|
Stroh M.D. posted:Funny, I have him pinned as a coward. Unstable? Sure. Crazy? No doubt. Willing to fight to death? Not...really. Like Saddam he will try to run, then hide and finally negotiate his way out of this mess. There was a retired general on the BBC earlier talking about how Saddam was generally considered to be fairly strong willed and having the courage of his convictions, whereas Ghadaffi by comparison is a bit of a slimy cowardly bastard. I don't hold it against Saddam that he tried to run the resistance from hiding instead of being riddled by bullets in a shoot-out like his sons or giving up and risk being humiliated and executed as a criminal.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:When he goes he'll go out like Ceausescu, pretending to be in charge and on top of things until the very end. No, like Hitler, maneuvering imaginary units around Tripoli in his rapidly isolating bunker until someone informs him of the hopelessness of the situation. I hope someone films his breakdown prior so it can replace all those "Hitler reacts from Downfall" videos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
QuentinCompson posted:Assuming it didn't rain. I laugh at and feel sorry for the USAF at the same time. We had a similar issue with the JAS 39 Gripen in Sweden in the -90s. A very public and dramatic crash had everyone consider the project an abject failure. Some still do. The Gripen is a fine aircraft. The F-22 is as well. But it's so easy for a fighter to get a bad public rep it's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Lots of explosions and gunfire in Tripoli on AJE
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Yeah you just blow a few billion and ruin some planes with rain or the international date line and people get all pissy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Tarnek posted:Lots of explosions and gunfire in Tripoli on AJE They are saying its tracer fire so presumably someone has spotted a drone or a recon plane in the business of assessing bomb damage
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Surprising development in Tripoli: the AJ news team is smack down in the middle of gun fire. Can't tell if it's AA or small arms, bad audio, stackato-sound: rack-tacka-tacka-tack. AJ says AA. "Military response to perceived threat". They say they have been unable to discern why, no air craft heard. Tripoli generally quiet earlier on. AJ news team surprised, about to pack up for the night. Considered Tripoli quiet up till now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Dammit, I'm so conflicted about this. On one hand, revolutions, violent ones especially, almost always go horribly wrong. On the other hand, by having an international coalition involved with the revolution, there's probably less chance of a horribly oppressive revolutionary government being installed. Or if Gaddafi somehow manages to stay in power due to the coalition's refusal to use ground troops, the knowledge that we're willing to essentially blow him up could rein in his repression of the revolutionaries. But on the other other hand, I don't believe the United States should involve itself in other nation's civil wars, or simply affairs in general unless it's a major human rights crisis, like genocide... I don't know what to think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
surf rock posted:On the other hand, by having an international coalition involved with the revolution, there's probably less chance of a horribly oppressive revolutionary government being installed. I have absolutely no idea how you've arrived at this idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
How long will it take to capture Tripoli? 2 days Will Gaddafi be killed? Yes Total Libyan civillian casualties: 500 dead Total military casualties Libya: 3000 dead Total military casualties U.S.: 15 dead Will the Libyan army regulars hold the lines? No Will the Gaddafi Guard fight to the end? No Will chem/bio weapons be used on invading troops?: Yes Will Gadaffi launch attacks on the rebels? Yes Will Gaddafi launch attacks on Israel? No -If yes; will Isreal retaliate harshly? Yes Will Gaddafi sacrifice Tripoli (gas/nuke it)? No Will the rebels make a grab for independence? Yes Will Egypt do anything silly like try for land? Yes Will Gaddafi burn the oil fields? Yes How long will the US be occupying Libya? ~15 years Will the Libyan intervention catalyze increased terrorism in America?No In the long run, will this intervention be good or bad for the world? Good
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
surf rock posted:Dammit, I'm so conflicted about this. On one hand, revolutions, violent ones especially, almost always go horribly wrong. On the other hand, by having an international coalition involved with the revolution, there's probably less chance of a horribly oppressive revolutionary government being installed. Or if Gaddafi somehow manages to stay in power due to the coalition's refusal to use ground troops, the knowledge that we're willing to essentially blow him up could rein in his repression of the revolutionaries. But on the other other hand, I don't believe the United States should involve itself in other nation's civil wars, or simply affairs in general unless it's a major human rights crisis, like genocide... It is a major human rights crisis though. Not only has the death toll been reported to reach in the thousands (mostly civilians) what with the Gaddafi's men fire into crowds of protesters and indiscriminately shelling cities, but there's also the refugees streaming out of Libya in the hundreds of thousands, which will only increase if Gadaffi wins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
