|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:Not taking sides? Are you a retard? And they already bombed a few civilians and rebels. And Libyans were the first to forgive them because they need the help, and believe in revolution. That's a pretty significant difference between say Afghanistan we're you're just going to get more terrorists for trying to help.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:Look, at this point NATO has two options. 3 Spend the next 6 months to 10 years maintaining a no-fly zone and preventing Gaddafi from taking control of the whole country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:25
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:Look, at this point NATO has two options. Go and read the resolution that authorised action. They were never tasked with helping the rebels overthrow CQ. They were tasked with protecting civilians. Are you angry that they are not bombing targets with a high chance of accidentally killing civilians? or just pissed that they were never sent in to help the rebels overthrow CQ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Jut posted:Go and read the resolution that authorised action. They were never tasked with helping the rebels overthrow CQ. They were tasked with protecting civilians. Are you angry that they are not bombing targets with a high chance of accidentally killing civilians? or just pissed that they were never sent in to help the rebels overthrow CQ? That resolution was passed by NATO's members on the UNSC. I'm pissed that once again America is blowing poo poo up around the world and acting like it knows best. It is literally supporting like two thousand people against the entire state of libya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
I'm pissed at my government for getting us involved, but leaving Gaddafi in power is the worst possible outcome. Enforcing a state of perpetual civil war is the second. Lets just loving go do it, but everyone who didn't expect this was naive as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
Jut posted:Go and read the resolution that authorised action. They were never tasked with helping the rebels overthrow CQ. They were tasked with protecting civilians. Are you angry that they are not bombing targets with a high chance of accidentally killing civilians? or just pissed that they were never sent in to help the rebels overthrow CQ? The civilian population is not helped by a civil war that will drag on for years as no side is able to defeat the other without NATO bombing them. What's also weird is that a few decades earlier the UN approved bombing the poo poo out of rebels in Katanga to prevent a civil war from occuring and splitting the country. Which is exactly what is happening now with UN blessing and based on the same UN charter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Baddog posted:I'm pissed at my government for getting us involved, but leaving Gaddafi in power is the worst possible outcome. Enforcing a state of perpetual civil war is the second. Lets just loving go do it, but everyone who didn't expect this was naive as hell. I'm wondering how much of this is bad intelligence. If Obama and NATO really thought this whole thing was gonna be resolved without troops on the ground, they either vastly underestimated Gaddafi or had waaay too much faith in the rebels' military prowess. In turn, that makes me wonder if the CIA is either not involved to the extent one would imagine or if they are just totally incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Colonel Pancreas posted:I'm wondering how much of this is bad intelligence. If Obama and NATO really thought this whole thing was gonna be resolved without troops on the ground, they either vastly underestimated Gaddafi or had waaay too much faith in the rebels' military prowess. In turn, that makes me wonder if the CIA is either not involved to the extent one would imagine or if they are just totally incompetent. For what it's worth, the DNI publicly said they didn't think the rebels would win on their own weeks before the intervention and the military leadership all emphasized how long and hard a no-fly/drive zone would be. Make no mistake, this was a political decision to go to war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
NATO: we do what we must because we can. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:The civilian population is not helped by a civil war that will drag on for years as no side is able to defeat the other without NATO bombing them. You're twisting history, and drawing an invalid parallel. The fact that Belgium were trying to actively incite rebellion and shipping in mercs to destabilize the area formed the basis of UN action. In Libya, it would seem that they are trying to force a stalemate, and pursue a diplomatic path, which is exactly what I hoped they would do. CQ has been sending out feelers for reaching a deal recently, which can only be good news.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Spiky Ooze posted:And Libyans were the first to forgive them because they need the help, and believe in revolution. That's a pretty significant difference between say Afghanistan we're you're just going to get more terrorists for trying to help. How many Libyans? It's pretty clear the rebels don't have much support outside of the East. While most Libyans probably want Gaddafi gone, how much better will the TNC be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:How many Libyans? It's pretty clear the rebels don't have much support outside of the East. While most Libyans probably want Gaddafi gone, how much better will the TNC be? The rebels are literally a bunch of bumbling shitheads that can't even launch a proper offensive. I would never trust them to run a country. America is supporting a group with zero prospects and I think Gaddafi is better suited to run a country than two thousand useless pseudo intellectuals with guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:The rebels are literally a bunch of bumbling shitheads that can't even launch a proper offensive. I would never trust them to run a country. America is supporting a group with zero prospects and I think Gaddafi is better suited to run a country than two thousand useless pseudo intellectuals with guns. Care to back up literally anything you've written about who the rebels are or the level of support they have in what parts of the country?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:The rebels are literally a bunch of bumbling shitheads that can't even launch a proper offensive. I would never trust them to run a country. America is supporting a group with zero prospects and I think Gaddafi is better suited to run a country than two thousand useless pseudo intellectuals with guns. Yeees, straight up 'too savage to rule themselves'!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Xandu posted:3 Spend the next 6 months to 10 years maintaining a no-fly zone and preventing Gaddafi from taking control of the whole country. 4. They use the oil money (or NATO just fronts it) to hire Xe or some other mercenaries to kick the poo poo out of Khadaffi. Not that I think that's terribly likely but it's the only way I see getting around the issue of actually landing official ground forces in Libya. And it's also a terrible idea because those guys have some very itchy trigger fingers around brown people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Care to back up literally anything you've written about who the rebels are or the level of support they have in what parts of the country? Financial Times posted:
