|
Count Roland posted:It was well after the protests had already been put down, and it was instead about putting down the rebellion. I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but what I read suggested the decision was made with incomplete information. The deciding factor was in all likelihood a lasting distaste for Gadhaffi himself. Granted the UK wasn't really the deciding factor as to whether the intervention went ahead or not, but I'd wager the US decision was made on similar grounds. Ytlaya posted:I don't think this makes sense at all. Sometimes there are situations that you just can't solve through having another nation bomb people, and acknowledging that isn't somehow immoral. There's no moral obligation to take action when it's unlikely the action in question will actually have positive effects (and quite possible it'll make things worse). Even if you believe (as Volkerball obviously does) that a hypothetical helpful intervention was possible, I don't think it's reasonable to expect any actual intervention to proceed in this manner. The thing is that in neither Libya or Syria was there really a hypothetical intervention to discuss. The US intervened. In the case of Syria it did so very quietly relative to the magnitude of the intervention. In Syria the goal was to eliminate ISIS as a regional entity and a huge contingent of SOF and supporting forces were silently shipped over. Some of the notable SDF advances against ISIS were 50% US SOF. I still find it unnerving that that scale of involvement was kept so quiet on a number of levels. There's a question of whether expanding the scope to meaningfully include regime change would've been worth the ridiculous cost, but it clearly was decided against. My personal feeling is that eradicating ISIS was ultimately worth it on a variety of levels, but holy gently caress the aftermath of the Islamic State is going to be messy af for a very long time, even once Iraq and Syria finish purging the leftovers. Of note, the decision to eradicate ISIS and to not pursue regime change was made under Obama and seemed to mostly continue through inertia under Trump, but since Trump came into office US military policy seems rudderless and it's hard to tell where the hell his administration would fall wrt intervening in foreign conflicts. And lol what the poo poo dude you can be concerned about more than just one thing at once 
Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 01:42 on May 31, 2018 |
#
?
May 31, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:the creation of a government the US is no longer obliged to rubberstamp in mass murdering civilians and exporting terror across the middle east. Thanks for your totally unbiased take here.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Anarchism is a toy ideology best kept in the bin with monarchy. Don't even try to pretend to be serious.  khwarezm posted:In our hypothetical scenario where somebody overthrows the government of Saudi Arabia and the country almost inevitably descends into chaos since it's incredibly obvious to everybody that there are horrendous divisions nanometers underneath the surface along with a near lack of civil society and democratic institutions or really any institutions not totally beholden to the monarchy that might have made it possible to transition to something workable, what do you think will happen exactly? Hopefully Iran will move in with China, Egypt and India to resolve the problem.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:
Cool the Christian supremacist guy is back with wrong headed opinions again. Just what was needed. Herstory Begins Now posted:I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but what I read suggested the decision was made with incomplete information. The deciding factor was in all likelihood a lasting distaste for Gadhaffi himself. Granted the UK wasn't really the deciding factor as to whether the intervention went ahead or not, but I'd wager the US decision was made on similar grounds. I mean all sorts of countries had very good reasons to be against Qadafi, especially once things had progressed to the state it was when Europe started running missions over head. It absolutely would have tilted any scenario where it would otherwise have been in balance.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Cool the Christian supremacist guy is back with wrong headed opinions again. Just what was needed. No big enough.Why is it in America's interest to keep sticking our noses in the region, oh so intelligent one? Espeiclaly if it is backing Saudi Arabia's interests? Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 04:55 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Thanks for your totally unbiased take here. hey volkerball i hear there's a tyrant committing mass murder in yemen when do you start arguing we should fund the moderate rebels against his tyrannical reign
