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

«‹›9 »

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

5ive posted:

Iran's got some good looking wimmenz

I think by contrast I didn't see that many hot Egyptian women.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2011 22:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 06:04

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

The Jeri Curls pretty much kills his whole look.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2011 03:22

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

If the UN is going to institute a no fly zone, then what it's really doing is asking the US air force to shoot down Libyan planes. Because honestly, no other country has the capability to do it on such short notice.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 01:23

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Nonsense posted:

What? The Italians are even closer.

Can fighter jets from Italy loiter for extended periods of time over Libya? I was thinking that an aircraft carrier would need to be parked off the coast and jets scrambled when something is picked up by radar.

In any event I can't envision Italy or any other European country for that matter getting involved without the US.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 01:30

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

BIG HORNY COW posted:

One problem with a no-fly zone is that the Libyan AA network would immediately be involved. If you want total air superiority its gonna involve SEAD and that means attacking ground targets - missile launchers and the associated radar systems, as well as static and self-propelled AA guns.

Intervention from anyone would turn into a full-on air campaign REALLY quick.

This is absolutely true. Whoever is enforcing the no fly zone needs to be willing to bomb ground targets when they get painted by radar or fired on from the ground.

Craiglen posted:

This is short sighted. Everyone in NATO can do this, especially France and Germany.

What is the over air time from Germany and France to Libya?

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 01:32

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Cjones posted:

Three hours I'd guess

In those three hours the Libyan aircraft would would have bombed a bunch of civilians and returned home. What you really need for an effective no fly zone is for aircraft to be stationed in theatre, preferably in a country next door, or an aircraft carrier. Someon did mention Malta though.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 01:34

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Xandu posted:

The Italians might be capable, but they'd never do it.

I agree with this 100%.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 01:35

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Talk of the details of a no fly zone is kind of pointless, I've just realized. China and/or Russia would never let it pass the Security Council. They're too afraid of the precedent they will set when one day they might be blowing up their own protesting citizens. Russia, maybe not, but China is probably looking at all of this and taking notes for the future.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 02:09

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Why are the children of dictators always such assholes?

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 03:30

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Chade Johnson posted:

Yeah I'm glad the UN forces were able to assist the UN in bombing the poo poo out of the peninsula. They didn't even end the war, simply a ceasefire. I think you mean you liked it when the UN was a tool of the US that would go along with everything America does.

Look at North Korea and South Korea at the present day. The difference of a country on the peninsula under the American sphere vs. under the then Communist sphere couldn't be more stark. That's got to count for something.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 05:00

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Cartouche posted:

I hope he dies of heart failure while taking a crap on his golden toilet.

Dude that would be the best way to die. On a pile of your own gold and poo poo.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 23:56

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

ChaosSamusX posted:

Also, deploying tanks alone vs infantry has been a recipe for disaster ever since their conception. A single shmuck with a firebomb is a serious threat to an M1A1 Abrams, nevermind an ill-maintained T-55 crewed by poorly trained mercenaries.

Yes, tanks are worthless in an urban environment without infantry support. It would be impossible for a tank to detect people sneaking up behind it, for example to place explosives in the exhaust/engine compartment.

Out in the open however, in mobilized warfare, however is a different story.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2011 23:57

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

The Brown Menace posted:

Isn't Libya pretty much a shitton of "HERE THERE BE DRAGONS" with a few heavily urbanized cities along the coast?

I guess so, but there aren't going to be huge open field tank battles like in the days of Rommel. If they are going to be blowing up protesters, my guess is that the tanks will be in a highly urban environment.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 00:03

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Sivias posted:

Is it likely that oil prices will go back down? I don't think people are fully appreciating the impact of these revolts.

Well they will go back down once business operations go back to normal. Whenever that is.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 21:36

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Sivias posted:

So oil prices dropped at a rumor of Gaddafi's death. What will happen if those rumors are false? Will they shoot up just as quickly? Exponentially? If the Libyan revolution is successful and the riots spread, will the oil continue to rise?

Again, I don't think people are giving the full appreciation of what is happening over there.

The only thing I think matters is if Saudi Arabia is destabilized. Gas will go above $4.00 per gallon and the US will hit a double dip recession.

Anything else, I think is whatever.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 22:10

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Sivias posted:

It's generally decided that unrest in Saudi is unrealistic. Then again, no one thought Libya would see this type of revolution.

Bahrain/Iran is the next nations of concern with these revolutions as they are the next largest segments of stability in a very precarious region.

