Search forums

Forums

Export thread

The Fall of Libya

Feb 21, 2011#1

Iaculus

So the collapse of the Egyptian government wasn't an isolated incident - things have been getting pretty crazy in Libya, too.

Let's make a list, shall we?

The Libyan Air Force have started bombing protesters.
Foreign mercenaries have been brought in for (lethal) crowd-control.
The country's entire UN delegation have spoken out against Gaddafi and requested immediate UN intervention to prevent 'genocide'.
Gaddafi himself is rumoured to have fled to Venezuela, and even if he hasn't, a good number of high-profile folks from the Libyan government certainly have.
The president's son has stated the government's intent to fight to 'the last bullet'.
Most of the country is now considered to be no longer under Gaddafi's control.
Gaddafi is rumoured to have ordered airstrikes on his own army bases in order to deny protesters military materiel.
EU citizens are being shuttled out of the country.
The UK has 'ambitious plans' for assistance to Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia, according to Foreign Secretary William Hague.
Italy has placed its airbases on maximum alert. No prizes for guessing why.
The US is requesting that any citizens currently in Libya either get the hell out of there or seek shelter and bunker down if that's not an option.
Nine staff-members of the Libyan embassy in London have joined the protests outside the building.
Fighting has broken out west of Tripoli between Gaddafi loyalists and the regular military.
Two Libyan Air Force jets have landed in Malta, their pilots having defected after being ordered to bomb civilians.

Interesting times, folks. Interesting times.

Feb 21, 2011#2

strawman

Wars and rumors of wars, eh?

I have to admit I'm not doing much this :aaah:

and am instead tending towards :popcorn:

.

On the other hand, a number of URL shorteners and useful services have used the ly tld for services I use (bit.ly, post.ly, etc).

On the other other hand, I have to admit that the possible injuries I may suffer pale in comparison to what the people in that area are going through.

Feb 21, 2011#3

Iaculus

I think that Apache gunships firing on protest marches warrants a little bit of

Feb 21, 2011#4

GasBandit

You mean Gaddafi's Bootylicious Bodyguard Babe Brigade wasn't enough to protect him?

Feb 21, 2011#5

Espy

GasBandit said:
You mean Gaddafi's Bootylicious Bodyguard Babe Brigade wasn't enough to protect him?

Well they sound like they should be perfectly capable.

Feb 21, 2011#6

strawman

Iaculus said:
I think that Apache gunships firing on protest marches warrants a little bit of .

Unless they were firing explosive munitions, they aren't as "effective" as a group of security soldiers firing automatic weapons at demonstrators. A 50mm round from a helicopter gunship is devastating, but only to those (few) things it actually hits. I point this out only because it's easy to assume helicopter gunship is always more excessive force than troops.

There are six million people in libya - a fraction of the number of people living in Michigan, but Michigan is 1/7 the size of libya. I didn't see how many demonstrators there were last week, but there were reports of fewer than 100 dead. More dead after the funeral demonstrations.

Feb 21, 2011#7

@Li3n

Iaculus said:
So the collapse of the Egyptian government wasn't an isolated incident - things have been getting pretty crazy in Libya, too.

What, you haven't heard about Bahrain?

It's pretty incredible what one tunisian setting himself on fire can lead to.

Feb 21, 2011#8

@Li3n

Uh, relevant:

Feb 21, 2011#9

Dave

A couple of fighter pilots were ordered to bomb protesters. Instead they flew to Malta & defected, telling their stories. Several helicopters have also made the trip and there's rumors of mass defections by military folks.

I worry about these areas, though. With a vacuum of power there's surely someone there who wants to step in and fill it.

Feb 21, 2011#10

@Li3n

And apparently some soldiers where killed by their commanders when they refused to fire on the protesters: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12523669

Oh, and the OP already mentioned the fighter jets.

Feb 21, 2011#11

strawman

Cue America, World's Police.

Feb 21, 2011#12

@Li3n

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
Cue America, World's Oil Police.

Feb 21, 2011#13

Dave

@Li3n said:
Oh, and the OP already mentioned the fighter jets.

Sorry. I missed that. Been reading a lot about this and the stuff is kinda blurring together.

Feb 22, 2011#14

TheBrew

This is all pretty intense stuff. I hope that it starts to get better and not worse.

Feb 22, 2011#15

sixpackshaker

This could get an Euro intervention. I don't think the #1 source of oil to Europe going nuts will have the EU standing around wringing their hands like they did in Sudan and Rwanda.

Feb 22, 2011#16

strawman

On one hand, it's sad that nations only get help if they have interesting resources.

On the other hand, it's sad that nations with enviable resources are practically invaded by their "helpers" the instant they show signs of instability.

Feb 22, 2011#17

Dave

Gadhafi says he'll never give up and will die a martyr. I say we grant his wish.

