|
spasticColon posted:I'll admit my ignorance to the situation and forgetting where Libya is on the map. The news media is once again terrible even on the internet. But what's the endgame to all of this? Hopefully not occupation by US forces or any forces for that matter. Yes, I know the UN resolution states that there won't be an occupation. But if the situation worsens or doesn't improve even after air strikes, what then? This is what I was trying to get at. I hopped over to GiP and read their thread as well. You can't win a war with air only. And what is 'winning'?
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Xandu posted:Is protecting people from slaughter really a war of aggression? I'm all for kicking Gadhafi square in the dick. But what is the next step when Mad Dog transitions to a 100% ground assault and rebels continue to get rolled?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
That's a good question and one of the reasons I'm skeptical of this operation. But I still object to calling it a war of aggression.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
^^^ The "protect civilians" language is in the resolution specifically to allow bombing of ground forces.Xandu posted:Is protecting people from slaughter really a war of aggression? If you use really contorted logic and say that because Libya never attacked the US, I guess it could be. But that would be a very stupid position to take. Regardless, I doubt there will be US forces in Libya in any appreciable amount as a result of what's going on now. For once we let the UN do what it's supposed to do without loving everything up, the bag is in their hands if this winds up requiring peacekeepers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
Orgasmo posted:I'm all for kicking Gadhafi square in the dick. But what is the next step when Mad Dog transitions to a 100% ground assault and rebels continue to get rolled? If you study a map and the terrain of Libya, you would know that air power alone can completely demolish anything outside of a city. There is no way Gadhafi's forces could launch a major advance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
Orgasmo posted:I'm all for kicking Gadhafi square in the dick. But what is the next step when Mad Dog transitions to a 100% ground assault and rebels continue to get rolled?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
Does that clause in the UN resolution saying no occupational forces include special or secret forces that sneak in and take out Gadhafi? But if he's in a hardened bunker somewhere that probably wouldn't work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Maybe they shoulda left out the AA guns. I think the French AA guns are to keep the rebels' positions from being mistaken for pro-Qaddafi military, considering that they've all been using the same weapons at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Orgasmo posted:I'm all for kicking Gadhafi square in the dick. But what is the next step when Mad Dog transitions to a 100% ground assault and rebels continue to get rolled? I'm guessing he can't do poo poo right now. Rebels take refuge in cities. If he bombard them, Rafale's destroy whatever he has bombarding the city and then some. If he goes in rebels can probably win since that's the kind of fight they would probably be good at. That's if they don't blow his troops anyway cause it's now pretty clear that Khadaffi troops seem to kill people whether they are rebels or not. I just wonder how the rebels can make advances now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think the French AA guns are to keep the rebels' positions from being mistaken for pro-Qaddafi military, considering that they've all been using the same weapons at this point. What are they going to shoot at?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:10
|
|
|
I just came here to say that I noticed that Libya is claiming that most of the casualties from the attacks on military installations are children. Do they really think anyone is going to buy that and side with them suddenly due to that cheap attempt?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Today I learned that most of the public paid no attention to what happened in Libya so far, or the UN discussion of the no-fly zone, and now thinks this is another Iraq lead by US aggression. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:I'll admit my ignorance to the situation and forgetting where Libya is on the map. The news media is once again terrible even on the internet. But what's the endgame to all of this? Hopefully not occupation by US forces or any forces for that matter. Yes, I know the UN resolution states that there won't be an occupation. But if the situation worsens or doesn't improve even after air strikes, what then? Well, ever since Muhammed's heirs stormed into North Africa (before then considered part of Europe) in the late 600s and 700s A.D., North Africa has just been an extension of the middle east, part of what is called the "Greater Middle East" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Middle_East. To most people all of the Greater Middle East is considered just the middle east, and it pretty much is in a lot of ways. It's kind of baffling that in a thread with such topics as an entire country embroiled in civil war, a despot clinging onto power, and an international war breaking out, people are arguing about what sub-continent Libya belongs to. It's probably too early to know what direction is going to be taken by Libya and the international community after Gaddafi leaves. In the best case we just get a stable transition similar to what's happening in Egypt. I might just be talking out of my arse about what's going to happen so don't take this as concrete or anything. Blackbird Fly fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
Catastrophe posted:I just came here to say that I noticed that Libya is claiming that most of the casualties from the attacks on military installations are children. Do they really think anyone is going to buy that and side with them suddenly due to that cheap attempt? Gadaffi has just authorized Operation: Positioning of Child Corpses
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
