Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

spasticColon posted:

Oh sure Gaddafi is a terrible person but so was Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. Now that both of them are dead we have to conjure up another boogeyman to go after. Our stupid foreign policy bit us on the rear end on 9/11 and will do so again. And this is OK because Obama is president? What if we had some Republican stooge for president doing this instead?

McCain would have been too busy bomb-bomb-bombing Iran to care about the Arab Spring. Because WMD!!!! But really, comparing the bombing operations aimed at halting indiscriminate attacks on population centres in Libyan civil war to an all-out, unprovoked invasion of Iraq just doesn't work. What is going on in Libya is more akin to the US operations in Somalia where C-130 gunships have been targetting Islamist fighters. It doesn't work as an automatic justification, but still, you're wrong if you think that every conflict is the same thing.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 11:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 04:23

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Latest NATO report

quote:

Sorties conducted 24 JUNE: 137
Strike sorties conducted 24 JUNE: 43
Key Hits
24 JUNE: In the vicinity of Brega: 7 Command & Control Nodes, 1 Military Storage Facility, 14 Truck-Mounted Guns, 1 Tank, 2 Armoured Personnel Carriers, 3 Logistic Trucks, 7 Military Shelters.
In the vicinity of Gharyan: 1 Early Warning Radar, 1 Truck-Mounted Gun. In the vicinity of Zlitan: 2 Artillery Pieces, 1 Mortar, 1 Truck-Mounted Gun.
In the vicinity of Okba: 3 Surface-To-Air Missile Loader Vehicles.

I'd be making GBS threads my pants if I was in Brega at the moment, that's a huge increase in strikes.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 11:58

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

A very good long article about Nafusa from the NYT:

quote:

Western Libya Tastes a Tenuous Revival as Rebels Loosen Qaddafi�s Grip
Until a few weeks ago, residents of towns in the Nafusah Mountains were struggling to survive on dwindling supplies of barley, water and gas, with the region under siege by the soldiers of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi who were determined to stamp out the rebellion here.

But after an improbable series of military victories over the past three weeks � with fewer than 100 rebel fighters killed, their military leaders say � residents of a broad area in this mountain region are celebrating virtual secession from Colonel Qaddafi�s Libya. While there have been defeats, and the Grad rockets of Colonel Qaddafi�s forces still menace the outskirts of Nalut near the Tunisian border and Yafran to the east, rebels point hopefully to the growing stability of the towns under their control as evidence of how tenuous Colonel Qaddafi�s grip may be.

�This is the new Libya,� said Anwar Fekini, a Sorbonne-educated French-Libyan lawyer, rebel organizer and local tribal leader who returned for a weekend trip to his ancestral home to strategize with local allies. �It feels good.�

The Nafusah Mountains have emerged as a strategically significant front in the battle for Libya, in part because the rebels there are closest to Colonel Qaddafi�s stronghold in the capital, Tripoli, and in part because they have the potential to cut off vital supply lines from the border. And though barely trained and few in number � one rebel leader estimated that there were about 2,000 armed fighters � they have used their knowledge of the terrain and the sympathies of much of the local population to expand their territory as the fighting around Benghazi to the east and Misurata on the central coast has moved toward a stalemate.

The rebels have established firm control of more than a half- dozen towns from the Dhiba border crossing into Tunisia, where rebel guards mingle amiably with their Tunisian counterparts, to the major town of Yafran, a 90-minute drive from Tripoli. Over the weekend several Tripoli residents arrived to take refuge with their families as well.

After months of exodus from the fighting in the mountains, the border crossing is now jammed with a long line of refugees returning home. In many towns, local authorities say that most of the Qaddafi government employees kept working as the rebels took over, and the same police officers now patrol the streets in fresh new rebel uniforms. Their own makeshift jails house captured soldiers.

At least seven local newspapers � photocopied newsletters � have sprung up to capitalize on the new freedom of the press. In Rogeban, each issue of a new paper produced by a history professor includes both a �face of the revolution� feature on a local activist and a short civics lesson introducing concepts that may be useful in discussing Libya�s future, like �confederation� or �federalism.�

Rogeban residents have covered the walls with cartoons mocking Colonel Qaddafi and decorated public spaces with shards of his military�s Grad rockets. A new museum Yafran celebrates local culture and achievements, with one room devoted to the armaments fired at local communities and another archiving the new local papers. Across the border in Tunisia, a small industry has sprung up to furnish baseball hats and T-shirts emblazoned with the tricolor pre-Qaddafi Libyan flag that the rebels have adopted as their own.