surf rock posted:Dammit, I'm so conflicted about this. On one hand, revolutions, violent ones especially, almost always go horribly wrong. On the other hand, by having an international coalition involved with the revolution, there's probably less chance of a horribly oppressive revolutionary government being installed. Or if Gaddafi somehow manages to stay in power due to the coalition's refusal to use ground troops, the knowledge that we're willing to essentially blow him up could rein in his repression of the revolutionaries. But on the other other hand, I don't believe the United States should involve itself in other nation's civil wars, or simply affairs in general unless it's a major human rights crisis, like genocide... Well, things certainly was going the way of a genocide before Resolution 1973 was passed. Killing peaceful demonstrators with anti-aircraft cannons, assigning snipers to shoot at civilians indiscriminately in Masrati, shelling Benghazi and shooting at civilian buildings with heavy armour... poo poo hit the fan. Big time. I can't promise you our little intervention will make everything all right, but it sure as hell won't make it worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:I have absolutely no idea how you've arrived at this idea. You're right, there probably isn't much if any evidence to back that assertion. I thought of it like this: Having someone watching you makes you act nicer than you would in private. Especially if the person watching you has a ton of weapons on them. Of course, if that person doesn't particularly care what you do as long as you're better than the last guy (who was an insane dictator), it doesn't really work. Narmi posted:It is a major human rights crisis though. Not only has the death toll been reported to reach in the thousands (mostly civilians) what with the Gaddafi's men fire into crowds of protesters and indiscriminately shelling cities, but there's also the refugees streaming out of Libya in the hundreds of thousands, which will only increase if Gadaffi wins. A fair point, but when there is an organized movement within the nation to fight against the human rights crisis with the potential to win the day, then I'm not as eager to invade. When nations resolve their own issues, it seems to work out better in the long-run. Of course, it looked like the rebels were on the verge of getting wiped out before this coalition action, so I'm a lot more willing to agree with an invasion now than I was, say, a little while ago when the rebels were advancing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
Somehow, I want to think that Ghadaffi's death will be something really embarrassing. Like he'll be caught running in his Bea Arthur garb, revealing tiny genitals or something. And his last picture, this madman, will be showing the world he's hung like a cashew. I'm not sure why, but his mumblings combined with his past actions make me wonder if there will be some really hilarious karmic backlash that'll show up in the next few days that'll just tarnish this lunatic once and for all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:Gadhaffi is clearly unstable and is thus no longer a reliable ally. He was prized only for his ability to maintain order, and when that went, so did his value. No one is going to back a losing horse. Well of course, I was responding to evilweasel's assertion that restoring his power would be the quickest way to stabilize prices, but anybody can see that's doubly stupid (not to mention morally bankrupt) for a variety of reasons. At least this way the administration can say they're doing something to address the gas woes and still be the good guys. The guy I was quoting was asking why Obama felt it was necessary to intervene now and not earlier, to which I'd say gas prices were still modest during the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions and people didn't start getting really outraged at the pump until about a week and a half ago. The UN's decision to intervene seems awfully conveniently timed to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
Shakespearean Beef posted:How long will it take to capture Tripoli? 2 days What is this? chem/bio weapons? Egypt taking land? Really?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:05
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:What is this? chem/bio weapons? Egypt taking land? Really? It's one moderator's prediction of the Iraq war from March, 2003 with the names switched. Joementum fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
It sounds like a name swap with a similar list prior to 2003 Iraq. Libyan state TV: 48 people killed 150 wounded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
surf rock posted:Dammit, I'm so conflicted about this. On one hand, revolutions, violent ones especially, almost always go horribly wrong. On the other hand, by having an international coalition involved with the revolution, there's probably less chance of a horribly oppressive revolutionary government being installed. Or if Gaddafi somehow manages to stay in power due to the coalition's refusal to use ground troops, the knowledge that we're willing to essentially blow him up could rein in his repression of the revolutionaries. But on the other other hand, I don't believe the United States should involve itself in other nation's civil wars, or simply affairs in general unless it's a major human rights crisis, like genocide...  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Confirmation that RAF Tornados at some part, either during the initial strike or after, were involved in interdiction operations on Libyan air defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
farraday posted:Confirmation that RAF Tornados at some part, either during the initial strike or after, were involved in interdiction operations on Libyan air defense. I heard they were mobilizing earlier on, but we never really heard anything at all about any actual activity. Guess the Rafales stole the Tornados thunder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
farraday posted:Confirmation that RAF Tornados at some part, either during the initial strike or after, were involved in interdiction operations on Libyan air defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
Was there expected to be a proving ground for Tornados and/or Rafales and does this meet the requirements in any way? Can Grover weigh in on this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
From the BBCquote:0109: A spokesman for the UK's Chief of Defence Staff says the Royal Air Force has "participated in a co-ordinated strike against Libyan Air Defence systems". "In addition to the Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) launched from a Trafalgar Class submarine, I can now confirm that the RAF has also launched Stormshadow missiles from a number of Tornado GR4 fast jets, which flew direct from RAF Marham as part of a coordinated coalition plan to enforce the resolution," a statement adds. The storm shadow is an air launched cruise missile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
farraday posted:From the BBC That's an interesting use of the Tornados. This little intervention is really shaping up as the euro-NATOS showing off their flashy new toys. Rafales, Typhoons and now Storm Shadows. Sort of Iraq was for the US in -03. Lets hope we got a better exit strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
In an semi-related hilarious note, I was watching No Escape today, and the main character had participated in the 'Invasion of Libya, Benghazi 2011'. Which I thought was pretty hilarious given today's events.