Darth123123 posted:What are they going to shoot at? It may be more of a political move, to have the rebels be participants in maintaining their own NFZ and coordinate with the coalition forces. Also, the NFZ will not last forever. Catastrophe posted:I just came here to say that I noticed that Libya is claiming that most of the casualties from the attacks on military installations are children. Do they really think anyone is going to buy that and side with them suddenly due to that cheap attempt? Considering that there's been a dozen tweets weeks prior to the NFZ being implemented about how CQ is gathering up bodies from the massacres around Tripoli and sending them to potential targets and bombed areas, I don't think there's going to be much of a concern. I think to most Libyans now, as long as they've been previously killed by CQ, any supposed collateral damage is just another sacrifice to getting rid of him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Does that clause in the UN resolution saying no occupational forces include special or secret forces that sneak in and take out Gadhafi? But if he's in a hardened bunker somewhere that probably wouldn't work anyway. He's surrounded by loyalists serving as human shields, which is just one of the many reasons that an assassination attempt or targeted strike against Qaddafi is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:25
|
|
|
"Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate." - Sun Tzu
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:27
|
|
|
I KNEW we were going to start talking about nukes.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
I mssed this, El-Baradei attacked when he went to vote.http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/egypt.referendum/ posted:Cairo, Egypt (CNN) -- Mohamed ElBaradei, an Egyptian presidential candidate and Nobel laureate, was attacked by thugs at a polling station in Cairo on Saturday, his brother told CNN.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
Closing in on 6 am in Tripoli(GMT +2), sunrise expected just after 7 am. bomb damage assessment should be done sometime in the morning Libya time. While the night capability of coalition fighters gives them a serious advantage, to see how populations on the ground are going to react will have to wait for light.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
Mr. Mambo posted:It's like scriptable.. We're already far into the thread and I can't check every page, but I just wanted to make sure this rather goofy quote got some visibility: quote:“One test in foreign policy — at least be as bold as the French,” [Senator (R-SC) Lindsey] Graham says. “Unfortunately, when it comes to Libya, we’re failing that test.” Knees a'jerkin'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Catastrophe posted:I just came here to say that I noticed that Libya is claiming that most of the casualties from the attacks on military installations are children. Do they really think anyone is going to buy that and side with them suddenly due to that cheap attempt? I don't particularly think it's true, and I'm generally supportive of this involvement (even though it's certainly going to get messy and unpopular), but US/NATO/UN/etc air strikes aren't 100% accurate. Basically, how would your views change on the attacks if it turns out this was true? Say most of the bases had been evacuated, and while most missiles hit their targets 1 missed and hit a residential area of pro/anti Quadaffi civilians?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:We're already far into the thread and I can't check every page, but I just wanted to make sure this rather goofy quote got some visibility: Someone needs to remind Graham that this started happening during Bush's first term, when we were too busy in Iraq that we couldn't do a basic embassy evacuation of American citizens in Liberia and had to rely on the French to do it for us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
Orgasmo posted:I'm all for kicking Gadhafi square in the dick. But what is the next step when Mad Dog transitions to a 100% ground assault and rebels continue to get rolled? As others have posted, this is highly doubtful. The rebels were doing quite well and even their very improvised, rag-tag advance on Tripoli was making impressive progress before G. Diddy brought out the big guns. I think it's safe to say that without his toys (aircraft in particular), Gaffy has little to no chance of containing the uprising.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:As others have posted, this is highly doubtful. The rebels were doing quite well and even their very improvised, rag-tag advance on Tripoli was making impressive progress before G. Diddy brought out the big guns. I think it's safe to say that without his toys (aircraft in particular), Gaffy has little to no chance of containing the uprising. Also, the Egyptians and the French are providing material support for a ground campaign, including ammunition, artillery, and other weapons. With Qaddafi losing his heavy weapons and the rebels getting better equipment, it'll be an interesting couple of weeks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Someone needs to remind Graham that this started happening during Bush's first term, when we were too busy in Iraq that we couldn't do a basic embassy evacuation of American citizens in Liberia and had to rely on the French to do it for us. That recently? "France formally recognized the United States on February 6, 1778"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:As others have posted, this is highly doubtful. The rebels were doing quite well and even their very improvised, rag-tag advance on Tripoli was making impressive progress Where exactly do we know military defectors haven't (or have) assisted the rebels, what their fighting formations are and the equipment they have... How do you know for sure it's all very improvised and rag-tag? Not a snipe, it's just I've been looking for this info and I can't find it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:08
|
|
SoroScrew
|
straw man posted:That recently? You know drat well that most Americans consider all French support prior to 1945 null and void when we had to save those cheese-eating, surrender monkeys from the Nazis in World War 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:You know drat well that most Americans consider all French support prior to 1945 null and void when we had to save those cheese-eating, surrender monkeys from the Nazis in World War 2. The Statue of Liberty totally owns though. Made in the USA! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:You know drat well that most Americans consider all French support prior to 1945 null and void when we had to save those cheese-eating, surrender monkeys from the Nazis in World War 2. Cheese-eating surrender-monkeys? Along with freedom fries, that was just friendly ribbing. America knows well that we owe our independence to France - and I suspect that thinking Frenchmen will give us some credit for the downfall of their monarchy, too. What really worries me is watching the Tea Party bemoan minor erosion in our relationship with our "closest ally", the United Kingdom. For a "second American Revolution", they often have a selective memory of the first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:18
