|
Nonsense posted:Because this thread isn't and never was simply a twitter dump. There can be a range of discussion as well, even some that makes you feel uncomfortable! But we aren't having any discussions, are we? It's always the same 2-3 posters that come in, go "See, Libya is just like Iraq!" and the rest of the thread goes "No it isn't" and then the first guys go "Yes it is" and then the rest of the thread goes "No it isn't" et cetera, et cetera ad infinitum.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Nonsense posted:Because this thread isn't and never was simply a twitter dump. There can be a range of discussion as well, even some that makes you feel uncomfortable! I'm gonna have to agree with this guy, I'd rather have people link reliable bbc links that random twitter crap. This isn't a Nato command post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:But we aren't having any discussions, are we? It's always the same 2-3 posters that come in, go "See, Libya is just like Iraq!" and the rest of the thread goes "No it isn't" and then the first guys go "Yes it is" and then the rest of the thread goes "No it isn't" et cetera, et cetera ad infinitum. Proof positive that the War in Iraq raped the American psyche. Also note that although there is a D&D crowd here it's still GBS territory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:01
|
|
|
To put this into perspective, Gadaffi's forces have killed about 15000+ people over the past four months. You can bitch about NATO loving up, but the alternative to this would have been mass executions and a terror campaign all over eastern libya, which is what they did to Zawiyah , tried to do in Misurata and were getting ready to do to Benghazi before the intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
One of the big issues surrounding the intervention and this thread is that there's not a great deal of visibile progress made. The rebels are gaining ground, slowly, but that big break out that always seems just over the horizon isn't getting any closer. Gaddafi hasn't faded away and the TNC still seems fragile, meanwhile every day the country's infrastructure just gets weaker and weaker. With things like the mercenary army that only existed on Twtitter not being revealed, it's becoming more apparent that the NATO plan was to save Benghazi (as they well should have) and that there wasn't too much more thought put into what to do next. We're 3 months into this and there isn't an end in sight, so it's not surprising that people are starting to become more and more skeptical or disinterested. And then we have Syria, a tragic and brutal situation that shows that the international community is pretty much powerless unless you've alienated every neighbor around you and then some.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
J33uk posted:And then we have Syria, a tragic and brutal situation that shows that the international community is pretty much powerless unless you've alienated every neighbor around you and then some. Well, Assad has done that already. Turkey gave him a week for him to step down, or something like that. I don't know what Turkey will do if he doesn't step down, though. automatic posted:Proof positive that the War in Iraq raped the American psyche. That happened after Vietnam, too. Give it about 30 or 20 years, and we'll be ok. That is, untill another W. goes and starts up another military clusterfuck, and we'll be back at square one again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 00:57
|
|
|
J33uk posted:One of the big issues surrounding the intervention and this thread is that there's not a great deal of visibile progress made. The rebels are gaining ground, slowly, but that big break out that always seems just over the horizon isn't getting any closer. Gaddafi hasn't faded away and the TNC still seems fragile, meanwhile every day the country's infrastructure just gets weaker and weaker. With things like the mercenary army that only existed on Twtitter not being revealed, it's becoming more apparent that the NATO plan was to save Benghazi (as they well should have) and that there wasn't too much more thought put into what to do next. We're 3 months into this and there isn't an end in sight, so it's not surprising that people are starting to become more and more skeptical or disinterested. That's really the lingering problem of this. Since WWII I understand the average civil war has lasted about four years, while as long as the Arab Spring has been going a common sentiment of internet commenters has seemingly been "well after I read news about Tunisia/Egypt/Syria/Libya/wherever I went to bed, had lunch with some friends, AND marathoned S3 of The Wire, and there still isn't a new government in place? This is a hopless stalemate that will never end!" While it's certainly reasonable to expect foreign air power to shorten the war in Libya, it only goes so far, especially given that when that intervention started things were looking like it was going to be a rout of helpless underequipped rebel forces. Turning that around takes time, and just since we live in a day when news comes out instantly by Twitter doesn't mean everything will happen fast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
Ace Oliveira posted:Well, Assad has done that already. Turkey gave him a week for him to step down, or something like that. I don't know what Turkey will do if he doesn't step down, though. Buh? While I know Turkey's been pretty pissed at Syria (especially with Syrian forces near the border to intimidate refugees), have they explicitly come out and said Assad should step down "or else"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:That's really the lingering problem of this. Since WWII I understand the average civil war has lasted about four years, while as long as the Arab Spring has been going a common sentiment of internet commenters has seemingly been "well after I read news about Tunisia/Egypt/Syria/Libya/wherever I went to bed, had lunch with some friends, AND marathoned S3 of The Wire, and there still isn't a new government in place? This is a hopless stalemate that will never end!" While it's certainly reasonable to expect foreign air power to shorten the war in Libya, it only