Feb 22, 2011#18

sixpackshaker

Dave said:
Gadhafi says he'll never give up and will die a martyr. I say we grant his wish.

If he kills any Exxon (or whoever is there now) Employees we might...

Feb 22, 2011#19

Necronic

Dave said:
Gadhafi says he'll never give up and will die a martyr. I say we grant his wish.

I've got just the man for the job,
ZOMBI REAGAN

Doesn't seem like bombing his ass was such a bad idea now does it? Not that it seemed like a bad idea then. Or in the 90s. Or in the bush administration.
Added at: 23:53
omg why is it so hard to link images now

Feb 22, 2011#20

AshburnerX

Just hit the insert image button on the toolbar. It's not hard, but it does take some getting used to.

Feb 22, 2011#21

Necronic

fixed it. Not a fan of that. I mean really, was typing

Feb 24, 2011#22

@Li3n

And shit just got real:
In the eastern city of Benghazi, residents have been queuing to be issued with guns looted from the army and police in order to join what they are calling the battle for Tripoli.

Looks like civil war it is then.

Feb 24, 2011#23

AshburnerX

Wow... this will not end well.

Feb 24, 2011#24

sixpackshaker

The danger for the citizens traveling to Tripoli to fight, is that they are going to be crossing 100's of miles of open country. Just one loyal fighter/helicopter pilot can make that a really messy scene. Just check the '91 Gulf War Highway of Death images.

Feb 24, 2011#25

SpecialKO

We (and the UN) may be getting involved.

Feb 24, 2011#26

sixpackshaker

I'd rather we do not put boots on the ground, ourselves and Italy should deny airspace to the Libyan military though. If anyone puts boots on the ground it should be the Brits, Italians, EU in general, the UN, or the the Arab League.

Feb 24, 2011#27

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
I'd rather we do not put boots on the ground, ourselves and Italy should deny airspace to the Libyan military though. If anyone puts boots on the ground it should be the Brits, Italians, EU in general, the UN, or the the Arab League.

I have to agree. Given the current state of geopolitics, it should not be us on the ground. Much as we might wish it otherwise, a US ground force might onnly contribute to the regional instability and hurt us in other diplomatic efforts.

A carrier group offshore handling logistics, containment, critical medical supplies, and providing support to a sanctioned international ground force, on the other hand, I would be okay with.

Feb 24, 2011#28

TommiR

I'm not sure that will come to pass, at least not as far as EU countries are concerned. Trade sanctions, perhaps. Peacekeepers to monitor the situation, sure. But I don't see the leaders of EU countries having the political will to send in an actively interventionist force to interfere in what, at present, is seen as an internal libyan matter. And I think the situation needs to get a lot worse before the UN will contemplate sanctioning an intervention on humanitarian grounds; nobody is going to send anybody anywhere over a few hundred dead.

Here is a statement from the UN Security Council on the libyan affair. I am told it is strongly worded.

The members of the Security Council were briefed on the situation in Libya by B. Lynn Pascoe, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, and the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, whose Mission had requested a meeting of the Security Council.

The members of the Security Council welcomed the statement issued by the League of Arab States on 22 February 2011.

The members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the situation in Libya. They condemned the violence and use of force against civilians, deplored the repression against peaceful demonstrators, and expressed deep regret at the deaths of hundreds of civilians. They called for an immediate end to the violence and for steps to address the legitimate demands of the population, including through national dialogue.

The members of the Security Council called on the Government of Libya to meet its responsibility to protect its population. They called upon the Libyan authorities to act with restraint, to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, and to allow immediate access for international human rights monitors and humanitarian agencies.

The members of the Security Council called for international humanitarian assistance to the people of Libya and expressed concern at the reports of shortages of medical supplies to treat the wounded. They strongly urged the Libyan authorities to ensure the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies and humanitarian workers into the country.

The members of the Security Council underlined the need for the Government of Libya to respect the freedom of peaceful assembly and of expression, including freedom of the press. They called for the immediate lifting of restrictions on all forms of the media.

The members of the Security Council stressed the importance of accountability. They underscored the need to hold to account those responsible for attacks, including by forces under their control, on civilians.

The members of the Security Council expressed deep concern about the safety of foreign nationals in Libya. They urged the Libyan authorities and all relevant parties to ensure the safety of all foreign nationals and facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country.

The members of the Security Council will continue to follow the situation closely.

I am UN, hear me roar!

Feb 24, 2011#29

Dave

Stop or we'll say stop again!

Feb 25, 2011#30

@Li3n

They where all wrong, Obama isn't a secret muslim born in another country... he's a Geth.

TommiR said:
I am UN, hear me roar!

Well at least they're better then the League of Nations.