Iran is an interesting case. When the Green Revolution was underway, I didn't recall oil price3s jumping appreciably.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 22:15

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Sivias posted:

Iran has no direct impact in the price of Oil no, but indirectly, it has a huge impact.

If Iran's government falls, Syria and the west bank can very easily become a very chaotic environment. The West bank just yesterday saw a rocket fired into Israel and retaliating bombing soon after. Saudi Arabia has grave concerns that if Bahrain falls, it will fall into the hands of Iranian political control. (Or at least the sectarian upheaval is of great concern).

Instability causes fear. Fear is directly connected to the price of oil. We see it all the time. A cricket hiccups on an oil rig and everyone pays 4 cents more at the pump.

I think it's a little bit overplayed. People are getting bombed and machine gunned in Libya, a key producer of sweet, light, crude, and I think gas at the pump went up like 5-6 cents during the whole thing.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 22:37

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Earwicker posted:

The Green Revolution protests got a decent amount of media coverage but I don't think they were anywhere near as extensive as what's happening in Libya. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Iranian protesters were confined largely to a certain demographic of the youth (and I think, more well off youth) in Tehran while the rest of the country didn't really join in. Whereas in Libya the protesters are actually taking control of large areas of the country and unrest is everywhere.

The point I was trying to make was that for whatever reason there wasn't a direct connect between unrest in Iran and the price of oil.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 22:38

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Poke posted:

Last week a gallon of regular unleaded was $2.99 at the Shell gas station in front of my house. Now it's $3.30. What the gently caress? Is Libyan oil that important to the rest of the world?

As far as I know, Libya is a key supplier of sweet light crude mostly to European buyers. America gets most of its SLC from Nigeria and some other mish mash of African and South American sources. The key thing is that if things get too out of hand in Libya, European buyers may have to turn to other sources, i.e. Nigeria etc... and it drives up demand and prices for American buyers.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 22:43

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Fluffy Bunnies posted:

And why I'm sitting at home, chilling out and watching this instead of running my errands. I'm not paying $3.15 a gallon for gas and my car is almost at 1/4th tank. I'm saving it for possible emergency. vv

Unrealistic or not, if the Saudis rise, that's pretty much the entire mid-east toppling point, isn't it?

Thanks for plunging us into another recession buddy. :mad:

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 23:04

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Nckdictator posted:

Venezuela finaly said...something.

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

Atleast their not doing what Nicaragua did.

They are basically singling out the Americans. Which is bad since the US just said they were open to setting up no-fly zones in Libya.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2011 23:16

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

How do events in Libya contribute to the theory that the US unpopular regimes that that eventually draw the ire of their people? Libya wasn't propped up by the US, in fact the US would like to see nothing more than Gadaffi to die.

To me it means that dictators will sprout up no matter what, and US support doesn't mean all that much in the end in terms of generating tyranical assholes.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2011 02:09

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

If any country tables a no fly zone to the security council, China would vote against it immediately. They don't want to set the precedent because they one day may be shooting their own protesters again.

As for compelling the UN to act, it doesn't matter. All you need is a group of countries with strong leadership acting in concert, i.e. France, UK, US, to push forward resolutions and create coalitions and voting blocs that will get poo poo passed. The security council will forever be cockblocked though.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2011 23:49

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Korak posted:

This is actually a cause that any western human being should stand up for, even if it costs them their life. If a woman says she was raped, then people come to take her away it's absolutely the moral duty of the journalists to do whatever they can to prevent it. They should have grabbed her and took her to their rooms.

Qaddhafi can't just kill one person in this scenario. He'd have to kill everyone in the hotel. If he's willing to massacre a couple dozen foreign journalists in the middle of a quiet hotel then really nothing is going to stop him. Defending a possibly raped and tortured woman is the right thing to do.

I think one reporter form the Financial Times of all papers held on to her and tried to fight off the security folks. The eventually wrenched her away from him and expelled him from the country. Also, not only were the Libyan security folks fighting to take her away. They also said that the hotel staff--waiters, busboys, started picking up knives off the tables to help out the security goons.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2011 18:19

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/middleeast/27tripoli.html?hp

quote:

�They say that we are all Libyans and we are one people,� said the woman, who gave her name as Eman al-Obeidy, barging in during breakfast at the hotel dining room. �But look at what the Qaddafi men did to me.� She displayed a broad bruise on her face, a large scar on her upper thigh, several narrow and deep scratch marks lower on her leg, and marks that seemed to come from binding around her hands and feet.

