He's likely ignored by his smoking-hot wife.
- Status
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.
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.
Power is the greatest aphrodisiac. - Kissinger
$1,000,000 to be my beard. - Kucinich
$1,000,000 to be my beard. - Kucinich
North_Ranger
Staff member
Maybe he's a tripod?
GasBandit
Staff member
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.
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.
Necronic
Staff member
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.
Fuck it, I'm not even going to pack to go home, just ship me south.
Necronic
Staff member
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.
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.
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.
Qaddafi will not react well to that news.
I
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.
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.
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.
I
Iaculus
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.
@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.
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.
A no-fly zone over another sovereign nation's air space is an act of war in the first place....
Necronic
Staff member
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.
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:
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:
Not that these would apply in the case of Libya, but just to make a general point.
And it's NATO time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12856665
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110325/ap_on_re_af/libya_diplomacy
Looks like Qaddafi is ready to talk.
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.
If that's as honest as the cease fire no one will be holding their breath...
Not to mention that Russia carpet bombs areas of rebellion.
What's Putin worried about? This only means they can charge more for oil while the fighting lasts.
GasBandit
Staff member
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.
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.
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.
I love when Obama moves his lips and Bush's words come out.
- Status