Feb 25, 2011#31

Espy

TommiR said:
I'm not sure that will come to pass, at least not as far as EU countries are concerned. Trade sanctions, perhaps. Peacekeepers to monitor the situation, sure. But I don't see the leaders of EU countries having the political will to send in an actively interventionist force to interfere in what, at present, is seen as an internal libyan matter. And I think the situation needs to get a lot worse before the UN will contemplate sanctioning an intervention on humanitarian grounds; nobody is going to send anybody anywhere over a few hundred dead.

Here is a statement from the UN Security Council on the libyan affair. I am told it is strongly worded.

I am UN, hear me roar!

I hear the UN is so pissed it forgot to be super corrupt for a few minutes.

Feb 25, 2011#32

Iaculus

Having done some work on several model UNs in the past, I think we need to understand that everything they say is done in the vaguest, circuitous, and most agonisingly polite manner humanly imaginable. That's why I think we need a UN=>English translator here - 'expressed grave concern' could well mean anything from 'not our problem, guys' to 'fuck this, we're launching the nukes'.

Mar 18, 2011#33

TommiR

Looks like the no-fly zone in Libya just got UN authorisation, with the vote 10 in favor, 5 abstaining (such as Russia and China, but also Germany).

Apparently the idea of Gaddafi retaining power is more unacceptable than I had thought. Things were beginning to go his way, but, although he still retains a great superiority in tanks and heavy artillery, I'm guessing him winning is now out of the question. I hope air power alone is enough to prevent that, and ground forces won't be needed - after the no-fly zone comes into effect, I guess we are committed to his removal. Gaddafi still winning after all this would be, in my opinion, just about the worst possible outcome.

The text of the UN resolution 1973/2011.

Mar 18, 2011#34

Dave

Less than 12 hours later...?

Libyan government declares a cease fire.

Mar 19, 2011#35

@Li3n

And it was a lie: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12793919

Mar 19, 2011#36

Dave

Man, when you can't trust the word of Gaddafi, whose can you trust?

Mar 19, 2011#37

Krisken

I hear the French are enforcing the no-fly rule currently.

Mar 19, 2011#38

Dave

And now the US is flinging ordinance around.

Mar 19, 2011#39

sixpackshaker

The hell? The French taking the lead in a military action?

Well, when it is their oil getting cut off....

Mar 19, 2011#40

DarkAudit

Drop a dozen or so tomahawks into the "Presidential compound" and this can be over in ten minutes.

Mar 19, 2011#41

sixpackshaker

I doubt he has broken a 30+ year habit of never sleeping in the same location twice in a row. He's hard to hit. You would have to take out dozens or residences.

Mar 19, 2011#42

DarkAudit

sixpackshaker said:
I doubt he has broken a 30+ year habit of never sleeping in the same location twice in a row. He's hard to hit. You would have to take out dozens or residences.

Still, it sends the message even if we don't take him out with that strike...

Mar 19, 2011#43

sixpackshaker

Like when Regan killed his daughter. I kept Qaddafi off our radar for a few decades.

Mar 20, 2011#44

TommiR

The Arab League has critisized the bombing of pro-Gaddafi targets in Libya:

Arab League chief Amr Moussa called for an emergency meeting of the group of 22 states to discuss Libya. He requested a report into the bombardment which he said had "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians."

"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," Egypt's official state news agency quoted Moussa as saying.

Arab backing for a no-fly zone provided crucial underpinning for the passage of the U.N. Security Council resolution last week that paved the way for Western action to stop Gaddafi killing civilians as he fights an uprising against his rule.

The intervention is the biggest against an Arab country since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Withdrawal of Arab support would make it much harder to pursue what some defense analysts say could in any case be a difficult, open-ended campaign with an uncertain outcome.

A senior U.S. official rebuffed Moussa's comments.

"The resolution endorsed by Arabs and UNSC (the United Nations Security Council) included 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians, which we made very clear includes, but goes beyond, a no-fly zone," the official told Reuters during a visit by President Barack Obama to Rio de Janeiro.

This is odd, considering the support they gave the no-fly zone to begin with. Is this simply token critisism for the benefit of arab domestic concerns, a legitimate call for more target discrimination (apparently a few dual-use targets were bombed), or did the arabs really think the no-fly zone would be the extent of involvement in Libya?

Mar 20, 2011#45

Tress

mr_thehun said:
Seriously, WTF are any non Libyans getting involved in this.

They're concerned about Gaddafi committing atrocities once he recaptures rebel strongholds. Or should the rest of the world just stand by and let that happen?

Mar 20, 2011#46

TommiR

mr_thehun said:
Seriously, WTF are any non Libyans getting involved in this.