Local doctors say are better equipped with supplies than they were before the uprising, in part because of the generosity of wealthier Libyans abroad. The rebels have even painted a runway along more than a mile of highway, in the hopes that planes might land with more weapons and supplies. In the latest victory, several members of the Libyan national soccer team defected from Tripoli and entered the Nafusah Mountains on Friday night to declare their support for the insurrection as well.

Residents of the mountains here have long been resentful of the Qaddafi government, in part because perhaps a third are members of the Berber ethnic minority. For decades Colonel Qaddafi denied and suppressed the existence of their culture, language and sect of Islam, and in Berber centers like Jadu, Nalut and Yafran, the symbols of Berber culture have been added to the tricolor rebel flag.

Signs and graffiti in the characters of the Berber language, Amazigh, have sprouted up everywhere, along with newspapers printed in Amazigh and Arabic. At a rally Friday night in Jadu, demonstrators carried signs calling for national recognition of their language and others, declaring �Libya is one tribe.�

But the key to their success, rebels military leaders say, has been the extraordinarily weak morale of Colonel Qaddafi�s troops.

The turning point came with their surprise takeover of the border crossing between Wazen, Libya, and Dhiba, Tunisia, on April 21.

After reinforcements arrived the next day, the rebel fighters ultimately numbered about 120, with 16 pickup trucks equipped with artillery captured or taken by defectors from the Libyan Army. The Nafusah rebels include dozens of former army officers who switched sides at the start of the revolt. But the rest of their force was so underequipped that some of the rebels were fighting with 100-year-old rifles their ancestors once used to fight the Italian colonial rulers.

Still, the next morning they managed to turn back a column of pro-Qaddafi reinforcements trying to climb to the crossing from their base at the town of Al Ghezaia, rebel fighters said. And after a pitched battle not long after dawn on the second morning of the fight, the better-equipped and more numerous pro-Qaddafi border guards abruptly abandoned their post around breakfast the next morning, according to rebel fighters and Tunisian officers who watched it. The final gun fight lasted just 26 minutes, a Tunisian witness said, and no rebels were killed.

�We drank their tea,� said Omar Fekini, 49, a veteran of Libya�s ill-fated war with Chad who helped lead the rebel assault. A group of pro-Qaddafi troops briefly retook the crossing the next week, but less than a day later they, too, retreated before a similarly motley and ill-equipped rebel band, whose leaders could provide no explanation for their own success.

NATO planes played no role in the battle for the border post, although the burned shells of tanks along the road provide evidence of strikes elsewhere.

At a police station here, rebels housed two captured pro-Qaddafi soldiers in a narrow windowless room furnished only with two bare and ripped foam mattresses. Both had been captured nearly a month ago trying to flee Qaddafi checkpoints almost as soon as they heard artillery fire, according to the accounts of both the prisoners and their captors.

They had received bullet wounds in firefights leading to their capture, and both said they had received adequate medical attention, though one still walked with a limp. Both said they had enlisted for a 10-day tour of duty after pro-Qaddafi recruiters had told them they would be fighting foreign terrorists and mercenaries, but they offered little explanation for their professed ignorance of the Libyan revolt.

The mountains have become an accessible refuge for opposition figures fleeing Tripoli and other areas. Near Yafran, a group of fighters who fled Zawiyah when Colonel Qaddafi�s forces drove out the rebels there have set up a camp, waiting for a chance to return.

Not all is tranquil. Parts of Nalut, the Berber town closest the border crossing, still lack electricity and water and its outskirts come under fire from the Grad rockets of Qaddafi�s forces. Many villages seem largely deserted. Last week, a group of fighters from Nalut tried unsuccessfully to attack a pro-Qaddafi base about 10 miles into the valley below the town, losing several fights. Leaders of other tribes suggested that the Naluti had invited their own defeat by refusing to ask for more help from the others.

The other mountain front is between Yafran and Gharyan, a town of 85,000 that is Colonel Qaddafi�s last major stronghold in the mountains. Rebels at the last checkpoint beyond Yafran say they still come under occasional fire from the pro-Qaddafi forces� Grad rockets, but the people of the small town between Yafran and Gharyan have so far refused to join their cause.