She said she had been raped by 15 men. �I was tied up, and they defecated and urinated on me,� she said. �They violated my honor.�

She pleaded for friends she said were still in custody. �They are still there, they are still there,� she said. �As soon as I leave here, they are going to take me to jail.�

For the members of the foreign news media here at the invitation of the government of Colonel Qaddafi � and largely confined to the Rixos Hotel except for official outings � the episode was a reminder of the brutality of the Libyan government and the presence of its security forces even among the hotel staff. People in hotel uniforms, who just hours before had been serving coffee and clearing plates, grabbed table knives and rushed to physically restrain the woman and to hold back the journalists.

�They swore at me and they filmed me. I was alone. There was whiskey. I was tied up,� she told Michael Georgy of Reuters, the only journalist who was able to speak with her briefly. �I am not scared of anything. I will be locked up immediately after this.� She added: �Look at my face. Look at my back.� Her other comments were captured by television cameras.

A wild scuffle began as journalists tried to interview, photograph and protect her. Several journalists were punched, kicked and knocked on the floor by the security forces , working in tandem with people who until then had appeared to be members of the hotel staff. A television camera belonging to CNN was destroyed in the struggle, and security forces seized a device that a Financial Times reporter had used to record her testimony. A plainclothes security officer pulled out a revolver.

Two members of the hotel staff grabbed table knives to threaten both Ms. Obeidy and the journalists.

Charles Clover of The Financial Times, who had put himself in the way of the security forces trying to apprehend her, was put into a van and driven to the border shortly afterward.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2011 18:28

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Cartouche posted:

Those staff are SO not getting tips.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Yes, and boy are they going to get some nastiness on those room satisfaction surveys.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2011 18:35

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

AtomikKrab posted:

Looking at the videos it appears to me that Muammar had at least a chest wound, chest wounds tend to be pretty fatal. NTC also initially said he was shot in the legs as well during the firefight, I don't think they executed him, they wanted him alive so they could at least put on a show trial.

My vote is he died of injuries the images of him dead don't show a shot to the head by my amateur judgement so i'm going for that.

The Associated Press reports: "Abdel-Jalil Abdel-Aziz, a doctor who was part of the medical team that accompanied the body in the ambulance to Misrata, said Gadhafi died from two bullet wounds, to the head and chest. 'You can't imagine my happiness today. I can't describe my happiness.'"

# ¿ Oct 20, 2011 19:41

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Brown Moses posted:

This is apparently a new video of Gaddafi being all Weekend at Bernies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpnwBXHuxOc

Wow, now that is just undignified.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2011 21:50

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Fiendish_Ghoul posted:

Most Chinese people that I've seen expressing opinions seem happy about about China's veto, some because they don't want to the entire Middle East to fall into western/American hands (because every time the US says "hey don't kill people" it's a pretext to grab a country for oil) but mostly basically because they're so proud that China is "standing up to American hegemony." One offers a ridiculous quote from Mao as if they were the words befitting a great thinker rather than a petulant toddler: "Support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports!"

I am skeptical about the ability of foreign intervention to improve matters in these cases (military action always kills civilians, sanctions also [or even only] hurt the people we want to help, foreign involvement damages credibility of opposition, whoever ends up in power is not guaranteed to be better, immediate effects of the overthrow of the government are likely to be uglier than if things just continued on as before, etc...) and I'm sure that the prevailing image of non-violent, freedom-seeking protestors being slaughtered is oversimplified or at least not true in all cases, but I find this reasoning just repugnant. It's a shame that I've spent so much time learning Chinese only to be largely repulsed by the worldview expressed by so many mainland Chinese. I guess they have been told so many times that all unrest in China is the result of foreign support that they are totally prepared to buy the same line elsewhere. Not that the CIA and other organizations don't have a history of fomenting dissent, but I honestly don't think that covert western support totally invalidates the protest movement. It's not that easy for some ugly rumors and some money spread around to cause so many people to revolt if the sentiment isn't there.

I honestly never understood some goons fascination with China and casting their desires that China was this benevolent power onto it (not specifically you Fiendish_Ghoul). The reality, if anybody bothered to think about it for a minute is that China, (when it comes to foreign policy and many other things) is an international rear end in a top hat just like all the other members of the SC. Moreso now.

Vladimir Putin fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Feb 5, 2012

# ¿ Feb 5, 2012 05:07

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

I think the extent of American involvement in the various Arab Spring movements have been one of enablement rather than its prime driving force. Obviously there were feelings of dissent and dissatisfaction among a sizable population in the respective countries. American involvement was probably technology, training, etc... so that the people could do what they ultimately wanted to do.