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:hey volkerball i hear there's a tyrant committing mass murder in yemen We really should be helping the Houthis to deal with the Wahabi invaders and their vile mercs.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No You seem to have very poor reading comprehension. Perhaps you could try referring to things that are real? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:We really should be helping the Houthis to deal with the Wahabi invaders and their vile mercs. for some reason all that transparent humanitarian logic for how to save the Innocent Civilians From Their Tyrannical Murderers goes out the window when the murderers in question are salafist or wahhabist inquiring as to why this is involves someone starting to angrily whine about how dare you question the wisdom and good judgement of the people who brought you noted success stories Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You seem to have very poor reading comprehension. Perhaps you could try referring to things that are real? Just answer the question. Why should America be involved in a region where we have currently destroyed two countries. One that is only just now starting to get back on it's feet. While also backing Saudi Wahabi terrorists in another? What does America accomplish?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You seem to have very poor reading comprehension. Perhaps you could try referring to things that are real? fishmech are you under the impression the country of yemen is a vile lie perpetrated by the anti-american leftists i have terrible news for you
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Just answer the question. Why should America be involved in a region where we have currently destroyed two countries. One that is only just now starting to get back on it's feet. While also backing Saudi Wahabi terrorists in another? What does America accomplish? Who are you actually trying to argue with? You seem to be taking an entirely different person's argument as mine, possibly because you don't pay attention. Ze Pollack posted:fishmech are you under the impression the country of yemen is a vile lie perpetrated by the anti-american leftists No, guy who somehow thinks Qadafi having chlorine gas would prevent NATO from bombing him.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Who are you actually trying to argue with? You seem to be taking an entirely different person's argument as mine, possibly because you don't pay attention. It would have, he always could use something on the people interfering with his efforts to destroy wahabi rebels.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:It would have, he always could use something on the people interfering with his efforts to destroy wahabi rebels. No, it would not have. I assure you that NATO bombs do not need to breathe.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, it would not have. I assure you that NATO bombs do not need to breathe. it turns out for some odd reason NATO forces have proved less willing to go after people with weapons of mass destruction than they ate to go after those without health and safety issue, it seems see, for example, the people we're busily helping the Saudis butcher in Yemen, for the crime of being inconveniently in the Saudis' way. no North Korea kid gloves for them, for some reason. weird huh
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
It's almost like nobody wants to get nuked 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's almost like nobody wants to get nuked taking it all back to the original point: the moral of the story of the goofus Moamar Qaddafi and the gallant Kim Dynasty is that when the US promises if you'll hand over your weapons what follows will be great for you, there is a correct response and a response that involves death by bayonet sodomy
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:30
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:hey volkerball i hear there's a tyrant committing mass murder in yemen If Saudi's revolted against the regime and the US pulled support, as they did in the case of Mubarak, it'd take all of an article or two to convince you that the US was behind the revolution, and you'd be ranting about jihadists and regime change. You're no ally.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:it turns out for some odd reason NATO forces have proved less willing to go after people with weapons of mass destruction than they ate to go after those without No, not particularly. You really do have to be quite dim to miss how planes don't need to worry about chlorine gas or anthrax when they're miles up and fly back to base quite clear of any bio/chem attack. In fact, right now at this very minute, forces of the NATO countries are actively fighting Syria, who has chemical and biological weapons and has used the chemical weapons quite a bit. In fact, the last big attack incited extra American missiles on Syria. Almost like you're full of poo poo, weird. Ze Pollack posted:taking it all back to the original point: the moral of the story of the goofus Moamar Qaddafi and the gallant Kim Dynasty is that when the US promises if you'll hand over your weapons what follows will be great for you, there is a correct response and a response that involves death by bayonet sodomy Again that's not how this works. The weapons Gaddafhi handed over could have no effect on the war he got. Meanwhile North Korea spent over 55 years not getting invaded despite not having nukes, and presenting nearly all of their threat through conventional arms alone (for lack of suitable chem/bio delivery systems).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
