP report.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/aliens-help-libyans.jpgAliens? These guys look exactly like Meneldil's neighbours when I visited him.
Brega retaken (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12726032)
ICantSpellDawg
03-14-2011, 02:08
The decision by the arab league "makes the imposition of a no-fly zone much more likely to happen, shortly" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsbAjM93cTg) (Chuck Schumer)
Sarmatian
03-14-2011, 10:13
It seems that Al-Qaeda fighters were seen with the rebels and Al-Qaeda was calling for rebels to overthrow Gaddafi and establish Islamic republic in Libya. My opinions of the rebels is deteriorating by the minute...
It seems that Al-Qaeda fighters were seen with the rebels and Al-Qaeda was calling for rebels to overthrow Gaddafi and establish Islamic republic in Libya. My opinions of the rebels is deteriorating by the minute...
Oh hi, have you been listening to Mr. Gaddafi and sons lately? It's nonsense.
Sarmatian
03-14-2011, 12:18
Oh hi, have you been listening to Mr. Gaddafi and sons lately? It's nonsense.
As much nonsense as rebels fighting for truth, justice and democracy? I'm just not a fan of "get the Shah out, get the Ayatollah in" scenarios and I tend to look favourably on dictators in Muslim countries who are actually containing radical Islam, with of course Ataturk being my favourite.
So apparently, rebels can't possibly fight for justice and democracy. Then what happened in Egypt? What happened in Tunisia? I pointed out earlier in this thread that several rebel leaders denied any involvement with al-Qaeda.
I'm just not a fan of "get the Shah out, get the Ayatollah in"
The situation wasn't nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be. There was a strong undercurrent during the Revolution that didn't necessarily call for a theocratic government, take for example Mehdi Bazargan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Bazargan) and his leftist party. Of course, I do not expect people to delve deeply into what happened exactly during the Iranian Revolution, but the situation wasn't really clear-cut. There were a lot of things going on, including Saddam's aggression not a year later.
Y'know what the problem is with reasoning that dictators are better in suppresing radical Islam? It's not really viable anymore. If you take away the right of the people to say what they want in a democratically elected parliament that protects the right to freedom of speech, they will radicalise sooner. If you take away one of the best ways for their opinions to be heard, they'll be quicker to resort to violence. I don't think anyone wants that. I think it's a good thing that Rashid al-Ghannushi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_al-Ghannushi) can bring forward his statements in a democratically elected Tunisian parliament now, because that way, violent extremists will no longer can justify their horrid behaviour by saying that "they have no other way". I have enough reason to believe that democratic elections will cause a decrease for the support of Islamist parties.
I tend to look favourably on dictators in Muslim countries who are actually containing radical Islam,
Yes, because that worked out totally okay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_massacre).
Sarmatian
03-14-2011, 13:23
No, it's possible that the rebels are fighting for democracy, but I'm not putting any money on it and let's wait and see what happens in Egypt and Tunisia. Also, I have more sympathy for civil disobedience, strikes and demonstrations than armed uprisings.
When a lot of people support shariah laws, they will just democratically elect themselves into a theocracy. Turkey is by far the most liberal and progressive predominantly muslim country and still there were instances in the recent past where army had to put its foot down to curb radical muslim parties.
I just don't share your enthusiasm that radical options will simply fade away as soon as there is a parliament...
When a lot of people support shariah laws, they will just democratically elect themselves into a theocracy.
Is there? And to what extent would Shariah law be implemented? No more than 12% of Egypt's population (to give an example) is interested in a state where Shari'ah law is fully implemented.
I just don't share your enthusiasm that radical options will simply fade away as soon as there is a parliament...
Okay, I can understand this. Perhaps pessimism is one of the safest ways of looking to the future, but I do not expect radical opinions to fade away, I understand that they would remain intact (which would only be logical), but what I said is that if people have the possibility to vote freely, popularity for extremist groups will decline. That's the reason why we should support democracy in the Arab states. As for Libya, I'd rather see non-violent protests. I would not participate in shooting people. But people were getting shot at, and Gaddafi refused to lay down power. Not like Mubarak or Ben Ali. Is it then surprising that a lot of people would take to arms? Add to that the fact that Libya is way more tribal than either Tunisia or Egypt and severe violence was almost expectable.
ICantSpellDawg
03-15-2011, 15:22
We're doomed. No western intervention, we are going to let them rot. If they can't turn it around, they are dead in the water.
rory_20_uk
03-15-2011, 15:29
We're doomed. No western intervention, we are going to let them rot. If they can't turn it around, they are dead in the water.
So, the worst of both worlds. Gadaffi stays in power, and we've loudly said how much we loathe him and want to get rid of him, but don't have the stones to do anything about it.
Expect more deliveries of Semtex in the near future.
~:smoking:
ICantSpellDawg
03-15-2011, 18:40
Isn't that sick? Pray for a miracle before a cleansing in Libya.
The only way we could be a 100% sure that this war was won in the favour of the rebels, is to send in troops. But nobody wants that. There is no guarantee for that a NFZ would work out quite as intended, and thus "we" are reluctant.
Pannonian
03-15-2011, 22:43
The only way we could be a 100% sure that this war was won in the favour of the rebels, is to send in troops. But nobody wants that. There is no guarantee for that a NFZ would work out quite as intended, and thus "we" are reluctant.
The only way of making it anything other than a 100% sure loss for the rebels is to ban any machinery from moving. Gaddafi remaining in power is probably better for Europe's security anyway, so goodness knows why there was any push for intervention.
Centurion1
03-16-2011, 00:51
Look a no fly zone is not going to happen. Sure everyone says set up a no fly zone not a big deal america woo hoo, it would not be easy hell it may not even be possible.
We have around 13 carriers in the american fleet. not all of these carriers are active. we cannot afford for all of these carriers to be active. next libya actually has a decent integrated air defense system. third no fly zone is very difficult to accomplish. we would need multiple carriers in the meditteranean, which we cannot have without relinquishing control over other vital areas or taking them out of the vital persian gulf.
a no fly zone while everyone says "why not?" is not so easy to acheive in reality.
not to mention, why the hell should we feel obligated to do so?
Noncommunist
03-16-2011, 01:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
The British were the only ones who sent in a sizable amount of troops. Everyone else either send in a few thousand or a couple hundred. These troops were often confined to various noncombat roles and often withdrawn years ago. So yes, it basically was just us for the vast majority of the fighting.
How exactly do you know the person put in power will be better than Gadaffi?
And so far, Iraq is a developing democracy. Clearly, we can go in "alone"(not counting the rebels as allies) and win against a tin pot dictator. Plus, there have been a number of other conflicts were won by the US without serious allies.
We don't. However, with how bad he's been, it's likely that anyone that does arise won't be worse. And with us as allies, we can exert more pressure on them to be more democratic.
The same can be said about most of the world. What exactly makes Libya so special and why exactly should I care?
Because they've taken the effort to revolt after getting massacred when they were doing protests. And they're clearly asking for help of almost any sort.
The French helped us for a variety of reasons. I'm also not seeing the connection between this and Libya. Just because this nation was helped during its birth in the 18th century by a foreign power doesn't mean I'm obligated to help a totally unrelated country 200 years later.
The point was that just because a country has internal problems doesn't mean that it should forever remain fixated on those problems and should be willing to help a fellow country in need.
Yes we are all human. I tend to care more about the people I'm more closely related to though. Countrymen < Friends < Family
Would you sacrifice your own family to save 50 Libyans? After all we are all human.
But how closely related are you to most Americans? And how many Americans do you know vs how many are strangers to you? And what really is the difference between an American that's a stranger and any other nationality that's a stranger?
It seems to me that the rebels have lost, which makes me sad. But perhaps not all is lost, if Tunisia and Egypt become democratic maybe they can pressure Libya to do the same in the long run.
The only way of making it anything other than a 100% sure loss for the rebels is to ban any machinery from moving. Gaddafi remaining in power is probably better for Europe's security anyway, so goodness knows why there was any push for intervention.
Because dictators suck.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-16-2011, 13:37
It seems to me that the rebels have lost, which makes me sad. But perhaps not all is lost, if Tunisia and Egypt become democratic maybe they can pressure Libya to do the same in the long run.
Well, a week ago Gaddafi seemed to have lost. They're fighting in a desert country, Gaddafi's Air Force is not as effective as you might think, and he'll run out of bombs eventually - probably quite quickly.
Sarmatian
03-16-2011, 17:14
Because dictators suck.
Depending on their alternative...
The unknown is...indeed unknown. We here have a unique possibility to witness the toppling of a dictator and to see a democracy take his place; so we should act upon this as far as we may.
Louis VI the Fat
03-16-2011, 18:14
I tend to look favourably on dictators in Muslim countries who are actually containing radical Islam, with of course Ataturk being my favourite.Gah! You only say that because mad desert dog Gaddafi was fighting the Turks together with his buddy Milošević.
We here have a unique possibility to witness the toppling of a dictator and to see a democracy take his place; so we should act upon this as far as we may. It's been over for two weeks now.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-16-2011, 18:58
The unknown is...indeed unknown. We here have a unique possibility to witness the toppling of a dictator and to see a democracy take his place; so we should act upon this as far as we may.
Or another dictator, or a religious diktat.
In the absence of a secular political identity the most tightly knit groups will be either tribes or religious sects, this is probably why attempts at western-style democracy seem to yield one or the other in the Middle East and Arab World.
Or another dictator, or a religious diktat.
In the absence of a secular political identity the most tightly knit groups will be either tribes or religious sects, this is probably why attempts at western-style democracy seem to yield one or the other in the Middle East and Arab World.
We'll see what happens in Egypt and Tunisia - till then. Libya had the potential to be a really interesting case, but alas, it doesn't look like it's headed anywhere at present. Though we'll see.
Anyway, the comment of yours does give the sneaking impression of that Europe has actually been democratic since the dawn of the continent - and that all the contemporary nations came into existence at that point. The French revolution, for instance, had a really mixed immediate outcome. Was not Germany democratic at the time Hitler came into power? I don't really think that Europe has any right to judge the Arab world in this respect. Lands, tribes and villages get united only to split up - and the process may repeat.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-16-2011, 23:25
We'll see what happens in Egypt and Tunisia - till then. Libya had the potential to be a really interesting case, but alas, it doesn't look like it's headed anywhere at present. Though we'll see.
Anyway, the comment of yours does give the sneaking impression of that Europe has actually been democratic since the dawn of the continent - and that all the contemporary nations came into existence at that point. The French revolution, for instance, had a really mixed immediate outcome. Was not Germany democratic at the time Hitler came into power? I don't really think that Europe has any right to judge the Arab world in this respect. Lands, tribes and villages get united only to split up - and the process may repeat.
I'm not judging anyone, but currently the Arab world does not generally incline towards Western democracy, with our seperation of powers and our elected representatives. Arab elections have an average turnout of around 35%, if 12% of the population support Sharia Law (as in Egypt) and they are the largest block to actually vote then you can end up with a government that the majority do not support, but who still got the most number of votes.
We do have the same problem in the West, notably in Welsh and Scottish referendums, where the native speakers are more politically cohesive and activist, resulting in distorted results.
Furunculus
03-17-2011, 00:09
hilarious eu parliament speech where the d00d farrrrrrrage sticks to to da man..... otherwise known as de-rumpey:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100080153/nigel-farage-confronts-eu-leaders-with-their-hypocrisy-on-libya/
Louis VI the Fat
03-17-2011, 01:58
hilarious eu parliament speech where the d00d farrrrrrrage sticks to to da man..... otherwise known as de-rumpey:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100080153/nigel-farage-confronts-eu-leaders-with-their-hypocrisy-on-libya/And six months after the British PM shook hands with Hitler, he declared total war on him. :shrug:
The world is such that you have to work with autocratic leaders. It is not in itself hypocrisy to both deal with them and call for their removal. As for why few called for Gaddafi's violent removal as little as late last year - this is owing to there currently being a viable alternative, plus the momentum of the Arab Revolution, plus a wave of democratisation in two of Libya's neighbours, and an armed insurrection on the ground, and new atrocities comitted by Gaddafi.
I see no hypocrisy in a grudging acceptance of Gaddafi six months ago and calling for his removal now. Likewise, if an armed insurrection were to break out in Iran, I'd call for military support for them too, even if I am not in favour of invading Iran right now, as is.
Sarmatian
03-17-2011, 10:26
Gah! You only say that because mad desert dog Gaddafi was fighting the Turks together with his buddy Milošević.
You're just jealous because Gaddafi liked his pal Milosevic more than he now likes Sarkozy.
Arab elections have an average turnout of around 35%
Yes, and Arab states are generally controlled by dictators. Isn't that what's changing?
Well, a week ago Gaddafi seemed to have lost. They're fighting in a desert country, Gaddafi's Air Force is not as effective as you might think, and he'll run out of bombs eventually - probably quite quickly.
Yes but it seems to me that the tides have turned, which is really disappointing. Good point about his bombs running out but the rebels' morale might not be able to last that long.
PanzerJaeger
03-17-2011, 22:16
It seems we could be on the verge of entering a new stage in the conflict. If the pending UN resolution passes, TuffStuff may just get his wish (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12770467). The revolt having been nearly crushed in earnest, the West could selectively intervene in an attempt to sway the outcome, while at the same time tacitly endorsing the crushing of protests in Bahrain.
British forces could be in action over Libya as early as Friday, if a UN resolution is agreed, a senior government source has told the BBC.
Worst case scenario: Gaddafi overruns Benghazi and the West is left to maintain a no-fly zone over a conflict that is effectively over, just like in Iraq.
Any bets as to the passage of the resolution? My guess is that the US is secretly hoping Russia and/or China will put a stop it.
rory_20_uk
03-17-2011, 22:26
Another no-fly where helicopters are allowed? One where all the Aircraft can do is take pictures as the ground forces grind down the rebels? Russia already had their own alternative resolution which was apparently toothless.
How many days until it's passed? Another week? Could be over by then. If the West already has assets in the area and can start as soon as pen is put to paper, then it might be in time. If they wait until the resolution to move assets to the area that could mean further days of delay.
The Serbs became very adept at hiding from the West airforce, and I imagine that the desert is a good place to hide. When the fighting gets to the cities it'll be nigh on impossible to ensure the rebels aren't getting bombed.
Impressive. Passed on time and a resolution with teeth.
