|
DevNull posted:I saw a few reports on twitter that it was not actually NATO that bombed the rebels. They were actually bombed by Qaddafi's forces. The link in Jut's post states just that, so it's not only on twitter anymore.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 22:52
|
|
SoroScrew 
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
If one of Gaddafi's pilots pulled off that bombing run, then I'm pretty impressed. Evading the no fly zone in an attack run that nailed several rebel tanks is a pretty solid piece of flying. That said, I would also assume this is a bit of propaganda on the part of the rebels to diffuse any mounting antagonism against the NATO bombing among their ranks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Al Jazeera is reporting that (according to the rebel spokesman) Qatar's first shipment of weapons has arrived.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Al Jazeera is reporting that (according to the rebel spokesman) Qatar's first shipment of weapons has arrived. Yay, the rebels get boomsticks to fight Gaffy without the West being held morally responsible for any negative consequences that may occur in the future YAY!!  ...wait, where does Qatar get it's arms from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Yay, the rebels get boomsticks to fight Gaffy without the West being held morally responsible for any negative consequences that may occur in the future YAY!! Maybe they got them from those two boats they seized a week ago, smuggling arms from Iran?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Yay, the rebels get boomsticks to fight Gaffy without the West being held morally responsible for any negative consequences that may occur in the future YAY!! Depends on the arms being provided. My guess its Soviet stuff, which is really easy to get, and not the fancier western stuff that its military uses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:Yay, the rebels get boomsticks to fight Gaffy without the West being held morally responsible for any negative consequences that may occur in the future YAY!! Various Western countries, mostly the U.S., U.K. and France. (hmmmmmm....) edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Armed_Forces#Tanks_and_vehicles Most of the stuff will be coming out of their armed force's arsenal. New Division fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Apr 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
New Division posted:Various Western countries, mostly the U.S., U.K. and France. (hmmmmmm....) I figured it would just be a "rebel special" package, BMPs, RPG7s, AK pattern small arms, that sort of cheap arms that is just scattered around the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:03
|
|
|
Where they originate doesn't make a difference. Arms are sold everywhere by every major nation to every Middle East/North African nation - it won't be an issue. Qatar could afford to buy an entire army worth of vehicles and weapons for the Libyan rebels if they wanted. I think the calls of NATO not doing enough is by a small minority (one general? big whoop) and does not accurately represent the view of the NTC. I also think that the hyperbole in the last page of NATO bombing civilians at every turn is completely ridiculous with no evidence. They made one mistake by bombing rebels that were in armour. What do you expect, this isn't candy unicorn land. If anything, this is going pretty well all-around. We've got the rebels being armed by a 'neutral' nation in that area, and we've got defensive positions being taken by the rebels whilst the weather calms down and NATO can get back in and start hitting targets again. A lot of negativity in this thread for what are actually positive pushes and outcomes for the rebels. I think that push to Brega, when or if it happens, will soldify the direction of the revolution to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Hmmmeryhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42468330/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa posted:AJDABIYAH, Libya — The U.S. may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, the former U.S. commander of the military mission said Thursday, describing the ongoing operation as a stalemate that is more likely to go on now that America has handed control to NATO. I'm fairly sure we were pointing out the inevitability of Qaddafi using the tactic of pulling his forces back into the cities, making air strikes impossible, in this thread over a week ago. And now there's the commander of AFRICOM telling the Senate that sending in ground troops would help break the stalemate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Interesting teche. When does Obama have to get formal Congressional approval? I guess he gets 60 "free" days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Interesting teche. When does Obama have to get formal Congressional approval? I guess he gets 60 "free" days. In his original letter to Congress informing them of the engagement in Libya he said that he was filling them in as part of his obligation under the War Powers Resolution, so under the bizarre assumption that the executive believes that to be a real law, he'll have to get authorization again on June 20th, at which point Congress can extend for another 30 days or give a full authorization for military action. Of course, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, no President has really believed that the WPR is constitutionally valid, so the real answer is: never.