Standing at the last checkpoint, Hisham al-Gibali, 33, showed a bullet wound he received to his leg near Yafran a few weeks ago. He said he had left a life in the Netherlands to come back to Libya to join the fight, and he argued that the rebels would soon take Gharyan despite their inferior numbers because of the strength of their morale.

�We are fighting for truth and they are not,� he said. �The fighters from Zintan and Jadu will come here and we will all go together. We are all Libyans, we are not alone.�

# ? Jun 25, 2011 18:39

shotgunbadger: Nov 18, 2008; WEEK 4 - RETIRED

Nenonen posted:

McCain would have been too busy bomb-bomb-bombing Iran to care about the Arab Spring. Because WMD!!!! But really, comparing the bombing operations aimed at halting indiscriminate attacks on population centres in Libyan civil war to an all-out, unprovoked invasion of Iraq just doesn't work. What is going on in Libya is more akin to the US operations in Somalia where C-130 gunships have been targetting Islamist fighters. It doesn't work as an automatic justification, but still, you're wrong if you think that every conflict is the same thing.

We're trying to stop civilian deaths!

*uses high explosives in warzones with hard to tell sides, takes a week to finally admit when they do blow up civilians*

also let's not forget at the very beginning using the tactic of 'bomb around the ground to keep those savages from going near our fancy wrecked plane'.

Also, I really wouldn't use anything the west is doing in Somalia as a good comparison for your side. To be fair though you are exactly right, it's just not a good thing.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 19:25

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

shotgunbadger posted:

We're trying to stop civilian deaths!

*uses high explosives in warzones with hard to tell sides, takes a week to finally admit when they do blow up civilians*

also let's not forget at the very beginning using the tactic of 'bomb around the ground to keep those savages from going near our fancy wrecked plane'.

Also, I really wouldn't use anything the west is doing in Somalia as a good comparison for your side. To be fair though you are exactly right, it's just not a good thing.

Sounds like you would have preferred seeing Libyan army advance on Benghazi unstopped? Because, without NATO intervention, that would have happened. Do you have any idea of what the destruction would have been like?

Again, how does that compare to Iraq or Afghanistan? Also, are you seriously siding with Somalian islamists? :stare:

# ? Jun 25, 2011 19:47

Nckdictator: Sep 8, 2006; Just..someone

Nenonen posted:

Sounds like you would have preferred seeing Libyan army advance on Benghazi unstopped? Because, without NATO intervention, that would have happened. Do you have any idea of what the destruction would have been like?

Again, how does that compare to Iraq or Afghanistan? Also, are you seriously siding with Somalian islamists?

Speakig for myself I think it's a hell of alot better to work for some sort of peace then bombing some poor conscript who's being forced on at gun-point.I'm pretty sure it compares to Iraq/Afghaistan in the sense that people will die if/since we havve intervented.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 22:00

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

There needs to come a time when people recognize that force is required to get peaceful actions to happen. Look how resistant CQ is to leaving now and how they are still attacking civilians. How do you think he would be acting if all NATO did was ask him nicely to stop over and over again?

# ? Jun 25, 2011 22:31

Nenonen: Oct 22, 2009; Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa

Nckdictator posted:

Speakig for myself I think it's a hell of alot better to work for some sort of peace then bombing some poor conscript who's being forced on at gun-point.I'm pretty sure it compares to Iraq/Afghaistan in the sense that people will die if/since we havve intervented.

Personally I'm inclined against 'humanitarian warfare', but sometimes the involvement of the international community is deserved. For example, I didn't shed a single drop of tear over the removal of Taliban from Kabul, although the handling of the process in Afghanistan/Waziristan since then has left a lot to be deserved, not least because of Pakistani impotence. But still, ISAF could go bombing every wedding in Afghanistan for a year, and they still wouldn't match the brutality of the Taliban rule. I would even have supported the Soviets in their fight against the Mujahideen if that would have stabilized the country so that women could have had basic human rights.

But anyway, regarding Libya. You're saying that it's better to work for some sort of peace. Are you happy with the kind of peace that is being achieved in Syria? Shoot all the protesters and the trouble is solved? At least no one is harming the poor Syrian conscripts as they go from house to house executing people.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 22:37

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

shotgunbadger posted:

We're trying to stop civilian deaths!