~:smoking:
The resolution passed. It apparently approves of ground attack in addition to a strict no-fly zone. France and Britain will apparently begin the attacks within hours.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009
I must say, I am very proud of how the West has handled this situation, with particular praise for France. It's wonderful to see nations other than the United States taking the lead on a situation like this.
ICantSpellDawg
03-17-2011, 23:51
The resolution passed. It apparently approves of ground attack in addition to a strict no-fly zone. France and Britain will apparently begin the attacks within hours.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009
I must say, I am very proud of how the West has handled this situation, with particular praise for France. It's wonderful to see nations other than the United States taking the lead on a situation like this.
Fantastic. I knew that I agreed with Democrats on most foreign policy issues. I am proud to be an American today, I'm even prouder of the people of Libya.
tibilicus
03-18-2011, 00:42
Excellent news. I also hope the Arab league will take a strong role in any such actions. Time to crack some skulls!
ICantSpellDawg
03-18-2011, 00:52
Balls to the MF Wall
Wait, does this mean that we are in another unfunded, undeclared war? Would it be okay with Europeans if we sat this one out?
-edit-
And could somebody else pick up the tab (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/149095-defense-think-tank-libyan-no-fly-zone-could-cost-up-to-300-million-a-week) this time? We're kinda hurting from our last two excursions.
Establishing and taking control of the skies over Libya could cost the Pentagon up to $300 million a week – or around $15 billion a year – under mission scenarios formulated by a top Washington defense think tank. [...] “Assuming an operational tempo similar to that of the no-fly zones in Iraq, the ongoing cost might be in the range of $100 [million] to $300 million per week,” states the report.
The full option would require taking out Libyan air defense systems in what the think tank says would be a “series of coordinated strikes” at a “one-time ... cost between $500 million and $1 billion.”
The northern option would put U.S. aircraft in control of all Libyan turf above the 29th parallel, which includes about 230,000 square miles, according to CSBA. The cost of this kind of mission would fall between $30 million and $100 million per week.
A northern no-fly would also require the U.S. military to deal with Libyan air defense systems, meaning it would still come with a one-time bill of between $400 million and $800 million, CSBA said.
a completely inoffensive name
03-18-2011, 01:21
it's not a waste of money when the indigenous public is actually providing the bulk of the ground force.
Populus Romanus
03-18-2011, 01:22
Why can't money just grow on trees?:wall:
It is fantastic that we are imposing the no fly zone, even better that we are bombing the Army. Perhaps we should just bomb Qaddafi and get this whole fiasco over with quick?
LeftEyeNine
03-18-2011, 01:23
OUR WESTERN OVERLORDS BRING PEACE, HUMANITY AND DEMOCRACY AGAIN !!!
JUST LIKE HOW THEY HAVE DONE IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, BOSNIA AND MOST OF AFRICA !!
HOLY FLYING WEST, TAKE CHARGE, DELIVER US !!!
YOUR INTERVENING ALWAYS PROVED SUCCESFUL.
LOOK, I NEVER USED THE WORD "OIL".
Thank you.
I'm not that impressed by the idea of getting involved, but if you good Turkish boys want to lend a hand then feel free.
LeftEyeNine
03-18-2011, 01:41
I'm no authority, why address like that ?
I'm all against Western intervention in, especially internal affairs of other countries, mainly being in the Middle East or Africa.
UN or whatever other coalition or initiative is/will be too polluted with politics and the benefits of the grand parties involved.
History did not prove otherwise and I don't want to see it again. That's all.
Leet Eriksson
03-18-2011, 01:43
Wait, does this mean that we are in another unfunded, undeclared war? Would it be okay with Europeans if we sat this one out?
-edit-
And could somebody else pick up the tab (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/149095-defense-think-tank-libyan-no-fly-zone-could-cost-up-to-300-million-a-week) this time? We're kinda hurting from our last two excursions.
Establishing and taking control of the skies over Libya could cost the Pentagon up to $300 million a week – or around $15 billion a year – under mission scenarios formulated by a top Washington defense think tank. [...] “Assuming an operational tempo similar to that of the no-fly zones in Iraq, the ongoing cost might be in the range of $100 [million] to $300 million per week,” states the report.
The full option would require taking out Libyan air defense systems in what the think tank says would be a “series of coordinated strikes” at a “one-time ... cost between $500 million and $1 billion.”
The northern option would put U.S. aircraft in control of all Libyan turf above the 29th parallel, which includes about 230,000 square miles, according to CSBA. The cost of this kind of mission would fall between $30 million and $100 million per week.
A northern no-fly would also require the U.S. military to deal with Libyan air defense systems, meaning it would still come with a one-time bill of between $400 million and $800 million, CSBA said.
Does it even matter what the costs are? whining about it seems rather superfluous when the US is already deep in debt.
ICantSpellDawg
03-18-2011, 01:56
Wait, does this mean that we are in another unfunded, undeclared war? Would it be okay with Europeans if we sat this one out?
-edit-
And could somebody else pick up the tab (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/149095-defense-think-tank-libyan-no-fly-zone-could-cost-up-to-300-million-a-week) this time? We're kinda hurting from our last two excursions.
Establishing and taking control of the skies over Libya could cost the Pentagon up to $300 million a week – or around $15 billion a year – under mission scenarios formulated by a top Washington defense think tank. [...] “Assuming an operational tempo similar to that of the no-fly zones in Iraq, the ongoing cost might be in the range of $100 [million] to $300 million per week,” states the report.
The full option would require taking out Libyan air defense systems in what the think tank says would be a “series of coordinated strikes” at a “one-time ... cost between $500 million and $1 billion.”
The northern option would put U.S. aircraft in control of all Libyan turf above the 29th parallel, which includes about 230,000 square miles, according to CSBA. The cost of this kind of mission would fall between $30 million and $100 million per week.
A northern no-fly would also require the U.S. military to deal with Libyan air defense systems, meaning it would still come with a one-time bill of between $400 million and $800 million, CSBA said.
You'll like this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/17/libya-forces-barack-obama-hand)
A northern no-fly would also require the U.S. military to deal with Libyan air defense systems, meaning it would still come with a one-time bill of between $400 million and $800 million, CSBA said.[/indent]
$800 million? Hell, my agency spends that much on toner every week.
InsaneApache
03-18-2011, 03:21
Extraordinary....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12781157
You'll like this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/17/libya-forces-barack-obama-hand)
No, I really don't. I'm okay with arming and/or feeding the Libyan rebels, but getting into a third Muslim war is too much for my lemurish sensibities. This is not our fight. This is not our cause. This is not worth sacrificing a single airman, sailor or marine. I like this idea (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/gwynne_dyer_unless_egypt_steps_in_now_libya_s_rebels_are_doomed_1_3179705) much better:
What is actually needed is active military intervention on the ground and in the air by disciplined, well-trained Arab forces, sent by a revolutionary Arab government that is in sympathy with the Libyan rebels. So where is the Egyptian army when the Libyans need it?
Egypt has an open border with the rebel-controlled east of Libya, and just one brigade of the Egyptian army would be enough to stop Gaddafi’s ground forces in their tracks.
The Egyptian air force could easily shoot down any of Gaddafi’s aircraft that dared to take off, especially if it had early warning from European or American AWACS aircraft.
The Egyptian army would probably not need to go all the way to Tripoli, although it could easily do so if necessary.
Just the fact of Egyptian military intervention would probably convince most of the Libyan troops still supporting Gaddafi that it is time to change sides.
It was - and is - looking rather ominous for Benghazi with those TV pictures of Gaddafi's tanks bearing down on them. "We are coming" and "We will show no mercy", were what the great man was reported to have broadcast to them yesterday. I have no idea how this is going to end. Pacifying an armed city of a million was never going to be pretty.
Gaddafi's advance could be stopped by air strikes - take out the armour and the heavy artillery in the desert, then the rebels in the built up areas would have a fighting chance. The long supply lines from Tripoli to Benghazi would be fairly easy to interdict. But that would require a degree of will by the West that has not been evident. Reading the BBC, it sounds like the US will not be involved in any initial air operations. I'm sceptical Britain and France alone could do anything that had more than symbolic value.
And it seems to come too late to topple Gaddafi. Two weeks ago, the regime might have crumbled. But he's subdued most of the country and seems back in control. Even when they had the initiative, the rebels seemed to lack the ability to coordinate a drive on Tripoli. Whatever happens in the air seems unlikely to change that. It looks like stalemate and partition are the best case scenario. Interesting times, unfortunately for the Libyans...
This is not worth sacrificing a single airman, sailor or marine. I like this idea better:
What is actually needed is active military intervention on the ground and in the air ...
Lemur, mate, there's something of a contradiction there. Egyptians are people too! ~:grouphug:
PanzerJaeger
03-18-2011, 04:46
No, I really don't. I'm okay with arming and/or feeding the Libyan rebels, but getting into a third Muslim war is too much for my lemurish sensibities. This is not our fight. This is not our cause. This is not worth sacrificing a single airman, sailor or marine. I like this idea (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/gwynne_dyer_unless_egypt_steps_in_now_libya_s_rebels_are_doomed_1_3179705) much better:
Yes, yes, and yes. Have we learned nothing from the last decade? This is incredibly shortsighted, hilariously hypocritical (Bahrain, anyone? How about the Ivory Coast (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c0_1299280410)?), and sets a very dangerous precedent.
I had developed a genuine respect for Obama's pragmatism in the face of the same drumbeat that fooled so many of us into supporting the liberation of Iraq. I wonder what happened. ~:(
it's not a waste of money when the indigenous public is actually providing the bulk of the ground force.
That is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. That rebel ground force proved itself completely incompetent in the face of a poorly led, small, dilapidated, Soviet-era military force. Do you really think they'll be able to take Tripoli? If Gadaffi is going to be removed, the West will have to do nearly all the heavy lifting.
Does it even matter what the costs are? whining about it seems rather superfluous when the US is already deep in debt.
Sure. The US is already drowning in debt, why not spend some more on a distant foreign conflict that has nothing to do with us? Just throw it on the pile.
Noncommunist
03-18-2011, 05:26
That is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. That rebel ground force proved itself completely incompetent in the face of a poorly led, small, dilapidated, Soviet-era military force. Do you really think they'll be able to take Tripoli? If Gadaffi is going to be removed, the West will have to do nearly all the heavy lifting.
Considering they had less arms and equipment, I'd say taking a few cities in the beginning was pretty impressive. That and they did manage to hold off Gadaffi's forces for a while in several cities. Granted, they had the defensive advantage of a city but still, they were definitely outgunned in those battles. And once we begin removing Gadaffi's advantages, I could see the rebels carrying out serious advances as well as more of Gadaffi's troops defecting.
Hmm lets see:
Getting involved with a regime change in a Islamic country but having other Islamic countries urging the West to do it: check
Using UN SC this time: check
This time no fantastic tales of why to do it and most can see why it needs to be done ASAP: check
An apparent political opposition within the country, although poorly armed: check
I'd say some lessons have been learned.
I have no idea if it will be enough but I admit I'm a sucker for humanitarian bombing.
Banquo's Ghost
03-18-2011, 09:00
Astounding. Another stupid war that will almost certainly lead to civilian deaths (sorry, collateral damage) and a completely unpredictable outcome that we will be paying for in blood and treasure for years more.
Even more "amusing" was the endless parroting by Western diplomats that the request had come from the Arab League.
Algeria Bahrain Comoros Djibouti
Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco
Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia
Somalia Sudan Syria Tunisia
United Arab Emirates Yemen
Imposing list of heroic democracies there, all lining up to put their pilots on the line.
Sarmatian
03-18-2011, 09:41
Well, several last western intervention have been spotless and they have proved that west can keep the peace and ensure human rights are respected. Viva la democracion!
a completely inoffensive name
03-18-2011, 10:51
That is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. That rebel ground force proved itself completely incompetent in the face of a poorly led, small, dilapidated, Soviet-era military force. Do you really think they'll be able to take Tripoli? If Gadaffi is going to be removed, the West will have to do nearly all the heavy lifting.
The rebels seem to do just fine when there isn't tanks and airships bearing down on them. Now that the air component is in their (rebels) hands, I think it is too early to say what will happen now. It has yet been a day since the resolution, if the rebels new energy and momentum fail, then they are doomed and we should pull the plug on the operation. If Gaddaffi finds himself in trouble without new mercs coming in (by air at least) and suffers a few strategic bombs of some of his tanks (which you have admitted is small, so there isn't many to destroy), well I think we should continue doing what the western world has been doing so far and play it by ear.
I'm don't want to let the rebels have a fair chance taken away from them because we didn't feel like stopping hordes of foreigners packing guns from influencing the turn out (darn Germans/Prussians almost ruined my country's revolution). If the rebels are screwed, then this will be over in a month, if not then we did the right thing by helping them achieve their dictatorship. As long as we don't put boots on the ground, I am fine with how it is right now.
al Roumi
03-18-2011, 11:36
Hipocritical the decision to intercede in Libya -but not Bahrain, Cote D'Ivoire or elsewhere, may be. However, I'm glad that the west IS protecting civilians (the primary condition of the UNSCR) and supporting the opposition -the inevitable consequence of removing the mechanisms of governance (tanks, artillery) of Qadhafi's government.
For reference, the media reporting on the actual conflict has been wide of the mark. Yesterday was the first time that ex army units were deployed (by the opposition) against their former colleagues. Hence the successes if Brega and Ajdabiya reported yesterday.
Misurata (very close to Tripoli) has held out for weeks, how does anyone really think Benghazi (hundreds of miles away from Tripoli) will/would fall quickly?
The rebels seem to do just fine when there isn't tanks and airships bearing down on them. Now that the air component is in their (rebels) hands, I think it is too early to say what will happen now. It has yet been a day since the resolution, if the rebels new energy and momentum fail, then they are doomed and we should pull the plug on the operation. If Gaddaffi finds himself in trouble without new mercs coming in (by air at least) and suffers a few strategic bombs of some of his tanks (which you have admitted is small, so there isn't many to destroy), well I think we should continue doing what the western world has been doing so far and play it by ear.
So they are doing fine...as long as the other side doesn´t use it's forces.....now that's quite an achievement.