My sentiments exactly. I'd have preferred it had they (France and Britain) just kept out, as getting involved in an open-ended operation in somebody else's civil war can be quite risky, and the payoff uncertain. The EU has had good trade relations with Libya, and Gaddafi's administration has co-operated in cracking down on illegal immigration into the EU - Libya is a major transit point in that regard. I feel the EU would have been better off sitting this one out, and Sarkozy, Cameron and Barroso keeping their mouths shut or at least toning it down a bit.

As it stands, the option of not getting involved has expired. I feel little choice in the matter remains other than to topple Gaddafi.

Tress said:
They're concerned about Gaddafi committing atrocities once he recaptures rebel strongholds. Or should the rest of the world just stand by and let that happen?

And if the rebels win, what assurances do you feel exist that they will form a democracy and stabilise the country? You can kick out the shah, but that doesn't mean the ayatollah who follows will be an improvement.

Mar 20, 2011#47

Tress

TommiR said:
And if the rebels win, what assurances do you feel exist that they will form a democracy and stabilise the country? You can kick out the shah, but that doesn't mean the ayatollah who follows will be an improvement.

I don't have any, but I'm not naïve enough think that I can't act without a 100% guarantee of success. It's risky, I'll concede that. But trying and failing is always better than doing nothing when you know there's a problem.

Mar 20, 2011#48

AshburnerX

I'm more concerned that the US/EU is going to try to arm the rebels so they'll have a better chance to win. I really, REALLY don't want us to have to come back in another 20-30 years and try to fight off guys using guns we originally gave them.

AGAIN.

Mar 20, 2011#49

Tress

AshburnerX said:
I'm more concerned that the US/EU is going to try to arm the rebels so they'll have a better chance to win. I really, REALLY don't want us to have to come back in another 20-30 years and try to fight off guys using guns we originally gave them.

AGAIN.

This is true. I just want to enforce a no-fly zone and monitor for any kind of human rights violations. Beyond that we should just sit back.

Mar 21, 2011#50

TommiR

Tress said:
I don't have any, but I'm not naïve enough think that I can't act without a 100% guarantee of success. It's risky, I'll concede that. But trying and failing is always better than doing nothing when you know there's a problem.

I may actually be able to provide one. Apparently, the National Libyan Council has proclaimed a strong stance against arbitrary arrests, which is a good sign and is being hailed as such by some human rights organisations. Of course, such proclamations can easily be a propaganda stunt, and the composition and support base of the NLC (apparently consisting of disaffected officials and military personnel, tribal leaders, islamists, some genuine democrats) make the odds for democracy seem shaky at best and quite dependent on how the post-fighting phase is handled. Still, it's better than nothing.

Tress said:
I just want to enforce a no-fly zone and monitor for any kind of human rights violations. Beyond that we should just sit back.

While I agree with the sentiment, I suspect the goals of the air campaign go further than that. I feel the ousting of Gaddafi is and should be a priority. Given his superiority in ground assets, a simple no-fly zone is not likely to accomplish that.

AshburnerX said:
I'm more concerned that the US/EU is going to try to arm the rebels so they'll have a better chance to win. I really, REALLY don't want us to have to come back in another 20-30 years and try to fight off guys using guns we originally gave them.

AGAIN.

If air power proves insufficient to get the job done, I actually think arming the opposition might be a potential course of action, and likely much more preferable to sending in conventional ground forces or scrapping the campaign entirely. What you say is true, however Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, and 85% of it's exports of crude are gobbled up by the EU. If they will prove a problem in a few decades, it can easily be with the weapons we are going to sell them in the future. Of course, with the latter option the arms manufacturers stand to make some money out of it, which is good for the economy

Mar 21, 2011#51

SpecialKO

To make matters more complicated, why aren't the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi air forces front and center for the no-fly zone/targeted strikes? They all have them, mostly trained by us, and should be able to contribute a squadron or two...

The no-fly zone already leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and the way that there's all this talk of "unity" and "international cooperation" but the Arab League countries seem content to sit on the sidelines and armchair fight sours it even further.

If the US was mostly handling logistics and intelligence while other countries performed the strikes, I'd feel much more comfortable about this whole endeavor, if not really actually comfortable.

Mar 21, 2011#52

sixpackshaker

The other Air Forces are not front and center because they don't do it as well as the "West."

Mar 21, 2011#53

@Li3n

Someone needs to give the old lady a medal once it's all over:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12803282

An old woman, in her late 70s at least, I'm told, entered the bank to collect her 500 Libyan dollars ($410; £253) in state aid announced a couple of weeks ago.
There were two long queues - one for men and one for women. She stood in the men's queue.
The men urged her to move to the women's section. "Why?" she challenged.
A man told her: "Ya haja [a term of respect for an elderly woman] this line is for men, women is the other one".
She loudly replied: "No. All the men are in Benghazi."
The room is said to have been stunned into silence and she remained in her place until her turn came and she walked out with her money.