*uses high explosives in warzones with hard to tell sides, takes a week to finally admit when they do blow up civilians*

also let's not forget at the very beginning using the tactic of 'bomb around the ground to keep those savages from going near our fancy wrecked plane'.

Also, I really wouldn't use anything the west is doing in Somalia as a good comparison for your side. To be fair though you are exactly right, it's just not a good thing.

It's a lovely war, really.

http://www.obamaslibya.com/ really, really, :nws:

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:02

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

shotgunbadger posted:

We're trying to stop civilian deaths!

*uses high explosives in warzones with hard to tell sides, takes a week to finally admit when they do blow up civilians*

Oh good, having learned nothing from the last time you laid a big stinky poo poo in this thread, you're once again dropping trou!

You do realize that the term "high explosive" pretty much covers every weapon that isn't gunpowder, right? loving dynamite is a high explosive. But yeah, I guess the phrase sounds all scary and poo poo, so it must be a war crime to use high explosives in warfare.

As for the incident you're crowing about, this was pretty much the only major "friendly fire" incident that's happened in over three months of air strikes. That's still one more than there should be, but Jesus Christ it's not like they're launching indiscriminate unguided rockets into major cities. Unlike others in Libya we could name.

You're pretty desperate to make this intervention look like A Bad Thing The West Is Doing, and the amount of angry flailing in the face of facts would be funny if it weren't so aggravating.

Nonsense posted:

It's a lovely war, really.

http://www.obamaslibya.com/ really, really,

And somehow, you're even worse than shotgunbadger. Yessir, those random and completely unsourced videos sure are proof the rebels are Worse Than Hitler and so is Obama for supporting them!

Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jun 25, 2011

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:04

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Oh good, having learned nothing from the last time you laid a big stinky poo poo in this thread, you're once again dropping trou!

You do realize that the term "high explosive" pretty much covers every weapon that isn't gunpowder, right? loving dynamite is a high explosive. But yeah, I guess the phrase sounds all scary and poo poo, so it must be a war crime to use high explosives in warfare.

As for the incident you're crowing about, this was pretty much the only major "friendly fire" incident that's happened in over three months of air strikes. That's still one more than there should be, but Jesus Christ it's not like they're launching indiscriminate unguided rockets into major cities. Unlike others in Libya we could name.

You're pretty desperate to make this intervention look like A Bad Thing The West Is Doing, and the amount of angry flailing in the face of facts would be funny if it weren't so aggravating.

And somehow, you're even worse than shotgunbadger. Yessir, those random and completely unsourced videos sure are proof the rebels are Worse Than Hitler and so is Obama for supporting them!

You really need to get over that not everybody has a hard on for conflict. Also I own.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:07

shotgunbadger: Nov 18, 2008; WEEK 4 - RETIRED

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Oh good, having learned nothing from the last time you laid a big stinky poo poo in this thread, you're once again dropping trou!

You do realize that the term "high explosive" pretty much covers every weapon that isn't gunpowder, right? loving dynamite is a high explosive. But yeah, I guess the phrase sounds all scary and poo poo, so it must be a war crime to use high explosives in warfare.

As for the incident you're crowing about, this was pretty much the only major "friendly fire" incident that's happened in over three months of air strikes. That's still one more than there should be, but Jesus Christ it's not like they're launching indiscriminate unguided rockets into major cities. Unlike others in Libya we could name.

You're pretty desperate to make this intervention look like A Bad Thing The West Is Doing, and the amount of angry flailing in the face of facts would be funny if it weren't so aggravating.

And somehow, you're even worse than shotgunbadger. Yessir, those random and completely unsourced videos sure are proof the rebels are Worse Than Hitler and so is Obama for supporting them!

I never said 'war crimes', you even admitted 'high explosives' is the correct term, you're just super pissed about it? I'm sorry I don't agree that bombing the poo poo out of conscripts and civilians (only once guys we swear) without even following basic law about it is really 'humanitarian'?

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:08

automatic: Nov 3, 2010; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Nonsense posted:

You really need to get over that not everybody has a hard on for conflict. Also I own.

Not everyone who supports the Libyan intervention has a "hard on for conflict" any more than people who oppose it have a "hard on for slaughtering and raping civilians".