I'm don't want to let the rebels have a fair chance taken away from them because we didn't feel like stopping hordes of foreigners packing guns from influencing the turn out (darn Germans/Prussians almost ruined my country's revolution). If the rebels are screwed, then this will be over in a month, if not then we did the right thing by helping them achieve their dictatorship. As long as we don't put boots on the ground, I am fine with how it is right now.
what the hell is a fair chance in a war setting?....war is not a game of cricket...."fair" in war means you make the other guy die and your guys come back in one piece.
Ceasefire (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739)supposedly declared by the regime. The UN resolution is not about toppling the regime, so if the government tanks and rocket launchers just lurk a bit beyond the front line, there's no real mandate to destroy them, I guess. A new stalemate now?
Anyway, interesting to see that neither Russia nor China put down a veto.
Ceasefire (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739)supposedly declared by the regime. The UN resolution is not about toppling the regime, so if the government tanks and rocket launchers just lurk a bit beyond the front line, there's no real mandate to destroy them, I guess. A new stalemate now?
Definitely won't be a stalemate. The UN resolution covers all of Libya. That means that people inside Gadaffi-controlled cities will be covered by it as well. If they start to protest again and are shot at, the bombing will start. If they start to protest again and Gadaffi does not interfere, the protests will grow and eventually the regime will fall. I do not see a way out for Gadaffi anymore, it's only a question of how many more Libyans are going to die before he leaves or is killed.
PanzerJaeger
03-18-2011, 21:09
At Thursday morning's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said that Qaddafi's forces had reestablished control over large swaths of territory and that the Libyan leader had tens of planes and hundreds of helicopters in use.
He called the plan to impose a no-fly zone in a few days "overly optimistic" and said "it would take upwards of a week."
Schwartz was also clear that while the U.S. military can impose a no-fly zone, that's not likely to stop Qaddafi all by itself. He also noted that to do so effectively might require diverting some resources from the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The question is, is a no-fly zone the last step or is it the first step?" Schwartz said.
Asked by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) whether a no-fly zone could turn the momentum, Scwartz replied, "A no-fly zone, sir, would not be sufficient."
Awesome. (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/inside_classified_hill_briefing_administration_spells_out_war_plan_for_libya)
But Obama lost longtime supporter Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) who said in Thursday morning's hearing with Burns that any military intervention in Libya should require a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.
Lugar also opposes military intervention in Libya on the grounds that the nation can't afford it at a time of deep fiscal debt and called on Obama to explain why attacking Libya is in America's national interest. The humanitarian argument just isn't enough, he said.
"We would not like to stand by and see people being shot, but the same argument could be made in Bahrain at present and perhaps in Yemen, so if you have a civil war it's very likely people are going to be out for each other," Lugar told The Cable in an interview. "This debate cannot be totally divorced from the realities of what are the contending issues right here and now."
Yes, will the bombing of Yemen (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011318115434957754.html) commence before or after we regime-change the hell out of Bahrain? The Ivory Coast is full of black africans, so we know they'll be at the bottom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) of the list (http://www.darfurscores.org/darfur) for Western intervention. :shame:
Yes, yes, and yes. Have we learned nothing from the last decade? This is incredibly shortsighted, hilariously hypocritical (Bahrain, anyone? How about the Ivory Coast (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c0_1299280410)?), and sets a very dangerous precedent.
I had developed a genuine respect for Obama's pragmatism in the face of the same drumbeat that fooled so many of us into supporting the liberation of Iraq. I wonder what happened. ~:(
That is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. That rebel ground force proved itself completely incompetent in the face of a poorly led, small, dilapidated, Soviet-era military force. Do you really think they'll be able to take Tripoli? If Gadaffi is going to be removed, the West will have to do nearly all the heavy lifting.
Sure. The US is already drowning in debt, why not spend some more on a distant foreign conflict that has nothing to do with us? Just throw it on the pile.
yes
Astounding. Another stupid war that will almost certainly lead to civilian deaths (sorry, collateral damage) and a completely unpredictable outcome that we will be paying for in blood and treasure for years more.
Even more "amusing" was the endless parroting by Western diplomats that the request had come from the Arab League.
Algeria Bahrain Comoros Djibouti
Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait
Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco
Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia
Somalia Sudan Syria Tunisia
United Arab Emirates Yemen
Imposing list of heroic democracies there, all lining up to put their pilots on the line.
yes
Sigh... when will we learn
And so far, Iraq is a developing democracy. Clearly, we can go in "alone"(not counting the rebels as allies) and win against a tin pot dictator. Plus, there have been a number of other conflicts were won by the US without serious allies.
Developing democracy, eh? That's what you call it?
Yes, obviously we can beat up third world countries with outdated soviet made weapons. As you have seen with Afghanistan and Iraq, that wasn't the problem. The problem is spending time and lots of money rebuilding society and the country. Screw that.
We don't. However, with how bad he's been, it's likely that anyone that does arise won't be worse. And with us as allies, we can exert more pressure on them to be more democratic.
So you have no idea who the rebels are, but will support them on the basis that they must be better than Gadhaffi and they will somehow become democratic?
lol
Because they've taken the effort to revolt after getting massacred when they were doing protests. And they're clearly asking for help of almost any sort.
That's what tends to happen when your country has a young population without basic rights, and a third of your workforce is unemployed.
The point was that just because a country has internal problems doesn't mean that it should forever remain fixated on those problems and should be willing to help a fellow country in need.
Once again, why should I care exactly? This country has internal problems and so do various other countries. This is not your business.
But how closely related are you to most Americans? And how many Americans do you know vs how many are strangers to you? And what really is the difference between an American that's a stranger and any other nationality that's a stranger?
Shared
-Culture
-Customs
-Values
Haven't looked into the logistics closely, but I'm assuming the no-fly zone will be enforced mainly from carriers, at least at the start. What nearby land bases can the US stage fighters, attack planes, tankers, and AWACS out of? Are we going to run everything from Incirlik and Akrotiri, or do we rent space closer?
And on a completely unrelated note, why is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs a Navy man when we are currently involved in 2 Asian land wars? :inquisitive:
Haven't looked into the logistics closely, but I'm assuming the no-fly zone will be enforced mainly from carriers, at least at the start. What nearby land bases can the US stage fighters, attack planes, tankers, and AWACS out of? Are we going to run everything from Incirlik and Akrotiri, or do we rent space closer?
I doubt the carriers will get the load of it. The US has bases in Italy and Germany that are in-range of Libya. Hell, we bombed Iraq from Alabama. :laugh:
Relatively little of the air power will be US though. Most is going to be France, UK, and possibly UAE. UK will be operating out of Gibralter and France will be operating out of its own territory. Spain and Italy have also offered to host foreign air power at their bases.
HoreTore
03-18-2011, 22:21
Awesome. (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/inside_classified_hill_briefing_administration_spells_out_war_plan_for_libya)
Yes, will the bombing of Yemen (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011318115434957754.html) commence before or after we regime-change the hell out of Bahrain? The Ivory Coast is full of black africans, so we know they'll be at the bottom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) of the list (http://www.darfurscores.org/darfur) for Western intervention. :shame:
The Ivory Coast is also full of 10.000 UN troops.
Who, I might add, have been involved in the violence, unlike what happened in Rwanda, with 2 casaulties so far(there have been around 50 deaths on each side so far).
ICantSpellDawg
03-18-2011, 23:47
You guys are such turds. I'm a fan of perpetual war in defense of people everywhere. Americans aren't worth a penny more than anyone else - all humans willing to die for justice should be willing to do it anywhere, for anyone suffering injustice. Over the years, I've come to view westerners who aren't prepared to fight for freedom as worth less than those who are prepared to fight for freedom. I'm more allied with the people of Libya than I am with my own waste of space countrymen and women.
Now, to be honest, I am not in favor of the protests in Yemen because I do not believe that people there are interested in Freedom from anything other than the people who prevent them from opressing people even more brutally than the current regime. There is nothing hypocritical about us not sporting that movement, because it does not support freedom. We don't just support "movements", we support "freedom". Libya seems to reflect that, Egypt certainly did, Tunisia did as well. Baharain might. We are not even agaisnt "oppression" per se - in fact we are in favor of oppressing those who would themsleves oppress civilians just trying to live their lives.
A human being is a human being is a human being. We have no more of a right to be free than anyone else. Some would argue that they work harder for their freedoms than we ever have - yet we have a military ready to die for us when we deny that protection for others. If you have the ability to defend those suffering and deny it when you would require the defense yourself, you are scum.
PanzerJaeger
03-18-2011, 23:50
You guys are such turds. I'm a fan of perpetual war in defense of people everywhere. Americans aren't worth a penny more than anyone else - all humans willing to die for justice should be willing to do it anywhere, for anyone suffering injustice. Over the years, I've come to view westerners who aren't prepared to fight for freedom as worth less than those who are prepared to fight for freedom. I'm more allied with the people of Libya than I am with my own waste of space countrymen and women.
And when are you leaving for Libya to fight the good fight?
HoreTore
03-18-2011, 23:53
And when are you leaving for Libya to fight the good fight?
The Internet Tough Guy, ITG, always leads the good fight from a nearby keyboard, with his almighty e-penis.
You guys are such turds. I'm a fan of perpetual war in defense of people everywhere. Americans aren't worth a penny more than anyone else - all humans willing to die for justice should be willing to do it anywhere, for anyone suffering injustice. Over the years, I've come to view westerners who aren't prepared to fight for freedom as worth less than those who are prepared to fight for freedom. I'm more allied with the people of Libya than I am with my own waste of space countrymen and women.
Now, to be honest, I am not in favor of the protests in Yemen because I do not believe that people there are interested in Freedom from anything other than the people who prevent them from opressing people even more brutally than the current regime. There is nothing hypocritical about us not sporting that movement, because it does not support freedom. We don't just support "movements", we support "freedom". Libya seems to reflect that, Egypt certainly did, Tunisia did as well. Baharain might. We are not even agaisnt "oppression" per se - in fact we are in favor of oppressing those who would themsleves oppress civilians just trying to live their lives.
A human being is a human being is a human being. We have no more of a right to be free than anyone else. Some would argue that they work harder for their freedoms than we ever have - yet we have a military ready to die for us when we deny that protection for others. If you have the ability to defend those suffering and deny it when you would require the defense yourself, you are scum.
Thanks, now go ride off on your wide horse, sword drawn to lead the charge.
The Internet Tough Guy, ITG, always leads the good fight from a nearby keyboard, with his almighty e-penis.
second quote of yours going in my sig :)
ICantSpellDawg
03-19-2011, 01:54
I'd pay a big tax increase for it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-19-2011, 02:19
I'd pay a big tax increase for it.
No you wouldn't. Someone would claim they were making a tax increase for your War Department and you'd vote it down for fear the money could be used to make sure poor people have healthcare.
Anyway, "Team America" has a poor track record, the last reasonably successful venture was Korea and you weren't the ones directly running that.
I think the west has made a mess of this situation. Obama spoke out early about Gaddafi needing to step down, but we did nothing. Now that the opposition forces are pushed back to the brink, we intervene.
If we were going to, we should have done it earlier and decisively. If not, he shouldn't have taken sides.
I think the west has made a mess of this situation. Obama spoke out early about Gaddafi needing to step down, but we did nothing. Now that the opposition forces are pushed back to the brink, we intervene.
If we were going to, we should have done it earlier and decisively. If not, he shouldn't have taken sides.
Good call, x. We really should have kept our mouths shut and remained neutral. I'd have no problem giving approval for other nations to go intervene if they really wanted to, but we should have stayed the hell out.
a completely inoffensive name
03-19-2011, 03:31
So they are doing fine...as long as the other side doesn´t use it's forces.....now that's quite an achievement.
Well, considering they rapidly seemed to be winning the war two weeks ago and took (and have held) the second largest city...it seems to me that it is only because of Gaddafi's spending spree for foreign mercs and equipment that he has been pushing them back. My point is that when it was army vs rebels rebels held their own. Now that its army, mercs, tanks, aircraft vs rebels, of course they are going to do badly. I don't mind evening the playing field a bit and actually seeing this civil war consist of Libyans vs Libyans.
what the hell is a fair chance in a war setting?....war is not a game of cricket...."fair" in war means you make the other guy die and your guys come back in one piece.
Libyan's should be fighting the Libyan government and the Libyan army for whatever causes they are fighting for, not hordes of european and south african mercs. If it was up to me, I would have told Saudi Arabia to get the **** out of Bahrain and let the gov/army of Bahrain handle its own citizens. I guess I misspoke when I said "fair". I just want self determination of a people to be determined by its actual people, not money. If the rebels are disorganized and fail hard, fine. If the only reason they lose is because we didn't stop the rich king pin from hiring armies from across the world to do his bidding for him, that's ******** imo.
I get it, people are pissed we are getting involved in the middle east again. We are spending money on arabs again and we are committing soldiers to the middle east again. But like I said earlier, this is not Iraq or Afghanistan as long as we hold to the UN resolution and not send in ground troops. If the rebels fail, then that is it. And either they will fail within a month, or they will kill gaddafi by the end of april.
PanzerJaeger
03-19-2011, 05:10
If the rebels fail, then that is it. And either they will fail within a month, or they will kill gaddafi by the end of april.
Actually, with the way the resolution is worded, if Gadaffi is smart he could retain control of much of the country, including the vital oil ports, while the West is left to perpetually insure the security of small enclaves around Benghazi and Misurata - much like the situation with the Kurds in Iraq, which lasted more than a decade and only stopped with the invasion.
I don't even believe it authorizes direct attacks against Gadaffi or his command and control apparatus.
HoreTore
03-19-2011, 09:58
second quote of yours going in my sig :)
A few more lines and it's an essay! :smash:
Gaddafi tanks supposedly inside Benghazi now. Where be the jets? Things are taking so long one could wonder whether or not they are serious about this whole thing.
It also looks like the US is going to be very reluctant about using any of their own firepower (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1):
President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday.
"We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone," the president said in a nationally televised statement about U.S. military action.
"The president chose his words deliberately and carefully, and you should be guided by them," the official said. "He is very sensitive that this not be a U.S. operation. We are part of it. And of course, we by nature of our superior capabilities have a lead and leadership role to play. But we are part of it and expect a lot from our partners," the official said.
Asked about the "unique capabilities" the president talked about contributing, the official said that at least for now, they would not involve combat fighters or bombers but instead would include AWACS, intelligence-gathering drones and other intelligence assets, and refueling and air traffic control.
“I don't even believe it authorizes direct attacks against Gadaffi or his command and control apparatus.”