Mar 21, 2011#54

Dave

You all know me as being a left-leaning, pro-Obama guy...How the FUCK does a no-fly zone blast apart a Gaddafi compound?

Seriously, I can see the Arab League getting up in arms about this as Obama is starting to become "WII - The Return of the Dubya". I have many, many, MANY doubts about this action and feel it's unnecessary and damaging to the interests of the US. Why are we getting involved in a civil war? Why are we taking sides? Any reason other than oil? What about Bahrain, Yemen, Rwanda, etc. etc. etc.? Hell, we didn't do anything about Egypt - which we shouldn't have.

We need to stop what we are doing in the Middle East.

Mar 21, 2011#55

SpecialKO

sixpackshaker said:
The other Air Forces are not front and center because they don't do it as well as the "West."

If the actual powers in the Middle East aren't willing to get involved besides shaking their fingers admonishingly, we shouldn't be there.

Mar 21, 2011#56

sixpackshaker

The "powers" of the middle east are too far away to affect Libya. Italy and France are right there. The US and UK have the ability to attack from the sea.

Saudi Arabia is putting down its own little uprising, also it would have to violate the the Airspace of Isreal and Egypt to get involved, and cover huge amounts of distance. In reality the other nations do not have the ability to project power. They will have minor league Air Forces that are mainly a defensive tool. Unless you want to see S.A. or Iran with an aircraft carrier and all the naval ships it would take to support and defend it when it is out to sea.

Mar 21, 2011#57

SpecialKO

Then, I say again, we should not be there.

Mar 21, 2011#58

sixpackshaker

Dave said:
You all know me as being a left-leaning, pro-Obama guy...How the FUCK does a no-fly zone blast apart a Gaddafi compound?

Because the command and control is routed through that old bombed out building they keep showing on the news. Now it is even more bombed out.

Mar 21, 2011#59

Dave

sixpackshaker said:
Because the command and control is routed through that old bombed out building they keep showing on the news. Now it is even more bombed out.

So "no fly zone" means "we'll blow up your command centers" instead of "we'll shoot down planes in the air?

Huh.

Mar 21, 2011#60

sixpackshaker

We can not put our planes into their airspace if their air defenses are left alone.

Their missile defenses are quite dangerous.

Mar 21, 2011#61

Dave

sixpackshaker said:
We can not put our planes into their airspace if their air defenses are left alone.

Their missile defenses are quite dangerous.

Also the excuse to bomb their personnel convoys and tanks.

This is a bad idea with poor execution. Unless they were fired on by AA missiles, we should not attack ground targets. Now, if we HAVE been fired on I can see it, but I have not heard that we were.

Mar 21, 2011#62

sixpackshaker

You don't take the chance to let their AA take you out. You suppress first then you can do the no fly zone.

I don't know where we got the mandate to stop that column from going into a civilian held town. But at least there are a few more women and children alive today because of it.

Don't forget what Qaddafi is capable of. The airports throughout Europe better be ready to stop his special forces from blowing up more planes. The police also need to watch for their special forces blowing up more Discos.

Mar 21, 2011#63

Shakey

The UN resolution didn't just call for a no fly zone. It also authorizes the use of force for the protection of civilians, excluding a ground invasion.

Protection of civilians:
4. Authorises member states that have notified the secretary-general, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in co-operation with the secretary-general, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the member states concerned to inform the secretary-general immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

Mar 21, 2011#64

GasBandit

I'm sure I'd be remiss in my forum duties if I pointed out how completely and utterly apeshit the media and the left would be going if it was a president of any party other than Democrat who was presiding over this situation. And god help us all if this had happened under Dubya's watch.

Mar 21, 2011#65

sixpackshaker

Just like Iraq, Somalia, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada...

No the mainstream press falls inline every time.

Mar 21, 2011#66

SpecialKO

Yeah, weak one, GB.

Mar 21, 2011#67

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Just like Iraq, Somalia, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada...

No the mainstream press falls inline every time.

Until 2006, we had repeated daily trumpetings of casualty numbers and incessant media acrimony. It dropped off a little after the republicans took the shellacking that lost them congress and the senate, and then went completely mute after Obama was elected.

Previously, Clinton was happily enacting regime change at will in east europe with the enthusiastic backing of his media vassals.

If Dubya had taken us into Libya while Afghanistan and Iraq were still ongoing, DC would practically be in flames.

Mar 21, 2011#68

sixpackshaker

Luckily we are out of combat operations in Iraq. But this is a different part of our military operation at work here. If we invaded, yes there would be fall out.

I need to watch some Fox News to see how the Hawks are handling the news that a Democrat is helping the UN save civilian lives.