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:10

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

automatic posted:

Not everyone who supports the Libyan intervention has a "hard on for conflict" any more than people who oppose it have a "hard on for slaughtering and raping civilians".

I wasn't speaking about you automatic, do not be worried, all will be well, Gadaffi's lost and he lost pretty hard and his fate will be brutal and deserved, but this war is awful, hope it ends.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:13

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

shotgunbadger posted:

I never said 'war crimes', you even admitted 'high explosives' is the correct term, you're just super pissed about it? I'm sorry I don't agree that bombing the poo poo out of conscripts and civilians (only once guys we swear) without even following basic law about it is really 'humanitarian'?

And you're still ignorant. "High explosives" isn't a category of weapons. It's a technical term for any explosive that detonates.

And please cite whatever the gently caress "basic law" you're talking about.

quote:

You really need to get over that not everybody has a hard on for conflict. Also I own.

Considering every drat thing you've posted in this thread is entirely, 100% fact free, I can say with scientific certainty that you do not own. Not even a little.

And your post about thinking the war is terrible and should end is charming, because it's a great little rhetorical two-step implying that people who aren't you think that the war is awesome and are thus contemptible monsters.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:16

shotgunbadger: Nov 18, 2008; WEEK 4 - RETIRED

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

And you're still ignorant. "High explosives" isn't a category of weapons. It's a technical term for any explosive that detonates.

And please cite whatever the gently caress "basic law" you're talking about.

The...the War Powers act? Like we just had a big talk about this just a page or so ago?

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:17

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

shotgunbadger posted:

The...the War Powers act? Like we just had a big talk about this just a page or so ago?

Explain how the War Powers Act, which has incidentally not been universally accepted as binding law in the US, applies to Britain, France, or NATO as an organization. Believe it or not, it isn't the US military doing the vast majority of the airstrikes.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:18

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

And you're still ignorant. "High explosives" isn't a category of weapons. It's a technical term for any explosive that detonates.

And please cite whatever the gently caress "basic law" you're talking about.

Considering every drat thing you've posted in this thread is entirely, 100% fact free, I can say with scientific certainty that you do not own. Not even a little.

And your post about thinking the war is terrible and should end is charming, because it's a great little rhetorical two-step implying that people who aren't you think that the war is awesome and are thus contemptible monsters.

I was replying to you though, and only you, because you're a predator drone and your munitions are bad posts.

Also you're strange that you think wanting this war to end means something other than wanting a war to end.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:21

1337JiveTurkey: Feb 17, 2005

Nonsense posted:

I wasn't speaking about you automatic, do not be worried, all will be well, Gadaffi's lost and he lost pretty hard and his fate will be brutal and deserved, but this war is awful, hope it ends.

Gadaffi definitely hadn't lost at the beginning of the outside intervention and it was a war at that point, albeit one with his side using modern military equipment against a bunch of people who had nothing to stop it with.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:23

automatic: Nov 3, 2010; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Nonsense posted:

I wasn't speaking about you automatic, do not be worried, all will be well, Gadaffi's lost and he lost pretty hard and his fate will be brutal and deserved, but this war is awful, hope it ends.

Can't say I disagree with you about CQ's fate but I hope all will be well. Nothing worse than seeing intervention
with the best intentions ending with the same/worse situation.

Also due to "Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Alex Smith, supergenius." I gotta defend Van Goatse.

automatic fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jun 25, 2011

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:23

Chade Johnson: Oct 12, 2009; by Ozmaugh

shotgunbadger posted:

The...the War Powers act? Like we just had a big talk about this just a page or so ago?

Ignore him, he's just a troll.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:25

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

Nonsense posted:

I was replying to you though, and only you, because you're a predator drone and your munitions are bad posts.

Also you're strange that you think wanting this war to end means something other than wanting a war to end.

So since you have no actual facts to offer, you're resorting to ad hom attacks?

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:26

Frackmire: Jan 26, 2010; WHY DO THEY
HATE US WHEN
WE'RE SO GOOD?

Nonsense posted:

I was replying to you though, and only you, because you're a predator drone and your munitions are bad posts.

Also you're strange that you think wanting this war to end means something other than wanting a war to end.