It depends how you read the small prints. There is something like “take all appropriate measures bla bla bla”.
Then, as shown in Kosovo, this is just the start. It will be up to the implementing Countries to decide what are these measures.
Remember that Kosovo was part of Serbia even in the cease-fire agreement…
First you’ve got the paper then you change the goal posts.
Well, in order to be able to implement a deny Fly zone, you have to secure the Air Space, so to destroy all possibilities for the side on which this Deny Zone is imposed to defend itself.
So you have to destroy, Radar Stations, AA weapons as ZSU Shilka, SAM and others command posts. And de facto, you can do this with ground troops, e.g. light commando heliported let’s say from Chad, or even ground raids as the French did when Libya was a problem in northern Chad. So, the ground intervention is still in the Deny Fly resolution.
Perhaps we can do it as well from Tunisia as the French have a military agreement with this country, depending on our good (or not so thanks to Sarkozy’s stupid foreign politic) relations with the new administration. I supposed that Tunisia would be happy to be free from this neighbour, especially as last time they try something, Gadaffi sent some mercenaries to help the now fallen dictator…
But then you have to stop them to rebuild. So well, you can keep the troops or give the position to the rebels (legitimate government for the French).
Again, look at Serbia. NATO legitimated the attack on the Serbian TV saying it was part of the Milosevic Propaganda Machine so part of the military Machine.
So, from pure military hardware, you can extend the concept to all what helps or supports or participates (even indirectly) to every thing you want.
Samurai Waki
03-19-2011, 11:04
looks like Gaddafi decided to go out Tony Montana style (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12793919).
I'm not surprised to be honest... he has a massive ego.
Prince Cobra
03-19-2011, 11:15
Obama played his diplomatic cards very well. I still have not read the resolution but as far as I could grasp it, it gives the consent of the UN to legally interfere in Libya. It was very wise to exclude ground invasion (just look what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq now) and to attract Arabian allies in the game. Whilst the Gaddafi aviation is not such a big threat, the international aviation above the rebels is a serious blow for the land forces Gaddafi (I agree with Brenus here). It certainly could turn out to be decisive in the struggle between the rebels and Gaddafi. Of course, the land forces of the rebels should win their regime change. The population of Tripoli and other cities may wave the banner of the rebellion again as the grip of the Coloner weakens.
I have never been enthusiasthic about international campaigns in souvereign countries but I think Gaddafi went a bit too far so I can't say anything against this campaign. Let's hope it will be the lesser of the evils.
rory_20_uk
03-19-2011, 11:55
I envisage the international airforce being useful in stopping Gaddafi advancing, but I don't imagine the Rebels are going to manage to storm Tripoli either.
The stalemate could end with Gaddafi being overthrown or Lybia bieng divided into two countries. Either outcome is better than him being in control of it all.
~:smoking:
tibilicus
03-19-2011, 13:40
I know these things take time to implement but what are we doing? The military advantage we have over this joke army is absurd. I want to see jets over Benghazi reducing Gadaffi's rat army to dust, not more talks on a desired course of action..
ICantSpellDawg
03-19-2011, 14:41
What the United States is doing is appropriate here. We are not using strong language and we are remaining wishy-washy. Not as wishy-washy as the Germans, but wishy-washy enough to pressure other European powers to act. If we jump in head first, they will take that as a sign to sit back and relax, even though they know what needs to be done and are willing to do it. If the Americans lead the charge, they know that the neccessary action will be taken and they can save their own money. At this point, because of the administrations incorrectly percieved impotence; the UK, France, the Netherlands, Norway, etc are getting off of their asses as sending support. If we do the bulk of the activity in Afghanistan, you will do the bulk of the activity in Libya.
Use this as an opportunity to ween yourselves off of the American Defense tit.
It appears that the defence of Benghazi is going well, picture below showing captured loyalist tank paraded in the city (Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/slideshow?articleId=USTRE7270JP20110319&slide=1#a=1))
https://img851.imageshack.us/img851/156/64793487.jpg
Meanwhile, the first CotW (reinventing the term) bombs may be dropped over Libya in a few hours; though previous "promises" have proven not to be trustable.
French airplanes are already flying over Benghazi/Libya it seems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971
ICantSpellDawg
03-19-2011, 16:48
There are more than enough fighters committed to the enforcement of 1973 without counting the United States. I think that, since the European powers have shown such resolve, we should provide all the neccessary logistical support with only a minimal contribution of force.
BTW - Sweden is seriously considering providing military assistance. I'm not sure how Germany can sit there and say it has no intention of or interest in providing assistance. This is kind of irritating. They maintain that they are not neutral and support the resolution (even though they abstained from the votie), but refuse to kick in to provide for European security. How can they possibly be considered part of European Leadership when they skirt even UN responsibility? I hope all that fence straddling begins to chaffe.
PanzerJaeger
03-19-2011, 17:19
Awesome picture of Mig 23 (?) going down (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/africa/20libya.html).
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/20/world/20libya2-span/20libya2-articleLarge.jpg
Not so awesome considering that it was a rebel jet. The rebels claim that it was shot down by loyalist forces, though it may well have been shot down by their own guns given the disorganised state the rebel "army" is in.
In other news; Reuters report that French figher jets have opened fire and destroyed their first target; and that they fired their first shots on a loyalist military vehicle.
Sarmatian
03-19-2011, 18:27
Does anyone know gini index for Libya?
Not so awesome considering that it was a rebel jet. The rebels claim that it was shot down by loyalist forces, though it may well have been shot down by their own guns given the disorganised state the rebel "army" is in.
I've not seen that particular claim. However the disorganised state of the rebels is worrying. Without some kind of strong, centralised and militarily competent (or at least, more competent than the loyalists) I don't see how they can "liberate" the whole country. Of course having such a leaderships is probably the best way to ensure that a authoritarian leader backed by military power supplants the current authoritarian leader backed by military power. I'm in the dark since there doesn't seem to be much info in the media about the rebel leadership.
I've not seen that particular claim. However the disorganised state of the rebels is worrying. Without some kind of strong, centralised and militarily competent (or at least, more competent than the loyalists) I don't see how they can "liberate" the whole country. Of course having such a leaderships is probably the best way to ensure that a authoritarian leader backed by military power supplants the current authoritarian leader backed by military power. I'm in the dark since there doesn't seem to be much info in the media about the rebel leadership.
I have also read the rebels were able to "acquire" one mig-23 and 2 attack helicopters from Gaddafi.
Tellos Athenaios
03-19-2011, 19:57
Does anyone know gini index for Libya?
Well, no. At least wikipedia's map from the CIA 2009 world factbook paints Libya as “no data available” (grey).
Awesome picture of Mig 23 (?) going down (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/africa/20libya.html).
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/20/world/20libya2-span/20libya2-articleLarge.jpg
A jet crashing in a populated area?
I am unsure "awesome" is the right word here. I hope no civilians got killed.
Louis VI the Fat
03-19-2011, 20:53
All you couscous-eating Gaddafi-lovers are far too cynical for me.
Civilians are being crushed by a tyrant, so my default position is that you fight, barring compelling reasons not to. Some tyrant somewhere is going to hear the Marseillaise together with bombs flying in his direction, so I'm happy.
https://img97.imageshack.us/img97/2536/t1panoflagwomangi.gif
Kudos to both France and the UK for the efforts they have undertaken to get this through. I am happy that the Norwegian Air Force is going to participate with F-16 fighter jets. We have now quite literally experienced the take-off, let's how hope that we can manage a good landing as well..
The latest developments now is that the US has launched Tomahawk missiles (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T1)on targets outside Tripoli and Misurata. More airstrikes are also expected to follow - things are building up.
Civilians are being crushed by a tyrant, so my default position is that you fight, barring compelling reasons not to. Some tyrant somewhere is going to hear the Marseillaise together with bombs flying in his direction, so I'm happy.
Agreed.
The sins of omission that we are willing to commit in the name of "stability" turns my stomach. Of course, I am cynical too...the only reason there is action being taken here is because Libya is a very short distance from France & Italy and the fact that there is oil there. Otherwise, we would be talking about Yemen, Bahrain, and a dozen African countries as well.
My fear was that any action would be too little too late. The unneccessary loss of life due to the delays in the UN acting on the requests of the UK & France is quite tragic. At this point, foreign forces will have to take some sort of decisive action to turn the tide and to reinvigorate rebels in cities already lost (assuming Quaddaffi loyalists did not already round them all up).
LeftEyeNine
03-19-2011, 21:51
Wow, people actually think that France and UK and whoever is in line are doing the right thing.
Wow, people actually think that France and UK and whoever is in line are doing the right thing.
Why don't you tell us whose side you're on and how you want them to win?
LeftEyeNine
03-19-2011, 23:20
I'm all for West/UN/WhatevarCoalitionMadeUpAsAMeansOfTheBenefitsOfG8 getting out, leaving them be.
Strike For The South
03-19-2011, 23:24
I'm all for West/UN/WhatevarCoalitionMadeUpAsAMeansOfTheBenefitsOfG8 getting out, leaving them be.
Even if it means tyranny will rule the day?
a completely inoffensive name
03-19-2011, 23:38
I need to read up on the isolationist arguments of the early 20th century before I can say whether I agree with Lefteyenine or not.
LeftEyeNine
03-19-2011, 23:39
Even if it means tyranny will rule the day?
Sure. If that's to happen, let it be.
Why don't you believe in people's own transformation/evolving/demand ?
The whole despot grounds are shaking. If it doesn't happen today, it will one day for the "fault line" has already broke out.
LeftEyeNine
03-19-2011, 23:39
*Sleepless me double-posting*
Sure. If that's to happen, let it be.
Why don't you believe in people's own transformation/evolving/demand ?
Without the aid of France, the United States would never have won their independence. Nations are not always capable of evolving on their own, outside support can be necessary in some situations.
a completely inoffensive name
03-20-2011, 02:04
https://i.imgur.com/HfMby.jpg
France on the push to war...the united states has to be more or less "dragged in" and Germany refuses to participate.
did anyone check to see if hell is frozen?
ICantSpellDawg
03-20-2011, 04:46
France on the push to war...the united states has to be more or less "dragged in" and Germany refuses to participate.
did anyone check to see if hell is frozen?
France has never been a baby when it comes to foreign intervention, they just need to be in the lead. They hated the war in Iraq because they did not have much of an economic interest in Iraq and the U.S. was taking the lead. From the Suez, Algeria to the ivory coast, France has been a hawkish country, subordinate of none. Their stance on Iraq was troubling because we required our allies to back us up for legitimacy, but we pushed the envelope and went beyond what many of our allies could support and payed the price politically. That was my regret in hindsight for Iraq, that we put some alliances in tatters.
I hope that we will see some other air forces assist in this, not because they are needed, but because I like the idea of everyone ponying up for Global security and the preservation of Freedoms. India and Brazil should be here with us on this.
Louis VI the Fat
03-20-2011, 07:41
France on the push to war...the united states has to be more or less "dragged in" and Germany refuses to participate.
did anyone check to see if hell is frozen?Not so surpising, no?
Two reasons why it shouldn't come as a surprise:
Incidental events.
France botched up in Tunisia and Egypt. Especially Ben Ali was supported by France until the last minute. After a series of disastrous dealing by foreign minister Alliot-Marie, she had to resign. The new foreign minister, Juppé, has promised to side together with democratic Arabs, to support the Arab spring.
Also, Sarkozy is eyeing foreign policy to compensate for his horrendously low approval rate, based on domestic policy. Next year will see a presidential election. What better way to prop up his rating than with the image of French planes firing at a tyrant, while the world leaders are gathered in Paris. It is no coincidence that the French airforce got the first shots in, while European, American and Arab leaders were gathered in Paris. It is all pr.
When I die and go to heaven, there world leaders gather in Paris, as mere theatrical props, brought in to look on in awe at the sight of French Republican troops marching off to the ends of the universe to fight tyranny. That is just perfect pr. It makes the French patriotic heart swell with pride, as much as the English heart swells with joy at the lucrative foreign trade deal, and the Italian one over a politician caught with a prostitute of legal age.
If there is a surpise, it is that Gaddafi suited French interests just fine. Stability, plenty of lucrative arms contracts (We'll be shooting down French planes...), constructive cooperation in several instances. Not a problem at all.
I guess there were stronger incentives to fight. From a poll earlier this month that showed 81% of French thought France's role in the world was diminishing (what are those 19% smoking?), to the need to damage control France's standing in the Arab world after failing to initially support the Arab spring, to Sarko cashing in on his investment in excellent relations with David Cameron and with Washington.
Secondly, more structural impulses.
France is usually pushy about humanitarian intervention. You know the drill. It is always the same: The papers will write that 'We are all Georgians / Darfurians / Contaminated Japanese Citizens*'. Serial philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy** will travel to the disaster zone and write how France should go it alone if need be. Public opinion will grow restless. Opinion page articles appear that 'The Republic, she fights tyranny, or she is not'.
From the 1930s to Yugoslavia to Libya it is France that seeks war, and the United States which have to be dragged in. Also during in Iraq 1 and the bombing campaigns of the next decade France was an active and eager participant. France was only dismissed in 2003, for failing to subscribe to the lunacy of Cheney, for showing at the Security Council that America was lying trough its teeth about WMD. Then all hell broke lose and a character assissination on France was orchestrated from Washington and London.
Apart from anything else, I blame 'Iraq' for having rewritten history, for having created an alternate reality. Sadly, Iraq happened just when the internet grew into the opinion machine it is today. The internet still reverberates with the echos of 2003, moreso than the traditional media and works of reference. The world speaks English, not French, so their imagery took hold. All sorts of assumptions took hold of the public consciousness which are nearly impossible to replace. With the result that the, possibly, most irresponsibly hawkish nation of the West in the global public imagination became a nation of war-averse surrender monkeys. :shrug:
Au contraire. Me, I'd wish France was less agressive, not more. Not a day goes by without some French troops rotting away in some forsaken African or Indian Ocean backwater. Entire operations are fought completely invisible to the English press, to which only Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel exist. Unaware that French troops landed in Niger a few months ago. And in Chad before that. A French bombing campaign in the Central African Republic the year before that. And thousands of troops in the Ivory Coast since forever. Etcetera.