unlawfulsoup fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
Wow. That IS hilarious. You're so right. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Just because I always find them interesting on the first day of a military conflict, the more interesting front pages of tomorrow Compared with  Stroh M.D. posted:That's an interesting use of the Tornados. This little intervention is really shaping up as the euro-NATOS showing off their flashy new toys. Rafales, Typhoons and now Storm Shadows. e:update on that quote:We have launched Tomahawk land attack missiles from a Trafalgar Class submarine and Storm Shadow missiles from Tornado GR4s. The fast jets flew 3,000 miles from RAF Marham and back, making this the longest range bombing mission conducted by the RAF since the Falklands conflict. This operation was supported by VC10 and Tristar air-to-air refuelling aircraft as well as E3D Sentry and Sentinel surveillance aircraft. Ireland Sucks fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
Zophar posted:Well of course, I was responding to evilweasel's assertion that restoring his power would be the quickest way to stabilize prices, but anybody can see that's doubly stupid (not to mention morally bankrupt) for a variety of reasons. At least this way the administration can say they're doing something to address the gas woes and still be the good guys. Your argument makes no sense. There's not even a way to begin to attack it because it's so schizophrenic, but it seems to rely on the assumption there are a lot of people who really care about gas prices but who are too dumb to figure out what would cause them to go up, which is retarded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
Okay, what's happening in Libya is terrible but do we need to enter a 3rd war in the Middle East?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
Slave posted:Just because I always find them interesting on the first day of a military conflict, the more interesting front pages of tomorrow Quite true. The yanks were suspiciously eager to get rid of their old Tomahawks as well. Sure, I've heard stories about how it's cheaper to blow up munitions than dissemble them, but...still. A bit cynical. Like the News of the World cover. As overblown as ever. Sadly, the Independent is already wrong - from what I heard, the rebels shot down their own plane. On the update: That's quite a distance. They're probably referring to the Vulcan runs on Stanley, which was 3,900 mi (says Wiki) A bit surprised they didn't send in the Typhoons at once, to even out the Rafales on the techno-PR-stunt side of things. Stroh M.D. fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Your argument makes no sense. There's not even a way to begin to attack it because it's so schizophrenic, but it seems to rely on the assumption there are a lot of people who really care about gas prices but who are too dumb to figure out what would cause them to go up, which is retarded. Hi, been to America? I'd say that describes this country pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
Slave posted:Jesus Christ, is the New of the World the Brit version of the Weekly World News or something? Who the hell would print that cover? I guess In The Loop was right, you guys do like bad puns in your papers!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Okay, what's happening in Libya is terrible but do we need to enter a 3rd war in the Middle East? Find where Tripoli is on a map, then draw a circle over what you consider the "Middle East". Just try it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:Gadhaffi is clearly unstable and is thus no longer a reliable ally. He was prized only for his ability to maintain order, and when that went, so did his value. No one is going to back a losing horse. Well, Gaddafi was sort of tolerated post-Saddam for renouncing his aspirations for nuclear weapons, not arming terrorists anymore, and although being oppressive and saying crazy poo poo from time to time not bothering other countries that much anymore. He wasn't really prized for oppressing his people - just left alone as long as he stopped funding terrorism and pursuing WMDs. But yeah, once he started saying one thing and doing something completely different, and slaughtering his own population, he isn't really relevant anymore. Vir fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
Nombres posted:Jesus Christ, is the New of the World the Brit version of the Weekly World News or something? Who the hell would print that cover? Its a Murdoch paper that gets sued a lot for making stuff up about celebrities and is currently in deep poo poo for hacking the voicemail of royalty and politicians. Also not keen on immigration, its our dead tree Fox News with more tits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
Nombres posted:Jesus Christ, is the New of the World the Brit version of the Weekly World News or something? Who the hell would print that cover? News of the World is the Sunday edition of The Sun, Britain's most popular daily and the undisputed world champion of tasteless pun-based headlines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
Slave posted:Its a Murdoch paper that gets sued a lot for making stuff up about celebrities and is currently in deep poo poo for hacking the voicemail of royalty and politicians. Also not keen on immigration, its our dead tree Fox News with more tits. "Where are all the tits? Gotta have tits to sell a paper!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1aZcsY-O8Q Nombres fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:45
|
|
|
Smug Guy posted:Find where Tripoli is on a map, then draw a circle over what you consider the "Middle East". So you are trying to rationalize a 3rd war because it's not geographically in the Middle East? I guess I'm just the odd man out because I've become an non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy. I just hope we the US does not send in ground troops. spasticColon fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Darth123123 posted:What is this? chem/bio weapons? Egypt taking land? Really? It's LF trying to troll GiP mod grover and it's totally hilarious and not bitter impotent whinging at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 02:48
|
|