goes so far, especially given that when that intervention started things were looking like it was going to be a rout of helpless underequipped rebel forces. Turning that around takes time, and just since we live in a day when news comes out instantly by Twitter doesn't mean everything will happen fast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:That's really the lingering problem of this. Since WWII I understand the average civil war has lasted about four years, while as long as the Arab Spring has been going a common sentiment of internet commenters has seemingly been "well after I read news about Tunisia/Egypt/Syria/Libya/wherever I went to bed, had lunch with some friends, AND marathoned S3 of The Wire, and there still isn't a new government in place? This is a hopless stalemate that will never end!" While it's certainly reasonable to expect foreign air power to shorten the war in Libya, it only goes so far, especially given that when that intervention started things were looking like it was going to be a rout of helpless underequipped rebel forces. Turning that around takes time, and just since we live in a day when news comes out instantly by Twitter doesn't mean everything will happen fast. I think the thing they're comparing it to is the US (and friends!) invasion of Iraq, where it took 3 weeks or less. Of course, that was the most powerful military in the history of the world going into an isolated country after 6 months of time to plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
Ace Oliveira posted:
Maybe we shouldn't be ok? I'll admit I was 16 years old and a hardcore neocon (with 4 cpacs under my belt) when GW decided to go to war. I don't know if we should be ok. It seems like when we get our national war pride back we turn into belligerent assholes who start wars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
Many posters in this very thread thought Khadaffi would be gone in a week or two tops
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:Many posters in this very thread thought Khadaffi would be gone in a week or two tops To paraphrase Obama, people bought into days, not weeks. Which either massively overestimated the strength of the rebels or underestimated the strength of the thugs running things in Tripoli. Again, I don't think this intervention is the wrong thing to do, but people really didn't see (or want to see) how long this would take. The idea of trying to do anything constructive in Syria (where the government has a far far better hand to play) is unthinkable if we can't even resolve the Libyan situation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
Do you make a hobby out of being a complete loving moron shotgunbadger?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Chade Johnson posted:Many posters in this very thread thought Khadaffi would be gone in a week or two tops Many posters believed that Ghadaffi had the slightest shred of human decency and wouldn't order anti-aircraft guns to be used on civilian protestors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Many posters believed that Ghadaffi had the slightest shred of human decency and wouldn't order anti-aircraft guns to be used on civilian protestors. So many posters had no grasp who Ghadaffi was then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
Ghadaffi is Ghadaffi!  But seriously, why is it taboo to be against our involvement in this conflict? And if/when Ghadaffi is killed, what then? Butt our noses into the clusterfuck that is Syria?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:Ghadaffi is Ghadaffi! Because unlike our other mucking around in the middle east, this is a clear 'good guys vs bad dictator' thing, so in a lot of minds if you go 'maybe it's not our place to just drop bombs on poo poo to 'fix' it while talking openly about our goal being regime change as if it's our affair at all' you're going 'I LOVE GHADAFFI DEATH TO REBELS'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
So since I'm against our involvement, I'm suddenly for Ghadaffi?  And that same argument of good guys versus bad dictator could be made with Saddam in Iraq. But since we don't have troops on the ground (doesn't mean we don't have CIA operatives on the ground though  ) this current action of bombing them with predator drones is acceptable? NATO already bombed the wrong side by accident but what if one of our predator drones bombs the wrong side? Do we say it became self-aware?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:So many posters had no grasp who Ghadaffi was then? Looking back on discussions on Ghadaffi's UN speech in 2010 and the Lockerbie bomber release in 2009 there was very little interest in looking at Ghadaffi beyond him being a victim of US agression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
The Libya / Iraq comparisons fall apart when it comes to the legal authorization, the motivations, the scale of involvement, and the reasons for regime change. The authorization to intervene in Libya came from the United Nations. The contention of those who support the resolution is that participating in the conflict will prevent more deaths than not participating. After the authorization was passed NATO forces took action. Participation has been limited to aerial and naval bombardments, smuggling war making materials to the rebels, and covertly supply of advisors. There's an insistence of regime change because it's feared that Qaddafi could bide his time before launching a campaign of repression. Prior to the Iraq invasion people claimed that Saddam posed an existential threat to his people, Iraq's neighbors, and to the United States. This was shown not to be the case. It appears that the decision to invade was driven by ideology, a hatred of Saddam, and delusional thinking. When it looked like the UN would not authorize Bush to invade he and his "Coalition of the Willing" unilaterally invaded Iraq. A later UN resolution authorized continued Coalition involvement in Iraq but the authorization did not retroactively authorize the invasion. Iraq is still suffering from the consequences of the invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 08:17
|
|
|