Not that much of it is about humanitarian intervention. That is but one impulse of French foreign policy. The usual reason to interfere is to prop up a dictator, not to depose one. French foreign policy is so 'succesful' that fully half of the world's peacekeeping troops are stationed in a French speaking territory. Just to clean up the mess after yet another botched French operation. :beam:
Germany is nearly the reverse. For reasons that should be obvious, German policy is completely averse to foreign intervention, except for humanitarian missions. Anything that can be considered an act of agressive foreign intervention is a big no-no to Berlin.
With Germany, you save the European currency. To fight wars, you cross the channel and speak to London. French diplomacy couldn't be simpler.
* Libération, 18 Mars. :laugh4:
**BHL travelled to Bosnia in the 90s, to Afghanistan in the 00s, and met with the Libyan rebels last week.
I'm all for West/UN/WhatevarCoalitionMadeUpAsAMeansOfTheBenefitsOfG8 getting out, leaving them be.
That means leaving Gaddafi be. The free Libyan people requested us, the outside world, to intervene. Did you not see the celebrations (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12781157)when the UN resolution was announced? We do not heed the wishes of a mad dictator who is willing to sacrifice his own people for his own sake - but rather we act at the request of the Libyan people.
The question is whether or not you think you yourself know better than the Libyan people what is right to do?
https://img200.imageshack.us/img200/3704/20110309t170108z1love72.jpg
https://img847.imageshack.us/img847/7234/libyanoflyzonebenghazip.jpg
https://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9462/article13658030b285f2f0.jpg
https://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6080/damonbenghaziupdatecnn6.jpg
I don't think they would appreciate your knee-jerk responses in neither Benghazi nor Misurata, that is for sure.
LeftEyeNine
03-20-2011, 11:28
Without the aid of France, the United States would never have won their independence. Nations are not always capable of evolving on their own, outside support can be necessary in some situations.
If Middle East had no oil or other resources the giant ones wouldn't drool over, I could indeed be convinced of the good intentions you are advocating on behalf of them.
Sorry like your history apparently taught one, my history taught me that if France and UK walk into a bar, it's never safe there. UN/NATo or whatever, they are all failed organizations not to lack that warm feeling of helping humanity while they are commonly put into action justified so but rather defending or taking proactive measures for the giant one's needs & wants.
I wonder how history would write it had Srebrenitsa been a little Middle East well of black gold in the middle of Europe.
So, thanks but no thanks. West does not step in where actual benefits do not exist.
rory_20_uk
03-20-2011, 11:30
And nor should we be.
Enlightened self interest is the name of the game - helping others helps ourselves. If not, well, tough.
~:smoking:
LeftEyeNine
03-20-2011, 11:34
I see, so they are apparently unaware of what kind of a hell USA turned Iraq into after their much-celebrated intervening.
Let me put it this way. Take the least geopolitically and economically important country as an example and let it boil up like that, if UN/NATO/YourFavoriteHumanitarianArmedForcesWithAbsolutelyNoIntentionOfExploit makes a full-fledged and decisive aid, then I was a death-to-usa-suicide-monger all along.
LeftEyeNine
03-20-2011, 11:38
And nor should we be.
Enlightened self interest is the name of the game - helping others helps ourselves. If not, well, tough.
~:smoking:
"Actual benefits" was not meant like how you've taken it.
Other than that, I also agree that ♪♫ we are the world, we are the children, we are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving ♫
Didn't it always happen that way anyway ? ^^
Sarmatian
03-20-2011, 11:52
That means leaving Gaddafi be. The free Libyan people requested us, the outside world, to intervene. Did you not see the celebrations (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12781157)when the UN resolution was announced? We do not heed the wishes of a mad dictator who is willing to sacrifice his own people for his own sake - but rather we act at the request of the Libyan people.
The question is whether or not you think you yourself know better than the Libyan people what is right to do?
I don't think they would appreciate your knee-jerk responses in neither Benghazi nor Misurata, that is for sure.
Since when is the minority that took up arms considered Free Libyan People? 600,000 people of Benghazi speak for the rest 6,000,000 people of Libya?
Who are those rebels, what are their aims, who are their leaders, where did they get their weapons, how are they organized, why were they showing old flags of Libya when it was protectorate of the west etc, etc...? We don't know anything about them except the fact that they are against Gadaffi.
It smells of another self-serving operation of the west in the most oil-rich African country, using a tried recipe that consist of deposing current regime and planting a puppet and having western companies in charge of oil and gas resources. China was already buying 11% of Libya oil and the percentage was growing, we can't have that, can we...
I see, so they are apparently unaware of what kind of a hell USA turned Iraq into after their much-celebrated intervening.
Let me put it this way. Take the least geopolitically and economically important country as an example and let it boil up like that, if UN/NATO/YourFavoriteHumanitarianArmedForcesWithAbsolutelyNoIntentionOfExploit makes a full-fledged and decisive aid, then I was a death-to-usa-suicide-monger all along.
Much-celebrated? What sort alternative reality do you live in? This is not Iraq, it is not Afghanistan - it is Libya. You elegantly dodged my questions like they were radioactive - probably because you do not have answers to them. You want to deny the Libyan people the help that they have asked for, and it is not you but them who would have to pay the price for it - in blood.
Since when is the minority that took up arms considered Free Libyan People? 600,000 people of Benghazi speak for the rest 6,000,000 people of Libya?
Who are those rebels, what are their aims, who are their leaders, where did they get their weapons, how are they organized, why were they showing old flags of Libya when it was protectorate of the west etc, etc...? We don't know anything about them except the fact that they are against Gadaffi.
It smells of another self-serving operation of the west in the most oil-rich African country, using a tried recipe that consist of deposing current regime and planting a puppet and having western companies in charge of oil and gas resources. China was already buying 11% of Libya oil and the percentage was growing, we can't have that, can we...
You could have answered those questions pretty easily yourself if you had been following this case a bit more closely - interviews with both rebel fighters and protesters in the streets can tell you very much indeed.
According to Wikipedia, the rebel controlled Cyrenaica region has 1.6 million inhabitants. Misrata adds another 500,000. It also looks like the majority of Tripoli's 1.2 million inhabitants are more or less sympathetic with the revolt - do not forget that Tripoli was "set on fire" in its early days - and that the rallies in support for Gaddafi are extraordinarily small for such a large city. Dicators tend to be unpopular anyway, it is not something that should surprise you..
As for the oil, we could suck up to Gaddafi if we wanted oil - with a dicatorship in place, we only need to worry about one man, not an entire population. Naturally, the reason why Norway participates is because we need more oil. We have plenty of oil for our vehicles, but we need swimming pools for each and everyone one of us filled up with oil.
ICantSpellDawg
03-20-2011, 12:42
Au contraire. Me, I'd wish France was less agressive, not more. Not a day goes by without some French troops rotting away in some forsaken African or Indian Ocean backwater. Entire operations are fought completely invisible to the English press, to which only Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel exist. Unaware that French troops landed in Niger a few months ago. And in Chad before that. A French bombing campaign in the Central African Republic the year before that. And thousands of troops in the Ivory Coast since forever. Etcetera.
Not that much of it is about humanitarian intervention. That is but one impulse of French foreign policy. The usual reason to interfere is to prop up a dictator, not to depose one. French foreign policy is so 'succesful' that fully half of the world's peacekeeping troops are stationed in a French speaking territory. Just to clean up the mess after yet another botched French operation. :beam:
.
Remember Vietnam?
I don't know why everyone is so hard-core against these types of wars. How many would die in Libya if this thing just dragged on? How many other despots would use the same tactics against their people if they weren't shown the consequences? Why isn't it our business to help them attain a representative government - especially after we've been asked? How many of you still believe in the inviolability of nation-states and why do you still believe that?
The Nation State is a remnant of the past and no dictator will be able to hide behind his people as they have. I am happy to see less economically motivated wars and more wars motivated on leveling the playing field in favor of those who have responsible, representative government in mind. Yemen can burn in hell because those protesters want a base to act against their own people and train terrorists. Nobody has a humanitarian interest in Yemen at this point because there are no good guys in that fight. Libya is different, further onslaughts by Gaddafi and months of war will drag international islamists who are seasoned fighters into the mix. It was only a matter of time before the opposition became more radicalized - people make deals with the devil when they are in a tough spot and that's the last thing anybody needs.
Here we have those forum members who are usually skeptical of foreign intervention begin skeptical of foreign intervention. It is my hope that you guys see evolving actions in the interests of the people being policed. I have my opinion and it is based on humanitarian concern.
We also have the usual suspects who support dictators and primitive states wherever they may be. Thank you for giving us the high sign to disagree with you. Many on this board wouldn't know what to think if it weren't for Sarmatian and his ilk showing us exactly the worst position to hold on this issue.
If Middle East had no oil or other resources the giant ones wouldn't drool over, I could indeed be convinced of the good intentions you are advocating on behalf of them.
Sorry like your history apparently taught one, my history taught me that if France and UK walk into a bar, it's never safe there. UN/NATo or whatever, they are all failed organizations not to lack that warm feeling of helping humanity while they are commonly put into action justified so but rather defending or taking proactive measures for the giant one's needs & wants.
I wonder how history would write it had Srebrenitsa been a little Middle East well of black gold in the middle of Europe.
So, thanks but no thanks. West does not step in where actual benefits do not exist.
It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.
Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.
ICantSpellDawg
03-20-2011, 12:55
It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.
Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.
Or, if the man was helping the homeless for the selfish reason of wanting the homeless to get jobs and later contribute to the economy and his income by renting out some of his apartments themselves.
Edit: Ed Milliband supports the action wholeheartedly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/14/libya-no-fly-zone-hague)
...and so does Nick Clegg (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12786794)
This was a great opportunity for them to act in their own political interests and stand athwart action, but it sounds like they might have the ability to be serious and not just oppose the decision in order to be difficult, with no real or substantial agenda behind them.
LeftEyeNine
03-20-2011, 13:00
@Viking
I thought I had answered them ? I checked again and apparently missed something, what is it ?
Yeah I deny what Libyan people asked for because I mimic USA/France/UK/. I want to gendarme the whole world and intervene as I see fit.
It is Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of benefits, and that's why it's being "intervened" according to "calls for help", which you could find anywhere in turmoil. That's exactly what the big brothers would have asked for, actually. Interesting.. ^^
LeftEyeNine
03-20-2011, 13:07
And, eventually, anyway, we'll see how things shape up when it all ends.
I'm itching to turn out to be wrong and misled about our guardian angels' intentions.
Please remind me how ill-mannered I was by then, so that I could take steps to get rid of my prejudices. :bow:
ICantSpellDawg
03-20-2011, 13:09
@Viking
It is Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of benefits, and that's why it's being "intervened" according to "calls for help", which you could find anywhere in turmoil. That's exactly what the big brothers asked for, actually. Interesting.. ^^
In Iraq, the lie about oil holds can be made to the average gullible person, but how is Afghanistan a benefit to us? As a police action monger, I was really pissed when we were forced to go into Afghanistan. Terrible terrain for our forces and technology, bad track record with invasion, ignorant as hell population, next to Pakistan with all of its failures to control its own population, and a massive expense. Sure, we have managed to create some unexpected benefits, such as advancing our technology and troop capabilities further and gained a land border with Western China that our military occupies, but that was destined to be a thankless action. I am equally reluctant to do anything against Iran due to their terrain.
There is assisting an oppressed people in a flat, desert terrain - I'm all for it.
Then there is assisting an oppressed people in mountainous terrain, which I would be hard pressed to support for anything other than core national interests.
ICantSpellDawg
03-20-2011, 13:10
And, eventually, anyway, we'll see how things shape up when it all ends.
I'm itching to turn out to be wrong and misled about our guardian angels' intentions.
Please remind me how ill-mannered I was by then, so that I could take steps to get rid of my prejudices. :bow:
Lobby Turkey to come into the next one with us. You can keep your eyes on developments and make sure we stay honest.
LeftEyeNine
03-20-2011, 13:10
It is true that nations generally only intervene in foreign countries when it is in their interests. The does not make the intervention evil though. Imagine a man helping all of the homeless people in his neighborhood to find shelter and get jobs. Now imagine the man was doing it only because he owned the property and wanted to make it look nicer so he could get a higher selling price. The motive may have been non-humanitarian, but the end result is the same regardless. The French intervention in the American Revolution was entirely to damage the Old Enemy, Britain. The Americans didn't care about that motive, all we cared about was that France was helping us achieve what we wanted.
Also, the benefit to the West in Libya is stability, NOT oil. Libya has so little oil that it is essentially irrelevant to the situation. The talking heads on the news (and Gadaffi) like to point to the oil as the cause, but Libya has about 1.5% of the world's oil supply. No one would notice if it simply disappeared.
The logic is in itself vulnerable and that's why I'm not buying it.
"I'll do something but you can't know why I do".
No.
LeftEyeNine
03-20-2011, 13:17
Lobby Turkey to come into the next one with us. You can keep your eyes on developments and make sure we stay honest.
Sure I will.
In Iraq, the lie about oil holds can be made to the average gullible person, but how is Afghanistan a benefit to us? As a police action monger, I was really pissed when we were forced to go into Afghanistan. Terrible terrain for our forces and technology, bad track record with invasion, ignorant as hell population, next to Pakistan with all of its failures to control its own population, and a massive expense. Sure, we have managed to create some unexpected benefits, such as advancing our technology and troop capabilities further and gained a land border with Western China that our military occupies, but that was destined to be a thankless action. I am equally reluctant to do anything against Iran due to their terrain.
Still doesn't make sense why USA has armed forces stationed there.
ICantSpellDawg
03-20-2011, 13:38
Sure I will.
Still doesn't make sense why USA has armed forces stationed there.
So you reject our mission in Afghanistan as well? Even Germany and Turkey are fighting in Afghanistan. Are you kidding? Now we can't even defend ourselves against the hostile actions of a sovereign state?
Sarmatian
03-20-2011, 14:32
You could have answered those questions pretty easily yourself if you had been following this case a bit more closely - interviews with both rebel fighters and protesters in the streets can tell you very much indeed.
Indeed, 1.5 million protesters were interviewed and... Wait, they weren't, only a few them were. I'm gonna interview 25 people and together we will prove there's life on Mars. Later I'm gonna prove the Earth is flat and who knows where my thirst for knowledge will take me then.
Since I obviously haven't been paying attention like you, then you must be able to tell me who the leaders of the rebellion are and point me to numerous interviews they made.