Mar 21, 2011#69

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
Luckily we are out of combat operations in Iraq. But this is a different part of our military operation at work here. If we invaded, yes there would be fall out.

I need to watch some Fox News to see how the Hawks are handling the news that a Democrat is helping the UN save civilian lives.

So far the talking heads I've heard sound like they did back during Bosnia - Slightly conflicted but conditionally supportive.... with a few dashes of "why the hell did we take so long to make up our minds about this." They've got to get their digs in somewhere, after all.
Added at: 15:04
Well, I may have to eat my words... Kucinich wants impeachment proceedings.

Mar 21, 2011#70

Tress

Kucinich wants to impeach every president, every time. Thankfully everyone ignores the little prat.

Mar 21, 2011#71

sixpackshaker

Tress said:
Kucinich wants to impeach every president, every time. Thankfully everyone ignores the little prat.

He's likely ignored by his smoking-hot wife.

Mar 21, 2011#72

strawman

I think many people misunderstand what a no-fly zone means.

It doesn't mean "we shoot down anything you fly"

It means, "We own your airspace and anything/everything you can possibly put in your airspace."

It is just millimeters short of declaring war and sending in ground troops.

The UN mandate is not just a pretty piece of paper that says, "Don't fly around". It's a declaration that we are actively participating in a forceful suppression of a government's military actions.

Mar 21, 2011#73

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
He's likely ignored by his smoking-hot wife.

Seeing them together, makes my head explode. She's a tall slender redheaded blue-eyed vision of splendor... and he looks like a Gnomeregan refugee. How... what....

Mar 21, 2011#74

strawman

At least she's with someone that doesn't compare people to video game characters... ;-D

Mar 21, 2011#75

sixpackshaker

Power is the greatest aphrodisiac. - Kissinger

$1,000,000 to be my beard. - Kucinich

Mar 21, 2011#76

North_Ranger

GasBandit said:
Seeing them together, makes my head explode. She's a tall slender redheaded blue-eyed vision of splendor... and he looks like a Gnomeregan refugee. How... what....

Maybe he's a tripod?

Mar 21, 2011#77

GasBandit

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
At least she's with someone that doesn't compare people to video game characters... ;-D

Psssh, like that's something to be proud of. But then again, maybe she does dig that he's also one of the "violent video games need to be banned" pack.

Mar 21, 2011#78

TommiR

Dave said:
You all know me as being a left-leaning, pro-Obama guy...How the FUCK does a no-fly zone blast apart a Gaddafi compound?

Seriously, I can see the Arab League getting up in arms about this as Obama is starting to become "WII - The Return of the Dubya". I have many, many, MANY doubts about this action and feel it's unnecessary and damaging to the interests of the US. Why are we getting involved in a civil war? Why are we taking sides? Any reason other than oil? What about Bahrain, Yemen, Rwanda, etc. etc. etc.? Hell, we didn't do anything about Egypt - which we shouldn't have.

We need to stop what we are doing in the Middle East.

Well, I can't resist but offer this quite possibly unfounded speculation that perhaps the brits, who are invested in the libyan affair, are calling in a couple of favors in Washington. You know, a couple of the ones they got while participating in the US-led operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mar 21, 2011#79

Necronic

Dave said:
You all know me as being a left-leaning, pro-Obama guy...How the FUCK does a no-fly zone blast apart a Gaddafi compound?

Seriously, I can see the Arab League getting up in arms about this as Obama is starting to become "WII - The Return of the Dubya". I have many, many, MANY doubts about this action and feel it's unnecessary and damaging to the interests of the US. Why are we getting involved in a civil war? Why are we taking sides? Any reason other than oil? What about Bahrain, Yemen, Rwanda, etc. etc. etc.? Hell, we didn't do anything about Egypt - which we shouldn't have.

We need to stop what we are doing in the Middle East.

Oil and human rights are acceptable reasons as long as we don't actually commit to nation building, we can leave that to the locals/europeans.

As for the no-fly zone, let me quote the defense minister on this one: A no fly zone begins with an act of war. You have to attack the anti-air capabilities before you can maintain a no fly zone. Because you need to fly interceptors there.

We'll get involved with the other ones when it becomes necessary. The domino wars may be starting right now.

Mar 22, 2011#80

Docseverin

Fuck it, I'm not even going to pack to go home, just ship me south.

Mar 22, 2011#81

Necronic

Docseverin said:
Fuck it, I'm not even going to pack to go home, just ship me south.

I hope not. Seriously, I hope we show almost zero commitment of forces to Libya. We should help with setting up the no-fly zone, but as for committing troops there, we sure as hell better not.

Mar 22, 2011#82

Krisken

Docseverin said:
Fuck it, I'm not even going to pack to go home, just ship me south.

So far it looks like Obama has no desire to put foot troops in Libya. He seems content to let the French take charge in this one.