A student posted:The Libya / Iraq comparisons fall apart when it comes to the legal authorization, the motivations, the scale of involvement, and the reasons for regime change. Exactly. The only ones who are chanting 'Libya is Iraq' are the same people looking desperately to hang something on Obama while casually ignoring how they blindly supported Bush on much, much less simply because it was 'their guy' in office. Not to mention that Britain and France are heading this little mission since it's in their part of the world. Let's stop being dishonest here. If anything, the criticisms of this becoming Iraq ignores the whole purpose of the Arab Spring, the dictatorships and their oppressive behavior, and the effects of capitalism driving people to revolt because the system's massive swings drive people to the point of starvation and poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 08:34
|
|
|
A student posted:
While his threat to his neighbours and the US was non-existent Saddam has killed much more of his people since the end of the 1991 war then Gadaffi has. The reason no UN approved intervention happened in Iraq was international power politics, not that Iraq failed to meet some standard of brutality Libya has now exceeded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 09:49
|
|
|
My biggest concern with areas like Syria is that the outside world won't do enough to stop Assad, and the people will be repessed even more. I know we can't just throw up a no-fly zone or justify it for that matter at a moments notice, especially with Syria's ties to Iran, but everybody knows sanctions against officals aren't going to stop a tyrannical dictator from murdering his own people. It seems more and more likely that violence is the only answer, which is just depressing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 09:54
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:While his threat to his neighbours and the US was non-existent Saddam has killed much more of his people since the end of the 1991 war then Gadaffi has. The reason no UN approved intervention happened in Iraq was international power politics, not that Iraq failed to meet some standard of brutality Libya has now exceeded. That's a good point Ceejee, but one could also make the case that the sanctions killed a far greater number of people. Estimates for the number of civilians Saddam killed range from 300,000 to 800,000. Estimates just for the number of children who died due to sanctions range from 200,000 to 500,000. I don't mourn his removal or death but it feels like the Coalition's stance was "You shouldn't have killed your people and any Iraqi's who die because of our intervention is your fault because you made us do it." Edit: The number of children was estimated by looking at child and infant mortality rates, along with self reporting. I'm not sure what the estimates are for the number of adults killed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 10:08
|
|
|
The Libyan civil war is like the Spanish civil war. The League of Nations stayed neutral on that one, allowing for a Falangist victory and four decades of Franco's rule. Would a British and French intervention on the Republican side resulted in less bloodshed and repression overall? Probably. The issue isn't whether it's wortwhile to support the anti-dictator forces if they appear to have a real chance of success. The actual thousand dollar question is what will follow of that. The situation could remain extremely volatile for a long period of time, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Undemocratic forces could also take power, or armed forces could topple the weak civilian government (like Gaddafi originally did). Ultimately it depends on the people themselves, but the international community has its responsibilities in not creating another Hamid Karzai.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 11:09
|
|
|
spasticColon posted:So since I'm against our involvement, I'm suddenly for Ghadaffi? Actually, yes, that is exactly the way I see it. The intervention took place - with the authorization of the UN and at the request of both the rebels and Arab League members - with the explicit intent of securing the Libyan civilians from the violence brought upon them by the Gaddafi regime. If you claim that the intervention is unjust and should never have taken place, you are directly arguing that Gaddafi's unlimited and intentional violence against the Libyan people is, in the long run, better for said people than NATO's limited and accidental violence. If you are arguing that there shouldn't have been any violence in the first place, fine, but that was never an option. No number of sanctions or sternly worded speeches would have saved the Libyan revolt or the lives of the rebels once Gaddafi had steamrolled them. And once more, going "B-b-but Iraq!" is downright dishonest. It is a question of legitimacy. The Iraq war was driven by ideology and the outspoken intention of reshaping the middle east from outside. It was obvious to most people as a matter of the neocons looking for any excuse to invade with ground forces after more than ten years of laying the groundwork, after extensive planning, and going in unilaterally after the UN and NATO refused to take the bait. The Libyan intervention came out of nowhere, is backed by the full legitimacy of the UNSC, took place at the request of the NTC, and even governments opposed to the intervention is claiming that the NTC are the legitimate representatives of the Libyan people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 11:56
|
|
|
Another NATO updatequote:Sorties conducted 25 JUNE: 123
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
Slantedfloors posted:Many posters believed that Ghadaffi had the slightest shred of human decency and wouldn't order anti-aircraft guns to be used on civilian protestors. I wonder how much rebel propaganda/exaggeration affected the UN's decision to intervene. It wouldn't be the first time propaganda has been used in this way either, recall the "babies being ripped out of incubators by Iraqis" farce just before the start of the first Gulf war It will be very interesting to see if Amnesties claim that "there is no evidence CQ is using rape as a weapon" turns out to be true. I find it interesting that the Italians are backing away, slowly from this mess, and that it seems the rebels are backing away from their "NO NEGOTIATIONS!" policy after weeks of "there will be a big push soon!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