According to Wikipedia, the rebel controlled Cyrenaica region has 1.6 million inhabitants. Misrata adds another 500,000. It also looks like the majority of Tripoli's 1.2 million inhabitants are more or less sympathetic with the revolt - do not forget that Tripoli was "set on fire" in its early days - and that the rallies in support for Gaddafi are extraordinarily small for such a large city. Dicators tend to be unpopular anyway, it is not something that should surprise you..
And we are assuming that each and every person is supporter of the rebels there? Even if that's true, it's still much less than 50% of the population.
As for the oil, we could suck up to Gaddafi if we wanted oil - with a dicatorship in place, we only need to worry about one man, not an entire population. Naturally, the reason why Norway participates is because we need more oil. We have plenty of oil for our vehicles, but we need swimming pools for each and everyone one of us filled up with oil.
If Norwegian "participation" accounts for more than 1% of the total, I'll eat my shorts. And Chinese pay better these days
So you reject our mission in Afghanistan as well? Even Germany and Turkey are fighting in Afghanistan. Are you kidding? Now we can't even defend ourselves against the hostile actions of a sovereign state?
A terrorist organization based in Middle East, funded and organized mostly from Saudi Arabia fly a plane into a building in America and the US invades a central Asian country? It makes as much sense as invading Peru...
@Viking
I thought I had answered them ? I checked again and apparently missed something, what is it ?
Yeah I deny what Libyan people asked for because I mimic USA/France/UK/. I want to gendarme the whole world and intervene as I see fit.
It is Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of benefits, and that's why it's being "intervened" according to "calls for help", which you could find anywhere in turmoil. That's exactly what the big brothers would have asked for, actually. Interesting.. ^^
Q1: Whose side are you on? Gaddafi or the rebels? Neither?
Q2: Do you know better than the Libyans what is best for them? Yes? No?
I see no direct answers to these questions. By wanting to deny the rebels and the civilians the help they are asking for, you are indeed intervening - hypocrisy on your part. Inaction is action, it is just so much easier to defend.
There are no internal affairs of a country here - there are the affairs of a mad dictator, for whom the outside world should not shred a single tear; and the affairs of the civilian population/the rebels.
There is not action because of the calls for help in themselves, but because of the unique situation in the country. Mind you, either way, Arab countries will most likely take part in military operation and thus become a part of this terrible Western conspiracy against...Óðinn knows who. All that is good?
About benefits: Aghanistan is from an economical perspective a big hole in which the participating nations throws the lives of their soldiers money into. No profit there. In Iraq, the operations have also been really expensive. I want to see the numbers proving that the Western powers will have come out with a sensible amount profit before Iraq runs out of oil. Furthermore, last time I checked, the Chinese (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7585790.stm)are also cashing in on Iraqi oil:
China's state-owned oil firm CNPC has agreed a $3bn (£1.63bn) oil services contract with the government of Iraq.
The two parties renegotiated a 1997 deal to pump oil from the Ahdab oilfield, the Iraqi oil minister said.
Under the new deal, output from the oilfield will be 110,000 barrels per day, up from the 90,000 barrels forecast in the original deal.
The deal is the first major oil contract with a foreign firm since the US-led war in Iraq, reports say.
The Chinese are probably also a part of the grand conspiracy, I reckon.
tibilicus
03-20-2011, 14:50
@Viking
I thought I had answered them ? I checked again and apparently missed something, what is it ?
Yeah I deny what Libyan people asked for because I mimic USA/France/UK/. I want to gendarme the whole world and intervene as I see fit.
It is Iraq and Afghanistan, in terms of benefits, and that's why it's being "intervened" according to "calls for help", which you could find anywhere in turmoil. That's exactly what the big brothers would have asked for, actually. Interesting.. ^^
Ok, lets put a different spin on the situation. Imagine this was happening in the country where you live. A violent and suppressive government is refusing to relinquish power and his armored columns stand outside your city gates. This dictator has promised "no mercy" to those inside and you see no apparent hope of a successful defense, what do you do? Do you throw down your arms and accept your inevitable fate? Or do you plea for any help, from anyone, to stop a mad man killing you and your loved ones?
It saddens me that when the West doesn't act, its doing too little and when it does act its doing too much. I guess because you disapprove of the Wests actions in terms of foreign policy your eagerly awaiting the day China and India take the crown and for there foreign policies to become doctrine. News flash, they wont be any kinder or nicer either, they to will subscribe to the realities of the world.
Some people see Iraq as an argument against liberal intervention, I just see it as an argument about what happens when intervention is done wrong. I don't see it that why. If we can make the world a better place, even if it is an afterthought of our interests and we have the capacity to achieve it, why shouldn't we?
Indeed, 1.5 million protesters were interviewed and... Wait, they weren't, only a few them were. I'm gonna interview 25 people and together we will prove there's life on Mars. Later I'm gonna prove the Earth is flat and who knows where my thirst for knowledge will take me then.
Since I obviously haven't been paying attention like you, then you must be able to tell me who the leaders of the rebellion are and point me to numerous interviews they made.
You know what the fighters think, you know what the street protesters think. By your logic, do you really know what your own government is up to? Have you seen lengthy interviews with each and every member of the parlament? Are you worried about this?
I have seen interviews with rebel leaders embracing democracy on the BBC (I believe they used that exact word), in the early days of the revolt. I cannot link to it as it is not easy to find it. You will, though, probably find interviews of a newer date where they express the same ideas.
And we are assuming that each and every person is supporter of the rebels there? Even if that's true, it's still much less than 50% of the population.
Given the unrest there as well as the small rallies in the capital (these kind of rallies are safe, remember?), do you honestly think the reality is much different? And what makes you think the situation in other cities is so much more different? What makes Tripoli, Zawiya and Misrata so special? Benghazi and Tobruk? Bayda? The list goes on - and nothing indicates that any of these cities are special cases.
If Norwegian "participation" accounts for more than 1% of the total, I'll eat my shorts. And Chinese pay better these days
This might all be true, but what you are doing is essentially cowardly sniping. It takes little to put forward ideas, what is harder is to actually back them up. I could just suggest that Serbia is a part of some grand conspiracy in Libya or elsewhere, a role which will not unfold before it is too late. Can you defend yourself against such a suggestion? Don't think so.
Anyway, are the govts of Iraq and Afghanistan actually "Western puppets"? Doesn't really look like it.
Sarmatian
03-20-2011, 15:34
You know what the fighters think, you know what the street protesters think. By your logic, do you really know what your own government is up to? Have you seen lengthy interviews with each and every member of the parlament? Are you worried about this?
No, but I have read and listened to lenghty interviews with most of the members of the government, president and most important opposition leaders. Quite a few of them, actually.
I have seen interviews with rebel leaders embracing democracy on the BBC (I believe they used that exact word), in the early days of the revolt. I cannot link to it as it is not easy to find it. You will, though, probably find interviews of a newer date where they express the same ideas.
I've seen Hashim Thaci embracing democracy after he dropped off another contingent of people to have their kidneys forcibly removed, but I digress. So, naming one of them shouldn't be too hard, should it? Know who your friends are, isn't that the plan? Shouldn't we be sure we aren't supporting some Saddam-wanna-a-be?
Given the unrest there as well as the small rallies in the capital (these kind of rallies are safe, remember?), do you honestly think the reality is much different? And what makes you think the situation in other cities is so much more different? What makes Tripoli, Zawiya and Misrata so special? Benghazi and Tobruk? Bayda? The list goes on - and nothing indicates that any of these cities are special cases.
I don't know but you seem to do. You're freely explaining the will of the Lybian people here based on a few words from random rebel fighters. Interestingly, there's quite a few CNN/BBC articles and news reports which source is "unnamed rebel".
This might all be true, but what you are doing is essentially cowardly sniping. It takes little to put forward ideas, what is harder is to actually back them up. I could just suggest that Serbia is a part of some grand conspiracy in Libya or elsewhere, a role which will not unfold before it is too late. Can you defend yourself against such a suggestion? Don't think so.
You might, but Serbia doesn't have a record of intervening in countries around the world, especially those strategically located or rich with mineral resources and energy. Additionally, unlike countries involved in Libyan intervention, Serbia doesn't have a history of colonial expansion, invading and regime changes in all four corners of the globe and most importantly, Serbia doesn't have the manpower, military and economic capabilities to pull it off.
Anyway, are the govts of Iraq and Afghanistan actually "Western puppets"? Doesn't really look like it.
Iraq is holding up better than expected, true, but Afghanistan can't take a leak without checking with Uncle Sam first.
tibilicus
03-20-2011, 15:41
Arab league now criticizes the actions of the US and others. Get a grip, what did they expect? For our planes to hover over gently and do sweet bugger all? The bombardment only hit military installations and were within the parameters of Resolution 1973. They shouldn't ask for our help and the distance themselves, this intervention exists because of them, there's no backing out now.
PanzerJaeger
03-20-2011, 17:00
I see, so they are apparently unaware of what kind of a hell USA turned Iraq into after their much-celebrated intervening.
Point of order. The Iraqis plunged Iraq into hell. America drug them out of it kicking and screaming.
Arab league now criticizes the actions of the US and others. Get a grip, what did they expect?
What did you expect? This is not atypical behavior from the Arab League. This will become so distorted that by the end of it the average man on the arab street will hate the West even more. It's already happening. (http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE72J09V20110320?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)
"What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians," Amr Moussa said, announcing an emergency Arab League meeting to discuss Libya.
The overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and Tunisia's Zine al Abidine bin Ali -- as well as mass protests against leaders in Yemen and Bahrain -- have restored a dormant Arab pride which was crushed by decades of autocracy and foreign intervention.
But many people in the Arab world, while anxious to see the end of Gaddafi's rule, felt that the resort to Western military action has tarnished Libya's revolution.
"Who will accept that foreign countries attack an Arab country? This is something shameful," said Yemeni rights activist Bashir Othman.
Support for military action was also muted by deep-seated suspicions that the West is more concerned with securing access to Arab oil supplies than supporting Arab aspirations.
"They are hitting Libya because of the oil, not to protect the Libyans," said Ali al-Jassem, 53, in the village of Sitra in Bahrain, where protests by the Shi'ite Muslim majority against the Sunni ruling Al-Khalifa family have triggered military reinforcement by neighbouring Gulf Arab forces.
In other news, yay for interminable conflict (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2011/0320/West-backs-off-calls-for-Libya-regime-change-as-Qaddafi-warns-of-long-war)! As I said, the UN resolution doesn't say what a lot of people here think it says. If Qaddafi wants to stay in power, there is little we can do to stop him, and now we're committed to the indefinite protection of a failed insurgency.
After French jets destroyed four Libyan tanks outside the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi on Saturday, according to French defense sources, Qaddafi promised to attack Mediterranean targets. His defiance of UN Resolution 1973 comes as European and American leaders back off calls for the strongman's ouster.
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe Sunday said coalition military “operations will continue in the days to come, until the Libyan regime accepts the UN resolution,” but he added that the ouster of the 41-year-ruler was not the signal purpose.
Qaddafi staying in power is "certainly potentially one outcome," Admiral Mullen told NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that the UN-approved airstrikes "are limited and it isn't about seeing him go."
Pentagon officials and the White House are at pains to describe the UN-sanctioned venture as a European-led operation to save the lives of Libyans.
Speaking from Brazil on Saturday night, President Obama described the attacks as a “limited military action” employing a “broad coalition” that is European led, and that the decision to go ahead “is not an outcome we sought… But we can’t stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy.”
So, naming one of them shouldn't be too hard, should it? Know who your friends are, isn't that the plan? Shouldn't we be sure we aren't supporting some Saddam-wanna-a-be?
Names (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12698562). I do not think of these people as particularly important - as far as we can see, neither of them have any personnel loyal to their names. They have their positions at the mercy of the revolutionaries.
I don't know but you seem to do. You're freely explaining the will of the Lybian people here based on a few words from random rebel fighters. Interestingly, there's quite a few CNN/BBC articles and news reports which source is "unnamed rebel".
The randomness is a strength of my assessment, not a weakness. They have also been scattered throughout the country. As I said, there is nothing indicating that any of the revolting cities are special cases. It thus makes utmost sense to extrapolate. Notice also how the pro-Gaddafi rallies are in Tripoli and not elswhere - presumably because it takes an extra effort to transport the pro-Gaddafi to other cities before filming them (read: he only has supporters in large numbers in the capital).
You might, but Serbia doesn't have a record of intervening in countries around the world, especially those strategically located or rich with mineral resources and energy. Additionally, unlike countries involved in Libyan intervention, Serbia doesn't have a history of colonial expansion, invading and regime changes in all four corners of the globe and most importantly, Serbia doesn't have the manpower, military and economic capabilities to pull it off.
That does not make you exempt from the duty to study each case individually and put up relevant arguments for each of them - such as explaining why they are the same, or not the same.
I could just move on to say that the arguments which represented above, is why Serbia is perfect for this conspiracy, nobody would expect them. Like this I may go on, and you can't really defeat me because I am vague and not representing my evidence.
Iraq is holding up better than expected, true, but Afghanistan can't take a leak without checking with Uncle Sam first.
The Americans haven't left Afghanistan just yet - I'd expect the country to slip further away from American control once they are out. In theory at least, democracy has been introduced, not a dictator that simply can be fed money and weapons.
Arab league now criticizes the actions of the US and others. Get a grip, what did they expect? For our planes to hover over gently and do sweet bugger all? The bombardment only hit military installations and were within the parameters of Resolution 1973. They shouldn't ask for our help and the distance themselves, this intervention exists because of them, there's no backing out now.
One wonders whether they actually buy the propagande from the Libyan state TV. In other news, Qatari aircraft are preparing to take part in the operation (BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12798568)):
Meanwhile, US military chief Adm Mike Mullen says aircraft from Qatar are moving into position near Libya to participate in the operation establishing a no-fly zone.
Meanwhile, worrying reports are coming in from Misurata . One must hope that coalition aircraft can strike against the loyalists there sometime soon. The city better not fall.
ICantSpellDawg
03-20-2011, 18:34
A terrorist organization based in Middle East, funded and organized mostly from Saudi Arabia fly a plane into a building in America and the US invades a central Asian country? It makes as much sense as invading Peru...
That is a deluded and disingenuous interpretation of events. It was determined that Al Qaeda was acting as an arm of the Taliban in Afghanistan - part of the State, hence the legally binding treaty requirement that NATO join our efforts in Afghanistan. One State attacking another. Man, what do they feed people in Serbia? Is it the water?
rory_20_uk
03-20-2011, 18:36
NATO was a defence organisation and has no remit to leave Europe.