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Where they originate doesn't make a difference. Arms are sold everywhere by every major nation to every Middle East/North African nation - it won't be an issue. Qatar could afford to buy an entire army worth of vehicles and weapons for the Libyan rebels if they wanted. Qatar is hardly a 'neutral' party in the conflict. They've been practically the only Arab nation supporting the no-fly zone and have already signed an oil deal with the NTC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:In his original letter to Congress informing them of the engagement in Libya he said that he was filling them in as part of his obligation under the War Powers Resolution, so under the bizarre assumption that the executive believes that to be a real law, he's have to get authorization again on June 20th, at which point Congress can extend for another 30 days or give a full authorization for military action. Of course, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, no President has really believed that the WPR is constitutionally valid, so the real answer is: never. Sort of: no president has considered the WPR constitutional but generally they follow it anyway rather than provoke a constitutional crisis (except of course the part that demands Congress be consulted first unless it's an emergency, which Congress likewise doesn't really push).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
June 20th hmmm. While I agree with you that no executive has viewed the WPR as constitutional, hasn't it been followed anyway? I mean the fact that Obama sent a letter under the WPR is . . . a fact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
I think it makes sense that some folks in Libya will be frustrated. We have to always remember that unlike us, they are not watching CNN or often even Al Jazeera, most of them are not reading twitter or debating the efficacy of no-fly zones. They're just guys on the ground, failing to make headway because Ghaddafi's forces keep shelling them. If they are frustrated that airstrikes often don't materialize to take out those tanks and artillery, that's understandable. It's important to realize that they are talking about a perceived change in airstrikes since NATO took over; they are not complaining about the overall imposition of a no-fly or the doctrine of attacking Ghaddafi forces that threaten population centers. They're seeing that their momentum has been totally lost the last few days, it coincides with the NATO takeover, and maybe NATO's ability to rapidly dispatch airstrikes is not as good as when it was just the US, France and the UK coordinating everything directly. As to arming the rebels; frankly I don't think what they need is weapons. Or rather, weapons is a secondary need. What the rebels really need is effective command and control, organization, communication, and to adopt tactics that have a chance at being successful. They need to act as units, identify priorities and deploy units in a way that attacks those priorities, dig in when on the defensive rather than retreating, and so forth. I suspect that if they were able to actually apply force in a sustained way, that the Ghaddafi forces would tend to fold; their morale is probably fairly poor, their supplies are probably suffering, and a lot of them are probably looking for any reasonable chance to defect or surrender without having a senior officer shoot them in the back of the head. Of course, getting the rebels into a cohesive fighting force is a massively difficult job. I have no idea if it can be done, and if so, how quickly or by whom. It may be as simple as having a few of the already defected officers take control and hand out radios and start managing the war; or it may be impossible without extensive outside training and help. One thing that may be a factor soon is the isolation of Tripoli. It's eventually going to run out of food and fuel, with no sales of oil happening and no imports happening. The rebels can resupply, at least in theory, and that's one thing the no-fly zone can help with: surely protecting shipments of food and medical supplies is well within the purview of the UN resolution. We may see a humanitarian crisis develop in Tripoli that forces the people to overcome their fear of Ghaddafi's regime forces and start to riot or attack the police, which rebels outside the city could take advantage of as an opportunity to push in. Or it may be that that ship has sailed, and we really are going to see a long-term stalemate. I hope not, and I think the people saying that such a stalemate is now "certain" are being very premature, but it's a distinct and ugly possibility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Sort of: no president has considered the WPR constitutional but generally they follow it anyway rather than provoke a constitutional crisis (except of course the part that demands Congress be consulted first unless it's an emergency, which Congress likewise doesn't really push). True. It'll be pretty funny if he manages to get all the way into June without getting Congress to authorize an extension of force. The longer this goes on, the harder it'll be for that authorization to occur. In many way, he'd have been better off just getting Congress to rubber stamp this (which they certainly would have done) in March, but basically every part of this conflict has shown a lack of forward thinking on the part of the administration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