Mar 22, 2011#83

strawman

The last time we went in with guns blazing, leading the charge, the others got cold feet. It's probably good to let Europe take point on this. First, it's in their back yard, second, it's a significant source of their oil.

I'm hoping that the no fly zone will be sufficient, though.

Mar 22, 2011#84

sixpackshaker

The strike on that command and control bunker may have been an inside job. A Libyan pilot decided to crash his plane into Qaddafi's son's outpost instead of defecting.

Qaddafi will not react well to that news.

Mar 22, 2011#85

Iaculus

I'm really not too cut up about this. Gaddafi has been doing some unbelievably fucking horrific stuff in the past few weeks, and has demonstrated his complete incompetence as a national leader, so I think it's safe to say that the rebels, on balance, are the side in the right here. Now, normally I'd be saying 'let the Libyan people sort this out for themselves' except for one thing - they have repeatedly requested assistance from the international community, and in the days before the no-fly zone was established, they were losing.

Also, I can't help but note that much of the criticism of the invasion has either come from Gaddafi himself or from people outside the country - the rebels themselves (who appear to be the side with far more public support) seem to be completely A-OK with what we're doing for them. Let me provide an example - a US plane just got downed in Libya due to technical difficulties. The pilot got a hero's welcome from the rebel militia who picked him up, and even after the rescue helicopter strafed the crowd surrounding it when it showed up, mistaking their intent, the rebels forgave them for it.

They want us here.

Mar 23, 2011#86

Necronic

They wanted us in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. I'm not minimizing the attrocities that Gadafi has perpetrated. I am simply saying that this time, Europe needs to step up and take care of it, because we seriously can't anymore. Hell, the Saudis should step up.

Mar 23, 2011#87

Hailey Knight

Necronic said:
They wanted us in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. I'm not minimizing the attrocities that Gadafi has perpetrated. I am simply saying that this time, Europe needs to step up and take care of it, because we seriously can't anymore. Hell, the Saudis should step up.

It's easy to want the heavy military of a larger nation there, because those inside assume the stronger arm will mean it ends quicker and less messily. They're wrong, of course, as we've learned since Iraq.

Mar 23, 2011#88

AshburnerX

escushion said:
It's easy to want the heavy military of a larger nation there, because those inside assume the stronger arm will mean it ends quicker and less messily. They're wrong, of course, as we've learned since Iraq.

Oh no, a large scale military effort WOULD end it quickly... if we just wanted to carpet bomb everything flat and kill people until they stopped resisting. That's a proven effective strategy and it ends conflicts fast. It's also inhuman and no longer acceptable in this day and age.

Seriously, we need to get this cold war mindset out of our people. Things don't happen like that anymore.

Mar 24, 2011#89

Iaculus

Necronic said:
They wanted us in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. I'm not minimizing the attrocities that Gadafi has perpetrated. I am simply saying that this time, Europe needs to step up and take care of it, because we seriously can't anymore. Hell, the Saudis should step up.

Who do you think were the first to move into Libya? No, wait, I'll answer that one for you - France and Italy, shortly followed by us (i.e., the UK), and elements from the Arab League. This intervention is UN-backed, with all parties operating under strict rules of engagement - for instance, we've called off a few strikes simply because the targets have already moved into a city, and we can't use our weapons with enough precision to guarantee a complete absence of civilian casualties.

Also, this still isn't a land war like Iraq, where we attempted to demolish and rebuild an entire country completely from scratch with no idea of how to go about it. This is simply long-ranged support of an organised, country-wide rebellion. We're still letting the Libyans handle things, in a way - we're just taking some weight off their backs. It helps that all major battles so far have been initiated by Gaddafi's forces, meaning that we can get away with just blasting anyone who shows signs of military aggression.

Mar 24, 2011#90

@Li3n

@Iaculus

Yeah, the americans simply just happen to have way more missiles available on account of all that massive military spending...

As i recall the first plane that did anything was french.

Necronic said:
As for the no-fly zone, let me quote the defense minister on this one: A no fly zone begins with an act of war. You have to attack the anti-air capabilities before you can maintain a no fly zone. Because you need to fly interceptors there.

A no-fly zone over another sovereign nation's air space is an act of war in the first place....

Mar 24, 2011#91

Necronic

AshburnerX said:
Oh no, a large scale military effort WOULD end it quickly... if we just wanted to carpet bomb everything flat and kill people until they stopped resisting. That's a proven effective strategy and it ends conflicts fast. It's also inhuman and no longer acceptable in this day and age.

Seriously, we need to get this cold war mindset out of our people. Things don't happen like that anymore.