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:Considering how war weary the US public is and the fact that 6/10 Americans don't want our military involved in Libya, I strongly doubt that. In fact, the Administration has been consistently downplaying our role in the conflict for exactly that reason. From where are you getting this number? I have a hard time believing it's accurate from what I've heard and seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
Yes, any American complaining that foreign countries shouldn't get involved in internal rebellions is missing a hefty dose of self awareness on multiple levels. On the use of American fighters, I wouldn't say it's unlikely, but at the same time I can definitely see the political advantage to trying to limit how much we actually do. IF it looks like other members of the coalition aren't getting ti done, American involvement will certainly ramp up. If you look at the European nations getting involved, it's pretty obvious that given what they've done so far regime change is the unstated endgame that these operations are going to aim for. Maintaining the balance between limiting military aggression and doing enough to achieve that unstated aim will be interesting to watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:24
|
|
|
ArchRanger posted:From where are you getting this number? I have a hard time believing it's accurate from what I've heard and seen. I know one American who's war-weary. "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." -Senator Barack Obama
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
http://www.pollingreport.com/libya.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
straw man posted:I know one American who's war-weary. Talk about an out of context quote. If you find me the original citation, I bet he was discussing the use of military force for self-defense as requiring an imminent threat to the US, not military force in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Paradox Personified posted:Where exactly do we know military defectors haven't (or have) assisted the rebels, what their fighting formations are and the equipment they have... How do you know for sure it's all very improvised and rag-tag? I've been getting most of my stuff on this from AP articles, so I don't have any specific references to point you to. My 'rag-tag' comment was probably a bit of an exaggeration. As I recall, the main body advancing on Tripoli was composed of civilian militia, whose leaders were being advised by defected military officers. Defected military units were also conducting other operations and assisting in the advance. However, I distinctly remember reading that the militia were becoming over-eager and engaging in bolder confrontations, against the advice of military command. This is partly why the advance on Tripoli was so rapid, and also why it was so quick to retreat when G. Dawg got his poo poo together. I also recall that the militia itself isn't particularly well equipped, outside of firearms and the few pieces of equipment the defected military is willing to provide them with. Sorry I don't have a source for you; I'd be just as happy as you if someone could provide a source more reliable than my week-old recollections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:26
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Talk about an out of context quote. If you find me the original citation, I bet he was discussing the use of military force for self-defense as requiring an imminent threat to the US, not military force in general. quote:Question 2 Source: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/question2/ Looks like a candidate questionnaire. Based on the answer I think you could, at best say the UN resolution steps it outside the simple context of the question. However, Obama gave a rather expansive answer that is fairly difficult to square with his actions here. Exactly how close the current situation is compared to the specific hypothetical is something you could explore. farraday fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Talk about an out of context quote. If you find me the original citation, I bet he was discussing the use of military force for self-defense as requiring an imminent threat to the US, not military force in general. Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? quote:A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” Of course it's out of context - he wasn't President in 2007. Things change when you're commander-in-chief, the Constitution asks for what is essentially a chivalrous formality, and a limp-wristed post-Nixon Congress tried to assert itself by inadvertently ceding more control over the military to the White House. The points remain that the United States military has for many years been used for purposes that are not self-defensive, and that as the founders explained, a standing army is a threat to liberty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Talk about an out of context quote. If you find me the original citation, I bet he was discussing the use of military force for self-defense as requiring an imminent threat to the US, not military force in general. It was from the Democratic primary debates and the question was about a bombing campaign against Iran. Hillary gave a similar answer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
Words from around the globe BBC: quote:0434: Japan has said it supports the air and missile strikes on Libya. "The Japanese government supports measures taken by UN member states under UN Security Council Resolution 1973," Japan's Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto said in a statement. "We strongly condemn the Libyan authorities for continuing violence against the people. We strongly urge the Libyan authorities to make a prudent decision as quickly as possible," he added. He went on to add "Maybe the American can send their idiots in the government scaring people into hording iodide into Libya as part of the attack."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 05:39
|
|