New Division posted:Various Western countries, mostly the U.S., U.K. and France. (hmmmmmm....) Yeah that's more or less what I figured. I guess it doesn't really matter since it's not like NATO is laundering arms through Qatar or anything; just curious. t3ch3 posted:I'm fairly sure we were pointing out the inevitability of Qaddafi using the tactic of pulling his forces back into the cities, making air strikes impossible, in this thread over a week ago. And now there's the commander of AFRICOM telling the Senate that sending in ground troops would help break the stalemate. It was bound to happen eventually, I guess. Gaffy can't hold on to power if he keeps letting his troops get blown to smithereens on the highways, so digging himself a bunch of civilian bunkers is the only practical way to minimize the losses. I guess the UN/NATO were hoping the loyalists would be so demoralized and the rebels so energized that the airstrikes would be all that was needed to topple Gaffy quickly, but it looks like it's not going to play out that way. I honestly doubt US boots will hit the ground over this, though. If the airstrikes were any indication, Obama will be dragging his feet with crampons even in the face of enormous pressure to do so. As long as the rebels keep training troops at a decent pace and Gaffy keeps taking losses every now and then, I'm sure they'll be able to turn the tide on their own providing NATO gives them enough time. Edit: ^^^ Also, Leperflesh's post is bang on. Contraction mapping fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Apr 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
Why do people keep talking about what Obama wants to do? The US is no longer in charge here. We're not even bombing any more. I think what Sarkozy wants to do, and can convince the English to support, will be more important. Obama's not going to re-escalate US involvement after pulling out, it'd look like a huge flip-flop and he knows it. The US will continue to supply NATO with non-combat support - probably AWACS, etc, and the use of US bases and maybe supply, etc. Obama isn't going to need to ask congress for support because he's going to be able to couch US military involvement as non-combat. He'll only need congress to actually pay for that, which they will, because it is politically nonviable to defund the troops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Why do people keep talking about what Obama wants to do? I brought that up only because General Ham told the Senate today the the US might need to put boots on the ground in Libya to break the stalemate. I'm pretty sure Obama's not going down that path, but it'll be an interesting NATO dynamic when Sarkozy starts dropping off troops and the US refuses to participate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Maybe they got them from those two boats they seized a week ago, smuggling arms from Iran? The Qataris denied that report.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
I can't even imagine American troops in Libya. jesus chist Obama would be all in at that point. If it did not work out he would have a really hard time being reelected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
t3ch3 posted:I brought that up only because General Ham told the Senate today the the US might need to put boots on the ground in Libya to break the stalemate. I'm pretty sure Obama's not going down that path, but it'll be an interesting NATO dynamic when Sarkozy starts dropping off troops and the US refuses to participate. I am dismayed at how frequently officials in the US goverment, who are ostensibly within Obama's chain of command (that is, the military and members of the executive, including cabinet members) keep going off saying things that directly contradict Obama's message. He's got a really serious off-message problem that the Republicans sure as gently caress don't have, and it's seriously undermining him. It makes him look really weak when he can't get his own people on the same loving page. Which is a long-winded way of saying, General Ham has no loving business suggesting that the US might put boots on the ground, just hours after Obama reiterated that the US will not put boots on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
Except that he's probably correct that the stalemate situation in Libya cannot be broken without exterior intervention of ground troops and it remains to be seen which countries would be willing to commit to that mission.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
If a stalemate breaks out, the best thing to do would be to open diplomatic negotiations, not send in the French Foreign Legion and the Marine Corps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I am dismayed at how frequently officials in the US goverment, who are ostensibly within Obama's chain of command (that is, the military and members of the executive, including cabinet members) keep going off saying things that directly contradict Obama's message.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
New Division posted:If a stalemate breaks out, the best thing to do would be to open diplomatic negotiations, not send in the French Foreign Legion and the Marine Corps. Qaddafi is a loving monster and if it comes to a stalemate, we need to roll into Qaddafi held territory with Vietnam era levels of troops and a WWII mentality of the only legitimate end to the war is the entire and unquestionable destruction of Qaddafi's government and supporters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
The rebels started this poo poo let them finish it. Why does the United States or anyone have to spend a bunch of money on a bunch of failed freedom fighters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Because it has always been about protecting civilians from massacre, which is exactly what Gaddafi was in the process of doing and exactly what he will do. It is or should be the mission of the UN to prevent this bullshit that has gone on since the beginning of time. Otherwise why bother calling ourselves civilised or why bother pretending to progress as a society and say we wish to seek moral and ethical superiority. Unless we act then we will not show that we have learnt from history. And no, this is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It sets a precedent for the future role of the UN.
Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Apr 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
No it does not, it sets the precedent for America and Western Europe to overthrow whoever they want, whenever they want, just like Kosovo did roughly a decade ago. It creates dangerous precedents for the use of hard power by a group of countries whose past histories make them less than ideal candidates to do anything in Africa or anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 04:49
|
|
|
DevNull posted:I saw a few reports on twitter that it was not actually NATO that bombed the rebels. They were actually bombed by Qaddafi's forces. Twitter. Should tell you all you need to know about the reliability of those claims. Last time I checked CQ's planes were grounded, and when they were up, they couldn't hit poo poo anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
Paradox Personified posted:The link in Jut's post states just that, so it's not only on twitter anymore. Err the link I posted said that the bombing was by NATO, not the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:Qaddafi is a loving monster and if it comes to a stalemate, we need to roll into Qaddafi held territory with Vietnam era levels of troops and a WWII mentality of the only legitimate end to the war is the entire and unquestionable destruction of Qaddafi's government and supporters.  Yeah, a launching a 3rd major land war sure is a great idea for Western countries that are in the middle of slashing budgets and pushing draconian cuts to social services.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:Because it has always been about protecting civilians from massacre, which is exactly what Gaddafi was in the process of doing and exactly what he will do. It is or should be the mission of the UN to prevent this bullshit that has gone on since the beginning of time. Otherwise why bother calling ourselves civilised or why bother pretending to progress as a society and say we wish to seek moral and ethical superiority. Unless we act then we will not show that we have learnt from history. And no, this is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It sets a precedent for the future role of the UN. Dude, don't bother he's been trolling this issue pretty hard. New Division posted:Yeah, a launching a 3rd major land war sure is a great idea for Western countries that are in the middle of slashing budgets and pushing draconian cuts to social services. This. Boots on the ground would do nothing but destroy NATO credibility, piss off and alienate the rebels, and cost an assload of money. As unfortunate as the stalemate is, it isn't really hurting anyone. Worst case scenario is the rebels fail to advance and Gaffy miraculously manages to keep a grip on the West, which results in either his death from old age (he's pretty loving old), being assassinated by someone on behalf of the resistance, or (most likely) getting either thrown out or killed by a coup of his own forces who've grown sick of his bullshit. Civil wars last an average of about 4 years; I'll  myself right now in saying that this will most certainly be one of the shorter ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
Contraction mapping posted:I'll Quoted, although I don't think anyone is going to remember this thread in four years. I'm not going to toxx, but I'll be surprised if we get out of this mess without making GBS threads at least 10 billion into it. Which is a ridiculous amount of money to be blowing at this point on a third foreign front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
Money that has already been budgeted for wa.... oh... no, you don't even have a budget yet, do you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
NATO to rebels "gently caress us? well gently caress you too!" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13010170
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
The King of Swag posted:Qaddafi is a loving monster and if it comes to a stalemate, we need to roll into Qaddafi held territory with Vietnam era levels of troops and a WWII mentality of the only legitimate end to the war is the entire and unquestionable destruction of Qaddafi's government and supporters. So when they start the draft to get those numbers, you'll be enlisting, correct?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
It don't look good. Libyan government forces tried to storm into the besieged city of Misrata on Friday as NATO generals acknowledged their air power was not enough to help insurgents remove Muammar Gaddafi by force alone. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/08/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110408
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Baddog posted:Quoted, although I don't think anyone is going to remember this thread in four years. You do know the US isn't playing a major role anymore, right? As in, they aren't even running sorties? The UK and France are doing all the heavy lifting now, I seriously doubt the US will be dumping 10 bil into this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 14:55
|
|