So yes there is a 'western' hand behind things, but only in the sense that it helped the people do what they really wanted to do.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2012 20:42

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

It's situations like this where I see a renewed cold war, only 50 years in the future, it will be China taking the lead in opposing the US at the security council, while Russia takes China's customary secondary role.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2012 16:45

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

SexyBlindfold posted:

what exactly does russia gain by being so adamant about keeping Assad in power? i mean, yeah, they've got some sweet defense deals, but so did THE WEST re: Mubarak and after a while they just went "oh well, we'll deal with the new guys i guess". obvious distances between both cases notwithstanding, is there a reason in particular that makes it absolutely imperative for moscow to keep Assad? i mean i honestly doubt it's just a pissing match. does syria really possess such geopolitical strategic value, or is it mainly to keep Iran's Best Buddies intact?

The Russians have a naval base in Syria. For their totally AWESOME navy. :laugh:

# ¿ Feb 7, 2012 17:37

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

THE HORSES rear end posted:

If an American ally ever approached Syrian levels of repression, would we veto any resolutions against them like Russia and China are doing now? I suspect that after this, the answer is "no".

I think the answer is 'yes'.

Edit: Although we did stab Mubarak in the back after 'backing' him for decades, so maybe I am wrong.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2012 18:23

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Party Plane Jones posted:

That's not usually the case, pilots quickly learned that having a platoon of soldiers in the back made flying a bitch if they were also fully loaded. Most often they went out without troops after the first two years. They switched to the US route of having troop helicopters (MI-8s) be escorted by attack helicopters (Hinds).

I remember reading that one tactic was that they would cart a huge rear end load of ammo in the troop compartment, and right before they would fly into a hostile area, they would dump the ammo on some uninhabited/deserted location. They would attack, and use up all their ammo and then fly a short hop back to their cache, reload and then jump back into the fight.

I also recall that the Hind was heavily armored and small arms (AK-47) wouldn't bring it down unless you scored a really lucky hit. Early on in the Afghan war, it was known that you wouldn't go at a Hind with anything less than legitimate high caliber AA guns.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2012 04:09

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

mitztronic posted:

No need to apologize, I wasn't chastising you. Sorry for my poor wording!

In other news, Reuters reporting that Iran fired on a US Drone in international airspace on Nov 1st. The drone returned unharmed.

Here is the news link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/us-usa-iran-drone-idUSBRE8A71C520121108

Would this have been casus belli if the drone were shot down? I doubt the US would go to war over a single drone, I dont understand war law and international airspace very well.

I wonder if the drones could fire back if threatened leading to the first drone dogfight.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2012 22:19

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Delta-Wye posted:

Doesn't seem much different than the spy plane China knocked out of the air except it's cheaper and there is no crew. I really don't think it would form casus belli.

I think the difference there is that it was an accident and the spy plane wasn't being fired on.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2012 22:31

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

SilentD posted:

No, it's much different.

That spy plane wasn't shot at. The Chinese plane was loving with them (flying to close and cutting into the air the needed) and an accident happened. That sort of screw ballery is fairly common among military jets. It's not considered hostile, it's just the two sides loving with each other. We used to do it with the Russians all the drat time and we still do it with the Chinese.

The Iranians shot at the drone. That's hostile and not everyday military rival asshattery.

It was commonly accepted hijinks gone wrong. That's why the situation was resolved with fairly no friction. Both sides knew what goes on in situations like that and they knew it was an accident.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2012 02:45

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Canadian Surf Club posted:

No way could they reverse engineer our advanced RC model airplane but you better well drat believe they're making a nuclear bomb underground

It's not really not a good comparison because nuclear bomb technology has been around since the cold war and isn't super advanced.

Regardless of whether the Iranians can reverse engineer it or not, I see no point in it for them. They would probably just sell it to China who would have an active interest in making unmanned drones.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2012 01:09

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Alchenar posted:

Case in point; they somehow managed not to shoot down a drone after intercepting it.

The SU-25 is a ground attack plane but still it shouldn't have been that difficult.

Yeah, this made me wonder. How did they manage not to down the drone? Maybe the stealth characteristics made it difficult to deal with. Or is the SU-25 the Soviet equivalent of an A10 warthog?

# ¿ Nov 10, 2012 01:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 06:04

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Why would Iran be patrolling with an SU-25 anyway? Are they looking for ground targets to pick off? Wouldn't it be like using an A-10 to patrol airspace? They would be better off using a standard interceptor.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2012 14:26

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

«‹›9 »