With NATO help, rebels will win eventually. Ether way, Gaddafi will end up dead sooner or later. Payback is a bitch, maybe he shouldn't have killed Americans.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:27

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Frackmire posted:

With NATO help, rebels will win eventually. Ether way, Gaddafi will end up dead sooner or later. Payback is a bitch, maybe he shouldn't have killed Americans.

Yeah he's a goner.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:30

AllanGordon: Jan 26, 2010; by Shine

Nonsense posted:

I was replying to you though, and only you, because you're a predator drone and your munitions are bad posts.

Also you're strange that you think wanting this war to end means something other than wanting a war to end.

You should really make it obvious then, instead of posting sarcastic poo poo.

No one wanted this war, but it was necessary to save lives. You can be against warfare and still recognize it's use in the world.

But so far most of the people who've gone out of their way to find sources that paint the rebels or NATO negatively also seem to think that this is an "unjust" war. Bit lovely really when you think of all the civilians who would have and have died from the war crimes CQ's forces have committed.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:31

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

AllanGordon posted:

You should really make it obvious then, instead of posting sarcastic poo poo.

No one wanted this war, but it was necessary to save lives. You can be against warfare and still recognize it's use in the world.

But so far most of the people who've gone out of their way to find sources that paint the rebels or NATO negatively also seem to think that this is an "unjust" war. Bit lovely really when you think of all the civilians who would have and have died from the war crimes CQ's forces have committed.

Yeah I apologize for that again Allan.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:36

shotgunbadger: Nov 18, 2008; WEEK 4 - RETIRED

AllanGordon posted:

You should really make it obvious then, instead of posting sarcastic poo poo.

No one wanted this war, but it was necessary to save lives. You can be against warfare and still recognize it's use in the world.

But so far most of the people who've gone out of their way to find sources that paint the rebels or NATO negatively also seem to think that this is an "unjust" war. Bit lovely really when you think of all the civilians who would have and have died from the war crimes CQ's forces have committed.

Just to be clear, if you replace CQ with Saddam this could be the exact argument the right used back in 2001. Like, that's the issue people have, all of a sudden it's cool to use this thinking that we decided last time to be terrible, that's actually pretty lovely.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:36

Frackmire: Jan 26, 2010; WHY DO THEY
HATE US WHEN
WE'RE SO GOOD?

Yeah, but we have been bombing Saddam since the end of the first war, the actual invasion is what sparked all the opposition. While I'm sure the marines would be thrilled to take Tripoli, even the Republicans would be against any land operations because Obama is running the show.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:40

Chade Johnson: Oct 12, 2009; by Ozmaugh

AllanGordon posted:

You should really make it obvious then, instead of posting sarcastic poo poo.

No one wanted this war, but it was necessary to save lives. You can be against warfare and still recognize it's use in the world.

But so far most of the people who've gone out of their way to find sources that paint the rebels or NATO negatively also seem to think that this is an "unjust" war. Bit lovely really when you think of all the civilians who would have and have died from the war crimes CQ's forces have committed.

No, it was necessary to overthrow a regime that we didn't like and that wasn't open enough to western corporations and technocrats. You could use the same argument for Bahrain, Syria, Palestine, and plenty of other places, not just in the Arab world and North Africa. Liberal interventionists are no better than neocons.

This same argument was used in the Yugoslav wars. The big bad Serbians were the Bad guys, even though Croatians, Bosniaks, and Albanians were slaughtering thousands of Serbs and committing ethnic cleansing themselves. But because Milosevic was a pariah, it was easier to paint him as the bad guy, even though Tudjman was just as bad, if not worse.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:40

shotgunbadger: Nov 18, 2008; WEEK 4 - RETIRED

Right, again I wasn't saying this is literally that situation, I'm saying the concept of 'we HAD to fight them, for peace' is the core issue that feeds the war machine in this nation, and Libya's just another aspect of it.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:41

automatic: Nov 3, 2010; by Y Kant Ozma Post

shotgunbadger posted:

Just to be clear, if you replace CQ with Saddam this could be the exact argument the right used back in 2001. Like, that's the issue people have, all of a sudden it's cool to use this thinking that we decided last time to be terrible, that's actually pretty lovely.