~:smoking:
gaelic cowboy
03-20-2011, 18:39
NATO was a defence organisation and has no remit to leave Europe.
~:smoking:
Wrong
The attack took place on NATO soil and article 5 was invoked and agreed by all
Article 5
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 .
rory_20_uk
03-20-2011, 18:48
Restore and maintain security... Erm, first off, how was security breached and secondly how did this attack in Afghanistan help restore it?
~:smoking:
gaelic cowboy
03-20-2011, 18:52
Restore and maintain security... Erm, first off, how was security breached and secondly how did this attack in Afghanistan help restore it?
~:smoking:
Because this thread has wandered into a why were/are the USA in Afghanistan debate we can see clearly after 9/11 it was breached by a Non-State actor in league with a Nominal State so article 5 was invoked and therefore action beyond European and American shores was/is allowed.
Louis VI the Fat
03-20-2011, 20:14
Dictatorships, semi-democracies and authoritarian states act out of cynical self-interest. Both internally and externally. They are corrupt governments, with the resulting low trust societies. Idealism, human rights and the common good are impulses of policy that are entirely alien to them, and so they can't believe these are main drivers of Western democracies.
Add in that whole brew of Western hypocrisy, self-interest, cynicism, internal policial interests, and downright mistakes, and it becomes impossible to convince anyone that humanitarianism is one of the main drivers of Western policy. :shrug:
Sarmatian
03-20-2011, 20:27
That is a deluded and disingenuous interpretation of events. It was determined that Al Qaeda was acting as an arm of the Taliban in Afghanistan - part of the State, hence the legally binding treaty requirement that NATO join our efforts in Afghanistan. One State attacking another. Man, what do they feed people in Serbia? Is it the water?
Depleted uranium. It arrived in the same package deal with cluster bombs, during 1999 democratization(tm).
Noncommunist
03-20-2011, 20:30
The attack took place on NATO soil and article 5 was invoked and agreed by all
So what was different about the Falklands?
gaelic cowboy
03-20-2011, 20:32
So what was different about the Falklands?
Simple article 5 was not invoked therefore no NATO action
The North Atlantic Treaty (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm)
04 Apr. 1949
The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 5
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 .
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 7
This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 8
Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Article 9
The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.
Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
Article 11
This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications. (3)
Article 12
After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 13
After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Article 14
This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.
The definition of the territories to which Article 5 applies was revised by Article 2 of the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey signed on 22 October 1951.
On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
The Treaty came into force on 24 August 1949, after the deposition of the ratifications of all signatory states.
Louis VI the Fat
03-20-2011, 20:45
Article 5 specifically limits the territory to Europe and North America. Colonial wars were considered a private matter. In particular, America did not want to guarantee the oversees possesions of the European colonial powers.
I still think it was a mistake to invoke article 5. Without it, there were compelling reasons too for NATO countries to join America in avenging and in preventing further attacks. Entirely unecessarily a silly precedent was set. What if Irish terrorists bomb London. Should we attack (non-NATO member) the Irish Republic now? That's preposterous.
gaelic cowboy
03-20-2011, 20:49
Article 5 specifically limits the territory to Europe and North America. Colonial wars were considered a private matter. In particular, America did not want to guarantee the oversees possesions of the European colonial powers.
I still think it was a mistake to invoke article 5. Without it, there were compelling reasons too for NATO countries to join America in avenging and in preventing further attacks. Entirely unecessarily a silly precedent was set. What if Irish terrorists bomb London. Should we attack (non-NATO member) the Irish Republic now? That's preposterous.
Everyone was in a state of pure shock with visions of dirty bombs and super soldier Taliban destroying the world it's not surprising they did.
On an unrelated note the differ between NATO and Non-NATO becomes more and more ambiguous by the day, Irish troops have helped admittedly in really minor ways in Afghanistan and other hotspots that are under NATO remit lately. I personally believe we should be in NATO but then I also understand the purely strategic and tactical reason for not being in NATO too.
LeftEyeNine
03-20-2011, 20:58
Dictatorships, semi-democracies and authoritarian states act out of cynical self-interest. Both internally and externally. They are corrupt governments, with the resulting low trust societies. Idealism, human rights and the common good are impulses of policy that are entirely alien to them, and so they can't believe these are main drivers of Western democracies.
I don't bear a single belief that the intervening has anything to do with the so called "humanitarian drive" of Western democracies. What has happened to me that got me thinking so ? Where were your humanitarian daddies when Srebrenitsa was hell on earth ?
Viking, for the nth time, "let them be" is my answer. Libyans know what's better for them, and actually even it's plain wrong, they reserve the right to be awfully so. That's how history is formed, and generally how true democracies are set up. You value something you fought for more than something you were imposed/carried to.
You may disagree but the blood spilt for something's sake deems it invaluable. If a victory is to be won and it needs sacrifices, let it be so for it will cement the meaning to it.
And where were your "humanitarian drive" when American legionnaires were killing for fun in Iraq ? What makes them less "Kaddafi", if that ever is your intent right now ?
I can get along with the reluctant-to-change fact that state policies may be wrong but intellectual people convinced of the humanitarian bleurgh behind it: that just "wow"s me.
gaelic cowboy
03-20-2011, 21:11
I don't bear a single belief that the intervening has anything to do with the so called "humanitarian drive" of Western democracies. What has happened to me that got me thinking so ? Where were your humanitarian daddies when Srebrenitsa was hell on earth ?
Viking, for the nth time, "let them be" is my answer. Libyans know what's better for them, and actually even it's plain wrong, they reserve the right to be awfully so. That's how history is formed, and generally how true democracies are set up. You value something you fought for more than something you were imposed/carried to.
You may disagree but the blood spilt for something's sake deems it invaluable. If a victory is to be won and it needs sacrifices, let it be so for it will cement the meaning to it.
And where were your "humanitarian drive" when American legionnaires were killing for fun in Iraq ? What makes them less "Kaddafi", if that ever is your intent right now ?
I can get along with the reluctant-to-change fact that state policies may be wrong but intellectual people convinced of the humanitarian bleurgh behind it: that just "wow"s me.
Hmm and so in order to prevent any loss of life due to the "WESTS" cynical intervention the people of Benghazi and other cites should suffer just like the people did in srberenica.
I mean if Europe and America were that cynical why not just buy oil off Saddam or Gadaffi.
Sarmatian
03-20-2011, 21:40
Hmm and so in order to prevent any loss of life due to the "WESTS" cynical intervention the people of Benghazi and other cites should suffer just like the people did in srberenica.
I mean if Europe and America were that cynical why not just buy oil off Saddam or Gadaffi.
Situation is not that dissimilar to the situation is Srebrenica, indeed. In Srebrenica, raiding parties were organized to rape, kill and pillage and then withdraw behind UN troops and here rebels tried to militarily wrestle control of the country and when they failed, they now hide behind UN, too.
Where was west when people suffered in Cambodia? No oil there=suffering of people not important.
gaelic cowboy
03-20-2011, 21:49
Situation is not that dissimilar to the situation is Srebrenica, indeed. In Srebrenica, raiding parties were organized to rape, kill and pillage and then withdraw behind UN troops and here rebels tried to militarily wrestle control of the country and when they failed, they now hide behind UN, too.
Where was west when people suffered in Cambodia? No oil there=suffering of people not important.
Where is Russia/China so then to back Gadaffi if he is so great, more to the point where was Russia and China when the people in Cambodia suffered too.
Basically you could go on all night with arguements like that, the reality Gadaffi is a brute and the sooner he is gone the better. I have no illusions about why anyone might intervene but to be honest to leave gadaffi in place now would be even worse, he will massacre those people and you know it to be true.
What if Irish terrorists bomb London. Should we attack (non-NATO member) the Irish Republic now? That's preposterous.
That's not the same, as the Irish state wasn't supporting the Irish terrorists. In Afghanistan, the government was actively aiding and protecting the terrorists. The act of giving official governmental aid transforms the terrorist action into a state-sponsored action.
ICantSpellDawg
03-20-2011, 22:24
Sure I will.
.
I knew you would, suckaaaa
"Turkey will make the national contribution it deems necessary and appropriate to the applications of UN resolutions 1970 and 1973, taking into account the security of the Libyan people.
To this end, preparations and works are under way in cooperation with our civilian and military structures." -Recep Tayyip Erdogan (http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=252395)
Welcome to the coalition! In fact, your leader has stated that the resolution is binding on all UN nations, so he may help get us even more assistance!
Karel de Stoute
03-21-2011, 01:30
I don't support khadaffi but today i feel sorry for him. He isn't the only dictator in the world who uses violence against his own people but he gets singled out(this arab revolution is the best thing that could have happened for mister Gbagbo of ivory coast, now nowbody gives a **** about his shenanigans) . I don't really know what the motives of the international coalition against khadaffi are but i guess his oilreserves and anti-western rhetorics have more to do with it than 'establishing democracy and protecting the people'. We don't even know what those libian rebels want, maybe after khadaffi, some other tribal leader is going to establish his dictatorship and if he is pro-western world everything will be fine. For the tirth time in the last decade a bunch of western powers are trying to interfer with internal politics in the islamic world by military intervention. i wonder why they acuse the west of imperialism in that region... but on the other hands, maybe the arabs just aren't mature enough to do it themselves.
Louis VI the Fat
03-21-2011, 02:00
I don't support khadaffi but today i feel sorry for him. And I feel verry sorry for Marc Dutroux. Millions of men rape young girls, why was he singled out? Sheer hypocricy by the police to close his cellar.
Tellos Athenaios
03-21-2011, 05:14
That's not the same, as the Irish state wasn't supporting the Irish terrorists. In Afghanistan, the government was actively aiding and protecting the terrorists. The act of giving official governmental aid transforms the terrorist action into a state-sponsored action.
There are terrorist groups backed/ignored/condoned by countries that the USA doesn't want to invade, or topple governments of. Pakistan springs to mind. So does half of the Middle & Near East, and while we're on the subject: how about Turkey? Afghanistan was chosen for a reason, but aiding terrorists can not be the sole reason. If you wanted to get rid of terrorists you would do better to eradicate the ISI than to waste your time in Afghanistan.
Incidentally, I suppose that the decision to come down hard on Saddam Hussein was partly inspired by the fact that he actively diverted funds from Iraq into well known terrorist organisations operating from the backyards of the broken down Palestinian Authorities.
Noncommunist
03-21-2011, 06:40
There are terrorist groups backed/ignored/condoned by countries that the USA doesn't want to invade, or topple governments of. Pakistan springs to mind. So does half of the Middle & Near East, and while we're on the subject: how about Turkey? Afghanistan was chosen for a reason, but aiding terrorists can not be the sole reason. If you wanted to get rid of terrorists you would do better to eradicate the ISI than to waste your time in Afghanistan.
I'd imagine that forcefully installing democracy into Pakistan would have been harder than installing it into Afghanistan. And with Pakistan, we could prop up Musharaff and have him help us out, something which I doubt we could have got from the Taliban.
Strike For The South
03-21-2011, 07:56
For the record I agree with LEN
These people will end up hating us more than Gaddafi
I'd rather them figure out civilzation on there own, it becomes tiresome being the bad guy
Viking, for the nth time, "let them be" is my answer. Libyans know what's better for them, and actually even it's plain wrong, they reserve the right to be awfully so. That's how history is formed, and generally how true democracies are set up. You value something you fought for more than something you were imposed/carried to.
You may disagree but the blood spilt for something's sake deems it invaluable. If a victory is to be won and it needs sacrifices, let it be so for it will cement the meaning to it.
Again, it is not your blood that is being spilt. It is not your children who dies. Not your family, not your relatives. Not your friends, not your contacts. It is not up to you to tell others which sacrifices they should make - go make your own sacrifices. It's easy to talk about heroic deeds and sacrifices when you are far away from the machinery and maiming of war; it does not impress.
The democracy that I come from was set up without a single drop of blood being shed. Yet, it is one of the more peaceful ones, internally, in the entire world. Other countries would tell you similar stories. Despite this, people here would fight for democracy. In fact, to such an extent that we are willing to fight for democracy in other natons - thus taking the step to participate in the operations over Libya.
The Libyans ask for democracy themselves - and fight for it. We do not lead them, we do not impose anything on them. It is their revolution, and they have already made great sacrifices for their defiance.
Louis VI the Fat
03-21-2011, 09:56
Once presented with the choice, Egyptians prefer democracy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/egypt-voters-yes-constitutional-change). Who'd have thought?
(Or, alternatively, Egyptians have been deceived by a Western ploy to steal their oil by dismantling the Egyptian secret police and its systematic torture. :balloon2:)
Partial referendum results from a third of Egypt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/egypt)'s provinces yesterday showed a massive turnout and a vote overwhelmingly in favour of constitutional changes to eliminate restrictions on political rights and civil liberties (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/18/egypt-constitution-vote-divisons).
According to results issued by judges at polling centres, 11 out of 29 provinces showed between 65% and 90% of voters were in favour of the changes.
Opponents feared the referendum's passage would allow the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/muslim-brotherhood) to win out over Egypt's dozens of new political parties in the forthcoming presidential and parliamentary vote.
The partial preliminary results also showed 70% turnout at many polling centres, a massive showing after decades of political apathy in response to repression.
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Everyone was in a state of pure shock with visions of dirty bombs and super soldier Taliban destroying the world it's not surprising they did.Well we all are in a shock right now too with visions of dirty Irish hedge funds and Irish supercapitalism destroying the European way of life, but I still don't support an invasion of Ireland.
Not, that is, unless you people fail to meet every single payment of our punitative reparations, erm, rescue package. These bombs look good on my tv screen, and I'm developing an appetite for them. About time we used our forces more in our diplomatic dealings with smaller nations. :stare:
I also understand the purely strategic and tactical reason for not being in NATO too.Would these purely strategic reasons have anything to do with Ireland's unwillingness to be a puppet fighting Britain's wars?
Louis VI the Fat
03-21-2011, 10:02
I don't bear a single belief that the intervening has anything to do with the so called "humanitarian drive" of Western democracies. What has happened to me that got me thinking so ? Where were your humanitarian daddies when Srebrenitsa was hell on earth ?Our forces, perhaps belatedly, were intervening on behalf of downtrodden Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo, neither of which has any oil or strategical value.