Like I said a bunch of pseudo intellectuals with guns and no real plan. Regarding the support, its not like I can find a Libyan Gallup poll. shotgunbadger posted:Yeees, straight up 'too savage to rule themselves'! Don't be obtuse. I completely believe in the rights of Libyan's to have a multi-party representative government, but these are not the right people to establish it. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:The rebels are literally a bunch of bumbling shitheads that can't even launch a proper offensive. I would never trust them to run a country. America is supporting a group with zero prospects and I think Gaddafi is better suited to run a country than two thousand useless pseudo intellectuals with guns. I, too, believe that the ability of unorganized, untrained, and ill-equipped groups of civilians to combat a modern standing army (whom they choose to fight of their own free will), reflects the competency and abilities of the government officials who represent those civilians. Also, if the rebels only numbered two thousand strong, this would all be over by now as I'm pretty sure at least that many have died in the fighting. Edit: ^^ Yeah nothing there says anything about there only being 2000 of them, being 'pseudointellectuals', or not being capable of running a country that isn't in a state of civil war. Contraction mapping fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
IRQ posted:4. They use the oil money (or NATO just fronts it) to hire Xe or some other mercenaries to kick the poo poo out of Khadaffi. Mercenaries wouldn't fly, but I could see the West bribing the AU away from Gaddafi's tit so that they intervene. quote:
You've shown a lack of bureaucratic organization, which isn't surprising in a state that has long lacked an official bureaucracy You haven't shown, but you have asserted 1. That they lack any support in the west of Libya 2. That their number of supporters number around 2000 3. That Gaddafi (who has shown a total willingness to massacre his people) is better suited to run his country (which is currently in a state of anarchy) than the opposition. You can't find a poll, obviously, which means what you really ought to conclude is that you have no idea how most Libyans feel, not who they support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:Don't be obtuse. I completely believe in the rights of Libyan's to have a multi-party representative government, but these are not the right people to establish it. What other Libyan fraction should we support then?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Mercenaries wouldn't fly, but I could see the West bribing the AU away from Gaddafi's tit so that they intervene. 1) This is impossible to determine as of right now. 2) I stated that the number of rebels numbers 2000, not supporters. However, what good is a supporter in a civil war if they are not actively fighting against the other side? Edit: My mistake it appears that there are 2000 rebels in Brega. Not all around. 3) The way I see it, if only 2000 people managed to show up to stand up to Gaddafi at Brega then he has wider support than the rebels. If it turns out that the number of rebel fighters and rebel supporters is smaller than the number of Gaddafi supporters then the entire "revolution" was a farce to begin with. Tovarisch Rafa fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Apr 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
Surely no one actually believes NATO intends to run a no-fly zone over Libya for years? A stalemate favors Gaddafi because the West will eventually withdraw as the interventions become increasingly unpopular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Surely no one actually believes NATO intends to run a no-fly zone over Libya for years? A stalemate favors Gaddafi because the West will eventually withdraw as the interventions become increasingly unpopular. Iraq NFZ was enforced from 1991-2003. That was not NATO technically but it was enforced by NATO members.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Iraq NFZ was enforced from 1991-2003. That was not NATO technically but it was enforced by NATO members. They weren't bombing tanks and technicals or anything on a daily though were they?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Iraq NFZ was enforced from 1991-2003. That was not NATO technically but it was enforced by NATO members. We tend to overstate the importance of popular support in these threads, so you see posts like the one you quoted from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
IRQ posted:They weren't bombing tanks and technicals or anything on a daily though were they? AA units and MiGs mostly it seems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
If you aren't following him, CJ Chivers has been giving a pretty good rundown of what's happening in Brega for the last few days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:1) This is impossible to determine as of right now. 1) You can't support your claims, but stand by them anyway 2) You went to support your claims, then realized you couldn't 3) "What good is a supporter in a civil war if they are not actively fighting against the other side?" I haven't heard of many rebels defecting to the Gaddafi side, but there are nearly constant reports of Libyan military commanders, troops, and vehicles turning over. There are reports of imprisoned or burned soldiers and civilians who intended to help the rebel cause but were weeded out or targeted out of government paranoia. It sounds a lot like people are either complacent or terrified, and have been for decades, rather than being "Gaddaffi supporters" if they don't immediately jump up to join the revolution and probably sacrifice their lives (metaphorically and literally).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