The problem, basically, is that outside involvement absolutely is needed and would theoretically be feasible for the long term. But that's just the key word here - theoretically! In practice, the ensuing story depends heavily on how it is done and who does the intervention. The US is the last entity that should be doing it, if for no other reason than due to their past track record. And if that's still not enough of a reason,  if you think the current administration or state of US politics is anywhere near healthy enough to do a better job than what came before. I get that the primary reason it does anything nowadays is to make sure Russia or China don't do it first, who have no qualms whatsoever about these sorts of questions, but that doesn't change the fact that the US is a horrible choice regardless.So until the world has an entity, that doesn't intervene primarily for selfish geopolitical reasons first and actual stability and welfare of the region second (with UN peacekeepers being a guideline on how NOT to do it), only a fool would intervene anywhere and expect something genuinely better to follow. In fact, I'm under the impression that, aside from Obama's hands-off approach being the overall guideline for it, most of the calls of how the intervention should be done in Syria by the US was primarily made by the military so yeah...maybe more of that and less political decision making is exactly what's needed for these interventions. Of course, it'll always remain at risk when your Commander in Chief is a pissbaby who gets seduced by shiny orbs from big money men lol.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
this argument for proliferation being the key to warding off aggression is bizarrely reductive and dumb. north korea is a client state of china and that's always been their major deterrent against military intervention by the west, which is why no one has ever been actually gung ho to invade them between the period where china proved to the us that a land war in asia is dumb for the first of several times and when korea finally acquired working nukes a few years ago. syria has chemical weapons and uses them and that has been the only action to draw any direct american intervention, half hearted as it was. it didn't deter bombing and certainly doesn't deter the west from sending special force teams on the ground to advise chosen rebel factions. the deterrence is once again a major international player with skin in the game, russia. also most of the west not giving a gently caress. america got its dick hard about busting out the mop poo poo during the first gulf war when there was actually a chance saddam might have actually had something to use. talking about how chemical weapons would have saved gadhafi is a weird thing to seize on, he should have submitted to some world power that people give a poo poo about and would go to bat for him
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
like its a funny meme that gadhafi played ball with the west and then got the old death by pointy sodomy, but it's not actually causative and you come off as kind of dumb if you try to push it as an actual narrative
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
The whole chlorine saves Gaddafi meme rests on people not knowing how weapons work, frankly. gently caress, maybe if Gaddafi had planned better the rebels would have been crushed before the French et al provided air support
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
Maybe if he wasn't a two bit dictator there wouldn't have been a revolt in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:hey volkerball i hear there's a tyrant committing mass murder in yemen Houthis are Shias. Hence, Volkerball doesn’t think they deserve to live.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Maybe if he wasn't a two bit dictator there wouldn't have been a revolt in the first place. You mean like in Bahrain and in eastern Arabia. Why didn’t America get involved then.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
ought to start actively arming fatah imo can only make that situation better
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
war phase 12 begans: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-assad/assad-says-u-s-will-leave-syria-vows-to-retake-sdf-held-areas-idUSKCN1IW0K3 https://twitter.com/BarzanSadiq/status/1002062574861643779
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
China is only a partial guaranteer of North Korea, and if the US actually went all in, there is decent chance China couldn't fully respond militarily. Nuclear weapons make regime change impossible. Also, "WMDs" have always been a goofy term when obviously nuclear weapons are far more significant than chemical or most usable bioweapons. Nukes very well may have saved the Libyan regime. As for SDF/Assad I will just throw it out there before the usual discussion comes about that the split between the SDF and other rebel groups happened very early on in the war and it wasn't really up to the SDF.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 12:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Nukes very well may have saved the Libyan regime. Used pinball parts weren't going to deter anyone.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
quote:Several Saudi military officers were wounded in an attack on a military base in the western city of Taif after gunmen killed a policeman and seized his weapons before attacking the facility. Grain of salt as its AJE, and I'm not familiar with that Sabq paper. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/wounded-gunmen-attack-saudi-military-base-taif-180531055749102.html