According to you, there was too little Western intervention in Srebrenica, which shows that the motives of the West are not humanitarian.
According to Sarmatian, there was too much Western intervention in Srebrenica, which shows that the motives of the West are not humanitarian.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :shrug:
Sarmatian
03-21-2011, 10:27
Our forces, perhaps belatedly, were intervening on behalf of downtrodden Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo, neither of which has any oil or strategical value.
Oil no, strategic value, yes. Also, that's Europe and that's different. 10 deaths in Europe is a "stop the presses" thing. A 1000 deaths in Africa is barely a footnote.
According to you, there was too little Western intervention in Srebrenica, which shows that the motives of the West are not humanitarian.
According to Sarmatian, there was too much Western intervention in Srebrenica, which shows that the motives of the West are not humanitarian.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :shrug:
No. In reality Srebrenica is just one crime in a conflict that had hundreds. The biggest single one, but still only one.
Could have Srebrenica been prevented if Americans didn't encourage Izetbegovic to reject the idea of a division of Bosnia earlier and then supposedly put pressure on all three sides to sign practically the exact same division in Dayton?
Could it be that there would be less casualties and refugees if NATO hadn't supported Tudjman in ethnic cleansing of Krajina?
Could it mean there would have been less lives lost if the West didn't meddle in the first place? Maybe, maybe not, we can't know that for sure now but at least your hands remain clean. Even if the rebels win in Libya and they are all for peace and democracy as they preach, that will forever be stained by the fact that western governments placed them in charge by military intervention and Libyan blood.
Louis VI the Fat
03-21-2011, 10:38
Even if the rebels win in Libya and they are all for peace and democracy as they preach, that will forever be stained by the fact that western governments placed them in charge by military intervention and Libyan blood.Why would a Libyan democracy be stained by this intervention ? Both the American first and the French fourth republic owe their existence to crucial foreign intervention. Quite happy about that. The German democracy was entirely imposed at gunpoint. Nobody complains about that.
The more important lesson from Yugoslavia is that we need to remember that the world is a cynical place. Idealism is inevitably abused.
In both Bosnia and Kosovo the difference between besieged civilians and hardcore expansionist Islamocriminals was unclear, and the end result was, especially in Kosovo, a state which is one third mafia, one third Idslamofascist, and one third the Eastern Congo. Common sense would've dictated we looked away while Serbia solved a problem that will plague Europe for an eternity to come. But we didn't, because we can't stand by while civilians are being crushed by a despot and his paramilitary hordes.
Likewise in Libya. One need have little illusion about the continued support of the Arab League (already gone), or about the dirtyness of the business of war, or about the nature of the rebels. Libya will be a hellhole whatever the outcome. Despite that, we can't stand by while civilians are being crushed by a despot and his pan-African mercenaries.
Sarmatian
03-21-2011, 11:12
Why would a Libyan democracy be stained by this intervention ? Both the American first and the French fourth republic owe their existence to crucial foreign intervention. Quite happy about that. The German democracy was entirely imposed at gunpoint. Nobody complains about that.
Because that's quite different from old colonial masters coming back to have another go at replacing the leaders they don't like and installing ones they do like to allow their companies preferential position. There's also the fact that western nations treat each other differently, even at poorest relations. There's a reason why German occupation of France was different than German occupation of Yugoslavia. Or occupation of Netherlands to occupation of Poland, or occupation of Denmark to occupation of Russia, or occupation of Belgium to occupation of Greece.
The more important lesson from Yugoslavia is that we need to remember that the world is a cynical place. Idealism is inevitably abused.
In both Bosnia and Kosovo the difference between besieged civilians and hardcore expansionist Islamocriminals was unclear, and the end result was, especially in Kosovo, a state which is one third mafia, one third Idslamofascist, and one third the Eastern Congo. Common sense would've dictated we looked away while Serbia solved a problem that will plague Europe for an eternity to come. But we didn't, because we can't stand by while civilians are being crushed by a despot and his paramilitary hordes.
Likewise in Libya. One need have little illusion about the continued support of the Arab League (already gone), or about the dirtyness of the business of war, or about the nature of the rebels. Libya will be a hellhole whatever the outcome. Despite that, we can't stand by while civilians are being crushed by a despot and his pan-African mercenaries.
Too much off-topic... must resist... the dark side is strong here... Seriously, you know I'd relish the chance to respond to this but it will take us too much off the tracks here...
But, to comment on the first sentence here, I don't mind abused idealism. I just don't think that intervention in Libya *or Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo before) has much to do with idealism.
Likewise in Libya. One need have little illusion about the continued support of the Arab League (already gone), or about the dirtyness of the business of war, or about the nature of the rebels. Libya will be a hellhole whatever the outcome. Despite that, we can't stand by while civilians are being crushed by a despot and his pan-African mercenaries.
Uh, we'll see.
How awesome all this let's burn the entire Arab world, for the civilians. It isn't like we are really desperate for a jolly good war.
WTH. Is there a genocide going on? Nah. In Sudan, yes. If we HAVE to something out of nothing but compassion bomb things in Sudan. The guy is a mad dog like most arab leaders but what did he ever do to us, yeahyeah Lockerbie get over it
WTH. Is there a genocide going on? Nah.
So, your basic contention is that we should only intervene after genocide starts, not before?
edyzmedieval
03-21-2011, 14:31
According to Mr. Putin, the Libya attacks are a Crusade - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110321/ts_nm/us_libya
Banquo's Ghost
03-21-2011, 14:36
Once presented with the choice, Egyptians prefer democracy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/egypt-voters-yes-constitutional-change). Who'd have thought?
(Or, alternatively, Egyptians have been deceived by a Western ploy to steal their oil by dismantling the Egyptian secret police and its systematic torture. :balloon2:)
[CENTER]~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Bear in mind that Egypt had a pretty solid and professional civic society underneath which is now being called on. Both the judiciary and the military had and maintained a degree of respect through the revolution. The police however, are no so widely hated that few turn up for work.
Libya, by contrast, is a tribal society where all civic institutions have been removed by the dictator.
Would these purely strategic reasons have anything to do with Ireland's unwillingness to be a puppet fighting Britain's wars?
Partly. The Republic's stance on neutrality is complex but largely formed by our historical relationship with Britain. It is also the subject of quite energised debate (this is a good paper on the subject for the interested (http://www.raco.ie/attachments/068_1_2_irishneutrality.pdf)). For example, we were just as afraid of alliances with other countries which may have provoked Britain. Solution: garb the fence with both hands and sit firmly upon it.
I think Ireland has a great part to play in international affairs based on this "pragmatic" rather than "principled" neutrality. Our military has been very useful as non-threatening intermediaries and aid providers. We have an "underdog" history and tradition that many fractured nations find both comforting and non-threatening. Given the long list of countries that want to prove themselves well-endowed through the wanton murder of entirely unconnected civilians, the Republic can play a small part as a non-belligerent.
On the subject of Libya and debt, I am glad to see that the UK has been so successful at paying off the banking crisis loans, that they can happily spend millions of pounds on flying explosives. Good to know that public services are no longer affected and that the elderly, vulnerable and poor of the United Kingdom are no longer facing cuts because the country has so much surplus money they can afford to throw it away on filling some corners of a foreign field with the elderly, vulnerable and poor of that nation. Once the West has enraged enough people on both sides of the civil war by killing their children and grandmothers, the new Islamist state thus created can provide us with a whole new chapter of the War on Terror (which was in danger of going stale for a moment there).
Sarmatian
03-21-2011, 15:00
Libya, by contrast, is a tribal society where all civic institutions have been removed by the dictator.
They weren't removed, they weren't there in the first place, unless you consider colonial apparatus as proper civic institutions. Libya used to be a tribal society before Gadaffi but now 86% of the population is urban and civic institutions now, lacking as they may be, are much better than pre-Gaddafi. Libya also has the highest HDI index in Africa (not far behind Portugal and Poland, for comparison purposes), one of the highest GDP's per capita in Africa, had 10% GDP growth in 2010 etc...
Good to know it will all be blown to smithereens now...
gaelic cowboy
03-21-2011, 15:25
Would these purely strategic reasons have anything to do with Ireland's unwillingness to be a puppet fighting Britain's wars?
To some extent but mainly as a means to ensure the stability of the Republic certain groups could use the public outrage to topple the government.
Also the last of the Civil War generation are either very old or passed away by now, they would have never allowed Ireland to join a defence alliance with Britain not after fighting an independence war and a civil war over the very same.
Noncommunist
03-21-2011, 19:06
Because that's quite different from old colonial masters coming back to have another go at replacing the leaders they don't like and installing ones they do like to allow their companies preferential position. There's also the fact that western nations treat each other differently, even at poorest relations. There's a reason why German occupation of France was different than German occupation of Yugoslavia. Or occupation of Netherlands to occupation of Poland, or occupation of Denmark to occupation of Russia, or occupation of Belgium to occupation of Greece.
But the British/French occupation was only 8 years from when they captured it from the Italians till the time the king took over. Hardly old imperial masters.
These people will end up hating us more than Gaddafi
I'd rather them figure out civilzation on there own, it becomes tiresome being the bad guy
Figure out civilization? They've been part of civilizations and empires while Britain was occupied by a bunch of celtic chiefdoms let alone America which was occupied by hunter gatherers only beginning to learn cultivation and agriculture.
They weren't removed, they weren't there in the first place, unless you consider colonial apparatus as proper civic institutions. Libya used to be a tribal society before Gadaffi but now 86% of the population is urban and civic institutions now, lacking as they may be, are much better than pre-Gaddafi. Libya also has the highest HDI index in Africa (not far behind Portugal and Poland, for comparison purposes), one of the highest GDP's per capita in Africa, had 10% GDP growth in 2010 etc...
Good to know it will all be blown to smithereens now...
They'd be blown to smithereens anyways.
Supposedly, Khamis Gadaffi has been assassinated.
Anyway, so this Libyan rebel leader, ex-Gadaffi minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil, he seems pretty friendly to the house of Saud. I can almost see where this is going... we might see Saudi security forces in Libya soon. Probably as soon as they get back from all that shooting of unarmed protesters in Bahrain. The empire expands.
HoreTore
03-21-2011, 20:22
According to Mr. Putin, the Libya attacks are a Crusade - http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110321/ts_nm/us_libya
No shock there, Putin has a passionate hatred towards all people who rise up against tyranny.
HoreTore
03-21-2011, 20:24
They weren't removed, they weren't there in the first place, unless you consider colonial apparatus as proper civic institutions. Libya used to be a tribal society before Gadaffi but now 86% of the population is urban and civic institutions now, lacking as they may be, are much better than pre-Gaddafi. Libya also has the highest HDI index in Africa (not far behind Portugal and Poland, for comparison purposes), one of the highest GDP's per capita in Africa, had 10% GDP growth in 2010 etc...
Good to know it will all be blown to smithereens now...
Yes, that was the same excuse people used to justify the sadism of Pinochet's regime.
Good to see that you're using the same rethoric as the hawks in washington has used, Sarmatian...
They weren't removed, they weren't there in the first place, unless you consider colonial apparatus as proper civic institutions. Libya used to be a tribal society before Gadaffi but now 86% of the population is urban and civic institutions now, lacking as they may be, are much better than pre-Gaddafi. Libya also has the highest HDI index in Africa (not far behind Portugal and Poland, for comparison purposes), one of the highest GDP's per capita in Africa, had 10% GDP growth in 2010 etc...
Good to know it will all be blown to smithereens now...
I'd like to think that Gadaffi was not the one who found oil in Libya in 1959 to sponsor all that impressive financial growth.
Sarmatian
03-21-2011, 23:02
Yes, that was the same excuse people used to justify the sadism of Pinochet's regime.
I'm not trying to justify anything, I just wanna put stuff in perspective, namely that Libya isn't a backwater third world country where population is held in poverty because of will of the dictator. Libya is one of the most advanced African country, on par or even ahead of some EU members.
If could could be sure that rebel government is indeed democratic and that the west isn't in this because of its own interest, I'd be all for it, but those are two really big ifs for me.
Good to see that you're using the same rethoric as the hawks in washington has used, Sarmatian...
? I don't get you...
ICantSpellDawg
03-21-2011, 23:30
Another argument between the people who would do nothing versus the people who need to do something.
I'm just not really sure what we're hoping to accomplish in Libya....
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-22-2011, 03:00
I'm just not really sure what we're hoping to accomplish in Libya....
We're field-testing the Eurofighter, duh.
ICantSpellDawg
03-22-2011, 03:20
We're field-testing the Eurofighter, duh.
I think that this might not be too far from the truth in a small, cynical way. The Dassault Rafale has received no international buyers since its release - this is a showcase of its cool factor. The Eurofighter as well, even though that has been pretty popular.
Banquo - good article on Irish neutrality. You are starting to see the "neutrality" of nations like Sweden and Switzerland crumble. Hopefully you will join us, not only in action, but in name as well in the near future.
PanzerJaeger
03-22-2011, 03:56
I'm just not really sure what we're hoping to accomplish in Libya....
Apparently not regime change (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/21/us-gen-carter-ham-libya-operations-limited-to-protecting-civil/)...
WASHINGTON -- There is no plan to dislodge the Libyan government or directly help opposition forces, a senior U.S. military official told reporters this afternoon, even as coalition forces move to expand a no-fly zone over Libya.
"We protect civilians," Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, told reporters at the Pentagon via satellite from the command's headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. "We do not have a mission to support the opposition."
...so years of enforcing a costly no-fly zone over a failed state a la Iraq in the '90s?
Apparently not regime change (http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/21/us-gen-carter-ham-libya-operations-limited-to-protecting-civil/)...
...so years of enforcing a costly no-fly zone over a failed state a la Iraq in the '90s?That's just it. If we're not picking sides and don't support regime change... what are we doing? Is the mission to maintain a continuous state of civil war in Libya? I don't get it.
Noncommunist
03-22-2011, 06:08
That's just it. If we're not picking sides and don't support regime change... what are we doing? Is the mission to maintain a continuous state of civil war in Libya? I don't get it.
I think we're planning on just defending any civilians we can.
Major Robert Dump
03-22-2011, 07:49
Defending civilians with airstrikes and missles is a really good way to kill the civilians you are defending. Boots on ground is how you defend civilians. Have we learned nothing of the last 20 years?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.