Jut posted:Many posters also believed CQ was using platoons of "African Mercenaries" to commit genocide and that nearly all his military had deserted him. Don't forget he way paying them in solid gold bars
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
Old Hanz posted:Don't forget he way paying them in solid gold bars Yea let's not forget that up until pretty recently this was literally 'Brown Moses and some others post twitter poo poo' and people were taking it as straight truth, so the pool is super murky right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Yea let's not forget that up until pretty recently this was literally 'Brown Moses and some others post twitter poo poo' and people were taking it as straight truth, so the pool is super murky right now. Really? Because from what I saw most people took all the twitter posts with a large pinch of salt. But it sure is hard to argue with real people when you can just keep making straw men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Really? Because from what I saw most people took all the twitter posts with a large pinch of salt. I don't know, you could look back yourself and see the pages long debate over if CQ was using mercs paid in gold, or tons of people going 'well IF *absurd claim* is true....' about any tweet at all. Or you could just huff angrily and declare that all made up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
So basically Allan is exactly right about you making up strawmen because its easier than actually arguing with anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Jut posted:Many posters also believed CQ was using platoons of "African Mercenaries" to commit genocide and that nearly all his military had deserted him. The mercenary story hasn't been confirmed, but it does have some truth behind it. Gaddafi has plenty of supporters in surrounding African countries, and friendly governments. We even had some articles showing Gaddafi recruiters going to those countries and getting some of those supporters and bringing them over Libya to fight. They even interviewed some of those recruiters. They are old articles from February or March. The army defecting also has some truth behind it. The military defecting en masse to the point of Gaddafi not having any soldiers is bullshit, but there were many defections. There were a lotta pictures around that time that showed the defected soldiers, particulary in and around Benghazi. Ace Oliveira fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:Yea let's not forget that up until pretty recently this was literally 'Brown Moses and some others post twitter poo poo' and people were taking it as straight truth, so the pool is super murky right now. Exactly. This thread is so much more interesting now that it's turned into the same debate on right and wrong as every other war thread ever rather than a play by play on the first revolution I've seen play out on Youtube. Maybe next we should look at every politician in every NATO country that approved this operation and compare their current stance to their position on involvement in previous conflicts to better deduce the purity of their intentions and judge their wisdom in regards to which decision will truly save the most lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Ace Oliveira posted:The mercenary story hasn't been confirmed, but it does have some truth behind it. Gaddafi has plenty of supporters in surrounding African countries, and friendly governments. We even had some articles showing Gaddafi recruiters going to those countries and getting some of those supporters and bringing them over Libya to fight. They even interviewed some of those recruiters. They are old articles from February or March. We also have plenty of videos of African mercenaries. We just had one posted about a week ago that was recovered from a Gaddafi supporter, with truckloads of armed Africans about to be shipped to "purify Misrata". fe: gently caress, here's a repost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El5bvZhHIDQ How's that for platoons of African mercenaries, because there's at least a platoon in each truck?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
cgeq posted:Exactly. This thread is so much more interesting now that it's turned into the same debate on right and wrong as every other war thread ever rather than a play by play on the first revolution I've seen play out on Youtube. Maybe next we should look at every politician in every NATO country that approved this operation and compare their current stance to their position on involvement in previous conflicts to better deduce the purity of their intentions and judge their wisdom in regards to which decision will truly save the most lives. This is a terrible stance that relies on omniscience, post hoc reasoning, and the purest most bullshit forms of relativism. It is constructed exactly the same as the ticking time bomb excuse for torture. Mr. Sunshine posted:
Was it? If so I apologize. I've literally seen that last sentence proposed as a reasonable thing. farraday fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
Ace Oliveira posted:The army defecting also has some truth behind it. The military defecting en masse to the point of Gaddafi not having any soldiers is bullshit, but there were many defections. There were a lotta pictures around that time that showed the defected soldiers, particulary in and around Benghazi. I recall the two Libyan fighter bombers landing in Malta, claiming they did it because they were told to bomb a Libyan city, were proven to be a CIA/NATO false flag operation. Okay, technically not 'proven'. But we haven't heard anything about them ever since, what other proof is needed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
farraday posted:This is a terrible stance that relies on omniscience, post hoc reasoning, and the purest most bullshit forms of relativism.  I think that was his point...
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 19:22
|
|