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Used pinball parts weren't going to deter anyone. Gadaffi should have invested more wisely in his future.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Nuclear weapons make regime change impossible. No, they don't. Until they can handle MAD. And even still, the world's most nuclear armed nation collapsed despite them.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:China is only a partial guaranteer of North Korea, and if the US actually went all in, there is decent chance China couldn't fully respond militarily. Nuclear weapons make regime change impossible. As North Korea has pointed out when they've rejected any comparison to Libya, Libya's program was basically just getting started when they handed it over, so it's not like they had a deterrent they gave up. It arguably sent the wrong message on proliferation to murk him anyway, but his nuclear program was nowhere near being ready to be used. fishmech posted:No, they don't. Until they can handle MAD. Nothing that happened in Libya was worth losing a major city anywhere else in the world. There's no way the Europeans would have dragged us into a war in Libya if they thought there was even a fraction of a chance they were losing Paris. At most we could have maybe installed a real no fly zone over eastern Libya, but pushing for outright regime change would be crazy, especially when 'this guy is a raving lunatic' was half the justification in the first place. If he's such a lunatic, you don't trust that he's going to respond rationally to his imminent demise.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, they don't. Until they can handle MAD. Did the Soviet Union collapse because of purposeful regime change? If you want to argue that fine, but you are going to have to show your work. Also, if the subject is interventionist regime change through force you don't need MAD, you just need to be a real threat to your opponent. Sinteres posted:As North Korea has pointed out when they've rejected any comparison to Libya, Libya's program was basically just getting started when they handed it over, so it's not like they had a deterrent they gave up. It arguably sent the wrong message on proliferation to murk him anyway, but his nuclear program was nowhere near being ready to be used. Obviously, it was still in a very clearly stage of development, but if Gadaffi could even copple a dirty-warhead together that could hit continental Europe (or hell Italy) it would have changed the entire conflict. It is a "what-if" but it is a clear lesson of the value of deterrence against significantly more powerful opponents. (Gadaffi has some SCUD-Bs that wouldn't be enough on their own, but it is also an alternative scenario in which Libya continues to invest in its program.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Obviously, it was still in a very clearly stage of development, but if Gadaffi could even copple a dirty-warhead together that could hit continental Europe (or hell Italy) it would have changed the entire conflict. It is a "what-if" but it is a clear lesson of the value of deterrence against significantly more powerful opponents. IMO someone would have bombed their program before it got to that point, much as Israel did to Syria, and before that to Iraq. Qaddafi didn't have the ability to deter aggression in the interim like North Korea did and Iran so far has.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:IMO someone would have bombed their program before it got to that point, much as Israel did to Syria, and before that to Iraq. Qaddafi didn't have the ability to deter aggression in the interim like North Korea did and Iran so far has. It is a possibility, although for Gadaffi it would have been really the only viable route. Also, Libya is a farther away from Israel and has more strategic depth, and the West was pretty distracted for most of the 2000s. It is was a very risky route versus one that has shown to be completely suicidal.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, they don't. Until they can handle MAD. Nukes are actually stupidly powerful. North Korea with several hundred tactical nukes would easily defeat the entire US military if the US wasn't allowed to use nukes of their own.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is was a very risky route versus one that has shown to be completely suicidal. He could have chosen the route where he allows political reforms instead of blaming the protests on hallucinogenic Nescafe and launching a crackdown. Ben Ali is still doing just fine afaik
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 09:20 |
|
|
Flavahbeast posted:He could have chosen the route where he allows political reforms instead of blaming the protests on hallucinogenic Nescafe and launching a crackdown. Ben Ali is still doing just fine afaik The core issue with Libya is that it probably shouldn't be a unified nation state, and only existed that way because of the Italians and then Gadaffi. It probably would have made more sense to peaceful split the country or otherwise it could only stay unified through force. As for Gadaffi, I think he had already pissed the West and Israel too much, he was going to die in a gruesome fashion one way or another if he couldn't cobble something together.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:20
|
|