People also need to get the Total War mindset out of their heads. Which, by the way, was dead long before the Cold War. I know you weren't seriously arguing for carpet bombing, but it's not even a legitimate strategy from the most cold and calculating inhumane perspective for the simple fact that the more civilians you kill the more they will rise up against you. Deliberate (or reckless) killing of civilians is one of the stupidest things a military can do.

Just ask Gadaffi.

Mar 24, 2011#92

TommiR

Yeah... a concerted bombing campaign against german cities in WWII didn't yield the expected result of significantly crippling the enemy populace's will to fight. On the other hand, Hiroshima and Nagasaki managed to convince the japanese that further resistance would be insane, though it was of course clear to everyone long before that point that the japanese would loose anyway.

However, applying violence to achieve political ends in general can work. Several dictatorships around the world have maintained a strong grip on their populace through oppression, and the historian Martin van Creveld argues that, in certain cases, a display of massive and indiscriminate violence may serve as a valid and succesful counter-insurgency strategy:

Following a counterattack by the Brotherhood, Rifaat used his heavy artillery to demolish the city, killing between ten and 25 thousand people, including many women and children. Asked by reporters what had happened, Hafez al-Assad exaggerated the damage and deaths, promoted the commanders who carried out the attacks, and razed Hama’s well-known great mosque, replacing it with a parking lot. With the Muslim Brotherhood scattered, the population was so cowed that it would years before opposition groups would dare disobey the regime again and, van Creveld argues, the massacre most likely saved the regime and prevented a bloody civil war.

Not that these would apply in the case of Libya, but just to make a general point.

Mar 25, 2011#93

@Li3n

And it's NATO time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12856665

Mar 25, 2011#94

sixpackshaker

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/ap_on_re_af/libya_diplomacy

Looks like Qaddafi is ready to talk.

Mar 25, 2011#95

AshburnerX

sixpackshaker said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/ap_on_re_af/libya_diplomacy

Looks like Qaddafi is ready to talk.

I think it's too late for that. Anything that doesn't end in free and open elections and with Qaddafi ether dead or in exile isn't going to fly. The Rebels know they have the support they need to win now.

Mar 25, 2011#96

@Li3n

sixpackshaker said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/ap_on_re_af/libya_diplomacy

Looks like Qaddafi is ready to talk.

If that's as honest as the cease fire no one will be holding their breath...

Mar 25, 2011#97

Krisken

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... you know... won't get fooled again.

Mar 28, 2011#98

GasBandit

Russia, chief rival to Libya in terms of oil sales to Europe, is bellyaching about UN intercession in a civil war.

Mar 28, 2011#99

sixpackshaker

Not to mention that Russia carpet bombs areas of rebellion.

Mar 28, 2011#100

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
Russia, chief rival to Libya in terms of oil sales to Europe, is bellyaching about UN intercession in a civil war.

What's Putin worried about? This only means they can charge more for oil while the fighting lasts.

Mar 28, 2011#101

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
What's Putin worried about? This only means they can charge more for oil while the fighting lasts.

I'm just spitballing here, but maybe a non-khadaffi Libya might try to produce more and sell lower to bring a fast influx of capital for a new government? I don't know, I just thought it was interesting that basically burger king was complaining about cops showing up at mcdonald's.

Mar 28, 2011#102

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
I'm just spitballing here, but maybe a non-khadaffi Libya might try to produce more and sell lower to bring a fast influx of capital for a new government?

Perhaps, but Libya is going to need to rebuild an entire government after this, no matter who wins. That takes time. Russian has months to squirrel away for that winter.

Mar 28, 2011#103

strawman

sixpackshaker said:
Not to mention that Russia carpet bombs areas of rebellion.

Russia may also be concerned that their fights against states that want independence will receive more attention from the world community.

Honestly, it's a big deal that we're stepping into Libya, and if it weren't for europes ties a energy needs we probably wouldn't bother. On the other hand, if they didn't have oil then he wouldn't have the arms to suppress his populace so viciously.

Mar 28, 2011#104

The Lovely Boehner

I love when Obama moves his lips and Bush's words come out.

Mar 28, 2011#105

strawman

Someone installed the wrong pull-string when he last went in for maintenance. I'm sure they'll notice eventually and fix it.

Mar 29, 2011#106

@Li3n

AshburnerX said:
Perhaps, but Libya is going to need to rebuild an entire government after this, no matter who wins. That takes time. Russian has months to squirrel away for that winter.

Why would they not even try to make sure the winter doesn't come in the first place?

Mar 29, 2011#107

AshburnerX

Came across this on Kotaku.

Mar 30, 2011#108

@Li3n

SQUIRMISH!!!!!!!!!

Mar 30, 2011#109

Tress

@Li3n said:
SQUIRMISH!!!!!!!!!

Indeed. I also worry about Libya becoming a quagmare. It's easy to see that happening, since Africa is one country.

Forums