Just because a lovely president used a lovely excuse to go to war doesn't mean every single instance of the United States using force against dictators is a bad idea. Invading Iraq was a stupid thing to do but we are not invading Libya and there was/is a genuine humanitarian need for western intervention.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:42

automatic: Nov 3, 2010; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Chade Johnson posted:

No, it was necessary to overthrow a regime that we didn't like and that wasn't open enough to western corporations and technocrats. You could use the same argument for Bahrain, Syria, Palestine, and plenty of other places, not just in the Arab world and North Africa. Liberal interventionists are no better than neocons.

This same argument was used in the Yugoslav wars. The big bad Serbians were the Bad guys, even though Croatians, Bosniaks, and Albanians were slaughtering thousands of Serbs and committing ethnic cleansing themselves. But because Milosevic was a pariah, it was easier to paint him as the bad guy, even though Tudjman was just as bad, if not worse.

Wow, I very rarely hear the argument that "The Serbians were doing the same thing everyone else was!" outside of drinking with my Serbian friends.

Also Tudjman would have probably seen some justice if he had lived past 99.

automatic fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jun 25, 2011

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:43

hepatizon: Oct 27, 2010

Nonsense posted:

It's a lovely war, really.

http://www.obamaslibya.com/ really, really,

Pretty sure this is a satire site, if anyone's wondering. C.f. the hilarious CIA video.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:46

Frackmire: Jan 26, 2010; WHY DO THEY
HATE US WHEN
WE'RE SO GOOD?

shotgunbadger posted:

Right, again I wasn't saying this is literally that situation, I'm saying the concept of 'we HAD to fight them, for peace' is the core issue that feeds the war machine in this nation, and Libya's just another aspect of it.

It's less about peace and more about an opportunity to get rid of a fucker who was a mastermind behind various terrorists attacks that killed US Citizens. The fact that the opposition has the high moral ground makes this intervention as just as you can get.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:46

automatic: Nov 3, 2010; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Frackmire posted:

It's less about peace and more about an opportunity to get rid of a fucker who was a mastermind behind various terrorists attacks that killed US Citizens. The fact that the opposition has the high moral ground makes this intervention as just as you can get.

To be honest who cares? America terrorizes and kills tons of people of all nationalities. Are Cubans justified in launching an invasion of Miami because we paid terrorists to blow up their planes?

Note I support the Libyan intervention but using Lockerbie as a justification for war is loving dumb.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:48

Lustful Man Hugs: Jul 18, 2010

shotgunbadger posted:

Just to be clear, if you replace CQ with Saddam this could be the exact argument the right used back in 2001. Like, that's the issue people have, all of a sudden it's cool to use this thinking that we decided last time to be terrible, that's actually pretty lovely.

The main difference is that there are well-defined sides in Libya and there was a major outcry for international assistance.

Perhaps the War in Iraq could have been framed as 'assisting civilians', but surely you would agree that if that was the main purpose (or even on of the top three purposes) of the War in Iraq, it would have been fought very differently.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:49

Mr. Sunshine: May 15, 2008; This is a scrunt that has been in space too long and become a Lunt (Long Scrunt); Fun Shoe

Why do we have to have this loving derail every 20 pages or so?

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:55

AllanGordon: Jan 26, 2010; by Shine

Chade Johnson posted:

No, it was necessary to overthrow a regime that we didn't like and that wasn't open enough to western corporations and technocrats. You could use the same argument for Bahrain, Syria, Palestine, and plenty of other places, not just in the Arab world and North Africa. Liberal interventionists are no better than neocons.

This same argument was used in the Yugoslav wars. The big bad Serbians were the Bad guys, even though Croatians, Bosniaks, and Albanians were slaughtering thousands of Serbs and committing ethnic cleansing themselves. But because Milosevic was a pariah, it was easier to paint him as the bad guy, even though Tudjman was just as bad, if not worse.

AFAIK Libya was pretty open to western corporations. Didn't Britain just sign a bit oil deal at the end of releasing the lockerbie bomber and all that.

Then again I find it hard to believe that Libya won't become more open to the west after CQ is gone.

Still I don't think it's fair to frame it in that light.

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:56

shotgunbadger: Nov 18, 2008; WEEK 4 - RETIRED

Mr. Sunshine posted:

Why do we have to have this loving derail every 20 pages or so?

Because otherwise we should rename it Brown Moses' RSS Feed?

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 04:23

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Mr. Sunshine posted:

Why do we have to have this loving derail every 20 pages or so?

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!

# ? Jun 25, 2011 23:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »