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

«‹›37 »

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Guardian has Obama as saying unilateral action is not off the table.

Not included is the fact it's a really big table and we're all around this one end and unilateral action is all the way down at the other... man I'll just take another helping of doing gently caress all.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 23:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 21:01

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

breaklaw posted:

To be fair to the President, he has a good point.

"The events taking place in the region are the result of actions by the people of the region, not by the US or any foreign power."

And what's the real point of imposing sanctions now? Half the military has joined the opposition. They will either get him out soon or there will be a short civil war. Why impose sanctions that will hurt the people more than they hurt the regime?

I'm not in favor of sanctions, but saying all options are on the table is, at best, a polite lie. There is one maybe two options truly on the table, the rest are occluded by the horizon.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 23:23

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

VROOM VROOM posted:

Well, they have spears.

drat you Civilization!

Tanks really aren't magic people defeating weapons.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 23:34

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

It looks like Bengahzi isn't a big fan of this whole internet revolution, no sir. They know this is a print revolution.

First Edition of the Benghazi Newspaper

Khaaddafi is so very hosed.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 18:35

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Nckdictator posted:

Venezuela finaly said...something.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12548239

Atleast their not doing what Nicaragua did.

They're no Peru.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 23:17

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

AJE posted:

11:30pm: As per latest reports, the US government has asked its citizens to leave Libya immediately.

President Obama has signed legislation outlawing Libya. The bombing will begin in five minutes.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2011 00:23

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Nonsense posted:

How long until there are conservatives demanding the Libyan protesters thank George W. Bush for disarming Gadaffi of his WMD's to fight the WAR ON TERROR.

You're going to force me to find someone doing that already and make all of us sad aren't you?

5 Seconds later and 3 days ago.
This is YOUR FAULT

# ¿ Feb 25, 2011 01:09

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Brown Moses posted:

The BBC is saying the US is to impose unilateral and multilateral sanctions on Libya. The only ones that'll count are ones that effect Gaddafi directly.

What? No more leopard prints?

# ¿ Feb 25, 2011 20:50

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Meanwhile in Sunny Bahrain. Per The Guardian

quote:

10.42pm GMT: Catching up on today's protests in Bahrain, where the king sacked three cabinet members, including the ministers of health and housing. But that wasn't enough to satisfy protesters.

Ibrahim Mattar, a member of parliament for the Shia opposition group Wefaq, said: "All these changes are minor ... we call for the resignation of the prime minister, the defence minister, all those faces responsible for the bloodshed."

Earlier, thousands of Bahrainis rallied in the centre of Manama, in one of the biggest anti-government protests since unrest first erupted there 10 days ago. A crowd marched on the Pearl roundabout, the scene of attacks by security forces last week.

Yes, clearly this was all the fault of ministers not directly involved in the crackdown.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2011 00:11

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Brown Moses posted:

There was talk of Benghazi putting together an army to march on Tripoli, the below picture is a rebel army officer training local people form Benghazi on the operation of AK47's in preperation for that:

The problem with that idea is that between Beghazi and Tripoli is Sirte. Looking at the road network I do not think it would be easy to bypass if the pro Qaddafi forces there were willing to fight. If the East wants to help the west step one is taking Qaddafi's hometown.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2011 15:58

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Leperflesh posted:

We should arm the Libyans with crates of cheap disposable digital cameras and sattelite phones with digital upload capabilities.

Emergency drop cell towers and data plans.

Verizon reps clutching briefcases as the roll out of white paneled company vans, while AT&T claims to be the first into Benghazi with 4 anti-GQ coverage.

More on the Free Libya's push to form a Revolutionary Army.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/libyan-militias-prepare-assault-tripoli

# ¿ Feb 27, 2011 22:10

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Slantedfloors posted:

It would be awful for the Libyan Air Force, not so much for the intervening power.

As ridiculous as the joke a while ago about sending two Eurofighters total and doing it "Iron Eagle" style, that's pretty much what an actual air campaign would entail. The Libyan Air Force is horrifically outdated and most likely poorly maintained. Hell, most of their "combat aircraft" are outdated trainers that the original operators phased out a decades ago.

Hopefully, the very threat of a no-fly zone is enough to cow Ghaddaffi or the Air Force brass, because actual combat between the EU/US and the Libyans would be a slaughter.

If the airforce were willing to fly in the first place. In these last few days there hasn't been reports of concerted air strikes. I think the high profile defections are keeping Khaddafi from trusting giving pilots enough gas to get to Benghazi and back, since that's more than enough to reach Malta or Italy one way. Even with the closer settlements it's a hell of a risk compared to slapping a gun in the hand of a mercenary and telling them to shoot until their paychecks stop coming.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2011 05:23

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

More from AJE

It appears protesters may try and bypass Sirte, although I'm not sure I'd put this at anything more solid than rumor at the moment.

quote:

1:28am

With Gaddafi continuing to hold power, thoughts among Benghazi's revolutionaries are reportedly turning to the march on Tripoli. And some are already heading in that direction - circumventing the Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte by travelling hundreds of kilometres in a large arc to the south, our correspondent reports. Citizens were today queuing up to join the local militia - which has been named The Liberation Army Of The Free Libya.

And after the jokes about cellphones earlier

quote:

1:44am

We hear that one of Libya's two main mobile phone providers has been hacked - by it's own employees. They've been topping up everyone's credit to ensure no-one runs out, a contact tells our correspondent in Benghazi. Unfortunately, it doesn' t help much - as network coverage is pretty poor and intermittent, he tells us.

Oh so they already do get Verizon.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2011 06:10

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Brown Moses posted:

Confirmation the rebels have heavy armour:

Hopefully they've got some people who actually know how to operate them properly.

They're T-54s. Lets hope they actually still work. If they do actual operation shouldn't be too hard since I believe they're pretty much designed to be easier to operate, if not exactly comfortable. Almost certainly they have enough expertise to operate/train people in their use.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2011 23:29

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Ham posted:

What the hell is that terrible logo anyway?

It is supposed to be 2012 in a a stylized form

As in:
20
12

Still terrible.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2011 01:00

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

There are serious and compelling reasons why Saudi Arabia is similar to other regimes we've seen overthrown, and yet I still can't see it happening.

They are an incredibly militarized state, and I'm not even sure that's counting unofficial security forces. The religious authoritarianism is a direct support of the regime and you would really need to see it crack to even have a hope of making the whole rotten thing collapse. I haven't seen a crack yet. Maybe one could show up, but if it does I don't see any way it doesn't make Libya look like a day in the park.

Maybe that's part of it though, the reasonable consequences in Saudi Arabia of any uprising strong enough to take out the Sauds make me flinch from seriously considering the prospect.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2011 03:52

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

MothraAttack posted:

Looks like within the past 24 hours Gaddafi has had three brigadiers and an air force pilot defect, and AFP is echoing rebel reports that he sacked his intelligence chief and replaced him with a bodyguard. If defections and staff shuffling continues at this rate then I can't see how the regime can last even another 10 days.

The problem that I've seen is many of the brigadier defections are occurring in the east, where they were already nominally independent because of isolation. To turn that into real movement against the regime they need to push through Ghaddafi held areas in Central Libya to open supply lines to the warzones in the west.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2011 07:00

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Protesters in Malta scale the Libyan embassy and replace the flag.

http://f1plus.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110301/local/old-libyan-flag-taken-into-libyan-embassy

Also from AJE

quote:

*
12:08am

Have we been here before? A further UN resolution isn't needed before military intervention, says Britain's foreign secretary. William Hague's comments come just hours after French foreign minister Alain Juppe said there would not be any no-fly zone imposed without UN backing. Hague said:

There have been occasions in the past when such a no-fly zone has had clear, legal, international justification even without a Security Council resolution - it depends on the situation on the ground.

British officials would have to take "full legal advice" before acting with foreign allies without UN backing, he said, adding: "You would certainly need a very strong degree of international support."

Hague haven't you embarrassed yourself enough in the past few weeks? Who do you think you are? Biden?

# ¿ Mar 1, 2011 23:55

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

davebo posted:

I didn't get that either. What kind of facility is it?

Beda is an oilfield so he was probably working for a Libyan oil company from what I gather. It sounds like they eventually had to shut down when everyone else left.

Hope your dad stays safe Trickjaw.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2011 01:06

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Brown Moses posted:

From various news reports it sounds like Brega has loads of rebels streaming into it, so it'll be even harder to capture now.

Logistical support is going to be a bitch though. The rebels have the ability to mobilize popular support, what they need is the ability to organize and fund an army/populace.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2011 23:11

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

From AJE:

quote:

*5:59pm

The self-proclaimed national council established by Libyan protesters fighting to overthrow Gaddafi declared itself the sole representative of the country.

Now to see what happens with the protests across the country if they officially sign on to a nominal government.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2011 21:34

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Koine posted:

Why would the Brits send a "junior diplomat"?

Because what they really need is someone on the ground to put them in contact with the decision making process, not someone to negotiate for the British government.

It's an amusing story but it sounds more like the special forces wouldn't want to open fire, but the rebels can hardly confirm the bona fides of some westerner with a heavily armed bodyguard. I'm sure the brits wouldn't want it specifically known, but it was clearly a risk sending a diplomatic envoy into an incredibly unstable situation.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2011 07:18

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

IM_DA_DECIDER posted:

"Junior diplomat" sounds suspiciously like intelligence service agent.

Also a reasonable suspicion. Whomever they sent you'd want them to be able to decide if the nominal governing body in Benghazi had actual authority outside the city.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2011 10:15

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

I have to say that despite predicting this weeks ago, I'm still amazed they're doing it. The other rulers in the area have got to be pretty desperately unhappy as the question of repression or reform gets the added bonus of the loving Saudis stepping in if things start looking bad.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2011 04:39

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

This is from the US Senate reference

quote:

table, motion to - A Senator may move to table any pending question. The motion is not debatable, and agreement to the motion is equivalent to defeating the question tabled. The motion is used to dispose quickly of questions the Senate does not wish to consider further.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/table_motion_to.htm

No idea why they use it that way but it is the meaning I'm familiar with, although the British one makes literal sense.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2011 01:37

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

On the Arab League:
I'm guessing Egypt and Tunisia for the no fly zone and possibly (comedy option) Iraq?

If they're actually participating it would seem like you'd want Tunisia or Egypt as a base.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2011 17:34

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Ham how large are concerns over a fraudulent referendum?

# ¿ Mar 17, 2011 18:22

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Leperflesh posted:

The Wall Street Journal has just reported that Egypt has been, and continues to, arm Libyan rebels.

source

I'm not terribly surprised by that all things considered, hopefully it helps.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2011 23:55

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Brown Moses posted:

Oh dear God!! Host on #Libya TV just accused #US, #Israel, and #Iran on collaborating and conspiring to destroy Libya.

That seems like an unlikely trio. One of these things is not like the others.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 00:09

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Patter Song posted:

It's a buddy cop movie. Khamenei and Obama, forced to work together.

Kahmenei has only 6 months until retirement and Obama is the fast talking renegade who does things his own way but has a heart of gold?

I'm assuming any formation of armored/ artillery units in West Libya or pretty much anywhere west of Adjabiya is going to get hammered.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 00:12

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Middle East in Revolt: UN involved in Africa.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 00:19

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

My favorite part of this is that the Libyan mission to the UN will probably endorse a no fly zone and air strikes on their own country.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 00:39

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Slantedfloors posted:

If he bunkers down, he's just as hosed as if he decides to just roll out and go for it.

His army is stretched thin as it. If he tries to garrison everything he controls, he'll be vulnerable to rebel attacks and internal insurrections. If he withdraws to what he can control easily, he loses everything outside his safe zone.

I'd agree with this. Where Ghaddaffi hasn't been able to use artillery and planes he's been consistently beaten. Even when he moves in with armored vehicles and tanks he gets thrown back repeatedly. There's no way in hell he'll be able to use his most effective weapons against a coalition force willing to go air to ground.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 03:30

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Slantedfloors posted:

To their horror, his generals and aides will find him with seventeen self-inflicted gunshots to the chest and face, plus several additional self-inflicted gunshots to the back of the neck.

Worst case of suicide I ever saw.

I have to wonder how Muslims in some of these European countries that have had problematic relationships with their minority groups are going to react to this.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 04:05

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Competition posted:

The Muslim hive-mind's anger will be fierce when this ripples through.

It's not the Muslim hive mind you doofus, it's that many Muslims in western Europe, especially France, come from North Africa. While the appearance and form of European intervention stir the anti-Imperialist sentiment there are cultural ties as well as religious to the groups in Free Libya. I'm wondering how that plays, or if the obvious disconnect between the response in Libya vs Bahrain kills any appreciation of the benefit from action.

And Happydayz you're wrong.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 04:34

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Happydayz posted:

trained light infantry force vs untrained armed civilians with no command and control. Sounds pretty simple to me.

"Every Libyan citizen has to serve 6-12 months in the military"

...or possibly 18, I can't verify which number is accurate at the moment and it doesn't really matter.

Either they're roughly equally trained or not. the amount of trained elite forced Qaddafi has is going to be severely limited and he needs them covering important areas, like, for example, Tripoli.

You need to be less concerned with simplifying everything until it fits into your preconceptions.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 04:47

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Competition posted:

This is not an imperialist act of conquest, this is an officially internationally sanctioned intervention to prevent pro-democracy rebels being genocided, the West has remained very hands off all these protests until it got to this point.

The Arab revolutions are incredibly popular amongst Muslims in Europe and they have been calling for the West to stop Gaddaffi from slaughtering civilians for some time now.

Muslims have far more legitimate reasons to be angry with the West, one of them is the West's propping up of these dictators.

P.S. The origin of most of these Angry hate the West Boogeymen migrant Muslims is Pakistani, the ones from the North Africa are pretty much the most liberal ones going after the ones of European origin (excluding Chechnya).

I hadn't noticed mass calls by European Muslims to step in, but I admit I hadn't been looking for them either. And if it's imperialist or not hardly matters to perception of imperialism now does it?

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 04:50

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Happydayz posted:

So why don't you provide your analysis of how this all unfolds?

I'm pretty much on record here:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3397841

absent a coup/decapitation, significant long-term investment in military power if we decide to go through with this.

And where is the evidence that they are operating in formations and having a battlefield effect?

which points to a protracted stalemate which gets back to my original point - this is likely not going to be a cakewalk and will take a significant expenditure just to maintain the status quo, let alone achieve a rollback.

because Happydayz according to your calculation it would have been imposisble for the rebels to ever take a city in the first place. After all, they're untrained infantry fighting trained light infantry.

Except they already did that. Okay well obviously the army has tanks, it's not like those were completely ineffective for several weeks until concentrated artillery and aerial bombardment on unfortified rebel positions tipped the balance.

Oh wait.
I'm sorry if the unprofessional nature of the rebels offends your sensibilities, please try and come up with an analysis that isn't based on the idea that what has already happened is impossible and we can move on from there.

Of course maybe you want to treat this like a boardgame and ignore civilian populations in cities so it's just these stacks indicating rebel militia vs your putative highly trained libyan regulars. Yes, that simplifies it about enough for you to be right.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 05:02

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Happydayz posted:

the rebels did not take cities a la Stalingrad. What has since evolved is a near straight conventional fight, one that the rebels have not done well in

So, as long as we're talking about each side pouring troop into a city that's been emptied of civilians to play out your fps fantasies you're right.

Yeah looks like my comment about you ignoring civilian populations was bang on the money.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 05:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 21:01

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Happydayz posted:

The Stalingrad reference is an explicit head nod to civilians. Initial fighting was largely not force on force with rebel militia duking it out with Libyan military, it was civilian uprising a la Egypt/Tunisia. More recently, as I had stated, the fighting had shifted to a more conventional flavor.

As for fps fantasies - please. I think most people here are betraying their own ignorance of the issues if they are predicting a quick and relatively painless victory. There are potential game changers that could cause that to happen, but on balance this looks to be a hard slog.

You completely ignored the very idea that civilian populations in reconquered cities might in any way matter until now. You reduced to to a two dimensional problem and said it would require western military intervention on the ground because (obviously) it is impossible for the rebels to take cities.

You were and remain stupidly wrong, but keep charging at Stalingrad Paulus, I'm sure that will prove you right.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 05:23

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

«‹›37 »