Am I the only one with the "shoot Gaddaffi in the drat head" strategy? I know, I know, we're not supposed to assassinate heads of state, it's not in the rules. It's WAY more fair to kill lots and lots of people who work for him in a prolonged conflict that levels areas of a country to THEN get him into criminal court to THEN hand him back to the now-victorious rebels who can THEN execute him. Because that's what happened to Saddam Hussein, which was someone way more fair than us just going in and killing him if Bush really wanted him dead so badly, which he did. Seriously, it seems that this is a case where the entire gov't is focused around Gadaffi, that it wouldn't really have a campaign against the rebels to run without him. I'm sure one of his sons would claim his legacy, but it wouldn't be nearly the same. All the people who want to defect but are afraid to defect would immediately defect to some safe haven to avoid criminal charges, knowing that Gadaffi couldn't hunt them down and his heirs would be too busy to do so. And yes, he's guilty of things for which people are executed. Ordering the mass slaughter of non-violent protesters. The Lockerbie bombing. Tons of inhumane things he's done in the past. I believe in the death penalty in very rare cases (there are almost no prisoners in the US who would meet my standard), and this is CLEARLY a case. Plus it would save a ton of lives, which is what we're trying to do in the region anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:1) This is impossible to determine as of right now. 1) During the beginning of the uprising, several major Western cities fell entirely under the control of the Rebels. They were put down by a massive amount of military force and documented brutality (and by all reports have been systematically cleansed since their capture by regime forces, to the point of multiple reports that all military-age males in Zawiyah have been disappeared). Several towns in the West are still under control of the Rebels, and have not relinquished control even under a constant seige. Please explain this discrepancy in regards to your claim that the Rebels have no support in the West. 2) You yourself admitted this is wrong. Congratulations on being able to admit this. 3) Can you think of any other reason that only 2000 people were able to get to the frontlines of Brega, keeping in mind that that 1)Libya is in the middle of a crisis and neither side has access to much fuel 2) The ex-military members of the Rebel leadership specifically pleaded with their more enthusiastic troops not to go that far? Also, bearing in mind that the protests in areas now under Ghadaffi-control were broken up with Anti-Aircraft weapons, tanks, midnight kidnappings, mass executions, and air bombardments, can you think of any other reason why people might show enthusiasm towards the regime in areas they control? Thanks in advance! Slantedfloors fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Apr 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Iraq NFZ was enforced from 1991-2003. That was not NATO technically but it was enforced by NATO members. Right, but that was an actual No Fly Zone. A NFZ alone would result in a ton of dead rebels in Libya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Right, but that was an actual No Fly Zone. A NFZ alone would result in a ton of dead rebels in Libya. Not to mention the mission creep element coming in here. Taken out the Libyan Airforce. Then it's take out tanks. Now the rebels are asking for attacks on troop convoys that are tooling around in 4x4s. Where do we draw the line? If we're dedicated to 100% protection of the rebels then that's a hell of a long way to go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:You seem pretty on the ball. Mind if I ask you a few questions? 1) You just proved my point about there being no support because it is gone. 3) Lack of dedication to their own cause. The rebels should admit they lost the war, even with the support of NATO. The best they could hope for now is a ceasefire or for the West to sweep in and save the day by getting involved in yet another conflict in the ME. In regards to your statement about the tactics employed by Gaddafi, where the rebels expecting him to just crawl on his knees and surrender? Like in some sort of video game? They wanted to overthrow a tyrant schizo and they knew they had to go to war to do it. They got what they wanted and failed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
IRQ posted:4. They use the oil money (or NATO just fronts it) to hire Xe or some other mercenaries to kick the poo poo out of Khadaffi. 5. Qatar, Egypt, and/or Turkey stage a ground force intervention. NATO runs the air show, the Arab militaries the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
dj_clawson posted:Am I the only one with the "shoot Gaddaffi in the drat head" strategy? I know, I know, we're not supposed to assassinate heads of state, it's not in the rules..... No, you and all of "Toby Keith" America feel that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
Tovarisch Rafa posted:1) You just proved my point about there being no support because it is gone. There's a difference between support being gone and support being dead. While its ultimately unknowable at this point to know how much and how many are dedicated to the rebellion. The fact there are people fighting and dying for it, shows there is not a lack of dedication.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
dj_clawson posted:Am I the only one with the "shoot Gaddaffi in the drat head" strategy? Listen to me. We've traced this post... it's coming from 1986!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 05:31
|
|
|
Sec. Gates says (after meeting the Saudis) that they have evidence Iran is meddling in Bahrain. I'd be more than little bit curious to see that "evidence." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703280904576247230001105602.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Sec. Gates says (after meeting the Saudis) that they have evidence Iran is meddling in Bahrain. I'd be more than little bit curious to see that "evidence." Yeah, after the whole Iraq War thing, Gates will have to forgive us for being EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL any time the US govt loudly declares that they have "evidence" for anything happening in the Middle East that isn't already public knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
Bobfromsales posted:What happened to Brown Moses? I'm on holiday abroad (not Libya), so internet access is limited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Evidence from Saudis against one of their biggest rivals? Well hot dog that sure placates me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 08:33
|
|